[Presiding Bishop Katharine] Jefferts Schori concluded her remarks by telling council members that “things are heating up in South Carolina.”
She noted that Diocese of South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence has delayed the diocese’s annual convention and attributed the delay “supposedly to my incursions in South Carolina.”
“He’s telling the world that he is offended that I think it’s important that people who want to stay Episcopalians there have some representation on behalf of the larger church,” she said, asking for the council’s prayers for the people of the diocese.
In a Feb. 9 letter to the diocese Lawrence said that the convention would be delayed from March 4-5 to March 26 in order for him, the diocesan standing committee and the diocese “to adequately consider a response” to what he called an “unjust intrusion into the spiritual and jurisdictional affairs of this sovereign diocese of the Episcopal Church.”
I thought the property issues have already been decided in SC. Is the bishop supposed to file frivolous lawsuits?
I thought they were, too. As for “frivolous lawsuits,” I’m sure some would say it depends on who’s filing them.
Now to get to the rest of the matter: Who appointed Mr Tisdale to be the so-called “South Carolina counsel for the Episcopal Church?” Who gave PB Jefferts Schori the authority to interfere in the diocese’s internal affairs? Or does she really think that TEC regards its dioceses as subservient to her authority? As I recall, every diocese is an autonomous entity……or so the original PECUSA constitution stated.
It seems to me that the Title IV canons would probably provide a framework for addressing the ecclesiastical authority of South Carolina if there were a concern that there had been canonical or fiduciary misconduct. Absent that, I can see no support canonically or constitutionally for an intervention in matters between parishes and dioceses–and certainly not for a “pre-emptive” intervention. The argument doesn’t need to be about some kind of hypothetical, absolute autonomy. Even if the Episcopal Church were a fully-integrated vertical juridical hierarchy, it still must operate by its own internal laws. The Diocese of South Carolina may have canonical and fiduciary duties, but so also it retains in the constitution and canons certain rights–of which it may be deprived only by proper authority and due process.
Frankly, it’s all dismaying and a little scary for those of us who are trying to continue to operative faithfully within this system. Speaking for myself, anyway. The engineer, if that’s what she is, seems to have driven the train off the rails, and where we go next is just way too unpredictable . . . .
Bruce Robison
“He’s telling the world that he is offended…” — I just re-read his letter and not once did I see this sort of passive aggressive immasculated response from the good bishop. Rather he called her out on her un-christian, un-canonical, and hostile legal actions, wonderfully exposing them for all to see, and said he was taking the appropriate time to respond appropriately.
It seems Schorri doesn’t like being exposed for what she is really doing. I wonder who is really offended here?
Perhaps it was the former Dio SC chancellor, who pretended to be just a friendly sort. I think the SC Bar should be questioned as to this behavior, whether charges are filed or not. Seems to be “unethical”.
ALSO, IMHO, I’d bet my bottom dollar that this person asked to do the undercover work, not the other way round..
As I see KJS’s statement, she is definitly acting as if she had nothing to do with it.. Funny, one could almost believe that. Perhaps she only approved the scheme..
Grandmother in SC
This is what happens when you elect people to PB who falsify their resumes’.
This is what happens when you keep electing to Executive Council people who believe that they have more authority than General Convention.
For an organization that is against giving “pope-like authority” to the ABC, many TEC members seem willing to bestow it upon the PB. Every TEC bishop and clergy person should be speaking out against these arrogant and intrusive actions being taken by the PB and 815. It is frightening that the political agenda is more important to these elected leaders than the Gospel.
Our prayers continue to be for the Bishop and the Diocese of SC. And prayers that God will break the hardened heart of the PB.
Bruce Robison,
[blockquote]The engineer, if that’s what she is, seems to have driven the train off the rails, and where we go next is just way too unpredictable . . .[/blockquote]
Just how much is too much for you?
Interesting to see and hear the peevishness.
I expect it was quite a shock to 815 to have Bishop Lawrence out all of the correspondence and take public action.
I wonder how anyone can operate faithfully while following such an unChristian, unfaithful leadership that clearly attacks the faithful and shows itself an enemy over and over again to the cross of Christ and rejects any reality of the Body of Christ. I think remaining in the system forces compromise.
“Things are heating up in SC.” Who is starting the fire?
As far as I can discern, I think No. 4 has it about right. The South Carolina situation is distinct from all previous variations on the schism theatrics over the past few years. The Diocese has purported to withdraw from the Governance activities of the national Church, but has not taken any overt measures to reaffiliate with other groupings, denominations, or foreign provinces. There has been litigation at the highest state court level governing one (an historic and important one at that) withdrawing parish within the diocese. That outcome may or may not control the degree of control that the Diocese has over other withdrawing parishes.
The Diocesan Bishop, who has always struck me as a clear-thinking, God-centered spiritual leader, clearly has his hands full. These facts illuminate more clearly than any other previous secession fact pattern the structural weaknesses of the current national church polity to deal with the disintegration of the church.. It seems natural and ordinary that the national church would have a keen interest in what is happening and, in ideal circumstances, one would expect open, communicative dialogue and consultation between the national church and the Diocese about next steps. But relations between the leadership of the Diocese and that of the national church are severely strained and that kind of dialogue is probably not occurring. To a distant outsider looking in, it is difficult to see why the pseudo-, non-litigation interrogatory process undertaken through Mr. Tisdale would be either helpful or effective. I would have thought that the best approach of the national church would have been earnest and sincere efforts to sit down with the Diocesan leadership in the spirit of “Look, we have our differences, but we both have overlapping obligations here to protect those who have not departed. We are encountering adverse state law to our position and we need to clearly understand how this affects other Diocesan properties and other positions around the country. We should find ways to assist each other in fulfilling our obligations to our members. We may conclude that we have very limited choices, but each of us will reach better quality decisions if we are fully engaged on this subject.” Perhaps that overture has taken place and was rebuffed by one side or another. But I can’t see any other approach having any chance of producing a good effect.
Of course, I take at face value comments from those who correspond here and who are closer to the diocese, that Bishop Lawrence and the Diocesan leadership are committed to staying within the Episcopal Church. If he or others had reached a conclusion to depart, it would be a much different situation and dynamic, more akin to the comments from someone in another thread who said that those who are committed to maintaining the denomination within the Diocese are concerned that their position not be like the frog in the cooking pot where there is a plan to extricate the Diocese and its properties that is being executed in stages and those who do not choose to go have no fate other than to get cooked. If the Diocesan Bishop had reached the conclusion that he must depart, rather than stay to contend for correct doctrine, I am sure he and those who look to him for guidance and leadership would have left the instant that intent had formed and would have nothing to do with the base mechanics of taking swag with them.
The Presiding Bishop, meanwhile, should refrain totally from commenting publicly about this other than generally to assure continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese that she is aware of their concerns and will do all she lawfully can (canonically and secularly) to see that their position is not overlooked and they are not abandoned. If she could say that jointly with Bishop Lawrence, and then shut up, it would be the best one could hope for and might provide a basis for some improvement in relations over time.
#13. NoVA Scout,
[blockquote]I would have thought that the best approach of the national church would have been earnest and sincere efforts to sit down with the Diocesan leadership in the spirit of “Look, we have our differences, but we both have overlapping obligations here to protect those who have not departed.[/blockquote]
This sounds rationale and collaborative but I believe the TEC leadership are dug in and penned in with and by the strategy they have continued to employ. Their lawsuits must assume a certain underlying legal pattern to appear coherent and consistent. Negotiation is not a part of that pattern and I think they are unyielding on this. This rigid inflexibility may be their undoing.
“She noted that Diocese of South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence has delayed the diocese’s annual convention and attributed the delay “supposedly to my incursions in South Carolina.”
“He’s telling the world that he is offended that I think it’s important that people who want to stay Episcopalians there have some representation on behalf of the larger church,” she said, asking for the council’s prayers for the people of the diocese”.
Her gift for diplomacy is simply stunning. You’d hear more developed spin in a sorority house.
:-/