The Very Rev. Mark Lawrence was re-elected as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina August 4 at a special electing convention held at St. James Church on St. James Island, South Carolina. Lawrence was the only candidate in the election since no petitions to add other names to the slate were received by the July 11 deadline.
A majority of bishops exercising jurisdiction and diocesan Standing Committees must now consent to Lawrence’s ordination as bishop within 120 days of receiving notice of the election.
Lawrence, 56, rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Bakersfield, California, in the Diocese of San Joaquin, was first elected September 16, 2006 to be South Carolina’s 14th bishop.
On March 15, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori declared that election “null and void,” saying that a number of the consent responses did not adhere to canonical requirements since Lawrence’s election did not receive the consent of the majority of diocesan standing committees.
This story does not give how the opposition made a run for it near the end but still he was elected.
Okay, I’m not behaving myself.
Oh Lord, guide this process forward and remove all ungodly obstruction to Bishop-elect Lawrence confirmation. May TEC be so embarrassed by his rejection and Shannon improper forms that no politics enter the process but an earnest seeking of your will.
Back to my silly side:
Okay, about five years ago went in to vote and I received two pens that said “Deborah Woods” on them and a campaign pamphlet from no other than Mrs. Woods herself.
The joke: She was running unopposed for ‘Commissioner of Revenue.”
Last time the Episcopal Church openly promoted defeating Mark Lawrence by publishing the following ENS article. We do wonder if this time they will change their tune and not publish articles such as this one. TEC promoted Via Media’s efforts to lead the unprecedented lobbying campaign to reject Lawrence last time. Now that they’ve been found out as not following the TEC Canons themselves (as we learned in the Diocese of Virginia election) perhaps they will stay quiet this time.
bb
[blockquote]EPISCOPAL NEWS SERVICE
SOUTH CAROLINA: Episcopal Forum calls for caution in consent process
By: Mary Frances Schjonberg
Posted: Tuesday, November 07, 2006
A second group of Episcopalians has called on bishops and standing committees to consider seriously South Carolina Bishop-elect Mark Lawrence’s stance toward the diocese’s continued affiliation with the Episcopal Church, as they decide whether or not to consent to his ordination.
Episcopal Forum of South Carolina’s October 31 letter to diocesan bishops and members of diocesan standing committees stopped short of calling for rejection of Lawrence’s September 16 election, as did letters sent to the same groups earlier in October by Via Media USA, of which the South Carolina group is an affiliate.
The Very Rev. Mark J. Lawrence, 56, was elected September 16 on the first ballot out of a field of three nominees as the 14th bishop of South Carolina. He is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Parish in Bakersfield, California, in the Diocese of San Joaquin.
Both South Carolina and San Joaquin are part of a group of seven dioceses, out of the church’s 110 dioceses and one convocation of European congregations, that have requested a relationship with a primate of the Anglican Communion other than the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, citing 2003 and 2006 General Convention actions. The process is being called alternative primatial oversight (APO).
Under the canons of the Episcopal Church (III.16.4(a)) a majority of the bishops exercising jurisdiction and diocesan standing committees must consent to Lawrence’s ordination as bishop within 120 days of receiving notice of his election. (Episcopal elections that occur within 120 days before the start of General Convention require consents from the houses of Bishops and Deputies during Convention.)
In section III.16.4(b), those bishops and standing committees consenting to a bishop-elect’s ordination (by majority vote of the standing committee) “in the presence of Almighty God, testify that we know of no impediment on account of which [name of priest] ought not to be ordained to that Holy Order.”
Lawrence’s consecration is planned for February 24, 2007.
Calling itself “an assembly of Episcopalians in the Diocese of South Carolina who are working together to retain and strengthen ties with The Episcopal Church,” Episcopal Forum wrote, “It is important that you know, as you consider our concern, that the Diocese of South Carolina is not unified in its support of the Anglican Communion Network and its positions, nor is it unified in a desire to disassociate from The Episcopal Church.”
The group’s letter said that “only candidates who had declared themselves ready to sever their ties to The Episcopal Church were on the ballot” even though “several more moderate candidates were proposed by both nomination and petition.”
“Mark Lawrence was broadly supported as an individual, and as the best choice available. However, his election is being touted in the diocese as a mandate for separation from The Episcopal Church,” the letter said. “We want to emphasize the fact that that is not unanimous, nor do we accept it.”
Citing statements Lawrence has made, including his responses to questions in the search process, the group said Lawrence’s stance “would further isolate a substantial number of Episcopalians in the Diocese of South Carolina.”
“There is a climate of intolerance in this diocese toward Episcopalians who do not agree with the expressed position of the majority of clergy and lay leaders who are members of the Anglican Communion Network,” the letter said. “We fear that climate would be exacerbated by the administration of a bishop with the perspective of Mark Lawrence who declares that separation from The Episcopal Church is necessary.”
In response to one of three questions presented to the South Carolina candidates prior to a series of meetings with the diocese, Lawrence said he approved of the APO requests, calling them “a temporary gasp for air” that is needed while the Communion works out a new “Anglican ecclesiology.”
The fabric of the Episcopal Church has been frayed “by our misguided passion to be culturally sensitive and intellectually flexible,” Lawrence wrote.
“I am personally saddened for those gay and lesbian Christians within the church that so much of the debate has focused upon homosexual behavior and relationships,” he wrote. “It has too often given way to bigotry or to an easy self-righteousness among heterosexuals. Nevertheless, it is for now the place where the battle lines have been drawn.”
“This present crisis in the Anglican Communion is a sign that among other things we have entered into an ever-flattening world. We need to have an Anglican ecclesiology that takes seriously this new era,” Lawrence wrote.
“At this point the ‘conservatives’ are being progressive, and the ‘progressives’ strike me as digging in their heels for the past,” he wrote.
The South Carolina group said it its letter, “We question whether a person who repudiates our national Church and is working to replace The Episcopal Church with another organized church structure should be considered qualified to be a bishop in this or any other diocese.”
“Please give our concerns your prayerful attention as you consider your consent to this election.”
In letters sent October 19 to bishops with jurisdiction and all the Episcopal Church’s diocesan standing committees, Via Media USA argued that Lawrence’s episcopacy “would represent a threat to the unity of our church and to the cohesion” of the diocese.
“The case against consenting to Father Lawrence’s election is not based on his theology or personal beliefs, but on the way these are likely to affect the polity, and hence the unity and integrity, of this church,” said the letter, sent to the presidents and members of diocesan standing committees.
“Father Lawrence has endorsed separating the Diocese of South Carolina from the Episcopal Church and has advocated that the authority of the General Convention be surrendered to the primates of the Anglican Communion. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to see how Father Lawrence could be asked or expected to take the vow required of each bishop in The Episcopal Church to ‘guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church’ (BCP page 517).” [/blockquote]
I would think that there is not a problem for Bishop-elect Lawrence. The Diocese self reported that it had enough consents last time. One would think that the same diocese wouldn’t change course and this is all but formality at this point.
There is a large diffrence in the supposed problems with the consents comparing Virginia and South Carolina. Virginia’s wording was not exact to canon, while the approvals were overwelmingly postive- there was not a problem with signatures. South Carolina lacked sufficent proof of signatures and the approvals were a close margin to within one or two.
It sort of like the whole hanging chad fiasco in Flordia in 2000. If the margin weren’t so close, it wouldn’t have matter so much.
I’ve urged people on my own diocese standing commitee to vote in favor this go around. They may not listen.
Anyway, as I said before, the diocese of South Carolina self-reported the required number of consents- I would think they would be the same this time.
Blessings to the diocese and Bishop-elect Lawrence.
South Carolina now has their announcement of the re-election posted to their website.
southcarolina.anglican.org
plainsparson:
One can hope so — I may be a reappraiser, but I’ve said since he was elected the first time that he deserved to get his consents — but it was close enough that it would only take a couple of dioceses changing their minds to tip things the other way.
Schism seems all but inevitable at this point, and an acrimonious schism at that; but doing the right thing by South Carolina and letting them have the bishop they’ve elected twice now would at least be one fewer log to throw on that fire of bitterness.
Over at Standfirm on another thread, Bruce Garner (Exec Council) said the following:
[b]…So I maintain my position that we have more in common than in difference. But we must be willing to be at table with each other for the Holy Spirit to have any chance to work among us. I am willing to be at table with any on this list and will guarantee a place for you at that table regardless of our lack of agreement on some issues. Unfortunately, I rarely see that reciprocated. …[/b]
I wonder if this means he will actively campaign for the consents?
I understand that the consent process will be ongoing after the diocese of San Joaquin will have voted to leave the TEC in October. The liberals will be in “circle the wagons†mode, and I doubt they will vote for anybody from San Joaquin even if it was a transgendered islamopalian. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Kendall
Sorry, I hit the wrong button.
As I was trying to say, Kendall, it was a glorious day today. I was not in the Diocese of South Carolina last year or the episcopal election. I came down to Charleston today with my parish for the convention. I have to admit, I was a bit surprised to hear that Fr. Wood was going preach at the Eucharist – especially with him being a candidate in the previous election. I’ve never met him but I was worried he might make the moment a political one with a critique of the National Church. I was surprised. His words set the tone for the day and during the pause for ballot counting Bishop Salmon acknowdelged Fr. Wood and Bishop Allison led a standing ovation. That was the tone of the day. Joy. Joy in worship. Joy in the election. Joy in the announcement that Fr. Lawrence is going to lead this great Diocese. It would have done your heart good to have been present.
I’m praying for you Kendall as you remember and give thanks for your mother this weekend. We’re all giving thanks for you!
– Arthur
San Joaquin will meet in December for convention, if that’s what you were referring to, Robroy. But even if they were meeting in late October, I think we all hope the consent process would be completed by then!!
RGEaton
Perhaps if SC submits the consents via VA the process will work this time? Not all dioceses are equal in canonicity requirements, or should that be, not all canons are equal, or some canons are more equal than others? Perhaps, not all dioceses are created equal? It is rather confusing, isn’t it? But it would seem that the HOLY SPIRIT has another shot at the consent/canon issues. May He win this time. IT would seem to be a JUSTICE issue, after all.
If Lawrence does not receive the necessary consents, there are some people who won’t bother to stay around to see what happens after Sept. 30.
According to the canons of TEC, just exactly how many times must a bishop be elected before they’re allowed to serve? 😉
Hmmm. Let’s see. Under TEC’s canons, if V. Gene Robinson’s election as a bishop in 2003 had been subjected to the same consent process as Rev. Mark Lawrence this year, we can safely assume that the vast majority of standing committees would have testified to having found no “impediment” to his election. All of the evidence supports this assumption, including how the deputations at GC 2003 voted by a large margin to consent.
[blockquote]In section III.16.4(b), those bishops and standing committees consenting to a bishop-elect’s ordination (by majority vote of the standing committee) “in the presence of Almighty God, testify that we know of no impediment on account of which [name of priest] ought not to be ordained to that Holy Order.†[/blockquote]
But then we see these words from a group of individuals who presumably supported Robinson’s consecration. It’s an argument that was circulated among many standing committees by multiple sources in TEC, not just this one:
[blockquote]“The case against consenting to Father Lawrence’s election is not based on his theology or personal beliefs, but on the way these are likely to affect the polity, and hence the unity and integrity, of this church,†said the letter, sent to the presidents and members of diocesan standing committees. [/blockquote]
Oh? What about the Robinson choice? No impediment? He was a divorced father living in an open sexual relationship with another man. His selection was in opposition to clear Scriptural mandates for bishops, it was contrary to church teaching down through the centuries and to the ringing reaffirmation of that teaching at Lambeth 1998, and it flew in the face of pointed exhortations and warnings from the top spiritual leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Look at how the consents to THAT choice has affected the “polity, unity, and integrity” of the church!
On the other hand, the reason to withhold consent from Mark Lawrence is because of the way his theology and personal beliefs MIGHT “affect” the polity, unity. and integrity of the church — despite his assertions to the contrary. This constitutes an impediment to his selection as a bishop? Yeah, right.
All of this goes to show that TEC’s leaders are not serious about spiritual qualifications for ministry. Instead, it’s all about retaining power and protecting the establishment’s social agenda. Even if it means playing dirty politics and acting hypocritically to achieve those ends.
w.w.
This has been an ugly chapter in the modern history of the Episcopal Church. The bishops and standing committees could and should now bring this whole sordid affair to an end by speedily sending their consents for Bishop-elect Lawrence’s election. South Carolina has chosen well; they know it and so does everyone else. He will be a bishop of whom the whole church will be proud. Now, get busy and do the right thing, folks, so we can get on to other more pressing issues than denying South Carolina their choice of bishop.
Because I am a self-inflicted student of these events, and thus simply curious:
58 congregations were represented on August 4,
(with 201 lay delegates), and 82 clergy.
Vote by orders (clergy vote and congregation delegations vote separately)
CLERGY: 78 clergy voted AYE, with two abstentions.
LAY: 50 delegations voted AYE, and one divided; with two NO, and one ABSTAIN
(Missions cast seven yes votes, with one-half deputation divided. Among parishes, forty-three yes votes were received, with three congregations voting no and one abstention.)
To compare: In September 2006 at the first election:
Clergy 72 AYE on the first ballot (out of 106 possible clergy, 54 needed to elect)
Lay delegations 42.5 AYE on the first ballot (out of 57, 29 needed to elect)
In South Carolina, a parish has 4 delegates who cast 1 vote (meaning 3 must agree and a tie =0) and each mission has 2 delegates who cast 1/2 vote. So the numbers aren’t a count of delegates, but of congregations.
Kendall commented last year, “.. it has to do wth the fact that parishes vote as a block and get only one vote, and missions half a vote. The lay people do not vote as individuals but as a group within their parish or mission. Hence the lower totals reflect the numbers of parishes and missions not the number of laypeople present overall. ”
Just an observation without comment – 1 more congregation was represented at the second electing convention than the first. At the same time, there were 24 fewer canonically resident clergy in attendance the second time around. One of those was Kendall – we know where he is.
RGEaton
Will bishops show some nerve and vote yea or nay before the House of Bishops meeting? It is depressing that this may seem like a rhetorical question. A flurry of yeas will come in, followed by a dribble. Nays with principle (clarity is a good thing) will stand up. Otherwise we will see who are not real men and real women in that House.
Bull street. the consents come from standing committees of the dioceses. Standing committees move slowly. Father Rob points out my mistake that the diocese of San Joaquin will vote in December to withdraw from the TEC (it is a second vote and nobody expects any other outcome). The standing committees have 120 days. Father Rob or Kendall, do you know when the clock starts ticking? Either way, the deadline will be after the assumed withdrawal vote. Will the consents come in quickly? If they do not, it portends another defeat for Bp-elect Lawrence.
There really is no reason this should take long. The politicking has been done and the decisions made after the previous elections. Other things being equal, it should be a fast process. Of course, with September 30 looming, the fence-sitters may delay, and they are the swing vote.
The consents were received last time. This election should only serve to reaffirm the first one.
Consecrate him now.
We are going to have to confront this corrupt process anyway. Why not do it so that the House of Boneheads have to deal with it and make a stand?
robroy–I was only referring to bishops, who vote separately from the Standing Committees. I am asking whether they will stand up and lead promptly–one way or the other.
In many cases, Standing Committees will reflect their bishop’s vote.
Comment, first: The reasons for the delay last fall have been clearly identified; there seems no reason for those delays to be repeated. For instance, why would there need to be another psychological exam within 9 months of the last one?
In any case, it goes like this:
Election takes place.
The election must be certified to the satisfaction of both the diocese the Presiding Bishop’s office.
Certification (according to the canons) is then sent out to the bishops and standing committees who then (using the correct canonical form) return a consent form either to the PB’s office (from the bishops) or to the Standing Committee of the electing diocese (from the standing Committees).
The 120 days is supposed to start from the official notice of certification of the election.
Here is what is quite possible, and in fact should be the goal of every bishop and standing committee in TECusa: get those consents in. Bishops don’t have to wait for any body or any thing to get their consent letters back in. Standing Committees, which need to have a group’s worth of signatures, can certainly have on their regularly scheduled August or September meetings the votes necessary for the consent.
In other words, let’s get this out of the way.
RGEaton
BabyBlue: “Last time the Episcopal Church openly promoted defeating Mark Lawrence by publishing the following ENS article.”
Thank you SO much, BB — I was searching for the article and you’ve provided it! Now I can copy, paste, and send it to our Bishop and SC as a reminder of [i]why[/i] they did not consent the first time!
Prediction: Fr. Lawrence will not receive the required consents. 815 won’t have to do a thing.
Thank you PadreWayne, this type of action will do more to drive out any remaining orthodox in TEC. If Lawrence+ does not receive the required consents this time, it will prove that, regardless of what Brucer Garner and others say, that we are not welcome at the table, and that there truly is no room for us in TEC.
InTexas, I agree! If TEC wants to guarantee that the Diocese of South Carolina will leave their clutches, this is a great way to do it. And they won’t be the only diocese to go!
My, PadreWayne, what a great message of inclusiveness. What happened to “a diocese has the right to choose the Bishop it chooses”, as was the mantra in NH a few years ago?
Padre Wayne: Someday I hope you and your friends have a chance to meet Fr. Lawrence, now bishop-elect. You are going to find he is first and foremost a man of prayer; a man with great reason and intellect; a man who has a wonderful sense of humor, willing to listen to everyone who may wish to spend time with him (as his time allows.) And he knows very well that he has detractors in the Episcopal Church. In this election he is following a path that was set for him by what he and many others of us understand to be a Greater Power. He did not seek this office, but he does not shy from it and its responsibilities, because he knows very well that he will never walk through these troubled times alone. That should bring reassurance to you, not mistrust.
Padre Wayne, you and your friends have nothing to fear from Mark Lawrence.
“Padre”Wayne: “Prediction: Fr. Lawrence will not receive the required consents. ”
Ah. Well, taking THAT into consideration, it’s a done deal.