(Hilton Island Packet) St. Mark’s Chapel visited by new Episcopal bishop of new S.C. TEC Diocese
St. Mark's Chapel in Port Royal took a step closer to its goal of joining the national Episcopal Church on Sunday when a newly appointed bishop visited the congregation and performed the first confirmations of his tenure.
The Right Rev. Charles vonRosenberg, who recently was appointed provisional bishop of the South Carolina parishes remaining with the national church, joined in the service at Union Church on 11th Street and was celebrated afterward at a reception at The Shed in Port Royal.
1. Pb wrote:
Could someone enlighten us as to what is going on here? It sounds like Bp. Lawrence is the bad guy and I know that is not so.
February 4, 1:42 pm | [comment link]
2. TomRightmyer wrote:
Someone from the Diocese will be better able to respond, but his refusal to accept this new congregation was one of the charges made against Bishop Lawrence in the first - unsuccessful - effort to bring Bishop Lawrence to trial. The General Convention canonically authorized committee membership changed and the new committee decided to proceed on some of the previously rejected charges.
February 4, 2:41 pm | [comment link]
3. A Senior Priest wrote:
Why is it that this bishop calls himself vonRosenburg? One would think he knows that there’s a space between von and Rosenburg. I wonder if he’s descended from the German noble house, which it seems all the von Rosenburgs are?
February 4, 3:17 pm | [comment link]
4. Pageantmaster ن [Pray for +John Ellison] wrote:
#3 Perhaps his parents called him that, O Senior Priest, or an immigration clerk?
Possibly a descendent of Cain - we shall see.
February 4, 4:13 pm | [comment link]
5. SC blu cat lady wrote:
OK, This fellowship of Episcopalians has been trying to become a mission in the Diocese of SC for several years. Yes, that much is true. The way it works here is that a parish generally supports a mission during the process. Sometimes a parish grows too big, splits and sets up a new congregation with the mother congregation acting as a support to the mission.
This group came together and was in want of a parish to support them. They never could find a parish to take them not even the more liberal parishes in the diocese. So they remained a fellowship but not a mission. This was a serious problem with the more liberal members of the diocese and they used it against Bishop Lawrence as already has been mentioned.
They were very close to having +Lawrence come and do confirmation back in the fall of 2011. Also, at that time, they had been discussing becoming a mission with another liberal parish in the diocese. Bishop Lawrence found out that this group had already acceded to the national constitution and canons of TEC without becoming a mission in the diocese. BIG red flag. That was at least part of the reason Bishop Lawrence did not come for confirmation and they were not accepted as a mission in the diocese. Why would any diocese and/or bishop want to accept as a mission a group that has no understanding of how the process works and just decides by themselves to accede to the national church?
During the same years, other groups have become missions in the Diocese of SC. It is not that the diocese does not want new congregations. I think it is simply that this group did not want to follow the process outlined by the diocese and the theological differences between this group and the majority in the diocese were just too large. The Diocese of South Carolina was not a good match for them. Now they have found their diocese. I hope they are happy.
February 4, 4:55 pm | [comment link]
6. Pb wrote:
Thanks. I thought there was a back story here. It all worked out well.
February 4, 7:01 pm | [comment link]
7. Statmann wrote:
The new TECC diocese in (Lower?) SC has been formed wth 14 churches. There are 5 with ASA of 700, 580, 225, 170, and 105. Another 9 have ASA of 10 to 38. St Mark Chapel will most likely fall into the latter group. Total 2011 ASA was 1,966 or 15.9 percent of the DIO ASA of 12,338 in 2011. Similar to San Joaquin, Quincy, and Fort Worth. Not a bright future. Statmann
February 4, 10:15 pm | [comment link]
8. Jeremy Bonner wrote:
If under diocesan rules acceptance into union requires a parish sponsor - presumably to ensure that there is an established body to help keep them on track - then an inability to find such a sponsor would necessarily preclude admission. It’s by no means the historical pattern, since missions frequently sprand up in the 19th century with no reference to an existing parish, but there you are.
However, I fail to see why acceding to the national constitution and canons should be a red flag. I would have thought that if Port Royal wanted to gift their property to the national church, that - while foolish - was their prerogative. I wonder if it had any legal meaning since parishes and missions can’t be part of the national church except through a diocese. Rather, I imagine it was an act of liberal differentiation, in the same way that South Carolina has been differentiating itself from the national church. Undoubtedly provocatic, but cause for denying membership when there were equally liberal parishes in union with the Diocese?
I also have this vague memory of reading that Bishop Salmon did his best to get them in, but failed.
February 5, 6:39 am | [comment link]
9. Sarah wrote:
If I an a group of conservative Anglicans came together to found our own conservative congregation and then [quite foolishly] appealed to Bishop Waldo to become a mission, you’d better believe they’d decide we should all go our separate ways and attend the local parishes in the city.
“Planting” little niche congregations of conservatives—or disgruntled liberals—and then demanding to be named a mission of the diocese, really really isn’t the way it works in *any* TEC diocese. If we could do that, I’d be “planting” little congregations in each and every town in this diocese that doesn’t have a representative conservative rector!
February 5, 10:19 am | [comment link]
10. Jeremy Bonner wrote:
Most of the church plants that Pittsburgh established between 2003 and 2008 could, in a sense, be described as “niche” congregations, which in no way detracts from the work they did (and do).
Actually, Sarah, I’m suprised you haven’t tried that approach in Upper South Carolina. I wouldn’t have expected the fact that it “isn’t the way it works” would be a disincentive for you.
February 5, 10:47 am | [comment link]
11. Sarah1 wrote:
RE: “Most of the church plants that Pittsburgh established between 2003 and 2008 could, in a sense, be described as “niche” congregations . . .”
Sure—and with the approval of the diocese power structure.
RE: “Actually, Sarah, I’m suprised you haven’t tried that approach in Upper South Carolina.”
I’m not sure why—it’s a waste of church-planting effort to do so *within the context of a diocese led by a revisionist bishop*. I don’t waste my efforts on useless endeavors where those with the “final say” don’t share my values or worldview.
RE: “I wouldn’t have expected the fact that it “isn’t the way it works” would be a disincentive for you.”
Odd. That’s pretty much the way I work in every endeavor. Where people whose values and foundational worldviews are antithetical to mine block certain paths with their power and authority, I don’t work there. I seek out pursuits where those people do *not* block certain paths. That’s one of the frustrating things about people like me for other people whose values and foundational worldviews are antithetical to mine.
Indeed, when one thinks about it—that’s one of the highlights of blogging. Those with power over certain venues and paths get no power over blogging—they are frustrated and prevented from the control that they desire. ; > )
Within organizations that don’t have faithful leaders who believe the Gospel, it’s merely about power—and how to honorably avoid such power with integrity where able and necessary.
February 5, 12:33 pm | [comment link]
12. SC blu cat lady wrote:
February 5, 4:41 pm | [comment link]
To many conservatives here, acceding to the national canons and constitution is a red flag in two ways. One- a mission or parish can not accede to the national canons and constitution only a diocese can do that. Parishes are in union with a diocese which is in union with and can accede to the canons of the national church. That would be equivalent to my town where I live saying they are part of the US without being part of the state of South Carolina. Totally illogical. Two, their acceding to the national canons does mean they are very liberal theologically and hence not a good fit for the diocese. They are now part of the new TEC diocese in South Carolina. Great!
13. SC blu cat lady wrote:
Hmm, I think I need to make clear one piece of information that I had forgotten. A mission is under the control of the bishop. If the bishop says no, then it is no- that group can not be a mission in that diocese. Simple enough.
February 5, 5:56 pm | [comment link]