Oooohhh….

Very good, in deed!  Thanks be to God and may other Diocese follow suit if they know what’s good for them!

Bishop Lawrence should be receiving a letter from New York City any day now.

OOOOhhh BOY! It’s Fort Sumter all over again. Methinks that I heard the roar of canons, er…cannons. The parlay will soon begin. Look for the Archbishop of the Episcopal Church to join in very soon, followed by her Integrity acolytes.

Article XXXVII.2
The Presiding Bishop hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of South Carolina.

I believe that for a diocese to be a diocese of TEC “unqualified accession” to the canons and constitution of TEC is and has been required since the 1980s.

It will be a sad—but I suppose necessary—day when these are passed.

It has been good to have such a great ally as the Diocese of SC in TEC.

Sarah,

Where is this unqualified accession to the canons required?

Milton—the Constitution.

Milton Finch (#7), Article V, Section I of ECUSA’s Constitution has contained this language since 1983, when the word “unqualified” was added:

After consent of the General Convention, when a certified copy of the duly adopted Constitution of the new Diocese, including an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of this Church, shall have been filed with the Secretary of the General Convention and approved by the Executive Council of this Church, such new Diocese shall thereupon be in union with the General Convention.

The issue that will be raised if these amendments pass is whether a requirement of accession imposed on a fledgling diocese to join the Church’s General Convention applies on an ongoing basis to all the measures which the Church may enact subsequently. Dioceses routinely ignore the Canons (as in the case of allowing communion for the unbaptized), and many of them also have never acceded to the Canons of the Church, but only to the Constitution.

Whether or not a one-time accession to a legislative body means agreeing to accede to whatever it may enact in the future, it seems certain that these measures will be as the red flag is to the enraged bull, whose reaction thereafter is very predictable.

Ugh. The Curmudgeon will have to add more funds to his estimate of Mrs Schori’s expenses.

RE: “The issue that will be raised if these amendments pass is whether a requirement of accession imposed on a fledgling diocese to join the Church’s General Convention applies on an ongoing basis to all the measures which the Church may enact subsequently.”

True—but I suspect that the reversal of an unqualified accession already given by the Diocese of SC is probably what it is . . . and will be taken for it as well.

Are we a new Diocese if acting upon/ altering an old Constitiution during convention?

Sarah,

What might help is the Dio of S.C. understands the new Title IV revisions to be unconstitutional.  Or to put it a different way, the Title IV revision puts the canons at odds with the constitution.  So you could have an unqualified accession, but this unqualified accession would produce a legislative schizophrenia since the documents themselves are no longer in accordance with one another.  To currently accede to both the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church is to accede to two contradictory documents.

I think number 5 has hit the nail on the head, though whether or not 815 sees it that way is another matter.  They do seem to make up rules as they go along.

Well, maybe with my question, events can take place at the convention to over-ride bull cr@p that the ECUSA would desire to enlist in it’s desire to overcome Diocese that would not see this coming.  Let us hope and begin our cannon firing upon them!  hehe

I like Robsturdy’s answer to the problem, but can we do more as a convention to head this bull off at the pass?

From Tracy Chapman, “And finally the tables are starting to turn—-
Talkin’about revolution

It strikes me that the major problem with the canons, and the revisions, is the people who will be implementing them.  Having watched a priest get inhibited for “Abandonment of Communion” for refusing to “return the bishop’s phone calls”, I am not terribly impressed with canonical changes.

It is always about who is holding the stick, not what the stick looks like. If you can trust the person with the stick it matters little what kind of wood it is.

And will Albany follow suit?

Unfortunately, on looking through these measures the word inflammatory comes to mind. It’s a bit late to recommend this now but what about revising language so that the diocese would exist under constitution and canons “to the extent that canons are in strict accord with the constitution”?

I think Rob Sturdy comes closest to how the standing committee of the Diocese who who wrote these resolutions most likely thinks about the Title IV revisions but I am not a mind reader.  Remember this this Diocese (South Carolina) was formed before the states came together to form the “national church”. So even though the diocese currently accedes to both Constitution and Canons, it can not be “unqualified” as that language is very recent (1983).

A reminder from the Curmudgeon- Not all current dioceses accede to both Constitution and Canons of the national church. The post in which Mr. Haley discusses the various accession clauses of the 110 dioceses was on Jan. 4, 2010. (I tried to link to it but it did not work). I agree with #13 that if the Constitution and Canons become contradictory, dioceses will have to choose to which document they still accede. Since we currently accede to both, the convention will have before it the idea of acceding to the Constituion but not the Canons. When the Chancellor of the Diocese says that these changes in Title IV scare him, that is worth taking note.

Also don’t miss what Kendall+ says in the last two sentences: these resolutions will be discussed at deanery meetings throughout the diocese. The first one was yesterday evening as the Florence Deanery met to learn about the Title IV changes and the resolutions offered by the Standing Committee. The other deaneries will meet in the following weeks so that all delegates have an opportunity to learn more about the changes in Title IV and the resolutions before the reconvened Convention on October 15. All to further our vision of:  “Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age”.

RE: “Not all current dioceses accede to both Constitution and Canons of the national church.”

That’s very true.  But so far, I believe the only dioceses that have *reversed* the accessions that they made [and certainly the c&cs; of the Diocese of SC as they *were* appear to be “unqualified” accession] were the dioceses who departed TEC—San Joaquin being one of them.

No—there will be no doubt as to what this is.  A diocese *reversing its unqualified accession* to the C&Cs; will be what it is.  And it will be taken for what it is, as well.

I would expect for the Executive Council to simply “not approve” the Constitution of the diocese of SC, [as that body is in charge of such approval] and that will be that.

It’s sad.  I’m sure that the diocese believes it to be necessary, given the gross corruption and evil actions of PB Jefferts Schori.  But still—it’s sad.

Agreeing with Sarah is becoming an occupational hazard

In the eyes of 815, this is the equivalent of Pastor Terry Jones burning the Quran.  I see it as foolish, but it is difficult to put yourself in someone else’s shoes.  Only SC knows where they need to draw the line in the sand.  At least this way the ACI will watch from another Diocese as their desired test balloon goes up.

Well, I don’t necessarily see it as “foolish”—it’s clear that Schori is busily figuring out how she can use the new Title IV provisions to remove Lawrence.  And I’m guessing the diocese decided it needed to move to be publicly clear that it does not accede to those provisions.

[As a side note, I think there is zero chance that any other diocese will refuse to accede to these canons in any formal or public way—all of those dioceses know well what that action means.]

My preference would have been for us to all watch Schori do as she intended to do the moment the new canons became effective, which I believe is June of next year.

But it appears that we will not get that pleasure now.

What in the world does this mean? “At least this way the ACI will watch from another Diocese as their desired test balloon goes up.”
You can be sure Mr Brian that The Diocese of South Carolina is defending itself from the provocations directed at it, initiated by a national church team intent on changing the disciplinary canons without also changing the constitution. If anyone is running a trial balloon test, it is the present leadership of TEC. You’d serve your advocacy—which I confess is hard to understand—better if you got your facts straight.

#24—The language in diocesan canons is variegated and so too will be their response to the Title IV changes. As noted above, some have no accession language, some only to the constitution, and others have been crafting diocesan canons so as to clarify their constitutional accession. So I don’t know what ‘zero chance’ language means.

“Zero chance” means exactly what was stated: “that any other diocese will refuse to accede to these canons in any formal or public way.”

I’m confident that most reading the comment understand what it means.  And I expect the coming 12 months—as the diocesan conventions roll on by—will provide all the evidence for that statement that is needed.

Bravo!!!  Would that every “orthodox” diocese in TEC do the equivalent at special diocesan convention before year’s end.  TEC couldn’t close and sell church buildings fast enough even to pay the retainers for all the lawyers it would take to sue another few dioceses simultaneously.  Simply declare the truth - the empress has no clothes on at all - and watch the card house finish collapsing.

#27 But some don’t have to ‘unaccede’ as they have not done so already anyway; or they have different challenges. SC had acceded, hence the strategy deployed by them. Albany has not acceded, for example (neither has DC). Others have already qualified their accession, or don’t accede to the canons but only the constitution. I am repeating myself, but ‘zero chance’ implies that only SC has a means of challenging Title IV—that is simply not true.

What in the world does this mean? “At least this way the ACI will watch from another Diocese as their desired test balloon goes up.”
You can be sure Mr Brian that The Diocese of South Carolina is defending itself from the provocations directed at it, initiated by a national church team intent on changing the disciplinary canons without also changing the constitution. If anyone is running a trial balloon test, it is the present leadership of TEC. You’d serve your advocacy—which I confess is hard to understand—better if you got your facts straight.

Sorry you took it as an insult.  It isn’t intended that way.  I was simply pointing out that the ACI has been interested in resolution of the issues within TEC as opposed to outside it.  The unique situation in DioSC presents the opportunity for such a resolution one way or the other.

“watch from another Diocese as their desired test balloon goes up” isn’t an insult to ACI, it’s just factually confused.

A response brought on by the latest schemes of the Presiding Bishop and Mr Beers.  For persecuting the Lord’s prophets of the Lord she must be giving Jezebel a run for her money.  1 Kings 19:1-2; 2 Kings 9:30-37

Repent, Presiding Bishop Schori, repent and humble yourself before the Lord before it is too late.

What South Carolina is doing here is a demonstration of both faith and courage.  TEC has brought this about with its latest abuses of the Constitution.  I do suspect that there will be an immediate response from 815, and imagine that the Mrs. Anderson’s shadow standing committee and some Vichy “bishop” are on stand by for action on short notice, and that someone has found a couple million $$ somewhere to fund a new round of lawsuits.
  And let me remark, although I have from time to time disagreed with the good gents at ACI, this is a case where, if you will, they are the test balloon, more than the other way around.  Their situation is more precarious than that of the average cleric in South Carolina.  One can imagine the faux deposition of all the SC clergy who back the bishop, but given the apparent support throughout the diocese, one does not anticipate them losing their jobs.  The clergy members of ACI are now individually quite near the top of the 815 enemies list, and so every word they write requires considerable faith and courage as well.
  I am left to wonder if the ABoC will continue to acquiesce to the PB, and throw the Communion Partners under the bus when push comes to shove (in essence, he already did this in Jamaica, when he sank the Covenant- leaving them with no “official” Communion support).  If there are soon 2 bishops of North Carolina, one recognized by 8 provinces and the other by 30, which will he recognize.  Or was that question already answered in San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and Quincy?  Looks like we may have our answer soon.

OOPS,
Of course, in that last paragraph, I meant South Carolina, not North.  Mea culpa for hitting the “submit” key before proofing my own text.

tjmcmaohon, I understand what you meant. However, there is a HUGE difference in theology between the dioceses in North Carolina (there are 3) and the two in South Carolina (one of which is the Diocese of south Carolina).

Respecting the HOB/D Listserve, I won’t forward or post the names or provide the exact wording, but the TEC reaction is already starting.  There are calls for Bishop Lawrence’s resignation, presentment under 2006 canon’s for conduct unbecoming, replacement of the standing committee, etc.

“There are calls for Bishop Lawrence’s resignation, presentment under 2006 canon’s for conduct unbecoming, replacement of the standing committee, etc.”

You know, you hear all the claptrap from the revisionists about how the TEClub is a democratic organization and laity and clergy have equal voices with bishops. What is Bp Lawrence supposed to do if the General Convention of SC passes these resolutions in a democratic fashion. “The bishop is beholden to the people”, I can hear Bonnie Anderson saying.

#36 Unsurprising, I gather the HOBD listserve is a pretty disreputable echo chamber, though they might reflect on whether the continued scorched earth tactics their Presiding Bishop adopts has anything to do with the almost complete isolation that TEC is experiencing and most publicly apparent at the latest bishops meeting in Africa.  But no doubt nothing gets through their thick skins and they will continue to push for the complete ostracism they appear to seek.  Ho hum.

Ah, yes.  “Replacement” of the Standing Committee…..

Uh, huh.  House of Bishops meeting…....

Oh, yeah.  An election in Springfield that demands our prayers…..

The Enemy likes to stir things up for the purpose of deflection.  And believe me, the Enemy is at work.  Already, some in the diocese of Springfield have asked the question of Dan Martins’ personal participation in voting or not voting on the same issues of accession while he was in San Joaquin (that would have been the first reading in 2006).  It is a non-starter from Dan’s perspective, but that is immaterial to those so lacking in mature discernment and thus infected by deception.
But as these resolutions from SC have been published, and passions and fears and speculations are fanned by the Enemy in this one area (SC) in order to have their fearful effect in the other (Springfield), well, then, a spirit of fear derails an otherwise prayerful and clear-discerning episcopal election.

IT IS NOW TIME, to set aside the discussion and focus on the resolutions of SC, and turn our attention in prayer and fasting for Springfield.  In your intercession, rebuke the spirit of fear in the name of Jesus (if you need help in that just follow Paul’s example as found in the lectionary reading from Acts 16:18 for today), and in faith hold up a clear consensus in balloting.

I have no doubt we will return to our discussion about the merits of presenting resolutions for the purpose of illuminating unconstitutional canons in order to change the situation (sounds quite like the arsenal of liberal social change, doesn’t it?!!).

Uh, Rob+, why can’t we both pray for DioSpringfield and comment on what many (including myself) see as a courageous and foresighted set of resolutions by DioSC?  Surely our heads won’t explode?  Or do you think we have very short attention spans?  Or are you implying that the DioSC resolutions are the diverting work of Satan?  Seriously.

Milton,
I’m afraid you read me wrong.  I was not demeaning, nor was I even admonishing; the last paragraph was not satirical, but affirms the purpose of the resolutions, along with the observation of the irony of such action by a conservative diocese in the face of liberal ascendancy.  My posted comment, rather, was a word of exhortation.
I apologize if urgency and some shorthand caused me to be misread.
With that in mind, please read it again and let me know if there are points still in question.  Thanks.

Sorry, must have been too quick a read.  Yes, we should use the liberals’ own arsenal against their agenda when we safely can.