March 1, 2017

January 28, 2013

With Malice Toward None, and Charity for All?

The remnant group of Episcopalians desiring to reorganize under South Carolina law, and remain (as reorganized) a diocese of the Episcopal Church (USA), met January 26 at Grace Church in Charleston, South Carolina, for that purpose. There is no problem with their having adopted a constitution and canons which revert to the text of those documents before Bishop Lawrence’s diocese amended them in 2010 and again in 2011. Whatever version they adopt as their constitution and canons will govern them from this point forward.

However, they are under a temporary restraining order which prohibits them from using any of the following three names:

1. The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina;

2. The Diocese of South Carolina; or

3. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina

And so, at their convention today in Charleston, what name did they officially adopt?

“The Episcopal Church in South Carolina”

Your Curmudgeon is not a South Carolina lawyer, but then South Carolina is not an atypical state when it comes to the law.

The test of whether a name invites or engenders confusion with a protected name is based on the prospective audience to which the names are advertised. So we have to ask: given the intended audience, how likely are the following names to be confused among members of that audience?

A) The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina [trademarked by Bishop Lawrence’s diocese]


B) The Episcopal Church in South Carolina [adopted by the remnant group of Episcopalians]

along with

C) The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina [registered again by Bishop Lawrence’s diocese]

The audience intended by both groups is present and previous members of the Episcopal Church (USA). Thus the use of the adjective “Episcopal” has a high potential for confusion in distinguishing between the two groups, because both describe themselves as “episcopal” (i.e.,  being led by a bishop).

In the case of the owner of the registered trade names, the bishop who leads them is the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence.

But in the case of the remnant group that reorganized today, the bishop they selected to lead them is the Rt. Rev. Charles vanRosenberg.

So none of the three terms can be distinguished by the name of the bishop that uses it.  Instead, it must be distinguished by other means—but what could those be? Is the absence of the single word “Diocese” in the title used by Bishop vonRosenberg’s group enough? And if they are not a “Diocese,” what are they?

Indeed: how can they even be a member of ECUSA if ECUSA does not call them a diocese? Only dioceses are members of the Episcopal Church (USA); it uses no other name for them. So the remnant group appears to have painted itself into a corner.

And there we have an ongoing problem: has the remnant group, by adopting the name “The Episcopal Church in South Carolina”, really avoided any confusion among South Carolinians who want to belong to “The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina”?

Given the common understanding of the adjective “Protestant”, one would think not. That word, used so frequently as an adjective, describes (in the common context) a church which is not aligned with (and indeed, is opposed to the hegemony of) the Roman Catholic Church.

And that description applies both to Bishop Lawrence’s diocese, as well as to the remnant group’s new organization: neither, I am positive, wants to be identified with the Catholic Church. They are both “Protestant”; it is just that the remnant group conceives itself as better described without that adjective (perhaps because the parent Church also voted in 1976 to drop the word from its name).

But then a true confusion results: since the remnant group sees themselves as “the Episcopal Church in South Carolina”, and are indifferent to using the adjective “Protestant”, they could not distinguish themselves from a group which called itself “the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, also known as the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina.” The former group sees the word “Protestant” as outdated, and superfluous to their identity, while the latter group sees the word as referring to the tradition they still uphold, and hence as still descriptive of their identity. Neither group rejects the adjective as part of their heritage.

The confusion appears to be intended, and not accidental. The “omission” of the single word “Diocese” from their official title turns out to have been a sham. An examination of the remnant group’s Website demonstrates that it has not really tried to comply with the TRO, even after the changes made to it on the surface.  An examination of the remnant group’s Website demonstrates that it has not really tried to comply with the TRO, even after the changes made to it on the surface. If one visits their website and chooses the browser option “View Page Source”, the following lines of code are right at the very top (I have bolded the parts that continue to violate the TRO, and have had to change all angle brackets to parentheses, to allow the code to print):

(title)episcopalofsc - Home(/title)
(meta name=‘description’ content=‘The official website of the continuing Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina’ /)
(meta name=‘keywords’ content=‘The Episcopal Church, Episcopalian, South Carolina, Church, Episcopal, Diocese, Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina’ /)
(meta property=‘og:site_name’ content=‘episcopalofsc’ /)
(meta property=‘og:title’ content=‘episcopalofsc’ /)
(meta property=‘og:description’ content=‘The official website of the continuing Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina’ /)

These code lines are designed to keep the Website at the top of the various search pages for the major search engines when one uses them to find links to “the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.” Thus, even if you were trying to find the Webpage for Bishop Lawrence’s diocese, you would be directed to the page for the group that was supposedly prohibited from making any further use of that name. And that is not how TROs are supposed to work.

The remnant group, I submit, has therefore not complied in its choice of a name with the spirit of the court’s temporary restraining order. We will have to wait until February 1 to learn if the court agrees, but if it does, then the remnant group will have to go back to the drawing board, and start all over again by adopting a new (and completely unrelated) name.

Indeed, the contempt with which the Presiding Bishop treated Bishop Lawrence and his Diocese in her eucharistic address to the convention (the subject of many astonished observations thus far—except not, of course, on any sites sympathetic to ECUSA) appears to be reflective of an animosity that permeates the remnant group, or at least those who are in charge of it. And that animosity may cause them, to their regret, to overstep their bounds, if it has not done so already. Watch for more news after this Friday’s hearing.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



Oh, my. I hadn’t made the connection between the new name and #3. Surely, the TEC-SC chancellor would have noticed it. It now seems so obvious. Yes, Friday should be interesting. What color bow tie goes with an orange jumpsuit?

[1] Posted by Ralph on 1-28-2013 at 07:04 PM · [top]

Ralph, There are lots of Clemson grads here so no doubt finding a bow tie that goes with an orange jumpsuit should not be difficult. wink

Mr. Haley mentions two things but there are a couple more things I want to bring to everyones attention- the deanery map on the TEC-SC website is identical to the one on the diocese’s website. Just go to both sites and check it out. Could not be clearer that the map of the deaneries was stolen off the diocese’s website. 

Also the list of parishes on TEC-SC includes parishes that have decided to stay with the diocese. If they want to claim those parishes (8)  and missions (8) who have decided to remain with TEC but the rest of the parishes should not be listed.

I think a better title would be “Malice for all and charity for none”.

[2] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-28-2013 at 07:15 PM · [top]

Now I’m confused. Sorry for this double post, but…

The restraining order says (formatting is mine):

The registered names and mark that are subject to this order are:

the seal of the Diocese of South Carolina as described in its registration with the South Carolina Secretary of State;

the name “The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina”, as registered with the South Carolina Secretary of State;

the name “The Diocese of South Carolina”, as registered with the South Carolina Secretary of State;

and the name “The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina”, as registered with the South Carolina Secretary of State.

Still, I do think that “The Episcopal Church in South Carolina” is very close to “The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina.”

[3] Posted by Ralph on 1-28-2013 at 07:16 PM · [top]

Ralph, thank you for noticing that. I agree that it is a distinction without a difference (especially since they have retained the word “Diocese” in their site’s metatags), and also because the Episcopal Church (USA) is made up of nothing but dioceses. So we all know this is just pretending to comply with the TRO, without complying at all.

I have edited the text to correct the reference, and to emphasize the points just made.

[4] Posted by A. S. Haley on 1-28-2013 at 07:34 PM · [top]

If the remnant website is still claiming parishes and deaneries which do not belong to its new organization, it seems to me that could show the court that they are in fact attempting to impersonate the Diocese.  Since this is several days after the TRO went into force, I hope the Diocese’s attorneys have a screen shot of this.

[5] Posted by Katherine on 1-28-2013 at 09:40 PM · [top]

They are so arrogant they see no reason to take it down as it has been up on their website for months. I doubt they will do anything about it. Good for us!

[6] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-28-2013 at 10:03 PM · [top]

Can the court levy a fine of say, $100K a day until they take that stuff down as a matter of contempt of court?

[7] Posted by Bill2 on 1-28-2013 at 10:16 PM · [top]

Bill2, the court on Friday will decide only whether or not the TRO is to be continued, pending a full trial of the case, in the form of a preliminary (SC calls it a “temporary”) injunction.

Any proceedings to find the remnant group in civil contempt of the TRO would have to be started by a separate motion filed by Bishop Lawrence’s diocese, together with evidence submitted in the form of declarations. Then the court will give the remnant group an opportunity to respond to the evidence, and will schedule a hearing to decide whether or not contempt (1) was shown as of a given date, and (2) is continuing, or has continued to a given date.

Only after making those findings would the court ordinarily consider an appropriate penalty, and in order to set an amount that would teach the group (and ECUSA, its sponsor) a real lesson, it might require first that there be an inquiry into the net worth of ECUSA and its remnant group. But don’t get your hopes up just yet—let’s see what happens on Friday.

[8] Posted by A. S. Haley on 1-28-2013 at 10:35 PM · [top]

I note from reports that during the TEC meeting, one of their actions was to elect trustees for Sewanee.  Are Sewanee’s trustees all Piskies by their bylaws?  Did +Lawrence resign his seat on the board, or has KJS just removed him on whim?

[9] Posted by tjmcmahon on 1-29-2013 at 07:38 AM · [top]

I’ll bet that the University of the South makes no provision for trustees or a bishop from the new entity called The Episcopal Church in South Carolina, whereas it does make provision for the Diocese of South Carolina. I suspect that the court would find it interesting if the TEC-SC folks try to get seated at Sewanee in place of DioSC.

[10] Posted by Ralph on 1-29-2013 at 08:16 AM · [top]

Ralph -

My understanding is that the University of South is very much in the institutional TEC corner—as evidenced by their recent announcement that they will permit same-sex marriages in the university’s chapel. I think they will do whatever TEC wants them to do.

[11] Posted by Branford on 1-29-2013 at 10:08 AM · [top]

Hmmmmm. More info emerges.


South Carolina is for some reason blank. I wonder whether Bp. Lawrence and the other trustees actually resigned. Surely the board of trustees won’t seat new representatives from an entity pretending to be DioSC. Surely not.

Perhaps someone would have the time to look for Sewanee’s policies (constitution? by-laws?) on board of trustee membership. I couldn’t find it.

[12] Posted by Ralph on 1-29-2013 at 10:09 AM · [top]

I just saw that, Ralph!

[13] Posted by Branford on 1-29-2013 at 10:11 AM · [top]

Interesting about the list of Sewanee Trustees.

[14] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-29-2013 at 10:25 AM · [top]

Electing a Trustee for Sewanee does seem to indicate, once again, that the new diocese considers itself to be the old diocese.  I don’t know if the real Diocese has a continued interest in a revisionist-to-the-core place like Sewanee, but the proper course would be for the Diocese to renounce any interest and resign, and then for Sewanee to amend its arrangements to take in the newly-formed diocese instead.

[15] Posted by Katherine on 1-29-2013 at 12:28 PM · [top]

Here is a page that still lists the four trustees from Bishop Lawrence’s diocese, including Bishop Lawrence himself. Does anyone know the remaining three trustees, and whether or not they are remaining with +Lawrence? Their names and the expiration dates of their terms are:

The Rev. Dr. John MacReadie Barr III (Jan. 2014)
William Clarkson (Feb. 2013)
Elizabeth Lewis (March 2015)

If so, perhaps one could inquire about whether they have resigned, been removed, or just what has happened.

[16] Posted by A. S. Haley on 1-29-2013 at 12:37 PM · [top]

According to the Diocese of South Carolina website, the Rev Dr John Barr is the rector at Holy Comforter in Sumter and is remaining with the diocese. Holy Comforter is one of the churches that joined in the diocese’s complaint on copyright/trademark infringement.

[17] Posted by Branford on 1-29-2013 at 12:56 PM · [top]

Checking the two pages that list trustees on the Sewanee website, I think the one A.S. Haley references above is older since the page still shows trustees listed whose terms expired in 2012. From the web address (under “catalog”), this may just be copied from the school’s catalog.

The newer list seems to be the one at since that list has removed those whose terms expired in 2012 as well as the names from South Carolina.

[18] Posted by Branford on 1-29-2013 at 01:05 PM · [top]

With the new name of “The Episcopal Church in South Carolina” where does that leave The dio of Upper South Carolina?

[19] Posted by Already left on 1-29-2013 at 02:50 PM · [top]

Well, we will certainly find out when the Diocese has our annual convention in March whether or not we elect trustees for Sewanee. Usually we do depending on who is rotating off as trustees and needs to be replaced. If we do then it will be interesting to see which elected delegates Sewanee will recognize. Hmmm.  I wonder who told the TEc group to elect Sewanee trustees. Sigh. The confusion continues.

Already left. #19 Good point. I and others have mentioned exactly the same thing. If I were the Chancellor of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, I would want to know if I could file something against TEc as well.

[20] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-29-2013 at 04:13 PM · [top]

The behavior of TEC’s Potemkin their name illustrates TEC’s MO since 2003:

1. When applicable authority operates to restrain TEC, then TEC and its lawyers adopt a hyper-microscopic interpretation of what, precisely, they cannot do. So here, they adopt a name slightly different from the exact names proscibed by the TRO. From a servicemark perspective, there may be likelihood of confusion between the name of TEC’s Potemkin diocese and the real Diocese of South Carolina, but from the TRO’s point of view, TEC’s lawyers will be able to tell the judge that they complied with it.

Similarly, when the Primates asked TEC to observe the moratoria on same sex marriages and consecrations of noncelibate homosexual bishops, TEC took the position that it could do same sex blessings, so long as those blessings were not marriages. TEC also took the positionb that they could ordain noncelibate homosexual priests, because priests are not bishops.

2. By contrast, when applicable authority operates to authorize TEC, then TEC and its lawyers adopt a hyper-expansive interpretation of what they can do and of what opponents cannot do. So here, Bishop Lawrence and the real Diocese simply wish not to have same sex blessings within their own Diocese. Nothing South Carolina has done prevents the rest of TEC from blessing the marriages of whomever they like, and consecrating whomever they want to be bishops. If memory serves, the General Convention’s resolution authorizing same sex blessings, etc. nominally creates an option for TEC’s dioceses to choose whether to perform such blessings.

But TEC’s real position is: South Carolina shallbless same sex unions, and ordain noncelibate homosexual clergy, or Bishop Lawrence has automatically resigned his orders, and all the elected officials of the Diocese have ejected themselves from their offices.

This is a remarkable double standard. TEC has gotten away with it prety consistently. I wish the Courts would snag TEC on this.

[21] Posted by Publius on 1-29-2013 at 05:59 PM · [top]

Publius, You make a couple of excellent points about TEC interpreting authority in a manner most beneficial to them.  It is an incredible double standard. While they have gotten away with this sort of favorable interpretation so far, I too would like to see it stopped. I suspect they will do something so egregious that the double standard will be exposed for all to see.

[22] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-29-2013 at 06:13 PM · [top]

Clarify for me.  I thought in the USA after the Revolution that individual Episcopal churches were formed and later several formed a diocese.  I guess anyone can start any organization they want as long as it does not infringe on an organization already in exixtance.  Have they conceded that the DSC still exists and is not owned by ECUSA so they have to start their own?  Do they have any parishes present to form a dioscese or can Archheirtic Scorie just give birth to one and hope to gather parishes later.  Very confusing.

[23] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 1-29-2013 at 06:32 PM · [top]

Prophet Micaiah (#23), after the Revolution, the individual churches in each former Colony organized themselves to varying degrees, and each such organization referred to itself as “the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of X”, or similar wording. That was what the churches of South Carolina did in 1785.

The word “diocese” did not come into use until after several State churches became so big that they wanted to divide into smaller organizations—in the 1830’s.  Up until that time, each separate State was regarded as a diocese of its own, and the founders never envisioned having more than one diocese in the same State.

So after the individual dioceses began to come into existence, that term was adopted to describe each constituent member of PECUSA.  Which is why its absence in the remnant group’s name makes it so paradoxical for ECUSA to treat it as a constituent member. Instead, the name it is using seems to signify that it is something less (or perhaps more—who knows how they think) than a diocese—it is just a part of the national Church operating in extenso within the State of South Carolina.

Fully applicable here is Sir Walter Scott’s lovely observation: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave / When first we practice to deceive.”

[24] Posted by A. S. Haley on 1-29-2013 at 06:56 PM · [top]

There is no conflict Already Left.  There are many states where one diocese retains the name of the state (it’s usually the original diocese) while other dioceses exist withing the same state.  For example, the Dioceses of Missouri and California do not encompass their entire respective states.

[25] Posted by Nikolaus on 1-29-2013 at 09:30 PM · [top]

Oddly, my home state of Indiana has no Diocese of Indiana but does have two TEC dioceses (Indianopolis and Northern Indiana).  Yes, The Diocese of South Carolina originally encompassed the entire state until the 1920s when the Diocese of Upper South Carolina was created in the upstate.

I agree with Mr. Haley, the name chosen by the TEC remnant is rather odd almost as if they don’t consider themselves a diocese but the Episcopal Church working in South Carolina. Yet that name could just as easily apply to the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina, could it not? Are they not a diocesan member of The Episcopal Church? How very odd.

Fully applicable here is Sir Walter Scott’s lovely observation: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave / When first we practice to deceive.”

Yep. Indeed. What a tangled mess of lies and deceptions.  I feel sorry for Bishop vonRosenberg to have to deal with mess.

[26] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-29-2013 at 11:14 PM · [top]

Prophet Micah.
Perhaps this will clarify the situation a bit. There are 8 parishes and 8 missions that have indicated that they prefer to remain a part of TEC instead of the Diocese of South Carolina. The other “parishes” are either people from a parish that has decided to stay in the Diocese but the people are considering themselves a “parish” or they are part of the 11 parishes which have not decided. Whichever it is, the can form a diocese with their own constitution and canons. No one has said that they can’t. They most certainly can and perhaps they have on Saturday. The usual route is that people from parishes in a region come together to form a diocese. They must approve their own constitution and canons, elect leadership including a bishop. I thought it rather odd that vonRosenberg was “installed” as bishop but not consecrated as their bishop. Also, they deliberately say that vonRosenberg is the XVth bishop of South Carolina.  I had forgotten that +Mark Lawrence was also consecrated as the XIV bishop of South Carolina on the same date but 5 years ago. So perhaps another point of confusion.

The tricky point is that they can not use a name that is registered to the Diocese of South Carolina. That is in part what has them in such a state. Before South Carolina, the main strategy was to usurp the identity of the Diocese that left TEc and as such shut them down so they can not get to bank accounts,etc.  Done to deliberately confuse the courts and proclaim that they ‘are’ the diocese and can keep all properties, monies,etc. When the TRO was put into effect, they became rather upset as that made them aware that courts had been notified by the Diocese of South Carolina of their maneuvers to do exactly that. The TEC loyal group deliberately chose a name “The Episcopal Church in South Carolina” which is very confusing to not only the Diocese of South Carolina but also as to the identity of the Episcopal Diocese of Upper South Carolina. Why choose that name other than to cause confusion among the dioceses in the state, Diocese of SC, Diocese of Upper SC and their new diocese? It would be so much simpler if they had chosen a name which clarifies their identity not confuses it.

[27] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-30-2013 at 11:53 AM · [top]

Bp. vonRosenberg was ordained and consecrated as a bishop in 1999. Thus, there’s no need to re-consecrate him. (Some rite of cleansing and purification, perhaps.)

He’s certainly not the XVth bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina. I would think that for anyone with official status to claim that he is would attract judicial attention, in light of the TRO.

If the meeting was convened and conducted in accordance with the C&C of TEC, then he is the founding bishop of the new entity, whatever its name is, that was formed last Saturday in Charleston.

New diocese - first bishop.

Does anyone know whether the new entity is a non-profit organization, or whether they bothered to incorporate at all? If they aren’t, would Sunday (and other) offerings be tax-deductible?

Bob Dylan (When the Ship Comes In):
...And the words that are used
For to get the ship confused
Will not be understood as they’re spoken…

[28] Posted by Ralph on 1-30-2013 at 12:14 PM · [top]

Ralph,  Yes, they should be considered a new diocese and with its first bishop. Not me. I don’t know if they have filed incorporation papers with the SC Secretary of State’s Office or not. However, that may be part of the hearing on Friday. If they have used the name “The Episcopal Church in South Carolina”, I can not see how that is not confusing with both dioceses. One wonders how these decisions get made??????

[29] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-30-2013 at 04:13 PM · [top]

As to the Sewanee trustee issue, you’ll notice that Sewanee’s list includes the provisional bishop and delegates from the TEC faux-diocese of Fort Worth.  They made the change from the Diocese headed by Bishop Iker to the TEC group rather early too, not long at all after the Diocesan Convention voted to leave.  So this is probably a precedent for what we are likely to see happen with South Carolina:  They have removed Bp. Lawrence & Co. and will most likely seat representatives from the faux-diocese as soon as some are chosen.

But what will really be interesting to see is what Sewanee will do if the courts rule that the dioceses headed by Bishop Iker and Bishop Lawrence are, in fact, the corporations that are among the 28 owning dioceses of Sewanee.

[30] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 1-30-2013 at 11:42 PM · [top]

Yes, interesting. In the Fort Worth situation, I recall that the new TEC diocese took on the exact same name as the former TEC diocese, and that the new TEC diocese has successfully persuaded some that it is the continuation of the former TEC diocese.

It appears that DioSC was ready for that - hence, the TRO. My guess is that the Sewanee by-laws specify the owning dioceses by name. And in the case of SC, the new TEC diocese has a different name.

If Sewanee seats Bp. vonRosenberg and those elected last Saturday, as if they were from DioSC, I think that would add weight to any DioSC allegation that TEC is attempting a forced takeover of the DioSC corporation. On the other hand, if Sewanee changes the name of the owning diocese, that would perhaps strengthen the DioSC position that TEC-SC is an entirely newly-formed entity that has just elected its first bishop. It might well have other repercussions.

The last time I checked, there were still some faithful Christians left at Sewanee, even at the seminary. Not many, of course. So the larger question would be whether Bps. Iker and Lawrence, and their dioceses, would want to continue as owning dioceses. I think that having Bps. Iker and Lawrence around would be spiritually good for them.

[31] Posted by Ralph on 1-31-2013 at 09:22 AM · [top]

I imagine the situation at Sewanee is governed by laws of Tennessee, and by whether its bylaws include wording like “Episcopal diocesan bishop in good standing”  or “recognized by the Episcopal Church” or perhaps something like “the Episcopal bishops in the dioceses of….”

I would also think the avoidance of the use of the word “diocese” was because to use it, and be in compliance with the court order, would have meant a new diocese, and therefore put them at a legal disadvantage, as a de facto recognition that the Diocese of South Carolina had indeed left as an entity.  They will no doubt begin putting forward arguments that the trustees of the corporation must be “Episcopalians in good standing” or something similar. 

So I would not be inflating any party balloons just yet.  I would suggest that prayer is in order, as DBB and every last attorney in his law firm and others at TEC’s beck and call, have been working for 2 weeks on overtime to try to find some way to overturn the TRO, and will be throwing everything they have at that hearing tomorrow.  And if they lose that round, they will go back, take counsel, and come back for round 3, then 4, then 5….  TEC’s legal team is relentless, ruthless, and very, very good at what they do, do not underestimate them.

[32] Posted by tjmcmahon on 1-31-2013 at 10:44 AM · [top] Handbook 2010.pdf

“The selection of trustees at The University of the South takes place in a variety of ways. As the
Constitution of the University does not specify how trustees are to be chosen, but sanctions three
methods, members are named by several different means. They are elected by diocesan council,
convention, or legislative assembly, following the choice of local dioceses. Service is for a period of three
years, although some trustees continue to serve term after term, while others rotate off after a specified
period. Retiring members even surrender their duties to new ones at various times throughout the year.”

[33] Posted by tjmcmahon on 1-31-2013 at 10:49 AM · [top]

Sorry, link broke up in that last try,

trustee handbook

[34] Posted by tjmcmahon on 1-31-2013 at 10:51 AM · [top]

SECTION 1. The Board of Trustees shall be composed of the Bishops, Bishops Coadjutor, and Bishops
Suffragan of the Dioceses of Alabama, Arkansas, Atlanta, Central Florida, Central Gulf Coast, Dallas,
East Carolina, East Tennessee, Florida, Fort Worth, Georgia, Kentucky, Lexington, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Northwest Texas, South Carolina, Southeast Florida, Southwest
Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Upper South Carolina, West Tennessee, West Texas, Western Louisiana,
Western North Carolina, and such Dioceses as may hereafter become affiliated with the University, who
shall be ex officio members of the Board, and one presbyter and two lay communicants of this Church
from each of these Dioceses to be elected by the Councils or Conventions or legislative assemblies of the
{04129_00/9405/00557273.DOC.} 2
same, who shall hold their offices for the term of three years or for terms of one, two, or three years until
staggered succession is provided, or until their successors’ terms commence. The term of office for an
elected diocesan trustee shall commence as prescribed by the electing diocese. In the absence of a stated
term, such trustee’s term shall commence at the beginning of the annual meeting of the Board of Trustees
next following the trustee’s election. Each member of the Board of Trustees shall be entitled to one vote.
Retired Bishops of the constituent Dioceses of the University, formerly members of the Board of
Trustees, shall be honorary members of the Board of Trustees with all the privileges of membership
except the right to vote.

Sewanee constitution and bylaws

[35] Posted by tjmcmahon on 1-31-2013 at 10:57 AM · [top]

There we go! Thanks, tjmc.

If TEC-SC claims not to be a diocese, then I would think that those elected as University of the South trustees on Saturday cannot legitimately be seated. If they say that they are a diocese (and I suspect that they are, given that they have elected their first bishop), then they could presumably petition to “become affiliated with the University.”

And, of course, there’s currently one, and only one, Diocese of South Carolina.

I agree that the PB’s legal wolves have shown themselves to be aggressive, and ravenous. Particularly, ravenous. After all, they need to make payments on their Bentleys.

However, they are New Yorkers, and this is South Carolina. Folks down here don’t like carpetbaggers.

[36] Posted by Ralph on 1-31-2013 at 11:25 AM · [top]

Given what TJ has found in Sewanee documents and Ralph has mentioned above, could not Sewanee seat both sets of trustees from both dioceses. Again, it would be admitting that they are a new entity. That could be very interesting to see what the courts make of that new development.  Oh my…. this just gets crazier by the day!

[37] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 1-31-2013 at 11:37 AM · [top]

A link to complete the file. The elected trustees of the new Episcopal Church in South Carolina “diocese”. They are not listed at the Sewanee site. A brief search shows them progressive.

[38] Posted by Dr. N. on 2-26-2013 at 02:14 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.