[Bumped for obvious reasons]
By now, many informed Episcopalians in my diocese of Upper South Carolina have read the post over at Kendall Harmon’s blog, T19, of the letter from my rector to my parish, Christ Church, Greenville. In it, he states that 1) Bishop Waldo will approve same sex blessings in the diocese, and that 2) he [my rector] “will not authorize these rites for use here at Christ Church.” My parish is, in vast majority, quite pleased with Harrison’s decision and I am personally very thankful for the clarity and directness of his statement, and in writing as well, so that there can be no mistake or miscommunication. The conservatives whom I know in the diocese are, obviously, very displeased with Bishop Waldo’s decision.
This article will address three aspects about Bishop Waldo’s decision for conservatives in my diocese: the realities we face, the consequences that will occur, and the possible actions that we might take. As usual, I am also writing for the thousands who have found or will find themselves in similar situations all around the country within The Episcopal Church.
The Realities We Face
1) Bishop Waldo is a “known entity.” Informed Episcopalians in this diocese who regularly research people and positions and review blogs were very aware of his particular beliefs prior to his election. All of the clergy were aware, though many laity were not. But anyone who sought out information about Andrew Waldo, could easily find it.
To recap the things we knew before he was elected: he counted Bishop Robinson as his “mentor,” was clear that he sought to institute same sex blessings after General Convention approved a rite, counts Jesus as “my way” and “my truth,” and practiced Communion of the Unbaptized, in violation of the national church canons, at his old parish.
2) Our diocese is also a “known entity” thanks to the excellent survey produced in 2009 and to which some 25% of our ASA responded—and after almost a thousand people had fled the diocese since 2003—a survey about which the clergy of the diocese were quite miserable since the very last thing they wanted conservatives to know was that there were a whole lot of people who believed like them in the diocese, and indeed in the very parishes over which the clergy presided.
The clergy—83 of them—also responded to that survey, and the rumor is—word-of-mouth only but I think it’s true—that the chasm between the clergy and the laity was so very stark, that the early thought that survey results would be released dividing out the clergy responses was nixed. In fact, you can review the six or seven questions that specifically reveal conservative versus liberal beliefs, and with some amusement recognize that the fringe left is most probably . . . the large majority of the 83 clergy who responded.
From the survey we can see the following responses, taking the question with the highest percentage of “revisionist responses” first:
26% strongly agree with “the blessing of civil unions (as opposed to marriage) between gay and lesbian persons in the Episcopal Church” and 37% strongly disagreed [totals of 45% strongly and somewhat agree and 47% strongly and somewhat disagree].
That is the “closest” divide, with approximately half the diocese okay with the blessing of civil unions and the other half not okay. The question itself was somewhat confusing—we don’t, after all, have “civil unions” in South Carolina, and I expect that the responses were muddled. But let’s go ahead and assume that half agreed and half didn’t.
That’s pretty devastating in itself—for revisionists, not for conservatives.
But the responses to the other questions that illustrate the divide are even better for the conservative side of the diocese:
—68% strongly or somewhat agreed that the new bishop “should be supportive of the Windsor Report and the ongoing Windsor process”—6% strongly or somewhat disagreed [heh—there go our clergy]
—21% strongly agree with supporting “the ordination of partnered gay and lesbian persons in the Episcopal Church”—48% strongly disagreed [totals of 33% strongly or somewhat agreeing and 60% strongly or somewhat disagreeing]
—69% strongly or somewhat agree that “divisiveness in the wider Church is beginning to cause problems in our diocese”
-- 28% strongly or somewhat agree with supporting “the marriage of gay and lesbian persons in the Episcopal Church”—65% strongly or somewhat disagree
In other words, a clear majority to 2/3 of the respondents were squarely on the conservative side of the issues dividing our diocese. And on the question that demonstrated the narrowest divide, on “the blessing of civil unions,” 37% “strongly disagreed” as opposed to 26% “strongly agreeing.”
3) With his actions in approving rites for same sex blessings, Bishop Waldo now brings to the doorstep of the diocese actions that had, over the past ten years, been more abstractly based at the national level of The Episcopal Church.
Let’s review what the consequences of those actions have been at the national level:
In 2002 TEC Domestic ASA was 846,640.
In 2011 TEC Domestic ASA was 657,887
That’s a loss of 188,753 in ASA—some 22%—a simply devastating loss. The meltdown in The Episcopal Church as a whole has been simply epic, since the decisions of the 2003 General Convention. We have lost five dioceses, we have had seminaries go under, dioceses have sold off vast numbers of assets, including multiple camp and conference centers, and the national church has spent more than $30 million on lawsuits. The actions of General Convention 2003 have scoured the landscape of TEC bare.And that merely scratches the surface of the degree of destruction that the formal, official, national, legal, and public approval of a bishop engaged in scandalous sexual sin back in 2003 wrought on The Episcopal Church. Although our diocese’s own camp and conference center was sold, and although we have lost 10% of our ASA since 2003, our diocese has been relatively and comparatively unscathed, which demonstrates the degree of desolation inflicted on so much else of the church.
But now, the official, formal, legal, public, and national approval of sexual relationships between two men that occurred back in 2003 at the highest level of our church will be officially, formally, legally, publicly approved at the diocesan level.
I suspect that Bishop Walso believes—like our Presiding Bishop—that “the worst is over” and the malcontents have all left. But I think the results of our diocesan wide survey demonstrate otherwise, and I think the consequences will be heavy for our diocese.
4) In order to come to a place far, far down the path from the starting point, that allows for people who purport to be Christians to also assert that they will now declare holy and blessed, in the name of God, sexual relationships between two men or two women, one must also destroy any Christian perspective on Scripture, tradition, and reason. One must do great violence to such basic Christian concepts as sin, repentance, redemption, the Fall, sanctification, transformation, the sacraments, the work of the Holy Spirit, marriage, authority in the Church, and Christian anthropology. Ultimately, once all of that has been thoroughly deconstructed, the Gospel as a whole is destroyed as well and another false gospel is substituted in its place.
Over the past decade and more, this destruction of the Gospel and replacement with a false gospel has been thoroughly documented on this blog and many many other Anglican blogs. Most recently we read our Presiding Bishop’s views on the demonic and possessed, as well as Paul and Holy Scripture. We established, years ago, a thread to attempt to “consolidate” the various depths that revisionist activists in The Episcopal Church have sunk to in their substitute faux gospel—but quite frankly, we are not able to keep up with all of them on a month to month basis.
Kendall Harmon has, as usual, articulated the differences in the two gospels promoted within The Episcopal Church with the most clarity. Readers may recall his series of “iceberg talks” in which he describes the negation and repudiation by the revisionist activists within The Episcopal Church of the Christian theology of the sacraments, marriage, human nature, Scripture, authority, and ultimately, the Gospel.
There is, then, a deep and broad chasm between conservatives in The Episcopal Church and revisionist activists—of which Bishop Waldo is one—in The Episcopal Church. The two groups do not share the same gospel. The vast majority of conservatives in TEC recognize that fact, and many revisionists have recognized and acknowledged that fact, although naturally they would assert that their gospel is the correct one. At any rate, the two groups within TEC believe mutually opposing and antithetical gospels, and the views on the above basic Christian concepts from both groups cannot both be correct, for the law of contradiction precludes that.
5) Finally, though there is little doubt that Bishop Waldo will include in his pastoral letter the standard boilerplate that the sexuality issues are “secondary” and that we can all remain “united in mission and ministry”; the facts are otherwise.
We are not “united in mission and ministry” as the past decade of losses have thoroughly demonstrated. We do not share the same mission and therefore our ministries are mutually opposed. Where one group declares sinful acts to be holy and purports to pronounce God’s blessing on them, the other group calls for repentance and submission to Christ’s love. The two responses are intrinsically opposing and the two groups—whether they both reside in one organization or not—are divided, not united.
Further, the issues are clearly not secondary. They are obviously not secondary to conservatives, since we recognize almost uniformly that the two groups do not share the same gospel or values. But they are also not secondary to revisionist activists, as they are patently willing to divide the church over their belief. Approval and purported blessing on sexual relationships between two men or two women are intrinsically necessary to their particular, custom gospel, and spring directly from their views on sin, repentance, redemption, the Fall, sanctification, transformation, the sacraments, the work of the Holy Spirit, marriage, authority in the Church, and Christian anthropology. So important and necessary are these beliefs to the gospel which they proclaim that they are willing for The Episcopal Church to lose all that it has lost. They are willing to destroy the organization.
That willingness is not at all the sign of a “secondary” issue for revisionist activists; it is the sign of a primary and intrinsically necessary issue for the revisionist gospel.
So despite the standard boilerplate that will occur, what revisionist activists, including Bishop Waldo, seeks is the implementation of this primary, intrinsically necessary issue, while asserting that conservatives should not recognize the implementation of such an act as antithetical to the Gospel and inherently divisive. They wish to implement their own gospel, a gospel that is antithetical to the one which conservatives believe, with the expectation of experiencing no consequences from conservatives within The Episcopal Church. Indeed, they wish for conservatives to give lip service to everybody being unified, even as they implement their own gospel.
Bishop Waldo now stands, in his capacity as bishop of this diocese, as a sign and a figure of disunity, division, and disorder. He is not a catholic and “visible sign of unity” as bishops are asked to be; he is an icon of division within our diocese.
What an unspeakable tragedy for his episcopacy and for this diocese.
The Consequences That Will Occur
The consequences of Bishop Waldo enacting an intrinsically divisive action of proclaiming God’s blessing on sexual activity between two men or two women will, I think, be devastating to our diocese over the long term.
1) Some of the most informed, discipled, and catholic parishioners in our diocese will leave. As the theology and values antithetical to the Gospel move closer to the local congregation, more and more Christians will leave it. It’s one thing for a national entity to declare sinful and disordered acts “holy and blessed.” It’s far more serious when the more local ecclesial entity does the same thing and enacts rites at the altars of local parishes. Like it or not, human beings make decisions based on “the local” more than on the abstract or national.
Ironically, the most catholic among conservatives will be more compelled to leave the Diocese, since the episcopacy now serves as a figure of division, rather than unity. I think it will be easier for those conservatives on the more evangelical wing to remain within their congregations, operating under the assumption that “it’s true that our bishop does not believe the Gospel, but I am focused on my Gospel-teaching, local congregation, more than on him.” Those who care the most about the episcopacy, and think it more significant, will be more inclined to leave the Diocese.
Obviously, moderates, the passive, and the indifferent won’t leave; it’s not in their nature. And the uninformed and undiscipled won’t leave. And revisionists won’t leave. But if the past is any indication of the future—the past of my own parish, the past of this diocese, and the past of The Episcopal Church as a whole—those who do leave will be some of the most committed, active, engaged, thoughtful, informed parishioners. They’ll be the givers, the doers, the volunteers for confirmation classes and children’s Sunday Schools, and many other parish-based volunteer activities. It’s in their nature to function and act based on deeply committed principles, and that necessarily means departures for some. Because of their activity level, their loss will have exponential effects at the local level.
The departure of a group that is already thoughtful and engaged will be a tough blow—but I don’t think the quantity of the departures in the coming two to three years will be all that great; they will be significant, but not massive. Far more serious than that will be the next consequence.
2) Those conservatives who remain will further distance and detach themselves from engagement within the diocese and sometimes within their own parish. Most conservatives in TEC reading this will nod their heads in recognition. One’s body and even one’s heart may remain within an organization. But once an organization demonstrates that its values, goals, and mission are antithetical to one’s own, engagement and involvement almost always declines, and often quite radically.
We know that this has already occurred all around The Episcopal Church. There’s a reason why conservatives no longer are willing to be nominated for deputy to General Convention [unlike in year’s past, our last diocesan deputation included a grand total of two conservatives; others simply refused to be nominated]—they recognize that the values, goals, and mission of the General Convention are antithetical to their own, and it’s time to move one’s engagement and involvement to more receptive environments with leadership that is more in tune with the values, goals, and mission dear to our hearts. Now, that detachment and distance will further effect conservative parishioners within the Diocese. It will effect our volunteerism, our giving, our interest in conventions, our committee memberships, and on and on it goes. Some conservatives already do not receive Communion from Bishop Waldo—they absent themselves from Eucharists at which he will be present—not because the sacrament might be invalid, but simply because they do not wish to publicly affirm a false teacher who is presenting a false gospel to the flock.
In my own life, I’ve learned to seek out service opportunities outside of the church, though I am still happy and thankful to be a member of my parish. My community and sphere of activity now is—far and away—outside of The Episcopal Church and my diocese and even my own parish. God has blessed me with many friends and opportunities for service outside of The Episcopal Church, and I am grateful. But my level of distance and detachment from my diocese over the past decade has moved from a 7 or 8, to a 1 with my activity at the diocesan level limited to deepening and strengthening relationships with the conservative friends with which God has blessed me. More and more people will step back and step down from diocesan and congregational engagement.
But more devastating, in the long term, to the Diocese and to congregations, than a loss of conservative members, or a loss of engagement and involvement from the remaining conservatives, is this next consequence.
3) The opportunity costs of a choice measures “the value of the best alternative forgone” and the opportunity costs for our bishop’s choice to approve rites for same sex blessings will be severe and ring down through the decades of this diocese. In other words, if one chooses one product for its benefits, one does *not* choose another product with its uniquely related benefits. “Assuming the best choice is made, it is the “cost” incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available.”
In business, one might, for instance, choose to place one’s research and development budget on a product that ultimately sells to 3% of one’s potential market. Another choice *might* [the word is a good one, since one is not ultimately able to measure what would have happened otherwise] have sold to 8% of one’s potential market. The opportunity costs, there, are quite large. The company has lost the potential of selling a product to 8% of its market, in return for selling to 3%.
The “benefits” of Bishop Waldo’s decision to approve of same sex blessings in our diocese are several: a) he will please himself and his own foundational worldview and values, b) he will please 3/4 of the clergy of the diocese, c) and there is the potential of pleasing the percentage of the 2-4% of the population who are gay who also wish to join a liturgical ecclesial entity, and that percentage of the population who are liberals, approve of same sex blessings, and wish to join a liturgical ecclesial entity. We already know—from the diocesan survey during the bishop search process—that a grand total of 1% of the diocesan population is “partnered”—an incredibly tiny market for which to change the product that our Diocese offers.
Beyond the fairly moderate diocese, comparatively speaking, to South Carolina as a whole, the potential market in South Carolina of liberal activists who also wish to join a liturgical ecclesial entity is spectacularly small. If, for instance, we determine that 2% of the South Carolina population is partnered [doubling the estimated percentage of partnered gays from our own diocesan number—which is the reverse of what is reasonable, considering our denomination’s liberal brand], not all of that population—not even half of it, in fact, will be remotely interested in joining a liturgical ecclesial entity. That’s simply not a “religiously interested” demographic.
But still—there is certainly that market that exists, and perhaps the Diocese can pick up a small percentage of that segment of the 2% who are partnered in South Carolina and who are interested in joining a liturgical ecclesial entity.
But far outweighing that market is the number of people who are conservatives—those who believe the Gospel and recognize that Bishop Waldo’s foundational worldview and values are antithetical to their own—who also wish to join a liturgical ecclesial entity, or who are conservative and already members of such a liturgical ecclesial entity. For vastly increasing numbers of such people around the country, The Episcopal Church is no longer an option as a liturgical ecclesial entity. It doesn’t “exist” as a possible choice.
Further, one of the greatest pools of possible prospects for churches are those people who move to a state and must search for a new church home. I—as I’m sure many others do—receive many emails asking me for advice on parishes to investigate during moves to different dioceses. I’m almost always able to share the state and theology of the diocese to which someone is moving, as well as make recommendations about specific parishes to visit. Frequently, now, I have to point such people to different ecclesial entities altogether, and such will be the case for many who move to this diocese. It’s no longer a safe place for conservative Episcopalians.
Even if I’m able to point Episcopalians to a safe parish within my diocese—I’ve made it a part of my practice to never recommend a seeker or pagan to an Episcopal parish in this diocese. It’s simply not safe to introduce a non-Christian to The Episcopal Church in my diocese any more, since they will be fed, by and large, a false gospel which will lead them to hell, rather than the salvation of their souls. Even were they to be able to attend a safe parish with a godly, faithful rector who believes the Gospel, there’s no saying that they may not need to move to another part of the diocese, and attend a parish led by clergy who do not believe the Gospel. It’s one thing for a strong Christian to attend an Episcopal church, but quite another for a seeker to do so, now.
This is a huge opportunity cost, obviously, of the decisions that my church has made. God has blessed me with friendships with many pagans—many of whom are thoughtful, and creative, and inquisitive. In the old days, an Episcopal church that could be counted on to deliver the Gospel in a winsome and engaging way to such people was a great option—but now it can no longer be counted on. So I “make do” by pointing them to churches that may not suit their culture or personality quite as well, but at least will present the Gospel to them.
Down the road, the most devastating consequence for the future of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina are the losses of prospects and members that it would have had, had its bishop not made the decisions that he has made. Given the fragile state of our diocese in terms of membership, attendance, and money, damaging the opportunity for its future growth to such an extent will be a killing blow. There is already a very limited market in South Carolina for liturgical, sacramental ecclesial entities of a “certain ethos.” There is an even more limited market in South Carolina for liturgical, sacramental ecclesial entities of liberal activists.
In one bold stroke, Bishop Waldo has cut off our diocese from potential gains of conservatives moving to the region who don’t wish to be Baptists or PCA Presbyterians or Roman Catholics, but who do believe the Gospel and who are attracted to liturgical, sacramental options. Our diocese as an option is lost to them.
4) Finally, Bishop Waldo’s decision to approve of same sex blessings in this diocese will result in far more divided parishes and a far more divided diocese. Pitched—albeit underground—battles will now take place during vestry elections and in search processes. Smaller parishes of under 100 ASA whose rector and vestry approve of same sex blessings are particularly vulnerable and will lose key parishioners. They will simply go elsewhere, as the local parish is “the last place of refuge” now for conservative parishioners. No amount of “dialogue” or demonstrations of “thoughtful reflection and reasoning” will convince conservatives of the truth or health of actions taken to bless sexual activity between two men or two women. All such actions will do is demonstrate, once more, that the rector and a majority of the vestry do not share the same Gospel. Particularly, conservative parents with children will simply not allow their children to be a part of an organization that purports to proclaim God’s favor on sex outside of the sacramental union between a man and a woman. Practically, what that means is that conservatives in liberal parishes will leave those parishes and move to those led by conservative rectors and vestries. When conservative Episcopalians move to a town with an Episcopal parish that has approved same sex blessings, they will commute to another parish farther away, or choose to worship in another denomination. Ultimately, the parishes led by revisionist clergy and vestries will become more so and the sifting and sorting out of revisionists and conservatives will increase exponentially at the local level. While that may be a good thing, “unity” it’s not.
To put it another way, the zeal with which revisionist activists approve of and pursue same-sex blessings is far less significant than the utter rejection and opposition that conservatives have towards the same. The vast majority of revisionist activists won’t leave The Episcopal Church over not having same sex blessings, but conservatives will do so in droves.
I mentioned above that parishes below 100 ASA in particular will suffer at the loss of a few families.
Today, I took the trouble of going through each and every one of the membership, attendance, and pledging charts for each of the 59 congregations in my diocese. The results are quite striking.
32 of our parishes—54% of them—have less than 100 in Average Sunday Attendance. The loss of just 3-4 “pledging units” can have a serious effect on such parishes. Eighteen of those 32 have an ASA of less than 50. The loss of even one pledging unit, at that level, can be a killing blow.
Stop and think about that for a moment.
Thirty percent of our diocese’s parishes will die—will go away entirely—within the coming decade, unless a miracle along the lines of Elijah’s miracle-fire from heaven falling on Baal’s altars occurs.
Within 20 years, those 32 parishes of under 100 ASA, more than half the parishes in the diocese—given current trends—could be, to use a Harry Potter term, “disapparated.” Gone. Dearly departed.
Anyone who cares about The Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina should find that possibility breathtaking.
Ten years ago our diocese had five parishes with ASA’s of 400 or more. Today, it’s just two parishes at 400 or more.
Obviously, the diocese’s loss of around 900 in ASA over the past decade is a significant one. But when one recognizes that that loss of 900 has far and away affected the smaller [some of which are former mid-sized] parishes the most, the loss of a mere 900 becomes far more significant.
By any reasonable standards, the diocese is in a serious condition. In light of that, the decision to approve of a rite that fully half of the diocese recognizes as utterly opposed to the Gospel represents a degree of blithe oblivion that is stunning.
Possible Actions
So what options do conservatives in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina have?
Here are a few suggestions.
If you are leaving the Diocese of Upper South Carolina for another ecclesial entity:
—Please write a calm, forthright letter spelling out why you are leaving, and hand mail or email a copy to each member of your parish’s vestry, your rector, the bishop, the members of the Diocesan Executive Council, and your various Episcopal friends inside and outside the diocese. It’s important that people—especially laypeople—are informed, and each and every letter and email demonstrating consequences and thoughtful reasons add to the pile. It’s your last act of service to an organization that, at least at one time, nurtured your Christian faith. And the last thing you want to do is to allow your departure to be spun by revisionist clergy into the claim that you’re leaving because you were angry over the type of wine used at the service or some other triviality.
If you are remaining in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina:
—Recognize that a percentage of every penny you give your parish in pledge goes to support the Diocesan House with its bishop and staff, who are all eager to further and promote their particular ideology, and to support the national church’s current leadership and the promotion of its ideology. Here’s a link to our diocese’s “Statement of Mission” [ie, budget, where you can see the mission priorities of how the Diocese spends the money that comes to it from the pledges of parishioners to their parishes]. As one can see, the primary mission priorities of the Diocese are to: 1) fund the active clergy’s insurance [$535,745], 2) pay the Diocesan Pledge to the Episcopal Church [$387,927], 3) pay the bishop [$140,000], 4) pay the Diocesan House’s administrative expenses [$115,000], 5) fund the retired clergy’s insurance [$107,000], 6) pay the Canon for Leadership & Congregational Development [$82,000 + pension, insurance, travel], 7) pay the Canon for Discernment and Transition Ministries [$69,600 + pension, insurance, travel], and 8) pay the Canon for Christian Formation [$52,400 + pension, insurance, travel].
All told, of the budget of $2,603,668 more than 55% of that budget goes to *solely* Diocesan House staff and administrative costs, plus the national church’s pledge. That number of 55% does not even include the clergy insurance. [Once one includes 1) staff and administrative costs, 2) national church pledge, and 3) clergy insurance, the percentage comes to more than 80% of the budget.] Some 55% of the Diocesan budget goes to support either the Great Maw of Revisionism at the national level of The Episcopal Church, or the Great Maw of the Diocesan Bureaucracy.
That’s the “Statement of Mission” in a nutshell for our diocese.
All of the above to say this. There’s a lot more to giving and generosity and stewardship than your pledge to your parish. And when a portion of your pledge goes to support the agenda of people who preach these kinds of sermons, and their staff and “program” promoting that agenda, that’s a really really bad thing, and is certainly not exercising good stewardship of the money to which God has entrusted you.
Conservatives need to exercise increasing creativity about how to support one’s parish without also supporting a diocesan and national church theology and gospel that is antithetical to the Christian Gospel. And if they’ve created wills that give money to the Diocese or to a parish after death, those wills need to be reconsidered. As has been amply demonstrated over the past decade, revisionists have no interest in the wishes of the dead in regards to the values or worldviews promoted by expenditure of dead people’s money.
If you are remaining in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina and are in a parish led by a revisionist rector [the majority of parishes here]:
—Obviously, vestry elections are very important. They are not only your opportunity to prevent your rector from doing something that he’s dreamed of doing for years now—provide one or two same-sex blessings and feel like he’s a part of the cool ecclesial in-crowd—but they are also your opportunity to field a solid search committee once your rector leaves, so that you can have a chance of getting a rector who believes the Gospel next time.
—Feel free to email me if you want to leave your parish and find a parish led by a conservative rector. I may be able to help.
—Regardless, you can Private Message me if you’d like more information about another possible activity which I’m not going to mention on this blog.
If you are remaining in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina and are in a parish led by a conservative rector:
—Ask your rector to put his decision not to bless same sex relationships in writing. It’s important that conservative rectors be on the record so that their decisions may be publicized far and wide, so that the natural divisions among parishes can go ahead and occur. Conservatives need to know where they can go to worship. Those moving into the diocese need to be able to google various parishes and learn which ones to avoid. Make certain you write a note or email of thanks once he or she does so.
—Pay very close attention to vestry elections. Just as conservatives will do so in parishes with revisionist activist rectors, so liberals will do the same in parishes led by conservative rectors. That’s the way the game is played, and the revisionist activist laypeople have played it very well, in diocese after diocese, parish after parish. Once their ideology is enacted, they can then dare you to leave your beloved parish. Don’t let them get to that point.
—If you’d like to engage in some discussion about one or two other possible actions, feel free to Private Message me.
This will be a very hard time for conservatives within the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. Though we knew our bishop did not share the same gospel, there’s a whole new level of division that occurs when a revisionist with power “lives into” his particular gospel and proceeds forward with his own ideology. In 2003, a massive line was crossed at the national level, and has led to far worse consequences than most people predicted. In 2013 a massive line has been crossed at the diocesan level here in Upper South Carolina, and there will be great sadness as we watch some leave The Episcopal Church, and others leave their parishes, determine for our own integrity the decreased level of engagement, giving, and volunteerism we will offer parishes and diocese, delve into vestry elections, and advise friends and acquaintances moving into the diocese. We will gain more clarity at the parish level about the theology and gospel beliefs of others, and that will lead sometimes to greater unity, and sometimes to greater distance.
I’ve gained far more friends in the past ten years, during the discovery of new allies and companions in the Gospel, while at the same time moving further away in intimacy with a lesser number of acquaintances. There’s no question that it’s tough to leave a church and, where two mutually exclusive gospels reside, it’s very tough to remain. The chasm is very deep and very broad, and living with that level of division and opposition on both sides, and maintaining one’s integrity, is challenging. While I am friends with many pagans and liberals outside of the church, revisionist activist leaders within the church are, necessarily, flying false colors—sometimes a flag of truce—while advancing their agenda. They deserve our prayers for grace and mercy from God, defeat and resistance at every turn in enacting their ideology, and an appropriate level of dishonor for their destructive actions. Every conservative within The Episcopal Church knows how difficult it is to remain and there is a kinship between us that represents both a recognition of our bond in Christ [as with all those who believe the Gospel] and the difficulty of our position that is very gratifying and humbling.
But God has poured out His blessings on me, personally, professionally, spiritually, in my family, in relationships with my friends and loved ones, and even in my relationships with pagans. There is much opportunity in sharing the Gospel with seekers even while being clear and forthright that one’s church is severely compromised and does not, at its leadership levels, preach that Gospel.
I have never known such deep joy and peace as in the last several years. Although I don’t want to be presumptious, I believe that it in part comes from doing what God wants me to do and being where He wants me to be. It is important for me to listen closely to His direction for my life.
I wish the same for my friends in the Gospel here in this diocese of Upper South Carolina. Whether you stay and enact one or more “new policies of remaining”, or leave, the most important thing in life is Jesus Christ. With Him, all of life is fraught with potential, honor, joy, peace, and growth, even in defeats or failures.
A few passages spring to mind as representative of what it’s possible for us to enjoy, even during conflict and division.
Though the fig tree should not blossom,
nor fruit be on the vines,
the produce of the olive fail
and the fields yield no food,
the flock be cut off from the fold
and there be no herd in the stalls,
yet I will rejoice in the LORD;
I will take joy in the God of my salvation.
GOD, the Lord, is my strength;
he makes my feet like the deer’s;
he makes me tread on my high places.
For thou art my lamp, O Lord: and the Lord will lighten my darkness.
For by thee I have run through a troop: by my God have I leaped over a wall.
As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.
For who is God, save the Lord? and who is a rock, save our God?
God is my strength and power: and he maketh my way perfect.
He maketh my feet like hinds’ feet: and setteth me upon my high places.
He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms.
Thou hast also given me the shield of thy salvation: and thy gentleness hath made me great.
Thou hast enlarged my steps under me; so that my feet did not slip.
Give unto the Lord, O ye mighty, give unto the Lord glory and strength.
Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.
The voice of the Lord is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: the Lord is upon many waters.
The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty.
The voice of the Lord breaketh the cedars; yea, the Lord breaketh the cedars of Lebanon.
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
The voice of the Lord divideth the flames of fire.
The voice of the Lord shaketh the wilderness; the Lord shaketh the wilderness of Kadesh.
The voice of the Lord maketh the hinds to calve, and discovereth the forests: and in his temple doth every one speak of his glory.
The Lord sitteth upon the flood; yea, the Lord sitteth King for ever.
The Lord will give strength unto his people; the Lord will bless his people with peace.