I refer to the following article which suggests that not only will ECUSA not survive numerically or financially, but also that if it does survive it should not be called Christian. http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2012/11/ecusa-ecusa-dysfunction-everywhere.html ECUSA, ECUSA: Dysfunction Everywhere Could things get any worse within the Episcopal Church (USA)? Yes, of course they could -- but that admission does nothing to mitigate the sorry, sorry state of affairs that persists in that Church already. This is still calendar 2012 -- barely six months since the last meeting of General Convention. Since that time: ECUSA has lost another Diocese -- and not just "another" Diocese, but one of its largest, healthiest and most vibrant. ECUSA's House of Bishops, spurred on by its Presiding Bishop, is preparing to depose one of its most orthodox and spiritual members ever, in a triumph of mediocrity over mission. ECUSA points the blame at the Diocese (of South Carolina) -- but for doing what? According to ECUSA and its oh-so-wise attorneys, the Diocese hasn't left; only its people (and its Bishop) have. So ECUSA, through its hopelessly conflicted Disciplinary Board for Bishops, blames the Bishop for the actions of the Diocese -- even though he had no vote on them to begin with, and no Constitutional power to set aside the acts of the diocesan convention. And then the Presiding Bishop, while trying with one hand to lure Bishop Lawrence into further mediation talks, uses her other hand to sign a certificate restricting his ministry -- and then still wants to continue talks as scheduled while keeping his restriction "confidential." (Oh, yes, that would certainly work.) To top it off, she then claims that "her hands were tied," and that once she received the certification that he personally had "abandoned" ECUSA by the actions the diocesan convention took, she had "no choice" but to restrict him. Well, that is indeed the way the Abandonment Canon now reads -- but don't forget: it was Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori who decided she did notneed the consent of the "three most senior Bishops in the Church" to restrict Bishop Duncan back when the Canon (before its amendment in 2009) still required such consent. Could she have obtained that consent to restrict Bishop Lawrence in 2012, on such flimsy charges? I doubt it entirely. But she wanted the provision eliminated, and she got her way. So she now owns this process, and must take responsibility for bringing about the mess that exists in South Carolina today. Meanwhile, she is also proceeding apace with the charges against the nine bishops who dared to disagree with her in open court, even though she is hopelessly conflicted in that situation, as well. (She sees nothing wrong with being (1) the person supposedly wronged; (2) the person charged with determining whether the charges are valid; (3) the person who decides what disciplinary remedy to impose; and (4) the person who actually imposes that final disciplinary remedy.) Prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner all in one? Move along, move along -- nothing to see here, just more dysfunction. As for the complainants who filed the charges against the bishops, never mind that they are the chief opponents in court of the parties who wanted to use the bishops' testimony as part of their case. So now we have two lawsuits in civil court, in which the Episcopalian litigants seek to punish their opponents for using the same kind of expert testimony which they were using. And they see absolutely nothing wrong with that! So also with those puny South Carolina Episcopalians who were complaining about Bishop Lawrence for what their own Diocese was doing. Do you see any signs of apology or regret for the trials and tribulation which their extreme minority views have now brought upon the Diocese? Again, move along, now; I said, move along! -- nothing to see here but still more dysfunction. Then we come to the other bishops in the House of Bishops, and the other Standing Committees across the whole geographical span of the Church. Though a few here and there have published statements of regret for what has happened, the biggest single note that has been sounded is one of utter silence. The Standing Committees have not voiced any objection to the Presiding Bishop's actions taken in defiance of the jurisdiction of the diocesan standing committee in a diocese which she claims has not left the Church, and the Bishops are just biding their time until they can hide behind an anonymous voice vote to remove Bishop Lawrence next March. Dysfunction, dysfunction everywhere, as far as the eye can penetrate. To this long-time Episcopalian, it seems that the time has come to say, with David: To the choirmaster: according to The Sheminith.1 A Psalm of David. 12 Save, O Lord, for mthe godly one is gone; for the faithful have vanished from among the children of man. 2 Everyone nutters lies to his neighbor; with oflattering lips and pa double heart they speak. 3 May the Lord cut off all oflattering lips, the tongue that makes qgreat boasts, 4 those who say, “With our tongue we will prevail, our lips are with us; who is master over us?” 5 “Because rthe poor are plundered, because the needy groan, sI will now arise,” says the Lord; “I will place him in the tsafety for which he longs.” 6 uThe words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. 7 You, O Lord, will keep them; you will guard us2 from this generation forever. 8 On every side the wicked prowl, as vileness is exalted among the children of man.
Most people, including the first Bishop of New York, thought the Episcopal Church would die out before 1800. Naysayers were wrong then and I think they're wrong now.
And here is the nut of this issue. Perhaps there are those who truly believe that the charges were flimsy. Before the actions of the DIocese and Bishop Lawrence, the Diocese was subject to the canon law of the Episcopal Church. The Diocese of Episcopal Church owned the churches. Bishop Lawrence personally signed over property to the parishes, and helped parishes protect their property rights against TEC. He refused to act to support TEC and those parishioners who wanted to stay when churches left TEC in 2010. He allowed motions to be brought forth clearly in violation of TEC canon and supported them. He set the Diocese above any decisions by TEC that it disagreed with. None of this has anything to do with the bishop's views on homosexual conduct and cross-dressing, which canons he could not accept and were his reasons for leaving the Convention. As Bishop Lawrence himself pointed out, one possibility for someone who could not accept and enforce TEC canon law was for him to resign as a TEC bishop. Bishop Lawrence indicated that this possibility was given strong consideration. Instead he decided to strongly violate his oaths and ask his priests to violate theirs. There is still a Diocese of South Carolina, and it is part of TEC, no matter how many times Bishop Lawrence says otherwise. He certainly has the right to resign as TEC bishop (which he has NOT done) and leave TEC. Clearly, individuals have the right to leave. ===================
The PB and the national Church have made their many, many errors over the years. I am not defending her views or actions. Neither do I defend the actions of those conservatives who voted for her and than bolted from TEC. ================================================================= I was responding to the statement that the charges against Bishop Lawrence were flimsy. They were not. The bishop clearly violated his oath as bishop in several ways, has been documented (much better in 2012 than in 2011). I would have much more respect for Bishop Lawrence if he resigned as a TEC bishop before acting to lead others out of the Anglican Communion. I have read the documents from both sides, listened carefully to Bishop Lawrence's presentations and answers to question, and studied the timeline of events. In the ned, Bishop Lawrence left TEC because of the change in the canons regarding same-sex behavior and cross-dressing. He could no longer act as a bishop of TEC in good conscience. The answer to that crisis is to resign as bishop. He could then later become bishop of some new schismatic diocese if it chose hime. Just my 2 cents
For the record, I am also against the actions of Bishop Lawrence, however, they are perfectly legal and canonical according to the polity of the Episcopal Church. It's a question of should he have done those things not can he.
The Episcopal Church has yet to "expel" Bishop Lawrence. A committee found that Bishop Lawrence had abandoned the Church by violating the canons. He was informed that he must restrict his activities, and was given 60 days to respond to the charges, before the House of Bishops took any final action. Stepping down was not his only alternative. He could have answered the charges and published his letter of response. He had many options. The one he took was to declare that HE was no longer an Episcopalian, sign away property rights to parishes, and to take the Diocese (and all its parishes) out of the TEC AND out of the Anglican Communion. Further, he informed his priests that they no longer were part of the Episcopal Church. Obviously, some of the priests and parished appealed to the PB for help. A new TEC bishop will be named pending the Convention in March.
Well, it wasn't the Bishop's actions that led the Diocese out of the DFMS, but the Standing Committee, so his resignation wouldn't have affected the Dioceses's decision to leave. Neither has the Diocese left the Communion.