I am truly surprised by the Anglican Communion Institute's and the Diocese of South Carolina's sudden negative reaction to the revised Title IV (ecclesiastical discipline) of the Episcopal Church canons. While I do not find the revision perfect and hesitated briefly before voting for them as a deputy at the 2009 General Convention, the time for protest is long past. In fact, these canons were developed over at least seven years in an open process that included posting of multiple drafts. The 2006 draft received numerous criticisms, but questions of constitutionality were not raised. In fact, conservative blogger Brad Drell republished (June 9, 2006), a set of comments made by Province I Chancellors after a careful study of the 2006 draft. Constitutionality issues were raised neither by Drell nor the Province I Chancellors. General Convention listened to the many critics and, rather than pass the 2006 version sent the draft back to committee for further revision. The intent of the revision was to move away from an adversarial mode based on a courtroom trial model focused on uncovering truth and fostering reconciliation. Its closest model was the professional standards board. Driving the revision were concerns about dealing with sexual misconduct, not theological controversy.
Dr. Gunderson concludes:
So why is there such a fuss now? Is it really the changes that worry South Carolina, or is it that some are looking for a wedge issue to drive South Carolina further from the rest of the Church and isolate it more? Were some of South Carolina’s leaders following a strategy based on evading one set of disciplinary canons only to find that the loopholes they had counted on were about to be closed? Were South Carolina leaders so asleep at the switch that for five years they didn't notice a major revision of the canons until the deadline for implementation of the canons drew near? Whatever explanation you pick, it would seem the problem lies more within the Diocese of South Carolina than in Title IV.
Why only now the objections? An excellent question, indeed.
The article at The Lead notes and links to Bishop Mark Lawrence's response to the letter from the Episcopal Forum to the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church.
Bishop Lawrence's concludes:
It is increasingly clear that we are engaged in a worldwide struggle for the soul of Anglicanism in the 21st Century. This Diocese of South Carolina has been affirmed in our stand by numerous Dioceses and Provinces around the world: Archbishops and bishops from Ireland to Australia, Southeast Asia to Tanzania, from England to Egypt have pledged us their prayers and their hearts. What will emerge from this struggle we cannot say—but I am convinced of our vocation to Make Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age. It is far more than a slogan for a T-shirt. Not unlike a battalion in a military campaign which is ordered to hold a pass even against overwhelming odds, we are called to resist what appears is a self-destructive trajectory by many within The Episcopal Church. We are called to stand our ground and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ until it is no longer possible; and at the same time to continue to help shape the emerging Anglicanism in the 21st Century, which is increasingly less provincial, less institutional and more relational. If this is our calling then we rejoice that his strength is made perfect in weakness. This is not a time to give-in nor give up; rather let us hold fast to the best of our Episcopal heritage while sharing Christ’s transforming freedom—with hearts set free—to a needy world today.
Cue the violins.
Bp. Lawrence's overblown rhetoric is a call to battle in the struggle between the forces of good and the forces of evil, and the troops on the side of good rally and prepare for battle knowing that Jesus is on their side. (Multiple eye-rolls)
Yes, I know. Lots of links, but it can't be helped if you want the latest information. I lifted shamelessly from The Lead, for which I pray Andrew Gerns forgives me. You really should go over there to read their article, because Andrew includes more links (Yes, even more links than my post!) and more information.
Lawrence is a bit of a drama queen. Remember him emoting on his blog when he was at Lambeth? I find their reaction to Title IV hilarious, given that they are gung-ho for an Anglican Covenant which they hope will do to TEC what they fear that a revised Title IV may do to them.
ReplyDeleteThe Virginia Supreme Court refused CANA's request for a rehearing of its unanimous June ruling in favor of the diocese. Time is not on these peoples's side, but Mark Lawrence & his backers are prepared to devastate their diocese for a generation or more in pursuit of their ends.
Lawrence is a bit of a drama queen.
ReplyDeleteOnly "a bit"?
I read about CANA ruling in Virginia. Things are not going their way, but they don't give up.
Reverse hyperbole, Mimi.
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened top their stonewalling of the Presiding Bishop? Successful?
ReplyDeleteIf so, The Episcopal Church should be prepared to recognize Episcopal Forum of South Carolina as the real Diocese of South Carolina once Lawrence's group delegitimizes itself.
Paul (A.), it's very wise that groups like the Episcopal Forum of SC and Openly Episcopal in Albany organize in advance of what may be an impending break, so there is a group in place, if the separation comes.
ReplyDelete