Witness for the defense, (TEC and TECSC), Clifton Daniel, Provisional Bishop of Pennsylvania , member of House of Bishops and Advisor to Katherine Jefferts-Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the National Church (TEC), testified that nowhere in the Constitutions and Canons of the national Episcopal Church (TEC) does it say a Diocese may not leave the association. He also stated that a province of the national church has no power to control the internal policy or affairs of a diocese.

[Ed. Note: A “province” within ECUSA is simply a geographical grouping of dioceses. (Note: it is not the same meaning as a “province” within the Anglican Communion, which refers to each national denomination in a given country or territory.) Thus ECUSA itself, while as a whole being considered as a “province” within the Anglican Communion, has divided itself internally into nine regions it calls “provinces.” Mark Lawrence’s Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, while it was within the Episcopal Church (USA), was a member of “Province IV”, consisting of the dioceses in the southeastern part of the United States. As far as Bishop Daniel’s testimony that a province “has no power to control the internal policy or affairs of a diocese” went, I hope that Bishop Lawrence’s attorneys questioned him why he sent Bishop Lawrence the letter described in this post.]

The Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel, III the Provisional Bishop of Pennsylvania, was the first of two witnesses called by the defense today (July 18), the ninth day of the trial of the Diocese of South Carolina v. TEC and TECSC.

Bishop Daniel had been Bishop Coadjutor of East Carolina, was vice-president of the fourth Province (a group of dioceses in the southeast), served on the Presiding Bishop’s Counsel of Advice and chaired that group. [Ed. Note: Most significantly, he served—and still serves—as the “Intake Officer” for the initial evaluation of all disciplinary charges filed against his fellow bishops. Had the dissident group in South Carolina tried to charge Bishop Lawrence for disciplinary violations, Bishop Daniel would have had to decide whether the charges could amount to anything before passing them on to the Reference Panel. However, they chose instead to present charges of “abandonment of Communion” (a ridiculous notion in the case of Bishop Lawrence, who tried valiantly to keep his Diocese in communion with the rest of the Anglican denominations, until ECUSA made its move to depose him for those efforts).

Those special charges went directly to the full Disciplinary Board, headed by the Rt. Rev. Dorsey Henderson, from the Diocese of Upper South Carolina (they go directly to the full Board because they are supposed to be charges reserved for when a bishop in ECUSA has abandoned his post to swim the Tiber, or swim the Bosphorus—not simply for dealing with the effect of state court decisions within the boundaries of a bishop’s own diocese). As it was, his Board rejected the first round of charges against Bishop Lawrence, but with a few judicious changes in membership, it became a kangaroo court that had no difficulty in charging Bishop Lawrence with “abandonment”—a move that automatically triggered the DSC’s previously adopted resolution to withdraw from ECUSA.]

He testified regarding the General Convention and the fact it is held every three years, who attends and how voting is handled. [Ed. Note: I hope he also testified that a body that is in session for less than one percent of the days in every three-year period, and which then never reassembles, but is always and forever a new body each time it gets together, cannot possibly provide the continuity needed to govern a national church —nor (by implication) was it ever intended to perform that role.]

During cross-examination by Diocesan attorney Alan Runyan, Daniel was asked about the duties of a Bishop. Daniel stated that for a Bishop to go into another’s jurisdiction he or she would have to obtain consent (from the Bishop of that Diocese). [Ed. Note: As his letter mentioned earlier implicitly recognizes—but the very fact of the inquiry means that Bishop Daniel was just paying lip service to the canons in this respect.]

Runyan asked if, in General Convention voting, Daniel could overrule his own delegation, simply because he was the bishop, and Daniel said he could not.

When Runyan asked if the witness would agree that no provincial synod has the power to regulate internal affairs of a Diocese, Daniels replied, “Yes.” He further testified that a diocese did not need to get permission from TEC to amend its own constitution and canons. [Ed. Note: Thereby underscoring the same admission made by Prof. McWilliams, as described in this post. So that makes two of ECUSA’s own witnesses who conceded the main point at issue.]

Before asking his final question, Runyan placed the Constitution and Canons of TEC for 2006 and 2009 on the edge of the witness stand and asked Daniel to identify them.

Runyan asked the witness to turn to the page in those documents where it says the diocese cannot withdraw from the Episcopal Church and read it to the court. “Is there a page or a phrase, or a sentence, in either of those that says, quote, a diocese may not leave the Episcopal Church without the consent of the general convention?” asked Runyon. “I don’t believe so,” answered Daniel. “But I may be wrong.” [Ed. Note: A bishop of The Episcopal Church (USA) testifying to something that might be “wrong”?? Have we now come so far as that? God save The Episcopal Church (USA)—but only as a church in which its bishops are “right” in being attentive to, and faithfully adhering to, the faith once delivered to it from the saints.]

“I’m sure it will be pointed out if you are.“ answered Runyan.
The second and final witness for the day, Patricia Neuman was a former member of Trinity, Edisto, who had been a part of that parish’s vestry, but when they voted to disassociate from the national church she left the church.

Court is adjourned until Monday, July 21 at 9:30 a.m.

*****

Here is the account of the day’s proceedings from the defendants’ side
July 18, 2014 (Day 9)

Judge Diane Goodstein asked attorneys to work over the weekend to organize and reach some agreements about thousands of pages of historic documents to be admitted as evidence – years’ worth of constitutions and canons, bylaws, and convention journals that show the ties between The Episcopal Church, the Diocese of South Carolina, and its parishes.

“One of the things that’s going to be extremely important to me is the organization in terms of authority,” she said, overruling an objection from the breakaway diocese who wanted some of the documents excluded as “irrelevant.”

“The 2,000 pages go to show the state of the relationship, and it is relevant,” Judge Goodstein said. She also asked The Episcopal Church to present witnesses who can explain the documents and relationships via testimony. “I’m a verbal learner,” she said. [Ed. Note: That was an unfortunate invitation to ECUSA to call its in-house expert, Prof. Robert Bruce Mullin of General Theological Seminary in New York, whom it has paid so far more than One Million Dollars to develop and testify to his unique “interpretation” of the historical documents of the Church. Fortunately, Dr. Mullin and DSC’s Alan Runyon have crossed paths before, at the trial in Quincy, where Dr. Mullin’s testimony failed to convince the trial judge that dioceses may not leave ECUSA.]

The next witness was able to help. The Right Reverend Clifton Daniel III testified on behalf of the defense. He is currently provisional bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pennsylvania. Previously he served as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of East Carolina, based in Kinston, N.C.

“The basic governing documents of The [Episcopal] Church are the Book of Common Prayer, the Constitution of The Episcopal Church, the Canons of The Episcopal Church, and certainly implicit in that is the Bible,” Bishop Daniel told the court. [Ed. Note: But whose Bible? Bishop Spong’s? Bishop Pike’s? Because the Bible is only “implicit” in the governance of ECUSA, it is the first document to be tossed under the bus when the culture comes storming into church with its progressive and humanist demands.]
Bishop Daniel explained the structure of The Episcopal Church’s governing body: General Convention. It meets every three years and is organized with two houses, much like the United States Congress. Dioceses all send their bishops to the House of Bishops. Each diocese also sends four clergy deputies and four lay (non-clergy) deputies to the House of Deputies.

Bishops also play a role in consenting to new bishops, he said. After any diocese elects a bishop, that person must receive consents from a majority of the bishops of the other dioceses, as well as consent from the majority of Standing Committees of the dioceses, before she or he can be consecrated.
Bishop Daniel testified that when Mark Lawrence was elected Bishop of South Carolina, he gave his consent. However, the election did not receive approval from most Standing Committees, including East Carolina. A second election was allowed and he was elected again. Only after issuing written assurances that he planned to stay with The Episcopal Church did Mark Lawrence finally receive the necessary consents.

“I believed, in the last result, that he would be a faithful and loyal bishop of The Episcopal Church and that he would be obedient to the canons of The Episcopal Church, and I gave my consent on that basis,” Bishop Daniel said. [Ed. Note: The tragedy of this entire mess is that the faith of Bishop Daniel and many other Episcopalians in the steadfastness of +Mark Lawrence was undercut by those in his own diocese who were determined to see him deposed, and who kept trying until the Presiding Bishop went along with their strategy for reasons known only to herself, and ensured that it would happen.]
While it wasn’t mentioned during testimony, Bishop Daniel served as the Chief Consecrator when Mark Lawrence was made a bishop in Charleston in January 2008.

On cross examination, Bishop Daniel confirmed that there is no wording in the Constitution or Canons that expressly forbids a diocese from leaving the church. However, he went on to say that if a diocese wants to make a change in its governing documents, they need to subscribe to and accede to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. “That’s common sense,” he said. [Ed. Note: Something is obviously missing here, because as reported, his second point is a non-sequitur: the “if” and “then” clauses are not logically connected. A diocese accedes to the national Constitution and Canons only at the beginning of its membership in ECUSA; its accession so recorded remains only for so long as its consent to be bound by the C&C continues.

Once having acceded to them, as Bishop Daniel admitted, there is no impediment to a diocese thereafter changing its governing documents—including its accession clause. And if it deletes that accession clause entirely, it may no longer remain as a constituent member of ECUSA. But again—as both Bishop Daniel and Prof. McWilliams admitted, there is absolutely no restriction, anywhere in the national Constitution or Canons, that restricts or prohibits a diocese from so amending its governing documents. (In other words, the situation nationally is the same as it was in the Diocese when the parish of All Saints Waccamaw amended its governing documents so as to remove itself from the Diocese. Its action in doing so was upheld by the South Carolina Supreme Court, and Judge Goodstein is bound by that case in deciding this one, to the extent the circumstances are the same.]

Are there any circumstances under which a diocese can leave? “If the General Convention agreed to it,” he said. Under any other circumstances, no. [Ed. Note: Do you begin to see how frustrating it is to pin an Episcopal bishop down? In one breath, he testifies that there is no language preventing withdrawal, and in the next he testifies that notwithstanding the lack of any language, a diocese may still not do so without the consent of General Convention. The ultimate result of this ridiculously ad hoc form of reasoning is the one reached thus far by two trial court judges in California: that since the General Convention authored the Dennis Canon, only it may release the Church’s trust interest when a parish in California sells any of its goods or property to a non-Episcopal buyer. So how many times has General Convention been asked to do so, and when will all the church rummage sales held every weekend somewhere in the country begin making application to it?]

After he left the stand, the Bishop explained that the lack of language forbidding a diocese from leaving really isn’t the issue. Under The Episcopal Church’s unitary form of government, General Convention is the final authority. There are many actions that aren’t expressly forbidden, but yet would not be permitted by General Convention because they would conflict with the governing documents of the Church. [Ed. Note: But there are also actions that are expressly forbidden, such as allowing the eucharist to be administered to people who have not been baptized, or performing the rite of marriage between two persons who are not a man and a woman, to which the General Convention pays no attention whatsoever. So which is it, Bishop Daniel? How does one discern what is and is not “forbidden” without the consent of General Convention? It is precisely this kind of lawless and wholly ad hoc interpretation of the Constitution and Canons that is at the very root of the difficulties people both inside and outside of ECUSA are now experiencing—your Curmudgeon included.]

Because attorneys needed to meet in the afternoon, only one other witness testified Friday. Pat Neumann, who grew up in St. George and now lives on Edisto Island, told the court about being a member of Trinity Church on Edisto, and having to leave it in late 2012 when it left The Episcopal Church.

Mrs. Newman described how she and others began holding services at a local barbecue restaurant in order to remain Episcopalians. They went on to help found The Episcopal Church on Edisto, a new mission church that worships in the historic 1818 sanctuary of New First Missionary Baptist Church.
Court adjourned about 12:45 p.m. It is expected to reconvene on Monday morning.

END