A very well-done and useful explanation of why the Title IV proceedings underway involving Bishop Lawrence should be abandoned (to use a word that has an appeal is some church quarters these days) immediately. The key point is that the reasoning for the “big change” advocates is so thin, even superficial, that it shouldn’t hold up under serious legal scrutiny and simply doesn’t reach first base. Mr. McCall’s analysis touches all the bases and I believe if my legislation professor is still alive he’d appreciate reading the analysis and give it high marks.

Since Bishop Henderson’s revelation yesterday that they had the allegations against Bishop Lawrence *before* Title IV changed, I think it’s not a stretch to see the timing of this as a way to “force the issue”-  basically, by timing they have manufactured a crisis where one would not have occurred had they dealt with these allegations when the universally recognized Title IV was still in place.

There seem to be three well followed and almost ‘sacred’ adages at play on the part of the TEC leadership:
a.  “Whatever advances the revolution [agenda] is moral, whatever opposes the revolution [agenda] is immoral.”

b.  “The ends justify the means.”

c.  “Those who support [don’t go along with] the revolution [agenda] are the enemies of the revolution [agenda].”

I am not using these adages lightly and open-minded students of much the political history of the world’s nations over the past 100 years or so cannot deny their effective application in the past or their current modern validity in certain circles.

If I am not badly mistaken, if accusations or charges or complaint or whatever you will call them were made while the last set of canons for chapter 4 were in effect, they should be the canons used as well as the same disciplinary board or committee and the old rules of procedure and evidence.  In civil courts if an offense occurs prior to a change in statute, and charges are made, then the old statute as well as its punishments apply. Not doing that makes a change in direction in midstream and in civil courts it would not work. If this is not followed, then you can change the rules as you go along and convict just about anyone of anything.  Not that I would put that past KJS and her pit bull.  I think this is an example of how equitable this investigation will be, Wonderland revisited.

I think I’m naive about more than I realized, since, when I think of the number of bishop-members in the ongoing proceeding, I’ve expected at least a few to have read some of the fairly large number of critiques/analyses/comments relating to this procedure and the many controversial underpinnings, issues, events, etc., that relate. And it seems very reasonable to expect some resignation or other bailing out to be in process or at least to have been announced, since there is already major “appearance” issues, and, of course, that’s without knowing many more matters that could be discovered through legal process.

Regarding the idea that the crisis might be manufactured:
I’m no insider and certainly don’t know what is going on.  At the grass roots level, though, folks all across the theological spectrum are squeamish:
—They believe Lawrence was trying to stay, not leave.
—Litigation is a poor witness for the church.
—They find the estimated amount of money TEC has spent on litigation (twenty-two million dollars) to be obscene.
—They are dismayed by the secrecy of TEC’s bookkeeping, the liens on the endowments, etc.
—They fear that the deposition of Lawrence would trigger a litigation bloodbath, with no one benefitting except the attorneys.
—Given the lack of jurisdiction of the Dennis Canon in South Carolina, they are wondering who is stirring up this hornets’ nest and why.

Litigation is a poor witness for the church

Yes, but just as we have RINOs [Republicans in name only], so we also have CINOs [Churches in name only].  Since they have not listened to Paul on sexuality, throwing out the teaching on Christians suing Christians is nothing.

It is appalling; I pray God will have mercy on all of us.

#5- you ask a good question. Does anyone know the chatter on the House of Deputies list serve? #6- is this where you are getting your info? I’m pretty insulated here in SC and would love to know what is being said by revisionists in hostile dioceses.

#8, I’ve simply had personal communication with a handful of people, from two dioceses, and have been surprised that the progressives and orthodox are saying the same things.  Don’t know what HoD list serve is saying.

As to litigation being a poor witness at the church - at a time when so much attention is being focused on wasteful spending and profligacy in general, a church, of all things, spending so much time, money and energy on lawsuits against fellow Christians seems utterly irresponsible, offensive - I can’t find the right word. What a senseless waste of money given in good faith to support the work of the Lord.

Right on, Jill (#6).

Thanks for listing the absurdities so conveniently.  This insanity makes no sense at all.  Except to the cabal running TEC these days.  Lord, have mercy.

David Handy+

So is Jerry Lamb our wonderful bishop retired from Northern California in line to be the new rump bishop as he was in San Joaquin?

God help you if he is!