SC Standing Committee Denounces Proposed Rite for SSBs

I wonder why they even bothered? While I agree that this statement denounces what GC has not yet but probably will do this summer, why denounce it now? Mr Haley is no doubt correct that GC’s action would violate TEC constitution and this is simply the latest example of the lawlessness of leaders in TEC. However, will anyone else at GC care if their actions are lawless? doubtful.

Is this a pre-emptive strike at TECUSA? Anyway, any one who knows anything of the diocese should not be surprised by this statement. I agree but seriously will anyone else care what one diocese does. So our delegates don’t show up at GC or even if they do, won’t change a thing. Perhaps this is just to be for the record-  nope, we don’t agree.

Yes, I know….. I seem cynical and grumpy. Final Exam tomorrow. Perhaps i will be more joyful about this announcement by Friday??

A.S.: I’ve been told by a reliable source that Mississippi has also declared that they will not authorize SSB, but I have seen nothing in print. (The Diocese website is a relic, difficult to find anything…though methinks that might be sort of by design.) Where would such a statement be?

There will be fireworks over this decision, and I fully expect Katherine Jefferts Schori to take action against the diocese and their bishop, which means that she will probably dissolve the Standing Committee and depose Bishop Lawrence.  This will not bode well for TEC…....as if they don’t already have enough problems with plunging attendance and finances.

We hereby repudiate, denounce and reject any action of the Episcopal Church which purports to bless what our Lord clearly does not bless. Specifically, we declare any rite which purports to bless same-gender unions to be beyond the authority and jurisdiction of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church and without force or effect.

The heart of the matter.

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church does not have the lawful competence to even consider what it thinks it is about to actually do.  It has become nothing more than a synod of robbers whose decisions are indeed “without force or effect” for orthodox Christians.

God save the sovereign Diocese of South Carolina, her bishop, her clergy, and her people, and may God have mercy on us all!

Cennydd13,

There will be fireworks over this decision, and I fully expect Katherine Jefferts Schori to take action against the diocese and their bishop, which means that she will probably dissolve the Standing Committee and depose Bishop Lawrence.

Yes, exactly what I fear may happen.  May God change the hearts and minds of these deluded people before it is too late!

Superb statement. The theology is faultless.

Politically, the statement challenges TEC twice, viz.:

“As the Standing Committee of the sovereign Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina…”

and

“...we declare that we will not walk with General Conventiondown the road they are choosing…”

“We will instead continue to partner with Anglican dioceses…hear and abroad...”

I respectfully submit that this says to the Presiding Bishop, Sauls, etc. three things:

1. You (i.e. TEC, the Presiding Bishop, the Church center, and General Convention collectively) have no authority over us.

2. You can’t force us to do SSBs in our Diocese.

3. We will ignore you, and focus our efforts to strengthen our relationships with orthodox Anglicans around the world.

For all practical purposes, this is the Diocese of South Carolina’s declaration of independence from TEC and ordinance of secession, all in one. It is a frontal challenge to Schori, et. al. They will not let South Carolina do this without resistance.

TEC will not allow South

Publius,
They have been saying that for years now- at least your points 1 and 3- in a variety of statements. Really do we need another statement for what is already obvious ? Anyway, what is done is done.  It will be interesting to see the consequences of this statement.

Maybe we should start referring to SC and like minded dioceses as “confessing dioceses,” much like the Confessing Church in Germany during the Nazi regime.

Daniel, Hmmm.  I like it.

Blessings on DSC for their courageous stand. 

They don’t need to go looking for trouble - tell the truth plainly and trouble will find them.  But I pray that the Lord will preserve them through any trouble that others make for them.

Perhaps now might be a good time to apply for canonical residence in SC.  It would be great to be back in a real Episcopal diocese again, as well as back home in Prov IV.

I think it’s pretty evident that for the people of the Diocese of South Carolina, there can be no turning back…...no retreat.  They have made it clear that they refuse to accept SSBs and TEC’s interference in their affairs, and they’re prepared to go all the way to the wire with Schori and Company, if necessary.  God bless them, and Godspeed!

I fully expect Katherine Jefferts Schori to take action against the diocese and their bishop, which means that she will probably dissolve the Standing Committee and depose Bishop Lawrence.

Fortunately, she cannot do that. I’m sure she would LIKE TO, but she can’t.

The phrase “they can’t do that” appears frequently in the comments.  It has appeared often over the past few years concerning things they then did.  Clearly at some point there will be a fatal TEC overreach, but it is not obvious we are there yet.

Good point, APB.  Also when leaders believe they are “above” the law which I certainly thinks applies to many national TEC leaders, they can and will do whatever they want. That is what makes these ‘leaders’ so dangerous.

Ralph, et al.

First, everyone please understand that I completely support SC in their stance.  I think, however, that people stating that “TEC just can’t do that” when it comes to depositions, etc, have not paid adequate attention over the last 5 years.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina has said that a parish deed in the name of the parish (as opposed to a parish deed naming the diocese as owner, as is the case in the Catholic Church) mean that the parish owns the property, and the implied trust of the Dennis Canon is invalid in South Carolina. (I am sure the Curmudgeon could put it more succinctly, but that is my own understanding)
The SC courts have nowhere said that TEC cannot depose Mark Lawrence, or that TEC cannot dissolve the standing committee.  TEC has done exactly that in other places- canons and constitution notwithstanding.  Whether they will depose +Lawrence, who knows? There certainly are a whole bunch of the HoBD types chomping at the bit right now.  But they have established the precedent that a one person majority of a quorum of diocesans can accomplish the task- and everyone they deposed that way has stayed deposed, and the ABoC has recognized the depositions as legal, because he now recognizes those bishops as bishops of another denomination with which he is not in communion.  So, they may not be constitutional or canonical, but they are real enough.

Once gay marriage is established as a sacrament of TEC- which will happen either next month or 3 years from now- TEC will be within its rights to depose anyone who does not accept it- although I suppose it might take a tweak of Title III or Title IV.  But once it exists as a sacramental rite of the Church, you could easily make a case under current Title III that to deny it to someone, at the diocesan level, amounts to abandoning the communion of “this” church.

You can also expect, any day now, that clergy canonically resident in other dioceses will cross into S Carolina for the express purpose of conducting gay marriages.  So, there will be TEC gay marriages in S Carolina, in the newspapers, and TV, big splashy press releases.  And what, exactly, can the diocese do about it?  It can claim all the sovereignty it wants to, there is no way to enforce it.

Of course, one could claim that to cross into another diocese to perform a marriage without the bishop’s permission is against the canons, but what would be be the point?

Acting on her own, the PB cannot depose a diocesan bishop, nor can the PB dismiss a diocesan standing committee. That would indeed be a “fatal TEC overreach.”

SSBs will not become an eighth sacrament at this GC. That takes a prayerbook change, which is an intricate process.

There will be no “gay marriages” in the state of SC. I suppose that a liberal SC clergy person will do an SSB at one of the liberal parishes. Or some clergy person from somewhere else, will enter the diocese.

So far, SC diocesan officials have made it clear that they are not abandoning TEC.

So, the question in my mind is whether the “I Will Bless You” document and the SSB ‘liturgy’ will be adopted as official, binding, written doctrine of TEC. I don’t think that will happen, but if it does, then clergy could be brought up on canonical charges that could be pursued through the usual channels.

I’m in general agreement with TJ—the current leaders of TEC can do anything they wish to do and declare it done.

But I’m not certain I understand this one: “You can also expect, any day now, that clergy canonically resident in other dioceses will cross into S Carolina for the express purpose of conducting gay marriages.”

They’d have to find a parish willing to host such a ceremony.  I mean, sure, they could do it in somebody’s basement I guess, but who cares? It wouldn’t be recognized by the State as a “marriage” nor would it be recognized by the Diocese of SC or any parish in which the purportedly “married” were in.  I’d also guess that any rector could withhold communion from a parishioner who indulged in such a scandalous mockery of the sacrament.

I mean—right now any priest can purport to “marry” anybody he pleases anywhere in the world—but I’m not sure how that is any particular “threat” so to speak.

Since the Standing Committee of DSC will not be putting on a filibuster at GC 2012, I think they have said what they had to say. There is little left to do with ths GC mob other than to shake the sand (a little Carolina beach music reference) from your shoes and go out and share the Gospel with others.

Folks, please don’t just wish SC well.  PRAY for them.  Daily.  For +Lawrence and the standing committee and their faithful people.  This is spiritual warefare.

“But I’m not certain I understand this one: “You can also expect, any day now, that clergy canonically resident in other dioceses will cross into S Carolina for the express purpose of conducting gay marriages.””

All I am getting at is that I think that TEC and some of its members will now go out of their way to demonstrate that they can ignore the diocese with impunity.  Granted, it strikes me that even the couple of more liberal congregations will not openly defy the bishop and standing committee.  But we already know that there are some hard core revisionists in SC working with 815 (the group that provided the complaint and “evidence” against +Lawrence that brought about the charges that were eventually dropped).  So, I will be surprised if there are not events organized by that group with the connivance of 815 for the express purpose of embarrassing the diocese.

Of greater concern, I would think, would be what happens in SC (or one of the other few dioceses that will try to oppose gay marriage after the liturgy is put in place this summer, along with necessary modification of the canons) when a gay couple, married in Massachusetts, shows up in one of their parishes one day.  They will, after all, be canonically married in an Episcopal church in another diocese.  As I understand the canons, ALL Episcopal dioceses must recognize the baptisms, confirmations and marriages of all other dioceses.  They do not necessarily have to license any given clergy person, but must recognize the ordination.  This is the point of the exercise for the revisionists.  This is what tyranny of the majority is all about.

TJ wrote:

Of greater concern, I would think, would be what happens in SC (or one of the other few dioceses that will try to oppose gay marriage after the liturgy is put in place this summer, along with necessary modification of the canons) when a gay couple, married in Massachusetts, shows up in one of their parishes one day.

Gay marriage is not lawful in this state so just by obeying state law, no clergy here would have to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state. The gay couple certainly would be welcomed but the marriage would not be recognized under state law.

22.  TJ, I would call it “the tyrannizing of the majority by the minority,” for that’s exactly what it is.  Let’s not whitewash it…....I believe in calling a spade a spade, and not a shovel.  The Standing Committee is standing up for what the majority believes in, and they’re getting “in the face” of those whose intent is to ram same sex “marriage” blessings down everyone else’s throats.

Cennydd, I see what you are saying- I was looking at it from the TEC leadership/diocesan leadership/HoB/GC point of view- where revisionists all have overwhelming majorities.

On the other hand, I think a case can be made at this point that the majority of people left in TEC are liberal, if not outright revisionist.  There is hardly anyone left who opposes WO, and there are precious few anymore who stand up to bishops over gay clergy or SSBs.  Note that while the remaining conservatives in TEC complain about CWOB, not one single bishop, not one, not anywhere, has brought charges against the bishops who permit it.  If any have disciplined a priest for it in the last 5 years I haven’t heard about it.

And that trickles down into congregations where even those people who disagree have basically given up.  The largest parts of TEC congregations I know of fall into two camps- “I just don’t care anymore” and “it’s not worth the trouble because no one is going to do anything.”  They are content if the bishop lets them keep the doors open and a priest comes round on Sunday.  The average congregation downstate (in a place far from South Carolina) seems to have 10 revisionist activists, 5 conservatives who complain a lot and don’t do anything, and 50 people who wish it would all go away, but keep sending in their pledges even if they only show up about once a month.  Not that they don’t know what is happening, just not interested.

Up here, of course, the local congregation is 7 unpaid and untrained but ordained priests and deacons, a couple of whom are also on the vestry, one fellow who will only take communion from a male priest but never openly expresses an opinion, a couple families with a lot of history in the parish that never attend because the sermons are horrendous, but pay most of the bills, a group of elderly who are bussed in for a midweek service that is counted into ASA (I’m pretty sure, can’t see any other way they can claim 42) and a bunch of the family members of the 7 clergy.  But certainly no one in that group likely to put a head above the parapet to insist on changes in diocesan policy.  This diocese has been so revisionist for so long that I am surprised there are still some parishes without Buddhist prayer rugs in the sanctuary.  Heck, the local one still uses the Creed sometimes.

All-is-True, post 2:
Bishop Gray has a letter in the “Mississippi Episcopalian”, explaining why he will not vote for SSB.
I realize that most people only read the first paragraph but the whole letter must be read if you want to be fully informed about what is happening in the Diocese of Mississippi. I believe that it is on page 1.
I tried to check it out on the Diocese web site but I have started to get runtime errors when I click on the link to the Mississippi Episcopalian on that website. Maybe you will have better results.

A prayer for GC2012.

TJ, some of the things you just said remind me of my former parish in El Camino Real, which is one of the most revisionist of all of TEC’s dioceses.  Also one of the most broke.

26-
The most recent issue they have up on the website is June, with a notice on Page 4 of bishop Gray’s invitation and welcome to Mary Glasspool to lead the 3 day gay retreat he is sponsoring.
The bishop must certainly be internally conflicted.

Post 2 and 26,
If my memory is correct an article entitled “Bishop clarifies standing on same gender blessings”, by Scott Lenoir was published in the February issue of the Mississippi Episcopailian.

Betty,

I don’t see that the article clarifies anything.

All he says is that he will not support the SCLM resolution as currently written, because he does not think it draws a sufficient line between marriage and various forms of committed gay relationships.

“Despite our best efforts to make clear the subtle, but significant differences,
these rights of blessings will be perceived, both in the church and outside, as the
sacramental right of marriage. I am not prepared to make such a perceived
change in the sacramental life of the church,” said Gray.

He also says he will not support the resolution due to the ABoC asking him not to.

The article goes on to say:
“Gray recounted a time when he was
rector at St. Peter’s in Oxford that he was asked to help a same gender couple
work through problems in their relationship.
Since that experience Gray says, “I have sought to find ways to support
monogamous lifelong commitments made by same gendered persons — relationships
that in their best moments are vehicles of devotion, love and grace.”
Gray announced that the Right Rev. Mary Glasspool, Bishop Suffragan of the
Diocese of Los Angeles, would be the leader of the Spiritual Renewal weekend at
Gray Center in August. The annual event is open to all, but focuses as a spiritual
resource for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered persons in this diocese and
the surrounding area.”

So he is obviously fully supportive of the ordination and consecration of openly partnered gay clergy and bishops.

And although he says he will not vote for the resolution as currently worded, he makes no commitment to not vote on it if amended, nor does he make any commitment (in the article) to forbid gay marriage by his resident clergy once it is approved next month.

tjmcmahon,
I agree that it does not clarify anything even though the title of the article says it does “clarify” the Bishop’s position on same gender blessings.
Unfortunately this is the only thing I have seen in print with regard to Bishop Gray’s thoughts about the subject and it is so carefully written that conservatives who wish to convince themselves that he is not a revisionist have only to read the title and the first few lines in order to believe that he is taking a stand, while those who favor same gender blessings could be advised to read the whole article in which the Bishop says that he expects it to pass but will not vote for same gender blessings now because the ABC has asked that the church not to implement them at this time, for the sake of the wider communion.
It is easy to understand why so many people have different views about his leadership.