Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina Resolves: No Support for Adoption

One thing I cannot stand about church conventions is that there are always those darned resolutions to vote on.  The Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina met last month, and one resolution that was squashed by the Committee on Resolutions was a plan to financially support non-governmental organizations that facilitate adoption. This of course is completely contrary to the Episcopal Organization USA's official policy of supporting (spiritually) abortion services for unwed mothers.

First read the proposed resolution (or go to the link),

PROPOSED RESOLUTION
The 97th Convention of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina
Christ Church
Greenville, South Carolina November 8-9, 2019
Date: August 8, 2019 Offered by: The Reverend James Neuburger
Name of Church: The Episcopal Church of St. Simon and St. Jude, Irmo, SC 

Subject: Supporting the Youngest Among Us 

Whereas:

As the pinnacle of creation, God created human beings in His image to enjoy Him forever, and at our baptisms God adopts us into Christ’s family as his brothers and sisters; and whereas the National Council for Adoption reports that in 2014 there were 18,329 domestic adoptions in relation to 1.1 million unwanted pregnancies; and whereas U.S. adoption providers estimate there are over 1 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States; and whereas adoption is the kind, loving choice for everyone involved in an unwanted pregnancy;

Be it Resolved:

That this Diocese affirms and offers God’s love for each human life by committing, beginning in 2021, to support pregnant mothers who do not wish to care for their unborn children by providing financial support to non-governmental organizations that offer services to pregnant women that facilitate the adoption of their babies. The amount of the financial support committed will be at least 0.7% of EDUSC’s projected annual income. The funding for this support will come from eliminating from the 2021 and all future diocesan Statement of Missions the MDG funding directed in 2005 under the standing resolution adopted by 83rd Convention of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina and reported by the Commission on Mission in the EDUSC Statement of Mission and applying such funding to this support. Such financial support will be provided annually and will continue until either 2030 or until terminated by resolution of a future diocesan convention, whichever comes first.
Further, this Diocese encourages the Commission on Mission, as part of the Statement of Mission request process, to identify the non-governmental organizations that offer adoptive services to pregnant women in South Carolina to whom support will be distributed, and to report annually through its Statement of Mission request submission the amount of such aid and the organization(s) to receive the distribution of such aid.

Recognize that the 0.7% of the projected annual income of  $2,870,508 in 2020 (a decrease from $3,047,294 in 2019) would amount to about $20,000, and this probably infuriated people invested in any of the many programs that were cut from the budget (for a look at the budget itself see this link). Those upset obviously didn't mind that $252,000 was being budgeted to be sent to the pro-abortion radicals at 815.

Anyway, here is the "rationale" from the Committee on Resolutions on why the Convention should reject the resolution (note: SOM means Statement of Mission or budget).

The Episcopal Diocese of Upper South CarolinaThe 97th Diocesan Convention 

Recommendation from the Committee on Resolutions 

A Resolution entitled: Supporting the Youngest Among Us 

Committee on Resolutions Recommendation: Reject this resolution. First, we are concerned by the judgmental and negative presumptions about pregnant women (and pregnant children) in this proposed resolution indicated in the following phrases [emphasis is by the Resolution Committee]: 

 “whereas adoption is the kind, loving choice for everyone involved in an unwanted pregnancy”

I must interrupt at this point. What is negative and judgmental  about that?

 “to support pregnant mothers who do not wish to care for their unborn children”

Maybe that sounded judgmental. If so, the committee could have offered to substitute the word "raise" for the word "care", but that would of course have been judgmental on their part.

Also, these presumptions are not in keeping with the position established by TEC,which is expressed as follows: 

From the TEC website: “In a series of statements over the past decades, the Church has declared that ‘we emphatically oppose abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience.’ At the same time, since 1967, The Episcopal Church has maintained its “unequivocal opposition to any legislation on the part of the national or state governments which would abridge or deny the right of individuals to reach informed decisions [about the termination of pregnancy] and to act upon them.” 

In other words, abortion is the sacred cow to which Episcopalians are obliged to bow down.

Second, we are concerned that funding for this resolution is based on the complete defunding of projects we have supported for many years through the 0.7%Sustainable Development Funds. Supporting this resolution would be an outright rejection of mission projects we have shared with people with whom we have developed relationships over many years in Haiti and Ecuador.  

Why bring Haiti and Ecuador into it? To pull at heart strings of course. Feelings are what sway Episcopalian conventioneers so that they will not realize, as I noted above, that the $20,000 could be skimmed directly from what is being sent to the pro-abortion nuts at 815.

Third, we are concerned that changes to the SOM which so adversely impact historic missions of our diocese are more appropriately made through the SOM process so the appropriate Commission can evaluate all requests at once and determine priorities as appropriate to diocesan goals of making, equipping and sending mature disciples of Christ. 

Since when have Episcopalians been concerned about processes? They only bring up processes when the rules work in favor of a progressive cause, otherwise processes are ignored, re-written, or steamrolled.

Finally, we believe it is inappropriate to direct diocesan funds to un-specified “nongovernmental organizations that offer adoptive services to pregnant women”because some of these organizations in our state withhold services based on prejudicial view about adoptive parents that The Episcopal Church finds completely unacceptable.

Oh my! Money might actually go to Christian charities that support adoption!

All of this should give thinking Episcopalians good reason to stop sending money to EDUSC.