[OPEN THREAD] Upper South Carolina: Seen & Heard On the Ground Post General Convention
I thought I’d give a little thumbnail of what things have been like “on the ground” here in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina post-General Convention.
First of all, word got out mighty quickly as to how our clergy and lay deputations voted on the key resolutions at General Convention. Just for the sake of, er . . . history . . . I’m posting my comments about those votes below before I get on to the reaction. One thing has been generally commented on over the past four General Conventions [from 2003 to 2012]—and that’s that certain revisionist deputies prefer not to have their votes publicly known. I’ve always found that interesting, as have others; it’s been an oft-commented upon and rather odd thing.
My understanding—recognizing that things often get muddled there on the ground at Convention and in news reporting—is that our clergy and lay deputations voted “yes” on the two transexual canonical changes [D019 & D002]. The lay deputation also voted “yes” on the approval for the provisional same sex blessing rite [A049]. The clergy deputation vote on the approval for the provisional same sex blessing rite was “divided” which means two clergy voted against and two voted for approval. Our bishop voted “no” on all three of the key sexuality resolutions.
We know this because there was a vote by orders for all three resolutions in the House of Deputies [those votes are posted at the podium for viewing] and a roll call vote in the House of Bishops on all three key votes.
For a clergy or lay deputation’s vote to be recorded as a “yes” means that either all four clergy or all four laity voted “yes” or at least three of the clergy and three of the laity voted “yes.”
Here are the names of our clergy and lay deputies [excluding alternates]; knowing their stances & ideology over past years makes their votes fairly understandable:
CLERGY [the clergy deputation voted “yes” on the two transgender canonical changes, 3-1, and were divided on the same sex blessing vote, 2-2; fortunately, those who voted “no” have been open and public about their votes]
—Mike Flanagan, Holy Cross, Simpsonville
—Jack Hardaway, Grace Church, Anderson [stated that he unexpectedly voted “no” on the same sex blessing resolution]
—Sally Johnston, St. Martin’s in the Fields, Columbia
—Joseph Smith, St. Christopher’s, Spartanburg [public about having voted “no” on the two transgender sexuality resolutions, as well as “no” on the provisional rite for same sex blessings]
So we know that three of the above clergy voted for the transgender canonical changes, and two of the above clergy voted for the provisional rite for same sex blessings.
LAITY [the lay deputation voted “yes” on all three of the key sexuality votes; fortunately, the one who voted “no” has been open and public about his votes]
—Angela Daniel, St. John’s, Columbia
—Mary Ann Park, St. Bartholomew’s, Augusta
—Scooty Burch, Holy Trinity, Clemson
—Belton Zeigler, Trinity Cathedral, Columbia [public about having voted “no” on the two transgender sexuality resolutions; he was not present for the same sex blessing vote]
Here’s my sense—in some quick bulletpoints—of how the actions of General Convention have been received amongst conservatives and moderates, based on many many lengthy phone conversations with active laity in the diocese, and many many emails.
—People were really shocked at the transgender canonical changes; some of them hadn’t kept up with the 2009 General Convention and thus didn’t realize what was to come in 2012; they’re even more shocked once they see the propaganda video that Integrity promoted. That video has been our best friend, as it reveals lots of really large, deep-voiced men dressed up as women, in collars, claiming that they’re really women. It’s rather obvious that, um . . . they’re not women, but rather people who are enmeshed and encouraged in a bizarre fantasy—and they’ve been selected to lead Episcopal parishes as clergy.
The video is gold. The moment laity watch that video all the way through, is the moment that they start reaching for their pocketbooks and calling their lawyers to change their bequests.
—People are writing the letter.
—People are meeting with their rectors and trying to make the decision about whether they will be leaving or not. For example, one couple who is a part of a multi-generation membership of The Episcopal Church met with their rector, senior and junior wardens to explain what would be necessary for them to remain in The Episcopalian Church [answer: radical differentiation as a parish]. Their children and grandchildren have all left TEC—some 26 people. Nice work, TEC—yet another stark example of something that business people call “opportunity cost”—the cost of not gaining the benefits of making alternative choice “b” but instead choosing “a.”
—People are visiting other churches in other denominations—“just to check them out.”
In short—this is precisely what hundreds of people do after each and every General Convention. Every three years, this is what happens in DUSC, as The Episcopal Church shoots itself in the stomach again. And again. And again. And every three years, a certain percentage of those hundreds, leaves, or redirects their pledge, or engages in conscious distancing and detachment. And a fresh batch, from the ranks of the moderates, joins the throng of the “confused, and then exploring, and then digging, and then becoming really horrified” group.
It’s like a little three-year assembly line.
No great earth-shattering revolution. Just the quiet sounds of shifting, departures, redirecting, distancing . . . and fairly calm assessments about what they value, what they will fight for, and what they will leave behind. For each person or family it’s different.
—More than a hundred attended the Church of the Advent to hear from the deputation. The room was “packed” according to a text I received. I wasn’t there—I was thankfully traveling out of state. Based on reports from others who attended, the meeting was most notable for 1) Belton Zeigler—the sole “no” lay vote on the key sexuality resolutions—pointing out the rather embarrassing lack of knowledge of what Scripture says in the “debate” [really, that’s too kind a word] about the ESV translation, 2) the high number of clergy at the meeting, and 3) a hissingly outraged lesbian who had thought she was going to get her blessing asap and was angry that she might have to wait a few months.
“More than a hundred” sounds actually quite small—and it is. But it is a surprising number considering the below anecdote:
Prior to the meeting, I decided to send out a short poll to around 50 active laity and clergy in my diocese, asking them if they were planning to attend the General Convention followup meeting.
Of those active laity, not one emailed me back that they were attending the meeting. Instead, I received many emails explaining—mostly with great taste and reserve—that they would not be attending.
I knew then that if a group of people attended the post-convention meeting, it would be an interesting group of people.
Some told me they were not attending, with a little more detail or a little less decorum:
We are at the beach and will not be able to go to Spartanburg but thanks for sending all the info on the convention. We heard Bishop Lawrence’s letter read at Prince George Winyah in Georgetown last Sunday. He is an amazing, Godly man that we really, really admire. We’re waiting to hear what The Diocese is going to do.
Lots of people from DUSC were in the Lowcountry, getting an earful on Sunday at the parishes in the Diocese of South Carolina.
No, I don’t care to hear the platitudes and baloney. I will NOT be going to S’burg.
... And so on and so forth.
How about you?
What are you hearing from people in your diocese?
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- TEC Minnesota gives local option for same sex marriage
- DioDallas: Bishop Stanton Announces Retirement
- Gay Marriage is to Govt. as is Study Hall to Academics
- Hey Anglicans, hearing the Benghazi testimony, how ‘bout that IX Commandment?
- Ruling in St. James Case Clouds the Title of Former Episcopal Parish Properties in California
- Fresno Judge Denies ECUSA’s Motion for Summary Judgment in San Joaquin
- Myth of ECUSA Declining Turns Out to be True
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
16 comments
DGA has nothing about GC on its web site. The last communication from the bishop is dated June 28. Apparently there was a letter about GC but I am no longer a part of this diocese and did not get it.
[1] Posted by Pb on 8-8-2012 at 07:55 AM · [top]
Very nice Sarah. It is encouraging that the inside strategy is leaking the light of truth and people are somewhat waking up in UDSC to what TEC has become.
[2] Posted by iamaworm on 8-8-2012 at 08:34 AM · [top]
The results of the lay deputation, when viewed in light of the results of the diocese wide survey done prior to the election of Bishop Waldo, show a marked under-representation of the conservative side of the diocese.
That’s how it works folks.
Kudos to Belton Z. for publicly voting “No.”
[3] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 8-8-2012 at 08:56 AM · [top]
People are meeting with their rectors and trying to make the decision about whether they will be leaving or not.
Oh dear, that sounds very much to me like doing it completely wrong.
The most common (and I feel, the best) way to leave The Episcopal Organisation is my experience is to do it gloriously unannounced. There’s a reason for this, which I’ll get to in a minute, but it seems much more humble to this writer to quietly leave. By all means, mention it to your friends in the parish. But don’t schedule a meeting and take up your Episcopal clergything’s precious time away from other meetings, conferences with his/her/its bishop, and other administrative effluvia.
The real reason, however, not to announce your leaving The Church of What’s Happening Now is for the purposes of something akin to A/B testing. Your rector knows that you know you’re supposed to “pay, pray, and obey” without question and not register any dissent whatsoever to the moral failings, sexual confusion, rank stupidity, political correctness, legal skullduggery, and outright theft of the Mother Church. Certainly, your local clergything has been educated at The Right Schools™ and is sensitive enough to have already sensed your discontent at the decline and fall of what many years ago was a powerfully effective gospel-preaching and God-honouring institution woven into the Christian fabric of our great nation. They expect you to not only keep on paying, praying, and obeying, but to keep up your end of the esprit du corps no matter how difficult it has been over the years.
But what you want to see is if your rector will notice if you’ve even gone. This works especially well if you happen to belong to one of those increasingly rare flowers in TEC, the so-called “breeder” family composed of husband, wife, and children. I know of one 4-person family who left their local parish of many years and did not as much receive a complimentary phone call after leaving, and this after many years of full participation in plate and pledge campaigns.
You want the clergy to show their hand. And if they don’t, you have further proof that what matters in the current TEC is not the people who have built up the institution, but the popinjays pulling the levers of power and privilege. Duly noted.
[4] Posted by wyclif on 8-8-2012 at 10:04 AM · [top]
Now see—I’ve always said the opposite. I believe in “clarity” and “communication” even after one is leaving.
For this reason I hope very much that should people leave TEC, they write a clear, calm, factual letter detailing their reasons, taking care to send it to their rector, all other clergy at the parish, the entire vestry, the bishop, and the Diocesan Standing Committee, and also email that letter to all of their episcopal friends.
It’s important for people to become informed—and I urge the Dearly Departed to do their part in the “informing” and the “clear communication.”
Secondarily, if the Dearly Departed leave quietly, the apparatchiks remaining will lie about the reasons for the Departed’s departure.
I recall one rector in my diocese who, when a large chunk of his parish had left, being fed up with his revisionist sermons and nasty demeanor, as well as his support of the actions at the 2003 General Convention, went around telling people that they had left over the 1979 BCP and women’s ordination.
This was in 2005 that they left, too. But they had just now apparently become bestirred by the 1979 BCP to depart.
What a lying tool he was—and still is.
And there are plenty of other clergy and other leaders who will try not to frighten [or inform] the sheeples by explaining that the commute was too long—that’s why the entire family left.
Now obviously, anyone may leave quietly or loudly. But I strongly advocate for the clear, calm, factual letter route.
[5] Posted by Sarah on 8-8-2012 at 10:24 AM · [top]
Mr. Belton Ziegler is part of the same family as the former chancellor of Diocese of SC. So has Diocese of SC family connections. Mr. Z is/was chancellor of the “upper” diocese (Upper SC) as well as being a delegate to GC. He is an author of that incredibly funny piece about General Convention called Screwtape goes to General Convention. If you missed it, you should be able to still find it via a google search. I highly recommend it.
Here in the Diocese of SC, things are getting back to normal. I am not one to spread gossip ... besides most everyone here is familiar with what is happening here. No need to explain anything. Just pray!!!
[6] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 8-8-2012 at 01:27 PM · [top]
I see your point Wyclif but I agree with Sarah. You do no one any favors in this situation by being anything but 100% candid and open. One the one hand, you not only close off his/her opportunity to be dishonest with others about your departure, but you also do them a service. No matter what you think of them, they are charged with running the parish. They deserve to know why people are leaving.
[7] Posted by Nikolaus on 8-8-2012 at 06:20 PM · [top]
If the video is that effective, you might want to save a copy just in case they decide to pull it from youtube eventually. Greg should know how to do this: there are free utilities for it.
[8] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 8-8-2012 at 07:22 PM · [top]
This report is spot on! The ONLY region in the USA that shows any vitality for TEC is the Southeast. Ihave used the changes in Members, ASA, and inflation adjusted Plate & Pledge from 2002 to 2010 to rank 95 TEC dioceses. The best Five are ALL in the Southeast, Seveen of the top 110 are in SE, Eeven of the top 20 are in SE, and ONLY ONE of the worst was in the SE. AAs the SE goes so goes the TEC. Will same-sex marraige be the tipping point issue for the SE? ID sp, TEC faces some more bad times. Statmann
[9] Posted by Statmann on 8-8-2012 at 07:39 PM · [top]
It would be worthwhile to save a copy of the video.
[10] Posted by Br. Michael on 8-8-2012 at 09:16 PM · [top]
#9, Statman. More info please! Which dioceses?
[11] Posted by Ralph on 8-9-2012 at 06:02 AM · [top]
Last convention we drove to Orlando for the post-convention debrief. This time, it just wasn’t worth the effort.
While Diocese of Central Florida is thankfully conservative for the most part, the insanity of GC and national leadership is beyond bizarre. I’ve written before that we are called to be missionaries in our own “church”. Very thankful for our own godly priest. But. We don’t recognize what’s coming out of GC as even Christian and don’t understand how those people got collars much less to be bishops - or why they even wanted to be apart of the original Episcopal Church. That’s the bizarre part, and it gets more bizarre by the day.
Our priest knows how we feel. And we thank God for his faithfulness in so many ways. God help those like him, for the others are so lost I am wondering if even prayer will draw them back from the abyss they’ve chosen.
[12] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 8-9-2012 at 06:18 AM · [top]
In the Diocese of Milwaukee, the clergy and lay deputations voted in favor of sexual innovations. I don’t think any Milwaukee deputies voted against them. Bishop Steven Miller voted against the provisional rite, apparently because it doesn’t represent marriage equality. Bishop Miller has called for indaba sessions of clergy (only) to discern what to do now. One of those sessions is happening today.
http://milwaukeebishop.wordpress.com/
[13] Posted by John Boyland on 8-9-2012 at 08:21 AM · [top]
Interesting link, John B #13. I went there and scrolled down and found an even more interesting post about your bishop and his views on “Gay marriage”.
Umm. Me thinks this is a bit of taking scripture out of context. sigh…..... Also loved the theological underpinning for this view being well we make a liturgy for it. voila…. we have a liturgy. There is the theological underpinning for it. nice and circular.
[14] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 8-9-2012 at 10:31 AM · [top]
Ralph, thank you. Thr top Five are Tenn, East Carolina, South Carolina, North Caarolina, and West North carolina. Kentucky is 7 and Upper SC is 8. Then East Ten is 11 and SW Virginia is 12. Then Atlanta is 15 and Alabama is 16. The ONLY one in the bbottom 20 os Floroda at 92. The bottom three are East Michigan, West NY and Rio Grande at 95. Statmann
[15] Posted by Statmann on 8-9-2012 at 04:05 PM · [top]
Great article.
“...certain revisionist deputies prefer not to have their votes publicly known. I’ve always found that interesting, as have others; it’s been an oft-commented upon and rather odd thing.”
Yes. Most liberals don’t want their actions publicised. Exposing what they do is about a quarter of the battle - they hate for their actions to be known.
[16] Posted by MichaelA on 8-9-2012 at 08:35 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.