Total visitors right now: 93

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

OPEN THREAD [FINAL Update]: Communicating with Standing Committees regarding Lawrence Consent

Monday, March 5, 2007 • 7:48 am


UPDATE: Links to the Standing Committees of most dioceses in Province I, Province II, Province III, Province IV, Province V, Province VI, and Province VII are now provided in the comments section.  Links to the Standing Committees of some other dioceses are also provided. 30-40 web links are below!

FINAL NOTE: Sometime around 10:30 a.m. EST today [Friday] we will be posting two separate posts.  The first will list all the links for Standing Committees—with related notes—for Provinces I, II, III, and IV.  The second will list all the links for Standing Committees—with related notes—for the remaining Provinces.  That will allow people to see the contact information that has been gathered below in the comments in the actual post, organized by Province.  Hopefully, in these final four days of opportunity, people will find this helpful as they seek to contact their diocese’s Standing Committee.

TECHNICAL NOTE: Unfortunately, email addresses are inaccurate due to a bug in the blog software.  Web links are accurate—but repeat, email links are not accurate and should not be used any longer.  The only exception to this rule is if a person has spelled out the email address as in “caclark [at] uplogon [dot] com”.  Neither Technical Support nor Greg [who is better than technical support] has been able to discern the reason for the issue of the email links.

NOTE ON FINDING CONTACT INFO: If you have the names of the members of the Standing Committee of your diocese but no contact information, you may find the contact information of the clergy at this website: http://www.ecdplus.org/.  From that website the best way to email the clergy is to surf directly to their parish website, which often includes email contact information for priests.

To find mailing address information for laypeople, you can use http://www.411.com/ as long as you have the city and state and name.

NOTE ON MEDIA STORIES FOR YOUR DIOCESE: If you are in a diocese whose Standing Committee has not consented to the election of Mark Lawrence, then your diocese is a part of a national, historic, Episcopal decision.  It will be the first time in 50 years that an elected bishop has not received consent.  It might be a good idea to send a story idea to your larger regional newspapers.  For those of you who are intrigued by this idea, you would first need to find the websites of the top three largest newspapers in your state.

Surf here to find the web sites to all the major newspapers in your state: http://www.usnpl.com/

Simply choose the newspapers in the three largest cities in your state—preferably one or two in your diocese (if there is more than one diocese in a state), surf to the newspaper web site, and look up their staff.

You’d want to send emails to the managing, executive, or other editors of the newspapers—and the Religion Writer if the newspaper has one.  Almost all have their email addresses listed at their newspaper website.

Your emails should be simply story idea emails, pointing out that a big news story is about to happen in the Episcopal church.  For the first time in 50 years, a bishop looks unlikely to gain consent from a majority of Standing Committees of dioceses.  Then point out that your diocesan Standing Committee has not consented to this bishop—but that the diocese did (IF they did) consent to the election of Gene Robinson.  So there is strong REGIONAL INTEREST in this story. (Find out if your deputation to General Convention 2003 consented to the election of Gene Robinson at this web site:
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/2003_c045.html ).

Make it courteous, factual, and brief.

NOTE ON IDEAS FOR LETTERS AND EMAILS: If you are looking for insight and ideas, pay heed to this excellent letter from one parishioner to his diocesan Standing Committee:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2478/#37837

More ideas may be found in this blog article by Episcopal priest Tony Clavier:
http://wvparson.blogspot.com/2007/03/consequences.html

The deadline for consents is March 12.

This thread will remain open and near the top of the list for the remainder of the week.

I have compared the list of those 46 dioceses whose Standing Committees have given consent to Mark Lawrence as bishop of South Carolina (he has already received the necessary majority of consents from the bishops) with the total dioceses in the Episcopal church.  Below is the list of those dioceses whose Standing Committees have NOT given consent to his election.

Nearly every diocese lists the Standing Committee with contact lists on its own website.

Would those of you who are Episcopal members of any of these dioceses be willing to do three things:

1) Find the page of your diocesan web site that lists the members of the Standing Committee and post the link to that specific page in the comments section so that other members of your diocese may see the list.

2) Compose and send an email to each member of your standing committee (or of course a letter) to register your desire that they consent to the election of Mark Lawrence.

3) Return to this thread and let us know that you have sent such a communication.

I understand if you do not have the time.  But I think it is important for Standing Committees to hear from members of their diocese—even if the diocese is very revisionist.  I just think it is important.

Below is the list of dioceses which have NOT given consent through their Standing Committees.  The Diocese of South Carolina needs to receive 10 more Standing Committee consents. 

****************

Province I

Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont


Province II

Central New York
Long Island
New York
Newark
Rochester
Western New York

Virgin Islands

Province III

Bethlehem
Delaware
Easton
Maryland
Southwestern Virginia
Southern Virginia
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia

Province IV

East Carolina
East Tennessee
Georgia
Kentucky
Lexington
North Carolina
Western North Carolina

Province V

Chicago
Eastern Michigan
Eau Claire
Indianapolis
Michigan
Milwaukee
Northern Michigan
Ohio
Western Michigan

Province VI

Montana
Nebraska
South Dakota
Wyoming

Province VII

Arkansas
Kansas
Northwest Texas
West Missouri
Western Kansas

Province VIII

Arizona
California
Eastern Oregon
El Camino Real
Idaho
Los Angeles
Navajoland
Nevada
Northern California
Olympia
Oregon
Spokane
Taiwan
Utah

Province IX

Central Equador
Colombia
Honduras
Venezuela


196 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Sarah - my entire vestry, other lay people and I already communicated with all members of the South Dakota SC and the Bishop here in support of consent…the SC will not reply to us and the Bp. posted a sarcastic broadside on the diocesan website.  South Dakota is a GenCon invention (1/2 the diocesan budget is a GC grant).  The Bp. here was in the minority that did not give consent, so don’t expect any better from the SC.

[1] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 03-05-2007 at 09:07 AM • top

Thanks, Timothy, for putting that comment here.  I think we’ll need to compile all of this later on . . .

For those parishioners in South Dakota who read this blog but are not registered [and thus not able to comment here], this is the link to the members of the Standing Committee of South Dakota.

http://www.diocesesd.org/WHO_WE_ARE/DIRECTORY/COMMISSIONS/standing_committee.htm

[2] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 09:12 AM • top

For East Carolina, here is the link to the Standing Committee page:
http://www.diocese-eastcarolina.org/standingcommittee.html

[3] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 09:15 AM • top

For East Tennessee, here is the link to the Standing Committee page [scroll down nearly to the bottom]:

http://www.etdiocese.net/pages/dioleaders.php

[4] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 09:17 AM • top

I have been emailing the SW Virginia SC for several weeks now asking them to reconsider their vote.  I just emailed them again asking them to let me know if they are willing to reconsider.  I’ll keep you posted on their reply.

[5] Posted by Widening Gyre on 03-05-2007 at 09:17 AM • top

I think the most likely to flip on consent (and I wouldn’t hold my breath on most of them) are

Prov I - Rhode Island
Prov II - none
Prov III - Virginia, West Virginia
Prov IV - Georgia
Prov V - Eau Claire, Milwaukee
Prov VI - Montana
Prov VII - NW Texas, Western Kansas
Prov VIII - none
Prov IX - Columbia, Honduras

[6] Posted by David Wilson on 03-05-2007 at 09:19 AM • top

Our Father in heaven,
May the members of the standing committees of these dioceses be of the same mind as Christ, doing nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regarding others as better than themselves, looking not to their own interests, but to the interests of others.  We ask this in the name that is above every name, Jesus, at which every knee should bend in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue confess that He is Lord, to Your glory.  Amen.
Philippians 2:2-4, 9-11

[7] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 03-05-2007 at 09:23 AM • top

You’ll note that the link to South Dakota provides no contact info for the SC members, save a PO Box and phone for the president.  No email links at all.

[8] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 03-05-2007 at 09:32 AM • top

For Lexington, here is the link to the Standing Committee members:
http://www.diolex.org/convention2007/report.php?report=18

[9] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 09:35 AM • top

For the Diocese of North Carolina, here is the link to the members of the Standing Committee:

http://www.acswebnetworks.com/episcopalofnc/article19182.htm

[10] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 09:37 AM • top

One contact is listed for the Standing Committee in Western North Carolina:
http://www.diocesewnc.org/episcopalfiscal.html

[11] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 09:39 AM • top

Out of all of Province IV I was unable to find contacts for any members of the Standing Committee of Georgia and Kentucky.  Interesting that their information is not more prominent.

For those who do not offer email contacts, a very good source for finding home addresses [as long as you know the city] is this web site:

http://www.411.com/

I’m done for a while, but maybe others can work on dioceses in other provinces . . .

[12] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 09:42 AM • top

link to diocese of CT standing committee members:  http://www.ctdiocese.org/bishops/standing.shtml#members

[13] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 03-05-2007 at 09:44 AM • top

Just saw your comment Widening Gyre—thank you!

For those in Southwest Virginia who are not able to comment here [if they haven’t registered] here is the link to the members of the Standing Committee of SW Virginia.

http://www.dioswva.org/about-us/standing-committee

Widening Gyre, is there any way to access their email addresses?  I could be missing a page . . .

[14] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 09:46 AM • top

Thank you Anglican Hopeful!

[15] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 09:47 AM • top

Diocese of R.I. standing committee; President only.

[16] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 03-05-2007 at 09:48 AM • top

dio NW Texas standing committee:  http://www.nwt.org/convention directory.pdf

[17] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 03-05-2007 at 09:50 AM • top

I just came from looking at the Diocese of NH’s website. There is no reference whatsoever to its Standing Committee, and the only apparent way to contact them is to e-mail a liaison person in “media.”

I have no standing whatsoever in any Episcopal diocese, but nobody in NH has any way of taking legitimate action. Why am I not surprised?

[18] Posted by NancyNH on 03-05-2007 at 10:01 AM • top

For fellow REAs (Sarah, did I get that right?) in SW Virginia, you can get the email for acting president of our Standing Committee (Rev. Kim Webster) from home church website: http://www.stjohnsepiscopalwaynesborova.com/

Another priest on the SC is Rev. Doug Wigner in Lynchburg, whose church is: http://www.stpaulslynchburg.org/staff-and-vestry

Both are good folk.  The lay members I don’t have email addresses for.  Our bishop is currently out of the country so “while the cat’s away….”

[19] Posted by Widening Gyre on 03-05-2007 at 10:03 AM • top

Here is a link to the Vermont Standing Committee:
http://dioceseofvermont.org/Orgs/Standing.html

[20] Posted by wchogan on 03-05-2007 at 10:08 AM • top

Widening Gyre . . . now *that* is some clever “sleuthwork” . . .

Thank you.

For those web sites that do not list email contacts for their Standing Committees, going to the parish web sites of the clergy representatives is one way to get the email contacts.

[21] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 10:13 AM • top

The link for the names of the Standing Committee members, and email addersses, in the Diocese of Southern Virginia is:

http://www.diosova.org/council.html#standing

Rob

[22] Posted by robbruner on 03-05-2007 at 10:20 AM • top

Sarah says:

For those web sites that do not list email contacts for their Standing Committees, going to the parish web sites of the clergy representatives is one way to get the email contacts.

This is a bit off topic, for which I apologize profusely, but that will not work if the diocese does not list the members of the standing committee anywhere (except perhaps in the minutes of the Diocesan Convention which elected them).  Oddly enough, the Diocese of South Carolina is one that lists only the president of the Standing Committee. At least his contact information is given. It is almost as if they Standing Committee members want to be anonymous, lest they be bombarded by persuasive communications from the laity of the diocese. What a horrible thought!

Why is it that some dioceses are so anally retentive about such information? Such behavior is not conducive to openness and transparency, which I believe to be a mark of truly Christian governance.

Again, I apologize for this off-topic rant. Perhaps sometime, Sarah, we could have a thread anent reforms in church governance?

[23] Posted by Allen Lewis on 03-05-2007 at 10:33 AM • top

Here’s a couple of thoughts -
If your Diocese leaves up your convention info, check to see who ran for Standing Committee last time.  Next, how about call the Diocesan office and ask them point blank.  I mean if my diocese can’t provide me the names and contact information of my Standing Committee members, I think the entire membership should know about it, don’t you?  Let’s send the message loud and clear - smoke filled back room politics won’t cut it anymore.

[24] Posted by Jackie on 03-05-2007 at 11:12 AM • top

Jackie - here, nothing can post to the dio. website without being cleared by the Bp’s office.  You are right - we should be working to make the dirty stuff known.  But sometimes, we have to go through other means.  Thank God for internet and AAC or other orthodox support networks!  We won’t reach all of the peoplle in the pews, but at least some will get the word.

[25] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 03-05-2007 at 11:25 AM • top

Timothy,

I am wondering if the local newspaper knows that your diocese consented to VGR but is withholding consent on a conservative candidate.  Hmm, seems newsworthy to me.  Especially, if the Diocese is being uncooperative in providing information about the committee elected to represent the membership.  And if in the process, that might help get the message out, wink well I guess that would be a bonus.

[26] Posted by JackieB on 03-05-2007 at 11:36 AM • top

Jackie - excellent idea!  Sounds like it is time to “drop a dime”.

[27] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 03-05-2007 at 11:40 AM • top

South Dakota’s Standing Committee:
Standing Committee
——-

Sherry Maule, President
P.O. Box 1831
Winner, SD 57580-1831
(605) 842-0334


Other Members of the Standing Committee:
Clergy    
The Rev. Mercy Hobbs, Vermillion,  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
The Rev. Cordelia Red Owl, Pine Ridge Mission
POB 74, Kyle SD 57752-074
The Rev. Webster Two Hawk, Ft. Pierre
604 E. Missouri Ave, Ft. Pierre SD 57501
The Rev. John Spruhan, Rosebud Mission,  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Laity:
Holly Boomer, Martin,  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Ted Kneebone, Aberdeen,  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Anne Montileaux, Kyle (new this year, no info at hand)
Jean Lacher, Brookings, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

As Timothy said earlier, these are all company people.

[28] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 03-05-2007 at 11:42 AM • top

RE: “I am wondering if the local newspaper knows that your diocese consented to VGR but is withholding consent on a conservative candidate.  Hmm, seems newsworthy to me.”

Jackie, this is a brilliant idea.

For those of you who are intrigued by this idea, you would first need to find the website of the top three largest newspapers in your state.

Surf here to find the web sites to all the major newspapers in your state: http://www.usnpl.com/

Simply choose the newspapers in the three largest cities in your state—preferably one or two in your diocese [if there is more than one diocese in a state], surf to the newspaper web site, and look up their staff.

You’d want to send emails to the managing and executive editors of the newspapers—and the Religion Writer if the newspaper has one.  Almost all have their email addresses listed at their newspaper website.

Your emails should be simply story idea emails, pointing out that a big news story is about to happen in the Episcopal church.  For the first time in 60 years, a bishop looks unlikely to gain consent from a majority of Standing Committees of dioceses.  Then point out that your diocesan Standing Committee has not consented to this bishop—but that the diocese did [IF they did] consent to the election of Gene Robinson.  So there is strong REGIONAL INTEREST in this story.

Make it courteous, factual, and brief.

[29] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 11:51 AM • top

Also people, note over on T19, KSH has a story re:  Fr. Tony Clavier on his blog, which has some really great points about the situation.

You might include/quote/or rephrase what he has to say….
Its very interesting coming from what might well be a “reappraiser”.

Grannie Gloria

[30] Posted by Grandmother on 03-05-2007 at 12:16 PM • top

Diocese of Kansas Standing Committee (Council of Trustees):
http://www.episcopal-ks.org/cot2/index.html

[31] Posted by Payton on 03-05-2007 at 12:18 PM • top

From the standing committee report to the Dio. Ga. convention, I gleaned these names:

The Rev. Joy Fisher
Mr. Charlie Hough
The Rev. Joan M. Kilian,  president

But I don’t know where any of them are or how they can be reached. How many members would the committee have?

[32] Posted by oscewicee on 03-05-2007 at 12:34 PM • top

Fisher is at Holy Cross, Thomson
Killian at Trinity, Statesboro

But I don’t see email links for them.

[33] Posted by oscewicee on 03-05-2007 at 12:39 PM • top

I’d probably use the generic links found at their parish web sites and then indicate clearly the person that I am emailing.  If it does not route directly to the rector, it will probably be routed by the parish admin person.

For Fisher that would be .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
And for Killian that would be .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

[34] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 01:04 PM • top
[35] Posted by justme on 03-05-2007 at 01:29 PM • top

After typing in all of the above for Massachusetts - it only takes you to the home page.  You need to click on ‘Governance and Administration’ then on Standing Committee

[36] Posted by justme on 03-05-2007 at 01:34 PM • top

Here is a “tinyurl” that goes directly to the Standing Committee page at Massachusetts:

http://tinyurl.com/2s245v

[37] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 01:41 PM • top

My post on T19:

There must be some way for the Standing Committee’s whose Bishops voted FOR CONSENT, to bring their bishops up on charges.

IF the standing committees who voted NO are truly convinced that they have forestalled a possible schism, then they should charge their Bishop with “leaving” the church, or some such.

Otherwise, it make NO sense for Standing Committees to vote against , instead of in agreement with their own Bishop who voted for the “imaginary?”schism????

Makes sense to me, wouldn’t seem they could have it both ways.

[38] Posted by Grandmother on 03-05-2007 at 01:41 PM • top

Anybody know the significance of the March 12th deadline? I’m looking for something more than, “It is the deadline given by South Carolina’s standing committee on its website.”  Apparently, the letter asking others to reconsider did not mention a deadline.

[39] Posted by Widening Gyre on 03-05-2007 at 01:54 PM • top

Widening,  it has something to do with a “canon” which calls for agreement within a certain number of days from election.

Other than that, I cannot say.. Actually I thought the deadline (no pun intended) was March 9 (a Friday), but seemingly not, perhaps it (the canon) only counts business days?

Grannie gloria

[40] Posted by Grandmother on 03-05-2007 at 02:23 PM • top

The vestry of Christ Church, Savannah has written to the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Georgia expressing our deep concern and asking them to reconsider. We hope that many other churches will join us.
The new Chair of the Standing Committee is the Rev. Dave Tonge, of Grace Churhc, Waycross. His email is here.

[41] Posted by SQ on 03-05-2007 at 02:53 PM • top

Help! I even previewed it and the post comes out incorrect. Please help.

[42] Posted by SQ on 03-05-2007 at 02:58 PM • top

Not to be rude, but why do StandFirm and the Diocese of South Carolina care about what these Standing Committees say? 
If you crawl to their feet now, begging their approval, then that makes a joke of our work to ensure that we not be under the authority and jursidiction of those who openly deny the catholic faith.
As it has been said before, it is not business as usual, so why do SF and DioSC act like it is?
Why are you begging them for this?  If they can’t uphold the atoning work of Christ on the cross, or the uniqueness of Christ, or any of the basic tenets of the Christian faith, then why do faithful catholic Christians even care about what they say?
I think all of those who are struggling to get these consents should reconsider…it will come back to haunt them in the very near future.

[43] Posted by Tony Romo on 03-05-2007 at 03:14 PM • top

I am not a lawyer but have a question. Are these decisions being made in closed meetings? There are sunshine laws that require access to meetings of boards of public corporations. Do these committees fall under that requirement??  Also do they need to be listed in state corporate filings that should be public record??

enquiring minds want to know

[44] Posted by BillD on 03-05-2007 at 03:17 PM • top

Carol Sue,

Delete the 0 and period at the end of the link.

[45] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 03-05-2007 at 03:24 PM • top

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

[46] Posted by SQ on 03-05-2007 at 03:30 PM • top

It is impossible! It is graceepiscopal-at-wayxcable-dot-com

[47] Posted by SQ on 03-05-2007 at 03:32 PM • top

John+, thanks for asking that question.  I had the same question, but couldn’t manage to articulate it.

[48] Posted by Sparrow on 03-05-2007 at 04:06 PM • top

RE: “Not to be rude, but why do StandFirm and the Diocese of South Carolina care about what these Standing Committees say?”

I think it is because the Diocese of SC would like an ECUSA bishop that is regularly consecrated.  I have read on several threads that Mark Lawrence has zero intention to be irregularly consecrated if he is not approved.  So that would mean . . . I suppose . . . an interminable administration by the Standing Committee or a new election.

So . . . what you are really asking, it seems, is why doesn’t the diocese of South Carolina just leave ECUSA. [Please correct me if I am wrong.]

I don’t think they wish to do that [although of course, you may disagree and say that they should] and as an individual not in that diocese I personally do not wish to lose their witness or alliance in ECUSA.

I hope that helps!

[49] Posted by Sarah on 03-05-2007 at 04:32 PM • top

Whoa, John.  Next time, try looking before you leap to conclusions.  It’ll save you some scraped knees.  Nobody here said nothing about crawling to anyone’s feet and beggin’ for approval.  I suspect that there are a number of standing committees (of which mine is one) who are generally moderate to mid-left on church politics but certainly nowhere near to denouncing Christ.  I suspect they voted no simply because it was “trendy” and they didn’t think anyone would mind.  Simply confronting them is making them really nervous because they don’t have a good explanation for denying consent.  I think Tony Clavier’s piece is an excellent article that drives this point home.  Peace.

[50] Posted by Widening Gyre on 03-05-2007 at 04:34 PM • top

John makes a good point, but I think this is worth a valiant try.  Let’s face it, the double standard here in all of its radiant glory is absolutely revolting, and maybe it’s time more people realized such. 

I fully expected this sort of thing out of dioceses like MA and NH. When you also see it pervade ENTIRE states like VA and NC, not to mention places like Easton, it becomes brutally obvious how this bad version of creeping liberalism has taken hold.  Most of the “angel factories”, too, it seems, no longer serve their Lord. 

Ah, yes, “inclusive” until it comes to “including” an orthodox bishop.  At the very least, the dissenting standing committees should have to provide some rationale for this other than just their vote.  Personally, my response to “No” is “Whyever not?”  Denying Fr. Lawrence is bad enough, but they should at least be mature enough to own their reasons. 

IC,

Jen

[51] Posted by Orthoducky on 03-05-2007 at 05:01 PM • top

The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia has an “Executive Board” for a Standing Committee.  They are listed at this web page on the diocesan web site: http://www.thediocese.net/diocese/execboard.shtml.

There are no e-mail addresses, but there are names and their associated churches.

It is interesting that Bishop Lee has voted for consent to Bishop-elect Lawerence, but the executive board voted the other way.

Remember that +Lee’s justification for voting for +Robinson was that a Diocese should have the Bishop that they elected and the executive board agreed at that time.  +Lee has at least been consistent.  Why has the executive board now voted against +elect-Lawrence in defiance of +Lee?

[52] Posted by Justin Martyr on 03-05-2007 at 05:06 PM • top

Why would anyone who considers themself a catholic christian want to stay in ECUSA. They believe in Mother Jesus, God is a her/she and Jesus is only one of many ways to salvation?

Is the next step replacing the cross with a semi nude statue of some horned diety?

[53] Posted by GrannieKay on 03-05-2007 at 05:13 PM • top

It ain’t going to happen folks. Mark+ is not going to get his consents and it’s a damn shame and a disgrace. The day of the deadline (nobody seems to know what day for sure) will be a dark day in the recent sordid history of TECusaCorp and a day that will live in infamy. The disservice that has been done to this good and godly priest is absolutely disgusting.

the SBBJ snarkster, praying that he is wrong

[54] Posted by the snarkster on 03-05-2007 at 05:59 PM • top

I hope he is confirmed because the Diocese of South Carolina needs all possible advantages and options in these perilious times. We owe a lot to the Diocese of South Carolina. They were the only Southern Diocese with the backbone to join the ACN.  If you look around at the leaders of the orthodox Anglican Community, both inside and outside of TEC, you see a number whose path took them through this Diocese. I am sure Satan would like to disrupt the good work of the Diocese by creating administrative instability.

On the other hand, I would hope the Bishop-elect would not forclose leaving TEC when and if another province, or province in the making, is established within the Anglican Communion. To state otherwise would be a high price for confirmation.

In the long run, this confirmation process isn’t going to work. Heretical Bishops and Standing Committees cannot be given a veto over the consecration of faithful Bishops, nor can they be allowed to use it as a negotiating tool.  These two groups need to be seperated.

[55] Posted by Going Home on 03-05-2007 at 06:33 PM • top

I’m sorry to say this, but I’m somewhere between Grandmother and John+, I wrote the diocese an e-mail asking how to get hold of the Standing Committee. Not rude but not groveling either. I didn’t say why, I just asked how to reach them. So far they haven’t even bothered to answer.

Here’s what gets me. Years and years of putting up with the bs coming outta that diocese, paying tithes, doing physical maintenance on churches for free, volunteering time in the offices…now the standing committees wanna play games. Okay, let’s play then. I’d like to know from a lawyer what our options are. Enough is enough.

[56] Posted by Dazzled on 03-05-2007 at 06:45 PM • top

What would happen if he doesn’t receive the necessary number of Standing Committee confirms, but the Diocese of South Carolina goes ahead and installs him anyway?

[57] Posted by fastlosinghope on 03-05-2007 at 06:46 PM • top

Why doesn’t the Diocese of SC just give up… I’ll tell you why!!!!
For 12 or more years we have had the leadership of one of the most respected and conservative bishops there are, +Ed Salmon. 
And we want the same thing, perhaps even longer again.

The Dio. of SC grew under +Ed, and while not all of us always agreed with everything he did,(I certainly didn’t)  NONE of us had any doubt as to where he stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or the scriptural basis for Christianity.

We do not know what will happen, all we can do is pray and lobby.
Grannie Gloria

[58] Posted by Grandmother on 03-05-2007 at 06:58 PM • top

I have heard that the Standing Committee of Western NC refused consent. No public announcement has been made. Bishop Taylor has told the clergy that he plans to attend the consecration and join in the laying on of hands.

    Tom Rightmyer in Asheville

[59] Posted by TomRightmyer on 03-05-2007 at 08:39 PM • top

The membership list for the Diocese of Olympia (Western Washington State) is located here on the web Standing Committee.
Unfortunately, the list includes no email address (or addresses).

[60] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 03-05-2007 at 09:15 PM • top

I have sent an email to the DioOlympia Standing Committee - via their secretary, whose email address is available elsewhere on the site, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) - strongly urging them to give consent to the election of Bishop-elect Lawrence. The email was for both myself and my wife, with her contact info, should they wish to confirm her agreement.

[61] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 03-05-2007 at 09:25 PM • top

Why would anyone who considers themself a catholic christian want to stay in ECUSA?

To anyone who has this question -
1.  You cannot effect change from the outside.
2.  You cannot effect change from the outside.
3.  You cannot effect change from the outside.
4.  Christianity is worth fighting for anywhere, any place, any time at any cost.
5.  If this battle is lost, the other denominations will face increasing pressure and the battle will be that much harder.  Remember Satan really doesn’t care what he uses to bring down the Church.  Do you think he will stop with the Episcopalians?  The Methodist, the Baptist, the Lutherans are already hanging on by the covers of their Bibles.  Do you really think the activist will be satisfied with ECUSA and it’s shrinking numbers?
Will the time come to leave ECUSA to sink into its own apostasy of anything goes theology?  Maybe.  When will you know?  When God calls you out - not a minute sooner.
I say this with love for my brothers and sisters who are so fed up it is hard to swallow.  I know as I fight the same battle you do and know the siren call of “a little peace.”  If that is where God wants you, go.  Know that you go with our blessings.  You go with our love.  But please, do not seek to be the voice of God for another who is in discernment.

[62] Posted by JackieB on 03-05-2007 at 10:09 PM • top

To play devil’s advovate, I hasten to remind those who call upon other bishops to consecrate Mark+ if he is denied approval by the standing committees that not only would that action put him completely outside the Episcopal Church…as if that mattered to those advocating this path…but it is entirely feasible that he would be denied an invitation to Lambeth as well.  Remember…Rowan has not extended an invitation to the irregularly consecrated AMiA bishops and, based on the remembrance of those times, I have no reason to believe that he would extend an invitation to an irregularly consecrated bishop of SC.  Thus it’s conceivable that if Mark+ was consecrated by other bishops, SC could be a communion of its own although no doubt CANA would recognize it.  That’s stating it really broadly but you get my point.

[63] Posted by Vintner on 03-05-2007 at 10:15 PM • top

Hmmm, a comment I just posted got lost.  Trying again.

Pleased to see that SE Florida gave its consent.  I guess that means I don’t have any e-mails to write for my own diocese.  (Though maybe given my dual connection to Truro and the Dio VA since 1988 I will write VA SC even though my official US residence is here in FL…)

Anyway, I thought I could provide two helpful tips for those needing to find e-mail addresses of their SC members.

1.  For clergy, the parish website is the best bet to find an e-mail address.  If you don’t know the clergy member’s parish, you can find it through the Episcopal Clergy Finder website:
http://www.ecdplus.org/

2.  Secondly, many SC members are also GC deputies.  If any of your SC members were deputies in 2006 you can find their address at Louie Crew’s website:

Deputations Listed by Diocese:
http://rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/deputations2006.html

Hope this is helpful info.
Above all, PRAY!!

[64] Posted by Karen B. on 03-06-2007 at 08:37 AM • top

The Standing Committee for the diocese of Northwest Texas, with contact information, may be found here:
http://www.nwt.org/convention directory.pdf

[65] Posted by Sarah on 03-06-2007 at 09:12 AM • top

The two latest elected members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Arkansas may be found here:
http://dioceseofarkansas.wordpress.com/

[66] Posted by Sarah on 03-06-2007 at 09:29 AM • top

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of West Missouri may be found here:
http://www.diowestmo.org/pages/standingcommittee.html

[67] Posted by Sarah on 03-06-2007 at 09:31 AM • top

There is no information that I can find on the Standing Committee members in the Diocese of Western Kansas.

[68] Posted by Sarah on 03-06-2007 at 09:40 AM • top

Sarah, I know Bp. Adams has been reading and commenting on T19 of late (and maybe here too, I forget).  Perhaps someone can e-mail him and ask him for the W. Ks standing committee names and contacts? 
I will e-mail you off blog with his address in case you need it.

[69] Posted by Karen B. on 03-06-2007 at 10:00 AM • top

The canons mandate all SC’s within 120 days to send a testimonial of consent or a written notice of its refusal to give consent. [III.11.4(a)].  The canons also provide that in case a majority of all SC’s do not consent within 120 days , the PB shall declare the election null and void. [III.11.5]

Any bets whether 100% of the SC’s will follow the canons and respond w/in 120 days one way or the other, or whether III.11.5 will be invoked if 100% do not do so by the deadline?

[70] Posted by Sparky on 03-06-2007 at 10:54 AM • top

If the election is declared null and void, the diocese should reelect him and continue where they left off to get the remaining 10 SC consents.

[71] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 03-06-2007 at 11:11 AM • top

TEC canons website says it is Canon 16, not 11, of Title III that concerns the election of bishops.  Don’t know if they have been renumbered or not.

[72] Posted by Widening Gyre on 03-06-2007 at 11:15 AM • top

Hi, Sarah!
Yesterday I emailed Rev. Jim Horton and his SC members. (One member, a lay person, had such an elaborate filter to weed out “spam” that, while I tried to fill out the quesionnaire allowing email, I’m not surei I was successful in getting through—-one has to wonder.) I’m afraid the NC dioceses apply a standard to Mark Lawrence that is different from that they used for Gene Robinson. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

[73] Posted by DonaldH on 03-06-2007 at 12:00 PM • top

Okay I must confess some confusion….

I thought Western Kansas was a conservative Diocese. I’m not sure why. So am I completely off the mark on this one?

At least our Diocese Bp and SC voted yes!

Chapie+

[74] Posted by Chapie+ on 03-06-2007 at 12:19 PM • top

I just looked at the no-consent-yet list again.  Does anyone know anything about the Virgin Islands?

[75] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 03-06-2007 at 12:27 PM • top

What about Southern VA and W. VA?  I’ve heard at least the latter is moderate to conservative.

[76] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 03-06-2007 at 12:28 PM • top

What about Taiwan, Montana, Eastern Oregon, Navajoland, Idaho?

[77] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 03-06-2007 at 12:32 PM • top

Chapie+
Bishop Adams, of the Diocese of Western Kansas, is conservative. However, there are several in the Diocese who are not.

[78] Posted by LisaS on 03-06-2007 at 12:50 PM • top

Widening Gyre is correct.  The appropriate canon is:

III.16.4(a)

[79] Posted by Brian from T19 on 03-06-2007 at 01:00 PM • top

Hi Sarah!
e-mails have gone out to Diocese of New York s.c.
Bp. Sisk was a famous 2003 pioneer of the argument,
“I had no choice. He was legally elected by his diocese.”
The s.c. is listed on page 9 of the printed green diocesan directory.
Every NY priest has one. ( Lay people will need to find a friend)
Eric in New York

[80] Posted by ericfromnewyork on 03-06-2007 at 01:55 PM • top

Minor correction to Sarah Hey’s posted link to Diocese of Western Texas (above)—http://www.nwt.org/convention directory.pdf

[81] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 03-06-2007 at 01:57 PM • top

Oops, that should read “Northwest Texas.”

[82] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 03-06-2007 at 01:58 PM • top

Thanks, Martial Artist . . .

[83] Posted by Sarah on 03-06-2007 at 02:09 PM • top

You are most welcome, Sarah.

[84] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 03-06-2007 at 02:28 PM • top

What!  No one wants to send an email to the Dio. of Newark?  The president of its SC is Elizabeth Kaeton.  You can reach her at her blog -Telling Secrets.

[85] Posted by DaveG on 03-06-2007 at 03:08 PM • top

WVa may be a moderate to conservative diocese, but Bishop Klusmeyer surrounds himself with revisionists, and they’re the ones in power. The Standing Committee is not listed on the diocesan website.

[86] Posted by Lewis on 03-06-2007 at 03:59 PM • top

I am looking at two versions of the bound, published Constitution & Canons, one with a blue cover published after GC 2003, the second published after GC 2006, having a green cover.

The older (Revised by the 2003 Convention) version of the 120 day time limit canons called “Of the Election and Ordination of Bishops” were numbered III.16.4 and 6 .  These are in the bound blue (post-2003) bound version.

The new (Revised by the 75th General Convention 2006) bound version with the green cover, which I received at home about a week ago, now have the 120 day time limit canons numbered as III.11.4 and 5 and bear the title: Of the Ordination of Bishops.

Numbering aside, the 120 day limit still pertains.

[87] Posted by Sparky on 03-06-2007 at 04:31 PM • top

The [slightly dated] list for the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Montana may be found here [towards the beginning of the report]:

http://mtepiscopal.homestead.com/2005_Annual_Report.pdf

The terms of two of the six members are expired.

[88] Posted by Sarah on 03-06-2007 at 04:41 PM • top

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Nebraska may be found here:
http://www.episcopal-ne.org/comm/standingcomm.shtml

[89] Posted by Sarah on 03-06-2007 at 04:43 PM • top

Sarah Hey - delete that last post on Dio Wyoming; the links are all the same, just repeated 4 times.

[90] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 03-06-2007 at 05:05 PM • top

Arrr.

Here is the link to the LARGE pdf document that lists the members of the Standing Committee of Wyoming.

http://tinyurl.com/2bs9zk

[91] Posted by Sarah on 03-06-2007 at 05:38 PM • top

Here is the list for the Diocese of Western Michigan, with a “further information” number as well. The URL is http://www.edwm.org

Members of the Standing Commitee - for more detailed contact information, please call the Episcopal Center at 269.381.2710

Cove, Ms. Netty (2008) St. Andrews, Big Rapids
Farrimond, Mr. Michael (2007)  Emmanuel, Petoskey
Fedewa, the Rev. Michael (2009) St. Andrews, Grand Rapids
Fulton, Prof. Henry L. (2009)  St. John’s, Mount Pleasant
Miller, the Rev. Pamela Miller (2008)  St. Andrews, Big Rapids
Perrin, the Rev. Mary (2009)  St. Martin of Tours, Kalamazoo

(It also states there are two vacancies)

[92] Posted by DavidSh on 03-06-2007 at 06:03 PM • top

Best I can do: 
The Standing Committee Diocese of Southern Virginia

The Standing Committee Diocese of Southern Virginia
Individual members and their email address’ are listed.
BTW -Ain’t that New Jersey someth’n else?


Tom

[93] Posted by ArkMaker on 03-06-2007 at 06:09 PM • top

I’ve emailed the Milwaukee Anglican Councel—a group of clergy opposed to ECUSA’s new non-religion—to ask for help contacting their SC.  http://www.milwaukeeanglican.org/ is their website.  Will post here any info I get back.

By the way, unless the email addresses already appear on public websites, it might be a good idea to de-spambot them like this:

fathermatt =at= standfirminfaith =dot= com

—or something similar

[94] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 03-06-2007 at 06:52 PM • top

The standing committee of Northern California can only be discerned from the Convention journal, and even that only gives the email addresses for the clergy.  I have emailed our bishop, and two clergy members (the ones I think are most likely to support a consent).  But one of the clergy is Matthew Lawrence’s assistant (see http://skepticalpriest.blogspot.com/ and http://www.centerpointplace.org/index.html and
http://www.incarnation-sr.org/pdf/OpenLetterJan2007.pdf) and one of the lay members is an individual who consistently undermined and eventually forced the resignation of an orthodox priest from her parish.  So I wouldn’t hold my breath.

[95] Posted by jamesw on 03-06-2007 at 07:04 PM • top

BTW - I am copying here the essence of what I wrote to our standing committee setting out the reasons for consenting to Lawrence:

I am writing to you as a member of our diocesan standing committee who I believe to be a fair minded and moderate member of our diocese.  It has come to my attention that our diocesan standing committee has not consented to the election of Mark Lawrence as bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina.  I believe that this is a serious mistake and will be bad news for all factions of the Episcopal Church - conservative, moderate and liberal.  Prior to explaining why I believe so, I would encourage you to read the following two blog entries, both written by thoughtful priests of our Church:

The Rev. Tony Clavier’s piece at http://wvparson.blogspot.com/2007/03/consequences.html
The Rev. Dan Martins’ piece at http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/2007/03/failure-of-imagination.html

Let me explain why I believe a denial of consent would be bad news for all factions within our church:

For conservatives, a denial of consent could only be taken as a statement that they are no longer wanted in the Episcopal Church. Tony Clavier writes in the entry referenced above that “The consent process, as it has emerged now looks mean-spirited.”  It is difficult to see how the conservatives could interpret a denial of consent in any other way.

For moderates, a denial of consents would be an indication that not everyone is welcome at the table.  One of the hallmarks of Bishop XXXXX’s tenure as bishop, has been his strong desire to keep everyone at the table.  Accordingly, it seems to me that for our diocesan standing committee to refuse consent to Mark Lawrence is to partially undermine his vision for this diocese.  Let me put this to you on a personal level.  As you probably well know, I would regard myself as theologically similar to Mark Lawrence.  When I hear our Bishop speak, I do not always agree with what he says but I do always hear that I am a valued member of our diocese.  Yet, when I see the actions of the standing committee, I think to myself “yes, Bishop XXXXXX values me, but clearly the standing committee doesn’t, because they would refuse to consent to someone who shares my theological views from becoming a bishop in ANY diocese of this Church.”  In other words, people who share my (and dare I say that of the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide) theological views, are to be shut out of ANY leadership positions in our church.

I read Sunday, of the Executive Council’s Letter to the Church.  That letter included the following paragraph:

“Further, we offer our prayerful affirmation to all who struggle with the issues that concern us: those who are deeply concerned about the future of their Church and its place within the wider Communion, and those who are not reconciled to certain actions of General Convention. We wish to reaffirm that they too remain a welcome and integral part of the Episcopal Church.”

To deny consent for Mark Lawrence, the standing committee would be rendering this paragraph hollow and without meaning.  The standing committee thereby would not only be undermining Bishop XXXXXX’s vision for our diocese, but also the Executive Committee’s vision for our national church.

Finally, for liberals, a denial of consent for Mark Lawrence would be a foolish act of pique that could imperil the Episcopal Church’s status in the Anglican Communion.  How so?  Based on my observation, it seems that it is likely that the House of Bishops will not want to respond clearly to the Primates’ requests in the communiqué.  Rather they will attempt a somewhat ambiguous response in an attempt to satisfy the Primates while committing the Episcopal Church to as little as possible.  When reviewing the Episcopal Church’s response, I think that one of the key questions the Primates will ask is “but how are they treating the conservatives?  Are they making room for them?”  It seems clear to me that a denial of consents for Mark Lawrence would make an answer to this question a crystal clear “no.”

Dan Martins, a well known priest in the Diocese of San Joaquin quoted the self-described liberal priest Mike Kinman (at the site referenced above)  responding to the Primates’ Communiqué.  Kinman had written “…I believe part of the reason we are in this mess is that we on the liberal side have demonized those on ‘the other side’ and pretty much had free rein doing so since the mid-1970s. Is it any wonder there is a counteroffensive on this scale? As you say, we reap what we sow. ... The difficulty with being an ‘inclusive, big tent church’ is that inclusivity cuts both ways.”  I believe that Mike Kinman is correct, and if the Episcopal Church refuses consent to Mark Lawrence, it should not be surprised in the least if the conservatives redouble their efforts to have an alternative jurisdiction established in North America.

In conclusion, I believe that to deny consent to Mark Lawrence is a schismatic act, in that the only possible result of such an action is to induce schism in our church.  As I understand it, only ten more consents are needed for Lawrence to be confirmed.  I would pray that our diocesan standing committee’s change of heart be one of those ten.  As Tony Clavier stated in his blog entry referenced above “There is time, just time, to reverse this looming tragedy.”

XXXXXXXX, I would urge you to do whatever is possible to request your fellow standing committee members to reconsider and consent to Mark Lawrence’s election.

Please be assured that my prayers are with you, the Standing Committee and our bishop during these difficult times.

Yours faithfully,

[96] Posted by jamesw on 03-06-2007 at 07:19 PM • top

When you call these standing committee members, it may be helpful to have this statement in hand.  It’s from our last public letter outlining the voting.
=======================================
We are grateful to Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and her fellow Primates for establishing the concept of the office of Primatial Vicar with its attendant oversight by the Primate’s Pastoral Council and that of the Presiding Bishop. We see this proposal as a way forward to give us all space as our Communion pursues the development of the Anglican Covenant.
—The Rev. J. Haden McCormick
President of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina
===================================================

David Dubay+
St. Philip’s Church
Charleston, SC

[97] Posted by palmettopastor on 03-06-2007 at 07:43 PM • top

I have not been able to find an email address for the Stand Committee for the Diocese of Olympia.  The below write up was on the Diocese’s website and written by Barbara Bower, who is an Admin Assistant to the Bishops.  Whether something sent to her would make it to the individual members of the committee, I haven’t a clue. 
The Standing Committee is made up of 8 members - 4 clergy, 4 lay persons - each of whom serve a four-year term. One clergy and one lay person is elected at Diocesan Convention each year. A congregation may not have more than one member serving on the Standing Committee at any given time. Officers of the Standing Committee – President, Secretary, Chaplain and Representative on the Commission on Ministry – are elected annually, usually at the first Standing Committee meeting following Diocesan Convention.
Barbara Brower
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Standing Committee members are
The Rev Mary Allen
The Rev Cristia Amburgey Rep to Commission on Ministry
Ms. Evelyn Beard
The Rev Stephen Garratt
Mrs. Nancy Jacobs, Secretary
Ms Mary Lyons
Mr. Donald Mullins
The Rev James Neal, Co-Chaplain
Mr. George Robertson
The Rt. Rev Vincent Warner

[98] Posted by carol on 03-06-2007 at 08:05 PM • top

I don’t know where the above email address to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) came from.  The email address which I copied and pasted was .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) .
C
hope it prints this time.

[99] Posted by carol on 03-06-2007 at 08:09 PM • top

I give up, the email address converts to the one above.
c

[100] Posted by carol on 03-06-2007 at 08:10 PM • top

Hi Carol,

If you use the website link that KarenB offered above in the comments, you can locate the clergy listed.

Here is the website again:
http://www.ecdplus.org/

You can even send an email through that website to the priest you are searching on.  Using that website, here is the information on three of them.

The Rev Cristia Amburgey is at St. Andrews in Tacoma, WA.

James Neal is at St. Hugh of Lincoln, in Allyn, WA.

Stephen Garratt is at Christ Church, in Seattle, WA.

Should you decide not to send emails through the ECDplus website, you could send them letters, since the addresses of the parishes are listed on the ECDplus webiste.

Hope this helps!

[101] Posted by Sarah on 03-06-2007 at 08:22 PM • top

Carol,
The email address you are struggling with belongs to the President of the SC for the Diocese of Rhode Island; he’s the only one with an identified email. Below is the list of the SC members, copied from their website at http://www.episcopalri.org.
The Rev. Robert Anthony, President (2007): .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
The Rev. Sandra Haines-Murdocco (2008)
The Rev. Jennifer West, Secretary (2009)
The Rev. William Locke (2010)
Mr. Benjamin Harris III (2007)
Mr. William Plumb (2008)
Mr. Franklyn Cook (2009)
Ms. Lora MacFall (2010)
——
Ron

[102] Posted by RonMcK3 on 03-06-2007 at 08:32 PM • top

Sarah, I tried the link for WV Standing Committee members, but the page cannot be found.

[103] Posted by Lewis on 03-06-2007 at 09:32 PM • top

I called the Dio. of Kentucky today. Two items of interest: (1) they wouldn’t tell me how +Gulick had voted, and (2) they said the bishop had arranged a conference call with the Standing Committee for tomorrow (3/7/07). +Gulick is an institutionalist IMHO, and this may be an effort to get the Standing Committee to consent. maybe. The office also told me there hadn’t been much interest in this matter before last week, but that they were getting an ‘extraordinary’ amount of calls on the matter. Way to go, SF. Knowledge is power.

[104] Posted by angloirish on 03-06-2007 at 09:36 PM • top

The consents are not going to happen.
Let’s concentrate on what happens next.
I say elect him again.

[105] Posted by RealityCheck on 03-06-2007 at 09:36 PM • top

Hi Lewis, I’ve made a tinyurl for the link:

http://tinyurl.com/32l5fa

[106] Posted by Sarah on 03-06-2007 at 10:09 PM • top

Thanks Sarah.  I am no longer a member of the Diocese of Olympia.  If I were, I would definitely write to all of them, however I don’t think they would pay much attention since I left ECUSA.  They probably wouldn’t pay any attention if I were still in ECUSA. I currently go to a church under the Bishop of Recife.  I just did the search for information purposes.  Like I said the email that I copied from the DoO page was BBrower @ ecww.org and it converted to the one that printed out once it was posted and sent.

[107] Posted by carol on 03-07-2007 at 01:12 AM • top

On the renumbering matter, Resolution A082 passed at GC 2006 accomplished the renumbering:

Title: Amend Canons III.5-III.13
Topic: Canons
Committee: Ministry
House of Initial Action: Bishops
Proposer: Ministry Development
Resolved, That Canons III.5 through III.23 be deleted and be replaced by the following proposed Canons III.5 through III.13

A written response within 120 days by each Standing Committee is mandated by III.11.4:

Each Standing Committee, in not more than one hundred and twenty days after the sending by the electing body of the certificate of the election, shall respond by sending the Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the Bishop is elected either the testimonial of consent in the form set out in paragraph (b) of this Section or written notice of its refusal to give consent.

The affirmative vote of all dioceses, not just those who vote, most be obtained under III.11.5:

In case a majority of all the Standing Committees of the Dioceses do not consent to the ordination of the Bishop-elect within one hundred and twenty days from the date of the notification of the election by the Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the Bishop was elected, or in case a majority of all the Bishops exercising jurisdiction do not consent within one hundred and twenty days from the date of notification to them by the Presiding Bishop of the election, the Presiding Bishop shall declare the election null and void…

Failure of a standing committee timely to respond violates the clear requirement of the canons.

[108] Posted by Sparky on 03-07-2007 at 07:20 AM • top

Sparky - wow…you mean some of these standing cmtes. are not respecting TEC’s unique, divinely revealed, discernable only to those with the divine spark POLITY?????

[109] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 03-07-2007 at 08:12 AM • top

Testing:

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

[110] Posted by Greg Griffith on 03-07-2007 at 08:57 AM • top

Fr. Tim:
Re your post above concerning the broadside by the Bishop—I couldn’t find it. I’d like to see it.
Apropos of the SD diocese clear revisionist and lbgt slant, I was quite surprised to find the Indian people of the area appear to be in agreement with it. I was raised in the Colorado 4 corners area, Southern Ute, Navajo, Hopi mostly. Very sturdy and conservative folks. I knew some Wind River Souix also, pretty much the same. What’s up in SD? Are pentacostals, other fundies in evidence? What is the dominant Christian presence in the Native populations?

[111] Posted by teddy mak on 03-07-2007 at 09:04 AM • top

The President of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Central Ecuador is the Rev. Flavio Sacarella. 

I believe that his email address is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

[112] Posted by Sarah on 03-07-2007 at 09:19 AM • top

teddy mak - the bishop’s sarcastic comments were posted here http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/bishop_of_south_dakota_diosd_is_a_safe_place_for_louie_crew_and_vgr/
First, let me admit that I am an outsider in the Dakotas…only been here 2 years.
Here’s my take on things:
1) There is a very noble (yes, imperfect, but noble none the less) history of the Episcopal Church ministering on the Lakota/Dakota reservations, showing some respect for the culture and trying to share Jesus, not just “whiteness.”  There were, for a long time, a cadre of saintly Lakota/Dakota clergy, although we are losing them rapidly to age and lack of young people to take their places.  You’ll meet plenty of adults here who experienced “anti-racism” before it was PC - that is, by taking part in the life of the diocese one had the chance to really take part in a Christianity that broke down boundaries.  It is a history worth sharing.
2) The tribal cultures are very reliant upon family lines, especially matrilineal lines.  There is a good deal of loyalty to the church of one’s ancestors, especially grandmothers.  Thus, old loyalties to the Episcopal Church can be strong.  The church provided clergy and other resources on the reservations, and functions like a kind of “state church”.  There is residual loyalty to that.
3) Homosexuality was not unknown in the culture.  This was romanticized in a novel “Hanta Yo” by Ruth Beebe Hill awhile back, and white romanticizers (along with some LGBT folks from the tribes) have created a myth that LGBT was not only accepted, it was considered sacred.  Near as I can glean from the history books (and it is only fair to note that most of these are written by white observers), homosexuals were certainly not banished from the community, but were regarded with the same ambivalence that might be found in any other culture.  TEC has locked onto the Hanta Yo myth, and that is the party line.  Not all on the reservations know what’s up, because it simply doesn’t come up most of the time.  And they are loathe to criticize TEC because of what I describe in point #2.
4)  The state of the church on the reservations is not all that great.  It runs on the evaporating fumes of tradition, save in a few spots.  Most church attendance is for funerals.  People want infant baptisms, but on a “drop in” basis.  (The tribes have what might be called a “high sacramentality”, or belief in the power of ceremony.)  Young people are largely uninterested in church (not a distinctly tribal problem, that).  Native people who rise to prominence in TEC are, by and large, like other ethnic minorities in TEC leadership - essentially those sharing a white leftist/LGBT agenda.  The reservation church exists largely on paper or in church bureaucracy.  Even with GenCon funding (half the diocesan budget), it is hard to keep mission clergy on the reservations due to the hardships and the isolation.
5) A telling moment for me came at a deanery meeting last year, when a tribal member stood up and took the church to task for failing to bring a Christian spiritual witness to the reservations.  “We have our traditional religion and can go back to that”, he said, “We don’t need clergy down here doing ‘projects’ because we get government money for that stuff.  You guys need to get back to your spiritual message.”  Everybody pretty much nodded and went on to talk about MDGs, etc.

Anyway, that’s a bit of perspective. Chip Johnson has more history here and hopefully can post some.  But the history, the family bonds and other historical/cutural factors point to why TEC in SD gets by as such an eccentrically left wing operation.

[113] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 03-07-2007 at 09:51 AM • top

Sparky,

Thanks for the info on the renumbering.  I had it in the back of my head somewhere that things got renumbered.  Too bad they didn’t renumber 120 to 180!  So I assume March 12 is 120 days from the start date.  If someone from South Carolina’s sc could confirm the start date, we’d have this little question answered.

[114] Posted by Widening Gyre on 03-07-2007 at 09:55 AM • top

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Bethlehem is:
Mr. Robert C. Wilkins, President
The Rev. T. Scott Allen
Mrs. Connie Archer
Mrs. Laura C. Drum
Mrs. Elizabeth House
The Rev. Canon Anne E. Kitch
The Rev. Canon Walter L. Krieger
The Rev. Canon Bill Lewellis
The Rev. Canon Gwendolyn-Jane Romeril
Dr. Edwin Schatkowski

Their, frankly, appalling reasoning for not voting to consent to the election of Mark Lawrence may be found here:
http://diobeth.typepad.com/diobeth_newspin/files/070102-3a.pdf

They take many, many words to finally arrive at the statement that he “would not work for reconciliation”, which word “reconciliation” as we all know gets to be defined by those who have the voting power to not consent to his election.  ; > )

[115] Posted by Sarah on 03-07-2007 at 09:56 AM • top

About the Diocese of Taiwan, would Archbishop Chew possibly have any contacts there, or be able to come up with any?

[116] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 03-07-2007 at 10:04 AM • top

At least three members of the Diocese of Maryland Standing Committee are:

Ginny Miller
The Rev. Scott Bellows
The Rev. Scott Slater

[117] Posted by Sarah on 03-07-2007 at 10:13 AM • top

The members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Washington are found here:

http://www.edow.org/diocese/governance/committees/comm_standing.htm

[118] Posted by Sarah on 03-07-2007 at 10:15 AM • top

I have been unable to find the members of the Standing Committees of Delaware or Easton.

[119] Posted by Sarah on 03-07-2007 at 10:17 AM • top

A contact in the Diocese of Oregon has sent me an email with the link to the Standing Committee of that diocese and assurances that he is emailing them:
http://www.diocese-oregon.org/programgroups/standing_cmte_roster.htm

Thank you!

[120] Posted by Sarah on 03-07-2007 at 11:33 AM • top

I read in the link referenced in Sarah Hey’s post of 8:56 a.m. today that the “Notice was sent from the Diocese of South Carolina on September 18 [of the election of Mark Lawrence].”

If this is correct, the 120 day deadline for the giving of consents by the SC’s and Bishops may have expired on or about January 16, 2007. 

As requested in previous posts, could someone confirm “the date of the notification of the election by the Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the Bishop was elected…” i.e. when South Carolina sent out its certificate of election to the several Dioceses of TEC

For a March 12, 2007, deadline to apply the effective date of the giving notice of the election would have been on or about November 12, 2006, depending upon whether one counts date of mailing, 3 days for mailing, etc. 

I wonder if “time is of the essence” where the SC’s have not done their jobs.

[121] Posted by Sparky on 03-07-2007 at 12:09 PM • top

Reason for the Delay Was explained on TitusOneNine by
Rev. Canon Fr. Mike Malone - http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17326

Materials relating to Fr. Lawrence’s election were delayed leaving South Carolina because:

Prior to his nomination and election, Fr. Lawrence received his psychological examination, not in the Diocese of South Carolina, but in Columbia by the same psychiatrist who examined Bishop Dorsey Henderson. Our diocese was most careful thusly for this to be an arms length item.

After Fr. Lawrence’s election, we understand that the Presiding Bishop’s office redundantly requested another examination, even though the canons had already been satisfied. It took some time to arrange for this second examination and even more drawned out time for a report to be sent to the Presiding Bishop’s office. It was the second week in November before the Diocese of South Carolina was then authorized to send the requests for consent. The Diocese of SC would have had no reason whatever to delay sending consent requests given the projected Feb. 24 consecration set, I might add, by the PB’s office.

–The Rev. Canon Michael Malone recently retired from being Canon to the Ordinary of the Diocese of South Carolina

[122] Posted by GrannieKay on 03-07-2007 at 12:20 PM • top

Is there any listing of the consenting bishops in this process?

[123] Posted by Laytone on 03-07-2007 at 12:23 PM • top

As to SC’s options >  Perhaps - if this new pastoral committee which provide a form of “alternative oversight” for conservatives - gets its act together in the near future ... could have a “re-election” just amongst its group ....?  Suspect it would only take a few minutes and I doubt that they would require a third visit to the shrink ...

If Father Lawrence doesn’t get elected, I have no intention in remaining in Corithin eating pagan meat.

[124] Posted by Rich on 03-07-2007 at 12:37 PM • top

teddymac,

Here is a direct link to the SD diocesan ‘information page’
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/gb/diocesesd?trail=16
this takes you to +Creighton’s remarks, but scroll back and forth in the site…it is very interesting.

In Lakota culture, there is a word that transliterates as wi’inkte that refers to a person with both male and female characteristics… usually thought of as a particularly powerful medicine person or shaman.
The native priests have dwindled to a ‘precious few’ and the diocesan powers are lief to assign many whites to Indian work.  I know, because before I was called to Orders by the Hot Springs Mutual Ministry team, I had asked our vicar at the time, who was Lakota, if I could go in immersion to learn the culture and language, then go to minister on the mission.  His and the bishop’s answer, “No”.  I was not ordered in the Episcopal Church, vowed as a Franciscan and am ordained under an Anglican authority.  The whites assigned to the native work either don’t stay beacuse of the tremendous work load, 8 - 10 parishes or missions, or preaching stations, and the lack of native helpers.  When 1979 chasnged the thrust of liturgy from Morning and Evening Prayer to a weekly Eucharist, and refused to license lay presiders, it doomed the mission work in the Indian (oyate) nations.  The mission stations coiuld not afford een a part-time seminary trained clergy person, and they have not kept up with services, catechesis, or calling and development of native clergy candidates.  All native clergy now in SD are at or past retirement age.
Pray for the people, mitakuwe oyasin (all my relations).

[125] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 03-07-2007 at 01:32 PM • top

I know Sarah was looking for Easton SC info.  I found the name of the SC President.  (I already sent her the names of two newly-elected SC members from Feb. Dio Conv.)

Std Committee President:
The Rev. Laura Dorsey
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  (this may be her husband’s e-mail… not sure—he’s rector, she’s assistant rector)

More info (parish phone # here)
http://www.dioceseofeaston.org/mtvernon.html

Google Search tip.  Do a site search.  In this case “Standing Committee”  Site:
http://www.dioceseofeaston.org

You can do it through Google Advanced Search
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en

(enter the dio website URL under the section DOMAIN—“only results from this domain”)

Or you can enter it into the Google Search box like this:
“standing committee” site:www.dioceseofeaston.org

[126] Posted by Karen B. on 03-07-2007 at 01:44 PM • top

Perhaps, in your list of non-consenting dioceses, you could convert the name of the diocese into a link to the standing committee?
Ah, where’s a good webelf when you need one?

[127] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 03-07-2007 at 01:45 PM • top

DANG.  What is going on with e-mail addresses on this site?!?!??

here is what the e-mail address should be. (replace punctuation)

evdorsey [at] comcast [dot] net

[128] Posted by Karen B. on 03-07-2007 at 01:46 PM • top

*** NOTE THE E-MAIL ADDRESS OF THE RHODE ISLAND PRESIDENT !! ***
Diocese of Rhode Island Standing Committee - 2006 / 2007

Rev. Robert W. Anthony, PRESIDENT
(Retired rector) Christ Church, Westerly, RI
7 Elm Street, Westerly, RI 02891
Home 401-348-3015
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
____________________________________

Rev. Sandra P. Haines-Murdocco
Rector, Church of the Ascension, Wakefield, RI
Church 401-783-2911
Home 401-792-9179   cell 401-742-0621
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
____________________________________

Rev. Jennifer West, SECRETARY
44 Arnold Avenue, Cranston RI 02852
Home 401-461-9378
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
___________________________________

Rev. William Locke
Rector – St. Paul’s, Pawtucket, RI
Church 401-728-4300
Home 401-728-1148
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
__________________________________

Mr. Benjamin Harris III
1 Wayland Avenue, Providence, RI 02906
Home 401-861-6795
__________________________________

Mr. William Plumb
22 Bolton Street, Warwick, RI 02888
Home 401-785-2188
__________________________________

Mr. Franklyn T. Cook
56 Torrey Road, Cumberland, RI 02864
Home 401-334-3412
__________________________________

Ms. Lora MacFall
58 Grange Avenue, Little Compton, RI 02837
Home 401-635-4878

[129] Posted by Mama Jeff-Thyatira on 03-07-2007 at 02:52 PM • top

I included lots of e-mail addresses for the Rhode Island Standing Committee and they were ALL shown incorrectly at the Stand Firm website.  How about getting tech support moving right away??!!??

[130] Posted by Mama Jeff-Thyatira on 03-07-2007 at 02:55 PM • top

I’m trying to get a word in to Bp Gumbs in Virgin Islands, but their First Class intranet system and website is suddenly down.  I am surprised by their being included in the list above.  I’ll call if I have to.

[131] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-07-2007 at 05:03 PM • top

Canon III.11.4 required South Carolina immediately to send the certificate of election both to the Presiding Bishop and to the Standing Committees of the several Dioceses.  Canon III.11.4 required the Presiding Bishop to act “without delay”:

The Presiding Bishop, without delay , shall notify every Bishop of this Church exercising jurisdiction of the Presiding Bishop’s receipt of the certificates mentioned in this Section and request a statement of consent or withholding of consent.

However, whether or not the Presiding Bishop acted “without delay,” the several Standing Committees are to respond within 120 days “after the sending by the electing body of the certificate of the election.”  As III.11.4 currently reads, a delay by the Presiding Bishop does not appear to extend the 120 day deadline.

[132] Posted by Sparky on 03-07-2007 at 05:12 PM • top

Thank you Rob!

And thanks to all who are working, emailing, calling, researching.

This is really great.

[133] Posted by Sarah on 03-07-2007 at 05:14 PM • top

Mama Jeff-Thyatira,

I don’t quite know what happened as you entered your e-mails for the Rhode Island standing committee, but all of the e-mails came through as tttco@gwtc.net, which happens to belong to the chair of the South Dakota SC, Sherry Maule.

[134] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 03-07-2007 at 05:54 PM • top

I found the chair of the Std. Comm. of Kentucky

Standing Committee
  Chair, The Rev. Suzanne Barrow
Vicar, St. Andrew’s Church, Glasgow
e-mail:
StAndrews[at]glasgow-ky[dot]com

[135] Posted by Karen B. on 03-07-2007 at 06:54 PM • top

Just E-Mailed to the clergy half of Massachusetts - all I could find for the lay folks was names, no E-Mails.  I doubt it would or will matter anyway :(

MassPK

[136] Posted by MassPK on 03-07-2007 at 07:34 PM • top

Received by email, here are two more members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Easton:

Lay
Fritz Riedlin (Christ Church, St. Michaels)

Clergy
Ken Thom (All Hallows, Snow Hill)

Thank you KB!!!

[137] Posted by Sarah on 03-07-2007 at 07:44 PM • top

Here are the clergy members (w/email addresses) for the Diocese of Western Kansas

Rev Michael Millikin, Pres.:  grace(dot)hutch(at)sbcglobal(dot)net
Rev Canon Charles Schneider:  christcathedral(at)christ(hyphen)cathedral(dot)us
Rev Karen Lemons:  vicar(underline)karen(at)yahoo(dot)com

[138] Posted by David Wilson on 03-07-2007 at 08:33 PM • top

Dear folks, thank you all so much for your efforts on behalf of the Dio of SC and our Bishop-Elect.  Please check our diocesan website for a statement from MJL+ .  If this has already been noted elsewhere, my apologies.

[139] Posted by Saltmarsh Gal on 03-07-2007 at 09:02 PM • top

Sorry, neglected to add the website link - http://southcarolina.anglican.org/
With regard to the deadline for consents, my understanding is that the clock started ticking from the date the Dio of SC Standing Committee received permission from 815 to send the requests for consents.

                                Jennie in Charleston, SC

[140] Posted by Saltmarsh Gal on 03-07-2007 at 09:08 PM • top

Again, (and not just you Sparky - BTW, I hope that’s not a reference a la National Lampoon’s “Vacation” series, and I’ve just called you that),

The “certification of election” is not synonymous with the election, or the posting of the results of the election, itself.  The official notice of certification was sent out only after the passing of a second psych exam.  That is, there is a slight crack in the canonical time frame to allow for such things as investigation of the voting procedure, and the PB’s office somehow presumed to stick their foot into the opening.  As soon as the psych write-up was received in the PB’s office then the certification announcement was released.

What has not happened as far as I can tell is a public justification for such an irregular presumption of control over the proceedings.  IS this S.O.P.; if so where did this policy originate, and why couldn’t ANY psychologist, psychiatrist or psychotherapist, no matter how high-falutin’ they is, sacrifice the ONE HOUR it took for the “exam” out of their precious schedule any earlier than they did?

[141] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-08-2007 at 12:01 AM • top

Was this action by the PB under Griswold or Schori?  Not that it matters, but I notice that the current bishop of Upper SC was examined by the same psychiatrist in the city of Columbia, the site of the Diocese he serves.  Interesting that didn’t raise eyebrows in any PB’s office, huh?

[142] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 03-08-2007 at 12:16 AM • top

Three members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Chicago are:

Michael Perillo, President for the Standing Committee
The Rev. Suzi Holding
Barbara Larsen

[143] Posted by Sarah on 03-08-2007 at 11:24 AM • top

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Eau Claire is:

THE STANDING COMMITTEE
The Very Reverend H. Scott Kirby – President
Dr. Walt Decker
The Reverend Guy Usher, Jr. SSC
Mr. Brad Edstrom
The Reverend Patrick Augustine
Mrs. Jo K. Glasser

[144] Posted by Sarah on 03-08-2007 at 11:31 AM • top

Dear Fr. Rob Eaton,

Wasn’t Frank Griswold, Clark’s cousin, present when the rest of the Griswolds arrived at Wallyworld, a theme park with no people—prescient of FutureWorld in the TEC?

[145] Posted by Sparky on 03-08-2007 at 11:32 AM • top

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Indianapolis may be found here:
http://www.indydio.org/images/pdf/scm/2006/scm112006.pdf?C=1

[146] Posted by Sarah on 03-08-2007 at 11:38 AM • top

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Eastern Michigan may be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/3dq3jo

[147] Posted by Sarah on 03-08-2007 at 11:48 AM • top

Did Eau Claire turn turtle?  How could they with hold consent with Scott Kirby and Patrick Augustine on the SC?

[148] Posted by David Wilson on 03-08-2007 at 11:57 AM • top

The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Northern Michigan is:

STANDING COMMITTEE

Carol Clark
caclark [at] uplogon [dot] com

Sue Jamison

Myrtle Weston

Ellie Burgess

Linda Piper, President
llpiper [at] up [dot] net

Marcia Franz

Hazel Satterly

[149] Posted by Sarah on 03-08-2007 at 11:58 AM • top

Do any laymen live on the Upper Penninsula of Michigan?

[150] Posted by David Wilson on 03-08-2007 at 12:02 PM • top

The e-mails for Rhode Island are still wrong.  The e-mail addresses shown are for the South Dakota Standing Committee members.

Chip

[151] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 03-08-2007 at 12:12 PM • top

Two recently elected members of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Ohio are:
Robert Bennett
Harcourt Parish, Gambier

The Rev. Marie Phillips
Church of the Epiphany, Euclid

The Standing Committee of 2005 may be found here:
http://tinyurl.com/2vj5yu

[152] Posted by Sarah on 03-08-2007 at 12:13 PM • top

The chair of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Michigan is:
The Rev’d Barbara Cavin

[153] Posted by Sarah on 03-08-2007 at 12:31 PM • top

Sarah,
Just noted at SouthCarolina website, OHIO and HONDURAS have changed their votes to “YES”.

[154] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-08-2007 at 01:19 PM • top

Can anyone out there tell me whether Western Michigan has replied wi a “no” vote or just not replied at all?  I would like to be accurate in my wording when I address letters to the SC.
Thanks
Thomas

[155] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-08-2007 at 01:20 PM • top

ATTENTION!!!! Didnt know where else to put this…..... Grannie G

The current headline on the Diocese of SC website
March 8th, 2007 posted by admin at 2:47 pm

Latest Consent Update for Father Mark Lawrence: Honduras and Ohio in “Yes” Column

It looks like two more Standing Committees have either recorded a “YES” vote for Mark Lawrence or changed their initial NO Vote. Honduras and Ohio are listed now as YES. You can keep up with all the consent news here.
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/

[156] Posted by Grandmother on 03-08-2007 at 02:55 PM • top

This is great news about Honduras and Ohio!!!  I can’t believe it . . .

I am getting tons of email—from people doing research and writing their Standing Committees. 

Friends, we have four more days to work and pray and write courteous, persuasive emails and letters.

[157] Posted by Sarah on 03-08-2007 at 03:18 PM • top

Sarah:  The president of the SC of the Diocese of Northern California has agreed to poll the other SC members to determine if there is the desire to change their vote.  Our bishop has stated that he has no objection to such a reconsideration.  We shall see.

[158] Posted by jamesw on 03-08-2007 at 03:27 PM • top

From the email bag:

The chair of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Kentucky is:
The Rev Suzanne Barrow
suzanneb [at] glasgow-ky [dot] com

[159] Posted by Sarah on 03-08-2007 at 03:28 PM • top

With the addition of Honduras and Ohio Mark Lawrence has gained 1 vote-  from 46 to 47.  Central PA was erroneously listed as a yes, but is now corrected on the South Carolina website.

THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF CENTRAL PA MEETS THIS SATURDAY, MARCH 10

Standing Committee CENTRAL PA

The Rev. Gregory Hinton, President, 2008 —motormeece[at]hotmail[com]; hinton[at]ptd[dot]net
Mrs. Regina Barrett, 2007
The Rev. Elizabeth Mollard, 2007
The Rev. Edward J. Peck, Jr., 2007
Mr. John Stevenson, 2007
Mrs. Margo Leithead, 2008
Dr. Clark McSparren, Jr., 2008
The Rev. Marjorie Menaul, 2008   Mmenaul [at] aol [dot]com
The Rev. Stephen Casey, 2009 vicarsteds[at]aol[dot]com
Ms. Virginia Gill, 2009
John T. Harwood, PhD., 2009
The Rev. Robert M. Lindberg, 2009

[160] Posted by Maria Lytle on 03-08-2007 at 04:08 PM • top

Two more YES votes to add in, make it 49.
http://southcarolina.anglican.org

[161] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-08-2007 at 04:56 PM • top

Rob, the website is reporting 50—we are six away.

Which ones, though, make it 50?

[162] Posted by Sarah on 03-08-2007 at 05:09 PM • top

Now Kentucky makes it 50.  Derby?!

[163] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-08-2007 at 05:14 PM • top

Sorry, we cross posted (that’s what happened to Jesus, in cyber lingo).
My follow of this is that Ohio and Honduras notified the DSC S.C.  That was around 3 pm in the afternoon (eastern).  Then Central Ecuador was counted in.  Then came news of East Tennessee, and now Kentucky.  Based on the listing above, ALL of them are reconsiderations.  So the official count, having removed a dupllication from the consent list, is 50.

[164] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-08-2007 at 05:23 PM • top

Is that what you meant? Or were you asking for a complete list that adds up to 50?  ‘Cause that’s at the bottom of the SouthCarolina webpage - just scroll down:  http://southcarolina.anglican.org

[165] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-08-2007 at 05:33 PM • top

This is incredible progress.  And this and other blog sites greatly advanced it.  Congratulations to all, but still 6 more to go.  Who is reconsidering?  N. CA is one.  Any others?  What’s happening with Virgin Islands?

[166] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 03-08-2007 at 07:53 PM • top

I just emailed Canon Patrick Augustine of the SC of Dio of Eau Claire and Fr Michael Millikin of the SC of W Kansas and appealed to them to reconsider their non consent vote for +ML.  Pray they do so.

[167] Posted by David Wilson on 03-08-2007 at 08:06 PM • top

Isn’t Northwest Texas supposed to be a Windsor diocese?  I would think that such a fact could be important in urging them to reconsider…

[168] Posted by Karen B. on 03-08-2007 at 08:10 PM • top

Virgin Islands S.C. has been asked to reconsider.  Bp Gumbs gave his consent early on.

[169] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 03-08-2007 at 08:14 PM • top

Would it be helpful to identify the 6-10 dioceses we have the most hope for in terms of reconsidering their vote and posting the names and links for Standing Committees in one place so folks don’t have to read through 160 comments?  My idea of such a list:

Eau Claire
Rhode Island
Northwest Texas
Central PA (meeting to vote on Sat, not sure if they have already voted NO or just not voted)
All three dioceses in Virginia (Virginia, Southern VA, Southwestern VA)
Georgia
Milwaukee
Northern California
Arizona

Think about folks you may know in such dioceses and send the information to them, urging them to act TOMORROW to e-mail or call their SC members.

Any other dioceses for such a list?  Would putting all the info in one post be helpful?  I’d be glad to help the SF crew if it would be.

[170] Posted by Karen B. on 03-08-2007 at 08:29 PM • top

West Virginia.  I will email the rector of Trinity Church Morgantown, the only ACN affiliated parish in WVA and ask him to contact the SC

[171] Posted by David Wilson on 03-08-2007 at 08:34 PM • top

Karen, Central PA already voted NO, but they happen to be meeting this Saturday, per their docesan web page.

[172] Posted by Maria Lytle on 03-08-2007 at 08:44 PM • top

Karen, yes, if someone could consolidate the info into an easily accessible form, I think that would be a great service. I only just now saw the post identifying the new head of Georgia’s standing committee - and I am an old parishioner of his. Make it as easy for people as possible. If I can help, let me know.

[173] Posted by oscewicee on 03-08-2007 at 08:50 PM • top

Ok, I’m going to work on coming up with lists of info per Province.  Working on Province 1, even though there’s not much hope there.  Here’s all Connecticut’s info, which I haven’t seen posted in the comments here:

Connecticut
http://www.ctdiocese.org/bishops/standing.shtml#members

Current Members
Feel free to contact any of our members with any questions and concerns. Also, please contact any of our members if you would like to nominate someone to be on the Standing Committee. Our Members and e-mail addresses are:

The Rev. Dr. Laura Ahrens
St. James’, Danbury
rector[at]st-james-parish.org

The Rev. K. Dexter Cheney
Christ Church and St. John’s by the Sea, West Haven
dexter.cheney[at]worldnet.att.net

Ms. Sylvia M. Ho
Old St. Andrew’s, Bloomfield
Sylviamho[at]comcast.net

Susan Porkorny
St. Paul &St;. James, New Haven

Eugene Leitermann
Christ Church, West Haven

Lyn Meyers
St. James, Danbury
Meyers.cpa[at]snet.net

The Rev. Linda Spiers
Trinity Church, Collinsville
Rector[at]TrinityCollinsville.org

The Rev. Peter Stebinger
Christ Church, Bethany
pstebinger[at]christchurchbethany.org

The Rev. Ellen Tillotson
Trinity, Torrington
revelt01[at]aol.com

Daphne (Taffy) Wilcox
St. Alban’s, Simsbury
dhwilcox[at]snet.net

[174] Posted by Karen B. on 03-08-2007 at 09:30 PM • top

Sounds like VI and WVa need to be added to the list of possible swings.

[175] Posted by Seen-Too-Much on 03-08-2007 at 09:31 PM • top

The information for Arizona that I was given by the Diocesan office was an email for one person (?) as the only way to contact the Standing Committee:  russmith[at]cox[dot]net
This is what I sent: 
I write to you today because I do not see our consent to the consecration of Mark Lawrence for Bishop of South Carolina among those who have responded positively to such requests.  If you have simply not responded yet, I urge you to do so post haste—the postmarked deadline for consents is March 12, 2007, as you are no doubt aware—and to respond positively, as Bishop-Elect Lawrence was duly elected by the Diocese of South Carolina and his consecration would not be in violation of any of the General Convention resolutions relating to “manner of life” concerns.

If you have already responded by denying consent, please acknowledge this fact, with accompanying explanation.  Furthermore, I would urge you to reconsider, and quickly; it is my understanding that this sort of thing is unprecedented in the last 50 some years of the Episcopal Church, and would have grave repercussions.

Thank you for your service to our Diocese.

[176] Posted by Lori on 03-08-2007 at 09:34 PM • top

Just a thought, but what about a fresh thread with nothing on it but the contact info?

[177] Posted by oscewicee on 03-08-2007 at 09:35 PM • top

Hi Karen,

The reason why I have hesitated to come up with a list of “swing dioceses” is I have felt as if that would cut off the possibility of people who have better contacts in other dioceses from pursuing that.  I just don’t think we can predict which dioceses would be open to change, and I have a feeling that it is a bizarre combination of contacts, from various avenues of influence—inside the diocese, friendships, outside contacts.

It’s just strange—I certainly would not have predicted that Kentucky and Ohio would change, while apparently Georgia remains intransigent.

That is why I decided to simply list all the dioceses that have not consented and scrounge desperately for contacts and promote it as much as possible.

[178] Posted by Sarah on 03-08-2007 at 09:49 PM • top

yes, Sarah, I do agree that it’s best not to try and “predict” which dioceses might swing.

As I mentioned in an e-mail offline, I will see what I can do to start compiling a list of contacts organized by Province.

[179] Posted by Karen B. on 03-08-2007 at 10:26 PM • top

I’m nearly done with Province 1 compilation, but in the meantime here is the info I’ve found for Maine:

Maine
list of SC here:
htp://twww.diomaine.org/page.html?pageId=62

The Rev. Nancy Moore, President (2007)
parish contact info see here:  http://www.ecdplus.org/clergy/?clergyID=mrnncl
e-mail:  nlmoore9[at]verizon.net

The Ven. Audrey Delafield (2006)
Parish info: St Albans, Cape Elizabeth
e-mail:  delafie[at]maine.rr.com

The Rev. Larney Otis [listed under: Violetta Lansdale Otis] (2008)
(contact info listed on ECD plus does not match Dio. Maine website. I cannot find current contact info)
ECD Plus listing:  http://www.ecdplus.org/clergy/?clergyID=otsvlttl

lay members (cities not listed)
Ms. Brenda Hamilton (2008)
Mr. Ralph Davison (2007)
Ms. Rita Redfield (2008)

[180] Posted by Karen B. on 03-08-2007 at 11:18 PM • top

And here is the info I’ve found for MASSACHUSETTS:
Massachusetts
SC listing here:  http://tinyurl.com/2s245v

The Rev. Ramon Aymerich
parish info:  St. Anne’s, Lowell
978.452.2150
e-mail:  stanneslowell[at]aol.com

Margaret Randle
Brett Donham
Betsy Ridge Madsen

The Rev. Jon Strand
Saint Paul’s,  Natick MA  
http://www.stpaulsnatick.org/
(508) 655-5880  
e-mail:  uponnatick[at]juno.com  
or use this contact page
http://www.stpaulsnatick.org/misc/contact.php
                 
Constance Perry

The Rev. Gale Davis Morris
The Church of the Good Shepherd, Acton MA
http://www.goodshepherdacton.org/
phone: (978) 263-5782
e-mail: admin[at]goodshepherdacton.org

The Rev. Peter Chase
Saint Mary’s Church, Newton Lower Falls
phone: (617) 527-4769
e-mail: st.marys.church[at]rcn.com

[181] Posted by Karen B. on 03-08-2007 at 11:24 PM • top

Would Fr. Lawrence not have better chances if he simply said, “I will remain” in TEC? i.e., as opposed to “It is my intention…” Sheesh. Talk about obfuscation and fudge! I thought only “my” side resorted to such verbal shenanigans!

[182] Posted by PadreWayne on 03-08-2007 at 11:51 PM • top

From a member of the SC of Eau Claire:

On 3/8/07, patrick augustine wrote:
Thanks my brother in the risen Christ. I have sent two e-mail messages to our President of the Standing Committee. I hope to hear from him soon. Peace of Christ.
Patrick

[183] Posted by David Wilson on 03-09-2007 at 12:38 AM • top

OK, I sent my Province I compilation to the SF crew, hopefully Sarah or one of her partners in crime can post it as a separate thread in the morning.

I’m now working on Province II.  Will post dioceses here for which I find new info.  Each diocese a separate comment…

[184] Posted by Karen B. on 03-09-2007 at 01:26 AM • top

Central NY Contact info I have found:

Central New York

The Rev. Kathryn Holly Eden
Resurrection, Oswego
(315) 343-3501
(315) 343-1063
church: e-mail resoswego[at]aol.com

Mr. Dale Johnson
Mr. Brian Kessler
Ms. Rebecca Livengood

The Very Rev. G. Thomas Luck
Dean, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Syracuse
(315) 474-6053 (x 225 for Dean Luck)
(315) 426-8600
e-mail: gtluck[at]saintpaulscathedral.org
offices[at]saintpaulscathedral.org

The Very Rev. Noreen P. Suriner
Trinity Memorial, Binghamton
(607) 723-3593
(607) 724-6945
parish e-mail: trinity[at]trinitymemorial.org
parish web: http://www.trinitymemorial.org/

Ms. Lucia Whisenand

[185] Posted by Karen B. on 03-09-2007 at 01:27 AM • top

Continuing Province II—Here’s Long Island info I have found:

Long Island

Contact:
Valarie H. Crosdale
718/675-0455
vhyacinth[at]att.net

The Very Rev. John E. Walker III, Secretary (serving until 2007)
Christ Church, Bellport
631- 286-0299
altojudy[at]optonline.net
http://www.dioceselongisland.org/allparish/S5ChristChurchBellport.htm

Estrada J. Bernard (Vice President)

The Rev. Canon Howard K. Williams
St. Augustine’s, Brooklyn
staugustines[at]earthlink.net
718-629-0959
church website: http://www.dioceselongisland.org/allparish/B17StAugustines.htm

The Rev. Eustan Ulric Jones
Church of St. James the Less, Jamaica
masojone[at]verizon.net
718-262-0535
parish web: http://www.dioceselongisland.org/allparish/Q20StJamesJamaica.htm

June S. Gerbracht

[186] Posted by Karen B. on 03-09-2007 at 01:54 AM • top

Diocese of New York:
First: the two SC members elected in 2006
The Rev. Brenda Husson
St. James’, Manhattan
(212) 774-4250
parish phone: (212) 288-4100; (212) 774-4200
bhusson[at]stjames.org

Winthrop Conrad, Jr.,
St. Matthew’s, Bedford

The names below were the members listed in 2006—I’m not sure which two are no longer a member from this list (one clergy and one lay would have been replaced by the two names above)

The Rev. Masud Ibn Syedullah
Atonement, Bronx
(718) 828-6078
misyedullah[at]att.net

Gerald E. Ross

The Rev. Betty B. Hudson
Grace, Hastings-on-Hudson
(914) 478-1779
bettyhudson[at]optonline.net

Judith E. Volkmann

The Rev. Deobarah M. Dresser
St. George’s, Newburgh
(845) 561-5355
ddresser[at]bestweb.net

Hance Huston

The Rev. Douglas J. Fisher
Grace, Millbrook, NY
(845) 677-3064
revdougfisher[at]msn.com

Judith T. Malone

[187] Posted by Karen B. on 03-09-2007 at 02:17 AM • top

Diocese of Newark:
Newark gets kudos for making it easy.  Everything all on one page.  Nice.
http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/standing.html

Ms. Cheryl Brocking (Class of 2009)
86 Roosevelt Avenue, Belleville NJ 07109
e-mail: cherylbrocking[at]gmail.com

The Rev. Kim Capwell (Class of 2010)
33 Kadel Drive, Mt. Arlington NJ 07856
e-mail: kcsc[at]optonline.net

The Rev. Dr. Cathy Deats (2011-1)
10 Schoolhouse Lane, Flanders NJ 07836
e-mail: cathydeats[at]comcast.net

Ms. Martha Gardner (2011-1)
12 Bowdoin Street, Maplewood NJ 07040
e-mail: mgardner[at]episcopalchurch.org

The Rev. Margaret (Maggie) Gat (Class of 2009)
61 Baker Avenue, Dover NJ 07801
e-mail: mailto:revmaggie[at]aol.com

Ms. Patrice Henderson (Class of 2010)
344 North Ridgewood Road, South Orange NJ 07079
e-mail: tricehende[at]aol.com

The Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton (Class of 2008) (President)
200 Main Street, Chatham NJ 07928
e-mail: EMKaeton[at]aol.com

Mr. Robert Simmons (Class of 2008)
One Cobane Terrace, West Orange NJ 07052

[188] Posted by Karen B. on 03-09-2007 at 02:25 AM • top

Date:  Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:44:48 -0800
From:  Mike
Subject: Failure to Consent to Bishop-elect Mark Lawrence

I guess it wasn’t unexpected, but the Standing Committee
of the Diocese of Olympia (Western Washington
State)reconsidered its consent and again declined on
canonical grounds.

Mike

[189] Posted by David Wilson on 03-09-2007 at 08:15 AM • top

Friends, I have just posted the Final Update for this thread.  Thanks to the work of KarenB, we now have the Standing Committee links and contacts for Province I and Province II.  I am putting a final note for this thread in the comments section as well, so everyone can see what’s going to happen this morning.

FINAL NOTE: Sometime around 10:30 a.m. EST today [Friday] we will be posting two separate posts.  The first will list all the links for Standing Committees—with related notes—for Provinces I, II, III, and IV.  The second will list all the links for Standing Committees—with related notes—for the remaining Provinces.  That will allow people to see the contact information that has been gathered in the comments of this thread, in the actual post, organized by Province.  Hopefully, in these final four days of opportunity, people will find this helpful as they seek to contact their diocese’s Standing Committee.

[190] Posted by Sarah on 03-09-2007 at 08:34 AM • top

Sarah and Karen B. - many thanks for this. I know it’s been a lot to deal with.

[191] Posted by oscewicee on 03-09-2007 at 09:07 AM • top

Southwestern Virginia has agreed to reconsider.  I’ve called in the prayeratroopers on this one.

[192] Posted by Widening Gyre on 03-09-2007 at 09:28 AM • top

TJ—Before this gets closed—I know it’s all over now, but my sources tell me the SC of Dio. W. Michigan did indeed vote no. I have yet to recieve a reply from an e-mail sent to three of them last Saturday.

[193] Posted by DavidSh on 03-13-2007 at 02:06 PM • top

The Diocese of SC website has not been updated for a few days ... suppose no news is ...... bad news.

[194] Posted by Rich on 03-13-2007 at 02:09 PM • top

DavidSh-
I had “discerned” as much- to use TEC’s favorite verb.  I also sent an email out to the clergy members (those I could find email addresses for).  I made an effort to put my request to them in positive terms.  I do not expect a response.  Given the declining numbers in this diocese, they may not have the money to pay their ISP to keep the email working (cathedral will be closed soon, so we are told).  Perhaps it is time to find a new job closer to a Windsor diocese.
Thomas

[195] Posted by tjmcmahon on 03-13-2007 at 04:14 PM • top

Thomas(TJ): Don’t know if you saw the announcement about our group—The Windsor Fellowship—but we will be meeting very soon, in Grand Rapids. One of the items on our agenda (hopefully) will be this “no” vote. If you want further information, contact me at dshaw [at] kdl [dot] org   Dave

[196] Posted by DavidSh on 03-13-2007 at 05:01 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.