"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." - Matthew 12:34 KJV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message from Bishop David Anderson
|
 | |
Bishop Anderson
|
Dear Anglican friends and interested supporters,
Recent South Carolina events surrounding The Episcopal Church's (TEC) Presiding Bishop raise the question of whether her mental and emotional balance has been compromised. Her sermon in South Carolina to the TEC loyal Episcopalians who wish to form their own new TEC diocese used such poor judgment that it exceeds rational explanation.
Katherine Jefferts Schori, the current Presiding Bishop, with two and a half years left on this term as chief executive (but who's counting?), met with and presided over a special convention of the Episcopal Church in South Carolina on January 26, 2013. She and they were under a court's Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) forbidding them to claim that they were the Diocese of South Carolina, or the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, or the Protestant Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, or use any of the registered logos, seals or symbols of the existing diocese. They therefore had to hurriedly change their plans, rewrite much of their promotional material, resolutions, web postings etc., and this clearly irritated Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori. In her sermon, she begins with an odd story about a pilot (n.b. she herself is a pilot) who gets into trouble doing what he knows is absolutely legal, and about how bad and wrong the local law enforcement people were, and she includes in the bad list the FBI and Homeland Security.
|
|
|
|
She then gets to the point of the strange story: "I tell you that story because it's indicative of attitudes we've seen here and in many other places. Somebody decides he knows the law, and oversteps whatever authority he may have to dictate the fate of others who may in fact be obeying the law, and often a law for which this local tyrant is not the judge."
This is a serious accusation, and the question is, to whom is it directed? It would seem as if it is directed at Circuit Court Judge Diane S. Goodstein, the judge who ordered the restraining order, saying she doesn't know the law and is a tyrant and not a proper judge. On the other hand, is Jefferts Schori referring to Bishop Mark Lawrence, who asked for the TRO against her, saying that he doesn't know the law and is a tyrant and not the judge? Her poor judgment in insulting the seated judge, or alternatively the bishop, in the midst of a Temporary Restraining Order that was scheduled for a hearing today, Friday, February 1, to determine if the TRO becomes an injunction for the balance of the legal proceedings, is alarming.
There are still many orthodox Anglicans in The Episcopal Church who are hunkered down, trying to wait out her remaining tenure, hoping for an end to her reign of terror, hoping for a less litigious, less legalistic and threatening church environment; what must they think when they see this irrational behavior from the presiding bishop? Is there a problem with her mental stability that needs to be addressed? No one in his or her right mind insults the judge right before you go into his or her court. I have included a larger portion of her speech for your consideration:
 | | Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori preaches in Charleston, SC |
Last summer, not too far from here, someone got excited and called the police about a plane flying near a nuclear power plant. It was a glider - an unpowered plane with a human pilot - more substantial than a hang-glider, and definitely not a drone. It seems a local citizen thought this plane was flying too low and too near the power plant. Gliders don't have engines, and they depend on air currents and updrafts to stay aloft. The pilot had made one turn near the power plant, which would be a likely source of rising warm air.
Well, the pilot had gained enough altitude to turn for home when he heard somebody on the radio asking about an airplane near his position. He responded, saying basically, "that's me," and the person on the radio told him, in an embarrassed tone, that the local police wanted him to land. He landed at the Hartsville airport to discover a dozen police cars waiting for him. The local constabulary insisted that he had been flying in a no-fly zone. The pilot got out his charts and showed the officer that there was no such thing indicated on his chart. The officer arrested him, handcuffed him, and took him to jail. He was not permitted to phone the business from which he'd rented the glider that morning. They'd begun to worry, because he was well overdue. Eventually the plane's owner heard from the FBI and Homeland Security that the pilot was in jail, for "breach of peace." The Darlington County police kept this 70 year old man in jail for more than 24 hours, in a tiny cell with a dozen others, with no more than a dirty blanket. He was released on bond a day later, and the charges were eventually dismissed, but he has yet to get any apology. The FAA is pretty upset, and so is Congress. Local police don't have jurisdiction over airspace, and neither does the FBI or Homeland Security. These cops were flat out wrong.
I tell you that story because it's indicative of attitudes we've seen here and in many other places. Somebody decides he knows the law, and oversteps whatever authority he may have to dictate the fate of others who may in fact be obeying the law, and often a law for which this local tyrant is not the judge. It's not too far from that kind of attitude to citizens' militias deciding to patrol their towns or the Mexican border for unwelcome visitors. It's not terribly far from the state of mind evidenced in school shootings, or in those who want to arm school children, or the terrorism that takes oil workers hostage.
Jefferts Schori's judgment really seems to go off the rails in the above paragraph when she begins to compare her situation in South Carolina with Judge Goodstein and Bishop Lawrence to crazy people who massacre children in elementary schools. Does she really want to say that it's not terribly far from Judge Goodstein and Bishop Lawrence to deranged gunmen in schools and terrorists who take oil workers hostage? Is this a primate of the Anglican Communion that the new Archbishop of Canterbury appointee, Justin Welby, wants to embrace as a responsible part of the Anglican Communion?
Judge Goodstein's order meant that the TEC group attempting to organize as a new TEC diocese had to be very careful in what they said and did. TEC's normal approach is to set up a parallel diocese, use the same name, all the same logos, seals and signs, and even addresses and confuse everyone over which diocese is the real one and which one is faux. They usually even go to the banks and present new signature cards, confuse the bankers who then freeze the accounts, and thus financially decapitate the historic diocese rendering it unable to make payroll, pay attorneys, or conduct regular business. Finally, TEC launches a lawsuit arguing they are the true church, and asks for everything, but this time things are a little different.
Journalist Mary Ann Mueller, who is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline, has written an analysis of TEC's last minute attempts to comply with the judge's order, and their deception and lack of compliance. I have added her remarks here, although you can find her complete article at VirtueOnline. Ms. Mueller writes:
"One other problematic site also comes up where The Episcopal Church was trying to hide, all the while in plain sight, when an Internet search for "The Episcopal DIOCESE OF South Carolina" is launched. What is returned on the Google search is: "South Carolina - Episcopal Church." The www.episcopalchurch.org/diocese/south-carolina web address brings a person to The Episcopal Church's website for its dioceses and the South Carolina webpage specifically. The listed P.O. Box 20485, Charleston, SC 29413 mailing address and the (843) 259-2016 phone number are for the headquarters of "The Episcopal CHURCH IN South Carolina;" not Bishop Lawrence's diocesan office.
On Wednesday morning the "diocesan" information now lists the Rt. Rev. Charles vonRosenberg as the Provisional Bishop. However, the named cathedral is still St. Luke & St. Paul in Charleston. Clicking on the cathedral's website at: http://your-cathedral.org/ gets this response: "YOU HAVE COME TO THIS PAGE DUE TO AN UNAUTHORIZED LINK. The Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul is not affiliated with, nor a member of The Episcopal Church or with any entity claiming to be a diocese in union with The Episcopal Church in South Carolina. This Parish is voluntarily associated only with The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina who also does business as The Diocese of South Carolina and The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Neither The Diocese of South Carolina nor the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul consent to this unlawful use of its name." The TEC website also lists 77 congregations as belonging to its version of the "The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina." However when the TECinSC roll call of parishes and missions was taken, at Saturday's organizational meeting, only 28 congregations answered the call and were seated with voice and vote."
From Ms. Mueller's research as well as Jefferts Schori's own comments, you can see the scope of the problem as TEC attempts to ride roughshod over South Carolina. What is different this time is that the Diocese of South Carolina and Bishop Mark Lawrence studied the TEC war book and saw what came next. Rather than wait for the surprise attack lawsuit from TEC to catch them off guard, they went into court themselves and asked for relief from TEC's action and a Temporary Restraining Order, which was granted ex parte, with a hearing scheduled for today. In somewhat of a surprise move yesterday, Thursday, January 31, TEC's lawyers told the court they had no objection to the continuance of the TRO past the Friday deadline, and for the hearing Friday to be cancelled. The court accepted this and granted a Temporary Injunction, which effectively continues, for the time being, the requirements of the Restraining Order.
You might be wondering what is going on. Why didn't TEC want to go into court and argue against the Restraining Order requirements? I think there are several issues in play. First, they may not have wanted to face the judge that their client, the Presiding Bishop, may have compared to a mass murderer. Second, they may have wanted to buy enough time to change the venue. In this bizarre legal world of TEC, there may be diabolical brilliance at work. There may be a reason that the Presiding Bishop drew the comparison of the judge to a killer of school children, a reason that has to do with a possible TEC legal strategy. Do you remember the apocryphal story of the young man who killed both of his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan? It sounds preposterous doesn't it? What if TEC's desire to have a different judge caused a legal strategy to emerge where Jefferts Schori would so insult the seated judge that her lawyers could then file a motion to have Judge Goodstein removed since their client had poisoned her/their own well. What if the entire sermon and the insult to the court was to get a change of venue to a Charleston court and another judge?
Even I have trouble imagining this, suspicious bishop that I be, but we shall soon know. Another more likely outcome is TEC and the Presiding Bishop, together with the newly coined Episcopal Church in South Carolina, filing a lawsuit in Federal Court against Bishop Mark Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina together with many of the constituent churches. This would bypass to some degree the adverse State Supreme Court ruling that the Dennis Canon was null and void, and give TEC a second bite at the apple, so to speak.
Because the headquarters for The Episcopal Church are in New York State, and Jefferts Schori is also a resident of New York State, and the defendants are in South Carolina, it would meet the test of having an issue crossing state jurisdictions, and the requirement that more than $75,000 is involved. I have quietly advised for six months that TEC would try to go to the Federal Courts, and avoid the local South Carolina courts, and it is still the most likely outcome.
In any event, we will be watching to see if the lawyers for TEC don't try and move the venue to either the state court in Charleston or the Federal Court. Stay tuned.
May God grant us the strength and resources to see this battle for the Christian faith through to the end.
+David
|
Anglican Perspective: The Overflow of the Heart
|
January 28, 2013
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, recently addressed a gathering in the Diocese of South Carolina. During her sermon, Jefferts Schori said the following:
. . .I tell you that story because it's indicative of attitudes we've seen here and in many other places. Somebody decides he knows the law, and oversteps whatever authority he may have to dictate the fate of others who may in fact be obeying the law, and often a law for which this local tyrant is not the judge. It's not too far from that kind of attitude to citizens' militias deciding to patrol their towns or the Mexican border for unwelcome visitors. It's not terribly far from the state of mind evidenced in school shootings, or in those who want to arm school children, or the terrorism that takes oil workers hostage. ( Entire transcript here)
In this week's Anglican Perspective, Canon Ashey discusses the nature of these intemperate remarks, comparing the leadership of the Diocese of South Carolina's state of mind to that of a school-shooter or terrorist.
Watch this week's Anglican Perspective here.
Back to top
|
Message from Canon Phil Ashey
|
 | |
Canon Ashey
|
More questions for the new Archbishop of Canterbury
(The following article by the Rev. Canon Phil Ashey first appeared in the January 29, 2013 edition of the AAC's International Update. Sign up for this free email here.)
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
When +Justin Welby is enthroned as the new Archbishop of Canterbury on March 21 (Feast of Thomas Cranmer), he will immediately inherit a stunning challenge to his ability to lead the rest of the Anglican Communion. That challenge was summed up in an almost-buried seventh paragraph of the Church of England's House of Bishop's Report of December 20, 2012. In short, paragraph 7 reported that being in a civil partnership is no longer an impediment to becoming a bishop in the Church:
7. "The House considered an interim report from the group chaired by Sir Joseph Pilling on the Church of England's approach to human sexuality. Pending the conclusion of the group's work next year the House does not intend to issue a further pastoral statement on civil partnerships. It confirmed that the requirements in the 2005 statement concerning the eligibility for ordination of those in civil partnerships whose relationships are consistent with the teaching of the Church of England apply equally in relation to the episcopate." ( Entire report here)
Translation: Gay clergy in civil partnerships will be allowed to become bishops if, when questioned, they promise to be sexually abstinent.
Of course, even gay rights activists conceded that "In practice at least half of the House of Bishops ignore the guidelines and do not ask [clergy in civil partnerships] questions about celibacy," when placing them in congregations. . .
Back to top
|
|
Judge makes order permanent in SC Episcopal schism
| Source: Associated Press
 | | Judge Diane Goodstein issued an injunction in favor of the Diocese of South Carolina. |
January 31,2013
By Bruce Smith
Circuit Court Judge Diane Goodstein issued a permanent injunction Thursday ruling only churches that left The Episcopal Church last year may use the name the Diocese of South Carolina.
The use of the name and the diocesan seal has been in dispute since parishes in the eastern and lower part of the state left the national church in a dispute over the ordination of gays and other issues.
Following the split with the national church, the Diocese of South Carolina sued, seeking not only to protect its name but also a half-billion of church property it says belongs to the diocese, not the national church.
Goodstein issued a temporary restraining order last week that only the diocese could use the name. She had scheduled a Friday court hearing in Columbia to hear arguments as to whether the order should be made permanent.
But the attorney representing The Episcopal Church and the 19 parishes and six worship groups remaining with the church in the eastern part of the state, did not contest making the order permanent, so the hearing has been canceled. . .
Read the entire article here.
Back to top |
|
Limping Between Two Opinions: The Moral Evacuation of the Boy Scouts of America | |
Source: Al Mohler
January 31, 2013
And Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you go on limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him." 1 Kings 18:21
The announcement this week that the Boy Scouts of America may soon rescind its national policy prohibiting the participation of openly homosexual members and leaders fell like a thunderclap. The B.S.A. national board is expected to approve the change early next week, just six months after that same board had announced that no change would be made, citing the unanimous recommendation of a special study committee. Back then, the B.S.A. CEO said that the "vast majority" of Boy Scout parents supported the policy.
That was then, but this is now. Just six months later, the B.S.A. board is prepared to capitulate to massive pressure from gay rights activists and their allies, some inside the board itself. The proposed policy amounts to a local option, with each Boy Scout unit deciding its own policy. As for the Boy Scouts of America - the national group will "under no circumstances" dictate a national policy on the question of homosexuality. . .
Read the entire article here.
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
