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.

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.

Our denomination, like many others, has wrestled mightily with issues of moral theology and the interpretation of scripture in recent years. This sad episode is related to that struggle. I, and many others, regret it has come to this point. Our divisions do not honor Christ, who prayed we all be one, and we hope for reconciliation.

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].

With sadness we acknowledge the death of the Rt. Rev. A. Donald Davies, first Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Bishop Davies died in the early hours of Sunday, Oct. 16, at the age of 91. A Requiem will be held at 11 a.m. on Friday, Oct. 21, at the Church of the Good Shepherd in Granbury, Texas.

Bishop Davies was preceded in death by his wife of almost 70 years, the former Mabel Roberts, and a son, Allan David Davies. He is survived by four children: Dona Davies; Timothy Davies and his wife, Anita; Mark Davies; and Mary Townsend and her husband, Richard; as well as 10 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.

Read it all.

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.

In many an Episcopal diocese a constant undercover struggle for control goes on between High-Church and Low-Church factions. When a special convention of the diocese of Chicago met last September to elect a successor to the late Bishop George Craig Stewart, this struggle came into the open. Chicago traditionally has a High-Church bishop, though its richest parishes (St. Chrysostom’s, St. James’s, St. Paul’s in Chicago; Holy Spirit, Lake Forest; Christ, Winnetka) are Low-Church. High-Church candidate was a handsome monk, the Right Rev. Spence Burton, Suffragan Bishop of Haiti. Low-Church candidate was a handsome rector, Dr. Dudley Scott Stark of St. Chrysostom’s. In 17 ballots, neither could muster a majority. Nor could a middle-reader, Dr. Harold L. Bowen of St. Mark’s, Evanston.

After the convention adjourned, Dr. Bowen came out for a compromise candidate: the Rev. Wallace Edmonds Conkling, rector of St. Luke’s, Germantown, Pa., who was described as a “liberal Catholic”””the liberal to satisfy Low-churchmen, the Catholic to appease High-churchmen. Last week the convention met again, chose Father Conkling on the second ballot. For the first time in the history of the diocese, the bishop-elect did not accept at once, said he would first have to go to Chicago and survey the situation.

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.

In 30 years of serving the Episcopal Church in ordained ministry, I’ve encouraged people to be honest with me, to tell me what they think . . . and some folks have. I have at one point or another been told that I am too liberal, not liberal enough, too conservative. and not conservative enough. Maybe I am; I might be any one of those things at any one moment on any one issue, but surely I can’t be all of those things at once, all the time. I think the real truth of it is that as Episcopalians, and as Americans, we are encouraged to think for ourselves, which means that we will inevitably disagree from time to time. Sometimes when we disagree it is convenient to choose up sides and label who’s on my team and who’s on yours. Then we have not only a disagreement but also a competition, with winners and losers; we can make almost anything competitive….

I’ve heard Bishop [Henry] Parsley say several times that he is “radically moderate,” which I think is an apt description of him. I think my grandfather used to tell us to be “moderate in all things, including moderation.” Perhaps unlike my radical friend Henry, I can only be moderately moderate””trying to find the middle ground most of the time, hoping to bring together people who have the freedom to disagree so that we can talk to each other without attaching labels or calling names or tearing apart the Church we love so that together we can join together to serve God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

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.

Walkabout 2010: Seeing Jesus with Bishop Mark Lawrence from Your Cathedral on Vimeo.

Watch 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.

Bishop [Jefferts] Schori, in her fourth year of a nine-year term, said the Episcopal Church is eager to see the project move forward near 132nd Street and West Center Road.

“The Tri-Faith Initiative … is really one of the leading examples in the Episcopal church of what’s possible in terms of Abrahamic reconciliation and understanding,” the bishop said. “It’s a story that I tell frequently because people don’t know that something like this is possible, and here it is in Omaha, in the center of the United States. It’s a witness and an example to the rest of the nation and to the rest of world. There is nothing like this in New York City, Washington, D.C., or Chicago. There are small initiatives that are usually bilateral ”” Jews and Episcopalians … but this is the only intentional community that involves all three.”

Read it all.

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.