DSC: Much ado about very little

Bishop Lawrence's address to clergy in South Caroline is posted below. Kendall Harmon implored us to pray for the gathering and it has received a fair amount of press coverage, but I find it to be a disappointing statement. I realize that what happens in the DSC might be of little interest in the DCNY, but you may add your comments here or after the address itself. I would guess that a fair number of us did pray for the clergy of the DSC, but to what end?

First, I find the bishop's use of the word "react" to be strange in light of the time frame - pecusa's train wreck, as Bishop Wright of Durham, England has labeled it, has been progressing for six years. The DSC has had plenty of time to respond prayerfully and thoughtfully to what has happened. Those of us who have left pecusa did so prayerfully and thoughtfully, reading Scripture, Theology and the Church Fathers. Bishop Lawrence speaks about making a "hasty departure." What exactly is hasty about acting six-plus years after pecusa created the present Anglican crisis?

He speaks against a "paralyzed passivity," but how are we to understand his call for the DSC to remove itself from "all bodies of governance." How is dynamism reflected through defecting in place? This sounds like a passive stance to me, but maybe someone can explain how this is actually dynamism. While the DSC defects in place the Anglican Church in North America is proposing and beginning to work toward planting 1,000 new churches in North America. Part of the changing landscape in Anglicanism that Lawrence fails to mention is the Anglican Church in North America.

Lawrence speaks of divine providence and even quotes a section of Isaiah in support of his position. But could it be that God's providence in this crisis is the Anglican Church in North America? One could certainly make that case as easily as Lawrence's position from the Scripture he cites. He also cites the Apostle Paul and the Church in Galatia. Certainly the bishop is an adequate enough exegete to know that the situation in Galatia doesn't line up with the crisis in Anglicanism. The apostle Paul had both apostolic authority and a relationship of trust from which he can persuade the Galatians to spurn false teachers. No one has been able to do that with pecusa. There are plenty of verses in the New Testament about separating from false teaching (I published a post on this from the Rev. Dr. Tim Smith a while ago). I can't recall any that refer to remaining attached to heresy and apostasy. I know that some quote the stories of wheats and tares and other passages that speak of a mixed church. These folks generally do not quote the verses about separating from heresy. Nor do they often speak about godly discipline.

The bishop speaks of dynamism to meet the challenges of remaining in pecusa. He also talks about future suffering. The future suffering part I believe. There will be future suffering as the DSC continues to remain in communion with the heretics and apostates of pecusa. I don't view that suffering as suffering for the gospel, and is it possible that part of DSC's suffering is self-inflicted as they remain attached to an organization that promotes a false gospel? What exactly is dynamic about remaining in a dying organization (I can't call it a church for the same reasons that the bishop cites as marks of the Church)? Is that dynamism that Lawrence mentions at all related to the proclamation of the gospel?

And how is it that the DSC is going to thrive while being attached to pecusa? I don't think that Bishop Lawrence addressed this in his address. My guess is that the third wave that David Virtue has spoken about will soon hit SC. The third wave is orthodox parishes in orthodox dioceses leaving pecusa. Virtue says as much in the post above this one.

An excerpt:

Clergy, attending a special meeting of the DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA this week, heard Bishop Mark Lawrence say that the diocese needs to distance itself from the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church. He then held out an exit card to parishes wanting to leave the diocese for safer more orthodox ecclesiastical pastures.

Lawrence advocated withdrawing as a diocese from "all bodies of governance of TEC that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them; the resolutions of Lambeth which have expressed the mind of the Communion; the Book of Common Prayer (p.422-423) and the Constitution & Canons of TEC (Canon 18:1.2.b) until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions."

It was bewildering and confusing, an orthodox rector told VOL. "Liberal rectors concluded that he would not take the diocese out of TEC and therefore would not go after him by appealing to Jefferts Schori or David Booth Beers, but a number of orthodox rectors, many of whom have sworn allegiance to the wider Anglican Communion are now weighing their options. I would not be surprised if a number of them decided to leave," the source said.