* “The revisions certainly will change the character of the disciplinary process making the disciplinary landscape appear less formal, speedier and more pastoral. However, these goals mask other very unsettling realities of the new disciplinary process, more suggestive of another pastoral analogy: a wolf in sheep’s clothing. (“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7:15 (ESV).”
* “The increased scope of Clergy offenses is breathtaking.”
* “There is no better encapsulation of the sweeping nature of the changes than the wholesale introduction of new terminology. Indeed, many of the most profound changes are introduced by re-defining terms, a practice rightly criticized for its lack of transparency in the corporate legal world.”
* “No longer must the accuser have some knowledge with a reasonable basis ”“ anyone can and must report anything that “may” constitute an offense.”
* “The Bishop has gone from virtual exclusion to virtual control of the initial Clergy charging process.”
* “However, what new Title IV gives the Bishop Diocesan with one hand, it effectively (and stealthily) takes away from him with the other.”
* “Given the breadth and substantive nature of these changes, one is forced to wonder how this could happen. Why was there no outcry from liberal, moderate or conservative Clergy about what can only be termed “excesses?”
* “The deafening silence about these revisions forces us to believe that the sheep’s clothing strategy has been successful.”
* “One cannot help but be both simultaneously saddened and angered by the extensive revisions masked with soothing rhetoric like “pastoral reconciliation.”
The notion that there was no “outcry” would suggest that the authors weren’t following the evolution of the new Title IV over the past six years. There have been real knock-down, drag-out fights over this at every level of the drafting process. I would particularly note that NNECA–the National Network of Episcopal Clergy Associations–engaged and resisted.
The Committee at Anaheim in fact accepted many of the NNECA concerns, and while, as this article indicates, there are still many, many problems with Title IV, it was in fact modified in important ways.
Bruce Robison
I would have to agree with Bruce+
For reasons I cannot begin to understand, I ended up being on the Canons Committee in ’09, and I had been aware of the process before that through a friend who had been on that committee previously.
There was a lot of input from many sources, and astonishingly enough, these folks were listened to. The difference between the first draft — which regarded people as guilty until proven innocent — and the final form is huge. There was a 180 degree turn around. There was a real concern for those victimized by clergy, but also for the protection of clergy themselves. It seemed to me that, in this regard, there was a genuine commitment to finding a just and fair balance.
In ’03 and ’06 two deputies: one from Albany and one from Newark worked together (!!!) to accomplish this turn around.
Now, that being said, there were other aspects of this that were indeed troubling, to say the least.
Imagine being locked in a room with 30+ lawyers for 2 — 3 or 4 hours at a time. I still have a little PTSD.
That was the heart of the real problem: the mentality of the committee as a whole was the mentality of The Lawyer trying to create Civil Law. We were told time and time again that ONLY the kind of legal-eese that they were creating was adequate to do the job properly.
The whole concern was to make the Canons of the Church airtight to stand up in a court of law. There was no way that anyone could change this. There were 3, maybe 4 orthodox/conservatives in the room. The real meetings and deals occurred over cocktails after hours. There was a desire to “protect the church” — read: liberal establishment — in every way possible. The Fix was in. So there are, indeed, language bombs built into Title IV was can be triggered when needed.
Those of us on this committee did what we could to hold the line as much as possible. During the open hearings, most people were down the hall discussing things concerning sexual issues and whatnot with other committees. (Pay attention to the loud bells and whistles — look at the flashing lights — don’t pay any attention to the Man behind the Curtain). Not a lot of strong conservative voices showed up at our open sessions although a some did come and give it their best try.
Runyan and McCall are right about something important: it is the nuancing of the language that is the most dangerous. I tried quite a few times to change the linguistic tricks, but got very little traction. We did, however win a couple of small victories.
My biggest concern came in on the section on bishops. My own bishop said, “Can’t you do anything about this?” So two other deputies and I gave it a try. Immediately THREE of the BISHOPS on the committee jumped in and said: “We have already discussed this in the House of Bishops, and this is the way the House of Bishops wants it to be.” Everyone else on Canons looked at these bishops approvingly, and there was no more discussion about changing the language on the discipline for bishops.
Like I said: the Fix was in.
The bishops are hoist on their own petard.
Bruce,
Acknowledging the yeoman work you two (and others) have striven to do, do you think the changes still have the effect of dissolving many of the checks and balances that have hitherto characterized the disciplinary process. Do you think that, in the long-term, they will tend to work against those who are not by nature conformist, in either theological direction?
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
With respect, surely the point here isn’t whether people worked hard or whether even some important changes were made, but the Title IV changes as proposed. The essay points out that these are in fact unconstitutioinal esp in respect of the authority of dioceses in the disciplinary process and the new role given the PB.
what’s the revision to IV.4.1.b about? That’s the “conform to the rubrics of the BCP” change?
From what I’ve seen we’re way past the Anglo-Catholic/ Evangelical debates of old. It’s not that the distinctions don’t matter anymore but I haven’t heard of priests being charged with “papism” and such as they might have in years past. So what’s the new language about?
Dear Christopher #4: you are right that the real concern is the final language in Title IV. However, the constitutionality is a larger issue then just what is written in Title IV itself.
There were many energetic inter-communications between Canons and other committees in order to “reconcile” — i.e. create total conformity for — all the language being used. If I remember correctly, the standing commission is divided into 2 distinct committees for the GCs. So the effort to make sure that language was not in any way contradictory was very intense, thorough, smart and well coordinated between Constitutions and Canons.
For example, there were many little places in which the term “The Church” or “This Church” was substituted or inserted to indicate that this entity “The Church/This Church” was identified as the proper authority wherever other terms had previously been used. So, things done are then related to “The Church” or “This Church” rather than a diocese, ordinary, etc.
This is subtle and clever. You have to do an extremely close and careful reading in many different Titles, canons and the Constitutions themselves to pick up the language nuances that have been created and coordinated in this way. You need a copy of the old text laid next to a copy of the new, a magnifying glass and a lot of patience to find them all. These guys are SOOO clever.
This is not (of course) to say that this substantively changes the original shape or intention of the Constitution itself, but there were many such little “reconciliations of language” done in [b]both[/b] places to make sure that the changes would stick.
I hope you will consider that what I am describing here reflects the real situation in what was done.
As for #5: “conform to the rubrics.”
You see, the plans are laid long and deep. That is so that — come the day when the BCP rubrics are themselves changed to include such things as, oh say, same sex couples in the marriage rite, no clergy will be able to demur without disciplinary action.
[blockquote] That is so that—come the day when the BCP rubrics are themselves changed to include such things as, oh say, same sex couples in the marriage rite, no clergy will be able to demur without disciplinary action. [/blockquote]
I’m not trying to be snarky or rude- but does this statement reflect your personal opinion or is that an openly admitted goal? I recognize it can be hard to document an attitude or an implicit intent, but I want to try to extend some Charity here.
I am SO sick of TEC presuming its authority means anything at all any more. The catchall violation of one’s ordination vows is sufficient to include practically everything, down to turning in a questionnaire late or private grumbling about some diocesan policy or other. Nothing more is needed in order to cast the net to infinitude. We ‘lower clergy’ always exist in a state of anxiety in that the sword of Damocles hangs over us continually. As for me… well, if anyone makes a Title IV issue of this or that (like not following a rubric or failing to fill out a piece of paper and returning it to the Diocesan Office on time), I’m outta here. As I told my bishop, these days the word “deposed” merely means persona non grata in certain church buildings, and nothing more.
The message is about to go out: “Don’t even THINK about stepping the least bit out of line, if you want to keep your job.”
I know I saw a line that said something to the effect that “preaching or criticizing against the “doctrine” of the church was cause for charges against the clergy.”
So I asked my clergy, just what is the “doctrine” of ECUSA?
He said, perhaps the “prayer book”..
Kinda creates a very small box huh, since they are in the process of rewriting even that,
Grandmother in SC
#6. Yes, that is the point of the essay.
# 7 m:” I’m not being snarky or rude either. This is a description of the way I watched many things being done in order to give those in power maximum leverage over the powerless. “Here is the way we can force their hand” is a sentiment openly expressed both verbally and in a thousand other ways.
Charity does not demand pretending that the situation is other than it is.
Back to #4 — The thing folks should be most concerned about is the sweeping and sometimes (deliberately?) vague language turning the PB’s office into a virtual dictatorship.
This is the kind of thing that comes back to bite the very folks who did it “for all the right reasons” later.
I agree that the focus needs to be on the language as it exists. My point was simply to say, in reply to the “why was there no outcry?” comment, that there was “outcry.” NNECA for one organization was leaning hard back at the Task Force for six years. In terms of protections for clergy accused or under presentment, the Title IV as passed at Anaheim is significantly better than the version presented in the Blue Book. Miles better. When it comes to these areas of church constitutional structure, role of the PB, etc., I am in general agreement with the ACI position. Would have been great to have seen a bigger crowd of folks to raise these issues back in 2007 and 2008, let me tell you.
Bruce Robison
One hopes in vain for any insistence on observance of the text of the BCP.
All the clergy must conform! The “big tent” meme is certainly proven to be a big lie.
What effect will this have? Guys like Tim Fountain+ or Rob Eaton+, who want to stay and fight should be looking over their shoulders or asking to transfer to the Diocese of South Carolina.
It’s hard for me to get excited about this when all this does is acknowledge what already happens. Bishops and Priests are disciplined and even deposed when they annoy those with the votes, even if they have not broken the rules. On the other hand, Bishops and Priest that break the rules are not deposed or disciplined even when they break the rules. The two biggest names that come to mind are Duncan and Bennison what do these changes do that is not already being done?
#17: To be sure. There is a certain amount of “tidying up” that is going on in these revisions as they now stand, particularly with respect to the PB’s role in matters, and in the usurping of the constitutional prerogatives of the dioceses. However, the tidying has some major implications that go beyond simply making explicit what is already practically the case: if these revisions are formally accepted by dioceses (and not formally rejected), dioceses will have little legal support in maintaining their constitutional (and historical) powers of disciplinary oversight, and little ability to protect their own bishops from the incursions of the PB and related extra-diocesan claims. This is very significant indeed. The revisions are unconstitutional, and should not be taken up and affirmed by ANY diocese, for the sake of their own self-preservation.
Indeed, one reason for the lack of push back in the past is that the full extent of the revisions’ perverted limition on diocesan and episocopal discipline had not been given clear embodiment in the public arena (although, admittedly, by Anaheim’s date that should have been clear).
These Title changes would allow the PB to inhibit +Mark Lawrence without any Standing Committee consultation or charges against him. In many ways they represent an aggrandisement of metropolitical authority far greater than what exists where Archbishops form part of the polity historically. So, e.g., in the CofE there is an Ecclesiastical Court, given the different role played by dioceses than in TEC historically. The power of the metropolitan in the ACC, as I understand it, is circumscribed in careful ways. These changes move the disciplinary authority away from the dioceses, and yet introduce no Ecclesiastical Court at the trans-diocesan level to assure proper exercise of authority and checks against abuse. One can be inhibited for disturbing the good order of the church — whatever that means in our present parlous season. Perhaps there has been lots of good input and push-back, as claimed above. If so, it has failed where it genuinely matters and the consequence will be authority exercised in ways that represent a serious departure from this church’s self-understanding, in constitution. We will have a situation where the canons and constitution are at odds with one another — and saying so being a form of opposing the ‘good order’ of the church. One should think that ‘liberal’ bishops would oppose this usurpation of their office in proposed Title IV changes. Indeed the HOB meets this week, hence the time urgency.
It is a mistake, I believe, to speak of the new Title IV in the subjunctive, to refer to them as “proposed,” or to suggest that there is some sort of “process of reception” that can continue to shape these canons. Would that it were so. These canons will be the disciplinary canons in use in the Episcopal Church until they are amended, or revised, or replaced by General Convention. During the past year and continuing this fall and winter diocesan conventions have addressed and are addressing a process of conforming their own canons, disciplinary boards, ecclesiastical courts, etc. But should they fail to do so, the national canons become “default” anyway.
I think it’s likely that a focus, pace the +Charles Bennison situation, of the next General Convention will be to revise the Title III canons to provide for involuntary dissolution of the relationship between a bishop and a diocese, roughly parallel to the dissolution canon in place for rectors. Is there room for mischief here? I hope there will be some eyes on the process.
Bruce Robison
I blogged a series on the proposed revisions back in April & May of 2009. Stand Firm linked those, so there was some public exposure.
There [i] was [/i] enough discontent to stop the provisions for disciplining lay people – but the whole array of clergy sanctions [i] (“reconciliation”) [/i] didn’t seem to gain traction. My sense is that most of the people the elite wanted gone were already gone and the folks who stayed by and large agree with the elite.
And let’s not overlook the reality that a big, big portion of TEC’s remaining people are simply looking for some pastoral care and a BCP burial. This “other stuff” goes right past them.
rob roy, thanks for the props, but I’m basically irrelevant. The MSM doesn’t even cover TEC issues out here and, as I say, most of the remaining church folks don’t really care as long as they get their personal needs met.
These Title changes would allow the PB to inhibit +Mark Lawrence without any Standing Committee consultation or charges against him.
Is there a reasoning for the specificity of this statement? Naming +Lawrence is quite specific.
Why even the most revisionist ordinand would not think twice before agreeing to serve under such a system of discipline, so arbitrary and lacking much of anything in the way of protections for the innocent, is beyond me.
pendennis88 – I agree. This thing is fraught with unintended consequenses. The clique in power sees it as their way to get rid of the people they don’t like, not recognizing that at some point, people they don’t like (maybe just personally, not ideologically even) could gain the levers of power.
When all is said and done, this thing serves no particular church faction but threatens clergy of any and all.
#20 — this is precisely what is at issue. Nothing would prevent Bishops from raising the matter at the HOB meeting, for example. And what if a Diocesan Convention refuses to accept Title IV or even state it is unconstitutional to vote on the matter? I am unsure what your appeal to the indicative is. Is this the sort of matter one ought to resist, all the way down? We believe so. Should dioceses simply concede their and their Diocesan’s authority to the PB? Why would they do that? #22 — apart from the obviousness of the SC situation, do you mean?
#23 raises a serious matter. It is one thing for dioceses and Diocesans to resist this. But looking at the future — what future Priest or Deacon (or Bishop) would agree to such a system of governance, with the implications for discipline if the ‘good order’ of the church was now something that needed to be upheld, the definition of which is in the hands of those who will enforce it? Those of us who work with seminarians know exactly where the pinch will be felt and will be perceived as such.
Seitz+ or Radner+, I can’t get the PDF to open and I am using the latest version. Could you check to see if it is posted correctly?
22. Why not, Brian? It wouldn’t be the first time she did it, would it?
The pdf seems to be opening well now.
Sounds like this title IV is a great recruiting tool for ACNA. When you have finally had enough, come on over. :-}
In the Faith,
NW Bob
RE: “And what if a Diocesan Convention refuses to accept Title IV or even state it is unconstitutional to vote on the matter?”
Obviously Schori would then declare the Standing Committees vacant and depose the bishop. They would have violated the faith and order, etc, etc, and violated their vows — “doctrine, discipline, etc” — and abandoned the Communion of TEC.
I think that’s a no-brainer at this point.
RE: “Is this the sort of matter one ought to resist, all the way down?”
Too late — it’s passed by both houses of the GC — there’s no going back on it now.
The time from now until July 1, 2011 is gonna be very interesting, or so it seems to me!
19. seitz wrote:
[blockquote]These Title changes would allow the PB to inhibit +Mark Lawrence without any Standing Committee consultation or charges against him.[/blockquote]
22. Brian from T19 wrote:
[blockquote] Is there a reasoning for the specificity of this statement? Naming +Lawrence is quite specific.[/blockquote]
Brian I can only answer for myself, but this seems obvious. TEC is changing it’s doctrine so that same sex relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships. The logic follows that if they are equal, anyone who in any way does not fully support same sex relationships should not be in position of leadership. Once the rites have been developed and the canons all changed, something like one of the following will happen in South Carolina:
1) A couple seeking a same sex blessing will be denied by a priest.
2) The priest will be denied permission by Bishop Lawrence
3) A individual will be denied ordination or disciplined for homosexual activity by Bishop Lawrence.
When this happens, the TEC leadership cannot let it stand. They will have to do something about it. These changes are to give them the power to do it. Since Bishop Lawrence is the only Bishop that can be sure not to cave, and he has the overwhelming support of his diocese, he is the obvious one these changes will be used against. At first.
Any other Bishops that have shown any resistance will likely cave or be replaced through attrition.
What will be interesting, is to see who will be the first liberal bishop these are used against. These canons give the PB the power to remove someone she thinks might do something she thinks is against the C&C or doctrine of the church. When do we change her title to Pope?
Perspective. They can change the rules……but what is average sunday attendance? Less than 1 in 400 Americans bothering to turn up on a Sunday? Not very attractive, this revisionist stuff……they can change the rules but still so few turn up…..we are watching deckchairs being rearranged on the TEC Titanic……”an inch at a time” ….slow, arrogant, deluded moves towards extinction because they preach themselves? Thankfully, very few Americans turn up…. not easily fooled, you see!
Some still bravely fighting for the truth inside TEC – but perhaps energy could be much more productively deployed and with like-minded people?
“The logic follows that if they are equal, anyone who in any way does not fully support same sex relationships should not be in position of leadership”.
The logic also follows that, as usual, some pigs are more equal than others.
Just One Voice #33, thank you for your post; I’m in full agreement.
Londoner #34 is also correct–e.g., the gospel of Spong decimated the Diocese of Newark by almost 2/3–I used to live there–Spong was the best thing to happen(in recent times) to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox evangelism in Northern NJ.
By contrast, it’s probably accurate to say that the only thing that hurts traditional Anglican evangelism in dioceses like Dallas or SC is the liberal deconstructionist-revisionist theology of TEC. Despite departures(understandable) like Christ Church Plano, these dioceses maintain strong numbers re: ASA and plate/pledge–note the contrast to most liberal dioceses.
I can only pray that the traditionals still inside TEC have a viable back-up plan–the mechanisms for their ouster develop as we “speak”.
IMHO, the devil is reforming TEC–it will reap what it sows. The Kingdom of God has long since proven that it can thrive elsewhere.
As the Stomach Turns…
#31–no brainer? You mean the civil courts in SC will say that the diocese’s claim to represent the constitution of TEC is bogus, and side with the NYC legal team? ‘All the way down’ includes enforcing this. When this particular Title revision means that TEC can remove +ML and take hold of the property throughout the diocese, then it will be a ‘no brainer’ and not worth contesting on principle. Failure to resist this would be concession to a different view of The Episcopal Church than has obtained in its history.
Since Bishop Lawrence is the only Bishop that can be sure not to cave, and he has the overwhelming support of his diocese, he is the obvious one these changes will be used against. At first.
Any other Bishops that have shown any resistance will likely cave or be replaced through attrition.
I agree that +Lawrence is an obvious choice. I didn’t realize he was the only Bishop left who would not cave. I assumed +Stanton and perhaps a few others would not compromise which is why I was surprised that you mentioned only +Lawrence, but I see where you are coming from
Too late—it’s passed by both houses of the GC—there’s no going back on it now.
And that’s really the whole point. An organization that polices itself can do whatever it wants. The authors claim that certain actions are unconstitutional, however, the people deciding that are the people who made the allegedly unconstitutional decision in the first place. TEC does the action. A minority challenge it. TEC turns it over to TEC to see if TEC made the right decision. TEC rules that what TEC did was constitutional. Matter resolved. Of course you could always appeal to TEC, but they have a history of finding in favor of TEC.
Oh, there will be others that ‘do not cave’ but the SC situation will take a long time to resolve and will be a big enough struggle for TEC to undertake. The timing was such that CFL and Dallas, e.g., negotiated with the leavers (CC Plano, et al) before the present regime. The focus is on SC now because the present regime and the timing in Pawleys Island etc coincided.
But think about what is required. TEC will have to get civil courts to recognise a new (provisional) Bishop, if the Standing Committee and Diocesan Convention refuse to stand aside and support an inhibition. We see a similar thing playing out in Ft Worth, under different circumstances, and see how tough a road ahead TEC has.
Watch how individual diocesan conventions tackle the matter. Will TEC seek to enforce Title IV changes in their new guise? That seems obvious. But will they be able to get civil courts to enforce this if dioceses do not accede to the new Title IV?
Sadly, this strategy of trying to enforce a new polity will be costly at all levels, and it is hard to see how in some places it will succeed — leaving aside the PR nightmare of seeking to dislodge Bishops who are in fact not leaving the church but standing alongside its constitution.
This dog is rabid and must be put down.
I mean, of course, the Title IV dog.
I don’t pretend to fully grasp all the legal implications. However, it would seem that TEC may be shifting from a 3-ring diocesan circus (San Joaquin, Ft Worth, Pittsburgh) to a 4-ring circus (and more).
–Where is this money coming from?
–If TEC has taken out litigation loans, what is it using as collateral?
I think Lawrence+ is the one bishop who will be safe from the depredations of Title IV. The good bishop is in South Carolina, where the supreme court of that state has had the good sense to declare the Dennis Canon to be nonsense. Any action against Bishop Lawrence will be the “straw” causing his diocese to leave TEC for ACNA – and TEC cannot afford that.
RE: “Watch how individual diocesan conventions tackle the matter.”
I’ll be interested to see if any more than four or five conventions say much more than “assent and conform” about Title IV revisions.
RE: “no brainer? . . . ”
Yes, I think it’s a no brainer as to how the current leadership of TEC will respond. Refusing to adhere to the national church canons will be deemed a violation of vows and “abandonment of communion.”
RE: “You mean the civil courts in SC will say that the diocese’s claim to represent the constitution of TEC is bogus, and side with the NYC legal team?”
Though I only made reference to how TEC Dear Leaders would respond, I think that the civil courts will decline to get involved in the interpretation of the canons and constitution of TEC. Blessedly, that does not seem to matter in SC, since the civil courts have *pragmatically speaking* declared that TEC is non-hierarchical in SC. Thanks be to God!
Obviously, in most other courts in the US, the civil courts have so far 1) declared that TEC is hierarchical and 2) declined to ponder TEC’s constitution and canons much at all beyond recognizing TEC as hierarchical and that TEC can “review itself”. It is a great pity — and things could still change.
We’ll see.
It is unclear whether such a strategy as the PB and others are embarking on can brook any set backs, or whether it is necessary that the hierarchical argument succeed in all instances. Texas and SC are not looking favorable, e.g. Can the plan to bring all in line in a new polity work unless it succeeds everywhere? I think this is an important matter to keep in view. If dioceses–it really matters not how many–can defeat the effort to bring them in line, they can claim the C/C of the Church as still operating in their historical dress, unchanged — in the form of Title IV revisions, etc as is now being tried. This is different than claiming to start a new province. Obviously the bulk of the GS is aware that the present TEC position is not shared by all. Do the bulk of US courts believe that TEC is hierarchical in the sense being claimed in Ft Worth — well, not in Ft Worth, not in SC, and perhaps not elsewhere in time. Yes, ‘we’ll see’ — and hence the importance of resisting the national church position and defending the historical diocesan role.
I am surprised that it has taken so long for the power grab to come home to everyone. The Title IV revisions have been underway for years, and were substantially responsible for the timing of the departure of Anglo Catholic dioceses -since they knew all the bishops and clergy would be deposed once the new canon was in force- and they had to have 2 conventions before the 2009 convention. Had they waited, the necessary constitutional changes could not have been made- the bishops would have been deposed and replaced immediately after the 2009 vote for their refusal to ordain women. (there was, at the time, no assurance that the canons would not be employed immediately after GC, given KJS record of open abuse of process) I find it kind of amazing that the folks who stuck around in TEC paid little or no attention at the time to the several mentions of the canonical changes in the diocesan conventions of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, etc. Remember the attempt by the California bishops to oust Schofield- these canons are written for the purpose of doing exactly that- no “three senior bishops” with authority in such cases anymore. It wasn’t that dioceses wanted to leave TEC and break with the ABoC, they had no choice, the canonical gun was at their head, and KJS was just waiting for GC authority to pull the trigger. Now she has it, but it is no longer the Catholic Anglicans in the gunsight, but the Communion Partners, ACI, and any number of clergy. Won’t surprise me if there is some clerk at Goodwin Proctor assigned to culling through 1,000,000 posts on T19 and SF to find the “usual suspects” so that rounding them up will be more efficient on the day these canons come into force.
The Title changes referred to by the initial posts–as having been in the works for many years, etc–focused on changes intended to make the internal diocesan discipline ‘more pastoral’ and so forth–these were apparently reviewed and many sought to influence changes. So it is held. But as for the new role for the PB, and the ability to inhibit a Diocesan (in the manner described in the Runyan/McCall essay herewith), this has not been in the same ‘years of deliberation and discussion’ mode, unless I am mistaken. It is relatively recent. It changes the polity envisioned by the Constitution, wherein dioceses exercise this role. Yet it has not accomplished this via constitutional alteration.
19. seitz wrote:
[blockquote] These Title changes would allow the PB to inhibit +Mark Lawrence without any Standing Committee consultation or charges against him.[/blockquote]
22. Brian from T19 wrote:
[blockquote] Is there a reasoning for the specificity of this statement? Naming +Lawrence is quite specific.[/blockquote]
We have evidence of the reasoning:
[url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/32309/]ENS—Group in the Diocese of South Carolina asks church leadership for investigation[/url]