South Carolina Bishop and Standing Committee Respond to Actions of Executive Council
On August 26, the Diocese received correspondence from the Secretary of Executive Council of The Episcopal Church that copied us, belatedly, on their correspondence with a third party. The correspondence informed us of actions taken by a Committee of the Executive Council regarding resolutions taken by the Diocese of South Carolina. The assertion was made there that those resolutions of our Convention “have no force or effect.”
The response of the Bishop and Standing Committee to those actions, along with the original correspondence from Executive Council, can be found at the link below.
1. okifan18 wrote:
A good firm response to a nonsensical and discourteous overreach.
Why are not more willing to stand up like this?
October 3, 7:45 pm | [comment link]
2. Fossil wrote:
A great response. The reason others are not willing to stand up to the PB and her powers is because they either agree with her or they are afraid of her. The good bishop has poked her in the eye. I trust he knows that eventually she will go for his throat.
October 3, 8:20 pm | [comment link]
3. Ad Orientem wrote:
An entire page that could be translated into a single sentence.
October 3, 9:10 pm | [comment link]
(I cleaned that up a bit.)
4. Brian from T19 wrote:
Actually, the response is stating things that have already been addressed. The only statement worth addressing is that South Carolina does not recognize the authority of this resolution as it is applied. That could trigger the removal of the Standing Committee and/or Bishop under the new Canons (approved by General Convention). I agree that it is a bold stand and I wish all involved well. Hopefully nothing comes of it. Otherwise it looks like it will be court battles, etc.
October 3, 9:46 pm | [comment link]
5. Confessor wrote:
The Bishop has called her bluff.
She does not have the law on her side, nor Scripture which is the First Law of Christ’s Church. Sin is lawlessness. I John 3:4
October 3, 9:52 pm | [comment link]
6. St. Nikao wrote:
#4, Bishop Lawrence is saying that Committees and their Resolutions do not have the authority to change the canons and Constitution of the Church…and that South Carolina being a founding Diocese has different status than Ft. Worth, etc.
October 3, 9:58 pm | [comment link]
No doubt, his response was carefully scrutinized and worded.
7. Sarah wrote:
RE: “South Carolina does not recognize the authority of this resolution as it is applied.”
Well, resolutions are non-binding, so I’m not sure what “authority” it would have to any diocese. Heck, even GC resolutions are non-binding so I’m not certain why the resolutions of a lowly interim body like Executive Committee would be any better. As we all know bishops truck back to their dioceses after plenty of GC resolutions announcing that they’re non-binding and won’t be followed. It wouldn’t be a real General Convention if we didn’t have scads of bishops trundling feverishly homeward to point out to their sheeples that resolutions are non-binding and will be ignored.
RE: “I trust he knows that eventually she will go for his throat.”
So agree. I’ve always believed that the revisionists currently in charge of TEC are just too angry and beside themselves to allow a bishop to differentiate his diocese from their gospel while yet remaining happily within TEC. It’s the very last thing they wanted. They wanted a diocese to leave or stay quietly. The fact that they’re having to endure this kind of steady, constant, repeated differentiation has got to just be unbearably enraging to people of their ideology, character, and personality disorders.
October 3, 10:17 pm | [comment link]
8. PeterL wrote:
I live in Pittsburgh. I have seen at point blank range the destruction of churches as a result of the wars in the Episcopal Church. There are no winners in Pittsburgh. So I have to ask, what is +Mark up to? I guess he has a different strategy, having observed Pittsburgh, and the others who have left. I doubt your end result will be much different: many people leaving the church. Period. If you really want to follow Jesus, call off your war (justified or not) with the Episcopal Church. What they say or do has very very little to do with ministry in the local parish.
October 3, 11:09 pm | [comment link]
9. NoVA Scout wrote:
It appears to me (I’d love to be wrong on this) that the Diocese is positioning itself (and TEC is engaged in counter-positioning) to undertake a more deliberate and methodical San Joaquin-type diocesan departure and that legal impediments to a departure with property in tow are the subject of attempted dismantling. (Here there is a twist in that the Diocese posits that the history of South Carolina’s in the national church creates distinctions with Diocese that have attempted this in western parts of the country).
Generally speaking, departing groups have encountered rough sledding in the courts because of earlier express accessions to the discipline of the Church or Diocese (in the case of departing parishioners). This goes beyond the Dennis Canon to other evidences of submission to Church discipline and requirements. For South Carolinians, this is very obvious close at hand in the actions of the Georgia courts to date with reference to Christ Church, Savannah. There would be little reason to now renounce these past accessions unless one is attempting to jettison uncomfortable elements that have caused inconvenient legal difficulties in laying claim to properties (if large numbers of parishioners in the Diocese were simply planning to leave and found/build new churches, none of this would be necessary). It is a horrible shame, and it does seem apparent that the structures of the Church are completely inadequate to resolve or cope with these sorts of challenges. I would be very sorry to lose the counsel of estimable people like Bishop Lawrence and his colleagues (including our host) in the Church. I hope things are not as dire as they appear to me to be, but I fear that indeed these events presage imminent secession. I hope if people decide that departure is essential (and I very much respect that decision) they do so without encumbering themselves or those they leave behind with efforts to retain physical properties. We know that such struggles are profoundly damaging to all concerned and are easily avoided. The departing groups can avoid the waste by using their numbers and treasure to build new structures. Those who remain do not have a realistic option to simply let those who leave displace them and also claim property.
October 4, 12:15 am | [comment link]
10. Rob Eaton+ wrote:
October 4, 6:50 am | [comment link]
I suppose you might have said the same thing about me and the delegates from our parish when we protested the actions of the PB and of the uncanonical status of the San Joaquin Special Convention in 2008. And yet, I am still in TECUSA, AS I SAID I WOULD BE before all the fallout, and so is our parish.
Bp Schofield and many clergy and lay leaders were pretty clear they wanted to leave TECUSA; Bp Duncan and many clergy and lay leaders were pretty clear they wanted to leave TECUSA; Bp Iker and many clergy and lay leaders were pretty clear they wanted to leave TECUSA. And they did.
However, Bp Lawrence and many clergy and lay leaders in South Carolina - despite the number who wanted otherwise - said they planned to stay, not go anywhere.
Everything is exactly where it should be. You could trust Schofield, Duncan and Iker to do what they intended to do; so also you can trust Lawrence to do (or in your opinion not to do) what he said he would do.
So why is it you would once again introduce speculation and doubt simply because YOU doubt and fear? Your tut-tutting and wringing of hands sounds so insincere.
It would be very good for you to trust in a bishop whose yes is yes, and whose no is no.
11. NoVA Scout wrote:
That’s reassuring, Father Eaton, and I apologise for sounding insincere to you in this flat medium. But my sincerity and sadness about good people leaving is profound. My concern is that I discerned no particular reason for the Diocesan organs to disclaim previous accessions to church discipline other than legal positioning to avoid impediments to property claims. I would be absolutely delighted to find that Bishop Lawrence is steadfast in his intentions to stay, as I am am pleased that you have done so also.
October 4, 7:57 am | [comment link]
12. Kendall Harmon wrote:
In case anyone is confused, I have given this post priority, which means it stays at the top of the blog until I undesignate it as such.
This is why it appears now (i.e. the morning of Tuesday October 4) to appear out of order.
I think the matter important, and hope and trust people will pray for the diocese.
October 4, 8:29 am | [comment link]
13. CBH wrote:
Do not our bravest and most worthy always go forth for the rest of us? I see the blessed Bishop of South Carolina doing just that for all of the Church Catholic. He will not be alone and his mission will not be for naught. Thanks be to God for him and for the Diocese of South Carolina.
October 4, 8:42 am | [comment link]
14. David Hein wrote:
No. 8: “If you really want to follow Jesus, call off your war (justified or not) with the Episcopal Church. What they say or do has very very little to do with ministry in the local parish.”
And if we check the record, will we find you saying in 2003: “TEC, call off your war with the Anglican Communion.” Or in the next few years, “TEC: call off your war with traditionalists and embrace TWR”? Who are the intransigent belligerents in this mess? Who’s inflicted the most damage on a once glorious denomination over the last 10+ years?
“What they say or do has very very little to do with ministry in the local parish.” Of course it does, though, and those effects are (often quietly) reflected in membership numbers and pledges and church closings. The fact that TEC parishes have not been eager to discuss national issues, however, is a well-known fact, I’ll grant you.
October 4, 9:43 am | [comment link]
15. David Keller wrote:
#8—Peter L—That is a lovely thought, but explain how you do “mission and ministry” in TEC if you are a Christian? To say what KJS and EC are doing to disrupt the fabric of apostolic faith, does not effect the local parish is untrue. The Church is not the United Way in vestments, though KJS and the powers of TEC want it to be. We do not do good works in a vacuum. The blood of the cross trumps buildings and endownments. Jesus did not promise standing up for Him would be easy. Having no conflict is not the same thing as having peace. Jesus’ peace passes human conflict and human understanding, and obtaining it often involves being in conflict with the forces of the world.
October 4, 9:50 am | [comment link]
16. Sarah wrote:
RE: “My concern is that I discerned no particular reason for the Diocesan organs to disclaim previous accessions to church discipline . . . “
Really? NOVA Scout didn’t notice the violation of the TEC constitution due to the massive changes to the canons that were passed in 2009? Masses of ink were spilled explaining the issues with the changes in detail. The Curmudgeon wrote in detail about it and of course Mark Lawrence wrote in details about it—several times—in the runup to the diocese’s making clear in its convention that it would accede to the Constitution where it is violated by the Canons.
Obviously, also, NOVA Scout is unaware of the excellent SC Supreme Court decision about property. Heh—it will take the US Supreme Court to reverse that, and I’m sure that Beers and Schori recognize that and all of this will end up at that level anyway.
RE: “I doubt your end result will be much different: many people leaving the church.”
Well of course *that’s* true—because we have a very heretical and corrupt leadership of TEC instituting heretical and corrupt actions. So it’s a given that “many people” will leave TEC.
RE: ” . . . call off your war (justified or not) with the Episcopal Church.”
??? It’s interesting that responding to actions by current TEC leaders is considered a “war” with the Episcopal Church. Lawrence is “the Episcopal Church.”
RE: “What they say or do has very very little to do with ministry in the local parish.”
Rich rich irony. What the heretics in charge of TEC do has oodles to do with “‘ministry in the local parish” especially when the “local parish” watches their parishioners leave. Indeed, down in the lower diocese a very large parish has left. And up here in Upper South Carolina, we’ve had a thriving mission depart en masse, 2/3 of another parish depart, and several of our former large parishes halved or more by departing parishes. There’s quite a nice AMiA parish in Columbia that was planted when people left in bunches three of the main TEC parishes there.
Many of our parishes up here in Upper South Carolina are smoldering ruins of what they once were seven years ago. So yes, what our current leaders are doing to this church in propagating their political agenda has lots to do with “ministry in the local parish” [which parishes are getting much smaller.]
October 4, 9:57 am | [comment link]
17. New Reformation Advocate wrote:
Thanks, Kendall, for posting this and giving it priority. It’s a marvelous letter, so clear and forthright, yet polite, superb in every way.
I fully agree with Sarah and others that I think that unfortunately, the noble +Lawrence’s days as a bishop of TEC are numbered. But I don’t think this letter really changes anything; it only restates the obvious. However, it shows that he and the standing committee aren’t trying to evade conflict or pretend it doesn’t exist, but they are squarely facing the stark challenge and grim reality of the situation. BRAVO!
The more time that passes, the more my deep respect and admiration for +Lawrence grows. OTOH, conversely, the more my utter disdain and even contempt for ++KJS also grows. Sorry to say it, but sadly it’s true.
October 4, 10:02 am | [comment link]
18. SC blu cat lady wrote:
Do you know not know what has happened here in SC? Our Supreme Court has said the Dennis Canon has no effect in creating a trust here because it was not done according to SC law. So I am confused at how property litigation is going to be involved. I don’t see how TEC is going to handle the many lawsuits to would take in this diocese to try and go after every piece of property in the diocese especially with very real possibility that these lawsuits could be thrown out. TEC has charted a very dangerous course for itself pursuing all its current lawsuits simultaneously. TEC is in horrible financial shape.
I made an off the cuff remark while walking back to a parish hall, someone who I did not know answered me with that would be too simple and beside they are too arrogant to see any other way except theirs that works. These leaders are pursuing their strategy but we have our work to do as well. Their strategy will be their downfall. With our work and mission, we are still here and doing fine. The Diocese of SC existed before the national church and we expect to be around for long time. TEC, on the other hand is in a dangerous free fall- losing members, revenues down, pursuing costly litigation to buy buildings but no people to use them for worship, pay for upkeep on them, etc. Truthfully, who do you think has the better strategy??
October 4, 10:28 am | [comment link]
19. justice1 wrote:
As a previous intern at St. John’s Shaughnessy (now St. John’s Vancouver, Canada, an ACNA parish, who recently left their building, pencils and all after a lengthy legal battle) I too have seen what legal battles can do. All across Canada now parishes which have stood firm are walking out of properties, and so called “Anglican Church of Canada” worship is being “restored”. I for one believe that the problem is volume. If more churches and diocese would (or would have, in the case of Canada) stood together as one against the revisionists, the sheer volume of lawsuits, and force of numbers would have made all the difference. Instead, most of the like minded have kept a low profile, watching the others go down in flames, and then leave the ACC. I suspect the same will happen in TEC (yes, I actually believe that most people in our churches are not revisionists, only their leaders). Sadly, the Diocese of South Carolina, one of the shining stars of the Church, not just TEC, in America, will eventually have to go it alone in the courts, fighting precedents being set now in court battles against those who have left, and spending millions of dollars to do it.
October 4, 10:34 am | [comment link]
20. SC blu cat lady wrote:
WOW, Thanks to Sarah and David Handy+ for their comments. Alas, Nova Scout brought out my angry side. Kudos to both Sarah and David Handy+ for their wonderful words. Sarah made a great point that the current agenda of TEC is indeed devastating for local parish ministry. How could it not be ??? Were the leaders that short sighted thinking that being “inclusive” would bring droves of new people to TEC? As Dr. Phil would say, “how is it working for ya?” Well, if the stats on TEC are any indication…. not very well is the answer.
I agree with David Handy+, my respect and admiration for Mark Lawrence+ grows with every situation that has to be handled by him and the other diocesan leaders whether it is handled by our Bishop and standing committee or all our delegates assembled in convention. Well done!!
October 4, 10:43 am | [comment link]
21. Creedal Episcopalian wrote:
(Here there is a twist in that the Diocese posits that the history of South Carolina’s in the national church creates distinctions with Diocese that have attempted this in western parts of the country)
Another twist, while we are twisting: The S.Carolina supreme court has rendered the Denis Canon moot, at least in S. Carolina. I wonder if Bishop Lawrence is pushing to get this conflict into the U.S. Supreme Court. Or into the briar patch.
October 4, 11:12 am | [comment link]
22. New Reformation Advocate wrote:
Thanks for your kind words. Much appreciated.
The problem is that no one man, however noble and strong (like +Lawrence), can stand alone. Nor can one diocese, by itself. Alas, “Divide and conquer” has been an effective war strategy for a long time, and our Enemy (below) has been exploiting it for centuries.
But one of the things that I so admire about +Lawrence is that his vision is not limited to the battle for the soul of TEC and its people. He keeps his eye on the ball and realizes that the real battle is for the soul of Anglicanism worldwide. Your fine diocesan motto about promoting “biblical Anglicanism for a global age” communicates that well.
The DSC has a crucial role to play not only in North American Anglicanism, but in the destiny of global Anglicanism. Indeed, this war affects all biblical, orthodox Christians, of all denominations (or none). Whatever happens in SC really does matter, and it matters a lot. The stakes are very high.
October 4, 11:18 am | [comment link]
23. Ralph wrote:
Any attempt to depose +Mark for anything other than a flagrant and blatant violation of canons will result in a firestorm that will ultimately cost TEC millions in legal costs alone. I suspect that the people of the diocese would fight to the end, since that is the nature of South Carolinians. I hope that someone in the national TEC leadership realizes that.
October 4, 11:33 am | [comment link]
24. Undergroundpewster wrote:
The Bishop’s letter is a lot nicer than anything I would have written.
This “war” that people are alluding to is more than a war of words, or a war of legal opinions. The underlying problems that divide us are, as others have pointed out, revisionism, heresy, and I would add pride. Following Christ and believing in His Word is of course the only way we have to deal with heresy.
Another good way would be to depose the Executive Council at 815 for this violation of canons.
October 4, 12:06 pm | [comment link]
25. Hakkatan wrote:
Bp Lawrence does not intend to leave; that is his statement and I believe he will hold to it. However, that does not mean that he will not make some adjustments to his plans if the response of 815 is to attempt to discipline him and/or the Diocese of SC for daring to stand up to their weaseling around with the canons. If 815 tries to depose him, he will fight back, and the diocese with him - and the end result may be a declaration of independence, as it were.
The situation would wind up in court, and while we know that any rational reading of the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church, along with the history and other pertinent factors would support SC’s stand for orthodoxy, the judges of our country have been influenced in their legal thinking by the current cultural climate of relativity, etc, so that they are unlikely to understand the values of the bishop and most of the diocese, while they will understand the values of 815 - and that will tip the balance in favor of the PB and crew. State judges may understand the diocese - but this case is likely to be appealed to the federal level, and they are more likely to follow the cultural lead.
October 4, 12:19 pm | [comment link]
26. Sarah wrote:
RE: “Bp Lawrence does not intend to leave; that is his statement and I believe he will hold to it.”
Me too—and I think 815’s just sick over that. ; > )
October 4, 12:35 pm | [comment link]
27. Pageantmaster ن wrote:
It’s the old story of the false prophets being unable to tolerate the Godly. But they should beware, because this is the Lord’s battle, not ours 2 Kings 6:15-17.
Prayers for Bishop Lawrence and the wonderful growing and Godly Diocese of South Carolina. We are lucky to have their ministry.
October 4, 12:37 pm | [comment link]
28. sophy0075 wrote:
Praise God for Bishop Lawrence’s courageous adherence to the Gospel despite the sniping attacks of 815. Thank you, Kendall, for keeping this issue uppermost on your site.
And for that matter:
October 4, 12:55 pm | [comment link]
Praise God for the wisdom of the Supreme Court of SC, which understands and applies black letter trust law and common sense!
God bless you, Sarah and +David Handy for your cogent remarks. The comments of the revisionist to this article angered me so that I dared not start typing in reply - I am sure the elves would have barred my remarks (note to self: must re-read Rom 12:19) From your comments, Sarah, I know you live in a rather - ahem! - “challenging” diocese. I pray for you and all the faithful there.
29. steveatmi5 wrote:
I believe the comments about South Carolina and history have everything to do with how the diocese sees this all developing, which is that their sovereignty as a diocese is being assailed in ways that are not legitimate.
Bishop Lawrence wants to stay in a church faithful to the gospel is what he has said. That TEC every month it seems seems less and less to be that I am sure is making that more and more difficult.
October 4, 12:59 pm | [comment link]
30. SC blu cat lady wrote:
I remember when Bishop Lawrence offered up the motto- Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age at a convention. Now there is even a T-shirt!!
Our actual diocesan motto is on the diocesan shield and it is “Let no man despise thee”. It is part of Titus 2:15. Not sure how that is working out. I suspect there are many that despise us as a diocese and Lawrence+ as our bishop. Perhaps it should be changed to Titus 1:9 ? ;- )
October 4, 1:01 pm | [comment link]
31. New Reformation Advocate wrote:
Thanks, SC blu cat lady (#30).
I’m happy to stand corrected about the actual diocesan motto. I was going from a vague memory.
Thanks also to sophy0075 (#28) for her kind words.
I must admit that I get a chuckle out of being promoted to being a bishop when laypeople put the cross before my name rather than after it (where it goes for priests). There are many things I would never want to be, and being a bishop is certainly one of them. And the trials and tribulations that +Mark Lawrence is having to endure are one reason why (although a more important factor is that I’m manifestly unsuited for the role).
October 4, 3:28 pm | [comment link]
32. evan miller wrote:
Please everyone, keep +Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina in your prayers daily. I’ve been doing so since +Lawrence was elected. Being able to worship in such a diocese is the highpoint of my visits to SC. God bless and protect +Lawrence, the Standing Committee and parishes of the Diocese of South Carolina.
October 4, 4:11 pm | [comment link]
33. Albany+ wrote:
It is a grave error on every level for 815 to pursue this Diocese. Three reasons are self-evident:
1. They are right theologically, canonically, and legally.
2. Their pockets and “fire power” are at least as deep and strong as 815.
3. They won’t stand alone.
Back off. You don’t want to go there.
October 4, 4:16 pm | [comment link]
34. tired wrote:
TEC is all about stories and appearance. I agree with the substance of the Dio SC’s measured response. But history, order, veracity, logic, and consistency only go so far. In their place, TEC seems to be creating its own narrative or story, with the PB affirming it or fabricating evidence as necessary to advance her objectives. I find this exchange interesting in the context of the restriction of Bp. Warner.
Here is an excerpt from Bp. Rickel’s letter to the diocese about that process:
“I received allegations regarding Bishop Warner several weeks ago, and promptly reported them to the presiding bishop’s office. The Rt. Rev. F. Clayton Matthews, in his capacity as the Episcopal Church’s intake officer for allegations regarding bishops of the church, reviewed the complaints with the presiding bishop, and found that according to Title IV (Section 6.7), the evidence presented, if true, constitutes an offense. On Monday, I received a copy of a letter from the presiding bishop to Bishop Warner, informing him that she had issued a “restriction of ministry.” The restriction will remain in place until the matter is resolved following procedures outlined in Title IV of the canons of the Episcopal Church. In these proceedings, the Diocese of Olympia’s role is limited to providing information requested by an investigator who is chosen by and works on behalf of the presiding bishop’s office.”
In such a climate of abuse within TEC, it is not difficult to imagine allegations being made against Bp. Lawrence, and 815 deeming them “if true, constitutes an offense.”
As I noted above, I agree with the substance of the response. TEC, however, may be establishing a record that some bodies somewhere in the ‘hierarchy’ of TEC disagree with SC’s construction. For their purposes, it matters little that the body lacks jurisdiction or authority. At the appropriate time, the PB will embrace it or testify that it is the normative, or established view.
October 4, 4:22 pm | [comment link]
35. SC blu cat lady wrote:
Sorry, David+, I have never made the connection between the placement of ‘+’ and being priest or bishop. While I obviously agree with what our bishop and standing committee have done for their response, it is amazing how abusive TEC can be and so far from this all loving inclusive group they claim to be.
Thanks to all who keep us in your prayers, it means more than you will ever understand. I too pray for our clergy every day especially our bishop.
I wish there were a way to end this nonsensical abuse of our canons,constitution and even worse the systematic destruction of our faith.
October 4, 5:35 pm | [comment link]
36. Rob Eaton+ wrote:
“I would be absolutely delighted to find that Bishop Lawrence is steadfast in his intentions to stay, as I am am pleased that you have done so also.”
Why is it you accept my decision as fait accompli, yet regard Bp Lawrence’s stated decision as fait pas sur?
October 4, 5:40 pm | [comment link]
I’m curious to know what chronological point you have set for Bp Lawrence that will satisfy you’re unbelief, and set your new course of hope. (Hebrews 11:1). Otherwise, your would be delight really has no further meaning, don’t you agree?
37. Jill Woodliff wrote:
I don’t pretend to fully understand the cause-and-effect dynamics of the spiritual realm. However, the seizure of Naboth’s vineyard ultimately led to the downfall of Ahab and Jezebel. My hunch is that the seizure of the diocese of South Carolina would ultimately lead to the downfall of 815 (and perhaps even the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury).
October 4, 9:46 pm | [comment link]
The stakes are bigger than they seem.
38. Karen B. wrote:
Been busy and nowhere near the blogs for days. Thanks for highlighting this today, Kendall. I’d likely have missed it otherwise.
I’ll be increasing my prayers for +Mark and the leadership of the diocese of SC. Thanking God for the faithfulness, wisdom and steadfastness I see in this response. May God be your strong support in these challenging days, and may He get the glory as you stand for Him.
October 5, 7:40 am | [comment link]
39. NoVA Scout wrote:
Father Eaton: I think my default usage of the implied conditional tense with regard to Bishop Lawrence as opposed to the present indicative with my expression of delight in your continued service was simply a reflection of my age, my heavily Latin-influenced instruction in grammar, and the fact that your description of your situation was first-hand, whereas your description of Bishop Lawrence’s views was second hand (for me). But, to be very clear, I AM delighted, thankful for and cheered by Bishop Lawrence’s devotion to remaining with the Episcopal Church. We need his voice. I am a bit concerned that my initial reaction that hostilities have opened is confirmed by later events, but Bishop Lawrence’s dedication to continuing in TEC will put to route any allegations that he intends to undermine the structure, canons, and authority of TEC and all this will pass quickly. That is our great hope for avoiding additional strife in God’s church. Again, I appreciate your assurances and your individual decisions. I know they were not easy ones.
October 5, 9:07 pm | [comment link]
40. Rob Eaton+ wrote:
October 6, 1:16 am | [comment link]
And as we all know, taking cross-cultural communications for granted can often cause tense problems.