Via email–KSH.

Today, the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the church property case appeal made by The Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia challenging the ruling of the Fairfax County Circuit Court. The Circuit Court ruled in favor of nine Anglican congregations in Virginia , under the umbrella of the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV), confirming that the Anglican churches could keep their property.

Steffen Johnson, who argued the case on behalf of the Anglican District of Virginia churches, stated, “We are grateful for the opportunity to defend the appeals in the Virginia Supreme Court today. The argument went very well. It was a lively bench with good questions for both sides.
We continue to feel strong about the positions outlined in our briefs and developed in the extensive record in the trial court, and we look forward to the Court’s decision.”“Our church members are standing firm for the Gospel and will remain in prayer as the Virginia Supreme Court considers the oral arguments made today,” said Jim Oakes, chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia. “I am extremely confident in our case that was eloquently presented by our legal counsel. However, it’s unfortunate that this matter is being discussed in a court of law in the first place after our numerous attempts at amicable negotiations. I, like my fellow parishioners, look forward to and pray for a quick end to the litigation so that we can completely focus our time, money and energy on bringing new believers to Christ and helping those in need. Our doors remain open wide to all who wish to worship with us.”

Bishop David Bena, Contact Bishop for the Anglican District of Virginia, added, “Members of the Anglican District of Virginia have been in a period of intensive prayer and fasting leading up to and including today. As an ordained clergyman, I know that this court case is, as it has been from the beginning, in the Lord’s hands and the will of God will determine where ADV congregations worship in His name.”

From here:

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Virginia has declined to consent to the election of the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool as bishop suffragan of the Diocese of Los Angeles because, in the view of a majority of the Committee, her election is inconsistent with the moratorium agreed to by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. That majority believes that, at this time, failure by individual dioceses to respect the Church’s agreement to the moratorium would be detrimental to the good order of our Church and bring into question its reliability as an institution. The committee found no other reason to withhold its consent to the election of Canon Glasspool.

The painful irony is that TEC’s decision to reject the authority of God’s Word has been gravely injurious, and has itself caused the very division that TEC’s leaders claimed they sought to avoid. Once someone rejects Scripture, then they reject Jesus Christ and Christianity as a whole. It’s as simple as that. We could not follow a national body that rejected the very Word of God.

Our Anglican churches (under the umbrella of the Anglican District of Virginia) attempted to resolve matters with the diocese and TEC graciously and out of court, following a process that we spent almost a year developing with diocesan representatives. But the diocese and TEC abruptly broke off discussion of settlement and instead launched a legal confrontation. They sued not only our churches, but also almost 200 individual clergy and volunteer board members.

The diocese and TEC have spent millions of dollars making this legal attack against our churches. And this has forced our churches to devote time, effort, and energy to raise millions of dollars for our legal defense — all of which could and should have been used for spreading the love of God to our communities.

Read it all.

On April 13, the Virginia Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a property case that pitted nine churches in Loudoun and Fairfax counties against the Episcopalian Diocese of Virginia. The final decision will be made June 10 or June 11.

The Church of Our Saviour, on Oatlands Mill Road south of Leesburg, is one of the churches involved.

After the nine churches left the diocese in 2006 to join the Anglican District of Virginia, the diocese argued that the churches had forfeited the right to the properties upon which their church buildings are built. In 2008, the Fairfax County Circuit Court ruled in favor of the breakaway churches, citing section 57-9a of Virginia law.

This statute, known as the division statute, says if there is a split in a church or religious organization, a congregation may decide which branch of the church it will go to, and it may retain its property.

Read it all.

Among other things, a lawyer for the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia told the justices that the 2008 ruling relied on an 1867 state law he contends improperly favors church governance by congregation over governance by hierarchy.

At stake, say the churches, is $30 million to $40 million in buildings and other property. The hearing was packed and broadcast via a closed-circuit television to two nearby rooms to accommodate everyone wishing to attend.

After the hearing, Henry D.W. Burt II, the secretary and chief of staff for the diocese, said: “Today was simply the next step in our journey to return faithful Episcopalians to their church homes.”

Steffen N. Johnson, a lawyer for the departed churches, which formed the Anglican District of Virginia, said “the argument went very well. It was a lively bench with good questions for both sides . . . and we look forward to the court’s decision.”

Read it all.

A group of conservative former Episcopal churches tangled with the Episcopal Church and its Diocese of Virginia before the Virginia Supreme Court on Tuesday over a unique state law that awards property to congregations that bolt their parent denomination.

The 90-minute session before a packed courtroom of 140 onlookers, plus more outside, appealed a Fairfax Circuit Court verdict that awarded about $30 million worth of historic property to the 11 churches that broke away from the diocese three years ago.

Five justices ”” three others had recused themselves from the case ”” grilled lawyers about the meaning and constitutionality of the state’s division statute. The 1867 law allowed congregations ”” many of which had differed with their denominations over slavery ”” to leave with their property.

Read it all.

The Episcopal Church on Tuesday asked Virginia’s highest court to overturn a judge’s decision allowing nine breakaway congregations to keep church property worth an estimated $30 million to $40 million.

The northern Virginia congregations split from the Episcopal Church in a disagreement over acceptance of gays, the ordination of female clergy and theological issues. They aligned with the more conservative Convocation of Anglicans in North America, which like the Episcopal Church falls under the umbrella of the Anglican Communion.

The Virginia Supreme Court could rule on the property dispute as early as June.

Lawyers for the Episcopal Church told the court that a Fairfax County judge erred in ruling that an 1867 law unique to Virginia allows the breakaway congregations to retain church buildings and other property. They also claimed the so-called “division statute” is unconstitutional because it allows the state to meddle in religious matters.

Read it all.

The Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, a priest of the Diocese of Maryland and a partnered gay woman, was elected to serve as a bishop suffragan in the Diocese of Los Angeles in December 2009. The consent process, a 120-day period, requires the receipt of consents from majorities of the Standing Committees throughout the Episcopal Church and from the Church’s bishops with jurisdiction. On March 17, just before the opening of the House of Bishops meeting at Camp Allen, Texas, the presiding bishop’s office announced that Canon Glasspool had received the number of consents required to proceed with her ordination and consecration as a bishop.

Along with several other bishops, I had been delaying my vote until the House of Bishops meeting so that we might confer with one another as to the implications of this episcopal election. As consent is a responsibility upon all diocesan bishops, I then sent in my ballot even though the process had already been decided. Understandably, the diocesan offices have received numerous inquiries as to how I voted. I write this to announce my decision for this particular process and to say something about what this means (and doesn’t mean) for my leadership in the Diocese of Virginia.

Bishop-elect Glasspool’s election has been both a source of celebration and of alarm for many in our diocese, just as in the Episcopal Church and our wider Anglican Communion. In my judgment, both “sides” make compelling arguments and have quite legitimate concerns. Personally, I am more torn by this decision than by any other decision I’ve yet faced, whether as priest or bishop. After deep prayer and thought, I voted to decline consent to the ordination of Bishop-elect Glasspool. This is not to reflect on Bishop-elect Glasspool herself (who, by all accounts, is indeed highly qualified and well suited for the ministry of bishop) but rather is about the circumstances of this case.

Read it all.

The clergy and lay leadership of St. Andrew’s Church have worked hard to maintain a good relationship with Bishop Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina throughout our discernment process. It would sadden me for our community to believe that there exists between us a tension and animosity that does not in fact exist. We have only affection for the members of the Diocese of South Carolina and gratitude for our life in the Diocese. As was evident in Bishop Lawrence’s gracious statement regarding our departure, there remains a mutual desire and commitment to cooperate in gospel mission and ministry that honors Jesus Christ and His Kingdom.

Read it all.

My dear brothers in Christ:

I write you because of developments in The Episcopal Church, about which you will soon hear and read. As you all know, the Diocese of Los Angeles elected two suffragan bishops in December, and the consent process for those bishops has been ongoing since then. One of those bishops-elect is a woman in a partnered same-sex relationship.

At this point, she has received consent from a majority of the bishops with jurisdiction, and a majority of the standing committees of this Church. According to our canons, I must now take order for her consecration. I will do so, and anticipate that both bishops-elect will be consecrated at the same service on 15 May. It has been my practice, since I took office, to preside at the consecration of new bishops, and I intend to do so in this case as well.
It may help you to know that our House of Bishops will continue to discuss these issues at our meeting later this month. The papers we discuss will be available publicly following that meeting, and we will endeavor to see that you receive copies. I would encourage you to engage in conversation any bishops whom you know in this Church, particularly those you came to know at Lambeth, whether in Bible study or Indaba groups.

Know that this is not the decision of one person, or a small group of people. It represents the mind of a majority of elected leaders in The Episcopal Church, lay, clergy, and bishops, who have carefully considered the opinions and feelings of other members of the Anglican Communion as well as the decades-long conversations within this Church. It represents a prayerful and thoughtful decision, made in good faith that this Church is ”˜working out its salvation in fear and trembling, believing that God is at work in us’ (Philippians 2:12-13).

I ask your prayers for this Church, for the Diocese of Los Angeles, and for the members of the Anglican Communion. This part of the Body of Christ has abundant work to do, and God’s mission needs us all.

If you have questions about this decision or process, I would encourage you to contact me. I would be glad to talk with you.

I pray that your ministry may continue to be a transformative blessing to many. I remain

Your servant in Christ,

–(The Rt. Rev.) Katharine Jefferts Schori is Presiding Bishop of TEC

The Virginia Supreme Court has set oral arguments in the appeals brought by ECUSA and the Diocese of Virginia in the cases involving eleven ACNA parishes in the Anglican District of Virginia. I have previously discussed what took place at the hearings below in this post, and in this one; they may serve as background to understanding the issues involved. In this post, I would like to sketch out the issues as ECUSA and the Diocese have presented them in their briefs. In a subsequent post, I will go over the arguments of the ACNA parishes in opposition.

There is no way, of course, to predict what the Virginia Supreme Court will find significant in the briefs and arguments presented to it. Moreover, I am not licensed to practice in Virginia; someone who is may pick up on points of Virginia law and procedure that I have missed. Thus do not use these posts as a basis to expect any particular outcome. Instead, to the extent they assist you in making your way through the forest of contentions and counter-contentions, and in evaluating their relative strengths and weaknesses, they will have served their purpose.

At issue in these appeals is the interpretation and application of this Virginia statute, first adopted in 1867…

Read it all.

On April 13, the Virginia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a property dispute between the Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Virginia and nine churches in Loudoun and Fairfax counties. The Church of Our Saviour, on Oatlands Mill Road south of Leesburg, is one of the churches involved.

In 2006, the nine churches broke away from the Diocese of Virginia to join the Anglican District of Virginia. They wish to keep the property on which their churches are built. The diocese argued that the churches lost their rights to the properties when they broke away. In 2008, the Fairfax County Circuit Court ruled in favor of the breakaway churches.

Read it all.

The Windsor Report of 2004 recommended “that the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges” [Section D subsection 134, bullet point no 3].

That request was reiterated at the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam and followed at the Primates’ Meeting in Alexandria with a request for ”˜gracious restraint’. The decision of The Episcopal Church in respect of the confirmation of an election and subsequent consecration of a partnered gay person to the episcopate has clearly signalled the end of ”˜gracious restraint’. This is a development which I deeply regret. Whatever may be ”˜the mind of a majority of the elected leaders in The Episcopal Church’, it does not reflect the mind of a majority of those in positions of leadership in the Anglican Communion and it is bound to create even greater stresses within the Communion at a time when consultations on an Anglican Covenant are at an advanced stage.

The action of The Episcopal Church also has implications for another serious issue that has strained the bonds of affection within the Communion, namely extraterritorial interventions by other provinces in the life of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. A moratorium on such interventions and also on the authorization of public rites of blessing for same-sex unions was requested by the Primates at Dar es Salaam. In neither of these cases has “gracious restraint” been wholly exercised.

Read it all.

A legal dispute over the All Saints church property that wound through the courts for almost a decade ended last week with an agreement between the leaders of the two congregations that claimed ownership of the historic parish.

Members of All Saints Waccamaw Parish voted in 2004 to leave the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and join the Anglican Mission in the Americas, which is headquartered on the church grounds. A group of parishioners reorganized the Episcopal parish, and brought suit to reclaim the church property on Kings River Road.

Read it all.

… this leads to our final point. It is the preservation of this catholicity, the relationship of bishop to the college of bishops, and these finally understood to include some kind of universal college, that is most important. In the past, TEC has exercised its autonomy with accountability in communion with the other Anglican churches. Anyone familiar with the formation of TEC will know that this accountability, although voluntary, was expressed in very concrete ways, including in the formulation of our Book of Common Prayer and the consecration of our first bishops. And within TEC, its autonomous dioceses were able to exercise their autonomy with accountability both to the other dioceses of TEC and to the Anglican college of bishops. But TEC has now repudiated any accountability to the larger communion. This presents TEC’s dioceses with an awful choice. How will they exercise their autonomy? To whom will they be accountable? To no one but themselves? To an isolated and declining body that itself rejects accountability to the church catholic? Or, through the Anglican Covenant, to the wider Communion?

Autonomy without accountability leads to denominationalism and isolation. Accountability without autonomy leads to authoritarian structures. Communion with both autonomy and accountability is the Anglican hope manifested in the Covenant. For us the choice is obvious, but we recognize that it is not without cost.

Read it all.

We conclude with these observations about the fundamental facts of our polity:

1. The Presiding Bishop’s office is regulated by the constitution and canons and exists historically for the good order of the church. It is not a metropolitical office. The title ”˜presiding Bishop’ was chosen with care and inheres with the notion of good order when the wider church gathers. It is not an office with independent political authority.
2. The existence of diocesan canons in The Episcopal Church is a departure from the model typically followed in the polity of other provinces of the Anglican Communion. The existence of these canons goes hand in hand with the history and sovereignty of the diocese in The Episcopal Church as the basic ecclesial unit of catholic Anglicanism.
3. That no mandate exists that can be enforced by canon law for dioceses to pay assessments beyond the good operating of their own affairs is likewise evidence of the catholic and missionary integrity of the dioceses of this church.
4. Diocesan Chancellors exist to assist the Bishop and Standing Committee of the Diocese in maintaining the legal good operating of the Diocese and the undertaking of its internal affairs.
5. General Convention resolutions as such have no canonical force. They represent the mind of those gathered and are not legislative in character.
6. As a province, The Episcopal Church has no single authoritative voice, but exists with a dispersed character at the provincial level, involving individual diocesan Bishops, diocesan conventions, a triennial General Convention, House of Bishops meetings, and the office of Presiding Bishop.

We fully support Bishop Lawrence and the diocese of South Carolina in their defense of these principles.

Read it all.

Check it out.

Please, please do not link to this story or email it without sending Lydia Evans’ letter already posted earlier also.

originally was missing the word NOT between did and think. That is, in the originally published version Steve Wood was depicted as saying he DID think Mark Lawrence would pursue legal action, whereas Steve said in fact the OPPOSITE. It is because of errors of this magnitude, as well as the complete misprepresentation of the US Supreme Court situation, that I was unable to post this artiucle and the second smaller related article yesterday. It would simply have caused too much confusion. Please do not add to the confusion yourselves–KSH.

This letter, from the letters section of today’s local paper here, is so important that it is reproduced below in full:

As a member of the standing committee conversant with the facts regarding recent events with the Diocese of South Carolina, I write to clarify several misleading statements contained in two March 30 articles.

First of all, the lead article misquoted the rector of St. Andrew’s Church in Mount Pleasant. Regarding future litigation, the Rev. Steve Wood had, in fact, stated his belief that the Bishop of South Carolina was not interested in pursuing legal action against the parish. The Rt. Rev. Mark J. Lawrence has exercised considerable forbearance in diocesan matters, consonant with his role as the ecclesiatical authority in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.

Also on Tuesday, in a separate article regarding the resolution of the All Saints-Pawleys Island litigation, Adam Parker suggested that last week’s settlement with the AMIA congregation was predicated on a recent action by the Supreme Court of the United States. Clearly, the author failed to account for the protracted nature of the SCOTUS appeals process, as the petition for writ of certoriari had been filed less than six weeks earlier.

In point of fact, last week’s settlement originated with the vestry’s decision to withdraw the petition. I view the conciliatory agreement between parties as a reflection of St. Paul’s counsel that the church in Corinth ought to seek reconciliation rather than litigation.

Finally, an earlier article in The Post and Courier (March 27) included comments which I believe misrepresented the tenor of the 219th Diocesan Convention.

I take issue specifically with Barbara Mann’s characterization of the convention as ‘antagonistic’ and ‘angry.’ Perhaps her misconstrual is due to the fact that she was not actually present on the floor of the convention.

Likewise, Grace Church parishioner Steve Skardon was quoted as suggesting the situation is merely a ‘shadowbox war.’

While Skardon is quick to offer his opinion in print, he chose not to bring his concerns to the floor of Friday’s convention.

As a lay leader, elected by the diocese and present at Friday’s gathering, I can witness to the spirit of concord and conciliation evident in our desire to stand together under the authority of God and in solidarity with our bishop.

For a number of years, some members of the Episcopal forum have adopted a posture of confrontation and discord.

During this Holy Week, I invite them to take a second look at their brothers and sisters in Christ ”” the Episcopal Church in South Carolina welcomes you.

Lydia Evans

Two local church groups that have disagreed for almost 10 years have recently come to an agreement, finally settling a long legal and emotional battle. These two groups are made up of family members and one-time friends who once shared the name All Saints Episcopal Church on Kings River Road in Pawleys Island.
One group, which made up the majority of the original congregation, left the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and began worshipping under the Anglican Church.

The Episcopal group left the church grounds and, after a 2006 court ruling that gave the Anglicans the right to the All Saints property, started a new church on Highway 17 in Pawleys Island called All Saints Waccamaw Episcopal Parrish.
In September, the case was heard by the S.C. Supreme Court and the corporate entity of All Saints was awarded to the Anglican group.
Now that the two groups have come to consensus, everyone involved is looking forward to a future of healing.

Read it all.

Two days after the Bishop of South Carolina announced a ceasefire in a long-standing property dispute, another large parish took final steps in separating from the Episcopal Church.

On March 27 the Rev. Rev. Mark J. Lawrence told the diocese’s annual convention that All Saints’ Episcopal Church, Waccamaw, and All Saints’ Church (Anglican Mission in the Americas) had reached an out-of-court settlement in their legal battle for church property.

On March 29 the congregation of St. Andrew’s, Mt. Pleasant, acted on a parish survey in December 2009 that recommended leaving the Episcopal Church to affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America’s Diocese of the Holy Spirit.

Read it all.

The Supreme Court of Virginia has announced that it will hear the appeal of the Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church on Tuesday, April 13. The Diocese is challenging the constitutionality of Virginia’s one-of-a-kind division statute (Va. Code § 57-9(A)) and the rulings of the Circuit Court, which allowed former Episcopalians to claim Episcopal Church property as their own. We expect a ruling on June 11.

Communicants of the Diocese are welcome to attend the hearing, although seating is quite limited. The Diocese has requested special arrangements to accommodate overflow seating, and we will keep you updated with news of these arrangements.

Read it all.

The Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) received notice that the Virginia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on April 13, 2010, in the church property case brought by The Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia.

“Our church members are standing firm for the Gospel and will remain in prayer for the church property case that will be heard in a matter of weeks. It’s unfortunate that this matter, which we tried so hard to resolve amicably out of court, has now reached the level of the state Supreme Court. While we remain confident in our legal footing, it’s regretful that we had to defend ourselves in the first place,” said Jim Oakes, Chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia.

Read it all.

March 30, 2010
Tuesday in Holy Week
Diocesan House

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I received a phone call from the Reverend Steve Wood, rector of St. Andrew’s, Mt. Pleasant, the day before yesterday, Sunday, March 28, 2010, that the Vestry and members of the parish voted to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church in North America.

Although I am not surprised by this decision, I am saddened by it. In fact there is a poignant irony in the departure of St. Andrew’s from the Diocese and from The Episcopal Church. As bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, I receive almost daily letters and emails from people across this Church suggesting that our stance gives them encouragement to remain and persevere within TEC. Yet here at home we could not hold one of our strongest congregations. The departure of The Episcopal Church from the way of Christ and the Biblically rooted teachings of the Church has become too discordant for them to tolerate any longer.

While the ramification from their departure has yet to unfold in its entirety, I hope many among us will look for ways to continue our mutual ministry and relationships. The arrangements to be made for those within the congregation who wish to remain within the Diocese of South Carolina and The Episcopal Church will be among the subjects that I will be discussing with Steve and the parish leadership, as well as among our diocesan leaders.

By God’s grace we will keep St. Andrew’s in our prayers and work with them to find ways to cooperate in gospel mission and ministry that honors Jesus Christ and his Kingdom.

Yours in Christ,

–(The Rt. Rev.) Mark Lawrence is Bishop of South Carolina

A South Carolina diocese has declared itself “sovereign” within the Episcopal Church, the latest salvo in a long-running skirmish between the conservative diocese and the denomination.

The Diocese of South Carolina, which covers 47 parishes in the eastern and coastal parts of the state, voted on Friday (March 26) to assert the local authority of Bishop Mark Lawrence, particularly in dealing with breakaway parishes.

Concerned that Lawrence would not fight to keep conservatives from seceding with church property, the Episcopal Church hired its own lawyer earlier this year. The 2.2 million-member denomination maintains that local parish property is held in trust for the regional diocese and the national church.

Read it all.

Our Bishop will be The Rt. Rev’d John Guernsey. Bishop Guernsey is the long-time Rector of All Saints Church in Dale City, Virginia and will be well known to several within St. Andrew’s. I have known +John for over 20 years, dating back to my time at Virginia Seminary. You will discover that he shares many of the priorities that we have as a parish; from our commitment to missions (the Bishop is the Chairman of the Board for SOMA ”“ a well known mission agency) to our passion to see every member equipped for ministry with both Word and Spirit. I have made arrangements for Bishop Guernsey to visit and preach at the Wednesday night service, 28 April 2010, followed by a time of healing prayer led by the Bishop. Please make plans to attend.

Lastly, the departure of this parish from the Diocese of South Carolina was not hastily made nor was it an easy decision. Indeed, this struggle has extended well beyond the past decade costing this parish one well-beloved Rector. Any sense of sadness over our separation is tempered by our joyful sense of the Lord’s forward-looking call upon our lives; by our common love for our Lord and by the common knowledge that our difficulty lay with the spiritual headship of the National Church, of which the Diocese of South Carolina remains, and intends to remain, a part, and not with the Bishop of South Carolina. And so, I must say “thank you” to Bishop Lawrence. From the day I met +Mark in the candidacy process I have spoken with him often about St. Andrew’s costly efforts to remain faithful to the gospel in the midst of the Episcopal Church’s increasing abandonment of the faith as revealed through Scripture and Tradition. These conversations have continued throughout +Mark’s episcopacy and have grown to include the Vestry of St. Andrew’s as well as the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina. I have found in Bishop Lawrence a friend and co-laborer in the ministry of the Gospel. We share a mutual desire to maintain our fraternal relationship and have committed to one another that St. Andrew’s and the Diocese of South Carolina will continue to partner in Gospel ministry as opportunity and circumstance permit. Please remember to pray for the Diocese of South Carolina as we desire nothing less than God’s best for them.

Read it all.

From here:

This morning at 7.15 am the Vestry of St. Andrew’s Church ~ Mt. Pleasant met and unanimously passed the following resolution:

RESOLVED that the resolution unanimously adopted by the Vestry on March 28, 2010 for this church corporation, parish, and congregation to withdraw from and sever all ties with The Episcopal Church in the United States and to transfer its canonical residence to the Anglican Church in North America or another province of the worldwide Anglican Communion be ratified by the members of this church corporation.

The Parish then met in a Special Meeting at 12.15 pm for the purpose of ratifying and concurring with this decision of the Vestry to withdraw from The Episcopal Church.

Read the whole blog entry from rector Steve Wood.

Though the Diocese of South Carolina remains affiliated with The Episcopal Church, the two are waging a battle over Scripture and polity.

South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence was not hesitant this week to express his continuing frustrations with the national church body’s “false gospel” and ongoing pursuit of litigations.

“The distractions that come from the decisions others have made within The Episcopal Church have created restlessness in my spirit,” he said at the diocese’s 219th annual convention which concluded Friday.

“Like those in the Church at Corinth with whom St. Paul was confronted, many within the leadership of The Episcopal Church have grown willful,” he lamented. “They will have their way though it is contrary to the received teaching of God’s Holy Word, the trustworthy traditions of the Christian Faith, and the expressed will of the Anglican Communion.”

Read it all.

Unfortunately, there are not only diocese[s] leaving TEC, but a clear plan of response from the PB on how to deal with these departures. The PB is essentially defrocking these diocesan bishops as they leave or seek to leave (this only has some effect in TEC as other provinces continue to recognize the bishops). Exacerbating this situation further, she is also seeking to replace the bishops with those loyal to her. The last part of the plan is to then sue the former diocesan bishop (who, in almost all cases, has not physically left their diocese but rather transferred association to another province) and diocesan officers in order to acquire all former “TEC property” that has now been transferred to another province.

It is because of this policy and the negative will it has created around TEC that I was pleased to read about the resolution of the South Carolina case. Does it bode well for current and future cases? I don’t know. I hope it does, but it appears as though the current policy will remain in place. The South Carolina bishop has a convention to lead this weekend and his comments on this issue will interest me. Also fervently hope and pray Christian love and Paul’s teaching about communal living will be at the heart of any discussion prior to another diocese leaving. I can’t in good conscience make someone stay in TEC, but I also don’t have to be mean when they decide to leave. Especially when they are only responding to the issue of homosexuality in the same manner as many provinces outside of TEC.

Wish us peace and luck as we endeavor to continue serving him and anyone who wants to worship alongside us.

Read it all.

Read it all.