A friend who follows the Episcopal Church — which at this point is somewhat like watching the Titanic when it’s already a few thousand feet under water — sends the link to a story on that body’s establishment declaring that the Episcopal bishop of South Carolina has abandoned the Episcopal Church. He is a conservative bishop, and his diocese a conservative diocese, who with most of his diocese has hung on much longer than most of his conservative peers. Here is the official press release.
An outsider can’t judge the niceties of the legal question, though it does seem to me that the remaining conservatives’ attempt to be in that body but not too far in — to straddle an unsteady fence or walk across a very fine line — comes with the danger of falling on the other side, and that the establishment might have a reasonable case that the bishop and his diocese have done so. The first article linked to above attacks the Episcopal establishment for its action but the action isn’t obviously unreasonable.
But what it obviously is, I think, is foolish. Wiser people would have let the bishop and diocese well enough alone, in the hope of holding on to them (and whatever money they give) and in the hope of saving a huge amount of money in legal fees which are unlikely to be recouped. And perhaps in the charitable assumption that the body’s work will still be advanced even with the institutional anomalies. But there is something in the progressive mind that cannot tolerate dissent — how dare they resist the dawn of the New Day? — and something in the mind of most bureaucrats of whatever position that cannot tolerate others not following the rules.
People often refer to a certain kind of person rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. That’s not the problem here. The problem is that the Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop and her fellows have rushed to the bridge and seized the wheel, and are yelling “Mine! Mine!” and decking anyone who comes close, even though fish are swimming past the windows. But at least they’ve forced the bishop and his diocese to get into the lifeboats.*
* Which, I know, don’t work when the ship is underwater, but let me have the metaphor, okay?
October 18th, 2012 | 1:47 pm
* Which, I know, don’t work when the ship is underwater, but let me have the metaphor, okay?
David,
I will gladly let you have the metaphor. The issue is, what now? I would not like to see the Dioces of SC to affiliate with ACNA. I think ACNA has too many issues right now for the Diocese to feel comfortable with. But the Diocese does need to make up its collective mind as to what it wants to do.
I know there are people, such as Dr. William Tighe, who would oppose this suggestion, but the Continuing Church is still there and is still a vialble option, if some of the parishes in the diocese would consider foregoing their pride for “staying in” the dying has-been that is TEC.
I, for one, will be praying for their discernment.
October 18th, 2012 | 2:09 pm
Allen,
I don’t necessarily oppose your idea — and in any case it would be better than affiliating with the half-piscine half-avian ACNA — but how could the DSC possibily affiliate with a Continuing Anglican body, what with its purported priestesses and all? Or does it have so few of them, and those likely to stay with TE”C,” that it may not be a problem? Perhaps (as I reread your suggestion) it is directed at individual parishes, but would there be many of those that would contemplate disaffiliating from the SC diocese, now that the latter is itself disaffiliating from TE”C?”
October 18th, 2012 | 4:53 pm
The idea of DioSC affiliating with the continuing church movement is silly. DioSC is growing and mission-minded. Most of the continuing churches long ago ceased to be either.
The idea of a 29,000-member diocese joining a much smaller church body (most of the continuing Anglican churches are downright tiny) makes no sense.
Bishop Lawrence has raised concerns about the catholicity of ACNA (and I don’t expect those will be resolved any time soon) but ACNA is a far more likely affiliation than the continuing churches. Perhaps we’ll see the two court each other with a “mission partner” status, leading to a marriage of sorts further down the road.
October 18th, 2012 | 7:11 pm
“But at least they’ve forced the bishop and his diocese to get into the lifeboats.*
* Which, I know, don’t work when the ship is underwater, but let me have the metaphor, okay?”
For what it’s worth, one of the Titanic lifeboats (Collapsible B) floated off the deck of the ship as it sank. It was upside-down, but 30 people swam to it after the sinking and were saved. So your metaphor is good to go.
October 19th, 2012 | 1:01 am
[...] South Carolina Episcopalian Bishop Refuses to Secede – David Mills, First Things [...]
October 19th, 2012 | 2:47 pm
There a some problems with ACNA but it functions as an umbrella for the many different factions that are coalescing there. It makes sense for the Diocese of SC to look at that option.
October 19th, 2012 | 4:15 pm
Has anyone noticed that the Anglicanorum Coetibus Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter in the United States is primarily a Southern phenomenon? I certainly can’t imagine it in Michigan although there is one Episcopal priest and parish strongly allied with the pro-life movement here. (Orthodox Anglicans seperatism is also rooted in Pittsburgh, PA.)
As Catholic convert from the Episcopal Church (as well as being southern-born), I wish the Diocese of South Caroline would just come home.
October 20th, 2012 | 11:08 pm
Perhaps the Diocese of South Carolina should just declare itself THE Church of South Carolina and boldly assert that no foreign (outside the state) potentate has say in their land. It has precedent.
October 22nd, 2012 | 11:01 am
[...] South Carolina Bishop Refuses to Secede David Mills, First Things Wiser people would have let the bishop and diocese well enough alone, in the hope of holding on to them (and whatever money they give) and in the hope of saving a huge amount of money in legal fees which are unlikely to be recouped. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact