South Carolina Episcopalians
Bearing Witness to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ through the Episcopal Church
News from the Diocese of South Carolina...
NEW! Episcopal Church tells Diocese that Changes
to its Constitution and Canons are Meaningless
(September 21, 2011)
with Attempt to Secede from the Episcopal Church;
Ownership of Parish Property Now in Play
to its Constitution and Canons are Meaningless
(September 21, 2011)
Removal of "Accession" to Church's Authority
deemed "Null and Void"
(This also appears on New Home Page)
deemed "Null and Void"
(This also appears on New Home Page)
An
official of the Episcopal Church informed Bishop Mark Lawrence this
week that recent changes made to the Constitution of the Diocese of
South Carolina are “null and void” in the eyes of the Church.
Last February delegates to the 2011 Diocesan Convention gave final
approval to amendments to the Diocese’s governing document eliminating
“accession” to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church.
In
the Episcopal Church, "accession"
means that a Diocese agrees that the national Church’s Constitution
supersedes that of the Diocese when they are in conflict. The actions
of the Convention, approved and supported by the Bishop and Standing
Committee, would have reversed that relationship.
According to the Secretary of the Church’s Executive Council, members of
its Joint Standing Committee on Governance and Administration
determined over the summer that the actions of the Diocesan Convention
are sufficiently similar to those taken by rebellious Dioceses of
Quincy, San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth in previous years as to
be covered by the same 2007 Executive Council Resolution (NAC023) that
declared them meaningless.
The 2007 Resolution specifically states that “any diocesan amendment
that purports in any way to limit or lessen an unqualified accession to
the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church are null and void,
as if such amendments had not been passed.”
The Resolution goes further to say that it is applicable, not just to
those four dioceses, but any other dioceses that take “steps or have
adopted amendments that purport in any way to limit or lessen
unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal
Church”.
In short, once a diocese commits to join the Episcopal Church, it has no
authority to leave. Individual clergy and lay people can leave, but a
diocese as a corporate entity can’t.
Bishop Lawrence, who claims the Diocese of South Carolina is “sovereign”, has
argued that the Diocese wasn’t “intending” to leave the Church, even
though he and the Standing Committee were fully aware that accession to
the Church’s Constitution is essential to membership.
The underlying issue here is the ownership of Episcopal Church property
in the Diocese, specifically the property of parishes that might want to
leave the Episcopal Church.
The Bishop and the Standing Committee of the Diocese argue that they alone have the authority to decide what happens to it.
_________
Subdued Convention Stumbles Forwardwith Attempt to Secede from the Episcopal Church;
Ownership of Parish Property Now in Play
(February 19, 2011, updated March 4)
Lawrence says we're not leaving the Episcopal Church,
but rallies delegates to dissolve legal ties anyway
Delegates: We are governed by the Constitution of the
Episcopal Church except when we don't want to be
Lawrence says we're not leaving the Episcopal Church,
but rallies delegates to dissolve legal ties anyway
Delegates: We are governed by the Constitution of the
Episcopal Church except when we don't want to be
Crisis grows as parish giving to the Diocese declines;
Secessionist parishes failing to step up
Secessionist parishes failing to step up
BEAUFORT -- The quixotic journey of the Diocese of South Carolina to distance itself from the Episcopal Church reached another dubious milestone Saturday as delegates to its 2012 Convention finalized their putative rejection of the national Church's Constitution and Canons.
The move puts into play the legal status of the Diocese's parishes and their claim to own Episcopal Church property without actually being Episcopalians. In order to belong to the Episcopal Church, accession to its governing instruments is essential in the same way as state laws are subject to those of the Federal government.
The Convention's action's are also an invitation to the national Church to depose Lawrence and those clergy who support him. All have taken a sacred oath to uphold the "doctrine, discipline, and worship" of the Episcopal Church, which they have now apparently repudiated.
Episcopal Church leaders are reluctant to throw anyone out, but the Diocese has left them few options. Past attempts to mediate the situation have been met with a cold shoulder from the Diocese.
It appeared on Saturday that the equivalent of 44 parishes support the attempt to secede, while ten oppose it. There are 47 parishes and 26 missions in the Diocese (missions get a half-vote). This means there are enough loyalist parishes and missions to allow the Diocese to be reorganized under new leadership if it comes to that.
With a straight face Saturday, Bishop Lawrence told the convention delegates that he hoped that the Diocese now “would be free from constitutional and canonical challenges from the ‘national’ leadership of the Episcopal Church … Only time will tell if we will be permitted to do our work unencumbered by intrusions.”
The statement struck some as ironic in that it been Bishop Lawrence who has generated the numerous constitutional and canonical challenges since he was consecrated.
Last year, for example, the Bishop and Standing Committee let national Church leaders know that they did not recognize the well-established legal interest of the Episcopal Church in property owned by Episcopal parishes within its borders. With pretzel-like logic, they claimed that the Diocese is "sovereign" and that it had no intention of protecting a legal interest they feel does not exist.
When the Episcopal Church then retained Charleston attorney Tom Tisdale to gather information, Diocesan leaders went postal, denouncing the move as an "incursion" into their sovereign territory. Tisdale is a former Chancellor of the Diocese, member of a distinguished Episcopal Church family, and son of a greatly beloved priest in the Diocese. He is also a friend of the Bishop.
Ill-advised delegates channel John C. Calhoun in rewriting Diocesan Constitution; Jeopardize parishes' legal claim to property
After Saturday's convention, the Diocese believes it is no longer obligated to follow any of the canons (laws) of the Episcopal Church and that it will abide by the Church's Constitution only in instances in which it does not conflict with the Constitution of the Diocese.
In such cases, conflicts will be defined by Bishop Lawrence or the Standing Committee, and their interpretation of the Diocesan Constitution will be the final word.
Essentially the newly revised Article I of the Diocesan Constitution says we will follow the Constitution of the Episcopal Church except when we don't want to.
"ARTICLE I. The Church in the Diocese of South Carolina accedes to the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. In the event that any provision of the Constitution of the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, the Constitution and Canons of this Diocese shall prevail."
In many ways, the Diocese is hanging its hat on John C. Calhoun's theory of nullification. Unlike Calhoun, no one seems to be able to cite a single instance in which the two constitutions have been in conflict.
Unfortunately, beyond the chest-pounding by their clergy, there's a very sobering message for the lay people of the Diocese: You may not own your parish property anymore.
Here's why: Title I.7.4 of the Canons of the Episcopal Church reads...
"All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission, or Congregation is held in trust for this Church [i.e., the Episcopal Church in the United States] and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located.
"The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canon."
Yikes! Rebellious former dioceses like San Joaquin, Quincy, and Fort Worth have already found out the hard way that state and Federal courts are not going to allow dissidents to just walk off with Church property.
No one at Saturday's convention seemed to be able to explain why the Diocese of South Carolina thinks its fate will be any different. In fact, many delegates to Saturday's convention were not entirely clear why Lawrence is even pursuing this course, though many said they felt they could not take a public stand against him.
Complicating the ability of lay people to understand the crisis is the Diocese's years of failing to provide them with balanced communications from the Episcopal Church. In the past the Presiding Bishop has expressed bafflement at how Diocesan leaders have twisted her comments. She has said that her words -- as reported to the laity by Diocesan leaders -- are often unrecognizable.
In his Convention address, Bishop Lawrence recognized the deepening financial crisis facing the Diocese and urged parishes to give more.
Aside from the shadowboxing, the most significant development at the Convention was recognition by the Bishop that annual revenues to the Diocese have been in a serious decline for years.
-- Diocesan spending in 2010 exceeded revenues by $172,510.
-- Diocesan revenue from parishes in 2010 declined by 21% from 2008 levels.
-- 2011 revenue is expected to decline by $117,583 over 2010 revenue.
Conventions in recent years have largely ignored Diocesan finances, preferring instead the more godly call to political posturing. Now it's taking a toll.
Aside from the shadowboxing, the most significant development at the Convention was recognition by the Bishop that annual revenues to the Diocese have been in a serious decline for years.
-- Diocesan spending in 2010 exceeded revenues by $172,510.
-- Diocesan revenue from parishes in 2010 declined by 21% from 2008 levels.
-- 2011 revenue is expected to decline by $117,583 over 2010 revenue.
Conventions in recent years have largely ignored Diocesan finances, preferring instead the more godly call to political posturing. Now it's taking a toll.
Clergy in traditional Episcopal parishes say their people don't want parish funds going to the Diocese to underwrite erratic attacks on the Episcopal Church.
Secessionist parishes are not only failing to step up to the plate, but appear to be reducing their giving. Many are facing declining revenues after losing loyalist members, who once could be counted on to anchor parish giving. Newcomers, attracted to the more evangelical nature of these parishes, bring a lot of initial enthusiasm but no history of significant giving or family ties that might ensure financial stability.
Least among their priorities is giving to a Diocese bent on engaging a well-financed adversary in an expensive and protracted legal battle.
Also, many of these parishes, in the final years of the episcopate of Edward Salmon, were pressured to take on sizable debt to finance new building projects in anticipation of a yet-to-materialize influx of new people moving to the state. Keeping an unpredictable Diocese afloat while servicing that debt is a financial management philosophy that parishes are just not buying.
Complicating the revenue picture even further is the reality that anti-gay rhetoric that once fueled hostility toward the Presiding Bishop -- and giving to the Diocese -- does not generate the kind of juice it once did. During Saturday's convention there were even comments about how the actions of the Diocese had hurt homosexuals.
Lawrence is also not as deft at pleasing (or strong-arming) multiple constituencies as his immediate predecessor, so there appear to be few repercussions for parishes that fail to adequately support the Diocese.
In fairness, Lawrence repeatedly told the Diocese prior to his consecration that everyone would have to "wake up and choose sides." Apparently, that's what is happening, with an increasing number of parishes and lay people choosing the other side.
Lawrence used his convention address Saturday to urge the parishes to return to the traditional 10-10-10 giving formula, pursued by his predecessor. Under this formula, individuals are expected to pledge ten percent of their income to their parish which, in turn, pledges ten percent of its income to the Diocese.
Ten percent of the Diocese’s income is then pledged to the Episcopal Church, which Lawrence has reinterpreted as “larger Church” as those parts of the worldwide Anglican Communion that share his political and cultural views.
Of course, the Anglican Communion is neither a "church" nor does it have any authority over or within the Episcopal Church.
The Anglican Communion is an association of 38 provinces that share a theological tradition and style of worship is descended from the Church of England. "Membership" in the Communion is determined by the a receipt of an invitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury to an every-ten-years conference at his palace. Interestingly though, most of the funding for the Communion's limited administrative operation comes from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.
Of all the Diocesan ministries and departments that have been painfully cut, the budget of the Department of Anglican Communion Development (formerly Department of World Missions), headed by The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, has largely been protected.
In spite of genuine affection for Bishop Lawrence, doubts are growing about his stewardship of the Diocese.
The mood at Saturday's convention appeared to many to lack the confidence of previous conventions. It was the first time in years that the Bishop of the Diocese did not receive the customary standing ovation, even though there is probably more personal affection for him than his predecessors.
It certainly was not the convention of a Diocese that still believes itself to be the fastest growing in the Episcopal Church. If anything, it's the traditional Episcopal parishes that are growing.
The boasting and fist-pumping of earlier conventions has long since subsided along with the all-important interest of the news media. If national Church leaders are paying attention, they are not showing it.
Lawrence's reserved leadership style leaves even his supporters guessing at where he is going next. No one is really clear who is giving him advice. While he insists that he is relying on the Diocese's Chancellor for legal direction, a relatively unknown Beaufort attorney with little apparent expertise in Church law seems to have an exceptional degree of influence on Diocesan decision-making.
Even Lawrence supporters agree that their congregations have become weary during eight years of barnyard-dog hostility toward the Episcopal Church. Noticeably absent from the Bishop's address Saturday was his routine warnings about how much sacrifice its going to be required in the future to continue his war against the Episcopal Church.
After eight years, many parishioners are not even sure what the fuss is about anymore, while others are confused by the zigzagging that has become a hallmark of the Diocese under Lawrence's tenure.
In October 2009, for instance, there was lots of towel-snapping at a Diocesan Convention that voted to withdraw from those entities of the Episcopal Church we consider "unrepentant" of their "un-Biblical" actions (meaning treating gay people the same as everyone else).
After a day of media coverage and no response from the Episcopal Church, the Diocese did exactly nothing. For instance ...
-- The last General Convention passed a resolution saying gay people were welcome in the Episcopal Church. However, on Saturday the Diocese elected a full slate of delegates to attend the 2012 General Convention of the national Church... right after voting to secede from it!
-- The Church Pension Fund continues to provide "spouse" benefits for clergy in same-gender relationships, yet none of the clergy in our Diocese have withdrawn from it. Interestingly, Bishop Lawrence is fully vested in it, and is counting on it to provide him a substantial annual income in retirement.
There is also some quiet grumbling by lay leaders who worry their congregations have neither the backbone nor resources for a legal fight over parish property, especially when similar efforts everywhere else are failing. Last month the former secessionist bishop of Fort Worth and those parishes that supported him were shown the door by a Texas court that said they had no right to any of the Church property they claimed belong to them.
_____________________
Reconvened Convention Approves Changes
Allowing Possible Secession Attempt next Spring
(October 15, 2010 revised, October 19, 2010)
Presiding Bishop "grieves" that Lawrence and his supporters
have misinterpreted her "concern... as aggression"
The
re-convened 2010 Annual Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina,
convinced that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is out to get its separatist Bishop, easily approved six controversial resolutions
altering the Diocese's Constitution and Canons as a prelude to a potential departure from the national Church next spring.
Delegates left the convention unsure about exactly what they had done, but convinced that whatever they did was the right thing. Some thought they'd voted to leave the national Church. Others said they'd voted to leave the Church next March, while still others insisted they did nothing that would change the relationship of the Diocese to the Episcopal Church.
Most delegates accepted the claims of Diocesan leaders that the national Church is looking to depose Bishop Lawrence. Many suggested that proposed revisions to Article IV of the national Church's Constitution are aimed at him, even though they have been in the works since long before he became a bishop.
One delegate representing a traditional Episcopal parish described as "fantasy" Diocesan leaders' depiction of the attitude of national Church toward the Diocese. Since 2003 the Diocese has been engaged in an imagined culture "war' with Church leaders, when a majority of dioceses & bishops consented to the election of a gay man as a bishop.
Charleston attorney and delegate Rob Wendt said after the convention, "It's clear that these resolutions are an implicit intent to separate from the Episcopal Church, although the diocesan leadership all state that they have no such intention."
Wendt is senior warden of Grace Episcopal Church in Charleston. Traditional Episcopalians at the convention were in agreement with his characterization of the convention as taking all necessary steps to leave the national Church while saying that it wasn't.
Presiding Bishop responds. When she was informed of the convention's actions, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said "I grieve these actions, but I especially grieve Bishop Lawrence's perception of my heartfelt concern for him and for the people of South Carolina as aggression. I don't seek to change his faithfully held positions on human sexuality, nor do I seek to control the inner workings of the diocese. I do seek to repair damaged relationships and ensure that this church is broad enough to include many different sorts and conditions of people. South Carolina and its bishop continue in my prayers."
Lawrence reported to the delegates that the Presiding Bishop had encouraged other bishops to talk with him, that he had spoken directly with her months ago, and that those conversations "did not bode well" for his continued episcopate.
SC Episcopalians has spoken with bishops and others close to the House of Bishops who report that bishops have been trying to determinate what he wants. One source said that when Lawrence has spoken with fellow bishops about his intentions they say "he is evasive, vague, and resists giving direct answers."
Delegates were unclear about legal implications of their actions. The most troubling part of the convention was the lack of understandable legal guidance on the consequences of approving the six resolutions. Explanations of the resolutions provided the delegates were overly simplistic, often failing to convey the full import of legal problems down the road.
During the convention, Lawrence and other Diocesan leaders frequently referred to a recent ruling by the SC Supreme Court, explaining that these resolution were all about conforming to the ruling. They did not mention that the SC ruling runs counter to a string of current Federal Court rulings, and likely will not withstand a future legal challenge. In fact, the Supreme Court in Georgia only last spring rejected unanimously the reasoning of the SC Court.
One delegate asked if "they" would be able to take the diocesan camp and conference center on Seabrook Island when they left. Lawrence responded with an assurance that the national Church's legal claim to Diocesan property only extended to parishes and missions.
The Diocesan Chancellor Wade Logan was not in attendance, but in comments to SC Episcopalians after the convention Bishop Lawrence emphatically rejected rumors that he had lost confidence in him in favor of Alan Runyon, a Beaufort attorney who is legal counsel to the Standing Committee. The Bishop dismissed such speculation as "sheer nonsense," professing full confidence in Mr. Logan, a well-respected attorney from Charleston.
Visitors, including the news media, were not allowed in the convention hall and were relegated to viewing the proceedings via closed circuit television. Audio was so bad that no one could hear any of the roll call votes, or most speakers.
Read story on Episcopal Cafe.
Delegates left the convention unsure about exactly what they had done, but convinced that whatever they did was the right thing. Some thought they'd voted to leave the national Church. Others said they'd voted to leave the Church next March, while still others insisted they did nothing that would change the relationship of the Diocese to the Episcopal Church.
Most delegates accepted the claims of Diocesan leaders that the national Church is looking to depose Bishop Lawrence. Many suggested that proposed revisions to Article IV of the national Church's Constitution are aimed at him, even though they have been in the works since long before he became a bishop.
One delegate representing a traditional Episcopal parish described as "fantasy" Diocesan leaders' depiction of the attitude of national Church toward the Diocese. Since 2003 the Diocese has been engaged in an imagined culture "war' with Church leaders, when a majority of dioceses & bishops consented to the election of a gay man as a bishop.
Charleston attorney and delegate Rob Wendt said after the convention, "It's clear that these resolutions are an implicit intent to separate from the Episcopal Church, although the diocesan leadership all state that they have no such intention."
Wendt is senior warden of Grace Episcopal Church in Charleston. Traditional Episcopalians at the convention were in agreement with his characterization of the convention as taking all necessary steps to leave the national Church while saying that it wasn't.
Presiding Bishop responds. When she was informed of the convention's actions, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said "I grieve these actions, but I especially grieve Bishop Lawrence's perception of my heartfelt concern for him and for the people of South Carolina as aggression. I don't seek to change his faithfully held positions on human sexuality, nor do I seek to control the inner workings of the diocese. I do seek to repair damaged relationships and ensure that this church is broad enough to include many different sorts and conditions of people. South Carolina and its bishop continue in my prayers."
Lawrence reported to the delegates that the Presiding Bishop had encouraged other bishops to talk with him, that he had spoken directly with her months ago, and that those conversations "did not bode well" for his continued episcopate.
SC Episcopalians has spoken with bishops and others close to the House of Bishops who report that bishops have been trying to determinate what he wants. One source said that when Lawrence has spoken with fellow bishops about his intentions they say "he is evasive, vague, and resists giving direct answers."
Delegates were unclear about legal implications of their actions. The most troubling part of the convention was the lack of understandable legal guidance on the consequences of approving the six resolutions. Explanations of the resolutions provided the delegates were overly simplistic, often failing to convey the full import of legal problems down the road.
During the convention, Lawrence and other Diocesan leaders frequently referred to a recent ruling by the SC Supreme Court, explaining that these resolution were all about conforming to the ruling. They did not mention that the SC ruling runs counter to a string of current Federal Court rulings, and likely will not withstand a future legal challenge. In fact, the Supreme Court in Georgia only last spring rejected unanimously the reasoning of the SC Court.
One delegate asked if "they" would be able to take the diocesan camp and conference center on Seabrook Island when they left. Lawrence responded with an assurance that the national Church's legal claim to Diocesan property only extended to parishes and missions.
The Diocesan Chancellor Wade Logan was not in attendance, but in comments to SC Episcopalians after the convention Bishop Lawrence emphatically rejected rumors that he had lost confidence in him in favor of Alan Runyon, a Beaufort attorney who is legal counsel to the Standing Committee. The Bishop dismissed such speculation as "sheer nonsense," professing full confidence in Mr. Logan, a well-respected attorney from Charleston.
Visitors, including the news media, were not allowed in the convention hall and were relegated to viewing the proceedings via closed circuit television. Audio was so bad that no one could hear any of the roll call votes, or most speakers.
Read story on Episcopal Cafe.
__________________________________
Loyal S.C. Episcopalians Call for Investigation of the
Diocese of South Carolina; Bishop Lawrence Responds
(September 25, 2010)
Episcopal Forum charges renegade Bishop has violated his vows
Diocesan leadership presses on with plans for unauthorized convention to illegally consider secession
Episcopal Forum charges renegade Bishop has violated his vows
Diocesan leadership presses on with plans for unauthorized convention to illegally consider secession
Loyal
Episcopalians in the Diocese of South Carolina this week pleaded with Church leaders to formally investigate current efforts of
Bishop Mark Lawrence and his Standing Committee to effectively sever
ties between the Diocese and the Episcopal Church.
In a dramatic letter to the Church's Executive Council and House of
Bishops, the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina claimed that Lawrence has
abdicated his obligations as bishop in the Church by failing to act
against parishes in rebellion and defend the diocese from those trying to walk away with its property.
The organization claims Lawrence's goal is the “alienation and disassociation of the Diocese of South Carolina from the Episcopal Church."
The organization claims Lawrence's goal is the “alienation and disassociation of the Diocese of South Carolina from the Episcopal Church."
Earlier this month Lawrence,
who maintains the Diocese is “sovereign," asked delegates to last
spring's Annual Convention to reconvene on October 15th and ratify six
resolutions that effectively repeal a critical “accession” clause in the
Diocesan Constitution required for membership in the Episcopal Church.
Without such a clause, a diocese forfeits it right to own Episcopal Church property and leaves the status of its clergy as Episcopal priests in limbo.
Without such a clause, a diocese forfeits it right to own Episcopal Church property and leaves the status of its clergy as Episcopal priests in limbo.
Read the letter from the Episcopal Forum to Episcopal Church leaders
On Friday Lawrence issued a response to the Forum’s accusations.
His comments were more evasive than specific, except that he made clear that he is putting all his marbles on a recent oddball ruling by the S.C. Supreme Court that seemed to deny the legal status of the Episcopal Church as “hierarchical.” Without such status, it is arguable that the national Church can not lay claim to the assets of a diocese of parishes that choose to leave the Church.
On Friday Lawrence issued a response to the Forum’s accusations.
His comments were more evasive than specific, except that he made clear that he is putting all his marbles on a recent oddball ruling by the S.C. Supreme Court that seemed to deny the legal status of the Episcopal Church as “hierarchical.” Without such status, it is arguable that the national Church can not lay claim to the assets of a diocese of parishes that choose to leave the Church.
The ruling, which runs counter to recent Federal rulings and precedents in nearly every
other state, essentially says that the Diocese is much like a non-profit
association whose member parishes are free to join or withdraw as
they’d like.
At some point the matter will be resolved by the Federal Courts, which are unlikely to sustain the reasoning of the state’s Supreme Court. Just last spring the Supreme Court in neighboring Georgia unanimously rejected the approach taken by the South Carolina Court.
The 2010 Diocesan Re-Convention is only the latest in a series
of antics by the Diocese
Leaders of the Diocese have spent years railing against the "unBiblical" leadership of the Episcopal Church, grandstanding for right-wing allies in the Anglican Communion and basking in media attention.
The proposed "re-convention" and the six resolutions proposed by the Standing Committee are the latest in a succession of reckless behaviors concocted by Lawrence to provoke a confrontation with the national Church. As with other Conventions, wavering clergy have been told their votes on the resolutions and those of their parishes are a test of loyalty to the Bishop. Failing the test will have consequences.
In those conventions delegates were seldom given anything anything but the Standing Committee's perspective on issues and often voted blindly following whatever instructions they were given.
Lawrence's pretext for this current outburst is a revision of an Article in the Episcopal Church's Constitution regarding the disciplining of bishops and clergy. Each diocese has been asked to approve it, and most have without much comment.
While the Diocese offered no objection when it was considered at last year's General Convention, it now claims the revised language is now an attack targeted at our leadership. The six resolutions, according to Lawrence and the Standing Committee, will offer us some kind of "protection" against some lurking evil.
The is a standard approach taken by Lawrence and the Standing Committee when they want Diocesan conventions to walk the plank with them It is usually accompanied with a not so subtle they're-out-to-get-us kicker.
Last year, for example, the national church retained a S.C. attorney to monitor the behavior of the Diocese, when Diocesan leaders refused to keep the Church informed of secret negotiations to give away Church property to a rebellious parish. When he found out, Bishop Lawrence went postal, claiming the action was some sort of an "incursion" into the "sovereign authority" of the Diocese, whatever that is.
At some point the matter will be resolved by the Federal Courts, which are unlikely to sustain the reasoning of the state’s Supreme Court. Just last spring the Supreme Court in neighboring Georgia unanimously rejected the approach taken by the South Carolina Court.
The 2010 Diocesan Re-Convention is only the latest in a series
of antics by the Diocese
Leaders of the Diocese have spent years railing against the "unBiblical" leadership of the Episcopal Church, grandstanding for right-wing allies in the Anglican Communion and basking in media attention.
The proposed "re-convention" and the six resolutions proposed by the Standing Committee are the latest in a succession of reckless behaviors concocted by Lawrence to provoke a confrontation with the national Church. As with other Conventions, wavering clergy have been told their votes on the resolutions and those of their parishes are a test of loyalty to the Bishop. Failing the test will have consequences.
In those conventions delegates were seldom given anything anything but the Standing Committee's perspective on issues and often voted blindly following whatever instructions they were given.
Lawrence's pretext for this current outburst is a revision of an Article in the Episcopal Church's Constitution regarding the disciplining of bishops and clergy. Each diocese has been asked to approve it, and most have without much comment.
While the Diocese offered no objection when it was considered at last year's General Convention, it now claims the revised language is now an attack targeted at our leadership. The six resolutions, according to Lawrence and the Standing Committee, will offer us some kind of "protection" against some lurking evil.
The is a standard approach taken by Lawrence and the Standing Committee when they want Diocesan conventions to walk the plank with them It is usually accompanied with a not so subtle they're-out-to-get-us kicker.
Last year, for example, the national church retained a S.C. attorney to monitor the behavior of the Diocese, when Diocesan leaders refused to keep the Church informed of secret negotiations to give away Church property to a rebellious parish. When he found out, Bishop Lawrence went postal, claiming the action was some sort of an "incursion" into the "sovereign authority" of the Diocese, whatever that is.
Read the Resolutions to be considered by the "Re-convention" in October
Title IV: Learn more about the pretext that Lawrence is using
The proposed resolutions have set off a firestorm in local parishes who were not warned in advance that Lawrence would try to pull out of the Episcopal Church in a matter of a few weeks. Many have not had time to consider implications, including the effect on the title to their property and the status of their clergy as Episcopal priests.
There are also many unanswered questions about the legitimacy of the Diocese calling such a "re-convention", and whether it can even consider changes to the Diocesan Constitution. Similarly, it is not clear that people on the Standing Committee who produced the resolutions even have any authority to be voting since their terms expired last March.
Title IV: Learn more about the pretext that Lawrence is using
The proposed resolutions have set off a firestorm in local parishes who were not warned in advance that Lawrence would try to pull out of the Episcopal Church in a matter of a few weeks. Many have not had time to consider implications, including the effect on the title to their property and the status of their clergy as Episcopal priests.
There are also many unanswered questions about the legitimacy of the Diocese calling such a "re-convention", and whether it can even consider changes to the Diocesan Constitution. Similarly, it is not clear that people on the Standing Committee who produced the resolutions even have any authority to be voting since their terms expired last March.
What will the Episcopal Church do?
So
far, the national Church has let the leaders of the Diocese make a
fools of themselves on their own with the hope that the lay people would
eventually wake up and reclaim what is left of the Diocese. If they even think about the Diocese of South Carolina, most Church leaders dismiss its antics as misguided and largely inspired by homophobia.
However, that may soon come to an end. Approval of the resolutions would leave the national Church with no choice but to do something it really doesn't want to do.
By ending its relationship with the national Church, the Diocese forces the question of who owns the assets of the Episcopal Church in what would become the former diocese. That will most likely have to be resolved in a Court.
However, that may soon come to an end. Approval of the resolutions would leave the national Church with no choice but to do something it really doesn't want to do.
By ending its relationship with the national Church, the Diocese forces the question of who owns the assets of the Episcopal Church in what would become the former diocese. That will most likely have to be resolved in a Court.
However, the decision by a bishop or priest to openly reject his or her sacred vows upholding the "doctrine, discipline, and worship" of the Episcopal Church would be a matter for the wider Church. The current Presiding Bishop and House of Bishops take matters of sacred oaths seriously, and they do have the authority to depose any bishop or defrock any priest who violates such an oath.
Fortunately for the Diocese, national Church leaders see that as a last,
and least desirable outcome. However, recent precedents in other rebellious dioceses like Quincy and San Joaquin suggest the national Church can move pretty fact once the bishop and his priests decide they want out.
Lawrence's credibility sinks as one-time supporters say he lied
to them to get elected.
In Lawrence's case, his support of the six resolutions is a clear
violation of personal assurances he made at the time of his election to
dozens of bishops to remain in the Episcopal Church. Without that
pledge, he would not have gained the support of the required majority of
bishops and standing committees he needed to be consecrated.
Doubtless, he will continue to argue with his famous pretzel-like logic that he is not advocating he Diocese leave the national Church. However, that is not likely to compensate for the personal sense of betrayal felt by many mainstream bishops who told their standing committees that Lawrence had given them a commitment of loyalty to the Church.
Doubtless, he will continue to argue with his famous pretzel-like logic that he is not advocating he Diocese leave the national Church. However, that is not likely to compensate for the personal sense of betrayal felt by many mainstream bishops who told their standing committees that Lawrence had given them a commitment of loyalty to the Church.
One liberal priest who was personally assured that Lawrence would not try to take the Diocese out of the Church told SC Episcopalians:
"Most of us remember the protestations of Bishop Lawrence when questioned about his continued loyalty to the Episcopal Church -- and the efforts of several of us in his behalf, having been assured in private conversations that he would remain loyal to the discipline, doctrine, and worship of the Episcopal Church. Apparently those protestations are not remembered by him.
"If Bishop Lawrence does not publicly denounce these resolutions at the convention, then he should offer a public apology to me and others who supported his consecration as well as to all the standing committees which voted in favor of his consecration ... Then he should resign as bishop."
Lawrence has also lost the personal following he once had among the laity in the Diocese and among some of the the clergy. Many parishes are not even clear why he and the standing committee are carrying on as they are.
"Most of us remember the protestations of Bishop Lawrence when questioned about his continued loyalty to the Episcopal Church -- and the efforts of several of us in his behalf, having been assured in private conversations that he would remain loyal to the discipline, doctrine, and worship of the Episcopal Church. Apparently those protestations are not remembered by him.
"If Bishop Lawrence does not publicly denounce these resolutions at the convention, then he should offer a public apology to me and others who supported his consecration as well as to all the standing committees which voted in favor of his consecration ... Then he should resign as bishop."
Lawrence has also lost the personal following he once had among the laity in the Diocese and among some of the the clergy. Many parishes are not even clear why he and the standing committee are carrying on as they are.
________________
with Imagined Enemies in the Church
March 25, 2010
Ignoring financial crisis and historic challenge to the Diocesan
Constitution & Canons, delegates feast on righteous indignation
Convention hands unprecedented power to Lawrence, relegating laity and future conventions to rubber stamps
During the entire six-hour convention, not a single question was raised about the Diocese's deepening financial crisis or how it will address the most serious legal assault on its Constitution in its 350-year history.
Tisdale’s hiring and subsequent requests for information inflamed Lawrence and the Standing Committee, who on Friday repeatedly denounced the move as an unlawful “incursion” into the Diocese
Lawrence's closed and sometimes secretive leadership style has left many key players and lay leaders from knowing how he plans to handle what is surely the most serious challenge to the unity of the Diocese in its history. His insistence that he alone has the right to decide on a "generous pastoral response" to rebel parishes sounds like bishop-speak for "I can do what I want."
On Friday Lawrence seemed untroubled that the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, which he has taken a vow to uphold, suggests just the opposite. In the cases of breakaway parishes, it is assumed that a Diocesan bishop will act in the best interest of both entities
A series of recent Federal Court rulings has found that the nature of the Episcopal Church is such that it has an undisputed and legitimate interest in the way its dioceses handle property matters. Lawrence disclosed Friday that he had met face-to-face with the Presiding Bishop last week for 90 minutes to discuss the matter, but gave no details.
Several delegates during a lunch break complained that Lawrence seemed to be using to the Tisdale affair as a "smokescreen" to divert attention away from his closed-door dealings with the rebel parishes.
In recent weeks Lawrence, Canon Kendall Harmon, and the Standing Committee have tried to spin the Tisdale matter as a first step by the national Church to go after the Diocese, its clergy, and parishes for its past criticism of the majority in the Church.
In response to this shameful posturing, the convention passed a pathetic resolution at the end of the day stating that it was ready to engage in “battle”.
“This is our time to stand,” exclaimed the proponent of one of the final resolutions to blow through the convention.
Two of the resolutions seem to be a reversal of earlier positions taken by the Diocese.
For example, in declaring itself to be "sovereign" the convention was saying that dioceses have the authority to act on their own own in providing a "generous pastoral response" to dissident parishes in their jurisdictions. Since 2003, the Diocese has been critical of independent liberal dioceses who it claims, have acted on their own in providing what could be seen as a generous pastoral response in ministering to same gender couples.
Of the resolutions that actually matter was one in which the Convention gave the bishop absolute authority to interpret the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese. Lawrence has never been a fan of the democratic nature of Church governance, and Friday's delegates agreed by reducing the authority of all future diocesan conventions to that of rubber stamps.
A number of speakers, including those for the Standing Committee, complained that through her support of the actions of the Chancellor, the Presiding Bishop was acting as if she were the sole authority in interpreting the national canons.
This is exactly why Beers felt he had to retain Tisdale. The withdrawal of four parishes from the diocese is likely to be the biggest crisis of Lawrence’s episcopate. Not only has he not been clear with the wider Church about how he will proceed, he hasn’t even told the Diocese.
Continuing financial crisis ignored. Astonishingly, during the day there hardly any references to the continuing financial crisis in the Diocese. Delegates breezed through approval of the 2010 Diocesan budget that reflects a dramatic and continuing decline of Diocesan revenues since Lawrence first became bishop.
In 2009 alone, income from parishes and missions was ten percent below that which had been anticipated, while anticipated income for 2010 reflects an even further drop based on lower contributions from parishes.
Overall, the 2010 budget assumes that Diocesan income this year will be $2.33 million, nearly $700,000 less than that which was anticipated in 2008 when Lawrence was consecrated.
Under Lawrence, expenditures by the Bishop’s office have leveled out after significant growth under his predecessor. Clearly the Diocese cannot afford to hire another bishop to assist him, so Lawrence will have his hands full in carrying out the pastoral and “episcopal” functions of his office for the next few years.
The mission of this office appears be keeping alive the Bishop’s vision of a new age of "Biblical Anglicanism". To most of the world today the Anglican Communion is a deeply fractured, largely impotent, vestige of British colonialism. In the Diocese of South Carolina, we see it as the future, so this year we are giving it a raise.
Lawrence Sandbags Episcopal Church Leaders
over Four Rebellious Parishes
February 12, 2010
Isolated Diocese resists requests for legal documents
and Standing Committee minutes
Lawrence, steamed over retention of attorney by
Church leaders, postpones 2010 Convention
and Standing Committee minutes
Lawrence, steamed over retention of attorney by
Church leaders, postpones 2010 Convention
The shadow box “war” by the Diocese of South Carolina
against the Episcopal Church entered a new phase of absurdity this month
as Bishop Lawrence and the Standing Committee essentially
refused to tell Church leaders what the Diocese is doing in response to maneuvers
by four parishes to distance themselves from the Church.
In a series of muddled communications among lawyers, the Bishop and Standing Committee sandbagged requests from the national Church for legal documents related to the Diocese's response to efforts by Trinity in Myrtle Beach, St. Luke’s on Hilton Head, and St. John’s on Johns Island to delete references to the Episcopal Church in their corporate charters, and St. Andrew’s in Mt. Pleasant to leave the Episcopal Church entirely.
Church leaders are specifically asking for parishes' bylaws, founding documents, charters, deeds, and mortgages, along with Standing Committee minutes since Bishop Salmon's retirement. All of the documents are related to the legitimate legal interests of the Episcopal Church
In an overly dramatic letter to the people of the Diocese, Lawrence claimed the diocese is “sovereign” and questioned why the leadership of the Episcopal Church was trying to find out what he is doing. He suggested that “perhaps the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, if not the Presiding Bishop herself, is trying to build a case against the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Diocese (the Bishop and Standing Committee) and some parishes.”
Lawrence said he is especially steamed by the news that the Chancellor of the Episcopal Church (its lawyer) had retained Charleston attorney Tom Tisdale to represent the national Church in “local matters”.
Lawrence claimed that Tisdale’s retention and subsequent requests for information from the Diocese was a violation of authority granted the Presiding Bishop in the Church’s Constitution and Canons. Tisdale is a lifelong Episcopalian, and the son of a longtime, much-beloved priest in the Diocese of South Carolina.
To heighten the drama, the Bishop announced for no obvious reason that he and the Standing Committee were postponing the 2010 Diocesan convention slated for the first week of March.
Included among these red herrings was a complaint by Lawrence that the Presiding Bishop had not personally called and asked him what he was doing about the undisciplined parishes. The current tempest was apparently ignited by a conversation between the lawyer for the Presiding Bishop, who was trying to find out what the Diocese was doing about the rebellious parishes, and the lawyer for Bishop Lawrence.
Lawrence has apparently made no effort to communicate with the House of Bishops or the Presiding Bishop about his dealing with the four parishes since they disclosed their plans in December. In fact, he and his lawyers are claiming that none of the parishes are planning to leave the Episcopal Church.
In a series of muddled communications among lawyers, the Bishop and Standing Committee sandbagged requests from the national Church for legal documents related to the Diocese's response to efforts by Trinity in Myrtle Beach, St. Luke’s on Hilton Head, and St. John’s on Johns Island to delete references to the Episcopal Church in their corporate charters, and St. Andrew’s in Mt. Pleasant to leave the Episcopal Church entirely.
Church leaders are specifically asking for parishes' bylaws, founding documents, charters, deeds, and mortgages, along with Standing Committee minutes since Bishop Salmon's retirement. All of the documents are related to the legitimate legal interests of the Episcopal Church
In an overly dramatic letter to the people of the Diocese, Lawrence claimed the diocese is “sovereign” and questioned why the leadership of the Episcopal Church was trying to find out what he is doing. He suggested that “perhaps the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, if not the Presiding Bishop herself, is trying to build a case against the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Diocese (the Bishop and Standing Committee) and some parishes.”
Lawrence said he is especially steamed by the news that the Chancellor of the Episcopal Church (its lawyer) had retained Charleston attorney Tom Tisdale to represent the national Church in “local matters”.
Lawrence claimed that Tisdale’s retention and subsequent requests for information from the Diocese was a violation of authority granted the Presiding Bishop in the Church’s Constitution and Canons. Tisdale is a lifelong Episcopalian, and the son of a longtime, much-beloved priest in the Diocese of South Carolina.
To heighten the drama, the Bishop announced for no obvious reason that he and the Standing Committee were postponing the 2010 Diocesan convention slated for the first week of March.
Included among these red herrings was a complaint by Lawrence that the Presiding Bishop had not personally called and asked him what he was doing about the undisciplined parishes. The current tempest was apparently ignited by a conversation between the lawyer for the Presiding Bishop, who was trying to find out what the Diocese was doing about the rebellious parishes, and the lawyer for Bishop Lawrence.
Lawrence has apparently made no effort to communicate with the House of Bishops or the Presiding Bishop about his dealing with the four parishes since they disclosed their plans in December. In fact, he and his lawyers are claiming that none of the parishes are planning to leave the Episcopal Church.
__________
Three SC Parishes Prepare to Distance
Themselves from the Episcopal Church
Themselves from the Episcopal Church
December 21, 2009
Three large congregations in the Diocese of South Carolina are lurching forward with plans to either leave or otherwise legally distance themselves from the Episcopal Church. Their actions are forcing the hand of Bishop Mark Lawrence, who sympathizes with their motivations, but has taken an oath to defend the interests of the Diocese and the wider Church.
St. Andrew’s in Mount Pleasant announced this week it had completed a “discernment process” it claims supports a decision to abandon the Episcopal Church and join the so-called Anglican Church of North America, a loose affiliation of dissident parishes not recognized by the Anglican Communion or the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The other parishes, Trinity in Myrtle Beach and St. Luke's in Hilton Head, are reported to have taken steps to remove references to the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of SC from their charters.
According to the Charleston Post & Courier, Lawrence says he has been aware of the situations at Trinity and St. Luke's and "they are not seeking to leave the Diocese." He offered no further explanation, but went on to say, "We will keep the lines of communication open and clear." (Read P&C full story)
The actions of all three parishes will be a challenge to Lawrence's leadership and a test of his commitment to the Episcopal Church.
The challenge for Lawrence is that he is the head of the Diocese and the representative of the Episcopal Church. As such he is morally and legally bound to take all necessary action to defend the interests of the Church and act as a faithful steward of Diocesan assets.
Should he fail to do so, he would risk being deposed.
Any legal action against the parishes would also constitute a first test of the state's Supreme Court's recent decision in the Pawleys Island case in which it denied the hierarchical nature of the Episcopal Church, and therefore appeared to make such departures by individual parishes more likely.
Over the past three years, Federal courts have been ruling fairly consistently that Episcopal congregations who vote to leave the Church can’t take their property with them. They have upheld long-standing precedent that Christian denominations like the Episcopal Church are "hierarchical" in their governing structures, and therefore own local church property, which they hold in trust for local parishes.
In the next few years, these cases are likely to make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Of course in South Carolina, our state courts pay little heed to the direction of the Federal courts and, at least, for a while the state's Supreme Court decision in the case of All Saints, Pawleys Island is going to allow this kind of mischief.
However, another option is negotiation in which the dissenting parishes work out an arrangement with their bishops and standing committees in acquiring their properties. In a diocese like South Carolina, where the bishop is generally sympathetic to the dissenters, unhappy parishes might have a chance at cutting a deal and picking up their former properties on the cheap.
The Anglican Church is North America is not particularly Anglican nor is it clear who is bankrolling it.
ACNA is an unlikely coalition of mostly small congregations bound together by their more literal interpretation of the Bible, fear of gay people and, to a lesser extent, opposition to women in leadership roles in the Church. Their link to Anglicanism is a tradition of worship and an apostolic lineage, currently being passed along mostly by anti-gay Anglican Primates in Africa.
ACNA's claim that its brand of 21st century fundamentalism is an "orthodox" version of Anglican theology is more rhetoric than reality, scholars claim.
The leader of the ACNA is the controversial Robert Duncan, who was deposed last year by the Episcopal Church and is not recognized by the Anglican Communion.
Duncan, who is described by the ACNA as an "archbishop", used his position as Episcopal bishop of Pittsburgh to attack the Episcopal Church using funds from extremely wealthy right-wing philanthropists. It is also rumored that he is taking money from arch-conservative African primates like Henri Luke Orombi of Uganda.
Duncan was widely discredited in an incident in 2006 when a secret memorandum to meddling African primates revealed that he was essentially talking out of both sides of his mouth, telling his Diocese that he did not intend to leave the Episcopal Church while plotting with the Africans to do just that.
ACNA's finances are mostly secret and not available to the public.
Duncan coincidentally will be attending a conference in Charleston in January while the St. Andrew's vestry is considering its next move .
St, Andrew's has never been much of player in the work of the Diocese such that its departure is not likely to have much a material impact.
In recent decades, St. Andrew's has not been part of the mainstream of the Diocese. It has generally taken its own course, and not been particularly supportive of Diocesan work. It does, however, maintain an active social outreach, youth program, and Christian education program that attract many non-Episcopalians.
The parish's charismatic and hyperbolic rector, The Rev. Steve Wood, is considered by his clergy colleagues as a loose cannon. He was a unsuccessful candidate for Bishop of South Carolina at the same convention that elected Mark Lawrence.
Wood's approach to national Church issues has never been subtle, or particularly effective outside his own congregation. Two years ago, after the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church made a personal visit to his parish, he suggested in his online blog that she is "the Anti-Christ."
Last summer he likened the Episcopal Church to a "whore".
After the "whore" incident, he made an internet name for himself when he actually castigated the leaders of the Episcopal Church for employing extreme and hostile rhetoric.
Claiming nearly 3,000 members, St. Andrew’s is the largest parish in the Diocese and at one time claimed to be one of the fastest growing in the Episcopal Church. If true, less than one-third of this membership participated in the parish-wide survey this month and, of that number, 93% are said to have indicated they wanted to leave the Episcopal Church.
Anticipating the outcome of its "discernment" process, last summer the parish quietly transferred property worth $3-plus million to a land trust for the purpose of establishing an "orthodox Anglican ministry center." It is not clear that transfer was legal or approved by the bishop and standing committee.
However, it raises doubts about whether the discernment process was unbiased or its outcome unanticipated.
The parish’s vestry says it will meet in January and to plot its next move.
____________The other parishes, Trinity in Myrtle Beach and St. Luke's in Hilton Head, are reported to have taken steps to remove references to the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of SC from their charters.
According to the Charleston Post & Courier, Lawrence says he has been aware of the situations at Trinity and St. Luke's and "they are not seeking to leave the Diocese." He offered no further explanation, but went on to say, "We will keep the lines of communication open and clear." (Read P&C full story)
The actions of all three parishes will be a challenge to Lawrence's leadership and a test of his commitment to the Episcopal Church.
The challenge for Lawrence is that he is the head of the Diocese and the representative of the Episcopal Church. As such he is morally and legally bound to take all necessary action to defend the interests of the Church and act as a faithful steward of Diocesan assets.
Should he fail to do so, he would risk being deposed.
Any legal action against the parishes would also constitute a first test of the state's Supreme Court's recent decision in the Pawleys Island case in which it denied the hierarchical nature of the Episcopal Church, and therefore appeared to make such departures by individual parishes more likely.
Over the past three years, Federal courts have been ruling fairly consistently that Episcopal congregations who vote to leave the Church can’t take their property with them. They have upheld long-standing precedent that Christian denominations like the Episcopal Church are "hierarchical" in their governing structures, and therefore own local church property, which they hold in trust for local parishes.
In the next few years, these cases are likely to make their way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Of course in South Carolina, our state courts pay little heed to the direction of the Federal courts and, at least, for a while the state's Supreme Court decision in the case of All Saints, Pawleys Island is going to allow this kind of mischief.
However, another option is negotiation in which the dissenting parishes work out an arrangement with their bishops and standing committees in acquiring their properties. In a diocese like South Carolina, where the bishop is generally sympathetic to the dissenters, unhappy parishes might have a chance at cutting a deal and picking up their former properties on the cheap.
The Anglican Church is North America is not particularly Anglican nor is it clear who is bankrolling it.
ACNA is an unlikely coalition of mostly small congregations bound together by their more literal interpretation of the Bible, fear of gay people and, to a lesser extent, opposition to women in leadership roles in the Church. Their link to Anglicanism is a tradition of worship and an apostolic lineage, currently being passed along mostly by anti-gay Anglican Primates in Africa.
ACNA's claim that its brand of 21st century fundamentalism is an "orthodox" version of Anglican theology is more rhetoric than reality, scholars claim.
The leader of the ACNA is the controversial Robert Duncan, who was deposed last year by the Episcopal Church and is not recognized by the Anglican Communion.
Duncan, who is described by the ACNA as an "archbishop", used his position as Episcopal bishop of Pittsburgh to attack the Episcopal Church using funds from extremely wealthy right-wing philanthropists. It is also rumored that he is taking money from arch-conservative African primates like Henri Luke Orombi of Uganda.
Duncan was widely discredited in an incident in 2006 when a secret memorandum to meddling African primates revealed that he was essentially talking out of both sides of his mouth, telling his Diocese that he did not intend to leave the Episcopal Church while plotting with the Africans to do just that.
ACNA's finances are mostly secret and not available to the public.
Duncan coincidentally will be attending a conference in Charleston in January while the St. Andrew's vestry is considering its next move .
St, Andrew's has never been much of player in the work of the Diocese such that its departure is not likely to have much a material impact.
In recent decades, St. Andrew's has not been part of the mainstream of the Diocese. It has generally taken its own course, and not been particularly supportive of Diocesan work. It does, however, maintain an active social outreach, youth program, and Christian education program that attract many non-Episcopalians.
The parish's charismatic and hyperbolic rector, The Rev. Steve Wood, is considered by his clergy colleagues as a loose cannon. He was a unsuccessful candidate for Bishop of South Carolina at the same convention that elected Mark Lawrence.
Wood's approach to national Church issues has never been subtle, or particularly effective outside his own congregation. Two years ago, after the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church made a personal visit to his parish, he suggested in his online blog that she is "the Anti-Christ."
Last summer he likened the Episcopal Church to a "whore".
After the "whore" incident, he made an internet name for himself when he actually castigated the leaders of the Episcopal Church for employing extreme and hostile rhetoric.
Claiming nearly 3,000 members, St. Andrew’s is the largest parish in the Diocese and at one time claimed to be one of the fastest growing in the Episcopal Church. If true, less than one-third of this membership participated in the parish-wide survey this month and, of that number, 93% are said to have indicated they wanted to leave the Episcopal Church.
Anticipating the outcome of its "discernment" process, last summer the parish quietly transferred property worth $3-plus million to a land trust for the purpose of establishing an "orthodox Anglican ministry center." It is not clear that transfer was legal or approved by the bishop and standing committee.
However, it raises doubts about whether the discernment process was unbiased or its outcome unanticipated.
The parish’s vestry says it will meet in January and to plot its next move.
