The Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina met on June 9, 2007, immediately following the Diocesan Convention held at St. James Episcopal Church on James Island, South Carolina.
At its meeting, the Committee unanimously agreed:
1. To call for a Special Convention to elect a Bishop. The Convention is to be held at ten o’clock a.m. on Saturday, August 4, 2007 at St. James’ Church, James Island, South Carolina.
2. The Standing Committee unanimously nominated The Very Reverend Mark J. Lawrence to be the next Bishop of South Carolina.
3. Because of the necessity for background checks, no nominations from the floor will be allowed at the Convention. In lieu thereof, the Committee has established a petition process, with the following guidelines:
Excellent work, above board, everybody in.
Someone might complain about a just-over-three-week petition time frame, but that would not be out of precedent (El Camino Real comes to mind), and the background search stuff will take that long before the August 4 convention.
RGEaton
Looks like SC is getting ready for the journey. Times a tickin’. September 30th will be here pretty soon and a good orthodox leader will need to be in place to steer. Kinda reminds me of the story of Noah. The rains a comin’ and its time to gather up the faithful and get them aboard the boat. You listenin’ out there, TEC? The rains acomin’. . . .
Is psychiatric evaluation standard practice for candidates for bishop in the diocese of South Carolina and/or the Episcopal Church? One could open all sorts of cans of worms with this one – and not just in the candidates heads.
The legitimacy is in the election/confirmation process, not in the ideology.
Well, the consent process will tell the tale on that concept. Of course, historic Christianity has “rules” of belief and practice, as well as polity. And so does TEC. We will see who enforces their rules of belief over the rules of polity.
#4–I believe it is standard practice in all dioceses for nominees for an Episcopal election to go through psychiatric as well as medical tests/evals, background checks, etc.
Wonder how one deals with the situation when a candidate proves to be barking mad?
Rhetorical question only. Not a topic on which to waste time.
Wonder how one deals with the situation when a candidate proves to be barking mad?
From the empirical evidence, one would have to say consents are assured.
Behave!
“lapin”, Fr. Mark had to have TWO (count-em) 2, psychiatric evaluation/examinations, apparently the “rules” were changed at the last convention, and 815 got to choose the psychiatrist, even tho he had been examined by the same doctor who did several other folks.
That is one of the reasons for the weird delays in mailing out/receiving consents.
“The legitimacy is in the election/confirmation process, not in the ideology.”
So: consents were denied last time based on what?
And: as long as proper procedures are followed, an atheist could be elected and should be approved?
Psychiatric evals are standard for candidates for ordination to the priesthood as well. (My wife passed. Whew! But ordination on hold.)