Liberals as Fundamentalists

Reaction from the left side of the Episcopal aisle to the facts laid out in my previous post about South Carolina has been, if not completely predictable, then certainly telling. In fact, I find it downright fascinating. Here we have the liberals in the Church -- the reappraisers, the ones oriented to the left of center -- taking a fundamentalist approach to the issue of just what constitutes the "doctrine, discipline and worship" of the Episcopal Church (USA). In jurisprudence, we would call their stance one of "legal positivism" -- that is to say, "if there is not a law about it somewhere, then no law exists on the subject."

The issue boils down to the canonical (or, if you will, extra-canonical) effect, if any, of the following resolution adopted last October by the Diocese of South Carolina's special convention (and not by the Bishop, himself, mind you -- bishops preside at conventions, and do not vote unless they step down from that role; the bold has been added for emphasis):

Further Resolved, that the following statement shall constitute our understanding of the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church and shall be read at all ordinations in The Diocese of South Carolina, and a copy of which shall be attached to the Oath of Conformity signed by the ordinand at such service of ordination:

“In the Diocese of South Carolina, we understand the substance of the 'doctrine, discipline and worship' of The Episcopal Church to mean that which is expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Creeds, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the theology of the historic prayer books.”

Here is a typical reaction to this act, as stated by Father Mark Harris:

The reader will note that there is no reference in this to the Constitution and Canons of TEC, and no reference to the question asked of the ordinand in the Presentation at the beginning of the service of ordination,

"Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them? And will you, in accordance with the canons of this Church, obey your bishop and other ministers who may have authority over you and your work?"

Answer

I am willing and ready to do so; and I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.

The answer is to a question involving the canons as discipline - obedience being a matter of discipline. "And will you, in accordance with the canons of this Church, obey your bishop and other ministers who may have authority over you and your work?"

So, where in the list of the Diocese of South Carolina will one find the Constitution and Canons of TEC?

Indeed, one might well ask: where in the Oath of Conformity (since the Church's founding in 1789, required of all ordinands by Article VIII of the Church's Constitution) is the requirement that the ordinand vow to conform to the Constitution and Canons? There is no doubt that the liberals understand the words "doctrine, discipline and worship" as equating to those governing documents. Here is Father Harris again:

But the thing is, the DSC has cleverly weeded out any reference to canons at all - diocesan or national - and vacated the intent of the word "discipline" in the oath of conformity. That, dear friends, is less than kosher.

"Cleverly weeded out"? Is that what is going on here? A commenter at Father Harris' blog, Father Bill Moorhead, seems to think so, as well (emphasis added):

What is it people don't seem to get about the phrase, "doctrine, discipline, and worship"? "Discipline" means the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, and the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese in which a member of the clergy is canonically resident. "Worship" in this context means the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, together with such supplementary liturgical provisions that may be officially authorized; it does not include the 1928, 1892, 1789, or 1662 BCPs except as valuable documents of liturgical history. I think it would be appropriate for (Lower) South Carolina to hold their hands out to demonstrate that their fingers are not crossed.

And, lest there be any doubt, Father Marshall Scott spells it out even more plainly in another comment on the same post:

. . . We promise (I have done so twice, and Bishop Lawrence has done so three times) to be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship. That is the heart of the question asked, and of the answer signed and sworn. But, it is through Constitution and Canons that we understand that doctrine, discipline, and worship. The General Convention tells us where to find our doctrine and worship, in the Book of Common Prayer, and specifically the 1979 Book. It lays out our discipline, the processes of our life together, in Constitution (structures) and Canons (procedures). One can't understand the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church except with reference to Prayer Book, Constitution, and Canons. So, a "signing statement" that implies ignoring or rejecting all three would seem a clear violation, would it not?

Now, one might say that there's nothing un-Christian, or even un-Anglican about the "signing statement." However, we live within our particularities. There are no "Generic Christians," or even "Generic Anglicans." The question asked refers to "this Church," and is answered and sworn with reference specifically to the Episcopal Church. Those of us who have made that commitment understood that particularity, and understood the role of Prayer Book, Constitution, and Canons in doctrine, discipline, and worship. A "signing statement" that defines them differently and without reference to them, may have an appropriate place in the Christian spectrum, but it clearly moves outside of this Church, the Episcopal Church. We can infer what it means that Bishop Lawrence, having thrice sworn, would now not only support diocesan leaders in this but require it of new ordinands.

And on this blog, commenter Eli Miamiensis takes the case one step further, and maintains that only General Convention can specify just what is the "doctrine, discipline and worship" of the Church:

More importantly, DioSC's "signing statement" equivalent (i.e., attempt unilaterally to define what language in the Oath of Conformity means (at least, within that Diocese) by attaching it thereto), equates a set of items with the "doctrine, discipline and worship" of ECUSA. By making that equation, it states that all those items are part of such "doctrine, discipline and worship," and items not so listed are not included.

As already noted, at least one of those items would not be generally recognized around ECUSA as more than a "historical document"; arguably, additional items would be included if defined not unilaterally but by General Convention. (Where in the C&C is a Diocese or Bishop permitted unilaterally to determine, even just within the bounds of such Diocese, what constitutes ECUSA's "doctrine, discipline and worship"? That power belongs to GC alone.)

This is quite a conformity of viewpoints on the left, and I (for one, at least) am somewhat taken aback by the legal positivism of it all:

Question: In what, exactly, does the "doctrine, discipline and worship" of the Episcopal Church consist?

Answer (from the left): In just the Constitution and Canons of the Church, because General Convention has told us so.

Question: And just where has General Convention done exactly that?

Answer: Well, not in so many words . . . It's rather implicit in their insistence on conformity to "discipline" as an ordination vow.

Do you see the obvious circularity of the argument? What the Episcopal left contends is that because General Convention adopted the Constitution, which requires that every ordinand take a vow to conform to the "doctrine, discipline and worship" of the Episcopal Church (USA), that the term "discipline" must mean the Constitution and Canons, because every ordinand must, as a condition of ordination, be subservient to the Constitution and canons.

The reality, of course, is that the Church's history bears out no such conclusion whatsoever. When the Oath of Conformity was written into Article VII of the Church Constitution in 1789, this is what it said (bold emphasis added):

. . . Nor shall any person be ordained until he shall have subscribed the following declaration: "I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation: and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrines and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in these United States."

Please notice (because it is very important in understanding the point being made): nothing whatsoever was said when the Church was formed in 1789 about conforming to the "discipline" of PECUSA -- the only requirement was conformity to "the doctrines and worship" of the Church. And as I explained in this earlier post, the "discipline" to which the new ordinand promised to conform himself was not the "discipline of this Church", but the "discipline of Christ":

The Bishop.

Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of CHRIST, as the LORD hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same, according to the commandments of GOD; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same?

Answer.

I will do so, by the help of the LORD.

The phrase "doctrine, discipline and worship" had thus nothing to do with the Oath of Conformity or the vows sworn at ordination; when it was used, it referred instead to the conformity of the entire American Church to the traditions of the Church of England. It appeared, for example, in the Preface to the very first Book of Common Prayer approved for use by the General Convention of 1789 -- the same one that drafted the Constitution and the first ten canons of the Church (emphasis again added):

. . . It seems unnecessary to enumerate all the different alterations and amendments [to the English Book of Common Prayer]. They will appear, and it is to be hoped, the reasons of them also, upon a comparison of this with the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. In which it will also appear that this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship; or further than local circumstances require.

It should be unnecessary to note that the Book of Common Prayer does not contain or embody either the Constitution or the Canons of the Episcopal Church (USA) -- either as originally adopted in 1789, or at any time subsequently. Therefore, just what did the drafters of the original American Book of Common Prayer understand by including the word "discipline" in their description of the respects in which the new American church did not differ from its English parent? It is instructive to quote this passage from the opening paragraph of the Preface to the 1789 Book of Common Prayer (which, along with the passage just quoted, has been maintained intact in each subsequent edition, including that of 1979):

IT is a most invaluable part of that blessed liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, that in his worship, different forms and usages may without offence be allowed, provided the substance of the Faith be kept entire; and that, in every Church, what cannot be clearly determined to belong to Doctrine must be referred to Discipline: and therefore, by common consent and authority, may be altered, abridged, enlarged, amended, or otherwise disposed of, as may seem most convenient for the edification of the people, "according to the various exigencies of times and occasions."

(Emphasis added.) "Discipline", therefore, as originally applied to the American Church was not to be understood as something immutable -- i.e., fixed at one point in time and unchangeable thereafter. Instead, it is that part of the Church which may be "altered, abridged, enlarged, amended, or otherwise disposed of, as may seem most convenient for the edification of the people, 'according to the various exigencies of times and occasions.'" This could refer to specific disciplinary canons, but it also refers to a broader sense of the word, as explained by Francis Vinton, a professor of ecclesiastical law and polity General Theological Seminary in New York, in A Manual Commentary on the General Canon Law and the Constitution [of PECUSA] (New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1870), at p. 23 (emphasis added):

Q. What is the sense of the term " discipline" in Ecclesiastical writings?
A. Twofold. (1) The administering of punishment for offenses. (2) The regulation and government of the Church.

The problem came, as I described in my post linked earlier, with the extensive changes made to the Constitution and Canons by the General Convention of 1901. The word "discipline" was added to the Oath of Conformity in Article VIII of the Constitution for the first time, and the ordination vows in the Prayer Book were changed to a mishmash of promises which has created all the ensuing difficulties (bold and bold italics added):

The Bishop says to the ordinand

Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them? And will you, in accordance with the canons of this Church, obey your bishop and other ministers who may have authority over you and your work?

Answer

I am willing and ready to do so; and I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.

The Ordinand then signs the above Declaration in the sight of all present.

Asked whether he will be loyal to the "discipline . . . of Christ," therefore, the Ordinand is told to answer that he will conform to the "discipline . . . of The Episcopal Church." And the fundamentalists on the left take it from there. Regardless of the phrasing of the question, they see only the answer, and read into it a promise to be obedient to whatever Canon is ever enacted, now or in the future -- regardless of whether that Canon conforms to the discipline of Christ which this Church received, and to which it was subject, for the first 111 years of its existence.

Even as so explained, the fundamentalist reading of the vows still makes no sense. Violations of specific canons are presentable offenses under the Canons themselves; clergy are charged in a presentment with transgressions of a particular canon, and not with a violation of Church "discipline" in general. By the same token, the charge in a presentment is not for breach of one's vow to uphold the discipline of the Church, but for the violation of the requirements of a specific canon. Thus a vow to conform to the "discipline" of the Church is not to be understood as a standard whose violation is punishable as such.

The term "Discipline" as added to the Oath of Conformity by a constitutional amendment in 1901, therefore, was still referring to the "discipline of the Church" in the broad sense given by Professor Vinton in the quote above. It was the Church's "discipline" in terms of its government and regulation -- chiefly, through the threefold orders of deacon, priest and bishop -- and did not (nay, could not) incorporate the canons of 1901 into the Oath. After all, any such intention would have been frustrated when new canons were enacted at three year intervals thereafter, and the language of the vow would have had to have been constantly updated for it to have any such effect. The intent of the addition was to secure conformity to the larger structure and government of the Church, which remained in the same traditional form as it had originally been in 1789.

In any event, to focus on the language of the Oath is useless for purposes of enforcing Church "discipline" under the canons. As already mentioned, facts amounting to the violation of the requirements of specific canons can be specifically set out in a presentment, without having to invoke the ordinand's Oath in addition. Thus commenters and bloggers who invoke the terms of the Oath as some sort of catchall for Church law and canons simply do not know what they are talking about.

And somehow I sense that parties on both sides of the aisle would agree with that point. But this brings us to what I regard as the essential fault line between conservatives and liberals (or reasserters and reappraisers -- take your pick) in the year of Our Lord 2010: liberals regard their innovations since 1979 as completely binding on everyone in the Church, just by virtue of the Oath of Conformity taken at ordination, and regardless of whether or not the Canons in question actually conform to the traditional discipline of the Church, in the sense of the "discipline of Christ" as the Church received it. When it comes to enforcing the actual measures so enacted, however, they have to proceed with a presentment specifying the particular provisions of the canons which were violated -- unless they are proceeding with a charge of "abandonment of the communion of this Church" under Canons IV.9 or IV.10.

Does one "abandon" the "discipline of this Church" when one violates a particular Canon? Not in the original sense of the abandonment canons, which I covered in a series of posts linked on this page -- but yes, in the eyes of the liberal fundamentalists who want to evade the necessity of a presentment and ecclesiastical trial, and proceed directly to judgment.

The "abandonment" canons are for those clergy who have literally left the Anglican Communion for a different denomination entirely, and not for those who have simply joined or transferred to another branch of it. Look at the definition of "abandonment" given in the Canons themselves: it consists in "formal admission into any religious body not in communion with [this Church], or (iii) by exercising episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than this Church or another Church in communion with this Church . . ." (emphasis added). One who has violated a specific canon, and not by transferring out of the Church to a different church not in communion with it, has not thereby "abandoned the communion of this Church."

The liberals' fundamentalist interpretation of the Oath of Conformity violates every common notion of fair play and due process -- but it bothers them not one whit. They are prepared, in 2010, to depose clergy for "abandonment" who, in upholding the discipline of the Church to which those clergy swore allegiance years earlier, thereby are viewed as falling short of requirements adopted by the activist majorities in the years since. But they do so without holding a trial, and proving the specifics of the charges, and without weighing the range of disciplinary options. No, there is just one judge and jury, and one sentence -- that of instant deposition. There have been over 400 of such depositions to date, in just the last four years. That is not Christlike. It is the Church, instead, that has lost its discipline.

The more the rules are bent to fit the circumstances, the less conformity there can be. And the more they depose those who fail to conform to their notions of what is required, the fewer there will be to "conform" in the future. Think of Calvin and Hobbes, and their exclusive club "G.R.O.S.S." -- its criteria for membership were defined so narrowly (and so constantly changing) as to admit of only two regular members -- who still managed to fight all the time over the rules.

Is that what we would wish for the Episcopal Church (USA)? That it define itself down until it has just two remaining members, who can fight to the finish about whatever rules still remain? We have to hope and trust that the process will be halted before it can reach that point. But I am no longer as sanguine as I once was about ultimate prospects for the church in which I grew up, and which I still serve (at the local level). "By the[ir] past shall ye judge [them]." The Episcopal Church is ignoring its past, in favor of requiring blind deference to an indeterminate future.

Friday TED Talk: Jamie Oliver on the Food That Is Killing Us

"Sadly, in the next eighteen minutes, when I do our chat [the TED talk below], four Americans who are very alive will be dead through the food they eat." Thus began British TV celebrity chef Jamie Oliver's 2010 TED PRize acceptance speech, given yesterday at Long Beach. The TED Prize, awarded each year, carries a $100,000 stipend and an unusual dividend: the recipient is asked to express "one wish that will change the world", and then the TED community undertakes to make that wish come true. Here is Jamie Oliver's wish, announced at the end of his talk: "I wish for your help to create a strong, sustainable movement to educate every child about food, inspire families to cook again and empower people everywhere to fight obesity."

In his talk, Mr. Oliver explains how fast food diets are killing America and dooming its children to a lifespan shorter than their parents. (The footage of his visit to a family in West Virginia, depicting what they consume in the course of a week, is stunning and eye-opening.) He will be in America for the next few months to try to accomplish what he did for Britain: raise the level of awareness about the inadequacy of nutrition in school lunch programs, and bring about a transformation in what children eat every day:

You can read more about Jamie Oliver at this page, and you can download his talk from this link (the high-res version is not yet available).

What in the World Is Going on in South Carolina?

Things are about to get a whole lot more interesting in South Carolina. Bishop Mark Lawrence and the Standing Committee of the Diocese have announced a postponement of the annual convention which had been scheduled for next month. The reason for the postponement is a series of letters written by South Carolina attorney (and former diocesan chancellor!) Thomas S. Tisdale, Jr. to the current chancellor of the Diocese, Wade H. Logan, III.

The letters constitute truly one of the most remarkable sets of communication from one church attorney to another that this church attorney has ever seen. The first is dated January 25, and starts out as though it were just one colleague writing to another -- not on behalf of any particular client, mind you:

Dear Wade:

I am writing regarding recent and ongoing actions by some congregations in our diocese that threaten to "withdraw" their parishes from the Diocese and The Episcopal Church. Specifically, I am writing to confirm my understanding from our recent conversations that Bishop Lawrence has determined that, with respect to such threats and efforts to remove parishes from the Diocese and the Church, he intends to take no legal action to protect parish property.

You said, I recall, that you knew of no action planned by the Bishop to discipline clergy who support such threats and efforts, nor does he intend to take any other steps to dissuade these efforts. You also said, I recall, that you knew of no plans by the Bishop to support the loyal Episcopalians in these congregations who are opposed to such efforts.

These requests for confirmation are all based upon our recent conversation, so please let me know if I have mischaracterized anything that we talked about. If I have misunderstood or misstated yours or the Bishop's position, I trust that you will let me know, and if there are any plans to take any action in these matters of which you were unaware when we talked, I ask that you now tell me what they are.

With best wishes and thanks, I am

Sincerely,

Thomas S. Tisdale

Now one might wonder what in the world motivated the writing of this letter. Mr. Tisdale addresses the current diocesan chancellor by his first name, so one assumes that there is a pre-existing relationship between the two, perhaps begun before Mr. Logan succeeded to the position of chancellor.

Despite the friendly surface tone, however, the letter crosses an unwritten boundary where true friends are involved. For it is couched in the form of a classic method by which attorneys document the statements of counsel for an adverse party. In such a letter, the attorney writes: "Dear John, This is to confirm that in our telephone conversation earlier today, you stated that . . .". The burden is thereby placed upon the opposing attorney to respond if there is anything incorrect about the restatement of what he allegedly said. Otherwise, the letter will stand as a memorandum of their conversation.

But Mr. Tisdale does not state that he is writing on behalf of any client, let alone one who is adverse, who could have any interest in such a confirmation. And yet, there is that sentence (emphasis added):

. . . I am writing to confirm my understanding from our recent conversations that Bishop Lawrence has determined that, with respect to such threats and efforts to remove parishes from the Diocese and the Church, he intends to take no legal action to protect parish property.

Why should Mr. Tisdale wish to "confirm his understanding" of such intent on the part of Bishop Lawrence? After all, he no longer has the diocese or its bishop for a client. And then he asks for more (emphasis again added):

. . . [I]f there are any plans to take any action in these matters of which you were unaware when we talked, I ask that you now tell me what they are.

At that point (if not earlier), Mr. Logan must have seen -- as I can well imagine -- red flags popping up all over the place. His "friend" was not only seeking to confirm their earlier "friendly" conversation in writing, but he was demanding to be told a matter protected by the attorney-client privilege: any "plans" which the Bishop may have confided in him (as chancellor) to "take action" in regard to parishes which had made "threats . . . to remove [themselves] from the Diocese and the Church".

I have no doubt that the conversation was perfectly collegial when it took place: the current chancellor thought he was sharing with his friend, the previous chancellor, some of the trials and tribulations of advising a diocese in the midst of all the legal tangles being created by the ongoing litigation strategy of the Episcopal Church (USA) -- particularly in the aftermath of the recent decision from the South Carolina Supreme Court. (As I explained in this post, that Court recently said that the Church's much-vaunted Dennis Canon was not self-executing in South Carolina. No trust in church or parish property would be recognized in South Carolina courts without a trust document signed by the owner of the property in question.) But the thoroughly improper requests and stated purpose set forth in this letter served notice that the actual purpose of the conversation had, in retrospect, been hostile.

If any doubt could possibly have remained on this score, it was set to rest by a second letter in Chancellor Logan's inbox on January 26 (the dates they were received are stamped on the linked copies) from Mr. Tisdale, which had been written the same day before as the first letter (January 25). In contrast to that first letter, it now asserted outright (with emphasis added):

Dear Wade:

As South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church, I am writing to respectfully request that you send me a list of all persons who have been ordained to the diaconate or priesthood in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina since October 24, 2009; all persons who have been ordained by Bishop Lawrence during that period; and a copy of the declaration of conformity signed by each of the ordinands.

As we agreed when we met a couple of weeks ago, this is a letter seeking information that you suggested I send you, and to which that you said you would respond accordingly. . . .

When combined with the earlier letter of that same day, this has to be one of the most remarkable exchanges of communications, as I say, ever to have taken place between two church attorneys. For now there is an open disclosure that Mr. Tisdale is claiming to act on behalf of a specific client: "The Episcopal Church". Why did he not state this in his earlier letter?

Because the request in his earlier letter was incompatible with his making it on behalf of any such client as the Episcopal Church (USA). It was conceivable, if at all, as a request (albeit quite improper and irregular) from a former attorney for a client to let him in on something to which he was not entitled by that former representation, namely, to share in the current confidences of that same client.

Even in that role, as I say, the request would have been highly improper and irregular. But to request such a confidential disclosure on behalf of a new client -- whose interests may well be adverse to that of his former client -- was beyond the pale. Mr. Thomas Tisdale, Jr. had no business inquiring as to the current bishop's "plans" on anything.

But Mr. Tisdale was not done with his friendly inquiries. The very next day, January 26, he signed two further letters requesting the records of the diocesan convention and the text of any amendments to parish bylaws of which Mr. Logan was aware. Then, over the next two days he sent four more letters to Chancellor Logan, asking this time for documents and records with respect to individual parishes which, he claimed, had threatened to leave. (Links to all of the letters may be found here.)

When Mr. Logan did respond to these letters, it was quite correctly a protest about how Mr. Tisdale had concealed his true purpose at the outset (emphasis added):

. . . My best recollection is that I asked you at the first [meeting] if you represented anyone, and you told me that you did not, but that a lot of people were asking you questions, and that you were trying to get information to answer those questions . . . .

I have no intention of engaging in an endless letter writing campaign so that one side can claim that if the other failed to respond to a statement, then that statement would be deemed admitted. I am both saddened and disappointed that you have chosen to make use of our friendly conversations in this way. I must respectfully decline to answer your allegations specifically, because I see no useful purpose in arguing what either the Bishop or I did or did not say.

Then Mr. Logan discloses the real moving force behind Mr. Tisdale's inquiries:

I had had an earlier telephone conference with David [Booth] Beers in which he asked me if the Diocese would provide some information about three churches.

So the other penny drops. The Presiding Bishop's own chancellor has apparently taken a signal interest in the "threats" allegedly made by certain parishes in the Diocese of South Carolina to leave the diocese, and in the "plans" by Bishop Lawrence to respond to those threats. He called the diocesan chancellor and requested information about the churches in question. When the chancellor was not forthcoming, Mr. Beers hired, on behalf of "The Episcopal Church" (an entity he does not represent, or have as a client), a South Carolina attorney (and former diocesan chancellor) to get the information for him.

I repeat: David Booth Beers is not the chancellor for that certain voluntary association of dioceses which formed in 1789, and which styles itself the "(Protestant) Episcopal Church in the United States of America." He is only the personal chancellor for the Presiding Bishop of that Church. No members of the Church, either acting on their own, or acting collectively through their triennial assembly called "General Convention", have ever hired David Booth Beers to represent the whole Church, or to hire others to do so. Not only that, but there is no official position that has ever been created and called "Chancellor of the Episcopal Church (USA)". Thus, by definition, there cannot lawfully be any person who is entitled to claim that he is "South Carolina counsel for The Episcopal Church." At best, Mr. Tisdale is acting as South Carolina counsel for the Presiding Bishop's personal chancellor.

And just what would he do in that role? Well, let us look at the illegal deposition of the Right Reverend Robert Duncan, of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Here is a link (caution: forty-page .pdf download) to the papers forwarded to the (then) Title IV Review Committee, which brought charges against Bishop Duncan for "abandon[ing] the communion of this Church." The second item in the link just given is an eleven-page letter detailing the basis for the charges of "abandonment" -- signed by David Booth Beers (and by Mary Kostel, a former associate with Mr. Beers's firm who is now the Presiding Bishop's personal litigation consultant).

Let me recap here for the benefit of those who may not have been following all the ins and outs in South Carolina to this point. Along with ECUSA, the Diocese of South Carolina (currently headed by Bishop Lawrence) was a party to the appeal that resulted in the State Supreme Court's decision in favor of All Saints Parish, Waccamaw Island. When the suit began in 2000, the Diocese was headed by Bishop Edward L. Salmon, Jr., who was succeeded in 2008 (after the case was on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court, and after a second try at electing him) by Bishop Lawrence.

The September 18, 2009 decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court knocked the stuffing out of ECUSA's claims that all parish property in the State was held in trust, pursuant to the terms of the Dennis Canon. Under that decision, it matters not whether a given parish has "acceded" to the Constitution and Canons of ECUSA: even if they did at some point, the Dennis Canon in and of itself is incapable of creating a trust interest in favor of ECUSA or the Diocese in the parish's property.

Significantly, ECUSA allowed the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court to become final, without asking the United States Supreme Court to review it. (The deadline for doing so was December 17.) However, I have it on good information that certain members of the losing parish -- those members of the original All Saints parish who decided to remain with ECUSA, and not to leave with the majority who voted to realign -- did seek and obtain an extension of time within which to request the United States Supreme Court to review the South Carolina decision. That extension will expire -- and cannot be further extended -- on next Monday, February 15 (or actually, because Monday is a Federal holiday, the extension will expire on Tuesday, February 16).

If the dissident Waccamaw parishioners do file a petition for review with the United States Supreme Court by next Monday, then the burden will be on ECUSA to file a joinder in the petition within the following twenty days, or by March 8 at the latest. For if it does not do so, then it cannot benefit from whatever decision the Court may render in the case (assuming for the moment that the Court grants review). And the same is true of the Diocese of South Carolina.

So while nothing will probably happen in the next week in this current dust-up between Chancellor Beers and Chancellor Logan, you should watch very closely what gets filed in the United States Supreme Court between now and March 8 (of course, readers of this blog will be informed as to any such filings). For if you have assimilated all the legal niceties of the above discussion, then you should appreciate the following points:

1. There is currently a decision by South Carolina's highest court which holds that the Dennis Canon is not self-executing (i.e., no trust was created on any parish property in South Carolina when it was enacted -- if indeed it ever was -- in 1979).

2. The Episcopal Church (USA) did not see fit to request a review of that decision by the United States Supreme Court. Instead, its Presiding Bishop and her chancellor have left that function to the dissident parish members who lost their claim in that case to be the true vestry of All Saints Waccamaw.

3. Notwithstanding its failure to seek review of the adverse South Carolina decision, the Episcopal Church (USA) is apparently asking the Diocese for proof that it intends to enforce the Dennis Canon against certain parishes in the event that they try to leave.

4. The unspoken threat -- which has caused Bishop Lawrence to postpone his diocesan convention while he plans a response to ECUSA's provocations -- is that if Bishop Lawrence fails to sue any departing parish under the Dennis Canon, he could be charged with "abandonment" in the same manner as was Bishop Duncan.

If this is a correct representation of what is going on in South Carolina, then I have to say that it boggles the mind. Like any other citizen of South Carolina, Mark Lawrence is subject to its laws, and to the decisions of its courts -- as is the Diocese which he leads. He could not, in good conscience and as such a citizen, expend diocesan funds on pursuing a lawsuit that has already been adjudged futile by the State's highest court. And yet ECUSA is sending strong signals that he had better do so -- or else.

So what is really going on here? I shall be the first to admit that I have absolutely no inside knowledge. But from the other letters written by the front man Mr. Tisdale, I believe that I can add two and two to make four.

Take a closer look, for example, at the second letter written on January 25, already linked, and look at what it asks for on behalf of "the Episcopal Church" (emphasis again added):

a list of all persons who have been ordained to the diaconate or priesthood in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina since October 24, 2009; all persons who have been ordained by Bishop Lawrence during that period; and a copy of the declaration of conformity signed by each of the ordinands.

What is so special about the date of October 24, 2009? Well, it was the date of the last (special) convention held by the Diocese of South Carolina. And at that special convention, the diocese (note -- not Bishop Lawrence personally) adopted a resolution which contained the following text (bold added for emphasis):

. . .

Further Resolved, that the following statement shall constitute our understanding of the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church and shall be read at all ordinations in The Diocese of South Carolina, and a copy of which shall be attached to the Oath of Conformity signed by the ordinand at such service of ordination:

“In the Diocese of South Carolina, we understand the substance of the 'doctrine, discipline and worship' of The Episcopal Church to mean that which is expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Creeds, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the theology of the historic prayer books.”

Reading between the lines here, I would conclude that in the mind of David Booth Beers, at least, to say that the "doctrine, discipline and worship" of ECUSA equates to what is in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Creeds, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and the various predecessors to the current Book of Common Prayer can somehow be used as a basis for a charge of "abandonment."

The irony is that this is perfectly true -- only it applies to the Presiding Bishop and all who support and encourage her in her current canonical absurdities, and not to Bishop Lawrence and similar traditionalists in the Church. For to maintain that adherence to the Thirty-Nine Articles (as amended in the version contained in the BCP), the Creeds, the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral and to the theology expressed in the Book of Common Prayer is to "abandon" the Episcopal Church (USA), is in reality to say that ECUSA itself no longer adheres to those foundational documents. Thus if anyone is abandoning the Church with such an assertion, it is the Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor, and not Bishop Lawrence.

Nevertheless, under the current regime at ECUSA, we must assume that the letters from former chancellor Tisdale are the precursors to an attempt to depose Bishop Lawrence on (false) charges of "abandonment." There would otherwise be no reason for the Presiding Bishop or her chancellor to agree to pay Mr. Tisdale to write no less than eight separate letters to try to gather the "evidence."

And if the Presiding Bishop thinks she can accomplish in South Carolina what she did in Pittsburgh -- depose the sitting bishop, and install a puppet who can serve as a figurehead in any lawsuit -- then that is just what she will try to do.

However, this move -- if the Presiding Bishop is so megalomaniacal as to attempt it -- will at the very same time serve as a litmus test for the Rev. Canon Mark Harris and the other members of ECUSA's Executive Council who are Bishop Schori's sole means of budgetary support. For if they can stand by and watch as the Presiding Bishop orchestrates yet one more uncanonical vote in the House of Bishops to "depose" a godly Bishop who is doing everything possible to keep his Diocese in the Episcopal Church (USA) -- all so a puppet can be installed who will immediately assert rights which are contrary to a final and binding decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court -- then I bid them goodbye. I will never again recognize the authority of such an "Executive Council", or of any of its members -- and I will do everything in my power to hold them accountable for breaches of their fiduciary duties owed to all Episcopalians.

This is a watershed moment for both those at 815 Second Avenue and their supporters, as well as for all those who are trying to hold on to a presence in the Episcopal Church despite its current tyrannical ways. Fortunately, their very arguments based on a "trust" in favor of the national Church may be turned against them -- if each parish owes perpetual allegiance to the national Church, then the leadership of that Church owes fiduciary duties to each and every diocese and parish. Those fiduciary duties are very clear, and do not admit of any waffling or tergiversation. Depending on how this all plays out, there will either be a very clear case for breach of fiduciary duties, or not.

If a court finds there are no such duties capable of being breached, then it will also have to conclude that ECUSA has no "hierarchy" -- because fiduciary duties flow precisely from a relationship of hierarchy. And if it holds that the leadership of ECUSA does owe such a duty to its members, then the skies will be wide open to suits against them for breach of fiduciary duties.

As I said at the outset, things are about to become legally very interesting in South Carolina.