Diocese of South Carolina's PR on TEC's ”˜Spurious’ Offer to Settle

The offer was made by a local attorney who represents the 20 percent of members who remained with TEC when most of the Diocese disaffiliated in 2012. It promised that TEC would end its multimillion dollar legal campaign to seize local church properties if the parishes agree to hand over the Diocese’s identity, its other assets including the Diocese’s offices on Coming Street in Charleston and the St. Christopher Camp and Conference Center, which is prime real estate that could be sold off by the cash-strapped denomination.

“This is not a legitimate offer of good faith negotiation and never was intended to be,” said the Rev. Canon Jim Lewis, Assistant to Bishop Mark Lawrence. “It was a spurious offer chiefly made to disrupt submission of our brief and make them look good in the press.” Lewis said. “As a matter of fact, the Presiding Bishop’s chancellor is on record as saying they would never settle. In that, they have been utterly consistent up until now.”

“Judge Diane Goodstein ruled that TEC has ”˜no legal, equitable or beneficial interest’ in these properties. TEC appealed the matter and a hearing is scheduled before the South Carolina Supreme Court in September. If TEC were confident of its case, they would be eager for justice to be served and would not attempt to derail the next step in the legal process . Their so-called proposal has been unanimously rejected by all parties.”

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Christian Life / Church Life, * Culture-Watch, * South Carolina, Episcopal Church (TEC), Law & Legal Issues, Parish Ministry, Presiding Bishop, Stewardship, TEC Bishops, TEC Conflicts, TEC Polity & Canons, Theology

3 comments on “Diocese of South Carolina's PR on TEC's ”˜Spurious’ Offer to Settle

  1. Dick Mitchell says:

    Lest anyone forget: In the autumn of 2012, TEC and the PB were in some discussions — some might say “negotiations” — with Bishop Lawrence and the Dio SC, in apparently some effort to reconcile differences between them and perhaps find some way forward in common. Then, with no warning, and on the spurious basis that Bp. Lawrence was “abandoning the faith,” the PB slapped him with an order of inhibition, preventing him for exercising an episcopal functions, etc. The entire scenario of the breakup of the Diocese, this lawsuit and so forth, followed. With such a sour history, why would anyone want to enter further “negotiations” with TEC?

  2. SC blu cat lady says:

    Exactly Dick Mitchell. Given the previous experience of trying to negotiate with TEC, did they think we would fall for the same *trap* again?

  3. tjmcmahon says:

    Is there a public copy of the TECSC offer? Since it was not signed by anyone from TEC HQ, or any of the 815 attorneys, it is NOT an offer from TEC, but only an offer to settle the state court dispute between VonRosenburg’s faction and the Diocese. Which would have left the diocese at the mercy of TEC (had the parishes settled under the TECSC terms), and in all likelihood allowed VonRosenburg’s personal vendetta against Bishop Lawrence to proceed in Federal court, while the TEC could file a new lawsuit in state court, since “who the real bishop is” would have been decided in their favor- and they would not have been party to the settlement envisioned in the offer.
    I imagine that the reason Mr. Beers did not sign off on this is that he values his reputation and his license to practice law. Is Mr. Tisdale not inviting the wrath of the judiciary by his conduct throughout this case? Does the S Carolina Bar actually allow this sort of conduct on the part of its attorneys?