Marty Marty's Fundamentalism's Project saw this coming across the religious spectrum. His very useful observation is that 'the old time religion' Christian fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists and the rest claim isn't the classic orthodoxy of that religion, it's a modernist reactive fiction.

I think we need to reclaim the word 'orthodox' just as we once needed to reclaim the word 'catholic' and now are needing to reclaim the word 'Christian.'

The first move of reactive revisionists after they claim that they've got the 'real,' 'original,' and 'unchanged' version of the religion is to take as a kind of corollary their authority to claim historic descriptions as uniquely their own.

Has our church acted "contrary to Holy Scripture; the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them..?" Perhaps only, as we did facing slavery, by our slow response to the Spirit's urging us to change.

Martin Marty's five volume, global study of fundamentalisms (1987-1995)
concludes that in contemporary religion fundamentalism [what follows is from Wikipedia's broad summary of the study] -

"...is a form of militant opposition to modernity that can be found in all--or at least many--of the world's great religions.

The study concluded that, regardless of the religion, fundamentalism has several commonalities:

* Men are to lead and women and children follow. Wives are to be subservient to their husbands. Often, this subservience applies to sisters toward their brothers. A woman's role in life is to be a homemaker.
* The rules of their religion are complex and rigid and must be followed. Therefore, to avoid any confusion, children of fundamentalists must be sequestered in an environment of like-minded adherents to the corresponding fundamentalist religion. Especially so in their schooling.
* There is no pluralism. Their rules apply to everyone everywhere.
* There is a distinct group of insiders and all others are outsiders. Insiders are nurtured and cared for. Outsiders are cast off and fought.
* They pine for an older age and wane for a past time when their religion was pure, as largely they no longer see it as such. Often times, this time period never truly existed, but they have a nostalgic view of a Utopian past and they long to acquire this past."

The Episcopal Church is NOT rejecting or attacking orthodoxy, it's struggling with **fundamentalism** within and in the Anglican communion. I think we must reclaim the original vibrancy of the church's willingness to argue (and continue arguing) in a frame of broad orthodoxy. And I think we need to begin calling fundamentalists by that name.

Well THAT didn't take long...

Sometimes I really hate being right.

Paige Baker

The Standing Committee and bishop will be proposing a resolution to come before the special convention that this diocese begin withdrawing from all bodies of governance of TEC....
....

We can work with several of the Provinces within the Communion, and, if they are so inclined to partner with us, we should work with GAFCON and ACNA from within TEC to further gospel initiatives.

Is it possible to stay in TEC and implement these initiatives?

The Archbishop has expressed in section 25 of “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” his strong hope that “elements” [dioceses?] will adopt the Covenant. I believe we ought to sign on to the Ridley Draft of the Covenant as it presently stands in all four sections.

Bp.Lawrence seems to be jumping the gun here. I don't believe there is yet a process established for dioceses (elements?) to adopt the Ridley Draft Covenant. Perhaps Bp. Lawrence believes that if his diocese votes to sign on, that will establish the process.

Sign me still confused,

June Butler

As Gomer Pyle used to say, "Suprise, surprise, surprise!"

I second Donald Schell's emphasis on the battle against fundamentalism. As one who is new to the TEC community (and even organized religion in general), I can't underscore enough how important it is to make this distinction. Unless the truth that fundamentalism is neither orthodoxy nor tradition is made clear, those who are on a spiritual edge (inside or outside) are far more likely to fall away from a spiritual home than into one.

Furthermore, when it comes to the practicalities of the internal struggle, it is necessary to take away the positive strawman of "tradition" the more fundametalist factions use to their advantage. When the argument is simply assertion and reassertion of accusations of "pluralism" and "false teachings" under the banner of "tradition," it is encumbent on the non-fundamentalists to label things appropriately lest the uninformed be misled. Without strongly and clearly making the distinction that Don points out, there may be many more good, loving people who mistakenly find themselves in a position where they feel they are defending their faith, the Gospel, Jesus, God, etc. and must do so (even if they have contrary feelings) because, like it or not, that's what is "traditional," "orthodox," and "right." It seems to me that making this distinction clear is an act of love in that it allows everyone inside and outside the Church to make real, informed, heartfelt, and spiritual decisions, rather than some people being forced by fear to make merely reactionary decisions.

-Grant Chaput

Bishop Lawrence has shown why those of us who argued against his confirmation were absolutely right to do so. The only remaining question is whether there is enough evidence for the presentment yet. My hope is that this will be dealt with swiftly and firmly.

The irony of the Diocese of SC involved in secessionist activities has been noted before. In both the case of the Civil War and in the present unpleasantness, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of Constitutional documents.

Hi Bill,

I do not agree with Bishop Lawrence, but I don't see anything here that is presentment worthy. Or, though I am less sure of this, anything contrary to the assurances he gave that changed minds concerning confirmation. The bottom line seems to me to be that he's not calling for a withdrawal from The Episcopal Church.

What am I missing? What's he proposing that is contrary to C&C?

I'm not sure either, John. It depends on what he means by withdraw from representative bodies. Does he mean not sending bishop and deputies? In that case I'm not sure. Does he mean not acknowledging their authority? Then, that would mean an open renunciation of the discipline of the Episcopal Church.

This is the kind of childish posturing that schismatic dioceses like Ft. Worth (and SC) have been engaging in for decades. It's time to ask for some clarity.

I know that I know next to nothing. But, here are my questions.

I am unclear how exactly one remains in TEC when one "withdraw[s] from all bodies of governance of TEC . . . until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions."

And I am unclear what a "
missional relationships with “orthodox” congregations isolated across North America" is.

To me it just sounds like more of the same . . . but I would be happy to hear that I am wrong.

Pam Alger

Of course, there is this basic promise:

http://holycross-raleigh.org/bcp/518.html

"Will you share with your fellow bishops in the government of the whole Church; will you sustain your fellow presbyters and take counsel with them; will you guide and strengthen the deacons and all others who minister in the Church?

Answer: I will, by the grace given me."

He clearly is setting up a process and timetable for "withdrawal" with all of the drama and bombast that has characterized similar actions by other schismatics. One key phrase that is omitted in the Cafe's selections is telling: "I believe we have a moral and spiritual call/obligation to stay in the fight with those still in TEC who look to us for hope; and to stay for as long as it is within our consciences to do so. On this last caveat, clearly the clock for many of us is loudly ticking. " [emphasis added]

Having heard this very clear "coming out" by the current bishop of the probably-soon-to-be-former-diocese of SC, it appears that there can really be no place in TEC that such a man can live and be happy. He speaks pejoratively about the "false Gospel of an Indiscriminate Inclusivity." I wonder if he has considered that he is advocating for the opposite: "The True Gospel of Discriminative Exclusivity."
Such a theology could never find any home with anyone who is not lock-step in agreement with his position---the "right" position. In charity, one wonders why someone of this mindset would be attracted to TEC or Anglicanism at all? Why not apply to the pope for reunion and have done with it? I would suspect that the Bishop of Rome would be delighted with such a staunch supporter of what he himself holds most dear. If Lawrence can only "repent" of his attraction to opposite-sex "genital behavior" with his wife and agree to live in holy chastity, as the church has long taught, he might even have a chance at the episcopacy in Rome. Perhaps he and the +ABC might apply together?

We must remember that South Carolina has been abetting schismatics since they gave shelter to Rogers and Murphy after their formation of AMiA. I appreciate his difficulty in attempting to maintain enough connection to not lose all the property and assets, while retaining his sense of purity, while being bombarded by the demands to pull out.

I agree with those who will not surrender "orthodox" to this party. Their twisting and selective reading of Scripture and History fuel their biases. The harangues are of no different quality than those in the south and other places who twisted these sources to justify slavery and the subjugation of Africans.

I think the proper term for them is "homodox". The roots of orthodox is "orthos "right, true, straight" (see ortho-) + doxa "opinion, praise," from dokein "to seem," and we should challenge that they are right and true though we might have to concede they are straight.

Rather they are homo, of one and the same dox or opinion.

I'm told by my friend Doxy that individual dioceses signing on to the yet-to-be-completed Ridley Draft Covenant is part of a facts-on-the-ground strategy. Even if there is no process established for individual dioceses to adopt the Covenant, they will do it anyway, and the ABC will be faced with a reality.

It was the strategy used to make the Windsor Report much more than a report, something akin to a canon, which all provinces must observe.

June Butler

Michael,

You're wrong: The diocese has been in a long running legal battle against Murphy/AMIA. See, for example:
http://www.nacba.net/Article/SCProperty.htm

This is what Lawrence when he says in his address "(If it [signing the Covenant] means we need to withdraw from a lawsuit we withdraw from a lawsuit)."

Well, I find this appalling, too. That said, he can maintain all he has said in the past as long as when "the clock runs out" he and those with him depart as individuals.

Sadly, I've just found another diocese where, for the foreseeable future, I can't look for a job.

Marshall Scott

Hey Marshall,

I bet there are more dioceses where I and my traditionalist ilk can't get a job than there are where you can't.

Socalpriest

(Editor's note: Thanks Socal. We need your name next time.)

Marshall Scott wrote: "as long as 'when the clock runs out' he and those with him depart as individuals."
That is an absolutely brilliant idea. Leave "as individuals" not as a diocese. Honestly, the idea of diocesan secession has struck me as bizarre from the start. It is rather like having the GM plant in Tennessee telling corporate that they are breaking away because of disagreements with corporate policy. As someone formerly "stuck" in a conservative diocese (Tennessee under +Bertram Herlong), we never discussed secession. As a question, is anyone aware of ANY Episcopal church that has seceded because they were in a conservative diocese and felt that they needed to separate due to liberal reasons of conscience? Why is it that conservatives feel that they need to threaten withdrawal?
I would suggest that TEC consider some amendment to the canons that does not recognize the right of any diocese or congregation to secede as a group. If the secessionists are sincere and have the courage of their convictions, then they need to be creating their own new denomination and structure de novo, not stealing from TEC and dragging along others who are unwilling to go but have no other choice.

Well, Socalpriest:

Notwithstanding that my comment was mostly rhetorical, I suppose that's likely true. However, I would conjecture (and that's all we can do, as neither of us likely has the time or energy to try for, much less have, calls in all our domestic US dioceses) that in fact in the great majority of dioceses there might well be someplace for each of us, and a bishop willing to consider each of us.

Marshall Scott

The Standing Committee and bishop will be proposing a resolution to come before the special convention that this diocese begin withdrawing 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.

Is ?Lawrence and/or the Standing Committee going to present ANY case whatsoever, that THEY are qualified to make such judgments? Did GC vote to proclaim ?Lawrence's Infallibility, and we all somehow missed it?

And let me see if I have this, um, straight: ADOPT Covenant ASAP, study it at leisure? Does this seem bass-ackwards to anyone else?

[NB to "SoCal": I bet there are more dioceses where I and my traditionalist ilk can't get a job than there are where you can't.

IMO, I bet there are very FEW places that a priest can't get a job for being "traditionalist". Now if one is schismatic on the other hand... :-/ ]

JC Fisher

I am on a Standing Committee who did not consent to Lawrence's election. I believe in my own mind that we saw this man for who he was. He tried and succeeded in convincing many that he would serve according to the vows made as an Episcopalian and a Bishop. He is clearly not doing that. He should not be able to speak solely for his Diocese. He can withdraw but let the parishes make their own decision as to whether they wish to withdraw. He is only trying to hang on to TEC property and assets until he can figure out how to syphon them off.