What Are ECUSA’s Choices in South Carolina?

“If Bishop Lawrence does choose to retire, there is no reason why the Diocese could not proceed to elect a successor of its choosing exactly as it did before. If the majority of ECUSA’s standing committees and diocesans refuse to give their consent, then the Diocese can elect that candidate again, and force the issue (as it did with Bishop Lawrence). If an impasse still results, the Diocese can always invite in a bishop to exercise episcopal offices for as long as necessary, pursuant to Canon III.13.2.”

I guess it follows from this that a strong standing committee, is the key.  Presumably that in turn flows from strong clergy and senior laity.  If you have those things, then the liberals will actually find it very hard to influence the choice of bishop - is that correct?

We have had the same experience in Sydney - if you secure the Standing Committee (which can only be done if you have a solid core of clergy and senior laity) then the choice of Archbishop and Assistant Bishops is also secure. 

The only difference in Australia is that each of our 23 dioceses are autonomous in relation to their selection of bishops - no approval is required from the rest of the Anglican Church of Australia.  But the Curmudgeon seems to be saying that even in TEC, the practical effect of the requirement for HOB approval is actually very limited, PROVIDED the diocese itself remains true to its aim and vision.

Oops, that should have read diocesan and sc consent, rather than HOB consent. Apologies!

Michael A,
Yes the diocese has very strong and orthodox diocesan standing committee.  From posts here, the views of the standing committee should be crystal clear.  There are revisionist clergy and laity but they are a minority in this diocese.

My only concern is if the diocese does need to elect another bishop, the possibility of getting consents is going to be harder than even when Mark Lawrence got the consents to become XIV bishop of SC. I would be happy with a canonical/constitutional change in which a diocese does not need consent from the rest of TEC. That way TEC would be a true federation of independent dioceses.

#3, remember the story of Kevin “Genpo” Thew Forrester, elected Bishop of Northern Michigan, but not getting consent? Having checks and balances is a good thing.

When DioSC elects another conservative bishop, if he doesn’t get consents, then they keep electing him until he does. As Mr. Haley points out, DioSC could not be required to elect a revisionist, as long as the diocese stands firm, having donned the panoply of spiritual armor and weapons.

I tend to go with TEo’s scorched earth policy here.  Schori et al. have never stayed away from a legal battle, even if they have little chance at success.  As the SCOTUS has refused to take this on, this will remain a state issue and SC law is pretty clear on this issue.  But….. I think 815 has come to the realization that money isn’t in infinite supply anymore.  So I’m betting 60-40 for a perfunctory challenge, but they’ll let it drop after losing once or twice.

I don’t know Ralph. If Northern Michigan wants to elect a flaming revisionist as bishop, let them. It will just accelerate the death of that diocese. Also, I would love to see changes to make the House of Deputies representational according to the number of communicants. I under that system,  I suspect we (Dio SC)  would have more than 4 clergy and 4 lay delegates. Many smaller diocese might have just one clergy and lay delegates. It would be quite interesting to see where a majority of Episcopalians live.

I think one solution would be to make some changes to either the constitution or canons or both to make TEC a true federation. I say get rid of consents by other bishops and standing committees. What is the point??? Just to put road blocks in the way of someone who was elected a bishop by the people of that diocese. We don’t ask every state legislature to vote on every Governor and give consent to the election.  I am not saying it will be a long term solution but it could help TEC survive in the short run that is IF TEC surviving is important.

There is, of course, another option. Instead of churches voting in council to leave, they could vote with their feet. Bishop Lawrence could make arrangements with the Bishop of the Carolinas to receive (even if only temporarily) any congregations that wish to leave, and those that wish to stay within the group of congregations they call “the Diocese of South Carolina”, leaving only the Forum and Co behind in the corporation “Diocese” under the episcopal oversight of Bishop Lawrence. As bishop, he can provide for a peaceful transition from one diocese to the next, as well as pacify the Forum and Co, who need a diocesan bishop on their side to do anything official. Even with the combined fury of the Forum, the PB and Beers, they couldn’t depose the good bishop for several months, which is plenty of time to get those desiring congregations clear of TEC. Then, once the mission is accomplished, if he isn’t deposed by then, he can resign be received into the Diocese of the Carolinas, and call a reorganizing meeting to put themselves together again according to God’s lead. It would be easy enough, but it would cost them the claims of history which that diocese holds dear.

Yours in Christ,
jacob

PS: It would also be interesting if he let a congregation go, then sued intending to loose, so the courts would have already decided against TEC by the time KJS tries it with feeling.

RE: “Then, once the mission is accomplished, if he isn’t deposed by then, he can resign be received into the Diocese of the Carolinas, and call a reorganizing meeting to put themselves together again according to God’s lead. It would be easy enough, but it would cost them the claims of history which that diocese holds dear.”

Actually—seeing as how 1/3 of the parishes in the Diocese of Pittsburgh did not leave TEC, I think it would cost them a whole lot more than “the claims of history” which some seem to think is what the leadership of the Diocese of SC cares about the most.  A more shambolic, chaotic, disordered “solution” I can hardly imagine, not to mention that it would in no way preserve the unity of the diocese, not to mention they’d all be in ACNA—which some discern that they do not want at all—and not to mention that you’d still have all the lawsuits, which I think we all agree is going to happen unless the Diocese sits tight.

That being said, I’m not as sanguine as the Curmudgeon about what would happen if Bishop Lawrence gets deposed without the Diocese leaving.  Jefferts Schori would declare the Standing Committee “vacated” as she did with Rob Eaton, a remaining priest over in San Joaquin, and then proceed onward just as she would if the Diocese had voted to depart.  Objections that this was non-canonical would be breezily ignored—rather like Putin ignores such trifling matters. New Standing Committee comprised of Forum members would be announced, and on and on.

Sarah (#8) is onto something.  Don’t forget that Schori froze the bank accounts of Rob Eaton’s parish (a parish that chose to remain aligned with TEC, but disagreed with the Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered agenda).  If my memory serves, she also froze the accounts of the diocesan retreat center. 
A New Standing Committee comprised of Forum members would no doubt seek access to whatever trust funds, etc that the diocese owns.  Based on Rob’s experience, I wonder if they wouldn’t eye parish properties as well.
There has been no disclosure of legal expenditures. I’m not aware that those who grant authority to Goodwin Proctor jeopardize their jobs by overspending.  As there seems to be no repercussions, what is to prevent them from plundering South Carolina treasure?

I’ve often wondered why any Orthodox diocese wait to react rather then exercise Plan B. Having Plan B means you have proactive options and manage your future, rather than managing the unknown and chaos under very uncontrolled circumstances - which is exactly what Sarah describes.

Plan B might look like this:
1. The Bishop has quietly commissioned trusted leaders to develop and manage the plan as a means to protect and preserve the diocese.
2. Close contacts with churches of similar theology have already taken place and the Diocese has identified meeting options for every parish.
3. The cost to implement Plan B parish-by-parish has been well defined. The keeper of Plan B knows how much membership they will potentially loose as well as which parishes, rectors, and large donors they could retain to source Plan B.
4. At the first attack or on as planned transition, Plan B is immediately executed. All resources are brought to bear to communicate the change and why it is necessary.
5. The new leadership structure begins to function.

I my ideal, plans B means you leave the keys and cash and walk away one day and start new the next. No lawsuits. Each lay member and each clergy is free to decide.

BTW - we do this all the time in business. It called disaster recovery planning.

Festivus—how do you know that the Diocese of SC hasn’t already figured out Plan B?  And they’re just not sharing it with the rest of us?  I mean—obviously I hope their choice of “Plan B” is very different from yours, but regardless whether their Plan B is yours or mine or something else, it’s very possible that they have done all the planning they need to do and have only to await the moves of the other side on the chess board.

Sarah - I don’t. I’m simply offering another alternative to the choices. I don’t think mine is that complicated to execute and provides clarity if it is acted upon. Leave and set up shop, continue sound mission while you work the long term affiliation out.

Or to think of it in another way, defend your stone bridge knowing it could or will be taken from you at some point or go build another that you can adequately defend and control with all routes intact.

I would have thought Sarah’s comment was right on the money.  What Festivus is referring to in #12 and #13 is a contingency plan, prepared in case TEC takes overt action against the Diocese.  In all likelihood, the bishop and standing committee have prepared such contingency plans, but we have no way of knowing that (and I rather doubt they would ever publicly disclose such matters) so there seems little point in speculating about it.

At the current time, TEC has not taken overt action against the Diocese, and my understanding is that there is no indication that they have plans to do so.

My point in the article was that the Standing Committee would be safe so long as the Diocese did not leave the Church, because it automatically becomes the Ecclesiastical Authority of the DSC if the House of Bishops votes to “depose” Bishop Lawrence. The PB could not simply “vacate” or “derecognize” the Standing Committee, because she would not have any canonical basis whatsoever on which to do so—if she could, then she might as well vacate the Standing Committee of any diocese not to her liking, such as Dallas, Western Louisiana, or Northern Indiana, and treat them, too, as “having already left.” It was the departures of the dioceses themselves that gave her that option in San Joaquin, Fort Worth, and Quincy—because when the dioceses left, they of necessity took their Standing Committees along with them.

I know (perhaps better than anyone on this blog, since I face her machinations daily in a whole bunch of lawsuits) that +KJS is capable of a lot of lawlessness, but her reputation has now overtaken her, if people imagine her capable of simply walking into a diocese that has not voted to leave, and then taking over. Imagine that she set up a puppet “Standing Committee”—so what? Could it call a “convention” of the Diocese of South Carolina? They would have to hire armed guards to keep out all of the deputies from the regular SC parishes, and allow only Forum members in to vote. What kind of spectacle would that be? All the regular deputies and the regular Standing Committee would have to do is call their own convention, and file charges in civil court against +KJS and her minions for trespass, (and assault and intimidation, if they had resorted to armed guards).

She would lose—and lose big—in any such showdown, because the Standing Committee controls all of the Diocese’s rights and powers, in the absence of a Bishop. And the real diocese would so outnumber any Potemkin group she could set up that they would prevail in any civil lawsuit over who actually controls the bank accounts and the property—as I say, they could easily charge her with trespass, and prevent her from setting foot in any diocesan or orthodox parish property. I doubt that even +KJS would be so foolhardy as to try to invade South Carolina from the North without any army to back her up. She is but a presiding bishop, and not a General Sherman.

RE: “The PB could not simply “vacate” or “derecognize” the Standing Committee, because she would not have any canonical basis whatsoever on which to do so . . . “

Well, that’s obviously not an issue anyway for the PB.

But my point was that the Diocese of San Joaquin took *their* Standing Committee with them—but the *remainder* within the TEC diocese had a Standing Committee member behind, and the TEC Diocese’s rules are very clear that in the event of vacancies, the remaining members get to appoint a Standing Committee.  Their thesis was always that “TEC Dioceses can’t leave”—and they utterly violated the canons by overturning the remaining member of the Standing Committee, vacating it, and appointing replacements.

RE: “Imagine that she set up a puppet “Standing Committee”—so what? Could it call a “convention” of the Diocese of South Carolina? They would have to hire armed guards to keep out all of the deputies from the regular SC parishes, and allow only Forum members in to vote. What kind of spectacle would that be?”

I can well imagine it—quite easily.

Plus, the existing Diocese of SC Standing Committee of course would have “provoked” such a response by failing to recognize the deposition of their bishop, Mark Lawrence.  She’d announce that was “equivalent to a departure” and proceed along.

Understand, I’m not debating points of the law or canons. I sure wouldn’t do that with a maestro.

I’m only asserting what I think that the Presiding Bishop is capable of doing. Her actions don’t have to follow the canons, or the law [because secular courts are largely supportive of the national church’s assertions], or common sense.

She’s the classic Nietschean—she simply must *will* to do.

That’s all I’m saying.

If memory serves, the new disciplinary canons apply to laypeople as well as clergy, correct? The Presiding Bishop’s minions filed charges against several bishops just before the last General Convention; as I recall the content of the charges was never revealed, nor were the accusers. It was all Kafka-esque.

So what would stop the PB’s minions from filing charges against Bp. Lawrence and all the members of the Diocesan Standing Committee? It does not matter what the charges say, or whether they are true. What matters is that the pendancy of the charges provides an excuse for the PB to remove everyone from their offices, lay and ordained alike. I don’t recall whether the new canons expressly authorize the PB to remove or suspend anybody from their offices if charges are pending. Honestly, it doesn’t matter; she will just take that action anyway.

Now the Diocese of South Carolina will say (correctly, in my view) that the new canons are not in force there. But TEC’s claim that the canons apply within the Diocese, an assertion of course contested by the Diocese, provides ample matter to support civil lawsuits, during which the PB will freeze the bank accounts, etc. as she has done in other litigation.

Now conterbalancing those factors, the South Carolina Supreme Court’s express rejection of the Denis Canon, coupled with the Diocesan quitclaim of whatever interest they had in parish property, reduces the $$$ TEC can expect to reap, if they win. But I doubt that is the point. The PB’s purpose would be to punish Bp. Lawrence and the Diocese because of what they believe, not because she expects a monetary windfall. This is the result TEC and the Diocese is getting as the litigation in Virginia ends.

Publius, I believe that the Canonical changes dropped the section dealing with lay discipline.  Even many progressives railed against the ridiculous idea, although its advocates made clear they will wait for an opportune time to bring it back.

Lay officers have been included in civil suits brought by TEC, which is the risk run by any officer of any organization that has property, money or other assets which can be disputed over in court.

Well, SC has apparently decided what it will do (so stated in the recent newsletter), although all they have told us is that the standing committee has voted to do whatever it is that Bishop Lawrence advocated they do.  I am guessing they are waiting until all the clergy have been notified, and I wonder if there will be a letter read on Sunday.  Of course, they may also have decided that the best course is not to say anything in advance, and just let the PB find out what they are doing when they do it.

I would also guess that +Lawrence is not going the ACNA route, if only because of the ACNA announcement about Steve Woods, as I would think if they anticipated SC leaving TEC, they would have held off on that for a few weeks. 

One should be very circumspect on what the TEC reaction will be.  All it takes is a message from Mark Lawrence that he intends to “distance” the diocese, or some such, and the PB could just decide that he renounced his orders.  She has done it however many times before- and with both bishops who left TEC, and bishops who did not, and with one CoE bishop.  If she does, or the HoB deposes him, all that will happen within TEC will be that a half dozen CP bishops will sign a statement calling the PB’s actions questionable, and the ACI guys will write a well informed piece that will convince fellow theologians in SE Asia and Africa that the GS was quite right to break communion with the heretics in N America, but will have no impact on Communion structures, and will probably lead to charges against more of the ACI writers and board.

Remember, the SC Supreme Court has said that the parishes own the property if the deed says so.  It did NOT say that the bishop could not be replaced, or that diocesan structures could not be changed by the national church, under the canons of the national church.  SC may have determined that they will not abide by those canons, but this leaves them in the current circumstance, where they claim to be staying in the “voluntary association” but at the same time are saying their officers do not need to abide by the rules of the association.  I would not be so sanguine about the court upholding that as a legal position.

I think what has held back KJS to this point is that the HoB, and TEC in general, are tired of the fight, and now that they have won a number of legal battles, are not so sure they like the looks of their “victory.”  Additionally, the heretic bishops in Upper South Carolina, Georgia, and neighboring dioceses, really don’t want this particular battle on their doorsteps- they need another 10 or more years for the orthodox in their own dioceses to die off (preferably leaving large bequests to the diocese in the process) and get more of their cronies and the “via media” onto their standing committees.  Watch the ordination process in those dioceses for the day that pro-gay-marriage joins pro-WO on the list of qualifiers for seminary recommendation.

However, we can assume that KJS and DBB are weighing the pros and cons of deposing +Lawrence on a regular basis, and if it gets to the point that the trouble he causes is greater than the trouble to be rid of him, KJS will get out a Christmas card he sent 5 years ago proclaiming the Joy of the birth of Christ, and proclaim that this clearly indicates that he has left the communion of “this church.”

TJ, You are right (and good for you for reading the newsletter!). There is a plan already in place.  Bishop Lawrence is not even telling Diocesan Council what the plan is. As you say,  the Standing Committee has already agreed to the plan. Sorry, folks, we all have to wait for the plan to become reality. I am not placing bets on anything…........

Publius wrote:

The PB’s purpose would be to punish Bp. Lawrence and the Diocese because of what they believe, not because she expects a monetary windfall. This is the result TEC and the Diocese is getting as the litigation in Virginia ends.

Gotta keep those lawsuits rolling, rolling, rolling along .........and keep those lawyers busy.