Having read some of his writing, and followed some of the stories about him, I do not see any comparison between Mark Lawrence and Don Armstrong as being valid. Lawrence seems to be a good priest. Very conservative, yes. Network even. And there is a good possibility that eventually SC will leave TEC, and Lawrence will go with them. But that is not an absolute. I see no reason to give that diocese an extra push, do you?
But, leaving or not leaving is speculation. Looking at the facts as presented, I cannot see any solid reasons why Mark Lawrence won’t get the consents this time. I’ll be very surprised if he does not.
Fr. Jake seems to be making a very big leap from “[i]Looking at the facts[/i] as presented, I cannot see any solid reasons why Mark Lawrence won’t get the consents this time” (emphasis mine) to “I’ll be very surprised if he does not.”
Believing that others will be as rational and fair as he is a very, very big assumption.
“Well praise the Lord and pass the ammunition”! Father Jake actually seems to have reviewed the facts and made a rational analysis w/o favor of his political agenda. May others do likewise and bring some reason to the current indisposition.
RE: “Looking at the facts as presented, I cannot see any solid reasons why Mark Lawrence won’t get the consents this time.”
Well — there’s the same reason he was denied consent by Standing Committees as last time, which is that Mark Lawrence is a conservative.
And they don’t want another conservative bishop resisting ECUSA from the inside.
I don’t think it was ever about “he might leave with the diocese” — it was always about “oh shucks . . . another one who will resist our innovations . . . don’t need that, and with a little luck maybe we can force them to elect a ‘moderate’ “.
The only other reason I can think why he MIGHT get consents this time around is because it’s so publicly out there about why he was refused in the first place — transparently obvious, now that we know that none of the consents for the bishop of Virginia were canonically valid, and yet 815 did not invalidate that election.
I’m thrilled that South Carolina is going ahead and being faithful to the canons . . . either way it will give ECUSA Standing Committees another opportunity to 1) do something as transparent as deny a bishop [i]for the second time over his theology[/i] [as well as, let’s not forget, a little payback from Mark Lawrence’s activities at General Conventions as deputy] or 2) remain consistent with their own stated philosophy back in 2003 with the approval for Bishop Robinson.
Will be interesting to watch.
I don’t have time to review Fr. Martin’s (“Jake’s”) blog but it seems to me he is being seriously disingenuous at best. The facts he refers to were on the ground before and his blog was fairly derogatory towards the same facts before. I think someone else observed that it is not theology to the Leftists, it’s politics. I don’t think Fr. Martin is being rational or fair, I think he is just playing politics.
What possible difference will it make adding one more conservative voice to the miniscule orthodox minority now in TEC’s House of Bishops? Will ten votes rather than nine change the trajectory of a corrupt and morally bankrupt denomination? Giving consent to Lawrence is absolutely meaningless.
I think it all depends on whether there is an active campaign to deny consents again. There was a very well organized effort pushing hard to get the denials last time round. Do they have the stomach to do it again? We shall see.
I followed the link and read the part about how the Virginia irregular consent issue was “red herring.” Even so, I am glad to see a somewhat fair post about South Carolina and Mark Lawrence.
Father Jake and I agree on something…maybe there’s hope for the Episcopal Church after all 😉
In all seriousness, I do think he is right. If Lawrence is turned down again, the people opposing him in theological grounds have no fudge room to hide behind legal canonical manuevering. They will be quite clear in asserting that the Help Wanted sign in the stained glass window has fine print that reads, “conservatives need not apply.”
#4 Fr Jake and Paul Stanley recently ran a series of article exploring what opportunities there might be for all sides in TEC to explore what they had in common and what generosity they might display for the convictions of the other. It generated a massive response so I would not assume that this article is not a straightforward view.
Blessed are the peacemakers for they get clobbered by all sides; but someone’s got to do it.
What really concerns me about the “other” side is some of the commentary on Fr. Jake’s blog. Of particular interest to me is the problem some posters had with Fr. Lawrences statement “I will heartily make the vows conforming ‘…to the doctrine, discipline, and worship’ of the Episcopal Church, [b]as well as the trustworthiness of the Holy Scriptures.”[/b] (emphasis mine). Now then, somebody please tell me what sort of Christian organization is concerned that their leadership actually supports the truth of Scripture.
“Liars and thieves” are the terms Fr Jake uses to describe the leadership of departing congregations who also try to keep the property. A peacemaker he is not…
RalphM
Why do we pay attention to him, anyway?
#11. Granted the generosity is reserved for those in and intending to stay in TEC, but a movement nonetheless?
“Facts” Dees ees TEC. We dohn need no stihnking facts!
#13 — It is fascinating that the unacceptable is acceptable when that comes into play. I do ponder with all the inside/outside (ComCon/FedCon) discussions recently, if the Lord is working in a way we don’t always see.
Tough crowd. Even when I agree with you, I’m just playing politics, eh?
The difference, for me, was the following statement made by Fr. Lawrence, very late in the process, after a number of standing committees had already made their decision:
“I will make the vows of conformity as written in the Book of Common Prayer and the Constitution & Canons, (III.11.8). I will heartily make the vows conforming ‘…to the doctrine, discipline, and worship’ of the Episcopal Church, as well as the trustworthiness of the Holy Scriptures. So to put it as clearly as I can, my intention is to remain in The Episcopal Church.”
Note that Episcopal Life is also including this quote.
South Carolina has been very careful to honor TEC’s process. The people of SC obviously feel that God has called Fr. Lawrence to be their bishop. As Jean-Luc would say, “Make it so.”
Glad to see Father Jake is listening/reading. the crowd is no “tougher” then those of a like mind with him. We’ll take what he says at face value but wonder what he would say but for the transparency all the publicity generated concerning the consent/political process of TEC.
FrJake,
It can indeed be a “tough crowd” on this site. Thanks for your comments on Bishop Elect Lawrence. Just to issue one small clarification however. Fr. Lawrence stated at the walkabout (very early in the process!) that he would have no problem whatsoever making the vows of conformity as written in the Book of Common Prayer. This was not done in secret but in front of the press and several hundred delegates from the Diocese. He repeated not only this commitment, but also a commitment to remain in The Episcopal Church during his address at our Diocesan Convention shortly after his election. Even after Fr. Lawrence issued another clarification (the one you mention above) several standing committees met to reconsider their consent and still declined (though some did graciously reconsider and give consent). The problem is not what he said, or when he said it, but how people aggressively and antagonistically interpreted his statements. Much worse than this however, were the actions of certain groups that mobilized for the specific purpose of derailing his election. Over and over again these groups misquoted and misrepresented Fr. Lawrence. And of course the final problem is not whether he received consents or not, but that a priest with theological depth, a spotless record, a stable family, and a successful ministry, elected on the first ballot by an overwhelming majority was involved in such a closely contested election in the first place. That is the real tragedy. In South Carolina the wounds are deep from these recent actions. Nevertheless, just two weeks ago, the clergy and lay people of this Diocese returned to Charleston to elect a Bishop in and for THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. My hope, Fr Jake, is that you and others will be loud, clear and persistent in conveying these facts to the rest of TEC. Will this make a difference? I’m not sure. Just because people have acted a certain way in the past, does not mean they will do so again in the future. I do not share a commitment to pessimism as others do. The Gospel teaches that everything can fall to pieces on Good Friday while everything can be restored on Easter Sunday. Perhaps this time our intentions will be taken at face value, then again perhaps they won’t. The only dependable thing in this mess is Jesus Christ and His Gospel. In the meantime I will give TEC the benefit of the doubt, until their actions (once again?) give me reason to think otherwise. I pray this won’t happen. Thank you again for your recent efforts in the blogosphere.
In Christ,
Robert Sturdy
Sounds to me (off-the-radar liberal member of the C of E) that people of good will (not many of those) can recognise each other’s integrity and live together and do deals. Rather like the first generation of Christians …
Jake,
Never thought this might get posted here (maybe SF)–not because here is more conservative than SF, but SF pays more attention to the other comment-driven blogs than here (I hope that makes sense). It’s kinda like the WSJ posting an entertainment story before USA Today, I guess. So, sorry I didn’t post my thanks to you here before you had to explain yourself.
My fellow conservatives, you should care about Jake’s post because he has the ear (eye?) of a great number of people on the liberal side of this debate. We should welcome this gesture and leave it at that. Perhaps that is why Kendall chose to post. Let’s show our finer qualities, ok?
Robert,
I did not know those earlier statements had been made. I doubt if many other people were aware of them either. What most of us were aware of was the first responses by Fr. Lawrence to questions raised by some of the standing committees, which seemed to dance around giving a straight answer regarding his loyalty to TEC. That was the red flag. A reference to those earlier statements would have been helpful at that time.
Looking further, a questionaire that he filled out in 2005 for SC gave many people reasons to become quite concerned.
Consequently, I saw the March 8 statement as representing a change of heart on those matters. It was the first time I had heard such a clear promise to remain loyal to TEC. Unfortunately, that public statement came a bit late, as the election was declared null and void on March 15.
Welcome Fr Jake – that’s encouraging.
The vows/statements to which Rob Sturdy so ably referred, (#18), were, I believe, also referenced in my March 8th statement. I think I also referred to them in my responses to a series of questions posed to me by a bevy of TEC bishops early in the process, and later sent to Standing Committees who presented me with yet further inquiries.
As for the statement I made regarding “keeping the Diocese of So. Carolina in TEC” to which I concluded, “I shall work at least as hard at keeping the Dio. of So. Carolina in TEC as my brother and sister bishops work at keeping TEC in convenanted relationship with the Anglican Communion”–unfairly treated by more than a few “reappraisers” as equivocation–it was and is a call to mutual accountability. Of course if one has no stomach or will for such a process then it is troubling, agreed!, and conveniently interpreted as equivocation. But that is hardly a reflection on my commitments.
As for Fr. Jake not knowing of my prior statements, (#21), in all fairness, the waters were so stirred and muddied during the morning watch that a great many facts were soon difficult to come by, and only the bottom-feeders seemed able to thrive. Maybe with some fresh springs feeding the channel the clear-water fish can thrive, at least for a season.
FrJake:
Per tough crowd – I’d direct you to your own blog, “I’ll say it again…he is a bottom feeder and an asshat. ” would not apply?
Though I’ll concede the Snarky is no longer band & I’d rate you blog as rated PG or PG-13 verses other “progressives” who seem to be going for the “R” or “NC-17” rating.
I do not see as much of a change in DioSC as I do in the reappraisers inside TEC. The most radical reaffirmers left with +Murphy and left rather ‘Communion Conservative’ people in the diocese. This comes through in Sarah Hay’s writings and Kendall Harmon’s (note you may see CANA on the T19 side bar but that’s due to Kendall’s friendship to +Minns, every AMiA story is posted with “Comments are closed” – that includes Rwanda HoB releases or the story recently from Attleboro, MA). Some may be merely hostility towards All Saits, Pawleys Island fiasco, but it more speaks to that DioSC is more “loyal opposition” that teetering on leaving.
To me the evidence has been obvious all along and thus I’d read the refusal of giving consent to being politically motivated against a theologically conservative diocese. That there is no change from DioSC, but things may look different from your side of the great divide, but I do not see any change in fact the evidence to me say the opposite.
JS #19, What is the deal we’re supposed to make? For the life of me, I can’t see that much progress is made by being elected into TEC HOB. Is this a long term process of return? Or is deal making a compromise about Christian living? Because I don’t think it can be compromised. What were those first generation of Chrisitans deals you’re speaking of?
Fr Jake,
Thank you for responding. I hope my tone was clear rather than accusatory. Once again, now you know! And now you can let others know. We cannot afford another communication breakdown on the scale of Fr. Lawrence’s last consent process. It is unfair to Fr Lawrence, his family, his parish and our Diocese, especially when there never was, or is currently a true impediment to his election. In the mean time many rich blessings be with you. And many rich blessings upon you and your family as well Fr. Lawrence. Hopefully we’ll see you soon.
Thank you, Fr. Lawrence, for your response.
As I mentioned, it is noteworthy that that is the quote highlighted by Episcopal Life. I think that is a strong indicator that this round will be different.
KAR, we are here, not there, or at Jake’s. Kendall sets the tone here. As a guest, I’d prefer not to discuss the dynamics of other places.
RE: As a guest, I’d prefer not to discuss the dynamics of other places.
touché.
BTW – You can ignore my post #24, I think #23 blows mine out of the water 🙂
Jake:
Your blog commentary was gracious and open minded. You should be thanked for that.
Fr. Lawrence:
I’m on your side, but your original choice of language looked equivocal to me. Maybe it’s this darned legal training of mine. Anyway, I’m glad it has been clarified and you are in the “threatening to stay” camp. In all of this may you continued to be blessed by the outpouring of love and uplifted by the prayers of many for you and your family during this very public process.
. . . thy will be done . . .
Peace,
-miserable sinner
Marvellous – I guess this calls for umm er ….. a listening process.
Whoops, I didn’t mind my manners. That’s “Fr. Jake”.
I found the response to Fr Jake’s posts extraordinary, like a button had been pressed.
Prayers for all and that all may work for God’s purposes for His Church and people and prayers for the Diocese of South Carolina and the Episcopal Church.
#29 I seem to recall another person who was known for such responses. He too seemed to have trouble with those trained in the legal profession. I sometimes aspire, like the little puppies, to at least catch the crumbs from his table. But thank you for your prayers and willing of his will–it is most appreciated.
Thank you. I woke this morning resolved to stay away from the blogs, but found myself drawn here with my first cup of coffee. With renewed hope for dialog, I lift my prayers for the Dioceses of South Carolina [i]and Colorado[/i].
[i] This elf is happy to see you return. [/i] 🙂
Given the ramnpant dysfunction and lack of trust within TEC, the brouhaha surrounding Rev. Lawrence is not surprising. What Jake says now, I said on this blog when all this first happened; there is no objective evidence that South Carolina intends to EVER leave TEC, no matter what. If TEC continues to rub South Carolina’s face in the dirt over Rev. Lawrence, it might make for some interesting decision making, but even then South Carolina might still stay.
I would love to see the good people of South Carolina to shake the dust off their feet, leave their diseased church that preaches a false gospel, and join us in the mission field. But I do not see it happening–unless what passes for “leadership” in TEC make it literally impossible for South Carolina to stay.