The Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons met recently in San Diego, agreeing to review the current consent process for episcopal elections and to update an annotated commentary on national church bylaws. It was the second time the interim body had met since the 75th General Convention adjourned last June.
During the meeting a commission member from the Diocese of Eau Claire reported that the diocese’s consent to the election of the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence as Bishop of South Carolina had been ruled invalid.
“For us to do a full standing committee meeting requires a full day,” said the Rev. Ward Simpson, rector of St. Andrew’s Church, Ashland, Wis., and a member of the Eau Claire standing committee. “For us to be able to hold some meetings by telephone would be helpful.”
The language by which standing committees give notice of consent is spelled out in Title III, Canon 11. The language to be used in granting consent has remained essentially the same since it was adopted in 1904, according to the most recent edition of White and Dykman’s annotated commentary on the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. In recent years, the office of the canon to the Presiding Bishop has interpreted the consent language to require individual signatures from all of the standing committee members voting in the affirmative. Electronic reproductions of individual signatures have been ruled valid, but the language, which was adopted in the infancy of the telephone, does not specifically permit them.
The second good consequence of South Carolina’s recent invalidated consent process.
RGEaton
“The language by which standing committees give notice of consent is spelled out in Title III, Canon 11.”
Make that title III, canon 16, section 4(a).
I very much agree Rob.
what was the first one Rob?
Chris,
Well, for a time I saw the first good consequence was the pulling back of the veil to reveal a serious problem in the consent process for TECusa, and the relative injustice of the invalidation in light of the serious larger problem. But then nothing was coming of it. I was thinking (again) “wasted moment.” So I dropped it from my one-point “good consequence” list.
Then came the Standing Committee’s announcement of the up-coming process for election, and it affirmed what had been said by many in the diocese of South Carolina all aong, including Bp Salmon, that Mark Lawrence was the guy for them. In other words, a good consequence of the invalidation was the actual congealing of consensus within the diocese that Mark was who they elected, and Mark was who they wanted. The invalidation could have caused the diocese to say, “Well, he didn’t work out”, and start over from scratch. But, no, they are more sure than ever (some of course will and have complained). So that became my new #1 good consequence.
This decision to revisit the process from a Church-wide body now picks up the ball from what was a dropped good consequence and gets it back on the page. But as they say in the cafeteria line, if you step out of the line, you lose your place. So now it’s #2! But this time “with teeth.”
RGEaton