What amazing self-serving bullshit.

My prayers and encouragement go out to those who remain in The Episcopal Church as The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, even after Mark Lawrence and his followers have left. God bless you.

Alas, we have seen this movie before, four times to be exact. The renegade leaders in SC have ignored the court rulings in the four cases. They are delusional to think that they alone will prevail against the weight of already established court rulings. Moreover, the first ruling was in the case of San Joaquin, Lawrence's old diocese. The Episcopal Church diocese prevailed 100% in the court ruling. Anyone with common sense knows what is going to happen in SC.

More evidence of the struggle to maintain white male control? Prayers for those who have grown with the changing world and wish to remain in TEC.

I feel compelled to point out that this foolishness could have been prevented if Mark Lawrence's consecration had never been consented to in the first place.

At no point in time have any of these so-called conservatives been dealing with the rest of us in good faith. These are people who will lie, cheat and steal to get their own way and, as we have now seen once again in South Carolina, we ignore this knowledge at our own peril.

David Wacaster is certainly correct in noting that Mark Lawrence should never have been consecrated in the first place. Despite the handwriting on the wall, bishops and standing committees did not have the stomach to reject Lawrence twice. It was obvious that the church was getting a rogue bishop and we just didn’t have the good sense to say no.

That said, the Diocese of South Carolina was already poised for schism and determined to obtain a like-minded bishop. Nonetheless, a fight then would have The Episcopal Church in a better position than it will be in in the fight to come.

"Those who are not with us you may go in peace." Once again, the group leaving is trying to reverse the reality. It is not the Episcopalians who are going anywhere, it is Mark Lawrence and those who are so misguided as to follow him. By their actions they have put themselves outside TEC and those who remain don't have to "Go" anywhere. They are not imposters, they ARE the diocese of South Carolina.

JR Gunderson

Cafe editors, can something be done to revise the headline, please. The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina remains, even if Mark Lawrence and his followers have left. It's an important point, as our PB has pointed out.

Made me recall something I wrote in 2003 ... and through the miracle of Google actually found on Louie Crew's pages: "What if they gave a schism and nobody came?"

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/dojustice/j044.html

Back to finishing my sermon.

The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
All Saints Church, Pasadena CA

Interesting, but what is the Presiding Bishop doing about the numerous Episcopal bishops and clergy who abandon the Faith by denying the divinity of Christ? Seems a bit more important to me.

Nikolaus-- I cannot name one current bishop who denies the divinity of Christ. Nor do I as a priest know any clergy who think that.

“for now and the foreseeable future, having withdrawn from our association with TEC, we remain an extra-provincial diocese within the larger Anglican Communion.”

If Bishop Lawrence's ministry weren't restricted, and he himself on his way to being deposed, it might be possible to remove him under the provisions of paragraph (p) of Canon III.12.8...

Bill Dilworth

It is a very strange thing to deny abandoning the Church by abandoning the Church.

Unless either clergy or laity either deny or refuse to say the Nicene Creed, they should be counted as orthodox Christians and no further litmus test or specific phrase should be or is required. If clergy maintain their Oath of Conformity, they should similarly be accorded full status as orthodox Christians.

Ironically, the only church I ever attended that omitted the Nicene Creed was the Church of the Apostles in Fairfax, VA--one of the CANA parishes that attempted to leave TEC.

Mightn't it be that if we had withheld consent from Lawrence, we would have embittered the diocese such that we'd still be faced with attempted defection?

Bill Dilworth

In this very legalistic and lengthily worded statement of bigotry presented with insult and accusation, the bishop makes clear to everyone we are the true believers and you, you TEC are heretics. Am I supposed to feel sympathy for this outrageous display of arrogance and condescension? Why don't we add in there that slavery was justified and holy because it's in the bible? Or how about the view in the Bible that women are inferior to men? You know if you're going to be a biblical fundamentalist you can't pick or choose. Oh, yeah, how about stoning someone to death because they handled a pig skin? No more wieners for the bishop! Boo hoo hoo! And those damn pork rinds where so tasty! Does he really think God is impressed with all this? Or is his gospel really a gospel of hate and bigotry. Maybe he learned that from the Assemblies of God? I dunno. On a serious note let us all the Body of Christ begin the work of healing to the centuries of injustice incurred to others in the name of God. Bishop I say to you go talk to the parents of Matthew Shepherd and share "your" version of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Convince them to join your congregation and then we'll really have something to talk about.

Ben- please sign your name when you comment - thanks ~ed.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." [Attributed to A Einstein]

Kyrie eleison.

JC Fisher

Nikolaus,

Would you please cite a first-hand source to substantiate your claim that the PB denies the divinity of Christ?

Thank you.

Eric Bonetti

"Alas, we have seen this movie before, four times to be exact. The renegade leaders in SC have ignored the court rulings in the four cases."

Actually, there have been court rulings in only three cases. The Quincy case is still pending in the trial court.

Two of the four breakaway groupos are still pending in the courts, Fort Worth and Quincy. In the first two, San Joaquin and Pittsburgh, there are very clear decisions handed down by the courts that landed 100% on the side of TEC. These decisions are now part of the body of justice that the secessionists in SC are ignoring but will have to face soon. The poor lemmings following the delusional Lawrence off the cliff will soon discover these court judgments. It's too bad they didn't know them sooner.

I think we need to make a very clear distinction between a conflict of ideas and the criminal act of theft.

I have a great deal of sympathy for those who struggle with inclusion. I have struggled with it myself, living as I do in a society that sees me as "other." I think most gay people struggle with seeing themselves as children of a loving God when the society around them says they're not. So it's no wonder that many straight Christians find continuing their old patterns of thinking more comfortable than confronting new ones.

The division in the Anglican Communion, which we pray that Justin Welby will be able to heal over time, is exactly that: new ideas versus old ones. It isn't that we haven't done our theology, or prayed about it, or struggled with it. We have. So, while I have sympathy for people on the other side of this theological divide, I am disappointed at being repudiated by them. And I am absolutely unwilling to condone them stealing anything.

Mark Lawrence took a sacred vow to be true to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the church. So did the priests who follow him. They have an easy and honest way out of their dilemma. They can ask to be released from their vows or arrange to move from the Episcopal Church to some other part of the Anglican Communion that is more in line with their theology. What they cannot be permitted to do is take Episcopal Church property with them when they go. I have always believed that it is best to call things by their name - particularly evil things. I do so now.They are thieves.

The continuing Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is already meeting, will elect new officers, and a Provisional Bishop will be appointed. This sad division may also bring new opportunities. Now that Lawrence and his ilk are gone, this may well be a good time for Believe Out Loud.

Let us remember that the vines that are pruned bear the most and sweetest fruit.

"...our understanding of human nature, the given-ness of gender as male and female, woven by God into the natural and created order..."

This has all happened because some conservatives can't and won't see or hear that this statement is obviously false, and that reality is far richer and more diverse than was first imagined. Come Lord, come, and let the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf be unstopped.

Could it be that Nikolaus is referencing Deut. 4:2; 12:32 - the Lord God commands that we not add or take away from His word - Rev. 22:18-19 -Jesus so commands us not to add or take away from His word? With that, couldn't those who add to or take away from the WORD be denying the Divinty of Christ?

posted with permission:

I would like to point out that what seems to be happening right now is that many in the church want to blame those who are saying that the emperor has no clothes. The Episcopalians in South Carolina who filed their complaint did so in good faith. The proper committee has agreed with them that in fact Bishop Lawrence has met the criteria for abandonment. The South Carolina leadership constitutionally has no clothes.
To accept the position of Mark Lawrence and the South Carolina standing committee that canons are not binding on the Episcopal Church is madness. They are canons, not "suggestions." The original 1789 constitution that those "founding" South Carolinians agreed to says that states (note, not dioceses) were "bound" (Article II of the Constitution) by the Acts of General Convention even if they weren't present. BOUND - not "you can follow it if it suits you." Furthermore these 1789 canons are titled "Canons for the Government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" and were "agreed on and ratified in the General Convention of said church. . . ." The Constitution is simply styled "A general Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America." There is no language about it being formed by state bodies. Similarly, the Journal of the Convention changes its title so that it no longer lists states but instead is titled "Journal of the Proceedings of the Bishops, Clergy and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America."
The South Carolina founders, like everyone else realized that they had created one church, not a federation of independent states.

The Standing Committee in South Carolina has declared that the diocese is no longer part of TEC. The steering committee appointed by the PB is trying to reach out to those who truly want to stay in TEC. Don't heap blame on those trying to connect Episcopalians and find a way forward. I would celebrate with everyone else if the Diocese of South Carolina's leadership would come to its senses and accept the fact that the General Convention has spoken on Title IV rules. General Convention 2012 did not revoke any parts of the Title IV. The church has spoken and those are the rules. Trying to leave TEC will bring unnecessary pain to the whole church. Frankly, it will also bring decline to those that leave.

Joan Gundersen, L3 GC 2009 and 2012, Pittsburgh.

The accusation that bishops and priests in TEC deny the divinity of Christ is pure malarkey. I have never heard such a thing in all my years in the church.

For what it's worth, I think the purpose in electing Mark Lawrence was to take the Diocese of SC out of the Episcopal Church. Lawrence learned the art of attempted withdrawal at the knee David Schofield.

June Butler

Actually, of the four lawsuits involving withdrawing dioceses, Pittsburgh is the only one where the appellate courts have ruled, in this instance in favor of TEC. I defer to Dr. Gunderson's greater familiarity with the details of that lawsuit, but it's my understanding that the rulings for TEC have been based on the courts' interpretation of a stipulation made by Bishop Duncan and others in a previous lawsuit. Since there aren't any similar stipulations in the other three lawsuits, the Pittsburgh case really doesn't create a precedent for the other 3 cases (or for a future South Carolina case).

In San Joaquin, the trial court's ruling in favor of TEC has been appealed to the Court of Appeal. In Fort Worth, the trial court's ruling for TEC has been directly appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. In Quincy, the case is before the trial court.

It's quite possible that in all four lawsuits, the final decision will be in favor of TEC, but that hasn't happened yet. Even if it does, the South Carolina courts are not bound by decisions from courts in other states.

For those who wondered whether the SC Supreme Court's decision in All Saints Pawley Island was limited to that the specific set of facts in that case or was intended to have a more universal application: it looks like you'll soon have your answer.

Paul,

Thank you for your comments. One additional point of note: In the majority of cases, the matter has been appealed to the US Supreme Court, which has declined certiorari. Because the Supremes often wait until this is a conflict among the various circuits, and because the court prefers cases of limited scope, it is risky business to infer too much from the Supremes' failure to grant cert. But it also is fair to say that the state court cases have all cited the 1979 Supreme Court case of Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In discussing the benefits of a "neutral principles of law" approach, the Supreme Court observed that "through appropriate reversionary clauses and trust provisions, religious societies can specify what is to happen to church property in the event of a particular contingency, or what religious body will determine the ownership in the event of a schism or doctrinal controversy. In this manner, a religious organization can ensure that a dispute over the ownership of church property will be resolved in accord with the desires of the members."

Thus, I would contend that two points are clear: First, denominations may, within the purview of existing case law, establish controlling provisions such as the Dennis Canon, which will be dispositive. Second, the Supremes have not seen anything come up on cert where jaws drop and the justices conclude they must right a wrong. And this has happened repeatedly, both in TEC and the Presbyterian church.

Eric Bonetti

"our theological and creedal commitments regarding the trustworthiness of Scripture, the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ, and other precious truths, while tolerated are just opinions among others [emphasis added]"

Although I think that the secession was long planned for, this statement is a good indication why dialogue may do little in these cases. Why can we not "live together in peace?" Simply, the "traditionalists" cannot stand to see their points of view as "while tolerated, just opinions among others." The view that truth is monolithic and that, furthermore, they hold the monopoly on it, bound up with the circular fiction of it has "always" been the truth creates an inevitable impulse towards separatism and schism when they can no longer claim to "control the show." It is, in short, of the very nature of their truth claims that they must control. SC could have sat as it was and refused to ordain women, to allow LGBT persons equal access to the sacraments, insisted in the literal infallibility of scripture and no one would have acted against them. There are plenty of parishes and dioceses in TEC that do just that, but it was the inability to control and have their beliefs validated as the only legitimate ones that made this "necessary." These are really insurmountable propositions for any form of "dialogue" to occur and be meaningful. I honestly cannot think of any way to "deal" with this.
As an aside, props to Bishop Martins for his attempt to offer "another way." (Although I must disagree with him over so much, I am sorry that I did not accept at first what so many others told me, that he was "different" than so many other conservatives.) It was a nobly worded statement, but when the drums of war are beating, no amount of pleadings to forebear are likely to be heard.

"First, denominations may, within the purview of existing case law, establish controlling provisions such as the Dennis Canon, which will be dispositive."

Ummm - EXCEPT in South Carolina.

"Furthermore, we hold that neither the 2000 Notice nor the Dennis Canon has any legal effect on title to the All Saints congregation’s property. A trust “may be created by either declaration of trust or by transfer of property….” Dreher v. Dreher, 370 S.C. 75, 80, 634 S.E.2d 646, 648 (2006). It is an axiomatic principle of law that a person or entity must hold title to property in order to declare that it is held in trust for the benefit of another or transfer legal title to one person for the benefit of another. The Diocese did not, at the time it recorded the 2000 Notice, have any interest in the congregation’s property. Therefore, the recordation of the 2000 Notice could not have created a trust over the property.

For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that title to the property at issue is held by All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc., the Dennis Canons had no legal effect on the title to the congregation’s property, and the 2000 Notice should be removed from the Georgetown County records."

"Turning to the 2005 Action, we find that the trial court applied the deference approach, determined that the congregation was part of a hierarchical organization, and deferred to the Diocese’s ecclesiastical authority’s determination that members of the minority vestry were the true officers of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw, Inc. We disagree."

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=26724

Joe Monk

Actually, Eric, I don't believe that any of the cases involving withdrawing _dioceses_ have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court. They are all still before the trial or appellate state courts. U.S. Supreme Court review has been sought in some of the cases involving withdrawing parishes. I'm not sure that these cases constitute a majority. Interestingly enough, the Court also denied cert last month in a case where a Louisiana appellate court ruled in favor of a local Presbyterian congregation that had withdrawn from the PCUSA, despite that denomination's having in its "Book of Order" a provision very similar to the Dennis Canon. So, as you say, it's not a good idea to read too much into denial of cert either way. Besides, these disputes are essentially matters of state property law, which the U.S. Supreme Court is probably going to stay away from unless one of the parties is able to convince four justices that the state court's ruling is a serious enough violation of federal constitutional rights for the Court to accept cert. So far, that hasn't happened.

I also don't think that there's any doubt that a denomination can require its member congregations to hold property in trust for the national body. The question is whether the Dennis Canon is sufficient to create such a trust. The answer to that question may vary from state to state. I realize that Justice Blackmon made a reference to national churches' adding a trust provision to their charters or constitutions, but he cited no authority for that proposition, so it may be dicta.

Hi Paul. Do you have details on the Louisiana case? That one is not yet on my radar.

Eric Bonetti

Eric, the case is Carrollton Presbyterian Church vs. Presbytery of South Louisiana of the Presbyterian Church (USA). The Louisiana Court of Appeal decision (Sept. 14 2011) can be found at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1594647.html. The court found that amending the PCUSA constitution was not sufficient to create a trust under Louisiana law.

Both the Louisiana and U.S. Supreme Court have declined to review that decision.

Apparently that link is working. The opinion can also be found at http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20LACO%2020110914265.xml

Eric and Paul, since you seem to be informed of the court cases concerning the four secessionist groups, could you give us the specific names of the judicial rulings that clearly sided with the breakaway dioceses against TEC? I do not mean grants of appeal. They are procedural permissions to send a lower court decision to a higher court. To my knowledge the only court judgment in San Joaquin (2010) declared that the Episcopal Church bishop was the only legitimate Episcopal bishop of San Joaquin. That was appealed. Perhaps Joan Gundersen could enlighten us on the specifics of the Pittsburgh litigation.

Ronald, there have been no cases where a court has rendered a final judgment in favor of a withdrawing diocese. The trial court in both San Joaquin and Fort Worth ruled for TEC and/or the TEC-loyal diocese. Both of these rulings are on appeal. The Fort Worth case has been directly appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, and a decision is expected sometime next year. The San Joaquin case is before the California Court of Appeal. Whoever loses in that court may seek further review by the California Supreme Court, but I don't know whether there's an automatic right to review in that court.

The Quincy lawsuit is still before the trial court.

Pittsburgh is more complicated. As I understand it, the trial court has ruled in favor of the TEC-loyal diocese with respect to certain properties, but primarily because of a stipulation that Bishop Duncan and others entered into in a previous lawsuit. Unless Bishop Lawrence has entered into a similar stipulation in South Carolina, the Pittsburgh court's decision is not likely to carry much weight in South Carolina (or the other 3 states). Both the intermediate court of appeals and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have declined to overturn that ruling. I believe that are other properties in dispute that aren't covered by that ruling, but I'm not clear on how the properties included in the ruling are distinguished from those that are excluded.

The thing to keep in mind with respect to South Carolina is that trial court decisions carry much less precedential weight that appellate decisions, and even appellate decisions from one state are not binding on the courts in another state. So even if the final decisions in the four pending cases all favor the breakaway dioceses, the South Carolina Supreme Court could rule for TEC and/or the TEC-loyal diocese. And the converse is equally true.

The cases in the Diocese of Los Angeles have all gone to TEC

TEC and TEC-loyal dioceses have won most of the lawsuits involving a withdrawing parish. All Saints Pawleys Island is the only exception that I'm aware of. However, there hasn't been a final decision on an appellate court level in any of the lawsuits involving withdrawing dioceses.

In Pittsburgh the crucial case was filed in 2003 by a group concerned that diocesan property was going to be removed from TEC. The case has a laundry list of plaintiffs and defendants, but the first named on each side are Calvary Episcopal Church v. the Right Rev. Robert Duncan. That case resulted in a stipulation signed in 2005 which said diocesan property belonged to the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America." In 2006 Calvary returned to court asking that the stipulation be enforced because Diocesan leadership was trying to remove the diocese from TEC. This matter was still before the court when the diocesan convention voted in favor of proposals that purported to remove it from TEC. The diocese which remained in TEC was admitted to the suit shortly after the 2008 vote. In October 2009 the court ruled that the stipulation language clearly meant that diocesan property belonged to the diocese that was still part of TEC. A further order in January 2010 resulted in the turn over of the property to the Episcopalians. The Commonwealth Court panel ruled in February 2011 that the original decision was correct and the full court declined to rehear the matter. The PA Supreme Court also declined to hear any appeals.

The property that was without doubt owned by the diocese included 23 parcels of property occupied by congregations claiming they were no longer in TEC. In these cases title was in the name of the Board of Trustees of the diocese. Eight of these congregations have now voluntarily left the buildings and turned over the control to the Episcopal Diocese.

Half (24) of the ACNA parishes within the bounds of the Pittsburgh diocese are now in rented buildings or sharing space with another congregation, often of another denomination. Some of these are new congregations or congregations that owned no property at the time of the 2008 vote.

There are 14 parishes where title was in the name of the parish. These 14 parishes must contend with the December 2005 PA Supreme Court ruling in the St. James the Less case that upheld Dennis Canon claims by the Diocese of Pennsylvania.

A further footnote. Mark Lawrence was originally from Pittsburgh, attended seminary in Pittsburgh and served Pittsburgh parishes before moving to San Joaquin. Also the South Carolina diocese has numerous priests who either studied at seminary in Pittsburgh, taught at the seminary here or were ordained by Pittsburgh's bishops.

Joan Gundersen

Thanks Joan for that enlightening summary. Yes, there is a big connection between Pittsburgh and South Carolina. Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge PA was established in 1976 in reaction to the social movements o the 1960's and 70's. I would describe it as fundamentalist. SC bishop Allison (1980-90) was a big advocate of it and began bringing in to SC graduates of Trinity. It was under Allison that SC started its diversion down the road of reaction and finally secession (at 85 he is still a loud voice advocating anti-Episcopal views and cheering on Lawrence and secessionism). Lawrence allowed seminarians to attend only Nashodah or Trinity. Thus the rightward trend in SC is nothing new. It has been going on for about 30 years. You may have noticed that DSC failed to consider realignment at its meeting on 11-17. That's because ACNA already has a bishop of the Carolinas thus precluding Lawrence.

On the property issues, SC is even more complicated than PA because of some peculiar state laws. Too, I think the only case in the entire US where a breakaway parish won a court fight that was not appealed was Pawley's Island. Lawrence refused to appeal to the US Supreme Court. When St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant bolted he gave them his blessing (and the property). So the secessionists in SC can take heart in those things. It is curious that in view of all this Lawrence still felt the need to issue quit claim deeds at all parishes. I believe he did so not to give them their property, which he believed they already controlled under state law, but to encourage secessionism and to provoke TEC to move against him (he issued the deeds while he was under the first investigation by the DBB). When TEC later did, he claimed "attack" and "assault" on the diocese. But Lawrence is not so sure about property himself. He said to a congregation where I was present "You can follow the buildings if you want to." His tone turned somber as he gave this group which held a great deal of downtown property no assurance they would keep the property. He knows he is in for a long, difficult, and expensive span of contentious litigation. Rumor has it he has amassed a war chest of $10 m.