TOWARD A RESOLUTION

Part III

(First posted on Jan. 9, 2018).
This is the third in a series of blog posts, "Toward a Resolution" of the schism in South Carolina. Part I appeared on January 5, Part II on January 7. In this series of posts, we are examining controversial claims that have been made about the causes, events, and aftermath of the schism as a way of finding the truth about what happened in the schism. This part looks at the second question:

DID THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH ATTACK THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA?

At the time of the schism, in October of 2012, and for several months thereafter, the leaders of the Diocese of South Carolina promoted a grave charge, that the Episcopal Church attacked the DSC. The implication of this sweeping assertion was that the motivation for this attack was an attempt of the church to expunge true religion ("orthodoxy") from the diocese. This was one of the most serious allegations the DSC leaders made against the Episcopal Church.

As I have detailed in my book, Bishop Lawrence spent a great deal of time and effort bonding with the diocese after his consecration in 2008. This worked remarkably well. Soon, he was routinely using the word "we" to describe his relationship with the diocese. This bonding reached a crescendo in 2012 when the DSC leadership seemingly did all they could to unite the diocese as they consciously moved toward the schism. They knew they had the support of the majority of communicants but they did not know, could not have known, just how large and strong the majority would be. Although the DSC leadership planned and carried out the schism alone, they knew a diocesan convention would have to revise the diocesan constitution and canons to remove all references to TEC. Thus, claiming and holding diocesan support and unity was of utmost importance. Then, after the convention made the necessary canonical changes, there was the lawsuit to consider. The DSC leaders brought in 35 of the parishes as parties in their lawsuit against TEC in January of 2013. At the time of the schism and immediately thereafter, the DSC leadership made an all-out effort to unite the diocese behind the schism and did so by spreading the declaration that TEC had attacked the diocese.

[Evidence showed that the tactic paid off. Of the 71 local churches, 49 voted to approve the schism. 35 of the parishes joined in the lawsuit. Today, more than half of the people of the old diocese (app. 56%) remain in DSC.]

The DSC leaders suddenly announced the schism to the world on Oct. 17, 2012. As they did, they launched a no-holds-barred public relations campaign to unite the diocese by depicting it as the passively innocent victim of aggressively malevolent forces from off. Their first press release screamed the headline, "Episcopal Church Takes Action Against the Bishop and Diocese of SC." Find it here . "We feel a deep sense of sadness but a renewed sense of God's providence that The Episcopal Church has chosen to act against this Diocese and its Bishop...These actions make it clear The Episcopal Church no longer desires to be affiliated with the Diocese of South Carolina." 

Two days later, on Oct. 19, DSC blasted out another major press release: "Episcopal Church Abandons Bishop and Diocese." Find it here . "An Assault on the Diocese. These actions, however, are not just an attack upon Bishop Lawrence. They also represent an assault on the Diocese and its congregations. Two of the three actions that the Episcopal Church claims prove his abandonment are in fact actions of the Diocesan Convention. These were actions of the entire Diocese, all its parishes and missions, expressing together in duly elected convention what they needed to remain in the communion of this denomination. In effect, the Episcopal Church has said it does not care what the parishioners of this Diocese, who are its sole supporters, have to say about their own future. The final action for which the Episcopal Church claims Bishop Lawrence was found guilty was for confirming, by the release of the quit claim deeds, that out congregations own their own property."

[The DBB investigated Lawrence for what he had done. The diocese was not the issue before the DBB.]

A few days later, on Oct. 25, DSC released another major public relations initiative called "Frequently Asked Questions about the Assault on the Diocese of South Carolina." Find it here . This has morphed into "FAQs About the Legal Issues in the Diocese of South Carolina." Find it here . The latter is the current posting summarizing the talking points being advanced by DSC. Having unified most of the old diocese and bound the parishes into the lawsuits, DSC leaders are currently downplaying the notion of an assault on the diocese. The latest FAQs have only a passing reference to this: "If the Bishop can be charged with abandoning the communion of the Church, for these actions, so can the diocese."

Back to the original question of whether TEC attacked DSC.

In the first place, there is no way in the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church that the church could "attack" a diocese. By acceding to the TEC constitution and canons, a diocese accepts the authority of the church. The sovereignty of the whole is implicit in the entirety of the church structure. That is why we have constitutions. TEC has a unitary institutional system where sovereignty rests in the entire body, not in individual parts. 

As for dioceses, the church laws primarily deal with how they are to be admitted and released from the Church. 

The church actions around the schism dealt only with Bishop Lawrence personally, not with the diocese. Bishops and dioceses are not the same thing. Bishops come and go but dioceses remain. The Disciplinary Board for Bishops was just that, for bishops and only bishops. It had nothing to do with dioceses. The finding of the DBB was for Bishop Lawrence alone. The subsequent restriction was for Bishop Lawrence alone. His two possible choices for removal of restriction dealt with him alone. None of this had anything to do with the entity of the diocese of South Carolina.

The DSC leaders' unrestrained claim that the Episcopal Church assaulted the Diocese of South Carolina was completely without substance, evidence, and merit. It was entirely fictional.

The motivation for making the claim was to consolidate a committed majority of clergy and laity behind the DSC leadership (create an attacking enemy to make the people "circle the wagons").

Besides, it just did not make common sense that the Church would want to "attack" a diocese. Only recently four dioceses had voted to leave the church. 

Short answer:

The Episcopal Church did not attack the Diocese of South Carolina. It did try to discipline the bishop of the diocese for flagrant violation of the laws of the church.