Bishop Lawrence Out of the TEC

[DariusArcturus]

I have to ask again: Are we reading the same documents? Are we hearing the same words?

Given your responses, I'm at a complete loss.

It prompts me to rub my eyes and re-read everything posted so far to make sure I haven't imagined anything, and in the end I'm in the same state.

Perhaps there is a significant and fundamental cultural disparity between us pertaining to the expression of intent and all of its trappings and context?

I cannot think of anything else that would account for it. Sincerely.

 

[Albion]

I have to ask again: Are we reading the same documents? Are we hearing the same words?

Given your responses, I'm at a complete loss.

It prompts me to rub my eyes and re-read everything posted so far to make sure I haven't imagined anything, and in the end I'm in the same state.

What do you mean "we?" Rhartsc hasn't studied the record, but there's no reason you can't. Then you won't have to say you're at a complete loss.

 

[DariusArcturus]

What do you mean "the record"? Are his sermons, actions, public documents, legal decisions, the diocesan website and all of the resolutions listed there, and other such things *not* part of "the record"? If so, I am still at a loss for words as the world is now upside-down and the record isn't the record.

What compounds this is that your reaction thusfar to any and all evidence presented so far has been a big, resounding, "MEH," even when such evidence directly contradicts what you're claiming.

If I were to hold up a spade, I'm sure you'd call it a fork.

 

[mark46]

I'm not sure what you all are nitpicking about. Bishop Lawrence has been working with the diocese since his ordination to fight the national leadership of TEC. His expectation has always been that the diocese would eventually split from TEC. He's said that on many occasions. The national church finally restricted his authority as bishop. The bishop led the diocese out of the AC, closing the website and calling a new convention. BTW, the bishop has made many speeches since physically walking out of the national convention. However, he has not resigned as bishop of TEC, even though he has stated that he is not an Episcopalian and that the churches of the diocese do not belong to TEC or the AC.

He has told parishioners that they are not part of TEC and that their churches may be taken from them if they follow the bishop and the diocese.

GOING FORWARD FOR THE REST OF US
Many congregations will follow the bishop into the abyss. Even those with large majorities favoring the bishop will likely lose membership. Priests will need to decide whether they are no longer priests of the Episcopal Church and work though the process of withdrawing from their oaths to TEC. Of course, they could simply violate those oaths. However, even those who support the bishop may choose not to do that. I would think that some priests might end up leaving their parishes rather than leaving the TEC priesthood. I might note that Bishop Lawrence considered resigning as bishop and going back to California. When push came to shove, he made a different choice.

The TEC and the new diocese will both have clergy meetings this month. The non-TEC diocese will have a special convention to change the diocesan cannons as well as to see which parishes are following the bishop.

THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH WILL CONTINUE IN COASTAL SOUTH CAROLINA
Bishop Lawrence may not consider himself an Episcopalian. Many others do. I have no lists but there are definitely several churches that will remain in TEC. Of course, TEC's position is that churches/parishes cannot leave, only individuals can leave TEC. For those who disagree, consider those in my parish who attend a church that has been an Episcopal Church for 150 years. Is it really reasonable for this church to leave the Anglican Communion any time a majority of its current parishioners want to leave? What about the rest of the parishioners who want to remain Episcopalians?

WHAT I PERSONALLY THINK MOST LIKELY
Most churches have a large majority one way of the other. They will all act or not. Many parishioners will simply leave the church, hopefully for another church body; many will stay home. Many thousands will switch congregations. Obviously, this can eventually be a blessing, but for the short term this will be a very large mess, especially when key ministry leaders move.

For those who stay, it will be as it always has been, perhaps in a new parish. There will be little discussion of the struggle within the church. We will get on with our lives.

For those who leave with the bishop, I expect that the struggle between the bishop and TEC will color their lives for at least another decade. The bishop is clearly up to the fight. Those who "run" the diocese are clearly up to the fight. Parishioners may be immune, except for supporting lawsuits and perhaps new church facilities. It is the clergy that I wonder about most. They are caught in the middle. Many were not called to this struggle and this dislocation, including looking for new health care policies and pensions.

 

[rhartsc]

A very informative article:
The Lead

Here are some of the important parts:
"Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori along with members of her staff have taken many steps to work with Bishop Lawrence, and she continues to encourage openness to various paths forward.
· Title IV actions were initiated by members of the Diocese of South Carolina, not the Presiding Bishop.

Once Title IV actions are initiated, the Presiding Bishop must abide by the canons and has no influence over the proceedings."

Also this part:
"Title IV Overview

In 2009, General Convention adopted new or amended provisions for Title IV Disciplinary Canons discipline of clergy, including bishops.

New Canon IV.16(A) provided that the body to examine evidence of putative abandonment by a bishop was to be a new “Disciplinary Board for Bishops” created under Canon IV.17(3). The Disciplinary Board for Bishops is composed of 10 bishops elected by the House of Bishops and four lay and four clergy persons elected by the House of Deputies.

When the Presiding Bishop receives such a “certificate” from the Disciplinary Board that a bishop has abandoned the Episcopal Church, several canonical actions must ensue, including that the Presiding Bishop “shall then place a restriction on the exercise of ministry of said Bishop. . . .” Canon IV.16(A)(1). The canons state that the “restriction” is to last “until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act thereon.” In this case, the House of Bishops meeting is slated for March 2013. There is no provision in the canons allowing the Presiding Bishop to waive or terminate the “restriction” except under precise provisions noted below.

While the “restriction” is in effect, “the Bishop shall not perform any Episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts.'"

 

[Albion]

A very informative article:
The Lead

Here are some of the important parts:
"Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori along with members of her staff have taken many steps to work with Bishop Lawrence, and she continues to encourage openness to various paths forward.
· Title IV actions were initiated by members of the Diocese of South Carolina, not the Presiding Bishop.

Once Title IV actions are initiated, the Presiding Bishop must abide by the canons and has no influence over the proceedings."

Also this part:
"Title IV Overview

In 2009, General Convention adopted new or amended provisions for Title IV Disciplinary Canons discipline of clergy, including bishops.

New Canon IV.16(A) provided that the body to examine evidence of putative abandonment by a bishop was to be a new “Disciplinary Board for Bishops” created under Canon IV.17(3). The Disciplinary Board for Bishops is composed of 10 bishops elected by the House of Bishops and four lay and four clergy persons elected by the House of Deputies.

When the Presiding Bishop receives such a “certificate” from the Disciplinary Board that a bishop has abandoned the Episcopal Church, several canonical actions must ensue, including that the Presiding Bishop “shall then place a restriction on the exercise of ministry of said Bishop. . . .” Canon IV.16(A)(1). The canons state that the “restriction” is to last “until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act thereon.” In this case, the House of Bishops meeting is slated for March 2013. There is no provision in the canons allowing the Presiding Bishop to waive or terminate the “restriction” except under precise provisions noted below.

While the “restriction” is in effect, “the Bishop shall not perform any Episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts.'"

Oh, please. If you bend over backwards any farther, you'll fall flat on your back.

Of course Bp. Schori was able to round up a handful of supporters willing to file a protest. That was so she could claim to have complied with the technicalities of the rules, but that doesn't mean that they brought the issue to her on their own and so her hands were tied. How naive do you think we are?

Only one priest out of the whole diocese could be found to do it and several husband and wife couples, and all of them had been opposed to Bp. Lawrence from before the events that supposedly prompted the protest. We'd call this a kangaroo court except that even kangaroo courts actually pretend to conduct a trial, whereas in this case the accused was not informed of it or allowed a defense. No reasonable person could defend this charade even if they actually thought Bp. Lawrence had overstepped some boundary.

 

[DariusArcturus]

And you were concerned about value judgements?

 

[mark46]

The actions of Bishop Lawrence were in violation of his oath and in violation of canon law. What the national church did was within the bounds of canon law, although within the US one would expect facing accusers and an open trial.

You can call what Bishop Lawrence did and is doing "overstepping boundaries". In any case, the penalty was restriction of duties.

SUBSEQUENT to this action by the national church, Bishop Lawrence had informed the BP that the diocese has pulled out of TEC. Obviously, enforcing and implementing this action is a further violation of his oath. To me, it would have been much more honest and right to have resigned as bishop before taking all these actions. As of now, Bishop Lawrence is still a bishop of TEC and subject to its canons. His actions since being informed of his restrictions have been much more questionable than his actions before.

A sitting bishop of the Episcopal Church has
1) supported and enforced resolutions giving the diocese veto power over all national church decisions,
2) supported and enforced resolutions allowing parishes to withdraw from TEC in violation of canon,
3) personally signed over TEC rights to property,
4) supported resolutions threatening dissolution if there was any action against the bishop,
5) openly declared himself to not be part of TEC and not an Episcopalian,
6) informed the members of each parish that they are no longer part of TEC
7) informed all that these actions are a culmination of a 25 years struggle of the diocese against TEC, and that since his ordination he has fought the good fight and expected this separation to happen,

"Crossing boundaries" is a bit mild. And what has the national church done in their secret meetings? The church found that Bishop Lawrence has violated his oaths to uphold the canons of the church and continues to do so. The penalty was to restrict his ability to act as bishop since he had abandoned the church and its canons.

Personally, I don't see how the national church could have done much less. I do agree that the national church could have honored US cultural norms and had an open trial with rights for Bishop Lawrence. However, this lack of honor and charity does not change the facts of Bishop Lawrence's abandonment of the The Episcopal Church.

Oh, please. If you bend over backwards any further, you'll fall flat on your back.

Of course Bp. Schori found a handful of supporters willing to file a protest, in order to comply with the technicalities of the rules, but that doesn't mean that they brought the issue to her and she was forced to do anything. Only one priest out of the whole diocese could be found to do it and several husband and wife couples--a kangaroo court except that even kangaroo courts actually pretend to conduct a trial whereas in this case, the accused was not informed of it or allowed a defense. No reasonable person could defend this charade even if they thought Bp. Lawrence had overstepped some boundary.

 

[mark46]

Yes, a small group opposed the bishop enough to cooperate with national church. The rest were content for the diocese to be isolated and follow its own unique path under its bishop.

We shall see just how many priests decide to walk away from The Episcopal Church, the church in which they were ordained and the church to which they have taken oaths of loyalty. Oh yes, and the Church where they have their medical insurance and pensions. I suspect that many will informed TEC that they no longer are able to be a TEC priest. Most will simply follow the lead of the bishop, leave, abandon the canons of the Church, and expect their parishioners to leave without any vote of the parish.

I do promise you that many more than one priest and a handful of parishioners will stay in The Episcopal Church. After 150 years, the Diocese of South Carolina will not fold because the Bishop disagrees with the national church. This schism was last effected during the Civil War, as the bishop reminds us.
It will cost these priest much; it will cost the parishioners much. Priests may be no longer rectors. Parishioners may have to change churches.

But yes, many parishioners will be clueless and simply do whatever their leaders tell them to, or they will leave the church, having used this opportunity to assess where God wants them to serve.

Oh, please. If you bend over backwards any farther, you'll fall flat on your back.

Of course Bp. Schori was able to round up a handful of supporters willing to file a protest. That was so she could claim to have complied with the technicalities of the rules, but that doesn't mean that they brought the issue to her on their own and so her hands were tied. How naive do you think we are?

Only one priest out of the whole diocese could be found to do it and several husband and wife couples, and all of them had been opposed to Bp. Lawrence from before the events that supposedly prompted the protest. We'd call this a kangaroo court except that even kangaroo courts actually pretend to conduct a trial, whereas in this case the accused was not informed of it or allowed a defense. No reasonable person could defend this charade even if they actually thought Bp. Lawrence had overstepped some boundary.

 

[rhartsc]

Oh, please. If you bend over backwards any farther, you'll fall flat on your back.

Of course Bp. Schori was able to round up a handful of supporters willing to file a protest. That was so she could claim to have complied with the technicalities of the rules, but that doesn't mean that they brought the issue to her on their own and so her hands were tied. How naive do you think we are?

Only one priest out of the whole diocese could be found to do it and several husband and wife couples, and all of them had been opposed to Bp. Lawrence from before the events that supposedly prompted the protest. We'd call this a kangaroo court except that even kangaroo courts actually pretend to conduct a trial, whereas in this case the accused was not informed of it or allowed a defense. No reasonable person could defend this charade even if they actually thought Bp. Lawrence had overstepped some boundary.

Very. You sound rather silly. You present nothing but conjecture. Read the canons cited for yourself. Bishop Lawrence was brought up on charges and that is because of one thing and one thing only...he is guilty of commiting the crimes. You have such a strong dislike for the PB that you contort reality to attack her. I have not seen this sort of delusion since Karl Rove's meltdown on Tuesday night. I will continue the discussion with others interested in the truth please feel free not to feel compelled to respond to my posts so that we don't put the rest of the forum through more back and forth. You have made your case and I have made mine. Let everyone else decide for themselves which of our arguements have more merit.

 

[Albion]

Very. You sound rather silly.

You'll change your mind in time.

For the moment, I don't care to argue about Karl Rove or how you voted in the presidential election, if you did, but the issue with the Diocese of South Carolina is due process. It doesn't matter if you suspect Bp. Lawrence was thinking of leaving TEC or not. I don't think you've ever come to grips with that.

 

[mark46]

It is interesting that you continue to insist on due process as defined by US cultural traditions and law. Shouldn't canon law be much more important in this matter.

You continue to fuss over whether Bishop Lawrence was "thinking of splitting with TEC" as if that is the issue. The issues are gender issues and canon law.

You'll change your mind in time.

For the moment, I don't care to argue about Karl Rove or how you voted in the presidential election, if you did, but the issue with the Diocese of South Carolina is due process. It doesn't matter if you suspect Bp. Lawrence was thinking of leaving TEC or not. I don't think you've ever come to grips with that.

 

[Adam Warlock]

You have made your case and I have made mine. Let everyone else decide for themselves which of our arguements have more merit.

I've tried to defer to Mark (and anyone else from S.C.) who is actually there, rather than speaking on a subject about which I am less informed. I do agree with you, though. I tend to think that Bishop Lawrence provided an opportunity for these charges. It's complex. In many of the issues where he and KJS differ, I agree with him. I'm not Low Church or Evangelical, though, so there are differences with some of his stances too. But he's not my bishop, so I've never felt it was necessary to spend too much time worrying about them.

Ultimately, there is the world of "positions" and the world of "actions." We could even divide "positions" into "theological positions" and "S.C.'s relationship to TEC" positions. It's not a simple thing. But we have to look at actions to understand what is happening, IMO. Even if some/many of the positions are right, the actions he took seem to have opened up the possibility of charges. His motives might not have been bad. They were probably driven by conviction. Nevertheless, actions were taken that could be seen as a precursor to departure. When charges were brought, the diocese withdrew; it was not kicked out. It left, and he left with it. Blame can be placed on many sides, and pain is felt on all of those sides. I don't like TEC's selective enforcement of rules. I can't stand these lawsuits. But they happen, and S.C. seemingly is ready for them.

 

[Sean611]

I don't like TEC's selective enforcement of rules. I can't stand these lawsuits.

This is how I feel as well. Just take the case of the heretical Bishop John Spong. He was brought up on heresy charges and then leadership found him innocent. This is a man who denies the virgin birth, Christ's divinity, all the miralces, the Holy Trinity, and even calls St. Paul a frustrated homosexual. (his heresy goes much further than this even!)

Bishop Spong was allowed to spread heresy for 30 years as Bishop and is now retired and i'm sure he's receiving a nice pension. While Spong is dismissed by many Episcopalians, his influence is still felt in the Church and he is cited as an influence by many of those in leadership roles at 815 and abroad.

Regardless of what Bishop Lawrence did right or wrong, I think that things like this is what frustrates so many of us.

 

[Adam Warlock]

...Regardless of what Bishop Lawrence did right or wrong, I think that things like this is what frustrates so many of us.

Exactly!

 

[mark46]

I agree with all your comments. I know that it is frustrating that the national church didn't convict others of abandonment. However, that doesn't give our bishop the right to do what he has done.

I agree with you that there is a difference between arguments over theological opinion and actions to take the diocese out of The Episcopal Church and the Communion (and cede property and violate canons regarding those actions). Many who support Bishop Lawrence on his theological opinions disagree with him with regard to actions in regarding the disafilliation of the diocese and its parishes. In the end, most will support the bishop because of their own personal political and social biases. This cannot be helped. For the most part, the laity have no interest in theological opinions or in church polity.

Ultimately, there is the world of "positions" and the world of "actions." We could even divide "positions" into "theological positions" and "S.C.'s relationship to TEC" positions. It's not a simple thing. But we have to look at actions to understand what is happening, IMO. Even if some/many of the positions are right, the actions he took seem to have opened up the possibility of charges. His motives might not have been bad. They were probably driven by conviction. Nevertheless, actions were taken that could be seen as a precursor to departure. When charges were brought, the diocese withdrew; it was not kicked out. It left, and he left with it. Blame can be placed on many sides, and pain is felt on all of those sides. I don't like TEC's selective enforcement of rules. I can't stand these lawsuits. But they happen, and S.C. seemingly is ready for them.

 

[rhartsc]

For those interested here is a letter from the PB and the Diocese of SC:
The Lead

 

[DariusArcturus]

For those interested here is a letter from the PB and the Diocese of SC:
The Lead

That confirms a number of things that I thought were the case about this matter.

 

[mark46]

Thank you for posting.

I would note that Bishop Lawrence was restricted until the whole House of Bishops acts. Bishop Lawrence has the opportunity to respond.

"The disciplinary processes of this Church carefully considered the matters with which Bishop Lawrence was charged, and the Disciplinary Board found that he had indeed repudiated the polity of this Church. It then became my canonical responsibility and obligation to limit (“restrict&#8221 his formal ability to function as bishop until the entire House of Bishops can consider these charges. Bishop Lawrence has an extended period (60 days) in which he can repudiate those charges, and I stand ready to respond positively to any sign that he has done so."

The response of Bishop Lawrence was to declare that he is now longer an Episcopalian, no longer part of The Episcopal Church, and to pull the diocese and its parishes out of the Episcopal Church, before action by the TEC House of Bishops. There have been many further actions implementing the disaffiliation from the The Episcopal Church.

For those interested here is a letter from the PB and the Diocese of SC:
The Lead

 

[mark46]

See below for a link to information from the new transitional diocese formed by the Presiding Bishop, since the Diocese of South Carolina has left TEC. Note that Bishop Lawrence had been implored to return by the Bishop of Springfield (one of his allies in the House of Bishops) and by the Presiding Bishop.

The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina - Home

The Bishop Lawrence convention will take place tomorrow. I would note that the newspaper ad asking everyone to attend was signed by less than half of the rectors of the diocese.

If I attend church this weekend (likely), I will travel to a South Carolina TEC church.