“Some 700 members of a parish in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina have voted to leave the Episcopal Church.”
Note the common line: it’s not the parish that’s leaving, only 700 (out of 722) individuals are leaving the Diocese and TEC. I doubt that Fr. Wood and those 700 see it that way. I also don’t think that Bp Lawrence has even used that distortive language.
“Jefferts Schori told the church’s Executive Council in February that Lawrence was “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.””
While you are “checking it out”, check out the last link in the referenced article. [url=http://episcopalchurch.org/79901_119606_ENG_HTM.htm ]KJS Comments on DioSC[/url]
[blockquote]”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. [/blockquote]
Apparently, the fact that DioSC is an Episcopal diocese is lost on her.
YIC,
NW Bob
722 out of 2,800 members voted (which by my reading is about 25 percent). Now admittedly everyone knew this was coming and had the opportunity to cast a ballot so I doubt that the other 2,078 have any strong objections, but it would be nice to see turnout a bit closer to that of the CANA churches (I’m sure it was higher than that) if we’re going to make the democratic ballot the test of the rightness of an action.
I’ve no doubt that TEC will deny the [i]parish[/i] has left but I think you’re reading more in the article than is there.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
It seems that peer-review at Episcopal Life enforces the use of set propaganda–Rule: You will always write that members leave; never that congregations leave.
Of course, when the bishop chooses not to plant a replacement congregation (there are so many alternate parishes close-by), it will never be noted that the congregation with the 7th highest attendance in TEC is gone.
When a parish makes such a big decision by majority vote, it is evident that its polity is congregationalist rather than episcopalian. St. Andrew’s has betrayed itself as a high church baptist congregation.
They might be congregationalist if they decided to break away and be an independent church, but they did not do that. They merely transferred their membership from TEC to ACNA. They still come under a bishop and thus are “episcopal”. Who knows, in the near future ACNA may become recognized by more worldwide Anglicans than TEC, which is racing headlong toward the abyss of radical inclusivity and away from Christianity.
But +Mark has not yet been deposed nor has the diocese taken the decision to depart. There may be arguments for leaving a sinking ship, but the process of decision-making does have a somewhat congregationalist flavor (at least CANA could reasonably assert that they no longer had an orthodox bishop).
[i]”Jefferts Schori told the church’s Executive Council in February that Lawrence was “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.””[/i]
Hmmmm..didn’t some Austrian once express a similar sentiment regarding kinsman in an adjacent country?
I agree with Jeremy’s #10. As long as they were under as Godly and steadfast a bishop as +Lawrence, I was wrong in my view for them to depart. And I must say I have some sympathy for the commentor who said their decision to do so smacks of hubris.
In regards to the total membership being 2,000 and 700 voted, there is no doubt that all were sent information about the vote. However, EC rolls are rarely up to date. I cleaned them out after trying to find all these so-called members and the Bishop asked what happened. I said nothing. The rolls were never correct. They simply were inflated to make the church look larger than it was. I purged the rolls so that the stats were accurate.
The best stat to use is Average Sunday Attendance and usually you get about 50% of those attending. But lets be fair, if they chose not to vote, that was their choice. At moments like these, you must let your voice be heard and if not live with the decision and its consequences.
The people who are faithful, active, and regularly attend have spoken…let them go in peace.
Shori constant chirping is simply her way of spinning the matter so she can claim that she is fair and the victim in trying to protect faithful episcopalians at St. Andrews…of course, she is not. She is the problem.
I’m sure several hundred of their members are children under 18 who are ineligible to vote due to their age. When our church voted to leave my wife and I voted but our 3 children did not. Is that 100% turnout or 40% turnout from our household?
The fact that the Diocese of SC is orthodox and under an orthodox bishop is irrelevant. TEC is under the leadership of heretics, that is what the congregation at St Andrews could no longer abide (read Bishop Lawrence’s letter).
I am also in the Diocese of SC (Holy Comforter in Sumter), and we are supporting the bishop and the diocese. I understand the frustration that led to the move to another jurisdiction. The whole diocese (or at least the great majority of it) might end up in ACNA, time will tell.
I don’t want to trespass on Statman’s territory but let’s be generous and say 800 are under 18. That still makes for 2,000 adult members and only boosts turnout to around 36 percent.
Michael Sean does have a point about electoral rolls. Perhaps we all need to tighten our definitions of membership.
I should have said irrelevant to them. I personally would much rather be in ACNA, but I am willing, for now, to follow the lead of bishop Lawrence. Many people probably feel the same way.
For now, we in the Diocese of SC are in a state of impaired communion with the national “church”. The PB is not welcome to celebrate Eucharist, nor is any revisionist bishop. It is a complex situation, but when you leave, you lose your voice of opposition.
Patriarch–I’ll play along one more time. 2,800 Communicants/Average attendance–1,328. With those numbers and figuring some members are mobility-limited or too young to vote, anybody who knows anything about parish meetings of very large parishes would say 700 is a pretty good number. It is utterly certain that they would have been careful to meet the quorum requirement.
WestJ
I left in 2004, but then again, my bishop was Stacy Sauls. Had it been +Lawrence, I’d still be in TEC. The bishop and people of the Diocese of SC remain in my prayers.
I don’t think it’s surprising that a parish like St. Andrew’s bolted from TEC, despite the fact that they have a tremendous bishop in +Mark Lawrence and are part of a solidly orthodox diocese. But then I’m biased, since I’m someone who made a similar decision in choosing to leave for the ACNA myself, even though I was safely placed (canonicaly resident anyway) in the Diocese of Albany.
I agree with UP and others above that for ENS, this article is better than I would have expected. But it still is marred at the beginning and end. At the beginning by that patent fiction that only people, not parishes, can leave TEC. And at the end, by giving ++KJS the last word, which was a defensive slap at +Lawrence that was as untrue as it was gratuitous.
On another note, I’m glad that the Pawley’s Island case was settled out of court. After so many years of wrangling, that almost seems miraculous. I commend the leaders of both churches.
#4 writes, “I’ve no doubt that TEC will deny the parish has left but I think you’re reading more in the article than is there.”
We have to remember that TEC is hierarchical only at a diocesan level. So,
1. St. Andrews left DioSC and its godly bishop, Bp. Lawrence.
2. That bishop appears (to me at least) to have recognized the fact that the parish and its clergy have left the diocese, and thus TEC.
Now that this has happened, Bp. Lawrence and his Standing Committee will have to decide how to recognize, in the most pastoral and canonically precise way, the simple fact that these clergy are now under the authority of a different bishop who is not recognized as a bishop in the Anglican Communion. I don’t think for a moment that he will (or should) depose them, but there are i’s to be dotted, and t’s to be crossed.
Like some others, I cannot fathom why they chose to forsake Bp. Lawrence at this point in time. But, that’s none of my business, and we who are on the conservative side of this mess must not quibble over things like this. The real enemy is the devil.
If so, then Ralph’s [i]The real enemy is the devil, and its current mailing address is 815 Second Avenue, NYC.[/i] is most decidedly not in the spirit of the Triduum.
[JB – we hope all commenters will take the hint and raise their game without us having to get further involved – Elf]
Unfortunately, the statistics for TEC are virtually meaningless. They are self-reported, and in many places simple guesstimates. So it is indeed possible that the 722 represents a simple majority or even a supermajority.
Just some thoughts:
Us Anglicans hate to just take people off our rolls, even if they’ve not darkended our doors for years. And if you take Johnny, Jr off the rolls when he moves away, you can bet his momma’s going to let you know about it when she finds out and insist that he be put back on. So, to say that only 25% voted yes, implying that the rest were against the move is just wrong. All members were notified in writing of the parish meeting and were invited to take part. 97% of those who participated, voted to sever ties with TEC and affiliate with ACNA. The congregation was polled in December with similar results.
Other congregations who left TEC did have more participation. However, of the votes cast, none of them had such an overwhelming majority vote to remove themselves from the unchristian and unbiblical leadership of TEC. St. Andrew’s process has been deliberate and one of education, not confrontation. When the time came to vote, I personally believe many people did not vote because they were very certain of the outcome. We have many who serve our many guests or in children’s ministry all morning – they didn’t want to stick around for a parish meeting when, in their minds, they were certain of the outcome. (Do you know how long those meetings can go on?). During the meeting last Sunday, there was one request from the parlimentarian chairing the meeting – “Can you review the requirements for voting?” None of the meetings at St Andrew’s have been contentious.
If you read Steve Wood’s blog (treadinggrain.com), you’ll see that it was not a congregational decision – it was a vestry vote to leave with the congregation concurring. St Andrew’s is not a congregational church, nor a Baptist Church (and if you’ve ever been here, you’ll see it’s not even close to being a high church).
St. Andrew’s has talked seriously about departing since 1997. When Steve was called in 2001, he was asked if he would lead the parish out of TEC. He answered in the affirmitive. The past ten years of Steve’s tenure have not been the rector convincing the church, it has been the church asking the Lord, “How long?”
Besides having this process continuously undergirded with prayer, the church also retained legal counsel well versed in South Carolina non-profit law to ensure every ‘i’ was dotted and every ‘t’ crossed. The requirement for a quorum was met, both under the church’s by-laws and under SC non-profit corporation statutes.
We’re continuing to move forward with proclaiming the Gospel to a lost and hurting world, in Mt Pleasant and beyond.
I have an unlimited amount of sympathy and respect for those Churches under revisionist Bishops who have chosen to make the great sacrifice of leaving their property, or spending large amounts of resources to keep their property and moving to ACNA, etc.. Leaving one of the most orthodox diocese in the Anglican Communion required absolutely zero spiritual courage on St Andrew’s part.
All in all a fair and balanced report from Pravda.
“Some 700 members of a parish in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina have voted to leave the Episcopal Church.”
Note the common line: it’s not the parish that’s leaving, only 700 (out of 722) individuals are leaving the Diocese and TEC. I doubt that Fr. Wood and those 700 see it that way. I also don’t think that Bp Lawrence has even used that distortive language.
“Jefferts Schori told the church’s Executive Council in February that Lawrence was “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.””
Yes… of course, KJS is the victim…
While you are “checking it out”, check out the last link in the referenced article. [url=http://episcopalchurch.org/79901_119606_ENG_HTM.htm ]KJS Comments on DioSC[/url]
[blockquote]”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. [/blockquote]
Apparently, the fact that DioSC is an Episcopal diocese is lost on her.
YIC,
NW Bob
Calvin (#2).
722 out of 2,800 members voted (which by my reading is about 25 percent). Now admittedly everyone knew this was coming and had the opportunity to cast a ballot so I doubt that the other 2,078 have any strong objections, but it would be nice to see turnout a bit closer to that of the CANA churches (I’m sure it was higher than that) if we’re going to make the democratic ballot the test of the rightness of an action.
I’ve no doubt that TEC will deny the [i]parish[/i] has left but I think you’re reading more in the article than is there.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
I think it was a fair article from ENS.
It seems that peer-review at Episcopal Life enforces the use of set propaganda–Rule: You will always write that members leave; never that congregations leave.
Of course, when the bishop chooses not to plant a replacement congregation (there are so many alternate parishes close-by), it will never be noted that the congregation with the 7th highest attendance in TEC is gone.
When a parish makes such a big decision by majority vote, it is evident that its polity is congregationalist rather than episcopalian. St. Andrew’s has betrayed itself as a high church baptist congregation.
Patriarch–Plato would reply: Surely not baptist–St. A’s baptizes infants!
They might be congregationalist if they decided to break away and be an independent church, but they did not do that. They merely transferred their membership from TEC to ACNA. They still come under a bishop and thus are “episcopal”. Who knows, in the near future ACNA may become recognized by more worldwide Anglicans than TEC, which is racing headlong toward the abyss of radical inclusivity and away from Christianity.
But +Mark has not yet been deposed nor has the diocese taken the decision to depart. There may be arguments for leaving a sinking ship, but the process of decision-making does have a somewhat congregationalist flavor (at least CANA could reasonably assert that they no longer had an orthodox bishop).
[i]”Jefferts Schori told the church’s Executive Council in February that Lawrence was “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.””[/i]
Hmmmm..didn’t some Austrian once express a similar sentiment regarding kinsman in an adjacent country?
Sounds eerily familiar..just sayin’.
I agree with Jeremy’s #10. As long as they were under as Godly and steadfast a bishop as +Lawrence, I was wrong in my view for them to depart. And I must say I have some sympathy for the commentor who said their decision to do so smacks of hubris.
Was Rev. Wood a candidate for Bishop of SC?
Yes, Eugene, he was.
In regards to the total membership being 2,000 and 700 voted, there is no doubt that all were sent information about the vote. However, EC rolls are rarely up to date. I cleaned them out after trying to find all these so-called members and the Bishop asked what happened. I said nothing. The rolls were never correct. They simply were inflated to make the church look larger than it was. I purged the rolls so that the stats were accurate.
The best stat to use is Average Sunday Attendance and usually you get about 50% of those attending. But lets be fair, if they chose not to vote, that was their choice. At moments like these, you must let your voice be heard and if not live with the decision and its consequences.
The people who are faithful, active, and regularly attend have spoken…let them go in peace.
Shori constant chirping is simply her way of spinning the matter so she can claim that she is fair and the victim in trying to protect faithful episcopalians at St. Andrews…of course, she is not. She is the problem.
Let’s see. A BIG parish — 2800 communicants. Big decision to leave got a yea vote of 700! Did anyone suggest a quorum call?
I’m sure several hundred of their members are children under 18 who are ineligible to vote due to their age. When our church voted to leave my wife and I voted but our 3 children did not. Is that 100% turnout or 40% turnout from our household?
The fact that the Diocese of SC is orthodox and under an orthodox bishop is irrelevant. TEC is under the leadership of heretics, that is what the congregation at St Andrews could no longer abide (read Bishop Lawrence’s letter).
I am also in the Diocese of SC (Holy Comforter in Sumter), and we are supporting the bishop and the diocese. I understand the frustration that led to the move to another jurisdiction. The whole diocese (or at least the great majority of it) might end up in ACNA, time will tell.
I don’t want to trespass on Statman’s territory but let’s be generous and say 800 are under 18. That still makes for 2,000 adult members and only boosts turnout to around 36 percent.
Michael Sean does have a point about electoral rolls. Perhaps we all need to tighten our definitions of membership.
WestJ
If it’s irrelevant, why are you and your parish still in SC?
I should have said irrelevant to them. I personally would much rather be in ACNA, but I am willing, for now, to follow the lead of bishop Lawrence. Many people probably feel the same way.
For now, we in the Diocese of SC are in a state of impaired communion with the national “church”. The PB is not welcome to celebrate Eucharist, nor is any revisionist bishop. It is a complex situation, but when you leave, you lose your voice of opposition.
Patriarch–I’ll play along one more time. 2,800 Communicants/Average attendance–1,328. With those numbers and figuring some members are mobility-limited or too young to vote, anybody who knows anything about parish meetings of very large parishes would say 700 is a pretty good number. It is utterly certain that they would have been careful to meet the quorum requirement.
WestJ
I left in 2004, but then again, my bishop was Stacy Sauls. Had it been +Lawrence, I’d still be in TEC. The bishop and people of the Diocese of SC remain in my prayers.
I don’t think it’s surprising that a parish like St. Andrew’s bolted from TEC, despite the fact that they have a tremendous bishop in +Mark Lawrence and are part of a solidly orthodox diocese. But then I’m biased, since I’m someone who made a similar decision in choosing to leave for the ACNA myself, even though I was safely placed (canonicaly resident anyway) in the Diocese of Albany.
I agree with UP and others above that for ENS, this article is better than I would have expected. But it still is marred at the beginning and end. At the beginning by that patent fiction that only people, not parishes, can leave TEC. And at the end, by giving ++KJS the last word, which was a defensive slap at +Lawrence that was as untrue as it was gratuitous.
On another note, I’m glad that the Pawley’s Island case was settled out of court. After so many years of wrangling, that almost seems miraculous. I commend the leaders of both churches.
David Handy+
#4 writes, “I’ve no doubt that TEC will deny the parish has left but I think you’re reading more in the article than is there.”
We have to remember that TEC is hierarchical only at a diocesan level. So,
1. St. Andrews left DioSC and its godly bishop, Bp. Lawrence.
2. That bishop appears (to me at least) to have recognized the fact that the parish and its clergy have left the diocese, and thus TEC.
Now that this has happened, Bp. Lawrence and his Standing Committee will have to decide how to recognize, in the most pastoral and canonically precise way, the simple fact that these clergy are now under the authority of a different bishop who is not recognized as a bishop in the Anglican Communion. I don’t think for a moment that he will (or should) depose them, but there are i’s to be dotted, and t’s to be crossed.
Like some others, I cannot fathom why they chose to forsake Bp. Lawrence at this point in time. But, that’s none of my business, and we who are on the conservative side of this mess must not quibble over things like this. The real enemy is the devil.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
evan,
Were you at Versailles?
[Commenters are requested to address the thread topic and not each other – thanks – Elf]
Elves,
If so, then Ralph’s [i]The real enemy is the devil, and its current mailing address is 815 Second Avenue, NYC.[/i] is most decidedly not in the spirit of the Triduum.
[JB – we hope all commenters will take the hint and raise their game without us having to get further involved – Elf]
Jeremy
Unfortunately, the statistics for TEC are virtually meaningless. They are self-reported, and in many places simple guesstimates. So it is indeed possible that the 722 represents a simple majority or even a supermajority.
Just some thoughts:
Us Anglicans hate to just take people off our rolls, even if they’ve not darkended our doors for years. And if you take Johnny, Jr off the rolls when he moves away, you can bet his momma’s going to let you know about it when she finds out and insist that he be put back on. So, to say that only 25% voted yes, implying that the rest were against the move is just wrong. All members were notified in writing of the parish meeting and were invited to take part. 97% of those who participated, voted to sever ties with TEC and affiliate with ACNA. The congregation was polled in December with similar results.
Other congregations who left TEC did have more participation. However, of the votes cast, none of them had such an overwhelming majority vote to remove themselves from the unchristian and unbiblical leadership of TEC. St. Andrew’s process has been deliberate and one of education, not confrontation. When the time came to vote, I personally believe many people did not vote because they were very certain of the outcome. We have many who serve our many guests or in children’s ministry all morning – they didn’t want to stick around for a parish meeting when, in their minds, they were certain of the outcome. (Do you know how long those meetings can go on?). During the meeting last Sunday, there was one request from the parlimentarian chairing the meeting – “Can you review the requirements for voting?” None of the meetings at St Andrew’s have been contentious.
If you read Steve Wood’s blog (treadinggrain.com), you’ll see that it was not a congregational decision – it was a vestry vote to leave with the congregation concurring. St Andrew’s is not a congregational church, nor a Baptist Church (and if you’ve ever been here, you’ll see it’s not even close to being a high church).
St. Andrew’s has talked seriously about departing since 1997. When Steve was called in 2001, he was asked if he would lead the parish out of TEC. He answered in the affirmitive. The past ten years of Steve’s tenure have not been the rector convincing the church, it has been the church asking the Lord, “How long?”
Besides having this process continuously undergirded with prayer, the church also retained legal counsel well versed in South Carolina non-profit law to ensure every ‘i’ was dotted and every ‘t’ crossed. The requirement for a quorum was met, both under the church’s by-laws and under SC non-profit corporation statutes.
We’re continuing to move forward with proclaiming the Gospel to a lost and hurting world, in Mt Pleasant and beyond.
I have an unlimited amount of sympathy and respect for those Churches under revisionist Bishops who have chosen to make the great sacrifice of leaving their property, or spending large amounts of resources to keep their property and moving to ACNA, etc.. Leaving one of the most orthodox diocese in the Anglican Communion required absolutely zero spiritual courage on St Andrew’s part.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
WestJ
With apologies to the elves, yes I was (am).