Episcopal Church Takes Action Against the Bishop and Diocese of South Carolina

Posted by Kendall Harmon



On Monday, October 15, 2012, Bishop Mark J. Lawrence, the 14th Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina was notified by the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, that on September 18, 2012 the Disciplinary Board for Bishops had certified his abandonment of The Episcopal Church. This action by The Episcopal Church triggered two pre-existing corporate resolutions of the Diocese, which simultaneously disaffiliated the Diocese from The Episcopal Church and called a Special Convention. That Convention will be held at St. Philip’s Church, Charleston, on Saturday, November 17, 2012.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts SchoriTEC BishopsTEC ConflictsTEC Conflicts: South CarolinaTEC Polity & Canons* Christian Life / Church LifeChurch History* South Carolina

105 Comments
Posted October 17, 2012 at 4:02 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Jim the Puritan wrote:

Very sad.  Very, very sad.  The last ounce of credibility of the Episcopal Church as Christian has departed.

October 17, 5:17 pm | [comment link]
2. okifan18 wrote:

More self-destructive action which will leads to so much diverted time, energy, money and who knows what else into venues other than the Kingdom of God.

Awful and sad.

October 17, 5:37 pm | [comment link]
3. Brian from T19 wrote:

Truly sorry to hear this

October 17, 6:21 pm | [comment link]
4. Teatime2 wrote:

Wow. I am saddened for the bishop and everyone in the diocese. What is TEC gaining from being a sue-happy bully? Could there be any movement started among the other dioceses to “have South Carolina’s back,” so to speak? This is utterly ridiculous and has to stop.

October 17, 6:41 pm | [comment link]
5. C. Wingate wrote:

Deeply asinine.

October 17, 6:43 pm | [comment link]
6. Cennydd13 wrote:

5.  You’re right, of course, but this was not unexpected, was it?  Katherine Jefferts Schori (I refuse to call her a clergyperson) has sworn all along to get even with him, and she’s done it.  As a result, the people of the Diocese and their bishop are going to have to make a decision soon as to where they will go, since I don’t see them remaining in TEC, but I believe that their future might lie with the ACNA, and failing that, to proclaim their independence from any connection by going it alone.  I wish them well, whatever they may choose to do.

October 17, 6:58 pm | [comment link]
7. A Senior Priest wrote:

An unnecessary and hysterical action by a frightened person. Poor Mrs Schori flails about, trying to act in a ruthless manner, but instead only manages to snatch long-term defeat from the jaws of her Pyrrhic victories.

October 17, 7:00 pm | [comment link]
8. Ian+ wrote:

Teatime2 is right: It is bullying. But the line in the press release, “These actions make it clear The Episcopal Church no longer desires to be affiliated with the Diocese of South Carolina,” seems to be a bit of a resort to 815’s tactic of manipulating words. It’s not that 815 “no longer desires to be affiliated with” SC, but that it wants to weed out SC’s leadership.

October 17, 7:01 pm | [comment link]
9. Greg wrote:

This action should not be a surprise to anyone who has come to understand the non-Christian leadership team the rules TEC.  On their web site in the “All about us” section it states:

“The mission of the Church, as stated in The Book of Common Prayer’s catechism (page 855), is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.”

Does TEC’s action support this statement?

Thank goodness we have the ACNA to consider!

October 17, 7:19 pm | [comment link]
10. Tomb01 wrote:

Amazing.  When I became an Episcopalian in 1974 I thought I was joining a denomination that had common sense about Christianity.  Sigh, turns out that the Episcopal leadership are actually a**ho*es.

Money is more important than Christ…  So we know where their treasure is.

October 17, 7:20 pm | [comment link]
11. dwstroudmd+ wrote:

Ah, Ian+, EcUSA has made it abundantly clear that it does not want to be associated with orthodox Christian belief, much less the DioSC.  What the wording “These actions make it clear The Episcopal Church no longer desires to be affiliated with the Diocese of South Carolina,” accomplishes is specifically that.  The tactics employed by the “hierarchy” of the EcUSA demonstrate that any leadership deviating from their deviancy will be “punished” - failure to bow the knee to the Great Leader has replaced support for sexual deviancy as the unforgiveable sin.

I wish that this will open the eyes of incumbent ABC, whose willful blindness to the consequences of his failure to address EcUSA’s errors is inescapable, and open the eyes of whomever is his successor to EcUSA’s soul.  But I doubt either will occur.

October 17, 7:24 pm | [comment link]
12. Katherine wrote:

This is very sad for all concerned.  How can remaining Episcopalians trust their leadership after this kind of behavior?

October 17, 7:51 pm | [comment link]
13. Ross wrote:

I’m as reappraiser as ever was, and a staunchly liberal Christian of the type that many of you would decline to recognize as a Christian at all.

This, however… this is both ethically wrong and strategically dumb.  815 and ++KJS would be far better off on both counts just leaving +Mark Lawrence and DSC alone.

October 17, 8:08 pm | [comment link]
14. Milton Finch wrote:

UPDATE: News release from The Episcopal Church
Disciplinary Board for Bishops certifies
that South Carolina Bishop has abandoned the church
[October 17, 2012] The Disciplinary Board for Bishops has advised Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori that the majority of the 18-member panel has determined that Bishop Mark Lawrence of the Diocese of South Carolina has abandoned the Episcopal Church “by an open renunciation of the Discipline of the Church.”

Following complaints of 12 adult members and two priests of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, the determination was made under Canon IV.16(A).

The 18 member board – composed of 10 bishops, four clergy, four laity – issued a letter dated September 18. Following the assembly of numerous documents, the Presiding Bishop received the letter in her Church Center office on October 10; the letter was received via U.S. Mail.

On Monday October 15, the Presiding Bishop called Lawrence and, speaking directly with him, informed him of the action of the Disciplinary Board. She also informed him that, effective noon of that day, the exercise of his ministry was restricted. Therefore, under the canon, he is not permitted to perform any acts as an ordained person.

From here, Lawrence has 60 days to respond to the allegations in the certification

October 17, 8:18 pm | [comment link]
15. Big Vicar wrote:

I don’t blame the evil Kathryn as much as I blame the army of spineless Bishops snapping to her every command. I expect my Bishop to protect his flock while battling the forces of darkness. Regrettably, he cowers and hides like the rest of them.

And Jesus wept.

October 17, 8:21 pm | [comment link]
16. trimom wrote:

Fascinating, really. Tec will let +Pike stand. Let +Bennison stand. Heck, will even let +Spong stand. But give them someone who is faithful to the Constitution and Canons and to the faith once imparted - they have to get rid of him. Explain the logic in this. I just don’t get it.

October 17, 8:22 pm | [comment link]
17. Big Vicar wrote:

trimom,
The PB needs a scapegoat for TEC’s shortcomings. Unfortunately, that scapegoat is Jesus Christ.

October 17, 8:27 pm | [comment link]
18. Katherine wrote:

That’s what I mean, Ross, #13.  There are going to be other types of disagreements in the church going forward.  How can anyone be sure he or she won’t be the next target?  This action is destabilizing, even for those who agree with the leadership on the current set of issues.

October 17, 8:28 pm | [comment link]
19. Cennydd13 wrote:

There IS no logic, Trimom…...or at least not a logic that normal sane people would understand.  But then again, we’re not talking about a normal person here, but a power-mad dictator.

October 17, 8:31 pm | [comment link]
20. DTerwilliger wrote:

Another histrionic spasm of by Schori and company who think the church is the place for all kinds of values-experimentation except the exercise of Biblical, orthodox, Christianity.  Are there any TEC Bishops left who will stand up to this bullying and bring charges against Schori herself?

October 17, 8:51 pm | [comment link]
21. Jim the Puritan wrote:

I think Lawrence was the last, wasn’t he?  In any event, anyone who joins him would be promptly also deposed in any event.  Interesting how all this can be done without any sort of due process.

October 17, 9:05 pm | [comment link]
22. Brian from T19 wrote:

It will be interesting to see what happens next.  Kendall+ used the term “Alleged Actions” of TEC below which leads me to believe that +Lawrence will claim that TECs actions are invalid.  If he does recognize and answer the charges, he can’t deny them as they are factual.  The only argument within TEC that he can make is that those factual actions do not constitute abandonment.

October 17, 9:19 pm | [comment link]
23. fishsticks wrote:

I hope Fitz and his buddies, whose votes put KJS over the top and made her our PB with the express goal of bringing TEC to a crisis point, are proud of themselves and pleased with the results of their actions.

October 17, 9:28 pm | [comment link]
24. Dan Crawford wrote:

I am amazed at the cowardice of priests and bishops who have let this woman and her minions act arbitrarily and irrationally with no resistance. Charges could be brought against her for all sorts of behavior but they bury their heads in the sand and pretend it will all go away.

October 17, 9:33 pm | [comment link]
25. Undergroundpewster wrote:

I call it an unrighteous action. I am very upset and suggest we pray for all the parties involved.

October 17, 9:34 pm | [comment link]
26. Saltmarsh Gal wrote:

Congrats (cynically spoken) to the Forum members who pressed this through - you deluded yourselves into thinking that you will preserve unity by these actions and the result will be the destruction of the Episcopal Diocese of SC.  Is that what you were after?

October 17, 9:52 pm | [comment link]
27. Cennydd13 wrote:

24.  Saying things like this about them is like whistling into the wind, Dan.  Anything we say just passes right over their heads and into the ether, and as far as they’re concerned, we don’t even exist, except when they decide to sue us.  For instance, whenever any of us remarks about TEC’s leaders, do they respond, except to lie about us and call us “schismatics,” when they know very well why we left (actually, it was THEY who left US.)?

October 17, 9:52 pm | [comment link]
28. Jim the Puritan wrote:

Just remember that someday we all must give an accounting.  Scripture is clear that teachers and elders will be held to a higher standard as to how they took care of the flock and were faithful to the Gospel.

I certainly am hoping I hear “Well done, good and faithful servant,” rather than “Begone, I never knew you.”

October 17, 9:57 pm | [comment link]
29. Branford wrote:

I was hoping they wouldn’t go this far, but I should have known better. I grew up going to St. Philips (otherwise known as the Mother Church). Even though I’ve left Charleston and TEC, my family is still pretty evenly split between St. Michael’s and St. Philip’s–if TEC finds The Falls Church in Virginia difficult to maintain due to its age and historic significance (old churches take tons of money), just wait til they see St. Philips and St. Michael’s–hugely larger than The Falls Church and in need of constant maintenance, and they’re just the start of the list.

On the other hand, I do not see members of the Diocese of South Carolina going quietly into the night. There is a small group (Episcopal Forum) out to get +Lawrence, but from what I hear from family and friends there, he is very well supported by the clergy and laity. He has a good legal team, and the SC Supreme Court gives the diocese a strong hand. To top it all off, nothing gets Southerners more united than some New York hotshots coming down and telling us what is and isn’t ours.

And I keep thinking about the All Saints Pawleys Island lawsuit. As divisive as that was with Bishop Salmon and All Saints, it was out of that lawsuit, I believe, that the SC Supreme Court ruled that the *parish* owned the property, not the diocese. And it was Bishop Lawrence who engineered the stand-down agreement on that in order to bring a peaceful resolution. It’s like the circle coming back in on itself (or something cosmic like that) smile

October 17, 10:14 pm | [comment link]
30. Dan Ennis wrote:

The Oct 2nd SC Standing Committee resolution was pretty clear, right?  DioSC disassociates automatically if TEC takes any action that asserted TEC’s hierarchical authority over the Diocese of South Carolina. 

I suppose, tactically, it was stupid for TEC to trigger the automatic clause, but the clause was a de facto disassociation.  If TEC acts like a hierarchical church, DioSC get the right to say, “See, they drove us out!”  But so what?  There’s not much moral high ground to fight over anymore.

As a liberal in South Carolina, I’m relieved, at least now we can go our separate ways.  I don’t speak for anyone but myself, but the sentiment among SC TEC folks I talk to is to let the Conservatives have the buildings.  Many of the structures are mortgaged, and most of them are too big for the number of Episcopalians who will remain attached to TEC.  We know we’re few and far between!

After the dust settles, the Episcopalians and the Conservatives can relate to each other as separate denominations with a shared heritage.  I don’t understand God’s plan yet, but it appears both sides are about to gain some clarity.

October 17, 10:23 pm | [comment link]
31. Stan W wrote:

11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Stan

October 17, 10:35 pm | [comment link]
32. Yebonoma wrote:

Isn’t this a situation that should be a candidate for “radical reconciliation?”

October 17, 10:48 pm | [comment link]
33. Henry wrote:

Dan (#30)...it’s too bad that the TEC side will not allow that to happen.  We’ve been embroiled in multiple legal battles in Ft. Worth since our split.  Our side (+Iker) tried to give the property of those parishes that were majority TECers to them and work for equitable splits for those (very) few parishes that were divided, but they wouldn’t settle for that…they want it all.  So sad that $$$, greed, & power has taken over a once faithful church.

October 17, 11:08 pm | [comment link]
34. wmresearchtrianglenc wrote:

An examination of the particular acts that are claimed to amount to the alleged “abandonment” by Bp. Lawrence leads to a conclusion that the disciplinary board action may well appear pretty clearly to a canon lawyer (which I am not) as insufficient as a matter of law for the reason that the acts alleged by the board appear simply DO NOT constitute an offense per se.  Accordingly, Bp. Lawrence may choose to take a legal road—actually an ethically “high” road under the circumstances. And under these circumstances, in an action of this ilk, ECUSA would appear to have some very tricky options in a spectrum that would include dismissing the board’s action to continue proceeding before the world—and this matter will be one of interest to many around the world—with something not too different in the public mind from what was involved in a formal proceeding pertaining to the late Bishop James Pike (of course in this matter a conservative bishop is involved). Regardless, ECUSA may find itself forced to proceed very, very cautiously because it looks as if it may be proceeding down a very slippery slope.

October 18, 12:24 am | [comment link]
35. Sarah wrote:

RE: “but the clause was a de facto disassociation.”

No it wasn’t.  And we know that because it took a particular action for the automatic response to occur. Otherwise, the particular action would have been met with “we’d already left back during that convention”—which of course they hadn’t.

It was a brilliant stroke, because it left the ball in TECusa leadership’s hands—and they just tossed it into the fire, wantonly, childishly, spitefully. It opens up a window into their little souls.

RE: “There’s not much moral high ground to fight over anymore.”

Right—I think most people recognize that the national church long ago abandoned that ground.

RE: “. . . let the Conservatives have the buildings.”

Schori and Beers simply cannot allow that—it’s not in their nature.

RE: “After the dust settles, the Episcopalians and the Conservatives can relate to each other as separate denominations with a shared heritage.”

I think separate faiths with a shared heritage would be more accurate phrasing. I have no doubt that there will someday be some good interfaith activities with the needy and other groups between the two groups.

October 18, 12:35 am | [comment link]
36. Ad Orientem wrote:

Take heart as this is more a blessing than misfortune. It draws a clear line on one side of which stand heretics and the other those standing up for truth.

“Some have suffered final shipwreck with regard to the faith. Others, though they have not drowned in their thoughts, are nevertheless perishing through communion with heresy.”

-St. Theodore the Studite

October 18, 12:57 am | [comment link]
37. Sarah wrote:

So very proud of the Diocese of South Carolina for their staying in TEC—and the way they stayed, honorably and valiantly, while clearly not in communion with heresy, never perishing, and completely and irritatingly [for some others] differentiated. You were faithful to the will and good pleasure of God.

And so very proud of the Diocese of South Carolina for the way they left. You were faithful to the will and good pleasure of God.

I can hardly think of a better way for all of this to have taken place. God is so good.

October 18, 1:11 am | [comment link]
38. Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) wrote:

After all this time, I’m pretty numb about these affairs. But the sheer wastefulness of the litigation still appalls. If the PB et al stops here and only uses rhetoric from here on, I could accept that. But it seems fairly likely that at least one lawsuit will be filed over this and that it will not be by the Diocese.

By far the smarter strategy would have been to let DoSC remain isolated within the denomination. If the current trends shown by the GC are from God, then the Diocese would wither and perish on its own. These actions show that the PB and friends do not believe they are acting in accordance with the Spirit.

October 18, 4:55 am | [comment link]
39. CharlietheCook wrote:

I’m sure Bishop Lawrence has his supporters in the diocese.  He should.  He’s a good man.  That said, he’s about to become frightfully aware of the power of a paycheck on the first and fifteenth.

October 18, 5:46 am | [comment link]
40. Archer_of_the_Forest wrote:

The sad thing is that the Episcopal Church doesn’t even realize the cultural pandora’s box they just opened with this. I have a lot of friends and roots in South Carolina (Episcopal and otherwise), and I can guarantee you that all of them (even those who don’t give a hoot about the Episcopal Church) are going to interpret this not so much as an inter-denominational squabble but as a Yankee vs. Southern thing.

That is not going to play well either in matters of public opinion or in the South Carolina courts. This is what makes this entirely different than law suits within TEC over property and all in other places. They have just raised the spectre of the Civil War, and that is a big No No in South Carolina of all places. This is bad…this is very, very bad. This is a whole other level of conflict they just anted up.

October 18, 6:47 am | [comment link]
41. Mark Baddeley wrote:

Prayers are with the Diocese of SC and appreciation for your testimony. I also anticipate that you are going to be facing years of potentially very expensive litigation from here. Will pray that God gives you the stamina for it, the ability to stay focused on mission in the midst of it, and for new capable leaders to replace those who drop out during this process. And that the courts will ‘clean their clocks’ when they come trying to claim a trust that was established when they didn’t own the property at the time the trust was made.

October 18, 6:47 am | [comment link]
42. "Peter in the pew" wrote:

Read the trigger document from THE Diocese of South Carolina. It clearly states “THE Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of South Carolina”. The dock has left the boat, the survivors are still in ++Mark Lawrence capable and righteous hands. If anyone would spend any time really, try to understand how this once and future great church was organised and see that The Protestant Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina has not left, but was left by the left, and then reflect on how that should dull the noise so that you can hear the ‘still small voice that never stopped speaking’ .
I am sad for those who are still sipping milk and not yet on solid food.

October 18, 7:00 am | [comment link]
43. Sarah wrote:

RE: “That said, he’s about to become frightfully aware of the power of a paycheck on the first and fifteenth.”

Oh . . . I expect they’ve got all that already figured out, and had done so long ago.

October 18, 7:11 am | [comment link]
44. Br. Michael wrote:

This was expected.  My prayers are with the Diocese of South Carolina, Bishop Lawrence, Fr. Harmon and all the faithful members of that Diocese.  As for TEC we now know the nature of the Beast and its persecution of Goc’s people.  May it go the way of Rome.

October 18, 7:33 am | [comment link]
45. Dan Ennis wrote:

33, I imagine you and I differ on how generous Bishop Iker was toward the TEC loyalist in Fort Worth.  But the Fort Worth case is instructive, in that I’m curious to see how hard Bishop Lawrence tries to hold on to “The Franchise” that is capital “E” Episcopal.

There will have to be a TEC loyalist Standing Committee, and, eventually a TEC bishop to help lead and reorganize the remnant.  Will Bishop Lawrence recognize that TEC in South Carolina will go on? 

What made Fort Worth so bitter on both sides was Iker’s refusal to admit that his Anglican group was going to have to coincide with an Episcopal Diocese that didn’t want to split—thus the absurdity of two groups calling themselves “The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.”

I hope that Bishop Lawrence gets every acre of land, every belfrey, and every last altar in the diocese.  Those can be replaced.  I hope he doesn’t try to take the the name “Episcopal” with him.  We’d kind of like to keep that.

October 18, 7:40 am | [comment link]
46. Sarah wrote:

RE: “What made Fort Worth so bitter on both sides was Iker’s refusal to admit that his Anglican group was going to have to coincide with an Episcopal Diocese that didn’t want to split—thus the absurdity of two groups calling themselves “The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.”

No—what made Fort Worth so bitter on both sides was precisely what made San Joaquin, Quincy, Pittsburgh, and all the various splits within other dioceses so bitter on both sides: the attempted legalized theft of property, coupled with the antithetical and mutually opposing gospels, values, and moral universes in which the two groups reside.

As both such groups reside within the Diocese of South Carolina the rift will be long and deep [though hopefully not bitter—it’s a waste of time and energy to be bitter], as it should be.

October 18, 7:47 am | [comment link]
47. jay 33 wrote:

40 is right.  The thump I heard this morning, was the dead cat being hurled against the front door of Christ Church Greenville.  While the Upper Diocese is theologically more moderate, culturally it aligns closely with DIOSC.  TEC has no legal recourse against DIOSC.  The Courts will not intervene on who should align with whom. The property issue was settled by the quit claim deeds to the parishes.  All TEC can do is recruit parishes in lower diocese to align with it rather than DIOSC.  Up the road this will be a miserable fall and winter because people will feel the need to pick sides and those who never wanted to leave will now want to do so.  Waldo is about to earn his pay.

October 18, 8:26 am | [comment link]
48. Jill Woodliff wrote:

Prayer

October 18, 8:33 am | [comment link]
49. Clueless wrote:

I am so sorry.  Praying for you all.

October 18, 9:15 am | [comment link]
50. Phil wrote:

Prayers for the faithful in South Carolina.  Once again, ECUSA, and Schori in particular, show their lack of honesty, character, decency, and class.  If you’re part of ECUSA, this is who represents you; this is who you support.

October 18, 9:48 am | [comment link]
51. Sarah wrote:

RE: “If you’re part of ECUSA, this is who represents you; this is who you support.”

I’m privileged to be a part of ECUSA and thankful God called me to be so. 

I’m also privileged to be an American citizen, and therefore represented by our national leadership and supporting them with my tax dollars as well.

I’m so grateful that God called the Diocese of South Carolina to be a part of ECUSA for so long—and to equally be represented and “support” [in the way that Phil is defining those words] as they were.

With “support” like that for ECUSA and Schori, which the Diocese of South Carolina provided for so long, who needs enemies?  ; > )

We love you, Diocese of South Carolina!!!  Thanks for all that you have done within TEC and all that you will do outside of TEC.

Signed,

A Happy Episcopalian, nobly “supporting” TEC leaders for 8 years in blogland and other venues

October 18, 9:57 am | [comment link]
52. Adam 12 wrote:

Since Upper South Carolina is being led liberal by their bishop and SC courts have affirmed parish ownership of property, I am wondering if there is going to be a realignment, with Upper S.C. parishes moving under Lawrence and TEC integrating the whole of the state (including Lawrence-defecting parishes) under Waldo. Also isn’t TEC going to have to fight this parish by parish with the quitclaim deeds and sovereignty of vestries that have been put in place? Or am I reading this wrong?

October 18, 10:23 am | [comment link]
53. Paul PA wrote:

Doesn’t the Diocese pay the Bishop’s salary? Won’t he now get his salary from the Diocese and get paid by National by being paid by the pension fund?

October 18, 10:36 am | [comment link]
54. Ralph wrote:

The only potential winners in this are the lawyers, who as usual, need to make payments on their Bentleys. They (and Bentley dealers) will benefit substantially from the litigation.

Right now, ACNA doesn’t have much of a foothold in the neighboring dioceses of USC and GA. It will be interesting to see how this action affects those dioceses.

October 18, 10:44 am | [comment link]
55. Phil wrote:

You’re right, of course, Sarah.  I’m not (necessarily) implying the conclusion to Episcopalians to “get out, because you’re responsible for Schori.”  What I have in mind is just what I would say to Americans as an election nears: this keeps getting worse and worse; double down on your efforts, if you already agree, and, if you don’t, please take a hard look at what’s going on and reconsider your loyalties - even if it’s inside ECUSA.

October 18, 10:52 am | [comment link]
56. Chip Johnson, cj wrote:

Jim the P,

Due process?  Hey, we don’ need no steenking due process! —David Beers, et al.

October 18, 10:58 am | [comment link]
57. Catholic Mom wrote:

As a Catholic, of course, this whole thing was always crazy.  Are you a hierarchical church or a diocesan-based church or a congregational church?  If hierarchical, how can you have bishops of “different faiths” in one church?  If diocesan how can you have parish priests of different faiths under one bishop?  If congregational, how can a bishop interfere in the internal affairs and hiring of a parish?  The whole structure makes no sense.

In reality, this is a Church that has tried to divide authority between congregation and diocese, with a genuflection towards a national body and an even briefer genuflection towards an international organization.  With the muddle of the division of authority, it seems like it could only have been a matter of time before some major question caused a compete fracture.  “A house divided” and all that.  Organizations cannot tolerate this level of dissemination of authority.  Not and stay together.

The truth is, if TEC’s leadership really truly believes they are a hierarchical church (I of course don’t have the slightest idea if they do or not—or if its just an excuse to grab property)—if in their own minds they think they operate like a true hierarchical church—then Bishop Lawrence should have been gone the day he walked out of the General Convention.  In the Catholic Church, he would have been picked up by a dark limousine and never seen again.  But removing bishops at a national level is only really possible (i.e., tolerated by their diocese)  if bishops are *appointed* at a national level, and, of course, in TEC, they aren’t.  So you have all these criss-crossing lines of congregational, diocesan, and national authority and it is not surprising that everyone gets hopelessly entangled in the end.  Not that it couldn’t theoretically work out if everyone was 1) of one mind and 2) acting in good faith.  But of course, #1 and #2 are rarely both true in any organization.

OK, maybe the Catholic Church has on occasion veered just a tad into fascism (the Inquisition spings to mind) but that’s exactly to prevent this kind of insanity, and pretty much it has.  Don’t forget KJS was “raised” (in the sense of showing up for a few years) a Catholic—and you know what they say, even Catholics who become atheists are “Catholic atheists.” smile

October 18, 11:17 am | [comment link]
58. Dan Ennis wrote:

52,  I think that would be best for all concerned.  My guess is that the liberals in DioSC are in a clear majority in 5-7 parishes, probably in a tossup in 3-6 parishes, and in a clear minority in all the rest.  Even assuming the disaffected liberals who stopped going to church when Bishop Lawrence came to town reemerge to join a parish under a new TEC bishop, there’s not a viable diocese. 

But there’s enough TEC loyalists left to have a core in Charleston, and healthy consolidated parishes along the coast (James Island, Hilton Head, Pawley’s Island, Myrtle Beach) and some of the interior areas could probably sustain a TEC congregation (Florence, Dr. Harmon’s backyard of Summerville, Sumter). 

A dozen churches….I think we’d be better off attached to the upper diocese.

October 18, 11:18 am | [comment link]
59. Adam 12 wrote:

#57: I sense that from the start the Episcopal Church was wary of too much national authority in the same way the 13 colonies feared too much centralized power, and what was formed was an association of like-minded autonomous dioceses. As much as we believe in the church being Apostolic, long experience at many times in many places and denominations has shown that national leadership tends to become arbitrary, removed, self-aggrandizing and self-righteous in its exercise of power, hence the creation of a presiding bishop (William White) as a sort of figurehead over the whole thing. What is claimed today is authority over the dioceses without their assent, simply because a majority in the national association says so.

October 18, 12:12 pm | [comment link]
60. WestJ wrote:

I doubt that Sumter would support a liberal Episcopal branch. From what I have seen at Diocesan Convention, there are 2 predominantly liberal churches in Charleston (St Stephen’s and Grace) and a few smaller congregations in Beaufort and Hilton Head. For the most part, the Diocese is very conservative and supportive of the bishop.

October 18, 12:43 pm | [comment link]
61. Karen B. wrote:

Not been able to take time to read everything or to comment in detail, but I’m praying for +Mark, Kendall+ and all the leadership of the Dio of SC.  May the Lord guide you in His paths and keep your hearts in His peace.

October 18, 12:46 pm | [comment link]
62. Sarah wrote:

RE: “I am wondering if there is going to be a realignment, with Upper S.C. parishes moving under Lawrence and TEC integrating the whole of the state (including Lawrence-defecting parishes) under Waldo.”

Problem is . . . the four parishes in the lower diocese which are predominantly liberal [I very much doubt it’s 5-7] wouldn’t nearly replace the parishes in Upper South Carolina whose populace would be thrilled to be aligned with the the lower diocese.

So we’re just not going to have that—I think everybody recognizes up here what a bloodbath that would be for our diocese—no chance as it’s too “costly” in numbers and budgets for the upper diocese.

More likely is that the four parishes in the lower diocese get placed in the upper diocese, causing yet more individuals and clergy who are orthodox in the Upper Diocese to leave, and then plant congregations which then seek alignment with the lower diocese.

It’s going to be really really rough up here—but eventually I think it will all shake out, and we’ll have 1) much smaller “parishes” up here in the Upper Diocese, and 2) church plants aligned with the lower diocese.  In other words, revisionists will be in the Diocese of Upper SC, and conservatives in the Diocese of SC, spread throughout the state.

It *might have been otherwise* had we elected another bishop. But it is what it is and reality is going to be ultimately quite sad for the upper diocese.

I do understand that the two larger revisionist parishes in the lower diocese could add to the upper diocese’s coffers—so there’s that!

October 18, 1:02 pm | [comment link]
63. sejanus wrote:

It is sad and really quite destructive. How can one in conscience support and enable such a denomination, it no longer being synonymous with “church?” Why are there so many people left in TEC is becoming a sad and obvious question.

October 18, 1:02 pm | [comment link]
64. Jim the Puritan wrote:

“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?  What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?”  II Corinthians 6:14-16

October 18, 1:58 pm | [comment link]
65. Publius wrote:

A few years ago the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the Denis Canon is unenforceable in South Carolina. If memory serves, in 2011 the Diocese quitclaimed its interest (if any) in all the parish properties to the respective parishes.

Given those legal facts, I do not understand what property the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor hope to “recover” for TEC. As A.S. Haley has pointed out, from a corporate law perspective, the Diocese of South Carolina remains in place as a legal entity, with its Standing Committee and Bp. Lawrence in office. TEC can start a new diocese in South Carolina, but that new diocese is not the Diocese of South Carolina. TEC’s argument (being litigated in Texas) is that when a bishop or standing committee does something KJS does not like, their vote or similar action functions as an ejector seat, hurling them out of their offices, and creating vacancies for the Potemkin Epsicopal diocese recognized by TEC to fill. That is a shaky argument.

But suppose KJS and her Chancellor convince the South Carolina state courts to enforce their ejector seat argument. My point is: what property do the Potemkin officials take? At this point, the real Diocese of South Carolina owns only property actually titled to it. That property does NOT include any property owned by parishes. There does not seem to be a pot of gold for TEC to seize.

I honestly don’t understand what KJS and 815 think they are getting by doing this. By this action, the Presiding Bishop excludes Bp. Lawrence from the House of Bishops, but he wasn’t coming anyway. Similarly, South Carolina’s delegates are excluded from the next General Convention, but they weren’t planning to go. Perhaps KJS is showing the bishops still in TEC that they better toe the line, or they are next.

October 18, 2:47 pm | [comment link]
66. Sarah wrote:

“And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art: Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph’s hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck; And he made him to ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried before him, Bow the knee: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and without thee shall no man lift up his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt. And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On.”

Genesis 41: 39-45

October 18, 3:14 pm | [comment link]
67. Sarah wrote:

RE: “I honestly don’t understand what KJS and 815 think they are getting by doing this.”

You know, I don’t think they’re doing what they do because of “thinking.”  ; > )

October 18, 3:16 pm | [comment link]
68. Ralph wrote:

It doesn’t add up for me.

Presumably, the presentment and inhibition will go to the HOB for a deposition vote. One can guess how the rabid revisionists (who already don’t care what God thinks) will vote. One can guess how the Godly conservatives will vote. Those ordinary revisionists (the rest) face something of a dilemma - voting to depose a brother bishop who really hasn’t done anything wrong.

The potential for this to split the HOB, and destroy any bit of collegiality remaining, seems large. Furthermore, if the HOB votes for deposition of a brother bishop (without there being real cause), I think those who voted against deposition would have a moral obligation to walk away from the HOB - which was unwilling to take action against the likes of Pike, Spong, and so forth.

By her actions, KJS sealed her doom long ago. This merely adds another seal. For some others, their very souls are at risk. We must pray for them.

October 18, 4:17 pm | [comment link]
69. Jim the Puritan wrote:

#68—Maybe that is what God is intending to happen, that the House of Bishops will split and there will be no more TEC.

October 18, 4:20 pm | [comment link]
70. tired wrote:

Some stray musings/thoughts/comments/queries bouncing about my feeble cranium:

*TEC has been receiving little or nothing from DioSC in $ support.  Abandoning or attacking it would not change cash flow into TEC – at least not in the short term.  However, its actions could affect the short term cash flow out.  IIRC, George Conger reported a $3M litigation budget.

*based on history, I expect that these events augur litigation.  However, AFAIK we are not there yet.  If TEC were collectively struck by a lightning bolt of reasonableness – could it use the events thus far merely to assimilate the dissenting parishes into a friendly body under its control – as noted above - and then wash its hands of DioSC?  Of course, that seems inconsistent and unlikely given history, but it is an available option – one possibly rendered more significant in its likely rejection.  In other words, TEC is not forced by circumstances to litigate, and has very good reasons not to do so in this case.  If it does litigate, it does so despite those reasons.

*On a different tack, if for example TEC were to decide things in Fort Worth were not going well, or if it was otherwise approaching a possible decision about settling diocesan lawsuits, would it make sense for TEC to try to deal with DioSC at the same time, possibly in some sort of package or common approach?  Of course, the parties, courts, claims, and issues all differ - only TEC is the common element – but could TEC hope for greater concession from a larger group of orthodox defendants?  My question is whether a defendant diocese/bishop might concede more, given the knowledge that the release of other reasserters might be at stake… What if one defendant was advised to refrain from the group deal?

*TEC’s influence on the inutile and ridiculous communion bodies is at a high level.  In that context, could the choice of a new ABC affect TEC’s decision-making?  Does anything beyond advancing the current agenda matter to those in control of TEC?

rolleyes

October 18, 5:36 pm | [comment link]
71. Cennydd13 wrote:

It might diminish TEC’s (read Mrs Schori’s) influence if a new ABC were to be chosen who would not tolerate their actions via the Anglican Consultative Council, and would act to dismiss their representatives on the council, but there is no guarantee of this at the moment.  We shall see.

October 18, 5:53 pm | [comment link]
72. MisterDavid wrote:

I just wanted to send greetings from Charleston to all readers and posters, and to ask for your continued prayers.

These are the best of times and the worst of times, but Jesus loves us and it’ll be alright in the end smile

October 18, 6:20 pm | [comment link]
73. Alta Californian wrote:

Sarah, do you think DSC will join ACNA, and how would you feel if they did at this point? I’m half hoping they remain independent, and the other half hopes DSC finds a way to fight this and remain in TEC.

October 18, 6:23 pm | [comment link]
74. Already left wrote:

#73 and others -
Doesn’t the DIO of SC need to be under some other authority for Lawrence to be a bishop and the priests to be priests?
Jeanne from Long Beach

October 18, 7:16 pm | [comment link]
75. SC blu cat lady wrote:

Already left/Jeanne.
I don’t have a ready answer to your question but the interesting thing is that the Diocese of SC is ALREADY recognized by and in communion with every province of the Anglican Communion even those provinces who have broken communion with TEC. SO…. IF The Diocese gains recognition via its affiliation with TEC, then explain how those provinces in broken communion with TEC are still in communion with the Diocese of South Carolina. Like I said, I don’t have answer and an answer may not be forthcoming from the diocese for months. Patience is required as God is slowly showing us the way forward.

October 18, 7:30 pm | [comment link]
76. jamesw wrote:

Already left - no.  The highest order in the Church is “bishop”, and Bp. Lawrence was validly made a bishop.  The issue is more of who the DSC wishes to be recognized by, and I think that we can rest assured that it will be by the majority of Anglican Communion provinces.  Joining the ACNA would give the DSC no more nor less recognition in the Anglican world.

My hope is that for now the DSC continues to hold itself out as “the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina” although not part of the national Episcopal Church.  They should remain consistent with how they have identified themselves prior to this most recent purge by KJS - the legitimate Episcopal Diocese in their area which has made the perfectly legal and legitimate decision to end its accession to TEC’s C&C in light of that body’s decision to act unconstitutionally against it.

It will, of course, have the liberty to join another organization, but my hope is that it doesn’t for now.  The DSC and Bp. Lawrence have been one of the few shining lights amongst the TEC debacle and the ACNA mess.  May it continue to be so.

October 18, 8:11 pm | [comment link]
77. jamesw wrote:

Dan Ennis:  Might I suggest that you advocate for such a sane and peaceful policy to the members of the S.C. Episcopal Forum, the PB, and her minions?  Making such arguments here on T19 is one thing, but I think that most folks here already support a sane and peaceful policy that recognizes that TEC has irreconcilable differences over core Gospel issues.  I don’t think that the conservatives have been the block.  You need to make your arguments to those in control of TEC who have pursued their scorched earth policies.  I hope you do and wish you luck, though I fear that if you do, you might also become an outcast in the church that, in the name of no outcasts, seems to be casting out an awful lot of people.

October 18, 8:17 pm | [comment link]
78. jamesw wrote:

Dan:
You commented

The Oct 2nd SC Standing Committee resolution was pretty clear, right?  DioSC disassociates automatically if TEC takes any action that asserted TEC’s hierarchical authority over the Diocese of South Carolina.

I suppose, tactically, it was stupid for TEC to trigger the automatic clause, but the clause was a de facto disassociation.  If TEC acts like a hierarchical church, DioSC get the right to say, “See, they drove us out!”  But so what?  There’s not much moral high ground to fight over anymore.

Actually, there is much more to it than this.  The disciplinary rubric that is being used by the PB and her allies is arguably in serious violation of TEC’s constitution.  It’s not a case of simply TEC exercising legitimate hierarchical authority.

Suppose that the Republicans win by a landslide in November, and suppose that they are all as fiendishly conservative and clever as the Democrats would have us think.  And suppose that they pass a law that declares that Congress and the President can unilaterally veto any state legislation or court decision they don’t like and mandate new legislation to replace them.  Suppose then, that Democrat California fears that they are about to lose their democratically elected Democratic legislature and declares this law unconstitutional, and states that if Congress or the President seeks to enforce this law against them, they will automatically secede.

If this happened, you couldn’t say “well, California just didn’t want any federal activity there”.  That would be false.  Nor would they necessarily have objected to the constitutionally valid issue of federal preemption.  But naked, unconstitutional aggression is not simply hierarchical authority.

It is not TEC’s hierarchical nature which drove out the DSC, but rather hostile and unconstitutional aggression.

October 18, 8:29 pm | [comment link]
79. Luke wrote:

There is no de jure hierarchical nature in ECUSA, only an illegally assumed such.

October 18, 8:49 pm | [comment link]
80. Dan Ennis wrote:

76/77.  I have and will continue to do advocate a non-litigious course in other venues. This has been a joyous day—a gay friend of mine who stopped attending our parish years ago texted to say “Finally!  Amen! How soon can we get a priest?”  Maybe we’ll all see that this is a good thing and decide to skip the legalities. Dum Spiro Spero, as our state seal says.

October 18, 9:12 pm | [comment link]
81. Sarah wrote:

RE: “Sarah, do you think DSC will join ACNA, and how would you feel if they did at this point?”

Hi Alta—I honestly don’t know what they will do. As I’ve been clear in the past, I certainly hope they either stand, as the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina that they are indeed, without further affiliation, or alternatively are able to move under the protection of an orthodox Anglican Communion province.  But you know, I’m not in their shoes, and it’s always easy to call out from the sidelines what other people should or should not do!  ; > )

There is huge promise for them.  They are a functional, healthy, high-identity diocese, with excellent Anglican leadership, with solid canons and constitution, with so much that are real gifts. It would be nice if other parishes/congregations/clergy/laity could affiliate with them during the 3-6 years of lawsuits that will be coming their way and that their core could expand ever broader.  A hundred and fifty years ago, they were planting churches up here in Greenville and all around the Upstate—I so wish they could return to that identity. Oh, how I wish it.

But if they affiliate with alternate Anglican entities, I think that effectively torpedoes their identity—they end up enmeshed with the organization with which they choose to affiliate and all of its issues and weaknesses, and the church-planting idea becomes far *far* more complex, as then the church planters have to decide in advance if they wish to affiliate with *two* entities: the larger organization with which SC affiliates, and SC itself.  I think, with the baggage that the larger affiliation brings, it’s just a bridge too far for many would-be church planters.

One of the principles that I think is fairly important in a marriage is that you don’t marry somebody in order to “improve him” or “change her.”  That simply doesn’t fly and it’s a bad beginning—we all know that.  So whatever they join, “is what it is” and they have to determine if this is the best they can do—ever.  Because two entities becoming one doesn’t make the one twice as strong, but it does intensify weaknesses—we also see that in church mergers. When two parishes join, it’s not as if they then become “double the size and strength”—far from it.

RE: “I’m half hoping they remain independent, and the other half hopes DSC finds a way to fight this and remain in TEC.”

I think the staying in TEC is now at an end—that’s over and they’re gone.  That is, ultimately, what Schori et al desired and they have achieved that now. 

So the next question is “do we stand strong and single or do we affiliate, and if we affiliate, with whom”—basically the same questions that departing Episcopalians have addressed for many years now.

October 18, 9:13 pm | [comment link]
82. pendennis88 wrote:

I don’t see why DSC needs to formally affiliate with the ACNA, and I say that as someone who sees great promise in that new province.  I think the DSC and the ACNA people - indeed, the Anglican orthodox around the world - can work together just fine for the mission without being formally joined because they have the same mission - just like DSC and TEC did not work well together though formally joined because they had largely incompatible missions.  I believe the DSC can work out their future and what their ties to other orthodox communities should be or not with prayer and the Lord’s guidance, and in careful Christian counsels.  I see no need to rush nor any inevitable endgame.  And I’m sure many ACNA folks are praying for them.

October 18, 9:39 pm | [comment link]
83. TomRightmyer wrote:

Since the signers of the complaint have made their names public I looked up the two clergy. Both are retired and have been so for a while/ I know four of the 12 lay signers as active Episcopalians who have given considerable time and talent to the Episcopal Church. I respect them as fellow Christians though I do not agree with their actions.
Tom Rightmyer, Asheville, NC

October 18, 10:08 pm | [comment link]
84. Cranmerian wrote:

Already left - no.  The highest order in the Church is “bishop”, and Bp. Lawrence was validly made a bishop.  The issue is more of who the DSC wishes to be recognized by, and I think that we can rest assured that it will be by the majority of Anglican Communion provinces.  Joining the ACNA would give the DSC no more nor less recognition in the Anglican world.

#76 jamesw

While on the one hand I agree with you, that SC doesn’t receive any additional recognition in ACNA or another jurisdiction.  However, I would think that Bp. Lawrence’s ecclesiology would be such that he would not act outside of a larger body in some type of formal capacity.  Yes, the office of bishop is the highest office in our polity, but not in a “stand alone” sense.  The church has always taught the deposit of faith is entrusted to bishop’s in council in apostolic succession.  This is of course necessary for the faithful administration of the Sacraments, and for the continuance of those in Holy Orders.  I’m certain that all of these details have been carefully scrutinized and discussed long before now.  We will just have to patiently wait for them to be revealed.

Continued prayers ascend for Bp. Lawrence and his flock in DioSC.

Fr. Will McQueen
St. Mark’s Anglican, Moultrie, GA

October 18, 10:47 pm | [comment link]
85. frreed wrote:

#68-Ralph-The DoSC has already left.  It is apparent that Bp Lawrence will not reply to the certification of abandonment. They had instruments in place to separate from TEC if such disciplinary action were to occur.  The HOB will have perfunctory vote to depose Bp. Lawerence just as they did with Bps Iker, Schofield, Ackerman, Duncan and others.  There will be no objection from the “conservative” bishops.  The seven that remain are currently the subject of disciplinary action by TEC for filing Amicus Briefs in court cases involving the dioceses that left for ACNA.  There is no contingency of “conservative bishops left to influence the actions of the HOB.  If they “split” they would be the next layer of depositions. 

KJS and crew have things exactly as they want them.  Those who are in opposition to their agenda have no option other than keeping their heads down and mouths shut.  They are slowly and methodically purging the faithful.

I would love to see the remaining conservative bishops stand a leave TEC and join DoSC.  I don’t see it happening, but one can hope and pray.

October 18, 11:20 pm | [comment link]
86. Mark Baddeley wrote:

#70 tired

*based on history, I expect that these events augur litigation.  However, AFAIK we are not there yet.  If TEC were collectively struck by a lightning bolt of reasonableness – could it use the events thus far merely to assimilate the dissenting parishes into a friendly body under its control – as noted above - and then wash its hands of DioSC?  Of course, that seems inconsistent and unlikely given history, but it is an available option – one possibly rendered more significant in its likely rejection.  In other words, TEC is not forced by circumstances to litigate, and has very good reasons not to do so in this case.  If it does litigate, it does so despite those reasons.

The difficulty is that if you’ve gone and declared someone to have abandoned the doctrine of TEC for not pursuing legal ownership of parish property even after the courts have said you don’t have any right to it, it’s pretty hard (and yes I know that progressives tend to see consistency as a bugbear of a small mind, but still) to then *not* pursue it in the courts yourself.

Your core base *wants* you to do it, because it satisfies their desires for going after knuckledragger conservatives at low cost to themselves (they don’t directly foot the entire bill, go to court or the like, so it’s high reward low cost from their perspective), and it’s hard to present the action against +Lawrence as grounded in reality to the non-core base if you don’t then do something different from what you claim he’s done wrong (ie. you need to enter into some long expensive court cases to ‘maintain this property for TEC’).

If you also believe the argument (which many American progressive TECers seem to) that the earlier South Carolina case was decided on grounds unique to those parishes, then you have an even larger reason to go to court - most of the base thinks that TEC really will win and help meet its bottom line in a time of financial downturn by taking the property off the Diocese off Lower SC.

October 19, 6:26 am | [comment link]
87. tjmcmahon wrote:

“They are slowly and methodically purging the faithful.”

Actually, in terms of Church history, they are doing it with remarkable speed.  As you point out, there are 7 more or less conservative diocesan bishops left in TEC.  5 years ago, you would have counted 20.
But in any case, the illegal depositions of the KJS era have all been backed by 2/3 of the HoB.  Having replaced most of the opposition to those actions with open revisionists, we can assume that KJS has the votes to easily depose +Lawrence.  She probably polled everybody after +Lawrence left GC, just to make sure.

I know I am an old Anglo Catholic cynic, what has happened came as no surprise here, I have been predicting it for a while, usually over the objections of one or another fellow blogger convinced that TEC would never “dare” go after SC.  Well, they dared.  But Kendall+, +Mark, everyone in SC, please know that you are in the daily prayers of this old cynic.

October 19, 8:51 am | [comment link]
88. flaanglican wrote:

I’ll post the same question I had on StandFirm (altough Sarah answered much of it above):

Okay, the DioSC is no longer in TEC.  The TEC process will play itself out against Bp. Lawrence which, of course, is now meaningless.

What does that mean for the diocese?  I want to be careful of this blog’s directive about not advocating ACNA.  But to be an Anglican diocese, doesn’t it have to come under some province or jurisdiction like the ACNA recognized as as in Communion with other provinces?

Even it did come under ACNA, there is already a Diocese of the Carolinas which includes St. Andrew’s, formerly of the DioSC. How would they reconcile that?  Or would it be better to come under another Global South province temporarily such as Uganda or Nigeria that would willingly release the DioSC back to ACNA (if so desired) when they’re ready?

October 19, 10:41 am | [comment link]
89. jamesw wrote:

But to be an Anglican diocese, doesn’t it have to come under some province or jurisdiction like the ACNA recognized as as in Communion with other provinces?

No, it doesn’t.  It remains “in Communion” with whoever chooses to be in communion with it, and with whom it so reciprocates.

Cranmerian is correct that it is important that bishops act in council (i.e. implying that there be multiple bishops), but that doesn’t necessarily require that the DSC join this or that umbrella group.

October 19, 1:01 pm | [comment link]
90. Milton Finch wrote:

True, JamesW.  They were all basically independent entities before they decided to meet together.  At this moment, we are independent again because of the attack and attempted silencing on our leadership here in SC.  Needless to say, the small voice just got amped up tenfold.

October 19, 1:27 pm | [comment link]
91. flaanglican wrote:

Thanks for the clarification.

October 19, 2:14 pm | [comment link]
92. New Reformation Advocate wrote:

As a latecomer to this thread, let me simply say that, like others above, I’m not at all surprised that the long-standing conflict has come to this rather predictable ending.  It’s terribly sad for all of us, inside or outside of TEC, who care about the Episcopal/Anglican heritage and who grieve over the ongoing demise of a once great denomination that seems bent on self-destructing.  “How are the mighty fallen!”

But OTOH, looking at the positive side, by being shoved out of TEC, the faithful in the great DSC can not only feel relieved that the strain and uncertainty is finally over, but perhaps they can even rejoice that they are “Free at last.”  Thank God Almighty, they are free at last. 

This may be another nail in the coffin of TEC, but it’s a very hopeful and promising development for the rebirth of “biblical, missionary, and united” Anglicanism in North America.  Or to borrow the diocesan motto, I’m serenely confident that this admirable diocese will go on “Making biblical Anglicans for a global age.”

LIke Sarah above, I want to pay tribute to the noble and courageous +Mark Lawrence, and the outstanding leadership shown by the Standing Committee, etc.  They fought the good fight with honor and distinction, and I’m profoundly grateful for their brave witness.

Well done, DSC!  Bravo!  Thanks be to God.

David Handy+

October 19, 4:13 pm | [comment link]
93. Pageantmaster ن [Repent Justin Welby] wrote:

Prayers for Bishop Lawrence and the wonderful Diocese of South Carolina.

Send KJS and Ian Douglas to Coventry.

October 20, 10:17 am | [comment link]
94. Cennydd13 wrote:

I think that we of the ACNA would support +Mark Lawrence and his people in whatever they do.  He came from our diocese, and we know him to be a true servant of Christ and His Church.

October 20, 10:31 am | [comment link]
95. MisterDavid wrote:

@94,

Indeed, and it’s worth noting that when this news broke, Steve Wood (ACNA Bishop of the Carolinas) immediately posted on his Facebook page, asking for prayer for +Mark and the Diocese.

The relationship between those two could prove very important in the long term, & it’s one of the things I’ve been praying for most.

October 20, 6:49 pm | [comment link]
96. Paula Loughlin wrote:

Lord, protect your faithful servant from all enemies, spiritual and temporal.

October 20, 7:48 pm | [comment link]
97. Cennydd13 wrote:

In alll honestly, I don’t see anything “spiritual” about KJS and TEC.  As far as I’m concerned, “spiritual” and “temporal” when used in this context are one and the same.

October 21, 1:44 am | [comment link]
98. "Peter in the pew" wrote:

#79
Luke,
Thank you for simply stating the truth that most cannot comprehend having little understanding of the nature of communion within the church. Also there are those who feel it is necessary to align so quickly with others elsewhere. Reminds me of a drowning victim grabbing hold of the closeset thing and if it’s human, drowning them both rather than both ‘surviving’. The best thing to do when you feel as if you are starting to drown is to not panic and relax. There are others, yes, but they too need to do the same. We can stand alone for a period, not really being alone after all. And you will soon see how things will progress with like minded providing mutual support that is helpful. Looking forward without fear.

October 21, 10:02 am | [comment link]
99. Blue Cat Man wrote:

92# David handy+ NRA.
LOL! I must chuckle at your choice of phrase-

they are “Free at last.”  Thank God Almighty, they are free at last.

I thought exactly the same thing this yesterday as I went to church. It really is freeing in many ways. We can concentrate on our mission without wondering what action TEc will take against us. Personally,  I was raised in PECUSA, then was “out” as my mom helped start a “continuing church” parish. Then back in TEC during more recent years. This is the last time for me. Chances are I won’t be back in TEC…... ever.

Those who want to remain in TEC…. outside of Charleston, their choices are going to be limited. I don’t know if my local area could support a congregation of TEC loyalists. It would be a fairly small group.

I know there is distinct feeling in my parish of having been betrayed by fellow parishioners who you thought you knew. We are the parish with 4 of lay accusers. I hope the “Schori 14” are pleased with the results of their “unifying” efforts within the diocese.

October 22, 6:48 pm | [comment link]
100. LuxRex wrote:

Cennydd13: 

In alll honestly, I don’t see anything “spiritual” about KJS and TEC.


OF COURSE KJS & minions are “spiritual!”  It’s just they are of the deathly spirit of the age.  Seriously, I’m certain she has spirit-driven power, but that of the evil one.  We should always keep in mind the wicked, diabolical forces behind those who deny God’s Word. 

Schori is a willing dupe—and should be seriously prayed for—as well as against, given what, and Who, is facing her, on the Last Day.

do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world….You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. (1 John 4:1, 4)

October 22, 8:15 pm | [comment link]
101. Cennydd13 wrote:

Yes, Schori IS a willing dupe…...she’s proven that numerous times, when she’s been publicly excoriated and warned of the consequences of her actions.  She doesn’t care that she’s ruined a once highly respected Episcopal Church and damaged relations to the breaking point in the Anglican Communion.

The truly unfortunate thing is that she’s managed almost singlehandedly to ruin the careers of so many faithful clergy and alienated hundreds of thousands of faithful Anglican Christians from their Church…...and she and her cronies just plain don’t give a fig!

October 22, 8:36 pm | [comment link]
102. New Reformation Advocate wrote:

#99, Blue Cat Man,

Thanks for the affirmation.  And thanks even more for sharing your inside perspective.  So 4 of the 14 accusers are in your parish and that came as a nasty surprise?  Alas, that is the nature of church splits.  We are sometimes shocked at how people end up taking sides (and that can go both ways; sometimes the surprises are pleasant ones).  Wars, and especially civil wars, bring out both the best and the worst in people.  The challenge for all of us are on the orthodox side is not to let the pressure bring out the worst in us, but the best.  Praise God, that is exactly what we see happening with noble +Lawrence and so many other leaders in the great DSC.  They aren’t returning evil for evil, which is a varvelous witness.

David Handy+

October 23, 10:01 am | [comment link]
103. SC blu cat lady wrote:

Hey NRA David+,
No, that 4 accusers were part of our parish was not a surprise to us (Blu Cat Man and myself). To some in the parish, it may have come as a surprise but not us. Many here feel incredibly betrayed by these 4 people. One was even a senior warden in the recent past!  They have made life much more complicated for our clergy.

October 24, 8:53 am | [comment link]
104. miserable sinner wrote:

Sad, but not surprised.

As the t-shirt and bumper sticker say:
‘Humpty Dumpty was pushed’

Peace, deep abiding peace,
-ms

October 24, 8:32 pm | [comment link]
105. New Reformation Advocate wrote:

SC blu cat lady (#103),

OK, thanks for the clarification.  I’m not surprised that you weren’t surprised after all.  Sorry for the confusion.  But yes, I can easily imagine that the presence of four of the accusers in your parish does indeed make life much more difficult for your clergy, and for everyone who is significantly involved in your congregation.  Breakups in a family are never easy.

David Handy+

October 25, 10:19 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): TEC Press Release on their Alleged Actions toward South Carolina’s Bishop and Diocese

Previous entry (below): (York Daily Record) Is ‘spirituality’ replacing religion among young people?

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)