BREAKING: Consents for New South Carolina Bishop’s Election Ruled Insufficient

Better now than a year from now, at least.

We knew, didn’t we, that we were very near the end of orthodox Anglicanism’s ability to put forward new bishops—and probably past the end of the time in which orthodox Anglicanism stood any chance of recapturing the city walls and ultimately healing ECUSA institutionally.  What we have here is merely documentary confirmation—with the added twist of Ms. Jefferts-Schori’s clear personal acquiescence in the result.

INCLUSIVITY LIVES!

the thoroughly disgusted snarkster

This has been clear for decades… the refusal of Lawrence+‘s nomination marks not a new thing, but rather the culmination of what started in the seminaries in the ‘70s… i.e. the destruction of orthodox faith and practice. What was sown then in the corruption of the seminaries is now being reaped, a generation and a half later, in the corruption of the HOB. This inevitable result was one of the reasons the Continuing church movement opted for the “stand firm outside” rather than the “struggle to survive within” approach to preserving faithful Anglican Christianity.

pax,
LP

Dear Jesus….

Wait a minute everyone.  What needs to be done now is produce evidence about what has been accepted as valid standing committee consents in the past.  If any “irregular” consent has been counted since the rule change, fine, we have a case.  If not (and remember that most bishops more then clear the required number so that in most cases invalid consents don’t matter), then we can’t get too upset about this.  Think of it this way - if 815 had said “well, the consents weren’t technically canonical, but we will count them anyway”, then Lawrence would have been a marked man as bishop by the liberals.  Much better to re-elect him and get the consents canonically.

If everything that this press release says is true - that Lawrence received sufficient consents, but that some didn’t count due to misunderstood technicalities, then the Diocese of South Carolina should hold an electoral convention asap, re-elect Lawrence, and make it very public that Lawrence had received the necessary consents already but that some didn’t count due to technicalities.

This is a major defeat for the “institutional” liberals, who needed Mark Lawrence confirmed in order to brag about how “inclusive” TEC is. To use procedures to manipulate a substantive result is sharp practise of the sort committed by sophisticated, ruthless lawyers. Sharp practise is not appropriate in the Church.

The Presiding Bishop’s personal role in this indicates that she has abandoned her appeasement policy toward the Primates that she adopted after Tanzania. She will likely side now with the “prophetic” liberals. Do not expect even a gesture of compliance with the Communique from the HoB.

Dear Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina:

Do not raise the white flag.

This is merely a test of your perseverance under oppression from those who care not for Jesus and His Church.

I need to know one thing . . . How did SoVa’s vote go into the OFFICIAL record.  I am betting that SoVa’s vote may have been nullified considering that they changed their vote with less than five hours to spare.

My understanding from someone in North Carolina who talked to members of SoVa’s Standing Committee was that our Standing Committee was originally going to wait until their March 20 regular meeting to reconsider their vote.  Apparently, my NC friend was the first to tell them of the deadline, (I also informed them of it via e-mail in the mid-to-late morning of the deadline date) so we both think that the “reconsideration” vote happened via e-mail.  Since it happened after noon on the deadline day, I cannot imagine that there was time to get a form with original signatures postmarked by 5:00 pm that day.  If this is the case, the SoVa may have actually ended up counting as a “no” vote.

If anyone can find out, please let me know.  Such information would be much appreciated . . . if their sloppy handling of this situation has contributed to this mess, we need to be certain that it is well publicized and the the truth is told.

As someone of traditional views who is trying to stick it out in TEC, this is very discouraging.  I am really beginning to question whether there is any room left for me in the new monolithically liberal TEC.  I suppose at some point you have to come to the realization that you are throwing away your time and treasure on an institution that has no use for you.

I find the ruling of KJS very interesting.  She is going on the “newly published 2006 canons” which I only received in the mail about three weeks ago.  Our Standing Committee voting was in January and we did not know of this requirement until this week.  We faxed a signed copy this week, had we been aware of the technicality we could have mailed a fully signed copy in February   SHALOM, EVERYONE!

Does anyone know if DioSC can re-elect Lawrence+?  If so, is it not a slam dunk that they will?  For it certainly seems that he would get the necessary consents the second time around. 

I know it is agonizing and ridiculous to have to hit the reset button, but if Lawrence+ is the godly shepherd he appears to be, it seems that DioSC would be well served in forwarding him a second time—this time, with no clearly procedural hurdles in the way of his consent.

I have been sad over many events over the past four years or so.  I have been mad over many events in that same time span.

This time . . . I am stark raving incensed!!!

Several dioceses, both on and off American soil, thought that electronic permission was sufficient as had been their past accepted practice.

I was fully expecting for Lawrence not to be confirmed.  That’s not what bothers me (in and of itself).  What bothers me is that the election was voided OVER A TECHNICALITY!!!

The key words above are “as had been their past accepted practice.”

To have the PB admit that there were enough consent votes, but that some of them arrived electronically without original signatures—EVEN THOUGH THIS HAS APPARENTLY BEEN ACCEPTED PRACTICE IN THE PAST—just means that ECUSA has now found yet another process oriented canon that must be enforced above all else.

For a church that blesses sinful, destructive and immoral behavior and no longer believes that Jesus is the only way to heaven to void this election on a technicality should simply not be tolerated.  Basically, they are telling us, after all the work that our “grassroots” network did over the past 10 days, that the process rules are simply more important when the orthodox members of the Church engage in the lobbying process and actually affect change.  This is a clear message to us that there is no point in us trying to continue playing the game by their rules—they keep changing them.

It is time for Archbishop Akinola, Bishop Duncan, Bishop Iker, Bishop Schofield (at least) to join Bishops Salmon and Allison at the Cathedral of St. Luke and St. Paul in Charleston to hold a consecration service.  If His Grace, Lord Canterbury could come too . . . all the better.

Sorry . . . but I’m having trouble feeling any love for the other side right now.  I want to be praying for South Carolina and Fr. Lawrence, but, right now, the only words that come into my mind have to do with Fort Sumpter and ICBMs aimed at 815 Second Avenue in New York.

Emails have been legally ruled as valid forms of communication.  I’d hope the South Carolina Standing Committee take Mrs. Shori to court and go ahead and plan the consecration of their new bishop with Global South Primates laying hands upon him.  Sad to say, I believe this lady is whoring her position in favor of homosexuals

“Our hand is to the plow, and in faithfulness to our Christ, we will not look back.” —These are words to take to heart.

Okay, let’s consider how the truly graceful and inclusive church might handle this.  We have the necessary number of consents, but some do not meet our canonical standard.  We believe that SC followed the correct procedure and we do have a majority of bishops and Standing Committees expressing approval.  Since we are an inclusive church that values diversity and we don’t want to appear nasty to conservatives, perhaps we could get those who offered their consent in a substandard way to resubmit their consent in an acceptable way and hold off any statement until this has happened.  We would do this because we are an inclusive church that values diversity and we believe in grace.

I just read the applicable pages, that were cited, in the 2006 canons mailed out in FEB.  I see nothing that warns of previous practices not valid anymore.  Interestingly enough, no one contacted us about our consent to Arkansas, we informed their Standing Committee in the same manner.  That consecration went forward…..  I think we just got reconciled…..

Folks.  Please all take some deep breaths here.  I think that this is about as good a result as could have occurred for us.  Think about it.  Lawrence got the necessary consents, but was ruled against on purely technical grounds.  Guess what?  The message we needed sent, just got sent LOUD AND CLEAR but also, the way has been paved for Lawrence to get quick consents the next time around.

I would also like to say very clearly - it is much, much better that KJS ruled the way she did if the consents in issue were not technically canonical.  The LAST thing we needed was for KJS to say “well, the consents were technically not canonical but we cut you a break”.  She could then trumpet this around for her own benefit - “my what a gracious primate is she, she even cut the conservatives a break from the canons to protect them.”  NO, NO, NO!!!!!!  Much better to have this decision and for the Diocese of South Carolina to re-elect Lawrence!

Please everyone, take a deep breath.  Think about this one for a while before you post a comment.  It is a difficult decision, but strategically one that will boost our cause.

BTW, I think what we should do now is for each one of us to write an email to Fr. Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina’s Standing Committee (with a copy to your own diocesan bishop) expressing your condolences to Fr. Lawrence and his wife, but also expressing your hope that the Diocese will re-elect him and that he will accept.

Here is what I wrote:

I am an Episcopalian/Anglican in _________________.  I have just read that your election was ruled null and void due to canonical technicalities with some of the consents.  I would like to offer you my condolences for this result, but I am praying that neither you nor the Diocese of South Carolina give up.  I believe that it is important that you be confirmed as the next bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, but it is also important that this be done above and beyond reproach.

I realize that this has been a very difficult time for you and your wife, but I believe that you have been called for this leadership role.  I believe that this whole sorry episode may have played a very important role in the emergence of the new Anglicanism in North America as moderates in our Episcopal Church have hopefully realized the intolerance and political posturing of the dominant faction in our Church’s leadership.  It is my hope that the Diocese of South Carolina will very quickly re-elect you to be their next bishop, that you will accept, and that you will quickly receive the necessary consents.

By all means, let’s be disappointed.  Let’s be angry at the ill treatment that was afforded Mark Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina.  But let’s act strategically.

According to KSH, on a list NOT to be quoted.
Someone asked about “electronic” media being use.

Kendall’s answer:

“Faxed copies are sufficient, however they have to filled out properly”.
I assume, ALL the signatures MUST show…

Grannie Gloria

Fort Sumter time?

I think we need some clearer information on exactly what wasn’t canonically correct and why.  I do think the PB is between a rock and a hard place - does she follow the canons to the letter (and get killed by the “grace” folk) or does she fudge a bit (and get killed by the technical/legal folks). I don’t envy her position.
This is not a lost cause, just a minor diversion. When it’s all over, the duly elected and consented-to Bishop, whoever that may be, and all of SC hopefully will stand on firm and high ground.  It’s good friday, folks, but easter is a’comin. You just watch and see.

Just awash in clarity, aren’t we. What, all the orthodox wonder, will the Network and Windsor bishops do about it?

I’m saddened that the election of Mark Lawrence was declared null and void by KJS, and I’m angry with 815; however, I am not at all surprised at the outcome.  Today’s events confirm what has been clear for some time:  there is no place in TEC for those who hold to the faith once delivered.  This is just one more step in the systematic process of eliminating the orthodox from the “inclusive” Episcopal pseudoChurch.

I cling to the belief that soon, and to TEpC’s dismay, the Lord will use this rejection of His faithful servants to bring honor and glory to Himself.

Matt, my thoughts are like yours.

I’ve tried, but I can’t get angry with the PB about this.  In this case, her role was the messenger and it’s always easy and tempting to shoot the messenger.

The people who are getting off scot free in this are the idiots on the Standing Committees who didn’t do their job.  “We didn’t know” is no excuse.  They stood for election.  It’s their JOB to know HOW to do their job and if they DON’T know how to do their JOB then they owe it to their dioceses and, as we have recently seen in Mark’s+ case, to the wider Church.

And if the Standing Committee members didn’t bother to follow up on resolutions or canonical changes relative to their committee via General Convention, why didn’t their delegates inform them?

No, we can’t blame ++KJS for this.  Her job in matters concerning elections are prescribed.  We can, and should, fully blame the people on those Standing Committees who didn’t know what the you-know-what they were doing and didn’t have the smarts to go looking.

“do think the PB is between a rock and a hard place - “

I disagree slightly, I would consider her “between THE ROCK, and the hot place”.

Perhaps she could remember, “Upon this rock, I will build my church”??

Failure to cleave to the “rock” will definitely put one in a “hot” place. cause, the “rock cried out, no hiding place”.

Here endeth the sermon..

Grannie Gloria

Left out a clause.

The people who are getting off scot free in this are the idiots on the Standing Committees who didn’t do their job.  “We didn’t know” is no excuse.  They stood for election.  It’s their JOB to know HOW to do their job and if they DON’T know how to do their JOB then they owe it to their dioceses and, as we have recently seen in Mark’s+ case, to the wider Church to LEARN how to do their job.

How could this have happpened?
Those in support of the bishop-elect’s election should have posted their approval earlier.

Why does someone who clearly dislikes and disagrees with a denomination so much want to be a bishop within it?

I am still awaiting a split - I hope this will encourage it to happen sooner rather than later.

TEC has been reduced to a laughing stock.
PB’s office should have informed the dioceses of the changes and warned them of the new rules.

MM -
We have been wondering for years why those who dislike the tenets of the Anglican faith so much want to stay.  It really is a puzzle.

Mersey Mike, why do all the post-Christians who are making up their own religion as they go along want to stay in a Christian church? What on earth is keeping them here????

Sarah, Matt, or Greg, does Bishop Salmon have to request permission of the HOB again before another election can be held?

PB’s office should have informed the dioceses of the changes and warned them of the new rules.

No.  The dioceses should have known of the changes.  They should have read what South Carolina wrote them in their letter.  They should have paid attention at General Convention when the changes were made.  They should have not waited until the last minute to respond earlier just as you suggested.  But It is NOT the PB’s job to be a Standing Committee’s nanny.  The rules were posted, the rules were sent, and they were caught sleeping at the wheel.  Those members of those standing committees cost a diocese their bishop and they should resign and let people who know how to read and comprehend take their positions.

That’s why I think that there does need to be a new global movement headed up by TEC. It makes more sense to have a clearly liberal option - there is really nothing logical which should indicate the presence of people with diametrically opposite views within the same organisation.

if there is no longer room for liberalism within the Anglican communion, then it makes sense for liberals throughout the communion to look towards starting something focused on that perspective - but I think that TECis not a conservative church, so there is no reason why an arch-conservative should wish to be a bishop within it.

Besides, as I just got through reading at T19, 815 DID make what Kendall says were “numerous” calls.  Furthermore, Kendall says that 815 was very, very helpful to South Carolina’s process.  So I maintain, don’t shoot the messenger.  Blame those who don’t take their diocesan responsibilities seriously.

Bleah.

I will pray for Fr Lawrence and his wife. They must feel like they are twisting in the wind. They deserve better. In the meantime, we need to let KJS know that her shabby treatment of this good man will be forever writ in our memories. She is a sycophant who panders to her gay lobby supporters. Is there any doubt that TEC needs to go its own way, away from the AC and away from catholic Christianity, to cleanse both? Inclusivity, indeed. “No Room for the Bible” should be posted on every door of the institutionalist parishes.

That’s why I think that there does need to be a new global movement headed up by TEC. It makes more sense to have a clearly liberal option

You’re right, Mike. Tell your liberal friends to give up their hypocrisy by hiding in a Christian church and have the courage of their convictions and go out and do this brave new thing in a brave new “church” of their own. THat would be honest and full of integrity. Go for it.

Oh, yeah. And all this mess is a part of our “polity” that we are so proud of. Less “polity” and more “piety” might be a good place to start.

Another clarifying moment…..for the entire communion to observe.

Who’s at fault? Yes the standing committees should know the rules. But the “judges” should have informed every voter if their ballot was disqualified. It’s a courtesy that obviously wasn’t extended. Or was it? Were some told and others not? How many on each side failed?
As for our PB – she should follow the letter of the rules, all the time, let the chips fall where they may - including when she signs agreements with the Primates.

Jimbo

I am assuming that since we have full lists, that the Standing Committee decisions are public knowledge?  So, if I call my Diocese, I can ask them specifically, did the Standing Committee respond, and if so, how?

Lori, yes it is public knowledge and yes you should be able to ask both questions and demand an answer and an explanation.

This is not the first time that a corrupt group has dragged its feet or procrastinated in order to get its way, nor will it be the last. 

Can’t you all just feel the inclusive love, friends?  This has been a long time coming, but it’s not surprising.  When activists have 49% of the vote, what we need is “dialogue” or a “listening process”.  When they achieve 51% of the vote, then what we need is a “mandatory consensus”, despite all the lip service regarding “diversity” and “inclusion”. 

Appalling, and I don’t know how anyone manages to be a part of groupthink like this without feeling the need for a hair shirt.  “Religious sociopathy”, or something like that? 

And yet, it’s a Pyrrhic victory. 

The Triune God STILL RULES…. 

My deepest prayers are with the Lawrences and the people of South Carolina.  Somehow I have a feeling that the fat lady hasn’t sung yet…

  Take heart, all, and keep the Faith….

IC,

J.

The required consents were made. The Diocese of South Carolina should reject Schori’s declaration and consecrate Fr. Lawrence anyway.

Chazzy, I wrote this on the other thread in regards to the question you pose above:

1.  As I mentioned sometime last week, to do what you propose would not only set the Diocese of South Carolina outside the Episcopal Church but also outside the Anglican Communion.  Remember, the ABC has not recognized the AMiA bishops who were irregularly consecrated BECAUSE they were irregularly consecrated.  The Diocese would be on its own.

2.  Any bishop who participated in his consecration would be subject to being defrocked.  Not, perhaps, that they would care.  And some would definitely love to provoke such a fight which leads to

3.  Do you honestly think Mark Lawrence would want to spend the vast amount of time in his episcopacy having to deal with these issues instead of being able to spend his time doing what the Lord is calling him to do?  If he thinks that God wants him to be like VGR, a cause celebre, then go ahead.  Personally, I don’t think he wants that kind of attention and thus would not agree to be consecrated under these circumstances.

Elect him again.  Run him again.  And then sit with the Standing Committees who screwed this thing up so that they know how to write their names legibly.  Then take these Standing Committees or their clerks to the Post Office.  You might want to hold their hand so that they don’t get lost.

Ok, this has my Scotch-Irish Presbyterian blood boiling!!!!! Now I know that there are procedures that have to be followed. But in the event that anyone in SC wants to make a clear, defiant (dare I say, Protestant?) statement, may I suggest one of the two actions:

1. If Rev. Larwence will consent, go ahead and consecrate him anyway. When the PB and other bishops refuse to go along with this, invite the Primates of the GS to come and consecrate Rev. Larwence, thus giving him true Apostolic Succession (which I dare say may be suspect in TEC.)

2. Have the Diocese of SC meet, but then emerge and boldly declare that Rev. Larwence is their choice and they will not consider any other. They then declare that the consents already given are automatically considered as given and the ones that are not in proper format be resubmitted in proper form and then quickly move to consecrate Rev. Larwence.

(ProfJohn, rabble-rousing Presbyterian, and Anglican to-be)

ps. I know that Rev. Larwence will not consent to theses actions, but I remember one of the last lines in The Hunt for Red October, “A little revolution every now and then can be good.”

`Mersey Mike, why do all the post-Christians who are making up their own religion as they go along want to stay in a Christian church? What on earth is keeping them here????’
Posted by oscewicee on 03-15-2007 at 06:09 PM

___________________________________________

The reason, I am afraid, is that many post-Christians have perceived that it advances their agenda to be perceived to have the approval of Christian institutions. 

If I desire to live a lifestyle that is condemned by the Church, I can declare open revolt and proclaim that the Church is wrong. 

Or, if I can find a denomination whose theological and institutional immune systems are so compromised that I, and others of like mind, can work our ways into positions of leadership and authoritative teaching, and then use these positions to preach a so-called ‘gospel’ that is 180 degrees removed from the Gospel upon which the real Church was built, and from which the Church has, in Christendom, derived its respectability.

Imagine that you are an active homosexual who perceives his lifestyle to be condemned by the Church, but who wishes to continue in that lifestyle.  If you simply said, ‘to Hell with the Church,’ that would leave you in an uncomfortable position:  the Church would remain out there to point up the sinfulness of your lifestyle—and there is enough vestigial respectability adhering to the official churches of Christendom to make that witness against your lifestyle, however muted, nonetheless uncomfortable.

But what if that were not your only choice?  What if you could somehow contrive for the Church to speak with a divided voice, or, better still, to start propagandising in your favour?  What if you found a denomination whose power structure was so accessible to those quietly repudiating that denomination’s historic beliefs as to admit to seminary professorships and standing committees and bishoprics and councils on applications to the ministry those who wished to affirm your chosen lifestyle at the expense of renouncing historic Christian faith and practise?  Now you would not be faced with an ‘either/or’ choice between official church (and social) approval and your favoured sexual practises.  Rather, you would perceive a means of having both:  of persuading others (and yourself) that that which your carnal nature desired was compatible with social acceptance now, and salvation hereafter.  Not bad, eh?  Note that in the aftermath of the most recent US presidential election, in which the power of conservative Christians made itself known at the polls, the American Left Wing began serious cultivation of a ‘Religious Left’ in an effort at least to divide the Christian vote—if not to suborn the religious citizenry through using religion as a tool for political crowd-control.

Do not underestimate the sheer, vast power of the natural human drive for self-justification.  A wise behaviouralist will take this into consideration no less than the drives for food and sex, in predicting human actions.  Did we think that Jesus did not mean it when He said, ‘This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.’?  (John iii.19-20)

According to Captain Yips:

http://captainyips.typepad.com/journal/2007/03/well_thats_a_su.html

There was nothing in the canons that mandated this step.

Let Schori prove that email doesn’t constitute real writing in court. Proceed with the consecration. Meanwhile, ask the bishops and standing committees whose consents were invalidated to repeat their consents in writing, for the record. I’m sick and tired of liberals who will bend scripture and tradition until they are unrecognizable, but are fundamentalists when it comes to canon law. We should refuse to play Schori’s game. Damn the torpedoes—full speed ahead!

Oscewicee - they have a church of their own. Its called TEC.

Being a lawyer, I was going to comment concerning the “thought that electronic permission was sufficient as had been their past accepted practice” phrase, and the legal attack a first-year law student could mount against that, but 40-some of you were ahead of me. That’s what I get for not reading standfirminfaith.com at work!

As for the blogger who sought to forgive the PB “because she was only the messenger,” excuse me, but she is the client/employer of her attorneys. Having been an in-house counsel at several major corporations during my 20years as an attorney, I can state that attorneys act under the direction of their client$. Yes, I meant that “$” - because if a lawyer doesn’t follow her client’s desires, she won’t be retained by that client for long!

Jason, you are hardly alone in coming to the realization that you have no future in the Episcopal Church.  May I suggest you do as some of us are doing.  Pay attention to the structure that the Global Primates set up for those of us who can not abide by TEC any more and when it is formalized to go ahead and apply for its oversight.  Do it even if you are doing so as an individual rather than a member of a parish or diocese that is seeking alterate oversight.  As of the General COnvention In 2003 I realized I was an Anglican but no longer an Episcopalian and so informed my parish.  I have been waiting, too long at that!, for a solution.  But it is now in the works and the kinds of blatant behavior as we see here from 815 will just hasten the resolve of the Primates to provide it for us.

Did anyone think PB Schori and her Gestapo would allow Mark Lawrence to be seated as bishop?  Does anyone think this will not be the fate of every orthodox bishop-elect?  As they say in politics, “the skids were greased”.  Schori and her henchmen at 815 are laughing and drinking wine tonight as they celebrate their victory.  It’s a whole new offensive against the orthodox believers.
It will be short-lived.  By this time next year, all TEC will have is some stuffed vaults, a lot of empty buildings, and a dying church.  Good riddance to them.

Oscewicee - they have a church of their own. Its called TEC.

You mean they are stealing my church because they don’t have the integrity of their beliefs nor the courage to stand on their own and do a “brave new thing”  but must take cloak themselves with the clothing of Christianity while they try to gut it from within. Such admirable people. No wonder you admire them.

May I suggest you do as some of us are doing.  Pay attention to the structure that the Global primates set up for those of us who can not abide by TEC any more and when it is formalized to go ahead and apply for its oversight. 

David+ - As they would say in merry ole England…......Capitol idea ole chap. Another avenue opens up… 

To the Standing Committee of SC,

I Do not know what your plan is but you need to hold a new election with ONE candidate…Mark Lawrence!  Elect him and see what happens.  If it goes bad agian, have three retired bishops lay hands on him anyway.  Do not give in to this incredible hypocrisy on the part of the non consenting dioceses.

It would be very interesting to hear how this development will be handled at the House of Bishops meeting. If enough bishops are willing to go on the record as recognizing the validity of the election and have the courage to state that they will participate in the consecration, Schori might decide to treat the technicality she raised as just that. I’m not sure how many bishops are “enough,” but such a gesture would certainly be hard for her to ignore. Another strategy would be to appeal her ruling to the new primatial vicar. It’s time for the orthodox bishops to show some backbone.

No, oscewicee - whatever way you look at it, TEC is ‘their’ church.

The logical answer is a divide on a global basis. But Canterbury really doesn’t want that unless it simply can’t be avoided.

Well,well, well did we really expect anything else from Mrs. Schori and 815? There is NO WAY that they are going to allow the consecration of a conservative to the Episcopate. None what so ever. They will find any excuse whatsoever to invalidate the election of a bishop who holds to the faith once delivered. I am really no longer surprised by the shinagins of Mrs. Schori and 815. As far as I am concerned she is NO bishop and TEC is no longer a real “church” It is at best a fake, an imposture of a real church. To all those who are within TEC who hold to the historic Anglican faith I say come out and come out NOW. There can no longer be any reason to stay within a church that is nothing more than the Unitarian Universalist Association with “bishops.”

My wife just posed to me an interesting question which I want to share.  She asked, and I quote, “If the same thing happened to Gene Robinson, would there be as many people complaining about the outcome?  Would there be pleas for grace?  Or would there be insistence on procedure.”

Given some of the recent comments, I can already imagine that some would say, “Schori would extend grace to VGR but not to Lawrence.”  I think that’s wrong and Kendall Harmon stated on T19 that 815 was “very, very helpful” to the Diocese in this process.  I thought her question was a good one and it’s tempered my frustration.

By the way, the Gestapo comment by Lightfoot was grossly inappropriate regardless of how upset we feel about this situation.

Wow, and she calls me a fundamentalist?!  What about an expansive reading that follows the spirit of the law but not necessarily the letter of the law? Head scratcher…

This is a moment in which we have an opportunity to affirm the work and power of the Holy Spirit as he moved in the election of Fr. Lawrence.  The Network/Windsor bishops need to step forward and consecrate him.  The talk of a second election and another consents process will prove only to keep a man, called by God, from taking his place to lead and shepherd his flock in this time of great turmoil and promise.  The Constitution and Canons of TEC are now hollow and while they may have served for a period of time as a “custodian” for TEC it is now time to depend upon the higher standard of faith and hear the voice of God in this. 

God is confounding our enemies in their own battle.  We need to wake up and join in the fight.

Frreed

whatever way you look at it, TEC is ‘their’ church.

Sorry, Mike, it was founded as a Christian church. We Christians are still in it. Let the New Thingers have the courage of their convictions and do their new thing in their own names instead of hiding behind the walls of Christian churches.

I hope that DioSC will convene again as soon as possible and elect him again.  Even better if he is re-elected on the first ballot.  If they can get the same 57 Standing Committees to vote yes again, it will be a moot point.

I share all of your frustration, though.  This would be a somewhat different story if the count had been 55.

Mark Lawrence was duly elected by the Diocese of South Carolina, only consents were needed. His election voided by technical difficulties created by TEC.  Madame Schori has made a HUGE MISCALCULATION that exposes her TOTAL LACK OF COMPASSION AND LEADERSHIP. Schori could have very easily witheld consent until deficiences were corrected (Leadership 101).  Liberals best be jumping into their foxholes after throwing that grenade. Did they remember to pull the fuse?

OK upper SC orthodox.  Will you continue to be passive, I mean cowards?  Sorry Gregg but this comment is straight up.

Lee Parker,

No foul.

Smuggs,

I don’t know. Sorry…

Secession is something South Carolina does very well.

Ahhhh…...once again delivering the shot heard around the world.

Someone has already said everything I’d like to say…especially the comment about not monitoring SF at the office.  I’d give my best regards to the Lawrences if I knew where to send them. 
I do hope, however that people will refrain from using gay terms like “lifestyle” and “manner of life”; and what’s the point of acknowledging smartalecs who think they’re cute when they wise-off here?

No Blue Cat SC leads well.  Check out your politics and your history.

Texican,
Kendall is forwarding messages to the Lawrences, as per T19.

Let’s remember to pray for the House of Bishops meeting.  God is bigger than all of this.

Could this be one more piece of evidence that the new PB is little more than a figurehead for the lawyers who are now running TEC?

And the beat goes on…and on….and on….....

Secession is something South Carolina does very well.

It’s not that South Carolina doesn’t know how to do secession, it’s more that it didn’t turn out real well for them last time.  I’d be reluctant to pull that trigger again.

Lightfoot
Your Gestapo comment is out of line.  This is your warning.

Although I am married to Blue Cat Man, I must disagree. There is virtually no interest in the diocese in leaving TEC- that may well change after this piece of political shenanigans. My impression is that we (those who live and worship in the Diocese of SC) would like the PB and her *cronies* to leave us alone to do what we do best- worship in our tradition. 

Forcing another election will not solve the *SC Problem* as TEC sees it. It just further pushes us to consider leaving TEC. Something that TEC should NOT want us to do yet their actions makes one wonder.

All of this reminds me of what my mother said 30 years ago- that this incremental approach to change will eventually leave many mystified as to what happpened but the path will be so well worn by that time, that returning to orthodoxy won’t be possible. Sound familiar ??????????

True to her word, she left the Episcopal Church. Or as my Mom would say- I did not leave the Church. The Church left me. This was in 1977. She was right. I have not identified myself as Episcopalian for decades even though I worship in an Episcopal Parish in the Diocese of SC.

Blu Cat Lady

Blue Cat,
Don’t you think we are sufficiently depressed?
I’m sick and tired of 20-30 year old stories of desperation; I’m not gonna live long enough to tell mine.
We here are writing something else.

Rom 1:16, you are probably right about pulling the secession trigger again.  Right at this point in time, it’s too early.  We need lots of prayer.  I suggest “Lord, thy will be done.”

Dear Lee Parker :

Ok lower South Carolina “orthodox”, are you ready to implement the “South Carolina Solution”?

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named,that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
  Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (Ephesians 3:14-21)

Regards, Stan Case

The problem is that we had this circumstance unfold in the first place, not that Missus Schori had to say no. That evil has prevailed should not be thought remarkable given the tsunami of revisionist hate crimes to which we have been subjected over the last 40 years. The problem is that any Standing Committee would have withheld consent for this holy man. The problem is that we have foul and corrupt persons now pressing the buttons in the control rooms in many of our Dioceses. That these same people now plead “Process not Principle” should surprise no one.
I welcome this event as illustrative of the degradation of this Province to a caricature of a Christian church. How now do the Primates of the other provinces view us?  We shall see, we shall see. We shall see by Sept. 30.

Update from Episcopal News Service (ENS)
Read it all.

An Anglican clergyman who styled himself “Father”, would not have been acceptable to the Diocese of South Carolina and the PROTESTANT Episcopal church in 1807 and 1907.

Furthermore one who consented to female ordination would not have been acceptable too.

Anglican orthodoxy seems as selective as Liberalism,and is constantly changing.

At least the liberal agenda is fairly clear.

Lori asks, quite reasonably:

... if I call my Diocese, I can ask them specifically, did the Standing Committee respond, and if so, how?

By all means, but don’t forget the other important question: When?  This whole last-moment panic is disgraceful, and if the half-a-dozen Standing Committees whose votes were rejected had acted even a couple of weeks (out of four months) earlier, this could have been avoided.

Question for the canon law types: is Lawrence ineligible to be considered in a new election? That’s what someone is saying in the MySpace “Episcopalians” group, and he cited the recent Tennessee election as an example. Incidentally, I really wish that more of you were active in that group.

Chazzy,
there is nothing keeping South Carolina from having a special election including Mark Lawrence as a nominee.  I haven’t looked at the South Carolina canons to know if they demand a certain number of nominees.  Perhaps if not, Mark Lawrence could be their ONLY candidate.  Political smarts will not allow that to happen, however.
Tennessee chose on their own not to have any of the first set of nominees in the second consideration.  That’s my understanding.  Of course, that decision might have been made after they DID give the first set of nominees the opportunity to be reconsidered but none would!  (just kidding).

Being in Nashville, TN and following the 3 attempts to elect a bishop, I remember that the first slate of candidates were technically eligible but they and the delegates to convention thought it best to start over with a new slate to avoid yet another deadlock.  That may not be correct, just the best I remember.

I love the irony of “progressives” not wanting to accept submissions electronically.  I would have thought the world was moving more in that direction anyway.  What if the consents were listed as valid electronic signatures?  Would that count?

You can cut the hypocrisy with a knife.

And a dull knife, at that (if you don’t understand this, I will not be the one explaining it to you).

“You can cut the hypocrisy with a knife.”