QUESTION ONE
Steve Wood: Steve, one of the concerns being expressed about you is the question of whether you are really passionate about and interested in the things that a bishop actually does? Can you speak to this please?

The Apostle Paul wrote: “Here is a trustworthy saying: If any one sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.” (1 Timothy 3.1) I believe that God may be calling me to the office of bishop. If you affirm this call I would undertake this responsibility with the same joy and passion I bring to the office of rector.

Speaking very personally, the internal issues that I needed to work through were twofold. First, I love the people of St. Andrew’s and I love serving the people of St. Andrew’s! Secondly, and very honestly, in my 23 years of church leadership, with very few exceptions, I have not encountered Episcopal ministry that I’d wish to emulate. Today, three diocesan Bishops, Ed Salmon, Bob Duncan and Keith Ackerman stand out as exemplars of what I would hope to attain in terms of integrity of faith and strength of character.

However, broadly speaking, the Episcopal leadership in the church at large over these past 30+ years has lost its grip on Scripture as the touchstone of our faith, abandoned creedal Christianity, presided over massive membership loss and has deconstructed the apostolic Office of Bishop from that of chief priest and pastor and defender of the Faith to essentially caretaker of increasingly empty church buildings and socio-political crusader.

I believe that time, circumstance, cultural receptivity and technology have converged and that we stand in the midst of a societal reformation. I am persuaded that the next bishop of South Carolina will need missionary zeal to engage, and persuade, adherents of a content-less spirituality that is increasingly pervasive in our culture. Gospel proclamation in pulpits as well as other venues, church planting, leadership development, and an increase in the equipping and release of the laity should be the priorities of the next bishop of South Carolina. And, I would passionately engage that work.

QUESTION TWO
The Diocese of South Carolina ranks at first or near first in every measurable category of vitality: growth, attendance, giving, etc. Why do you believe this has been the case, and how do you foresee continuing this positive trend?

I believe it is important to state the assumed: Ultimately, we have grown as a diocese because the Lord has desired for us to grow. I’m sure that each one of us knows of a faithful priest/parish diligently “holding forth the Word of Life” which has not seen numerical growth. Psalm 127 says, “Unless the Lord builds the house its laborers labor in vain.” Jesus said, “I will build my Church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” (Matthew 16.18)

Having said this, we are, in fact, co-laborers with Christ. As co-laborers we are called to faithfully pass on that which we have received without addition or subtraction. This diocese has had faithful Episcopal leadership for generations; particularly, the leadership of Bishop Ed Salmon. In The Post and Courier this past week (Sunday, September 3, 2006) Fr. Dow Sanderson expressed what I believe almost every person in this diocese would affirm: “Ed Salmon is largely responsible for the ascendancy of this diocese.” Having worked with him these past six years I have observed firsthand his spiritual and organizational leadership. He has recruited, developed and deployed faithful clergy and his administrative leadership has returned vast sums of resources to the parish level.

Furthermore, I believe several other factors have contributed significantly to the growth of the Diocese of South Carolina:
1. Cursillo has introduced both laity and clergy to a deeper level of faith while simultaneously raising the level of lay leadership in the diocese.
2. Healthy and functional diocesan organizations and structures have strengthened parishes while simultaneously serving the larger diocesan family.
3. The international mission emphasis initiated by Bishop Bill Skilton has imparted a joyful passion in this diocese to minister good news to those beyond our borders and has expanded our Gospel horizons.
4. The development of the permanent diaconate has recognized and ordained those with a particular call to service and has provided a voice to those on the margins of our society.
5. A strong consensus amongst clergy leadership centered in the reconciling Gospel of Jesus Christ has produced a deep sense of collegiality and warm bonds of affection.

As for my part in continuing this positive trend and legacy left by our previous Episcopal leadership, I would offer first and foremost that I would keep the “main thing, the main thing.” The old service says, “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the perfect offering for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2.1-2). Those are “comfortable words” because they are true words.

Secondly, I would continue to develop the relationships we have already established. Having served alongside you these past six years, for better or worse, you know me. You know my heart. Ministry has been shared. When I have failed I have sought forgiveness and reconciliation. We have worked through both joyous and challenging moments of diocesan life committed to Jesus Christ and to one another in Christian love.

Finally, if it is God’s will and you consent that I become Bishop of this diocese, my priorities would be:
1. To strengthen the local parishes
2. To lead the diocese in increased missional focus
3. Spiritual formation
4. Leadership development
5. Young clergy development and minority clergy recruitment

QUESTION THREE
The Diocese of South Carolina is among those dioceses which have requested Alternative Primatial Oversight. Do you support this decision? If so, what issues does it raise? Please make reference in your answer to: a) the authority of Scripture b) catholic ecclesiology c) Anglican identity.

As a member of the Standing Committee I voted to request Alternative Primatial Oversight (“APO”). May I say that the tone and tenor of the Standing Committee that afternoon was not one of joyful celebration. Rather, a solemn and weighty recognition emerged of the sacred responsibility we had both before the Lord and to this diocese.

The request for APO is, in my understanding, a short-term provisional means to ensure the continuation of a demonstrably biblical, catholic faith, recognizably Anglican and consistent with the formularies of our Anglican heritage. I do not believe APO to be a long-term solution in that the action is both responsive and provisional.

First, having unsuccessfully exhausted all other means for redress, the request for alternative oversight was a last-resort response to the tragic decisions made at the 2003 General Convention and reaffirmed at the 2006 General Convention. It was my hope, and indeed the hope of many, that the 2006 General Convention would address and fulfill the directives of the Windsor Report. It is now a matter of record that our General Convention did not address in a substantive or satisfactory manner the critical issues threatening the Anglican Communion articulated in the Windsor Report. Nor did General Convention demonstrate a desire to remain within the Anglican Communion except on their terms. So, rather than repentance and an embrace of biblical theology, the 2006 General Convention marked the unveiling of a new episcopal religion.

Secondly, I believe APO to be a provisional step in the development of a new North American Anglican entity centered around the witness of Holy Scripture, and in full Communion relationship with the world-wide Anglican body. Oversight from an offshore Primate must ultimately give way to the development of local North American Anglican leadership.

Holy Scripture has much to say about our relationships with those in authority over us. The Bible commends us to regard our authorities and leaders with reverence. We are instructed that God has established governing authorities for our good and that they are worthy of our respect and prayers. However, we also have the Apostolic witness of Peter and John in Acts 4, who were unwilling to obey temporal authorities when their directives contradicted the Apostolic message. It is important to note, though, that both Peter and John, recognized and submitted themselves to the discipline of the Sanhedrin. APO may involve a burden to bear. May we with the same fidelity, grace and humility honor the Name of Jesus Christ in our day.

With regard to catholic ecclesiology and our Anglican Heritage, I am reminded that Anglicanism embraces a conciliar method of decision making. In a recent teaching Dr. Kendall Harmon wrote: “Anglicanism’s way of making decisions is conciliar, that is, it is focused on councils, whether vestries, or diocesan conventions, or General Conventions, or Lambeth meetings, or Primates meetings.” As a conciliar church, decisions of greater importance demand a wider circle of consultation. Within the Anglican Communion there exist four Instruments of Unity. They are:
1. The Archbishop of Canterbury
2. The Lambeth Conference
3. The annual Primates meeting
4. The Anglican Consultative Council.

Beginning with the 1998 Lambeth Conference, all four Instruments of Unity explicitly directed The Episcopal Church to refrain from the blessing of same-sex partnerships and the consecration of non-celibate homosexual persons.

Historically, Articles 20 and 21 of the “Articles of Religion” proscribe the parameters of authority vested in the Church and General Councils. For instance, we are instructed in Article 20 that “The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” Article 21 speaking of General Councils states: “And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all are not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.”

And so, the issue emerges: How does a constituent member of a national body respond when it believes actions taken in General Convention violate the clear teaching of God’s Word written, contravene our conciliar method of decision making, and ignore the formularies of our faith? In this setting, recognizing the historic primacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury as he sits in council with his fellow Archbishops, a request for Alternative Primatial Oversight is the best hope for maintaining the unity of the Anglican Communion and the Diocese of South Carolina’s place as a full-Communion member.