(ENS) South Carolinian Accusers say diocesan actions were ‘too far out of bounds’
Read it all
Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal
Episcopal Church (TEC)
TEC Conflicts: South Carolina
TEC Polity & Canons
* South Carolina
Posted October 18, 2012 at 3:00 pm
To comment on this article: Go to Article View
The URL for this article is http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/45555/
1. Milton Finch wrote:
May The Lord Bless those that have attacked our godly Bishop Lawrence and immersed the Diocese of South Carolina as a whole into such turmoil and wrenched thought and emotions.
October 18, 4:48 pm | [comment link]
2. DeeBee wrote:
The 12 lay people and two priests who filed complaints . . . filed those complaints “with great deliberation” because certain actions [+Lawrence] and other diocesan leaders took “seemed to be going too far out of bounds.”
That’s interesting. TEO cannot hear the deafening roar of many thousands of people, warning that TEOself has gone “too far out of bounds”, yet TEO can clearly and distinctly hear the inaudible whisper of 14 people.
October 18, 7:16 pm | [comment link]
3. wmresearchtrianglenc wrote:
What I will call “TEC’s October Incident” represents the heart of the problem facing TEC, viz.,: Can this Church avoid further damage to what many in Christendom used to see and even admire—perhaps somewhat grudgingly—as a “bridge church”, a model evolved over centuries. For a long time this “bridge” had multiple lanes, and although its lanes had different “signage” and surfaces, those lanes took a direct route and essentially and in a reliable way, served to direct travelers to their destination. Today, many in Christendom regard that “bridge” differently, and thus it is seen by many as a bridge having lanes with confusing signage, lanes that sometimes diverge in strange ways, and many travelers now view this bridge as having deteriorated in its ability to direct them to their destination. TEC’s leadership immediately needs to make all-out efforts to resolve its October Incident in a manner that restores the infrastructure of that old “bridge”. Disciplinary mechanisms should not serve as a “fulcrum” and thus to play a magnified role in determining issues along the lines of those in the October Incident. If a mechanism is available to be used as a fulcrum, it simply can and will be so used in that manner, regardless of the intentions of any particular complainant or complainants. The key issues relevant to the October Incident are: (1) Do the facts and relevant legal aspects relating to a complaint or complaints indicate that the complaint or complaints are of sufficient MERIT to warrant relief, and (2), if a complaint or complaint(s) are of sufficient merit to warrant relief, what relief under the relevant circumstances would be REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE? It’s clear that within TEC there need to be policies in place relating to disciplinary mechanisms that seek to ensure the avoidance of consequences under the relevant circumstances ithat are not truly reasonable and appropriate.
October 19, 12:34 am | [comment link]
© 2013 Kendall S. Harmon. All rights reserved.
For original material from Titusonenine (such as articles and commentary by Dr. Harmon) permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com
<< Back to main page
<< Return to Mobile view (headlines)