Episcopal Forum of South Carolina
P.O. Box 1772
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
Episcopal Forum
Date: September 22, 2010
To: The Executive Council of The Episcopal Church
The House of Bishops
From: The Episcopal Forum of South Carolina
Subject: The Alienation and Disassociation of the Diocese of South
Carolina from The Episcopal Church
This communication is being sent from the Directors of the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina to the general membership of the Forum, to the House of Bishops, and to the lay and clerical leadership of The Episcopal Church.
The Episcopal Forum of South Carolina is a 501(c)(3) corporation with members from two thirds of the congregations in our Diocese. Our mission is to preserve unity with diversity in the Diocese and in The Episcopal Church through the inclusion of a broad range of Scriptural understandings and by upholding the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and the democratic actions of its Conventions and elected leaders. You will find more information about EFSC at our website and in the brochure at: Brochure.
We wish to call to your attention the recent actions and inactions on the part of the diocesan leadership and leaders in parishes and missions within the Diocese of South Carolina, which we believe are accelerating the process of alienation and disassociation of the Diocese of South Carolina from The Episcopal Church.
In accordance with our Mission statement, we feel compelled to emphasize the importance of the issues that we include in our attached documents. Specifically, we enumerate issues that present grave concern to us, as Episcopalians in our Diocese, and we request that The Episcopal Church leadership investigate the situation in our Diocese.
Thank you for your consideration.
Attachments/Links
Episcopal Forum Directors
Alex Baron+
Douglas G. Billings
Frances Elmore
Daniel J. Ennis
Cynthia Harding
John Johnson+
Eleanor Koets
Richard Lovelace
Melinda Lucka
Barbara Mann
Dave Mann
Susanne Nash
Jack Nietert+
Lynn Pagliaro
Dusty Parker
Bob Pinkerton
Philip Porcher+
Scott Shaffer
Marilyn Roper
Colton Smith+
Carolyn Sparks
Ginny Trolley
Betsy Walker
Virginia Wilder
Enthusiastically Episcopalian in South Carolina
I urge you to read the attachments at the link provided, which document the concerns of the members of the Diocese of South Carolina who wish to remain within the Episcopal Church and fear (with good reason, in my opinion) that their bishop is headed for an attempt to lead the diocese out of the Episcopal Church.
The official web page of the Diocese of South Carolina includes no reference in its name to indicate that it is a diocese of the Episcopal Church.
H/T to John White at Openly Episcopal in Albany.
The schismatic leanings of South Carolina can be studied at length in the Blogs not to be named... In a way it's strange that this has taken so long...
ReplyDeleteI see you posted this hours ago and I, not paying attention, just emailed it to you. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteLooks like a collision course to me. FWIW Mark Lawrence, needing and failing, first time round, to get his consents, assured TEC in March 2007 that "I will heartily make the vows conforming ... 'to the doctrine, discipline, and worship' of the Episcopal Church, as well as the trustworthiness of the Holy Scriptures. So to put it as clearly as I can, my intention is to remain in The Episcopal Church." Maybe his fingers were crossed when he said it?
Those of us sitting uncomfortably on the cynical pew suspected Liar +Lawrence from the beginning of this fiasco in Charleston. The only good news is that his antics will prevent consents for any of his clergy consorts elected bishop in reactionary dioceses. He's the last of a lying breed.
ReplyDelete@ John D "...his antics will prevent consents for any of his clergy consorts elected bishop in reactionary dioceses." From your lips to God's ear re Springfield.
ReplyDeleteI expect that Mark Lawrence and his cohorts wants all the legal maneuvering and documentation to be settled before what they hope will be an easy departure from the Episcopal Church, which will allow them to take the property with them, with no consequences following upon their actions. Someone should caution them against overconfidence, for things may not go as smoothly as they expect.
ReplyDeleteThings will not go as smoothly as they expect, but there will be lasting damage to the diocese and to individual members, some of whom will end up leaving TEC. I don't think enough of the leadership of TEC understand the concept of collateral damage. Inclusiveness is good. Condoning disobedience in the name of inclusiveness is not.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, the damage is being done even now, before the move to depart. People are leaving because they are not being cared for by their bishop. I'm not sure either if the leadership understands or what they could do at this point, even if they did understand.
ReplyDeletePlease, if you leave another comment, make up a name and sign your post. Thanks.
Well, I just have to leave a comment because the word verification is 'ruinesse'. Possible definitions:
ReplyDelete(1)ruination raised to the level of a craft or an art form (based on combination of 'ruin' and 'finesse') -- as in,
+Lawrence and his parties are widely recognized for their ruinesse.
(2) A condition of being intrinsically rotten or ontologically spoiled (based on combination of 'ruin' and 'essence') -- as in, the project of +Lawrence et al. is ruinesse to the core.
"Ruinesse" is another word for the lexicon, Mary Clara. It sounds French, but English is already full of French words. I like your definition No. 1.
ReplyDeleteI looked up ruinesse, because it seems that it should be a word, but no. It seems that WV coined it.
Inclusiveness is good. Condoning disobedience in the name of inclusiveness is not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Anonymous...
...IF we're talking about including the EXTREME views of (x)Lawrence & (Standing Committee) Co WHEN they're enacting those extreme views via schism! Condoning such disobedience is simply too much.