February 9, 2010
My dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Greetings in the strong name of Jesus Christ whose word calls us to conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day.
I write to announce a change in the date of our upcoming Diocesan Convention which was scheduled for March 4_5′” at St. Paul’s, Summerville. According to our Diocesan Constitution and Canons the Ecclesiastical Authority may “for sufficient cause” change the date of the Convention. I, with the unanimous concurrence of the Standing Committee, have so done. The 219′” Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina will now be held at St. Paul’s, Summerville on March 26, 2010.
The Chancellor of the diocese, Mr. Wade Logan, was informed in December of 2009 that a local attorney had been retained by the Chancellor of the Presiding Bishop to represent The Episcopal Church in some “local matters.” Then, beginning in January of 2010, a series of letters requesting various documents from our diocesan records were sent sequentially to our chancellor, leading us to believe that perhaps the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, if not the Presiding Bishop herself, is seeking to build a case against the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Diocese (Bishop and Standing Committee) and some of our parishes. These requests (which can be viewed here) seek from the Diocese and about certain parishes: lists of all persons ordained since October 24, 2009; all parish bylaws and amendments since 2006; all Standing Committee Minutes since the episcopacy of Bishop Salmon; parish charters, parish founding documents, parish deeds, parish mortgages, documents evidencing parish participation in diocesan programs and others. In some cases, the stated reason for the information requested is the assertion that these parishes have left the Diocese of South Carolina because of changes made to their respective bylaws. However, these parishes have not made these changes with the intention of leaving the Diocese of South Carolina, nor have they left. I have been working with their clergy and lay leaders to find appropriate ways to resolve their struggles with the recent decisions of the General Convention in ways consistent with the Holy Scriptures, our common life and fellowship in Christ, as well as with the canons of the Church and the laws of the State of South Carolina.
As I have mentioned on more than one occasion, The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina and many of its parishes have an established history predating that of The Episcopal Church. This Diocese was one of the founding members of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. As the Bishop elected by the Convention of this Diocese, duly consented to and consecrated in accordance with historic precedent and polity, I am the only bishop with canonical jurisdiction here. Thus the Standing Committee and I believe this action is an unjust intrusion into the spiritual and jurisdictional affairs of this sovereign diocese of The Episcopal Church. This provocative interference has been pursued without the Presiding Bishop having communicated with me in a manner consistent with the Constitution of The Episcopal Church and the historical polity of this Church.
Among the many concerns that this action raises, is the apparent trajectory of the Presiding Bishop’s Office to extend powers not attendant with the office, which are unprecedented and contrary to the polity of The Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America. One example, which may be cited from the very letters that our chancellor has received, is that the attorney held himself out as “South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church”. He may be an attorney retained by the Chancellor for the Presiding Bishop, but it is hardly accurate in regards to the polity of this Church to claim to be an attorney of The Episcopal Church, as if the parishes, Standing Committee and Bishop of South Carolina are somehow something other than The Episcopal Church, much less to suggest he is South Carolina counsel for the Episcopal Church. Therefore, in order for the Bishop, Standing Committee and Diocese to adequately consider a response to this unprecedented incursion into the affairs of the Diocese of South Carolina, the Standing Committee and i have deemed it necessary to move the 219′” Annual Meeting of the Convention to the aforementioned date.
This is not a time for precipitous action; nor is it a time for our congregations or members to strike out in unilateral directions destructive to the common life and witness God has called us to make in the world and the Church. As St Paul encouraged the early Christians in Rome, it is a time to awake, to put on the armor of light, and to conduct ourselves becomingly as in the day.
The Standing Committee and I will be communicating with you in the days to come. There is much to be done regarding these challenges to our diocesan life and authority; and while it would be natural to allow these concerns to capture our attention, brothers and sisters, I refuse to allow it to consume all my energy or time, and I implore you through the mercies of Christ, do not let these ecclesiastical struggles keep us from proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. Our vision to make Biblical Anglicans for a global age has never been more crucial than it is at this time in our world, our nation and our diocese.
To the only wise God be glory for evermore through Jesus Christ,
Faithfully yours,
–(The Rt. Rev.) Mark Joseph Lawrence is Bishop of South Carolina
Bishop Lawrence ROCKS!!!
Oh- and Wade Logan ROCKS too.
Every bishop in The Episcopal Church should study these letters carefully, and reflect on how this sort of abuse of authority and power might someday impact on their diocese. This uncanonical assumption of power must be stopped.
Sad to see. However, this really shouldn’t be a surprise. If you ‘poke the bear…’
Interesting analogy, referring to TEC as “the bear.” I remember a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_in_the_woods]Ronald Reagan for President commercial[/url] using a bear to refer to the Soviet Union. I’ll agree to your analogy.
Tisdale says he is the “South Carolina counsel for the Episcopal Church.” I would have assumed that Bishop Lawrence and/or the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina are the only authorized parties allowed to retain legal counsel on behalf of the Episcopal Church in the diocese of SC. Is Tisdale asserting that there are two Episcopal Churches in the Diocese of SC?
However, these parishes have not made these changes with the intention of leaving the Diocese of South Carolina
The bishop cannot for certain know other people’s intentions. Nor can the national church.
It is only a little longer before Jefferts Schori trips up. Someone is going to make her fall and that someone is herself. All the chance in the world to make things happen in a positive way when she started; now the chance of recovering from the mistakes (abuses) are slim. There is still time.
Tisdale letters – preparations for pillage and destruction.
Do not underestimate 815. There is a power operating behind them with its own objectives.
The bishop states: “this sovereign diocese of The Episcopal Church.” The meaning of the word “sovereign” seems to be what’s at issue here, and the courts may decide that sooner rather than later. South Carolina law and precedent may actually favor the bishop here, but time will tell. What seems certain is that the Lawrence doctrine, that one may be “in” the Episcopal Church but not “of” the Episcopal Church, at least as it’s presently constituted, will be put to the test.
My initial reaction as an attorney to reading the correspondence is that this is not really a legal dispute, but an expression of a deep institutional disfunction that is really more akin to the sort of thing I deal with in handling mental commitments. Please note: I am not guessing at the sanity any of these individuals, but assessing the “collective personality” of at least some of the organizations involved.
I am currently reviewing the latest proposals for revisions to the DSM-IV. I may suggest recognition in the new DSM-5 of “ecclesiastical disorders,” since the behaviors being exhibited on (although not exclusively on) the 815 side of the fence clearly seem to fall within the general category of a Personality Disorder (“an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that is inflexible and pervasive and that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture”).
This disorder is manifested in all the areas listed in the current DSM: cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other people and events), affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, lability, and appropriateness of emotional response), interpersonal functioning, and impulse control. [Actually, the DSM-IV only requires two of these four areas.] Clearly, this condition within wide stretches of TEC (again, both within the pro- and anti-815 camps) has gone beyond the range of ordinary personality traits and the traits have reached the point “when they are inflexible, maladaptive, and persisting, and cause significant functional impairment or subjective distress.”
The people at 815 may or may not regard South Carolina’s response to the recent General Convention as a paranoid overreaction, but even if they do, you simply DON’T try to dispel someone’s persecution complex by actually persecuting them. All these people went to seminary, so I know they went through a Clinical Pastoral Education rotation where that lesson should have been hammered into them. Pastoral care does not include playing the game of “my lawyer can beat up your lawyer” to obtain information by formal discovery that could probably have been had by simply having one bishop pick up a telephone and call another.
There is no pastoral, theological, or legal justification for deliberately picking a fight like this. Frankly, the only adequate explanation for this kind of behavior is a Personality Disorder, assuming (as the DSM requires) that we can rule out the alternatives, like any other mental disorder, substance abuse, or a general medical condition such as head trauma.
“Every bishop in The Episcopal Church should study these letters carefully, and reflect on how this sort of abuse of authority and power might someday impact on their diocese. This uncanonical assumption of power must be stopped.”
The problem is not one of TEC. The problem is the age old American problem of solving EVERY problem by using lawyers to bludgeon the other side into submission. We no longer have “rule of law”. We have “rule of lawyers” instead. Lawyers are now able to cook up any specious argument, get the relevant authority to back it, and use it, legally, to confiscate property, assets, and other goods. There is no recourse to those unjustly targeted by America’s legal mafia for a “shakedown” because even if you spend the millions to defend yourself against a multi-million dollar business take over/malpractice suit/government property claim, and win, you are still out the millions of dollars that the lawsuit cost. Those who bring suits never pay, they can simply do it under a contingency mechanism, and there are a number of non-lawyer Americans who have made quite a good living doing this. And of course lawyers can certainly make a good living at it. There are no consequences for lawyers or individuals or companies (such as TEC) who bring failing suits. The individual is not required to pay the costs of the defence in bringing a meritless suit. Many lawyers have had hundreds of suits that were thrown out as meritless. These lawyers have never been disbarred for having brought unmerited suits. By contrast, a physician or a business who had frequent bad outcomes would likely lose their ability to compete permanantly and in short order.
Legal extortion has been happening to physicians and small businesses for several decades now. This has been blessed by most mainline denominations, who feel that confiscation of goods (whether parishes, assets or services) from the “haves”, in order to spread it to more politically desirable subpopulations who “have not”, is a good thing. TEC (orthodox and heterodox) blessed theft as “justice” long before she blessed lust as “love”. No church objected to extortion by lawsuit, when it wasn’t churches who were sued.
Yes, the actions of TEC suck. However this legal/political intimidation is nothing new for those of us who have had real jobs in the real economy for the past 30 years. During that time, there was not one voice from the church, whether orthodox or liberal who defended us. I imagine, that after the orthodox remnant has been destroyed by TEC legal teams (and after all TEC does have more money to play law games with) that an even bigger crook will come up with strategy to go after TEC herself.
The only ‘bear’ being poked here is the sovereign status of dioceses. Surely it is not being claimed that 815 has a legally defined right to interfere in the affairs of the Diocese of SC. Which is why, of course, the letters conclude that proper communication is between PB and +SC, and only then can one decide what is or is not to be handed over. I suspect ‘liberal’ dioceses will soon realize that this kind of self-arrogation could be brought to bear across the board, and not just with respect to the issues of today. Reading the letters, it is also unclear whether anything like above-board communications between lawyers has been in evidence. I wonder when those Bishops who might overwise be sympathetic in general will begin to smell canonical overreach and financial mismanagement? This kind of intrusion could be a PR nightmare for 815.
Sidney,
I would guess that since the Bishop mentioned their intentions, he actually asked them for their intentions. But I could be wrong.
I wonder how the CofE Synod vote on ACNA might have been different if this story had broken a day or two earlier?
In addition to ECUSA’s obvious shameful conduct, perhaps we could organize a boycott Nexsen Pruett campaign so that they see the practical consequences of choosing to represent Schori, Beers, et al. For sure I will not be recommending any Nexsen Pruet lawyer to anyone for any service. And yes, I’m not buying the “they’re just doing their job” line, no one forces a law firm to represent a plaintiff, this is hardly public defender work….
I would like to pick up on one dimension of what Dr. Seitz wrote in #13, and that is this: stewardship.
There are all sorts of problems and questions to be raised here, but surely a church is to be about the kingdom of God. Well, I can tell you as one inside the diocese who knows something about what is occurring that it is taking a huge amount of time for the bishop and diocesan staff (and diocesan leadership) to deal with. And of course money also.
The same is surely true for whatever “approach” is being marshalled by the national church. How many telephone calls, how many people, how much time, how much money has gone into this?
It is SUCH A TRAGIC WASTE! And it is all so unnecessary as there were other choices available.
forgot to ask what is the status with St. Andrews Mt. Pleasant? They have voted to leave but have (have not?) officially done so?
Professor Seitz argues: “Surely it is not being claimed that 815 has a legally defined right to interfere in the affairs of the Diocese of SC.” Actually, that’s precisely what seems to be claimed here. I’m not a lawyer, but the argument here seems to be that the national church has a right, if not duty, to step in to the local situation if the ordinary is not looking after the interests of the national church. In other words, +SC is not exercising due diligence in protecting the interests of the national body – sort of like a franchise owner not maintaining the brand image properly, I suppose.
On another point, what does postponing the convention accomplish? This a level of inside S.C. Anglican baseball that I cannot fathom, but I’m sure there are some experts out there who can!
Rev. Harmon, you thoughtfully ask: “but surely a church is to be about the kingdom of God.” Yes, that is what a church is about, which only raises the obvious question. Your point about waste is also good — waste it is, but, unfortunately for the DoSC, I fear that this waste has only just begun. May the Lord bless and keep you all safe in the difficult days ahead.
Sorry to confuse. My comment was directed to the comment about poking a bear, not to what 815 is or is not conceiving. We have just completed a very very useful conference on hierarchy. I do not doubt that the PB and Beers will assert all sorts of rights, but there is not one iota of evidence that the language of hierarchy is to be found in the letter of the C/C of this church — not for the PB, not for General Convention and not for a ‘national church’ (whatever that is). RC, United Methodist, Orthodox, PCUSA churches — when one studies their Books of Discipline, Canon Law, etc, the language needed (potentially) for a ‘national church’ or ‘hierarchy’ to do something along the order of what we are reading in SC may be there. But 815 is overreaching, and we leave aside all the most obvious matters of Christian deportment raised by Rye and Canon Harmon.
Not having prevailed in the state courts I sense a movement to make a Federal Case out of all this. That might throw it all in the laps of the Supremes. As for stewardship, the churches belong to God and that imposes a sacred duty.
Dr. Harmon, is it true that this Lawyer Tisdale is the former
chancellor for the Dio SC? I’d take bets on the fact he’s probably currently the “chancellor” for the “Forum”..
What say you?
Grandmother in SC
#22- You raise a valid point. If 815 wishes to forum shop and go federal rather than state court, they would have to establish complete diversity, which means no 2 parties in a suit may be from the same state. To get complete diversity in this suit, 815 would have to bring suit without the Diocese, otherwise 2 of the three parties would be residents of South Carolina and as such would defeat the complete diversity necessary to get the case heard in federal courts.
23 — head over to Stand Firm, Tisdale is named as the former counsel for Epis. Forum and apparently there are some SC Bar issues with him now representing ECUSA.
My frustration with the point Dr. Seitz makes above (21) is that there seems to be no authority in TEC’s C and Cs charged with limiting an authority once assumed, unless General Convention legislates a limitation of authority or presentations are made. Both are unlikely to occur.
What seems to be emerging in South Carolina is a direct challenge to an Ordinary’s authority and that of a Standing Committee, to exercise pastoral restraint in relationships with clergy and parishes whose quarrel is not with the diocese but with the policies adopted by General Convention. The rub here seems to be that a continued pastoral relationship between a bishop and a congregation is deemed trivial and the claims of the national church to real estate preeminent.
One remembers that in many dioceses in times past such pastoral patience was afforded to Anglo Catholic parishes which used unauthorized rites and ceremonies and thus disobeyed the “worship” and in those days arguably the doctrinal requirements of PECUSA. The use of such pastoral restraint preserved unity at the expense of discipline. But at a deeper level such restraint affirmed that diversity in unity which was part of Anglican DNA. Surely to a “purist” the matter of doctrine and worship might be deemed of graver import than the ownership of property?
If that challenge prevails diocesan bishops will be relegated to roughly that role enjoyed by Roman Catholic prelates in relationship to the papacy in that local jurisdictional rights – I prefer that term to “sovereignty” – are to be described and limited in relationship to the office of the Presiding Bishop.
FYI: Listing on the Law Firm’s pages:
Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina – Former Chancellor (1975-1985)
I’ll keep checking on the “Episcopal Forum”…
Grandmother
#27 which is precisely why this move by the PB is so dangerous. She is now leaving the confused chambers and polity of TEC and entering the legal domain of the State of SC. Attorney Tisdale is now going to be scrutinised (if a former chancellor, is he acting properly in this?). Does anyone for a moment, under the shadow of the recent SCSC ruling, believe that the courts in SC are going to look favorable on a New York request for documents? If this is a fishing expedition to establish that +SC is now worthy of ‘abandonment’, how is that to be enforced if the Diocese stands by him? This is the dark side of there not being the sort of checks and balances you are used to from another Province. TEC is a mess in its internal governance. It does not have a genuine hierarchy and the dioceses are more sovereign than anything that remotely obtains in the CofE. (Goddard’s paper at the ACI conference described a church that is almost as far away from TEC as the RC church; the RC Chancellor understood the CofE but simply struggled to know what kind of odd amalgam of federalism TEC is). This means that the PB must stick her neck into difficult state/legal waters. By going down this road–should abandonment charges be levelled–what a mess would ensue. I am puzzled by people who speak of swords drawn as though the national church can simply run roughshod over SC. How, strictly speaking, would that really play out on the ground, in a southern diocese, with maximal support in the churches for the Bishop, and with no ally in the courts and no real language of hierarchy, etc. Please have a look at McCall’s excellent paper from the recent Dallas conference.
Sorry, my comments were directed to WVParson
#25 I found no positive assertion over at Stand Firm that attorney Tisdale was counsel for Episcopal Forum. He was, however, apparently a former Chancellor to the Diocese of South Carolina.
The continuing antics of 815 are leading me increasingly to examine my own stewardship of money. Is the portion of my regular giving which winds up with the National Church really spreading the kingdom of God, or is it simply enabling appallingly unchristian behavior? I ask myself that lately every time I write a check to my parish.
The direct result of pretending there is a way to coexist with powers and principalities. When you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Hey Dave 32, you leave my dogs alone.
Have checked every reappraiser’s site Kendal has listed and there is no mention of SC. I’d love to know what they think of their fearless leader after this move. Any links?
Re: #26 “there seems to be no authority in TEC’s C and Cs charged with limiting an authority once assumed” and #28 :”what kind of odd amalgam of federalism TEC” and “what a mess would ensue”: as I understand it, among TEC’s organizational deficiencies is the lack of a judicial branch to determine the validity of GC legislation and PB behavior with regard to the C & C. Apparently other denominations, e.g., PCUSA, have a bona fide “church court”. Our ecclesiastical courts are restricted to matters of clergy discipline.
I’m just a dumb ol’ OR nurse, so I’ll refrain from speculating as to the underlying reasons and [i]purpose[/i] for which Mr. Tisdale is requesting these documents (though they very much are the elephant in the living room). However, I [i]do[/i] have several questions vis-a-vis the volume and subject matter of the documents being requested:
1. First and foremost, is it within 815’s purview to make such requests for these types of documents?
2. Is there established precedence for 815 to request – and review – copies of such documents from a diocese?
3. Is it customary for these types of documentation requests to be made through legal counsel, rather than via established communication channels between the dioceses and 815? (Especially in the absence of any [i]formal[/i] legal disputes/proceedings between a diocese and 815).
4. Should a parish elect to sever ties with a diocese (which obviously would also include severing its ties to the National Church), are there any canons which [i]expressly[/i] prohibits the Ordinary from allowing that parish to keep its property?
5. Finally, with regards to the wide-array of information Counsel is “respectfully requesting,” is the Diocese of SC legally mandated to provide it?
Inquiring minds want to know, and I would be MOST grateful for anyone who would be willing to answer these questions…or is able to tell me where I can locate the answers.
Grace and Peace!
Why has this not come out before? Or did I miss it?
Kendall, thanks for posting this. I will be keeping +Mark, you and all the leadership of the DSC in my prayers. I was very struck by this portion of the letter:
[blockquote]while it would be natural to allow these concerns to capture our attention, brothers and sisters, I refuse to allow it to consume all my energy or time, and I implore you through the mercies of Christ, do not let these ecclesiastical struggles keep us from proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.[/blockquote]
Amen and amen.
[url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/south-carolina-legal-letters/]Prayer[/url].
As one who is not easily bullied in life I would suggest that we give them nothing not legally mandated because of the way that it was requested. But nuance has never been my thing. Much easier to call for action from the sideline, than to put my life’s work and savings on the line by brashness of action.
How extraordinary for the Presiding Bishop to undermine a bishop trying to keep members in the church, something she has time and time proved herself incapable of doing either as Bishop of Nevada and Presiding Bishop.
And it puts in perspective what this shows to be the fibs about TEC being inclusive of conservatives told to our General Synod by her and her Chancellor and peddled in Simon Sarmiento’s briefing paper. It shows how unfit she is to sit on any of the councils of the Communion.
Prayers for Bishop Lawrence and the people and diocese of South Carolina.
[blockquote]Is the portion of my regular giving which winds up with the National Church really spreading the kingdom of God, or is it simply enabling appallingly unchristian behavior?[/blockquote] You can stop asking. I think you know the answer to your own question.
Mind you – what do you expect from a Presiding Bishop who comes straight out of the Wild West.
PM, impugn not the Wild West. This is damnYankee foolishness and comes from the Pit via 815! A native South Carolinian now located to the west of the Mississippi knows……. Your comments above on the never-held-a-parish PB are spot on.
FatherS-on the topic of stewardship, don’t let TEC’s legal antics become an excuse to stop giving to your Parish or Diocese. I don’t know what the numbers are for the Lower Diocese, but in EDUSC the Diocese asks 16% from the Parishes (and don’t get it) and 16% of that goes to the national church. If your church is fully complying 2.5% of what you give goes to national, and by far the greated part of that goes to causes other than legal work maintaining the integrity and property of the Church.
815 just figured out that the light at the end of the tunnel is an on-coming train. These are the actions of one in the throes of desperation. Considering the source, should this be a surprise?
Grady
#44 DW – I was referring to the historical period before the rule of law was brought to the West, where there was in effect lawlessness and banditry, but am happy to withdraw the reference if you wish.
I would hazard that the initial initiative for TEC’s action here did not come from anyone at 815, but from the particular attorney that has been named to represent them in this situation.
Somebody call the Panel of Review…
oops – not enough coffee – the Panel of [u]Reference[/u]
😉
#48- If you read all the correspondence on diocese website, you’ll see that this came after a teleconference with David Booth Beers with the current Chancellor, so I don’t think this is the result of a local attorney initiating the action, except at the request of the party he represents which he states is “The Episcopal Church”.
This is sad news indeed. Everyone distrusts each other. I think 815 realizes that they made a mistake by their hands off attitude to the 4 dioceses that voted to leave. They do not want to be in the same situation for another one.
I honestly believe that SC will not leave: but people (and even Bishops) have changed their minds so I guess 815 just wants to be sure.
Never the less is makes for a messy situation
Why can’t both sides let their yea be yea and their nay be nay.
45, that’s the problems isn’t it. Depending on how it is structured, the only way to avoid your money going to 815 is to hurt your parish and diocese. The only real way to avoid it is if the diocese pays nothing to 815. Even if you pay into a parish’s designated funds, that frees up non-designated funds to be paid to the diocese and thence to 815.
And non-payment of required tax (did I say tax, I meant the asking) can bring aided status and disciplinary action.
I hope every South Carolinian will read the letter from Logan to Tisdale, dated February 5th. I for one intend to read our morning and evening prayer psalms as prayers on behalf of Bishop Lawrence as well as our own clergy – and look forward to the imprecatory parts. I wonder what Dante would say about this kind of treachery.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
#51, I said what I did because I have long experience of this individual. While formally things may have appeared to begin in NYC, I suspect that informally they started somewhere much closer to Charleston.
For some reason I feel a need to take a long, hot shower.
RE: “If your church is fully complying 2.5% of what you give goes to national, and by far the greated part of that goes to causes other than legal work maintaining the integrity and property of the Church.”
Yes indeed. That 2.5% is going to such worthy causes as supporting that wonderful missionary to the Sudan, Lauren Stanley. Er . . . wait . . . missionary to Haiti that is, after she got booted from Sudan.
And it goes towards supporting the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice — that worthy “abortion is a blessing” organization that we all adore so very much.
And it goes towards promoting “women’s rites” on the women’s section of the Episcopal Church’s website — that was a fine and wonderful and worthy thing.
And it goes towards supporting the evangelism director, Father Jake of that inestimable blog that gave evidence of just how true to the gospel he was — perfect for “evangelims” for TEC — except that the budget for evangelism got axed and with it, him. So he can’t “evangelize” for TEC anymore.
And . . . the 2.5% goes towards all the other countless promotions of 815’s gospel that we conservatives have come to hold so very dear.
All any Episcopalian who believes the Gospel needs to ask is “do the hirers and program developers and bosses at 815 believe the Gospel which I believe, and is that the Gospel that those who hire and make the programs and develop websites and choose organizations to join promote and support”?
If so, then by all means 2.5% goes to 815.
Obviously, anyone informed at all knows that the Gospel which Christians believe is not the same as the gospel that 815 supports through its hires and program funding and “missionaries” [sic]. Set aside the millions spent on lawsuits. Pretend as if that money is not spent at all. And sending 2.5% to 815 is still a colossal misuse of money for promoting and spreading another gospel entirely from the Gospel.
We have two gospels in one organization. Best to funnel one’s money towards the Gospel that one believes. Libs to the national church, of course, and conservatives elsewhere. The two don’t share a belief in the same Gospel even remotely.
By all means, that
Tom Tisdale served not only as Chancellor of the Diocese of SC, he was elected and served on the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church. But perhaps more revealing is that his father was the beloved Rector of St. Andrew’s Church, Mt. Pleasant, which has revealed its congregationalist polity by voting 93% to leave the Diocese of SC and the Episcopal Church. He has motive enough to do what he is doing, and I congratulate him.
I completely agree that revisionists should congratulate Tisdale.
I congratulate Bishop Lawrence on his response and most particularly on the diocese choosing to expose publicly the until-now secret bullying and threatening and manipulation that has gone on between 815 and traditional dioceses.
It all needed to be public years ago — and now, blessedly, it is.
This isn’t just sad or tragic or an ugly, messy state of affairs, it’s downright scandalous and inexcusable behavior by 815. Although perfectly consistent with what we’ve come to expect from the nefarious PB and her detestable ilk.
Alas, I’m sure Kendall is right and that this must inevitably prove to be a HUGE distraction and waste of time for good +Mark Lawrence and his staff, as well as other diocesan leaders. But I’m glad that he’s valiantly trying to “keep the main thing the main thing.” I’d expect no less from him. But it’s much easier said than done in a case like this.
It’s a pleasure to commend the important observation made by my friend Mario Gonzalez in #35 that this sordid attempt at bullying the sovereign Diocese of SC is symptomatic of a serious, if not fatal, flaw in the vaunted polity of TEC. And that major flaw is the lack of any clear check on the power of General Convention, through a judicial branch strong enough to declare null and void any unconstitutional actions of GenCon.
And of course, that is the same problem that exists at the international level, where we desperately need the equivalent of an Anglican Supreme Court with binding powers over the provinces of the AC, and the ability to declare legislative actions of a wayward province like TEC or the ACoC to be unbiblical and therefore null and void.
TEC’s organizational system resembles the failed Articles of Federation that preceded the U.S. Constitution. And the worldwide AC likewise lacks sufficient strength in limiting the power of provincial legislative assemblies that are ever prone to err.
That is why I continue to maintain that the mere “renewal” of traditional Anglican structures is NOT enough. Nothing less than a full-fledged New Reformation will suffice.
So matters are now coming to a head in SC. Well, it was inevitable, sooner or later. And it’s probably better that it came sooner rather than later. But I wouldn’t wish such a dreadful conflict on anyone, and certainly not the brave, orthodox leaders of the great Diocese of SC.
But they must not stand alone in the fight. I hope all the other CP dioceses, and perhaps others as well, will rise to the challenge and see this as their fight as well. Let Rohan ride to the aid of Gondor!
David Handy+
Let me offer a South Carolina reappraiser’s point of view. I’m also a member of the Episcopal Forum, although I’m not speaking for the forum in any way in this post.
The level of distrust in the Diocese of South Carolina is very high. Bishop Lawrence’s “withdrawal” strategy has left a void that the jumpy on both sides are filling with their speculations.
Example: Many South Carolina churches have been removing the word “Episcopal” from their websites, signage, documents, and bulletins. Sometimes this is done as a deliberate, corporate and transparent strategy, the reason often given is “marketing”, the subtext being that the Episcopal Church is seen as pro-gay, and you can’t grow a pro-gay church in South Carolina. So “St. Whoever’s Episcopal Church” becomes “The Church of St. Whoever.” Add to that widespread rumors (which I try not to believe) that deeds are being changed to make ready for the split—make sure your church is deeded to the parish, make sure your incorporation documents don’t mention “Episcopal.†Isn’t that the strategy?
Now in an atmosphere of distrust on both sides, questions arise:
Wait, if the church sign has changed does that mean the church is leaving TEC? Not yet.
Okay, what if the church sign changes and we don’t send delegation to general convention? Not yet.
Okay, what if the church sign is changes, we don’t send delegates to general convention, and we pass resolutions that “distance†from TEC. Not yet.
Sometimes a reappraiser in South Carolina feels like the frog in the pot…the water is getting warmer, and we’d better jump before we boil.
This idea that the Diocese is sovereign may make for an interesting academic debate on church polity, but on the ground a significant minority of South Carolina Episcopalians look to the national church as the only way they will be able to secure an Episcopal worship space and church life in the coming decades. When your own Bishop has one foot out the door is he really your bishop anymore?
The fever dream of the orthodox that when they leave for the Southern Cone or ACNA or AMIA or wherever there will be no Episcopalians left in their wake is cause for concern.
Even though I have little in common, theologically and ideologically, with some of the posters in this thread, many of your posts still resonate.
I, too, want a yes to be yes and a no to be no. I’ve lived around the country, and I’m a member of the Episcopal Church. I didn’t join the Diocese of South Carolina, richer or poorer, sickness and in health.
I too wonder why I give money to the church, if some of that money I put in the plate is going to end up in the coffers of Speights & Runyan Attorneys at Law instead of paying for Sunday school supplies or to support local poverty relief.
And I don’t trust you good folks not to take over the church in which I worship, eject the gays from ministry, and selectively apply “biblical authority†on a narrow band of social issues just because you have the votes to do it and the resources to pay the lawyers to make it stick.
Sound familiar?
#45–I disagree. I have started giving only to the Rector’s discretionay fund. If and when my clergy and vestry tell the bishop they won’t support the the diocesan payment to 815, I will reconsider. And yes, I know we have sent money to Gravatt in lieu of the national church, but that was an accounting slight of hand and the same amount of money still went to KJS, as noted by #53. Skeptic that I am, I don’t think things will get better under Waldo.
Hi Dan Ennis, thanks for the response.
Looking at from the outside, I don’t think revisionists can have any hope for South Carolina to leave TEC. Obviously that’s what someone like KJS wants — for SC to leave TEC rather than differentiate strongly.
I’m thrilled that it’s chosen to stay in TEC and differentiate. The end result, I expect, will be the same. KJS simply won’t be able to bear a diocese saying “we feel comfortable staying in TEC — corrupt and heretical as it is at its national levels — but obviously we’ll be making it clear how very very different we are from those national levels, too, nor will we support those national levels.”
I expect you feel the frustration that traditional Episcopalians feel when 815 stays in the Anglican Communion while repudiating pretty much anything foundational that the Anglican Communion believes. But that’s the way the inside game is played. TEC isn’t going to leave the AC, no matter how disparate its gospel is from the ACs, and the Diocese of SC isn’t going to leave TEC no matter how disparate its gospel is from TECs.
I don’t understand this statement, however: “a significant minority of South Carolina Episcopalians look to the national church as the only way they will be able to secure an Episcopal worship space and church life in the coming decades.”
Are you not in Episcopal worship space and church life? I mean — if I travel down to Charleston I’m assured of having Episcopal worship space and church life, and Christian too!
RE: “When your own Bishop has one foot out the door is he really your bishop anymore?”
I don’t think Bishop Lawrence has any more feet out the TEC door as KJS has out the door of the Anglican Communion.
Neither of them are leaving.
It will be a fascinating next decade or so.
his father was the beloved Rector of St. Andrew’s Church, Mt. Pleasant, which has revealed its congregationalist polity by voting 93% to leave the Diocese of SC and the Episcopal Church. He has motive enough to do what he is doing, and I congratulate him
Why is this deemed sufficient motive for these actions?
I can, to some extent, see both sides here. Because I am a moderate (like Sarah), I have found myself on the right end of liberal parishes and the left end of conservative parishes. I probably started out a little left of the center of the national TEC (to grossly oversimplify, and sorry for the political analogies in place of the preferred reasserter/reappraiser language), but the departure of conservatives has now left me fairly far right of center. My problem is that I want to belong to my local parish AND to my diocese AND to the Episcopal Church AND to the Anglican Communion. I may not agree with them all, but I find membership in all of them an important part of my Christian identity.
Historically (even before the Reformation), English Catholics and their worldwide descendants were willing to live the ambiguities of disagreeing with the majority of their local parish membership, but agreeing with the rector, disagreeing with the Bishop, agreeing with the Primate, and disagreeing with the Pope. Each person, and each level in the hierarchical arrangement, was allowed its own degree of autonomy, so long as it respected a certain level of loyalty and civility. Unfortunately, that federal model has disintegrated in favor of top-down authority patterns in which bishops declare themselves “sovereign” and Presiding Bishops act as if they have universal and local ordinary jurisdiction over the whole structure.
The result is hell for the folks caught at the bottom. To be an Episcopalian has traditionally meant BOTH that we belong to a local diocese AND that we belong to a national church and that we belong BOTH to that national church AND to the Anglican Communion. I can’t be an Episcopalian in Texas (or South Carolina) without belonging to both my diocese and the national church. So, if I think that the Diocese is about to leave the national church, where does that leave me? If I am a staunch reasserter, it is a no-brainer to follow the Diocese, but how is it going to maintain my connection to a national church and the Communion? If I am a staunch reappraiser, it is a no-brainer to follow the national church, but how is it going to maintain my connection to a local bishop and the Communion? Worst of all, what if I’m a moderate? I’m not very happy with either the Diocese for making moves that could be interpreted as preliminary to leaving and I’m extremely unhappy with the national church for acting (to be honest) like overbearing jerks–on top of making moves that could be interpreted as preliminary to leaving the Communion.
I might be well advised to take steps to protect myself, but in our current climate of suspiciousness and outright paranoid ideation, any step I take will be perceived as hostile and will provoke a disproportionate reaction. It is not a happy situation. Ah for the days when, as I said, “Each person, and each level in the hierarchical arrangement, was allowed its own degree of autonomy, so long as it respected a certain level of loyalty and civility.”
My prayers are with Bishop Lawrence, Dr. Harmon and the Diocese of South Carolina. May God bless you, guard you and guide you through this profoundly troubling time.
So, if I think that the Diocese is about to leave the national church, where does that leave me?
Dale, hasn’t TEC stripped its budget to prop up churches in areas where the diocese has left the national church? I think those whose loyalty is to the national church can be reasonably sure they will be provided for, even if there are only five of them. TEC will find no sacrifice too great to maintain that foothold, judging by the last two or three years. Those of us in orthodox parishes may expect our doors to be closed at any time. We live on sufferance, and for us there is nowhere to turn when that sufferance ends, because the larger communion has not yet opened a door to us.
I remember how happy I was on my confirmation day, how I felt that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion constituted my church home. But it looks like what lies ahead for me is homelessness.
The silence from the reappraisers is deafening. Has anyone heard/seen anything from them? Please provide links, if so. I just want to know what they think of their fearless leader now.
Hi trimom, I can’t imagine the vast majority of revisionists doing anything other than supporting the representative of their gospel. I would think this would thrill them as much as it thrills Patriarch, etc.
I’m thrilled with Lawrence. The revisionists are thrilled with KJS.
And so it goes. It’s a permanent division within TEC.
Was driving back from the hospital and this song came on and I thought of Bp Lawrence, Kendall+, and the rest of the good people of South Carolina. If I could add this as a prayer for them:
[blockquote] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fObZ6mEglVM ]In You alone
Is promise I can cling to
In You alone
You’re my security
In You alone
My soul has found a dwelling place
Only in You alone
What could separate me from Your love?
Neither life nor death, nor anything at all
Anything at all
In You alone
Is where I find my comfort
In You alone
You’re my only hope
In You alone
My heart has found a resting place
Only in You alone[/url][/blockquote]
Try this link: http://tinyurl.com/yfklngp
“The level of distrust in the Diocese of South Carolina is very high ”
As someone who is in and around the diocese often I don’t believe that statement to be true. It may well be the case that the level of distrust within the “Forum” is high, but judging from the number of members on the website that is no where near a number that would speak to the actual feelings of the people of the diocese at large. Most of us are relieved and abiding in the Lord not worrying about the future….
Sara,
As to your question “Are you not in Episcopal worship space and church life? I mean—if I travel down to Charleston I’m assured of having Episcopal worship space and church life, and Christian too!”
You’re right, as of this moment I can still go to an Episcopal church in SC (despite the signage changes!). But while in Charleston reappraisers will have options after a split, most communities won’t be able to support two flavors of Anglicanism in overlapping parishes. So when a split happens, one group will get the building, the other group will get to rent a storefront or movies theatre or someplace. The larger group (which in South Carolina will be orthodox) will be stuck with a mortgage and a diminished plate and pledge, but free of pesky dissent. The smaller group is essential a plant (and, of course, also free of pesky dissent—a dangerous place to be).
But still another group will walk away entirely–ether become unchurched for a while because the church is just a political mess, or jump to another denomination that isn’t busy tearing itself a part .
I disagree with palmettopastor on level of suspicion (it really depends on where he or she has been “out and aboutâ€), but I do think we’ll all be relieved when this shameful lawyering up is be over. I’m kind of looking forward to abiding in the storefront!
#72- In all fairness, I don’t think any of Dan Ennis’ statements are anything other than a sincere reflection of his opinion. What he feels is very similar to what those of us reasserters are feeling in many, probably even most, TEC dioceses today. It’s hard to be the minority party in a diocese oriented completely differently than you. I think the level of distrust is high in almost all dioceses for one party or the other, and each action that occurs bleeds what small level of trust that is left even further.
As Dale Rye stated above, it’s hard to protect yourself when any action you take to do it, will be read as hostile and will provoke a large disproportional response.
Now, who gets the blame for this level of distrust is where I’m sure Mr. Ennis and I would part company. I see the level of distrust originating out of the prevailing left-wing ideology of the national church, paired with an extremely un-Christian scorched earth policy KJS implemented for those that disagree with 815. We’ve seen people we know and love, people we blog with, people who believe like we do treated horribly, litigated wherever possible out of existence. The lie that diversity of opinion is welcome in TEC is laid bare by the actions against a sitting bishop who has taken heat from many reasserters for NOT taking his diocese out of TEC.
Bishop Lawrence has taken a tough job and has decided to remain in TEC but not acquiesce to the dominant theology present on the national level. He has apparently taken measures to try to protect his diocese and his flock and in the current climate that is living in TEC, it’s not surprising that some would misunderstand his intention. I just would caution Mr. Ennis with the same admonition I give myself in my diocese which is not to expect the tense mood to improve for quite awhile.
#73- First, thanks for posting on here when you know you’re playing to a “tough crowd”. It seems that you are operating out of the assumption that Bishop Lawrence is planning on taking the diocese or a large chunk of it out of TEC. I would like to convince you that Bishop Lawrence is not planning on leaving TEC, but you might in return try to convince me that the diocese I’m in is a safe orthodox place. Neither one of us is likely to convince the other.
I will state that out of logic if Bishop Lawrence had wanted to take SC out of the TEC he would have been smarter to have left when the other four dioceses did. He ignored many impassioned pleas to do just that. It’s tougher today, and will only be even tougher in the next few years for a diocese to attempt to do what the departing dioceses did.
Thanks Dan Ennis for giving us your perspective, which is most valuable and helpful as we all try to get our minds around this.
My comment over at SFIF:
By my count DioSC is ahead on points. This gambit done wrong by 815 could be disasterous for them.
IMHO, every day Mr. Tisdale does not recuse himself is a another day he taints 815s position.
As the Curmudgeon points out, some critical filing deadlines approach. Let’s see who does what.
But, in any case the delay in the Convention past those deadlines was a very wise choice. Not that it plans on doing anything canonically inappropriate. This way those seeking cover stories don’t even have a pretense to claim a wrong.
As the letters from the DioSC’s new counsel point out, 815 must respect the sovereign borders of the DioSC and its duly elected bishop. The PB knows that, her chancellor knows that, and most importantly those in authority in the Diocese of SC know that.
Peace,
-ms
Sherri2 at #67,
“We live on sufferance, and for us there is nowhere to turn when that sufferance ends, because the larger communion has not yet opened a door to us.”
Sherri2, the larger part of the Anglican Communion has already opened a door for you, called ACNA. It is a very broad church, with a number of bishops from various backgrounds who I am sure would be happy to accept your parish if you were ever forced to leave TEC (I note that you do not intend to leave unless forced, and hopefully that never happens, so this is only theoretical).
If things are looking bad, I suggest you approach one of the ACNA bishops on a confidential basis and discuss your options. There are former TEC bishops there, also the Reformed Episcopal Church, a former APA diocese, Holy Cross and many churches from AMiA and CANA. So plenty to choose from, and most of them seem to have a wide perspective.
[Michael A – Comments suggesting, encouraging or instructing readers to leave or join a particular church are against comment policy on T19. Please take note when commenting on T19 in future – Elf]
It is well worth reading (via the link on this web site) A.S. Haley’s legal analysis of the events and following the link (in the attached comments on Mr. Haley’s web site) to Mr. Runyon’s letter.
subscribe
Thanks elves, noted.
A Bishop with a public backbone. Refreshing.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Hi Dan Ennis, thanks for your reply.
It appears that our difference is that I don’t think SC is going to leave TEC.
I think TEC will — and probably does — *dearly* wish that SC *would* leave TEC.
But I don’t think it will.
I keep thinking of Jesus’ teachings about the duty of the shepherd towards those who stray from the fold. Now I suppose one may say that the Diocese of South Carolina hasn’t yet bolted the fold. It does seem to be hanging around the opening in and out of the fold.
What the shephard seems to be thinking is that a potentially straying flock should be bullied and coerced into remaining, or cast out without provision for its survival. One doesn’t see an intentional desire to pastoral care.
In any breakdown of mutual trust excuses abound to justify hostility. The parties cite evidence of activities which justify the loss of love and thus the “natureliness” of frightfulness.
Yet Christians are called to a more excellent way.
Part of our present tragedy is caused by the tyranny of the “now”. Those of us who are traditional Anglicans are convinced that what TEC is, is what it is at this moment. The long tale of its story is now only opened to the present page. Those who now “contol” TEC are convinced that what they espouse is the sum total of what TEC is. The same page: a different author.
As the real author is God and His purposes, in a sense we grasp authorship from God and busy ourselves in writing our own version.
“How often shall my brother offend against me?” Both sides say it has been often enough in Pittsburgh or Fort Worth. Fiduciary responsibility and legalistic frightfulness bring the blood to our eyes and we reach to defend ourselves. The cross is dropped and weapons of war taken up.
And when this present moment is gone, what remains? I think of the centuries not yet entirely gone when Anglicans kept Foxe’s Book of the Martyrs fondly huddled with their Bibles and Prayer Books and Catholics kept alive the memories of their own butchered dead.
And so we contemplate the presence of two Anglican bodies in South Carolina and elsewhere in years to come, set part by their “martyrs”, whose ability to speak peace to those who need Jesus is compromised by the absence of peace in their memories.
If we cannot resolve our enormous differences do we not have a responsibility to Jesus to find ways in which we may part, or at best live in impaired communion within which does not will to our successors a heritage of bitterness and contempt. With all due respect to lawyers, I doubt whether they are trained to facilitate such an outcome.
Nos. 45,53, and 57:
When I was a parishioner (and sometime Vestryman) of the only conservative parish in the Diocese of Atlanta, those of us who loathed the direction of ECUSA and the Diocese made our checks payable to specific purposes (e.g., “the music of the Church”; “library fund”; “outreach”; etc.) in order to avoid having our contributions be considered part of the “plate and pledge” total to which the 10% (that the parish was supposed to contribute to the Diocese) applied. Indeed, before 2003, when most traditionalists left that parish (now a mission), those restricted gifts were a substantial percentage of the contributions to the Parish. I wonder why disaffected DSC parisioners cannot do the same thing.
Kendall has gone silent for 2 days, which must be some sort of record – due to possible legal action?
oh I see he just left this at the top, sorry.
88. Chris,
I think a better term would be “Going to the mattresses”.
I hope the rest of the world wide Anglican communion is watching this…particularly the Archbishop of Canterbury. If the TEC is treating one of its ‘own’ and we still are, technically at this point, like this, why should the rest of the Anglicans ever expect the TEC to treat them with any measure of respect?
Satulan,
My mom used to that do … for decades in fact. However,anyone who knows how finances are done, realize that all checks are put in the same general account unless a parish does have sep. accounts but generally it all goes in the same acct.
Here in the Diocese of SC, it is not the conservatives who have to worry about their monetary giving to the Diocese ending up at 815 and supporting national policies they abhor. It is those who support the PB who wonder what their monies are supporting. In case you don’t understand, the diocese has not given monies to 815 in several years. I don’t see that as a problem.