Resolution #2 particularly stands out:
The summary given by the Post and Courier states
"South Carolina Episcopalians this week consider a resolution to distance the local diocese from the national Episcopal Church.
The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina made up of churches in the eastern and lower part of the state meets in Mount Pleasant on Saturday.
One resolution would authorize church leaders to begin withdrawing from some of the councils of the national church, although there would not be a complete break.
"Resolution No. 2 calls for the diocese to distance itself from The Episcopal Church. Since "the governing bodies of The Episcopal Church have failed to operate within the boundaries of its canons and continued participation in such behavior would make the Diocese of South Carolina complicit in this dysfunction, be it resolved that this Diocese authorize the Bishop and Standing Committee to begin withdrawing from all bodies of The Episcopal Church that have assented to actions contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this Church has received them."
So the Diocese will "begin withdrawing from all bodies of The Episcopal Church that have assented to actions...." Since these are actions of the General Convention and are considered actions for the whole church binding them until such time as they are overturned by subsequent General Convention, I suppose this means withdrawal from ALL bodies of The Episcopal Church, period.
Well, there it is.
But then there is this. Having worked until about 3:00 in the afternoon they decided not to go ahead and affirm the last of the resolutions, Resolution #5. That resolution states (again using the description from the Post and Courier, "Resolution No. 5 resolves "not to condone prejudice or deny the dignity of any person, including but not limited to, those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered," but to continue to "speak the truth in love as Holy Scripture commends." Consideration of this resolution was put off until the next meeting of Convention.
Assuming that we should always "speak the truth in love as Holy Scripture commends," surely the Convention could affirm a resolve "not to condone prejudice or deny the dignity of any person, including but not limited to, those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered."
Perhaps their problem was with the phrase, "believe themselves to be." That phrase is a catch 22. Sane people who are who they are also believe themselves to be who they are as well. But certain folk think that being gay is only about who people "believe themselves to be." So if the problem is this phrase, we might understand why some time in perfecting the language might be in order.
But surely that could not have taken too long...or could it? What if it was difficult to get the delegates to convention to change the language? Then the best possibility of that resolution - that there be no condoning of prejudice - would get lost. It would be OK to be prejudiced against gay people who really were (as opposed to believing the were) gay. That wouldn't do.
At any rate, for whatever reason, the Convention in South Carolina did not see fit to work through the resolution and come out the other end with a resolution soundly condemning prejudice against gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered persons. It was felt that that was a battle for another day.
What we have then is resolutions distancing the Diocese of South Carolina from The Episcopal Church that has gone astray, and no resolution against prejudice against GLBT folk.
I have this right?