Text of EFSC letters to Diocesan Bishops and Members of Diocesan Standing Committees
September 14, 2007
TO: Diocesan Bishops and Members of Diocesan Standing Committees (Addressed by diocese, signed and mailed (9/15/07)
FROM: The Episcopal Forum of South Carolina
L. A. Pagliaro, Board President
We are writing as an assembly of Episcopalians in the Diocese of South Carolina, working to retain and strengthen ties with The Episcopal Church. We ask you to take seriously our concerns regarding the future of our diocese and the strength of our Church. We sense that there exists a broad perception of overriding support within our diocese for the direction it is taking, which is reflected in the election of Mark Lawrence. We believe that you, leaders of our national Church, should be informed about issues of critical concern, and we believe that this certainly is one of those moments.
It is important that you know, as you consider our concern, that the Diocese of South Carolina is not unified in its support of the Anglican Communion Network and its positions, nor is it unified in a desire to disassociate from The Episcopal Church. There are congregations in this diocese that remain committed to The Episcopal Church, and there are segments within “dissenting” congregations that remain equally committed. The Episcopal Forum of South Carolina is supported by parishioners from most parishes in the diocese, and provides a voice for those loyal to The Episcopal Church.
We are concerned about the process for the election of Father Lawrence. There was neither a search nor a nominating committee, and no opportunity was provided for newly elected delegates to meet Father Lawrence or hear him speak. There was an opportunity to petition for alternate candidates, but the process was overly restrictive. Further, observers who earlier were registered and attended the 2006 Diocesan Convention were not admitted to the “reconvened convention” 7 months later.
The 2006 convention was reconvened for the purpose of suspending the canons dealing with bishop election. We are also concerned that the process used to suspend the bishop election rules may have violated diocesan canons. We want to emphasize the fact that the above objections to the approval process were clearly expressed to leaders of the Standing Committee.
Our concern is heightened by recent statements made by Father Lawrence. Following the ruling that his first election was null and void, Father Lawrence stated, “It’s time to call for those in the middle to wake up and decide which side you are on.” (3/17/07, Charleston, SC, Post and Courier). Further, in a letter by Father Lawrence to his parish, posted August 22, 2007 on his parish’s website, he wrote; “I also hold strong convictions on remaining in covenanted fellowship with the worldwide Anglican Communion, rather than following, as some have suggested, the pathway of an overly autonomous provincial or national church.” (see link below)
His perspective deeply concerns us, as we believe that it would further isolate a substantial number of Episcopalians in the Diocese of South Carolina. A climate of intolerance exists in this diocese, virtually isolating Episcopalians who do not agree with the expressed position of the majority of clergy and lay leaders who are members of the Anglican Communion Network. We fear that climate would be exacerbated by the administration of a bishop with Mark Lawrence’s perspective.
We want the new bishop of South Carolina to be committed without reservation to the ordination oath signed by every new bishop “to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.” (BCP, p513) We understand that commitment to include respecting the democratic actions of General Convention and the elected leadership of The Episcopal Church as it is now constituted.
We question whether a person who has repudiated the polity of our national Church should be considered qualified to be a bishop in The Episcopal Church. Please give our concerns your prayerful attention as you consider your consent to this election.
This is the kind of nonsense that we have come to expect from liberals. They’d go nuts if conservatives wrote something comparable about the election of a liberal. It’s unfortunate that dissenters in liberal dioceses are not given the kind of consideration that this letter will likely receive from Standing Committees. It appears that these folks are complaining about the convention that ratified the earlier election of Fr. Lawrence. It is clear that they didn’t vote for him, don’t want him, and are trying to subvert the democratic process in their diocese. How liberal of them.
Lord have mercy!
Stand by for more “Episcopal Forums” to come out of the woodwork in the ACN dioceses.
These will be ‘front organizations’ planted by ECUSA in those dioceses and they will play a very important role in ECUSA’s attempts to stop ACN dioceses from doing things that ECUSA’s leadership oppose.
Such a ‘front organization’ could very well become the diocesan ‘episcopal’ organization that ECUSA will recognize should ECUSA decide to disenfranchise ACN bishops and orthodox priests and then replace them with revisonist bishops, priests, deacons, wardens and vestrymen.
[i]Anglican First, I believe there are already such groups in every Network diocese, perhaps with the exception of Quincy. Usually they are under the umbrella of the organization “via media” — elfgirl[/i]
Well, Via Media USA – I’m sorry, ‘Episcopal Forum of South Carolina’ – It is important that you know that Episcopalians are not unified in their support of ECUSA and its positions, nor are they unified in a desire to disassociate from Anglican Christianity. There are congregations in ECUSA, yea, even in places such as Newark, that remain committed to Anglican Christianity, and there are segments within congregations loyal to Episcopalianism that remain equally committed.
What’s more, these people are concerned about the process for the election and consecration of Gene Robinson, which everybody was warned, and to which Frank Griswold himself agreed, would rip the Anglican Communion apart. Also, our concern is heightened by recent statements made by Mr. Robinson. His perspectives deeply concern us, as we believe they continue to isolate a substantial number of Anglican Christians within ECUSA. A climate of intolerance exists in this church, virtually isolating Episcopalians who do not agree with the expressed position even of the minority of clergy and lay leaders who are members of Integrity/Oasis/Claiming the Blessing/Every Voice Network/Via Media USA/Episcopal Café registrants (apologies for the redundancies).
We question whether a person who has repudiated the plain and uninterrupted teaching of Scripture and the Church Catholic should be considered qualified to be a bishop in The Episcopal Church. We promise to give your concerns just as much prayerful attention as you have given ours.
How hypocritocally liberal.. Mr. Pagliaro is surely basking in the glow as a very small fish in the TEC pond. Is it any wonder he’s ostracized? Obeyance of the governance of the pronoucements of the General Convention is paramount but obeyance of the will of the vast majority as a result of the election of Mark Lawrence is not. Let us have another bite at the apple. When you’ve got the votes, use them to the greatest degree possible, regardless of the consequences.
If I were them I would go with Lawrence – assuming they do not want the Diocese to disintergrate – pulling the rug on Lawrence will likely mean more congregations leaving in disgust.
This is a bit ridiculous-especially to send it out this late. Just let the man be the Bishop.
BTW, I have read these allegations of oddities in the nomination process. Does anyone objective know why they seem to believe this? It seems to me if the claims were legitimate, they could pursue it under the canons for the Diocese.
Didn’t this group support giving consents to Fr. Lawrence last time around?
So, let me get this straight, every single person in the entire Diocese of South Carolina is not a re-asserter….
You could knock me down with a feather…
The big difference is that liberals haven’t broken table fellowship with conservatives. As far as Fr Lawrence goes, plenty of liberals support him – for the same reason we supported Bishop Robinson.
Let’s have some numbers on the Episcopal Forum and see if they rise to a level of significance. I’m surmising they may be in the range of INTEGRITY’s “majority” 0.0839% in the ECUSA/TEC when compared to the numbers of members of the Diocese of South Carolina. And, what’s their take on the female Bishop candidate who thinks that the ECUSA/TEC might need to walk apart from the Anglican Communion if they “don’t see the light”? http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/5571
They didn’t last time, John.
#8 – I don’t think they did. However, at least one of the liberal parishes (All Saints Hilton Head) did.
yes Gawain – “plenty” was not enough to get the necessary consents, as you are well aware.
Gosh, I had to wade all the way to the end of the letter to get to the church’s polity. I thought maybe we’d make it all the way through, but no.
RSB
Maybe conservatives in pecusa can use this letter as a template for letters of thier own. Whenever a liberal is elected somewhere, three people can form a group, take out the template, change names and specifics as needed, and send it out to Standing Committees.
The last time around this same group sent out a [url=http://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/tools/view_newsletter.php?newsletter_id=1409582337]letter (Oct., 2006)[/url] asking Standing Committees not to vote for Mark Lawrence+, so this is more of the same.
Also, they are having a [url=http://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/tools/view_newsletter.php?newsletter_id=1409616239]conference in November[/url], with Bonnie Anderson as a speaker (she does get around!): “The Episcopal Forum of South Carolina will sponsor a conference November 3rd at Middleton Place Conference Center in Charleston, SC. Speakers will include: Bonnie Anderson, The Rev. Sally Johnson and The Rev. Frank Wade (SEE DETAILS BELOW)
The goal of this conference is to put the Diocese of SC in touch with The Episcopal Church and to learn ways for us to connect with the rich resources available there. Join us to be more informed about and connected to The Episcopal Church during these challenging times.”
I think it would be appropriate for the SC Standing Committee to send a response letter to Bishops and Standing Committees revealing the exact membership of The Episcopal Forum of SC and the percentage of the Diocese of SC membership it represents. I think recipients should know that it represents an infintesimal percentage of members, and few of these are even aware of this letter and issue.
Ah, they don’t like the process. Perhaps they could get together with their process-friendly reappraising buddies in the Diocese of Southern Virginia.
We have a small and inconsequential group in the Diocese of San Joaquin, and they’re called “Remain Episcopal.” They squeak now and then…..but not loudly.