NEWS FROM DSC CONVENTION

By Ronald Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History Emeritus

The second annual convention of the independent Diocese of South Carolina was held on March 15, 2014. As usual and not surprisingly, it was closed to the public, including visitors and the news media, so that all of its work was done in secret. So far, we have been given two press releases by DSC, a report, "Diocese Formalizes Worldwide Anglican Ties" and the Bishop's Address ( www.diosc.com ). Let's look at the first item here.

The title, "Diocese Formalizes Worldwide Anglican Ties," is enough to stop anyone. Then, one reads the first line: "The Diocese of South Carolina has been formally recognized as a member in good standing of the Global Anglican Communion." If the title did not get one's attention, that line should. In fact, DSC has not been recognized by the Global Anglican Communion at all. It has been recognized only by a fraction of the AC calling itself the Global South (Anglican) group. See the Wikipedia article "Global South (Anglican)". It was formed in opposition to rights for homosexual persons and is composed of a limited number of  socially counter-revolutionary Third World provinces of the Anglican Communion. It has recognized the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as the rightful branch of the Anglican Communion in the U.S. It is headed by a "Steering Committee" of several primates of some the most conservatives provinces of the AC. The chair of the Committee is Mouneer Anis, Bishop of Egypt, and long-time close ally of Lawrence. Both the Global South and its Steering Committee are self-created entities devoid of any legal status, legitimacy, or authority in the Anglican Communion. They have absolutely no right to establish any oversight committee, or any other group, in the Anglican Communion.

We are told that DSC has joined the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. This is the ongoing workings of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) that began in 2008 in opposition to rights for homosexual persons. GAFCON and its offshoot GFCA are separate from Global South but the membership overlaps as both groups are committed to the same socially reactionary purposes. See the Wikipedia articles on the Global Anglican Future Conference and Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. GAFCON is another self-made association of socially reactionary, mostly Third World, Anglicans created to oppose both rights for homosexuals and the official structure of the Anglican Communion. Just as Global South, it has absolutely no legitimacy or authority in the official Anglican Communion. For the structure of the Anglican Communion, see the Wikipedia article "Anglican Communion."

Thus, what DSC has joined by vote of resolution on March 15 is a home-made group of a handful of Anglican primates. It has no legitimacy at all in the Anglican Communion. The assertion that DSC has been formally recognized as a member in good standing of the Global Anglican Communion is flatly false. In fact, it has been recognized by a few primates of the Anglican Communion only. These primates have no authority whatsoever to create bodies of the Anglican Communion. To be official, a body would have to have recognition of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council, something that will never happen.

Farther on in the press release we are told "...this formal primatial oversight arrangement makes clear that the Diocese is officially part of the greater Anglican Church."  In the first place, there is no "greater Anglican Church." The Anglican Communion is made of independent national churches loosely held together by an official structure. There are thirty-nine independent churches that are part of this arrangement. "Officially" is nonsense too. There is nothing official about the arrangement to join an oversight council of the Global South Steering Committee. It is all self-made and completely outside the official structure of the AC.

We are also told in the press release that "a task force" has been created to explore a permanent primatial arrangement. As it turns out this is to be a hand-picked committee made directly by Lawrence alone from the DSC Council and Standing Committee. One big problem this "task force" will face is that GAFCON and Global South have recognized ACNA as the true branch of Anglicanism in the U.S. and its archbishop Duncan as a true Anglican primate (both in violation of the legitimate structure of the Anglican Communion). To be in line with their support groups, DSC will have to join ACNA. This, however, is very problematical for Lawrence, and for DSC. Obviously, Lawrence has shown reluctance to link up with ACNA, something he could have done at the moment of schism. Instead, Lawrence has kept his distance from ACNA. DSC will be in quandary of what to do about ACNA.

Lawrence and the DSC leadership have been desperate from day one to claim legitimacy for their independent diocese. They are now claiming this legitimacy by clothing themselves in a bizarre scheme to get the blessing of a small bunch of socially reactionary Anglican primates and declare this to be "official" in the Anglican Communion. It's a sham. This hastily concocted scheme of an oversight "Council" has no officiality, no legitimacy, and absolutely no legal status in the Anglican Communion. In this day of ready access to information, all of this could have been known easily to the faithful delegates of DSC before they went in to vote on the resolutions. Instead, they choose simply to trust the word of their chosen, but misdirected, leaders. One day they will look back on March 15, 2014 and realize this was not their finest hour.


In reality, the independent Diocese of South Carolina has no legitimacy in the Anglican Communion, never has had, never will have. That is the price it paid when the majority of its communicants repudiated the only legitimate Anglican province in the United States, the Episcopal Church.

WHAT IN THE WORLD IS GOING ON IN THE INDEPENDENT DIOCESE? --- PART I

by Ronald Caldwell,  PhD, Professor of History Emeritus

The independent Diocese of South Carolina (DSC) will hold its second annual convention at Christ Church in Mt. Pleasant on March 14-15. Proposed resolutions have just been published. For now, let's look at Resolution R-3. We'll consider the others later. R-3 states:  the Diocese of South Carolina accept the offer of the newly created Global South Primatial Oversight Council for pastoral oversight...during the temporary period of discernment...we reserve the right to revisit this decision... . In the following "Rationale," we are told this is an act of God:  we believe the timing Providential and   we choose to see it as a providential provision. But, we are told there is no certain time frame for this because  We do not want to box the Holy Spirit in. (The "Rationale" with the Resolution actually says that. As if someone could "box in" God!).

When I first read this resolution, I was stunned. Then I was puzzled and I wondered, What in the world is going on in the independent "Diocese of South Carolina"?

Here are the salient facts about R-3. 1-the DSC would not have a single primate but several in something called the "Global South Primatial Oversight Council," 2-DSC would be in "discernment" to choose a permanent primate, 3-DSC could remove itself from the Council at will. 

Many questions pop into mind immediately. For instance, What is the Global South Primatial Council? We know it was created just a couple of weeks ago by the "Global South Primates Steering Committee." The chairman of the committee is Mouneer Anis, the Bishop of Egypt and head of the Anglican province of Jerusalem and the Middle East. He is a long-time friend and close conservative ally of Lawrence. In 2010, Lawrence made a long sojourn to Egypt as Anis's guest. Anis was the first to jump to Lawrence's defense when the Episcopal Church removed Lawrence from the post of bishop in 2012. In 2009 the DSC set up the "Anglican Communion Development" committee headed by Kendall Harmon. He has "coordinated" this arrangement with the Steering Committee. The "Global South" is a self-created association of certain highly conservative Anglican leaders to the "South" of the U.S. and U.K. The primates of the "Global South" are mostly in Africa and southern Asia. They represent several provinces, mostly small, of the thirty-nine in the Anglican Communion. (The primate of Nigeria, the largest Anglican province, refused to endorse the Feb. 2014 statement). They do not include many other Anglicans in the southern part of the globe such as Australia and New Zealand. Many members of the "Global South" are also in GAFCON, a larger self-made Third World-based organization of Anglicans committed to highly conservative social policy, particularly on homosexuality. Neither "Global South" nor GAFCON has any official standing in the Anglican Communion. Indeed, GAFCON has made itself a rival to the traditional structure of the AC headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. GAFCON has condemned and has broken communion with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because of their stands for rights for homosexuals and the blessing of same-sex unions. It has recognized the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as the rightful Anglican province in North America and has welcomed its archbishop, Robert Duncan, as a primate. The stated goal of ACNA is to replace TEC as the official branch of the Anglican Communion in America.


Since Global South and its Steering Committee have absolutely no official standing in the Anglican Communion, they have absolutely no authority or right to create a "Primatial Council" in the AC. To have legitimacy, such a "Council" would have to be approved by the Anglican Consultative Council, something that will not happen. Thus, this "Primatial Council" will have absolutely no legal or legitimate status in the worldwide Anglican Communion. The people of South Carolina should recognize this fact before they approve this resolution.


The Feb. 15 statement of Anis's Global South Steering Committee said simply    We decided to establish a Primatial Oversight Council...to provide pastoral and primatial oversight to dissenting individuals, parishes, and dioceses in order to keep them within the Communion. No other information was given about this Council. To keep them within the Communion? Who is on the Council? How were they appointed? What are their terms, powers, rights, responsibilities? What obligations will DSC owe to the Council? If DSC can withdraw at will, what power will the Council have over DSC? The people of the DSC are being ask to buy a pig in a poke. They ought to ask a lot of questions about that pig before they buy it.

The Steering Committee created this Council at the last minute just before the DSC diocesan convention and it was done by a close ally of Lawrence. South Carolina will have absolute discretion to obey this Council. It is hard to believe that any of this was accidental. Whether it was "providential," only God knows. DSC is trying to have it both ways, to be in the Anglican Communion but remain a sovereign diocese that can decide its own way. This was precisely the mindset that got DSC into trouble with TEC. Should anyone think it will go better with the Council?

Why does not DSC just join the ACNA? After all, it is led by Lawrence's old friend and close ally, Robert Duncan. The two have a long history together fighting against TEC. Duncan has certainly courted Lawrence for a long time as the entrance of DSC would be a major boost for ACNA. Nevertheless, Lawrence has kept a distance from ACNA for reasons not apparent. Even as far back as 2009, Lawrence gave an interview to Anglican TV showing hesitation about ACNA. Perhaps there are hard feelings over St. Andrew's of Mt. Pleasant. Lawrence defeated Steve Wood, the powerful rector of St. Andrew's, for the post of bishop in 2007. Then, in 2010, before the schism, Wood led his, the largest parish in DSC, out of the diocese, property in hand, and joined ACNA. Soon thereafter, Wood became the bishop of the ACNA "Diocese of the Carolinas." It is hard to imagine that Lawrence would want to merge DSC into that diocese that already has a bishop who just happens to be an old rival. That leaves a quandary of how DSC would unite with ACNA.

Of course, DSC could adhere to another Anglican primate, such as the Anglican Mission in the Americas's Chuck Murphy of All Saints, Pawleys Island, did with Rwanda. That relationship did not go well to say the least. Murphy and the Rwandan primate had a very public and embarrassing falling out. Then, All Saints split 2-1 as the majority voted to leave Murphy's AMiA (and Rwanda) for ACNA. AMiA and ACNA split apart. Thus, the splintering history of All Saints could hardly be a guide for the future of DSC.

In other ways too, things are not going well for Lawrence's independent Diocese of South Carolina. Revenues are declining as shown in the new budget (see at www.diosc.org). That budget does not include legal fees. A separate committee has been formed to raise millions to pay dozens of lawyers. The bewildered communicant-in-the-pew is being pressed to pay up. Membership is falling too. Across the diocese, people are having second thoughts about their choices and quietly slipping out of the breakaway churches to return to the real Episcopal churches. On top of everything else, DSC is also challenged to boost sagging morale.

Lawrence and the diocesan leadership assured their people before and after the schism that they were the Episcopal Church in the Low Country and that they were in the Anglican Communion. At first people commonly accepted this. They wanted to believe what they were told. Actually neither was true; and in time people began to realize the truth. Despite names, signs, advertisements and the like, the parishes that went with Lawrence are not the Episcopal Church. In fact, they do not belong to any larger denomination. Lawrence claimed that DSC was an extra-provincial diocese of the Anglican Communion. Nonsense. The only isolated dioceses (except for the unique case of Cuba) in the AC are directly under the Archbishop of Canterbury which DSC certainly is not and will never be. The simple fact is that DSC is not in AC. And that's the point of R-3. It is to give DSC a shred of legitimacy by linking it to official Anglican primates. But in the end it's just another unworkable hair-brained scheme coming down a well-trod pike.


The lesson of all this is that it is much easier to leave home than to find a new one. It is easier to tear down than to build up. South Carolina has been in TEC since 1789 (except for the Late Unpleasantness). For years the disgruntled leadership clique in DSC had fought to cut the anchor rope and sail away from their ancient ancestral home port. Their persistence finally succeeded. Without anchor, they sailed away. Once at sea, however, they revealed that they had no idea of where to go. Their only plan had been to get away. The anchorless ship drifted in the middle of nowhere going nowhere. After more than a year lost at sea, signs are now showing that the passengers on board are beginning to question the wisdom of the captain and crew who are now racing about looking for something, anything to use as an anchor. Not all ideas that sound good at first turn out to be good (we've all been there). Not all voyages are meant to be. Not everything one likes is "providential." This venerable old ship belongs to its passengers, not to its hired hands. It has become obvious that the captain and crew are lost at sea. It is time for the long-suffering passengers to muster up the courage to take over their own vessel from the misguiding leaders and return it to its ancestral home.

WHAT IN THE WORLD IS GOING ON IN THE INDEPENDENT DIOCESE? --- PART II

By Ronald Caldwell,  PhD, Professor of History Emeritus

In Part I of this question, we started looking at the resolutions being offered for approval at the upcoming annual convention of the independent Diocese of South Carolina (DSC). We considered the strange and problematical Resolution in which DSC would give temporary recognition on its own terms to a primatial "Council" of legitimate Anglican primates under Lawrence ally Anis, head of the province of Jerusalem and the Middle East. Eight other resolutions are being offered.

Resolution R-1 "Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans." This gives DSC adherence to and endorsement of the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008 that was drawn up by GAFCON (Global Anglican Futures Conference) in Jerusalem on the eve of the Lambeth Conference of 2008. GAFCON was a self-made group without any legitimacy at all in the Anglican Communion. It was organized and led by distinctly socially conservative Anglicans, mostly of the Third World, that condemned the TEC and Anglican Church of Canada's stands on rights for homosexual persons. The Declaration (Statement) lists fourteen points. The two critical ones are #8 that condemns homosexuality and #13 that rejects the validity of TEC and ACofC because they supported rights for homosexuals. Bishop Lawrence attended GAFCON and warmly endorsed the Declaration even though he had sworn an oath of allegiance to TEC only a few months earlier. GAFCON I (2208) and GAFCON II (2013) rejected TEC and recognized the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as the legitimate branch of the Anglican Communion (AC) in North America and accepted its archbishop, Robert Duncan, as a constituent primate. GAFCON is now a shadow government of the AC in competition with the traditional structure of the AC headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC). The common bond of GAFCON is opposition to rights for homosexual persons.

By passing this resolution, DSC will be giving tacit recognition to ACNA and Duncan.


R-2, "Discernment of Provincial Affiliation," states that the bishop will appoint a joint committee of members of the Council and Standing Committee to "decide our means of affiliation" with an Anglican province. They are to make a recommendation to a future diocesan convention. The Council and Standing Committee are now, and have been for years, solidly controlled by the leadership of DSC. They routinely vote unanimously. The fact that the bishop will appoint the members of this "discernment" committee guarantees his control of the whole discernment process. By this, can there be little doubt that DSC will wind up affiliating with the bishop's choice?

Six resolutions change the canons of DSC. C-1, "Regarding Clergy of the Diocese," gives the bishop single and authoritarian control over all clergy, including appointing and dismissing them ("The ordination process in the Diocese shall be under the direction of the Ecclesiastical Authority... Clergy may be removed from the rolls...by the Ecclesiastical Authority...") This only increases the rising authoritarian control in the office of the bishop of DSC that has been developing for several years. Power is being concentrated in the hands of one person.

C-2, "Of Parish Membership," states that "Membership shall be in only one congregation." This precludes anyone from membership in DSC and TEC congregations concurrently.

C-3, "Authority of the Rector," is the most important of all the canonical changes. It states "...the Rector shall have authority for...real and personal parish property..." As the rector serves at the discretion of the bishop, this gives the bishop and the rector full power over the property of a parish. The vestry would have no right to control the assets of money, lands, furnishing etc. of the parish. This is ironic since Lawrence and the DSC have greatly emphasized local ownership of property. In fact, Lawrence issued quit claim deeds to all parishes in 2012, the crux of the matter that got him removed as an Episcopal bishop. This resolution would give the bishop and rector virtual ownership of all local properties. This would mean, for instance, that if the vestry voted to return the parish to TEC, it could be blocked by the rector alone, or by the bishop through the rector.

C-4, "Removal of Congregations from Union with Convention," gives the bishop the right to remove a parish or mission from union with DSC, another elevation of authoritarian power.

C-5, "Of Worship in the Diocese," says that "Worship in the Diocese of South Carolina shall be those liturgies as described by the 1979 Book of Common Prayer..." This continues usage of the standard TEC liturgies and worship thus demonstrating that the break of DSC from TEC was not about religion. In fact, DSC is continuing the very same religion from TEC. The break, then, had to come from other factors, the most important of which was homosexuality. The oft-made argument from DSC that "It's about God not gays" is simply not true as clearly demonstrated in C-5.

C-6 "Of Lay Pensions in the Diocese," concerns a relatively minor issue of pension coverage for lay employees.

So, what should one make of these proposed resolutions? As we have seen R-3 is a  hastily, poorly constructed and unworkable scheme. It is doomed to failure. The rest of the resolutions basically continue a trend of several years to concentrate power in the hands of the bishop. Early on Bishop Lawrence established a working relationship of decisions unanimously confirmed by the Standing Committee, sent on to the clergy and to the diocesan convention for approval. The proposed resolutions at hand simply solidify this authoritarian trend. This is ironic considering that DSC leaders loudly criticized the Title IV revisions as giving too much power to the Presiding Bishop (presumably to use against Lawrence) and that DSC had issued quit claim deeds so that local parishes would have clear control over their property. Central power is the opposite of local rights. Authoritarian hierarchy is the opposite of congregationalism.

These resolutions are certain to pass, possibly unanimously. This is the trend of the past few years. At some point in time, though, the good communicants of DSC have got to begin to wonder about the direction they are going and the wisdom of their leadership. It will happen, and not a moment too soon.

Mark Lawrence will be sixty-four years old in a few days. He can retire anytime under the lucrative retirement system of TEC [!] in which he is fully vested. What then is to become of DSC?

RECENT CONVENTIONS OF THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

By Ronald Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History Emeritus

The first diocesan convention to meet after Bishop Lawrence's consecration in 2008 was presided over by Bishop Salmon. Since then Bishop Lawrence has presided over seven conventions of the Diocese of South Carolina within forty-nine months. That averages out to be a convention every seven months. When the annual convention meets this weekend, it will be the eighth convention under Lawrence within sixty-one months. 

The seven conventions under Bishop Lawrence have considered thirty-one resolutions. One was defeated, a resolution in March 2009 to "suspend" the General Convention. It was voted down by the clergy. This was the first and last resolution to be defeated in a Lawrence convention. One was tabled. It was R-5 aka the "Rubric of Love" in the October 2009 convention. That one resolved to end discrimination against homosexual persons. When this resolution was introduced, the ensuing chaos almost caused the convention to dissolve thereby ruining the unity the leadership had so well-crafted. Suddenly the resolution was "tabled" to be passed on to the next convention. The next convention voted to "withdraw" the resolution. It was the only resolution to be withdrawn in a Lawrence convention. That was the end of "Love" in the Diocese of South Carolina. The other twenty-nine resolutions won easy passage in the Lawrence diocesan conventions. Most of these dealt with differentiating DSC from the Episcopal Church, several provided for "disassociation" from TEC.

The eighth convention under Bishop Lawrence meets this weekend. Nine resolutions stand before it. That will bring the total of resolutions in Lawrence's conventions to thirty-eight. These nine resolutions also mostly address the separate course for DSC. One, curiously enough, contradicts this differentiation by continuing the religion of TEC in the Book of Common Prayer. This proves that the separation of DSC rom TEC is not about religion.

On the whole, the frequently occurring diocesan conventions have served to bond well the majority of the clergy and laity of the Diocese of South Carolina to its leadership, particularly its bishop. They have increasingly distanced the diocese from the mother church even to the point of alienation. They have increasingly vested power in the central authority of the bishop. They have increased ties between the diocese and socially reactionary forces abroad while maintaining the Episcopal Church religion at home.  This leads us back to the fact that the driving issue in all these years has not been theological but social, namely opposition to rights for homosexual persons. The result of all this is that the Diocese of South Carolina has become an independent diocese under a powerful bishop; and it is committed to opposing rights for homosexual persons and keeping the Episcopal religion. The numerous diocesan conventions have played a key role in validating all of this.  

THE JERUSALEM DECLARATION OF 2008

By Ronald Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History Emeritus

On March 14, the second annual convention of the independent Diocese of South Carolina begins its two-day meeting. Several "workshops" are being offered. One is entitled "The Jerusalem Declaration: Owning our Anglican Faith & Call." It is being presented by the Rev. Dr. Canon Kendall Harmon, Canon Theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina. Harmon has been a clergyman in the Diocese for more than twenty years often holding positions of power and leadership. He has been editor and assistant editor of Jubilate Deo, the diocesan newspaper for years. He has also been very close to Bishop Lawrence. The bishop's diaries show that he communicates with Lawrence very often, perhaps more than anyone. For several years he has been head and "coordinator" of the "Anglican Communion Development" commission of the diocese. The advertisement of his workshop states "The workshop will offer historical perspective of the GAFCON document, The Jerusalem Declaration 2008 - Why is it important for the Diocese of South Carolina to commit itself to this active expression of our continuing membership in global Anglicanism."

The Jerusalem Declaration to which Harmon refers was drawn up by the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) that met in Jerusalem in June of 2008 on the eve of the Lambeth Conference. It is commonly called GAFCON I. This was a meeting called by traditionalist (aka conservative; orthodox; counter-revolutionary; reasserter) Anglican bishops to differentiate themselves from the official structure of the Anglican Communion that was about to hold its once-a-decade meeting in England. They united in opposing the "false gospel" of equality for homosexual persons that had spread in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

GAFCON I drew 1,148 attendees including 291 bishops. The representation was overwhelmingly from the Third World, particularly equatorial Africa, countries that are well-known for harsh policies against homosexuals. One attendee was Bishop Lawrence of South Carolina who had been consecrated six months earlier.

On June 29 GAFCON I issued the Jerusalem Declaration. It became a cornerstone of traditionalist Anglicanism to be noted by leaders such as Lawrence ever after. It was a list of fourteen points, most dealing with long-standing statements of Anglican identity such as the Thirty Nine Articles. One, however, plainly struck against rights for homosexuals: "...marriage between one man and one woman..." Another point directly repudiated the Episcopal Church: "We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word and deed."

Actually the Declaration was only one part of a longer "Statement on the Global Anglican Future" issued by the conference. It predictably condemned the "false gospel" that "promotes a variety of sexual preferences and immoral behavior as a universal human right." It continued that GAFCON was "out of communion" with the churches of the "false gospel" [TEC]. It also called on like-minded Anglicans to abandon the errant churches and realign with Global South Anglicans.

From Lawrence's bishop's diary we know that he was an active participant in GAFCON I attending sessions working on the statements and meeting with like-minded bishops. Shortly after the meeting Lawrence gave an interview to Steve Waring of The Living Church magazine enthusiastically declaring that GAFCON was the heir-apparent to assume leadership in the worldwide Anglican Communion: "I witnessed a new birth last month...The Global South has come to its place of maturity." In fact, GAFCON rejected the legitimacy of the Episcopal Church, broke communion with it, and called on its members to abandon it. Let us not forget that only a few months earlier, Lawrence had made a solemn vow before God and everyone of loyalty to the Episcopal Church.

GAFCON I created the "Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans" to continue on its policies. This group gave full recognition to the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and its archbishop, Robert Duncan, as a prelate. ACNA's stated goal is to replace the Episcopal Church.

Five years later, GAFCON II met in Nairobi, Kenya, (October 2013) to continue the work. It issued the "Nairobi Communique" that reiterated the Jerusalem Declaration's condemnation of homosexuality. Lawrence also attended.

GAFCON I, GAFCON II and overlapping movements such as Global South are self-made associations that have no legal or legitimate standing in the Anglican Communion that is headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC). The closest thing to a governing body of the AC is the officially established Anglican Consultative Council. In order for GAFCON or any of its allied groups to be legitimate in the AC, they would have to be approved by the ACC and recognized by the ABC. The chance that the ACC or the ABC would recognize a rival shadow government in the AC is non-existent. GAFCON, Global South and the like have no legitimacy in the AC.

Let's return to the blurb announcing the workshop on the Jerusalem Declaration: "our continuing membership in global Anglicanism." Continuing is problematical since DSC "disassociated" with TEC, the only legitimate branch of the AC in the U.S. The disassociation automatically discontinued membership in the AC. Membership: by separating from TEC, DSC removed its membership in the AC. Global is misleading as well. GAFCON and allied groups represent only certain places in the AC, notably the most socially conservative as equatorial Africa and south Asia. The AC, on the other hand, is truly global. Anglicanism is another problem. The AC is a world-wide loose association of independent churches linked by a common heritage coming from the Church of England. DSC is entirely outside the AC.

Lawrence has repeatedly asserted that DSC is an "extra-provincial diocese" of the AC. This simply is not true. It is indeed a diocese but it is disconnected from any official function of the Anglican Communion. The new proposed resolution to link to several primates of the Global South will not fix the problem. Global South has no legitimacy in the AC. It has no right to set up any sort of legitimate or legal primatial council for anyone in the AC.

The Jerusalem Declaration of 2008, so much touted now by certain leaders, had no legitimacy either in the AC and still has none. It was a statement of socially reactionary church leaders committed to opposing equality for homosexual persons. It was meant to split the AC along lines of social policy. In that regard it is working; and DSC is playing its part. We have heard over and over "It's about God not gays." If one really looks at the historical record one sees that the issue of homosexuality has been the driving force in all of this, including the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008.



 

 

CONSPIRACY?

 

DID MARK LAWRENCE AND THREE OTHERS ENACT A CONSPIRACY TO REMOVE THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND TO DEFRAUD THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH?

 

  

By Ronald Caldwell
(last revised on 12-31-13)

 

  

 

"Conspiracy" may be defined as a secret agreement among a group of people to commit unlawful act(s). The question at hand is:  Did Bishop Lawrence, James Lewis, Jeffrey Miller, and Paul Fuener carry out a conspiracy to remove the Diocese of South Carolina from the Episcopal Church and to defraud the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina of its lawful assets? This charge was recently presented in court.

On Nov. 25, 2013, the Episcopal Church in South Carolina (ECSC) [the Episcopal Church diocese] filed papers in Circuit [state] Court stating:  (1)  "In or around 2006, Lawrence made an agreement with members of the Standing and Search Committees of the Diocese to lead a scheme to withdraw the Diocese from The Episcopal Church in return for their votes electing him Bishop of the Diocese;" and (2)  "Beginning in or around 2009, the Additional Parties began executing a conspiracy to take away the Diocese's assets and deprive Episcopalians loyal to The Episcopal Church of their property rights by manipulating the Diocese's corporate entity and The Trustees." In other words, ECSC asserted that 1- Lawrence and his allies in DSC conspired to remove DSC from TEC even before his election as bishop and 2- that they plotted to remove, illegally, all assets from TEC and DSC to DSC alone. If Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein admits this petition to join Mark Lawrence and the three others as parties and these serious charges of conspiracy and fraud against them are proven in court, the consequences for Lawrence and the others would be shocking.

 

A quick review of the litigation in the Circuit Court since its beginning, January 4, 2013, shows that Judge Goodstein has most often favored the DSC side, but not invariably. On March 19, DSC filed two motions before her against ECSC, one for summary judgment and one for contempt of court. Judge Goodstein has yet to rule on either of these. It was possible at first that she was awaiting a judgment from the pending litigation in the federal court of Charleston. The federal judge, C. Weston Houck, however, ruled on June 10 and again on August 23 that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction in this matter. Although the federal court has recognized her full jurisdiction in the matter, Judge Goodstein has still not granted DSC's two motions of March 19. Thus, it is true that while Judge Goodstein has favored DSC, she has not granted its every wish.

 

On July 11 Judge Goodstein set a timetable for the lawyers to use in the matter before her: 90 days for written "discovery" and an extra 120 days for depositions, ending on Feb. 5, 2014. After that a trial date is to be set. Thus, it was after July 11, that the ECSC lawyers began their "discovery" by  requesting certain records from DSC including presumably the previously sealed minutes of the DSC Standing Committee. The ECSC lawyers have not revealed what records were obtained or what evidence is in them, but from the tone of the court motions of Nov. 25, one can only suspect that there is incriminating material therein. DSC steadfastly refuses to open these records to the public. This leaves one wondering if there is something to hide.

 

After "discovery" began and DSC had to turn over certain records to the ECSC lawyers, DSC launched a new, bold public relations initiative to rally its base---and raise new money. They knew what was in the records they turned over in "discovery." Did they fear what was coming next? On Oct. 2, the Rev. Jim Lewis, the Canon to the Ordinary of DSC, issued a long article in The Charleston Mercury restating DSC's old standard but historically highly contorted propaganda pitch that this was a fight of biblical orthodoxy (DSC) against heresy (TEC), not an issue of homosexuality. This hyperbole, over-inflated to the point of nonsense, was meant to rationalize the fight (and its cost) as a necessary war, one to defend nothing less than the true religion of the past against the heretical falsifiers who had taken over and fatally corrupted the Episcopal Church. Lewis also continued to reiterate the threadbare theme that TEC "attacked" or "assaulted" DSC. Everyone now knows that it was DSC that first sued TEC in court and continued to compound this for two months before TEC entered its first court action against DSC. With nothing new to add, DSC seems to have no choice but to repeat, at higher decibels, the old themes that have worked in the past. 

At the very same time, according to scepiscopalians.com, Alan Runyon, Lawrence's lead lawyer, was in St. Michael's of Charleston warning the communicants of dire consequences if they did not pay up a new sum of $150,000 for lawyers.

On Nov. 17, DSC published a special edition of Jubilate Deo reprinting Lewis's article almost intact [TEC went from being THE American expression of the Anglican Communion to AN American...] and appealing to the faithful of DSC to pay up at least $2 million in additional funds for lawyers. The newsletter had an air of hysterical desperation summarized in Bishop Lawrence's stunning assertion: "...our legal suit is a tempestuous battle against 'the spiritual forces of evil.'" [Who is "evil"? Tisdale? vonR? ECSC? TEC? Jefferts Schori? General Convention?] Has the bishop of DSC descended to the level of describing his courtroom opponents as "evil"? Does Lawrence expect his followers to turn on their Episcopalian friends as "evil"? (Bishop Lawrence would do himself and all of us all a service to explain what he meant in this statement.)

 

We do not know yet what the "discovery" has uncovered. ECSC's "Notice and Motion" of Nov. 25 stated:  "...discovery production has revealed that numerous personal and individual ultra vires, fraudulent, and intentional unlawful acts injuring TECSC were taken by each of the four additional parties..." Thus, both sides are acting as if the litigation has taken a much more serious turn. ECSC is charging that Lawrence has willfully broken the law. DSC is acting as if it is in worsening trouble. 

 

Back to the original questions.
1- Was there a conspiracy to remove DSC from TEC? We know from their own admission that the Standing Committee voted unanimously in a secret session with Lawrence on Oct. 2, 2012 to "disassociate" with TEC if TEC took any action of any kind against Lawrence. This would satisfy the dictionary definition of "conspiracy." Only later was this act revealed to the clergy, the Presiding Bishop, and the public. Did the conspiracy predate that? Did it go back even before the election of Lawrence as bishop in 2006-07? Even a cursory glance at the "Chronology" on this blog shows a steady and defiant movement of DSC away from TEC from before the time of Lawrence. There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence of a gradual removal of DSC. At the same time, there is no circumstantial evidence that Lawrence made any concession to keep DSC in TEC.
2- Was there a conspiracy to remove assets from TEC and DSC to DSC alone? The evidence in the court papers of Nov. 25 shows DSC blatantly violated the Constitution and Canons of TEC in issuing the quit claim deeds to the parishes. This was the main issue on which Lawrence was charged by the Disciplinary Board for Bishops of having abandoned the communion. This charge of Lawrence's serious wrongdoing seemed entirely clear to the DBB well before Lawrence was suspended from official duties in TEC.

Let us hope that for the sake of our understanding of the history of the schism in SC the documents hitherto hidden by DSC will see the light of day. The sooner the better for those who seek the truth. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant.

At this point we can only await Judge Goodstein's response to ECSC's official Motion of Nov. 25 to add the four names to the suit. If she agrees, we are in for a very serious turn in the litigation.


UPDATE---On Dec. 30, 2013, Judge Goodstein denied ECSC's motion to add the four names as superfluous. However, the charge of a conspiracy was strengthened by an affidavit (Dec. 18, 2013) of the Rev. Thomas M. Rickenbaker declaring that he had been approached in 2005 by the bishop's search committee that told him they wanted a new bishop to lead DSC out of TEC, and with the property. Lawyer Tisdale has indicated there will be more such items supporting his charge of long-term conspiracy.

 

 

 

 



 

QUESTIONS

 

 

by Ronald Caldwell, PhD, Professor of History Emeritus

(last revised July 14, 2014)

___________________

 

There are many questions about the schism in South Carolina that should be answered in order for us to have a truthful understanding of this historic event. Some can answered easily, some only by certain persons, some only partially, and some may never be answered. Still, they are worth asking if we are to know the story of the schism.

 

The current court cases between the Episcopal Church and the five secessionist dioceses also involve a number of very important questions that impact on South Carolina:  1-Is the Episcopal Church hierarchical?  2-Where does sovereignty rest in the Episcopal Church, in General Convention or in the constituent dioceses?  3-Does a diocese have the right to leave TEC at will and intact?  4-Is church property owned by the local parish or by the Episcopal diocese and the Episcopal Church? In time, these questions will be settled in the courts. Of the five departing dioceses, only one, Pittsburgh, has been settled. The rest, San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Quincy, and South Carolina, are in courts pending judgments.

 

The following list of questions is meant to be a guide to research on the topic of the schism. There are certainly many more questions to be asked.

 

Please suggest additional questions that will guide us to the broadest and deepest understanding of the history of the schism. 

 

E-mail me at:

 

       ronaldcaldwell1210@gmail.com

 

 



___________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 



          OUTLINE

          A. Overall question

          B. General questions

          C. The Allison Years, 1980-90

          D. The Early Salmon Years, 1990-2002

          E. The Late Salmon Years, 2003-08

          F. The Early Lawrence Years, 2008-June 2012

          G. Crisis and Schism, June-December 2012

          H. Two Dioceses, 2013

 

 

 

A. OVERALL QUESTION.

 

What were the causes, origins, and nature of the schism in the Episcopal Church Diocese of South Carolina?

 

 

 

B. GENERAL QUESTIONS.

 

 
-----The DSC side said the revolt against the Episcopal Church (TEC) was to defend the truth of the Scriptures (God not gays). The TEC side said the crucial issue was homosexuality (gays not God). How was each side right and wrong?

-----What role did the issue of the rights of homosexual persons in the life of the Episcopal Church play in the background of the schism in South Carolina?

 

-----The DSC side said TEC was guilty of heresy and sin. The TEC side said the other was guilty of willful schism. Who was right?

 

-----Bishop Lawrence has said that the schism was caused by three factors:  1-theology (Uniqueness of Christ); 2-polity (illegal changes to the Constitution and Canons (CC) of TEC, 3-homosexuality ("indiscriminate inclusivity"). Was he right?

 

-----A motion by ECSC in Circuit Court (11-25-13) charged that in or around 2006 Lawrence made a deal with the Standing and Search committees to lead DSC out of TEC in return for their votes. If true, this would be a premeditated conspiracy of Lawrence and the committees. Is this charge true?

-----A motion by ECSC in Circuit Court (11-25-13) charged that in or around 2009 Lawrence, Lewis, Miller, and Fuener began executing a conspiracy to defraud TEC of its assets in DSC. Did these leaders of DSC carry out a conspiracy?

-----The "Notice and Motion" submitted to the Circuit Court by ECSC on 11-25-13 said that "discovery" had revealed the four (above) had committed various unlawful acts. What papers were turned over to ECSC lawyers? What evidence was in the papers to support this charge? 

 

-----Was the schism a pre-planned and coordinated event stretching over a period of time or was it an accident of unforeseen circumstances?

-----The records of the DSC Standing Committee are crucial to our understanding of the schism. Do minutes exist of all of the meetings? Were there secret meetings at which no records were kept? Have any minutes been destroyed? Why does DSC refuse to open the minutes to the public? 

 

-----Of the four great issues facing TEC 1960-present: civil rights, Prayer Book revisions, ordination of women, and homosexuality, only the last led to schism (dioceses leaving TEC). Why so?

 

-----Who were the most important clerical and lay individuals in DSC on the two opposing sides after 1980? What roles did they play in the events?

 

-----What were the connections between DSC and the Trinity School for Ministry (TSM) in Ambridge PA? How did TSM influence events in DSC over the years?

 

-----Why did not another diocese in the southeast join DSC in the exodus from TEC?

 

-----How have the other dozen reliably conservative dioceses in TEC handled the controversial issues in TEC?

 

-----What role did Jubilate Deo, the DSC newsletter, play in the background of the schism? Other opinion pieces, such as Kendall Harmon's website, Titus One Nine?

 

-----Why did most average people-in-the-pews choose to follow Lawrence out of TEC? Why did most clergy do the same? What were their understandings of the actions they were taking?

 

-----Why did not the pro-TEC elements in DSC make a stronger resistance to the move toward schism?

 

-----Did conservative activists in DSC come to monopolize the apparati of the diocese, such as the Standing Committee? If so, how did they accomplish this? From 1982 to 2013, how well did the DSC encourage and support different viewpoints?

 

-----Did the movement to leave TEC come from Lawrence or from the conservative leadership of DSC? Was Lawrence the leader or the follower?

 

-----Did the conservative majority in DSC choose Lawrence as bishop in order to create schism?

-----What role did the question of the ordination of women play in the background and events of the schism? How many women were ordained by each of the SC bishops since 1980? What has been Lawrence's attitude toward women in the clergy? How many women clergy sided with Lawrence, how many with vonRosenberg? What roles have women played in the power structure and the important committees of DSC, of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina (ECSC)?

-----How did each parish handle the decision to stay in or leave the Episcopal Church? Which parishes and missions voted on the issue? Were the two options openly, fairly, and thoroughly discussed? How was the voting procedure handled? 

-----Which had a greater effect on DSC, the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson or the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop of TEC?

-----Bishop Lawrence has said repeatedly that TEC is "a comatose patient on life support." Did he mean that TEC's decline in membership was the result of "liberal" theology? Is it true that declining membership came from theological reasons rather than demographic ones?

-----The leaders of DSC described the events of late 2012 as an unprovoked "assault" and "attack" by TEC against Lawrence and DSC? True?

-----Some conservatives have charged that the majority in TEC have turned against them and have left no room for conservatives in TEC. Has TEC driven out the conservative minority?

-----To what extent was the schism in South Carolina a reflection of the overall culture war in modern America?

-----To what extent was the schism in South Carolina a reflection of the late Twentieth Century differences between liberal Christianity (the horizontal religion of the social gospel) and conservative Christianity (the vertical religion of individual salvation)?

-----Was the schism in South Carolina inevitable, or was it avoidable? If the latter, how could it have been avoided?

-----Given the events of the past few years, is it possible at this point that the two sides can reconcile? If so, how?

-----What are the stakes for TEC in its battle with the five seceding dioceses? If TEC finally loses in court will the Dennis Canon become invalid? Will other dioceses vote to secede?

-----Can TEC survive a final loss in court? If not, will ACNA realize its goal of replacing TEC as the official branch of the Anglican Communion in North America?

 

 

 

C. THE ALLISON YEARS, 1980-1990.
 

 

-----What was the general attitude of DSC toward the contentious issues in TEC during the late years of Bishop Gray Temple (retired Jan. 1, 1982)?

 

-----How did the leadership of Bishop Allison in DSC compare with that of his predecessor, Temple?

 

-----In what ways did DSC respond to TEC on the issue of homosexuality in the Allison years?

 

-----What were the connections between Allison and TSM?

 

 

 

D. THE EARLY SALMON YEARS, 1990-2002.
 

 

-----How did the leadership of Bishop Salmon compare with that of his predecessor, Allison?

 

-----What role did Salmon play in the trial of Bishop Righter, 1995?

 

-----What role did the DSC delegation play in the contentious General Convention (GC) of TEC in Phoenix in 1991?

 

-----The Rt. Rev. William Skilton served as Suffragan Bishop of DSC 1996-2006. What role did he play in the background of the schism?

 

-----Over the years many conservative (aka orthodox, traditionalist) groups met, sometimes regularly, in Charleston, perhaps most notably Mere Anglicanism. What were the connections between these groups and DSC?

 

-----Why did Salmon repeatedly oppose resolutions in TEC to require the ordination of women in all dioceses?

 

-----What role did Salmon play, among other conservative bishops, in the matter concerning liberal and controversial Bishop Spong?

 

-----Why did retired Bishop Allison participate in the irregular consecrations of bishops (2 in Singapore, 2000, and 4 in Denver, in 2001)?

 

-----What was Salmon's reaction to the consecrations?

 

-----What was the relationship between Salmon and Allison?

 

-----Why was the resolution in the DSC convention of 2001 that threatened secession from TEC tabled? What influence did the resolution have in the future?

 

 

 

E. THE LATE SALMON YEARS, 2003-08.
 

 

-----GC's approval of Gene Robinson in August 2003 was a turning point in TEC. How did that influence events in DSC? What was the role of the DSC delegation in GC? What was the role of the Very Rev. Lawrence, of San Joaquin, in GC? What were the connections between the DSC delegation and Lawrence? What were the reactions in SC to the consecration of Bishop Robinson?

 

-----Was the DSC special convention of October 2003 the turning point in DSC in regards to TEC? How did the convention reflect attitudes in SC and how did it influence future actions in SC?

 

-----What were the origins of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (2003)? What were its methods and goals? What role did DSC play in it? 

 

-----What were the origins of the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina? What were its methods and goals? If its purpose was to keep DSC in TEC why did it fail?

 

-----Was the Chapman Memo (Dec. 2003) the secret plan for secession from and replacement of TEC? In what ways did the Memo influence events in DSC then and in the years to come?

 

-----What roles did DSC play in the various conservative movements that sprang up in the wake of the Robinson episode?

 

-----What were the origins of the Anglican Communion Network in SC (2004)? Who were the leaders? What were their goals? What role did they play in the background of the schism?

 

-----What was the relationship between DSC and the Anglican Communion Institute?

 

-----How was the Bishop's search committee formed in 2005? How were the members chosen? How did it relate to the Standing Committee? Why was the Rev. Greg Kronz, a cohort of Lawrence  earlier in the Dio, of Pittsburgh, appointed chair?

 

-----In the bishop's search, how many candidates were considered? Why was Skilton not one of the nominees? How did the committee settle on the three nominees?

-----In an official affidavit of Dec. 18, 2013, the Rev. Thomas Rickenbaker stated that when he was considered for candidacy, Kronz and Feuner told him directly they were looking for a bishop to lead DSC out of TEC, and with the property. Feuner denied this assertion in a newspaper interview of Dec. 30, 2013. Who was telling the truth, Rickenbaker or Feuner?

 

-----What was the role of DSC in the GC of 2006? What was their role in the selection of the new presiding bishop, Jefferts Schori? How did the SC bishops vote in the election of the new Presiding Bishop?

-----What were the reactions in DSC to the news interviews that Jefferts Schori gave after her election as Presiding Bishop?

 

-----Why did the DSC convention of 2006 ask for Alternative Primatial Relationship from the Archbishop of Canterbury? What came of the request? Why did SC never have an alternative primate, that is one other than Jefferts Schori?

 

-----Why did the Standing Committee ask Skilton to resign in Dec. 2006?

 

-----Why was the first election of Lawrence as bishop declared null and void? Was this declaration legitimate?

 

-----Why did Lawrence go on a sabbatical at the moment his home diocese, San Joaquin, voted to leave TEC?

 

-----In his campign for bishop, did Lawrence promise to keep DSC in TEC? What did he promise on that subject?

 

 

 

F. THE EARLY LAWRENCE YEARS, 2008-JUNE 2012.
 

 

-----How had Lawrence's years in the Dioceses of Pittsburgh and San Joaquin prepared him for his role in DSC? What personal connections with clergy of these dioceses were most important to Lawrence?

 

-----How did the leadership of Lawrence compare with that of his predecessor, Salmon?

 

-----What was the relationship between Lawrence and Salmon?

 

-----Why did Salmon and Skilton remain in TEC rather than depart with Lawrence?

 

-----Why was the Presiding Bishop not invited to the consecration of Lawrence as bishop of South Carolina?

-----Who invited the Presiding Bishop to visit South Carolina in February of 2008? What impact did her visit have on DSC?

-----Why did Lawrence announce in his first address to a DSC convention that DSC might not continue in TEC?

 

-----At that convention, why was the proposed resolution to suspend General Convention voted down? How did that defeat connect to future events in DSC?

 

-----How did Lawrence reorganize the diocesan staff and structure?

 

-----How did Lawrence go about bonding with the clergy and communicants of DSC in the first several years?

 

-----How did Lawrence view the "sovereignty" of DSC and how did this view influence his actions?

 

-----What roles did Lawrence and the DSC delegation play in the GC of 2009?

 

-----What role did Lawrence play in the Anaheim Statement (July 2009)?

 

-----What did Lawrence accomplish on his out-of-state trips to conservative groups, to TEC groups, especially in his first year?

 

-----How and why did Lawrence build bonds with anti-TEC elements outside of SC, in the U.S., overseas?

 

-----What happened in Lawrence's, and other conservative bishops' meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury (Sept. 2009)?

 

-----Was an appeal of the All Saints Waccamaw (Sept. 2009) case made to the U.S. Supreme Court? Why did not DSC and the Episcopal Church appeal the decision of the state supreme court to the U.S. Supreme Court?

 

-----What was the meaning of the resolutions passed in DSC convention in Oct. 2009? How did these change the relationship between DSC and TEC?

 

-----Why did DSC refuse to cooperate with lawyer Tisdale in Jan. 2010?

 

-----In what ways did DSC cooperate with requests from TEC in 2010 and 2011?

 

-----How did Lawrence handle the departure of St. Andrew's, Mt. Pleasant, from DSC, March 2010?

 

-----What were the charges in the Forum letter of September 2010; and how did Lawrence refute them?

 

-----What was in the still unrevealed correspondence between Lawrence and Jefferts Schori in Oct. 2010?

 

-----Why did the "reconvened" convention of DSC declare "self rule" and remove the Dennis Canon from the DSC Constitution and Canons? What was the purpose of this? Did this constitute schism?

 

-----Why did the DSC convention of Feb. 2011 pass resolutions placing the DSC Constitution and Canons above that of TEC and revoking its accession to the Canons of TEC? What was the purpose of this? Did this constitute schism?

 

-----Were the revisions to the TEC Constitutions and Canons Title IV made to persecute Lawrence? If not, why were they made?

 

-----How did the Disciplinary Board for Bishops's investigation of Lawrence begin (Sept. 2011)? What were the charges? What was the evidence? How was the decision made? How did they vote? Was the process true to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church?

 

-----What happened in the meeting of Jefferts Schori, Bishop Waldo (Upper SC), and Lawrence in Ne York on Nov. 2, 2011?

 

-----Why did Lawrence issue quit claim deeds (Nov. 15, 2011)? Why at this time? How were they issued? Which parishes registered them in the court houses? Was this a violation of the Dennis Canon? Was he issuance necessary in view of the All Saints Waccamaw decision?

 

-----Why did the DSC Standing Committee oppose the meeting of the provincial bishops and Lawrence in Dec. of 2011? What was the relationship and interaction of the Committee and Lawrence at that time? 

 

-----In the DSC convention of March 2012, why did Lawrence identify the issue of homosexuality as the main one? How did this issue drive events in the months to come?

 

-----In June 2012, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) named Steve Wood (St. Andrew's, Mt. Pleasant) as its bishop of the Carolinas. What effect did this have on Lawrence and DSC?

 

 

 

 

G. THE CRISIS AND SCHISM, JUNE-DECEMBER 2012.
 

 

-----What was the role of the DSC delegation in the GC of 2012?

 

-----What was the relationship among the conservative dioceses at GC?

 

-----Why did Lawrence see the GC resolution as a line he could not cross?

 

-----Why did Lawrence reject the rite of the blessing of same sex unions even though it could never be enforced on DSC since it was optional at the discretion of the diocesan bishop?

 

-----What happened in the secret meeting of Lawrence and the Standing Committee on Aug. 21, 2012? Who first proposed "disassociation'? How did they justify the decision and how did they plan to carry it out? Did this mean schism?

 

-----How did the committee of fourteen that filed the complaint against Lawrence form? How did it operate? What was the evidence in the complaint?

 

-----How did the Disciplinary Board for Bishops reach its decision (Sept. 2012) that Lawrence had abandoned the communion? Did the DBB adhere to the Constitution and Canons of TEC? What was the vote? Was there any action of outside forces in DBB? Did Lawrence know of the DBB action at the time of its meeting?

 

-----Why did the Standing Committee meet secretly on Oct. 2, 2012 and vote to withdraw DSC from TEC if TEC took any action against Lawrence? How did this decision come about? Who first offered it? What was the discussion? Why was no one outside the Committee consulted? Why was the vote kept secret until Oct. 17? Did Lawrence reveal the vote to Waldo and Jefferts Schori before Oct. 17? If not, why not? Why does the DSC keep secret the minutes of the meetings of the Standing Committee?

 

-----Why did Lawrence meet with Waldo and Jefferts Schori the day after the Committee's vote? What happened in the meeting? What did Lawrence reveal about the Standing Committee decisions?

 

-----Why did the DBB delay informing the Presiding Bishop of its vote, Sept. 18, until Oct. 10?

 

-----Why did the PB delay informing Lawrence of the vote for five days, until Oct. 15?

 

-----What measures were under way in Sept. and Oct., on both sides, to settle the crisis? What did the Presiding Bishop do; what did Lawrence do to settle it at that point?

 

-----When and how did Jefferts Schori arrange a reorganization of the DSC immediately after Oct. 15?

 

-----Why did Lawrence not choose one of the two options available to him under the Constitutions and Canons of TEC:  1-a letter to the PB asking for the suspension to be removed,  2-trial in the House of Bishops at its next meeting, March 2013?

 

-----Was there any communication between Lawrence and the PB concerning his options at that point?

 

-----Why did not Lawrence go back to the Standing Committee and ask for a suspension of the vote to withdraw from TEC?

 

-----Were Lawrence's actions in the special convention of Nov. 17, 2013, a renunciation of his ministry in TEC as the PB later claimed? If not, what did they mean?

 

-----Why did the PB not follow the letter of the law in the Canons that required a written statement of renunciation? Did Lawrence's words in the Nov. 17 meeting adequately replace the required letter?

 

-----What were the communications, if any, between Jefferts Schori and Lawrence from Nov. 17 to Dec. 5?

 

-----Did the PB act within her rights to remove Lawrence from the ordained ministry of TEC on Dec. 5, 2012?

 

-----Did Lawrence know in advance of the PB's action?

 

 

 

 

H. TWO DIOCESES, 2013.
 

 

-----How did Lawrence's approach to litigation against TEC compare with the four earlier cases of seceding dioceses?

 

-----Why did DSC decide to initiate litigation against TEC? Why and how did they choose the Circuit Court (state court) in Dorchester County?

 

-----Why and how did DSC arrange to have 35 parishes join in the lawsuits against TEC? What pressure, if any, was put on the parishes?

 

-----What were the financial arrangements to pay the lawyers of DSC and the 35 parishes?

 

-----Is there outside funding going to DSC or to TEC in their court actions?

-----In the Fall of 2013, DSC established a Legal Defense Fund committee that called for 2 million dollars in contributions. How did they arrive at that figure? How much has DSC already spent on legal expenses? Are the individual parishes responsible for paying their own lawyers? In his charge to the committee, Lawrence said that the DSC legal action was a "battle against 'the spiritual forces of evil.'" Did he mean that TEC is evil? If not, what did he mean? 

 

-----What appeals did the two bishops (Lawrence and vonRosenberg) make to the dozen undecided parishes and missions in discernment in early 2013? What reasons did the local churches give for their choices?

 

-----After the two dioceses released their clergy lists, the names of nine priests and three deacons appeared on both lists. How can a clergyperson be loyal to a TEC bishop and an independent bishop?

-----Why did DSC lawyer Alan Runyon participate in the court case of TEC v. Quincy? Who paid his fees?

 

-----Why did vonR choose to "release" (Aug. 2013) rather than depose the clergy who left TEC? 

 

-----Why has Lawrence steadfastly refused to unite DSC with any larger Anglican body (as ACNA)?

 

-----What does it mean to be, as Lawrence claimed, an "extra-provincial diocese" of the Anglican Communion?

-----If DSC continues to refuse to unite with any larger body, what would this mean for the long-term viability of DSC?

 

-----What has been the attitude of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the official offices of the Anglican Communion, toward the post-schism DSC?

 

-----What has been the attitude of the Global South [GAFCON] Anglican bishops toward post-schism DSC?

-----At what length and at what cost can DSC sustain a legal war with TEC? TEC with DSC?

-----Under what conditions might vonR's idea of reconciliation of the two parties take place?