May 22, 2013

August 13, 2012


Differentiating Ideas from One Parish in the Diocese of South Carolina

[Hat tip: T19]

I like some of these strong differentiating actions—from a letter from St. James, James Island:

We believe that the option of ìleavingî TEC will only produce the fruit of making many lawyers busy. We also believe that trying to remain the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina at any cost diminishes our witness to the Gospel and will only produce the fruit of slow death. We would rather die more quickly in the faith and hope of Resurrection. We believe that we have come under Godís judgment due to our complacency. We at Saint James recognize our part in this sin. We repent of and confess our sin of complacency.

It has seemed that any small voice we may have would just be lost in the wind and ineffective. Yet, we also recognize the example of Jeremiah who, by his prophetic call from God, continued to cry out, ìthe Babylonians are coming, the Babylonians are coming,î to no avail. He was thrown into the pit and continued to cry, ìthe Babylonians are here, the Babylonians are here,î also seemingly to no avail. The fruit of his sacrifice, his obedience, was that a remnant was saved. Israel lived while Babylon ultimately fell. We too understand that our small voice may not have any effect, but we want to be faithful and pleasing to God, no matter the cost.

The plan of action to which we want to encourage you is one of differentiation and radical discontinuity with TEC with these specific suggestions:

- Enact Resolution #2, 2009 Diocesan Convention and immediately and publicly withdraw from all provincial and national bodies of TEC. We ask that you request a public letter of resignation be offered from each individual who holds these positions and post them on our Diocesan website. Saint James’ encouragement is that we resign from all bodies: from the House of Bishops to Provincial bodies and more, i.e., National EYC, Church Periodical Club, United Thank Offering, Daughters of the King, Cursillo and the Episcopal Church Women and more.

- Establish meaningful relations with ACNA, The Reformed Episcopal Church and other orthodox Anglican entities.

- Encourage meaningful Lay Missional actions ignoring diocesan boundaries within TEC.

- Continue to establish International Provincial Relations, i.e., Uganda, Ireland and more.

We see these as defensive actions responding to the actions of TEC and GC2012.

There is further clarification of one of these actions in the rector’s letter to his congregation:

Our first suggestion is to enact Resolution #2 passed by our Diocesan Convention in 2009. In that resolution the Diocese resolved to withdraw from all provincial and national bodies associated with The Episcopal Church (TEC). In our list you will see several organizations listed that we hold dear at Saint James. Please know that this does not mean that we will disband our parish chapters of Episcopal Churchwomen, Daughters of the King, Episcopal Youth Community, Cursillo and more. Also, we expect these same organizations to continue within our Diocese and in association with other Anglican bodies. It does mean that we will disassociate our selves with the TEC and these national organizations as a sign and symbol of our disagreement and faith stand. We can do no less. Even though we all know good and faithful people in these organizations outside our diocese we must draw a clear line of our disagreement as was directed by Diocesan Convention in 2009.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

8 comments

Withdrawing from TEC bodies will kick the can down the road until Bishop Lawrence retires.

[1] Posted by James Manley on 8-13-2012 at 10:38 AM · [top]

Sigh…. once again, The Order of the Daughters of the King is NOT an official TEC group. We are larger than just TEC as our membership includes many Anglican DOK around the world.  There IS an official TEC group started by former DOK that is similar to DOK.

I do remember that resolution that our Diocesan Convention passed in 2009.  No doubt that resolution will be on Bishop Lawrence’s mind.

Again,
signing off as a DOK

[2] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 8-13-2012 at 11:46 AM · [top]

SC blue cat lady- Out of curiosity, how did Bishop Romero (DOK chaplain, last I knew) vote on the various HoB resolutions?  Did he issue a statement condemning the persecution of the 9 CP bishops who signed the amici in Ft Worth and Quincy?  Or sign the “Indianapolis statement?”

[3] Posted by tjmcmahon on 8-13-2012 at 12:09 PM · [top]

That’s a good question, TJ.

[4] Posted by Sarah on 8-13-2012 at 12:44 PM · [top]

They suggested filing a complaint against Schori for violating the constitution and canons.  Why not file a complaint against Bp Spong for violating the faith received?

[5] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 8-13-2012 at 01:16 PM · [top]

[6] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 8-13-2012 at 03:21 PM · [top]

TJ. I have no idea. Do you know? DOK’s only publication is quarterly and I sincerely doubt it will mention how he voted on those resolutions.

Jill. Is not Bishop Spong retired? I am not sure how filing anything against him is going to help now? I am not sure that filing a complaint against PB Schori is a wise manuveur at this point in time. She could use the very filing of the complaint as more charges against Bishop Lawrence. It is a difficult spot in which we find ourselves as a diocese.  sigh…... I just keep on praying.

[7] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 8-13-2012 at 03:45 PM · [top]

SC blu cat lady,
If complaints against Spong were dismissed, it would in effect be saying that the vows bishops take at consecration—guardians of the faith, steward of the sacraments and Holy Scripture (or whatever those vows are)—are a joke.  If he were found guilty of complaints, it would in effect be saying there are doctrinal boundaries.

[8] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 8-14-2012 at 12:28 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.