Patrick J Marker wrote to Abbot Gregory Polan here including this:

*** During our first telephone conversation, on Monday, April 25, 2011, you shared the following information:

1) You heard something about Bede’s 1981 misconduct at St. John’s “at the time of the incident”.

2) You were aware of an incident involving Bede Parry with a member of the abbey’s choir in the summer of 1987.

3) Bede Parry was sent to New Mexico soon after the 1987 incident.

4) When Bede Parry tried to enter another monastery, he took psychological tests that showed a “proclivity toward sexual misconduct with minors.”

5) You called Parry’s boss at an ambulance company and a woman bishop with the Episcopal Church with the information.

6) You identified the woman bishop as Katharine Jefferts Schori.

7) You told Katharine Jefferts Schori not only about the allegations [plural] against Bede, but also of Bede’s attempt to join another monastery, the psychological testing and his “proclivity”.

8 ) That Katharine Jefferts Schori, despite your revelations, “allowed him to continue to work.”

Read it all carefully.

The developing impasse between the diocese and the canonical instruments of General Convention is a tragedy in the making. It is very possible that the result will be the unnecessary loss of dozens of parishes and tens of thousands of Episcopalians. It is a moment to take stock and to recall the purpose of the canon law of the church. The canon law of the church has the peace of the church as its ultimate aim. The course of justice will be perverted if this new and arguably unconstitutional canon is used as an instrument by those of a majority opinion to gain the upper hand over those with whom they disagree. These proceedings threaten to reduce to the vanishing point the ground from which any future reconciliation might grow.

Read it all.

In an ecclesiastical outlook that has recently offered little comfort, the very serious charge of abandonment made against Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina is chilling indeed. The charge is striking, because under his leadership the Diocese of South Carolina has not ”˜abandoned’ the Episcopal Church (as did the dioceses of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, and Quincy). What it has done, openly and publicly, is to insulate itself as much as possible from what Lawrence has called the “false gospel” of “indiscriminate inclusivity” advocated by the national church, through a reform of its diocesan laws and constitution. It is precisely this achievement – to remain within the Episcopal Church but not of the Episcopal Church – that has enraged its enemies and spurred these charges.

It is no secret that the national church has been looking for grounds for a legal challenge against South Carolina; yet, we are assured, the information presented against Bishop Lawrence came not from the Presiding Bishop’s office, but from communicants within the diocese – disaffected progressives presumably, following the familiar progressive strategy of using bureaucratic process to advance agendas which otherwise fail to gain support. The Presiding Bishop, however, is not off the hook. One must ask whether her aggressive policy of litigation to quell opposition to her theological agenda has not created the climate and established the precedent for a resort to litigation by other militant progressives. Whether or not they are acting formally in concert, the effect is the same.
The charges will be the first major test of the newly reformed Title IV canons on Discipline. Though these have been criticized for removing due process protections, we have been given assurances that these fears are overblown. Perhaps so: but many eyes will be watching closely to see what justice the Bishop of South Carolina receives under them. A heavy responsibility lies with the Disciplinary Board and its president, Bishop Dorsey Henderson, retired of Upper South Carolina (and recent visitor to St. John’s on behalf of Bishop Benhase), as they investigate these charges, to ensure that these new canons do not become another instrument of coercion. Bishop Henderson and the Board will need your prayers.

To his credit, Bishop Benhase has expressed hope that the charges will be dismissed. Even if they are, the process will be costly in terms of money and morale: a further and needless embitterment of a church already divided and demoralized by unilateral theological change and aggressive litigation. To put it bluntly: the message being sent by these charges (as by the evident hostility of the Presiding Bishop) is that conservative dissent will not be tolerated within the Episcopal Church, and that significant theological differences will be resolved by coercion. One could hardly devise a stronger incentive for conservatives to leave. Militant progressives longing for ideological purity may rejoice at the prospect of getting rid of so much “dead wood” – but those who cherish the Episcopal Church will know that such losses leave it diminished, and not just in numbers or dollars.

This case raises a question for us: given the ascendancy of the agenda of “indiscriminate inclusivity” in the Episcopal Church – will there be a secure place in the Episcopal Church for the conscientious dissent of those who hold to historic Anglican doctrine and worship? That security cannot be taken for granted.

—-The Rev. Gavin Dunbar is rector of Saint John’s, Savannah, Georgia

(Via email–KSH).

Resolution offered by The Vestry of Christ Church, Greenville
Christ Church City Greenville
An Invitation to Conversation

WHEREAS: God’s very essence and nature is revealed to us in the community of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, “Being of glorious majesty and perfect love as one God in Trinity of persons;” and

WHEREAS: Jesus Christ himself entered into fully human community by calling faithful disciples and by promising he would be with us to the end of the ages, and

WHEREAS: we, as Episcopalians, affirm St. Paul’s teaching in our Baptismal liturgy that “[t]here is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all,” and

WHEREAS: any injury endured or experienced by a member of our community of the church as the Body of Christ affects the whole Body of Christ, and

WHEREAS: the Diocese of South Carolina formerly encompassed the territory and parishes that now comprise the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, such that the communicants of the two dioceses are significantly interrelated and bound by faith, fellowship and family, Therefore be it

RESOLVED: that we, the people of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, gathered together at the 89th Diocesan Convention in a spirit of unity and reconciliation, invite The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church and The Right Reverend Mark Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina to come together in person at a mutually convenient time and place in order to strengthen the bonds of our community; and be it further

RESOLVED: that The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori and the Right Reverend Mark Lawrence engage in healing conversation regarding the ongoing tensions between The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of South Carolina; and be it further

RESOLVED: that The Right Reverend Andrew Waldo, Bishop of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina hand deliver a copy of this resolution to The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori and The Right Reverend Mark Lawrence with our warm regards and collective prayers.

In this post, I want to lay out for all to see the conflicts (in addition to those I have already made manifest) which should disqualify still other members of the Board from proceeding any further in examining the claims made against Bishop Lawrence. Let us start with his colleagues — the bishops who sit on the Board besides its President, the Rt. Rev. Dorsey Henderson.

The Rt. Rev. Ian Douglas, Bishop of Connecticut, is presuming to judge whether, by leading his Diocese to remove its accession to the Canons of General Convention, Bishop Lawrence has thereby “abandoned” communion with ECUSA. Bishop Douglas should accuse himself of that charge, because he now leads a Diocese which has never acceded to the Canons of General Convention, but only to the Church’s Constitution….

Read it all.

In light of this sequence of events and the manifest importance of this matter for the church as a whole, we believe greater transparency is required than has thus far been displayed. In particular, we suggest the following questions are of sufficient importance to require prompt answers:

When was “the Bishop Lawrence information” first brought to the Title IV Review Committee and who initiated this process? When first submitted to that Committee was the information contained in the document entitled “Addendum” that was subsequently provided to Bishop Lawrence? Or was it initially submitted in another form or by other parties?
Why was the Lucka letter of May 25 to the Presiding Bishop, Bonnie Anderson and Executive Council, which prompted the Executive Council’s June action, not provided to the diocese at the time or ever made public? What is the relation between its “Addendum” and the (in part identical) “Addendum” now under review by the Disciplinary Board?
Why was the June “decision” by the Executive Council handled as it was? Why was the diocese not informed for over two months? How has the Executive Council continued “to monitor the actions” of the South Carolina convention?…

Read it all.

Links to South Carolina posts – latest first in each section: (Last Updated January 25th 2012 at 10:00 p.m. Eastern)
IMPORTANT NOTE – SEE LATEST NEWS and BISHOP’S LETTER and PRAYER
FURTHER IMPORTANT NOTE – SEE here and here and here

Videos from MERE ANGLICANISM 2012 are here [NEW]

Materials From the Diocese of SC:

South Carolina Standing Committee Responds to Letter of Province IV Bishops December 12, 2011 at 11:33 am

Bishop Lawrence Writes to the Diocese About Disciplinary Board Decision
November 29, 2011 at 3:28 pm
South Carolina Releases Correspondence Relating to Josephine Hicks, Church Attorney
October 13, 2011

S.C. Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese Meet on “Serious Charges” Made Against Bishop Lawrence
October 12, 2011

A look back to a 2006 Mark Lawrence Address ”“ “Who are these birds that can sing in the dark?”
October 8, 2011

****Urgent Message from the Diocese of South Carolina Bishop and Standing Committee****
Originally posted October 5, 2011 – reposted Oct. 10, 2011

South Carolina Bishop and Standing Committee Respond to Actions of Executive Council
October 3, 2011

Analysis and Commentary

Province IV Bishops Release Statement Concerning Meeting with Bishop Lawrence
December 15, 2011 at 11:15 am

A S.C. Layman who worked as a College President Writes Bishop Daniel and the Province IV Bishops
December 13, 2011 at 11:35 am

Shay Gaillard””Purple Shirts Proof-texting in Public
December 8, 2011 at 9:01 am

Province IV Bishops Seek a Meeting with South Carolina Bp. Lawrence
December 5, 2011 at 4:25 pm

Kendall Harmon Answers Media Questions on the Disciplinary Committee””S.C. Bishop Matter
December 5, 2011 at 7:00 am

Anglican Communion Institute””South Carolina: The Disciplinary Board Decides
December 1, 2011 at 11:16 am

Lent and Beyond offers Thanksgiving for the Report from South Carolina
December 1, 2011 at 7:49 am

A Living Church Editorial on the Mark Lawrence News from the Bishops Disciplinary Board
November 29, 2011 at 11:30 am

(Liv. Ch.) Disciplinary Board of Bishops is Unable to Certify Abandonment Against Mark Lawrence
November 28, 2011 at 5:05 pm

GetReligion Critiques the recent Charleston, S. C., Newspaper piece on the Episcopal Fracas
November 25, 2011

(Living Church) Mark Lawrence: ”˜The Bishop Brings the Crozier’
November 23, 2011 at 3:50 pm

An AP Article on Bishop Mark Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina
November 23, 2011 at 11:40 am

Local paper Article: “S.C. Episcopal Diocese releases property claim”
November 21, 2011 at 12:25 pm

(Church Times) Harriet Baber””The Episcopal Church is alienating its own members
November 20, 2011 at 7:15 am

What was announced at the South Carolina Clergy Conference this past Tuesday Evening
November 19, 2011 at 9:00 am

A Serious Prayer request for the South Carolina Clergy Conference This week
November 14, 2011 at 4:55 am

Bishop C. FitzSimons Allison””Shrinking Jesus and Betraying the Faith
November 11, 2011 at 8:19 am

Leander Harding on the Mark Lawrence Investigation””Choose Inclusive Justice
October 27, 2011 at 6:19 am

Gavin Dunbar on the Mark Lawrence Investigation””Southern Discomfort
October 27, 2011 at 6:00 am

Diocese of Upper South Carolina Convention Passes Resolution on the Mark Lawrence Investigation
October 25, 2011

A.S. Haley””Conflicts Galore on the Disciplinary Board for Bishops with regard to the S.C. Matter
October 22, 2011 at 2:00 pm

The Bishop of Tasmania Writes in Support of Bishop Mark Lawrence
October 21, 2011 at 6:00 am

(Anglican Communion Institute) South Carolina: The Church Needs Transparency
October 20, 2011 at 6:07 pm

(The State) The Bishop of Upper South Carolina on the Mark Lawrence Investigation
October 19, 2011 at 5:22 pm

(Mark McCall)””South Carolina: Upholding The Church’s Discipline By Upholding The Constitution
October 18, 2011 at 7:38 am

A.S. Haley on the Further Revelations in the South Carolina Episcopal Investigation
October 17, 2011 at 9:04 pm

(Living Church) Attorney J.B. Burtch Returns to Bishop Mark Lawrence Case
October 17, 2011

Anglican Unscripted Episode 14
October 17, 2011

A.S. Haley Responds to An Embarrassingly Inaccurate Piece by Andrew Gerns on the S.C. Matter
October 17, 2011

CEN””Evangelical bishop under assault in America
October 14, 2011 at 5:36 pm

(Living Church) Episcopal Church Attorney in South Carolina Matter Recuses Herself
October 14, 2011 at 3:35 pm

A.S. Haley on the Disciplinary Board, Their Chosen Lawyer, and the South Carolina Process
October 14, 2011 at 8:21 am

Charles Alley””The Injustice of it All!
October 14, 2011 at 1:31 pm

Living Church””Bishop: Attorney Never on Disciplinary Board
October 13, 2011

Robert Clawson Chimes in on the Disciplinary Proceedings involving Mark Lawrence
October 13, 2011

A.S. Haley on Bishop Henderson’s Statement regarding procedure in the Bishop Mark Lawrence Matter
October 12, 2011

Anglican Communion Institute on the Continuing S.C. Story””Title IV: Abandonment Without Offense?
October 12, 2011

(Living Church) Bishop Henderson Explains His Understanding of the Disciplinary Board’s Duty
October 12, 2011

Anglican Unscripted Episode 13
October 10, 2011

Dale Matson””Rowan Williams And The Deposition Of Bishop Lawrence
October 7, 2011

ACI says Presiding Bishop Had to be Involved in the S.C. Actions if the Canons Were Followed
October 7, 2011

A.S. Haley””Clearing up Misconceptions about the Diocese of South Carolina ‘Charges’
October 6, 2011

A.S. Haley on South Carolina””Episcopal Church Foments Strife and Civil War
October 6, 2011

Living Church””Board Hears Case against Bishop Lawrence
October 5, 2011

(ACI) A Response to the reported Title IV Disciplinary process begun against Bishop Mark Lawrence
October 5, 2011

A.S. Haley””What if the TEC Foundations Were not Designed for the Current Structure?
October 3, 2011

The Dangers of Church Centralization: Some Remarks on the Proposed Changes in the TEC Constitution
October 3, 2011

A.S. Haley””TEC Executive Council Fires on the Diocese of South Carolina
Sept. 30, 2011

Other Resources

South Carolina: Praying for the Diocesan Leadership
October 6, 2011

Prayer Resources for those praying for Bishop Mark Lawrence and South Carolina

Seeing Jesus with Bishop Mark Lawrence
October 16, 2011

Title IV Canons

Press and Other Reports

(ENS) Province IV bishops call meeting with colleague ”˜honest, forthright’
December 15, 2011 at 4:02 pm

(Christian Post) Episcopal Church Clears South Carolina Bishop of Violating Principles
December 2, 2011 at 6:15 am

Reuters Article on Disciplinary Board Decisions vis a vis Bishop Mark Lawrence
November 30, 2011 at 6:00 pm

Local Paper Article on Disciplinary Board Decisions vis a vis Bishop Mark Lawrence
30, 2011 at 3:02 pm

The ENS story on the Disciplinary Board dismissing abandonment complaint against Mark Lawrence
November 29, 2011 at 6:15 am

Nicholas Beasley (Upper South Carolina) Chimes In
October 19, 2011 at 4:45 pm

Another (longish) AP article on The Episcopal Church’s South Carolina Investigation
October 16, 2011

(Times and Democrat) Orangeburg, S.C., Area Episcopal clergy: Probe ”˜not a healthy situation’
October 14, 2011 at 7:45 am

Another AP Story on the South Carolina Clergy Meeting Tuesday
(AP) Diocese of SC clergy discuss allegations against bishop
October 12, 2011

Local Paper””Episcopal Church investigates Bishop Mark Lawrence
October 6, 2011

An ENS Story””S.C. bishop investigated on charges he has abandoned the Episcopal Church
October 5, 2011

An AP Story””S.C. Bishop said to have abandoned Episcopal church
October 5, 2011

Read it all.

I consider Bishop Lawrence a friend and respected fellow-laborer in the vineyards of the Lord. I know him to be a loyal and faithful minister who seeks to raise valid and serious questions as to the theology, polity and structure of the Episcopal Church. Our church has a long history of theological diversity and respect for those with whom we disagree, and we can all benefit from the challenge of addressing these questions openly and in a spirit of mutual charity. Unfortunately, we live in a culture that is too often hostile to disagreement and unwilling to engage in honest dialogue with those who have different views. Our churches are not immune from this, and all who follow a loving God have each to ask God to forgive us for any roles we may have played in that hostility over the years.

I do not intend to prejudge the matters being considered by the review board; however, it is hard for me to see how the actions complained of against Bishop Lawrence rise to the level of an intentional abandonment of the communion of this church, as is charged. I have difficulty understanding why matters that are arguably legislative and constitutional in nature should be dealt with in a disciplinary context. I await the report and yet hope the review board shares my difficulty.

Read it all.

One of the allegations now being made against Bishop Lawrence is that the decision by the Diocese of South Carolina to continue to adhere to the prior Title IV canons rather than adopt the controversial new revisions constitutes abandonment by being an open renunciation of the discipline of TEC. Last March Alan Runyan and I published an article that undertook a careful examination of the history of TEC’s Constitution as it relates to clergy discipline. We started at the beginning in 1789, but gave particular attention to those constitutional revisions in 1901 that the drafters of the new Title IV claim “profoundly changed” the constitutional allocation of authority in the church. That article provides conclusive proof that the Constitution as now in effect allocates authority for discipline of priests and deacons exclusively to the dioceses except for appeals.

This issue has been much debated in the history of TEC, and our article contains a detailed examination of that history. But throughout those years of debates, the result was always the same: disciplinary authority remained with the dioceses. Our article provides compelling proof that the revisions to Title IV are unconstitutional. It cannot be a renunciation of the discipline of the church to uphold that discipline as specified in the Constitution by resisting unconstitutional encroachment on the diocese’s exclusive authority….

Read it all (and make sure to go and read the full original article to which it links) [emphasis his].

Thus [we hear from today’s Living Church article that] Bishop Henderson previously worked with Mr. J. B. Burch when Bishop Henderson served on the former “Title IV Review Committee” (of which Bishop Waggoner was the chair). And in that capacity, Bishop Henderson tells us, “he did preliminary work on the Bishop Lawrence information . . .”.

What are we to make of this? It indicates that the so-called allegations of “abandonment” against Bishop Lawrence were on the docket of the former Title IV Review Committee until that body ceased to operate as of July 1, 2011. But if that is the case, they must have been presented with the allegations in June 2011 or earlier — possibly (as I indicated in an earlier post) as long ago as last September.

One wonders why it took so long for Bishop Lawrence to be informed of the allegations made against him, if that chronology is true….

Read it all.

J.B. held the equivalent position with the Review Committee under the previous version of Title IV. As “Lay Assessor” to the Review Committee, he did the same work that the “Church Attorney” now does for the Disciplinary Board. While in that position, he did preliminary work on the Bishop Lawrence information, so he is already more than familiar with that information and the task which is now ours.

Read it all.

Stuff and nonsense, Mr. Gerns. A complaint is made up of allegations. Allegations are charges — claims that what is stated is true. Bishop Lawrence has been charged by persons undisclosed with “abandonment of communion” under Canon IV.16. Had he not been so charged, the Disciplinary Board for Bishops would never have gotten involved. (And by the way, Mr. Gerns: just how does a Bishop go about abandoning his Church by “inaction”? Wouldn’t that happen only if the Church in question first abandoned that particular Bishop, and he did “not act” so as to follow them?)…

More stuff and nonsense. The charges have already been filed — that is how the Board gets to investigate them. (What? — you thought they acted only on rumors, and not charges? Well, actually, the Canon lets them act on anything that comes to their attention. But in this instance, as Bishop Henderson stated, they are acting on complaints brought by persons unknown — to us, but not to the Disciplinary Board — within Bishop Lawrence’s Diocese.)

And the charges will not get “filed” again. Instead, by a simple majority vote of its members, the Board will either certify that “abandonment” has occurred, or it will not. There will be no further investigation. There will be no “attempts at reconciliation.” And there will certainly be no hearing, because the Canon (IV.16) does not provide for one.

Read it all (being sure to follow the link to Mr. Germs piece to which it is responding).

After years of controversy over Episcopal Church policy of ordaining gays and sanctioning same-sex unions, the conservative bishop of one of the oldest dioceses in the United States finds himself the focus of a rare investigation to determine whether he has abandoned the church.

A church disciplinary board is investigating Mark Lawrence, the bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, based on information passed to the national church from parishioners in the diocese.

Read it all.

Sisters and Brothers, today I have accepted the withdrawal of Ms. Josephine Hicks from further participation in the matter before us regarding Bishop Mark Lawrence.

Ms. Hicks has withdrawn from all involvement in the Board’s investigation and/or consideration of the Bishop Lawrence matter because unanticipated circumstances have created the possibility of a conflict arising regarding fiduciary responsibilities for members of her law firm as matters develop. For reasons of professional responsibility, she is not at liberty to disclose any details concerning that possibility.

Read it all.

Regardless of theological allegiances, ideological positions and ecclesiological affiliations, a lack of justice is a lack of justice and unacceptable in the Church that professes to live in obedience to a just God. Anyone who is seeking justice needs to speak up on behalf of justice and the victims of injustice wherever it is found.

Today it is the Diocese of South Carolina and Bishop Lawrence. It is relatively easy to predict the population which will be targeted next. The only question is, when will it be you?

Read it all.

Your Curmudgeon takes pride in his attention to details — and he does not like being misled. He is always happy to correct his mistakes, once they are pointed out to him, because no one should have a vested interest in spreading untruth. Thus when somebody feeds him wrong information, he cannot refrain from asking why they would have done so.

Consider the latest snafu over the “mistaken” listing of Ms. Josephine Hicks, the Church Attorney to the Disciplinary Board of Bishops, on the Official Roster of that Board as published on ECUSA’s Website. She was still shown as a “Member” (i.e., a participant with a vote) as late as October 12, and yet on the previous September 30, she authored a letter to the President of South Carolina’s Standing Committee, which she signed as “Church Attorney to the Board”.

Now the Rt. Rev. Dorsey Henderson, former (resigned) Bishop of Upper South Carolina, is a canon lawyer. He has served on the predecessor to the Disciplinary Board (the former “Title IV Review Committee”). As such, he participated in the proceedings against Bishops Schofield and Duncan for so-called “abandonment of communion”, which resulted in their faux “deposition” by a tiny minority of the full membership of the House of Bishops who are actually entitled to vote under ECUSA’s Constitution, notwithstanding what the vindictive Presiding Bishop or her financially very interested Chancellor chooses to opine. So he is no stranger to the canonical process, especially in so-called cases of “abandonment.”

Read it carefully and read it all.

Nearly 100 clergy from the diocese met Tuesday to pray and discuss the situation surrounding Diocese of South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence. Father Jimmy S. Gallant, vicar of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Orangeburg, was at the meeting. He said all of the clergy in attendance were supportive of Lawrence.

“I take a stand because this is all based on the biblical passage that says all who live godly in Christ shall suffer persecution,” Gallant said. “This is persecution by the national church. Bishop Lawrence is godly, and he also has an eye for the poor and minorities….

The other accusation against Lawrence allegedly involves his abandonment of the church. The Dr. Rev. Frank Larisey of the Church of the Redeemer in Orangeburg said that is patently false.

“Neither the bishop nor the diocese has left or abandoned (the Episcopal Church),” Larisey said. “He has done anything but….”

Read it all.

Church Attorney Josephine H. Hicks performs legal work for the Episcopal Church’s Disciplinary Board for Bishops but is not a member of it, the Rt. Rev. Dorsey Henderson said in an interview with The Living Church.

The board is in the early stages of investigating allegations that the Rt. Rev. Mark J. Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina, has abandoned the Episcopal Church. Unnamed parties within the diocese made the allegations.

A roster on a webpage of Episcopal Church’s General Convention was incorrect in listing Hicks as a member through 2015, Bishop Henderson said. The Rt. Rev. Clayton Matthews, Bishop of the Office of Pastoral Development, also appeared on the roster. That too was mistaken, Henderson said, and the roster was changed Oct. 12.

Read it all.

Anglican Down Under has a post on this.

Read it all (make sure to see all three documents and their dates).

The conservative Diocese of South Carolina said Wednesday its bishop, Mark Lawrence, is being accused of abandoning the Episcopal Church in a process that doesn’t allow him to know his accusers.

Read it all.

From here:

Contrary to its rhetoric, the national Episcopal Church is not attacking Bishop Mark Lawrence because he abandoned “the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church” (“S.C. bishop accused of abandoning church,” Thursday). The bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina is being attacked because he refuses to abandon the faith of the Anglican Communion and embrace the heresy that the national Episcopal Church seems determined to embrace.
South Carolina is a small state; those of us in the Columbia-based Diocese of Upper South Carolina have family and friends in the Charleston-based Diocese of South Carolina, and vice versa. An attack on one is an attack on both.

Robert C. Clawson
Immediate Past President
Diocesan Executive Council
Episcopal Diocese of Upper
South Carolina

In an atmosphere of prayerful solemnity, the Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese of South Carolina gathered at Saint James Church, James Island, S.C. for more than two hours on Tuesday, October 12. In focus were the “serious charges” that have been made against Bishop Mark Lawrence and the diocese under the new Title IV canons.

Bishop Lawrence began by restating the diocesan vision of “Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age” and then traced the history of the current controversy in The Episcopal Church and the many obstacles they presented to pursuing our diocesan vision. He ended with the two recent diocesan conventions in which the diocese refused to be coerced into the Episcopal Church’s embrace of the new title IV canons which violate both due process and the Episcopal Church’s own constitution. Of further concern with the current allegations is that evidently this process doesn’t allow the accused to know who his accusers are.

Lawyer Alan Runyan then made a presentation based on his best understanding of what canonical process seemed to be being used by those in national leadership. It would appear they are proceeding under the abandonment canon with its fast track. Based on what has happened in other dioceses, a deposition of the bishop would be followed by attacks on diocese and the parishes. The picture painted was an ugly one of expensive litigation, confrontation and acrimony in which all involved significantly lost.

It was stressed that individual clergy, vestry, and parishes needed to be informed about the allegations, the purported process, and the implications at every conceivable level: financial, personal, legal and spiritual. All the clergy were encouraged to share their concerns with the bishop or the ordained members of the diocesan Standing Committee.

Two themes underlay the whole discussion. First, the Episcopal Church is in a constitutional crisis in which its own polity is being radically altered in violation of its history and founding documents, yet with no structural provision for a means of resolution when just such foundational disagreements occur. That such a deep dispute has arisen with one of the Episcopal Church’s founding dioceses only adds to the unfortunate environment into which all have been plunged. The Reverend Jeffrey Miller, past President of the Standing Committee stated during the gathering, “The question is not whether we can stay; it is whether they will let us stay and follow what we believe.”

Second, the deeper fracture is about a departure of the Episcopal Church’s leadership from Christian doctrine. Bishop C. FitzSimons Allison (XII Bishop of South Carolina) rose to express his concern with these theological innovations and to voice support for Lawrence. While these include a changed understanding of sexual ethics and Christian marriage, it goes much further to the matter of Scriptural interpretation and authority and the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ. These recent actions mark yet another hindrance to the Diocese of South Carolina’s duty to be faithful to the truth of exactly that gospel and its proclamation to the world.

Clergy of the Diocese of South Carolina gathered Tuesday behind closed doors to pray and discuss an investigation by the national Episcopal Church into allegations that their bishop has abandoned the faith, as the denomination continues to wrangle over the ordination of gays and the recognition of same-sex unions.

Read it all.

The abandonment canon was originally enacted to cover the clear case where a bishop converts to another faith without bothering to resign his see first (an act which also requires consent from the House of Bishops). Its expedited procedures assumed that (a) there could be no argument over what acts constituted the “abandonment” — hence the lack of provision for any hearing, or trial; and (b) the abandoning bishop would in all likelihood not contest the fact of his having left the Church. Neither of those circumstances applies in Bishop Lawrence’s case.

But now Bishop Henderson has made it official: despite all the fanfare about the supposedly “more humane” character of the new disciplinary canons, when it comes to “abandonment”, it is business as usual in the Episcopal Church (USA). If the Disciplinary Board certifies the flimsy acts spelled out in the document published on South Carolina’s website as constituting “abandonment”, it will have acted even worse (if that is possible) than did the old Title IV Review Committee in the case of Bishop Duncan. And for the second time in its history, the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops will have decided to remove one of its own members, a sitting and functioning bishop, from his diocese without any overt act on his part of renunciation or departure — indeed, in spite of all his protestations to the contrary.

And so now, the question arises: why did it take so long for the Disciplinary Board to get involved? Why was not the September 2010 letter from the Episcopal Forum, with its nearly identical charges, not referred to the old Title IV Review Committee at the time?

Read it all.

Bishop Dorsey Henderson, President of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, has responded to questions concerning the canonical process underway involving Bishop Mark Lawrence. We appreciate his clarification on a matter of great interest to the church.

Many in the church had assumed that the Lawrence matter was being processed by the normal intake procedures specified under the new Title IV. Included among these were bishops sympathetic to the national church who assumed that this was the beginning of an extended procedure involving the Reference Panel, subsequent Conference and Hearing Panels, and the normal process of notice and opportunity to be heard inherent in the trial process. We were dubious of that assumption ourselves, but that was one of the questions we raised in our earlier piece on this matter. We are grateful for an answer.

It is now clear that there will be no such process. The matter will be considered by the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, meeting as a whole, which will vote whether to certify Bishop Lawrence for abandonment. If it were to certify that Bishop Lawrence has abandoned the church, his ministry would be restricted immediately (what formerly was called inhibition) and the matter would be sent straight to the House of Bishops at its next meeting (following a period of at least sixty days). If the Disciplinary Board votes by the end of this year, that meeting would be the March meeting of the House of Bishops at which Bishop Lawrence would be deposed if the House so votes by a majority vote.

Read it all.

Update: Since I have a lot of email questions on where to find the “new” Title IV canons, one place is here.

A question has arisen about the process for administration of the so-called “abandonment” canon (Title IV.16) especially as it applies to bishops. Although it has come in a couple of forms, the question might be expressed in this way: “Who initiates action when information arises which indicates that abandonment of The Episcopal Church may have occurred?”

In accordance with the canon, such proceedings are begun at the initiative of the Disciplinary Board itself (although this has not happened within memory, if ever), or when information is received by the Disciplinary Board from any credible source with standing to raise the issue. Perhaps the following is helpful.

Title IV.16 is entitled “Of Abandonment of The Episcopal Church,” and sub-section (A) is the portion thereof which relates to bishops. It designates that conduct which constitutes abandonment and specifies the process for administration of the canon when such conduct happens, or is alleged to have happened.

Read it all.

Clergy of the Diocese of South Carolina are meeting [today] to discuss an Episcopal Church investigation of allegations against the local bishop.

Read it all.

Please pray for our meeting today–thanks; KSH.

Update: I see Saint Michael’s, Charleston, has called for a special parish meeting on all these matters this coming Sunday

October 5, 2011

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

On Thursday, September 29, 2011, the Bishop received communication from the President of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops that “serious charges” have been made under Title IV of the Canons of The Episcopal Church. These are allegations that he has abandoned The Episcopal Church. Since several of these allegations also include actions taken by the Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina, after sustained prayer and discernment, it has seemed appropriate to both the Bishop and the Standing Committee to make these allegations available to the members of the Diocese. These allegations may be found on the Diocesan website”¦here.

Subsequently, the President of our Standing Committee, the Very Reverend Paul C. Fuener, received a letter from the Church Attorney assisting the Disciplinary Board seeking “Records maintained by the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina.” This letter may be found on our diocesan website”¦here.
In order to understand the possible implications and to engage in corporate prayer for the diocese, I, as Bishop, have called a meeting of all our active and canonically resident clergy for this coming Tuesday, October 11, 2011 from 10 a.m. ””12:00 noon at the Ministry Center of St. James Episcopal Church, James Island.

Rest assured we will do all in our power to defend gospel truth and catholic order. We and the members of our Standing Committee ask your prayers for God’s guidance and wisdom.

Yours in Christ,

The Right Reverend Mark J. Lawrence
XIV Bishop of South Carolina

The Very Reverend Paul C. Fuener
President of the Standing Committee

Readers are asked to please note there are two documents to read in the links provided, the first of which is a 63 page pdf–KSH.

The new title became effective on July 1, 2011, and already has been invoked in two proceedings against bishops of the Church. Given our past concerns, it is appropriate to take initial stock of the new canons as applied. Our succinct summary: it is even worse than we expected. We address three issues below: (1) what procedures are followed in initiating proceedings against bishops; (2) what standards are applied when restricting the ministry of bishops before trial; (3) what standards are applied in evaluating allegations before deciding to proceed with an investigation….

Without knowing the answers to… [all our] questions, two inferences seem reasonable at this point. First, the canonical authorities designated by the new canons do not understand the procedures they are canonically required to follow. And second, there is something approaching an official and conclusive determination that the matters under consideration by the Disciplinary Board are not matters that “may constitute an Offense.” Otherwise, we would have proof of a massive canonical failure by the entire church leadership, including the officers designated by Title IV, the House of Bishops and the Executive Council, at the very outset of the new title.

Read it all.