SOUTH CAROLINA: Standing Committee asks other dioceses to reconsider withholding consent to Lawrence
Episcopal News Service. February 16, 2007 [021607-02]
Mary Frances Schjonberg
The Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina has sent a letter to other diocesan standing committees asking them reconsider their decision to withhold their consents to the consecration of the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence as South Carolina's next bishop.
A similar but not identical letter was also sent to Standing Committees that have not yet responded to the request for consent, according to a posting on the diocese’s website.
"This is an official request to those who have withheld consent to reconsider their initial action," the letter on the diocesan website says. "We intend this letter to correct some of the misinformation surrounding our Bishop Elect."
Lawrence, 56, rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Parish, in Bakersfield, California, in the Diocese of San Joaquin, was elected September 16.
The canons of the Episcopal Church (III.11.4(a) require that a majority of the bishops exercising jurisdiction and diocesan standing committees respond within 120 days of receiving notice of his or her election, saying whether or not they consent to the Bishop-elect's ordination. In this case, the requests were mailed November 9, making the 120 day period end on March 9.
Lawrence's scheduled February 24 consecration was postponed in January until after Easter because of the delay in sending out the consent requests.
The letter, signed by the Rev. J. Haden McCormick, president of the South Carolina Standing Committee, addresses questions about the intentions of Lawrence and the diocese of remain in the Episcopal Church, the participation of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori in the consecration of the next bishop of South Carolina and concerns about the diocese's request for "alternative primatial oversight."
There has been speculation about whether Lawrence's election will or should get the necessary consents. Some diocesan standing committees have already announced that they will not give their consent, and some have publicized their decisions, including Bethlehem, Eastern Michigan, and Kansas.
McCormick's letter concludes by saying that "neither the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina nor the Bishop-elect have any interest in a consecration that does not follow the canons of this diocese."
The first section of the letter responds to questions that have been raised "regarding Mark's willingness and that of the diocese of South Carolina, should it be under his leadership, to continue to serve our Lord as faithful members of the Episcopal Church."
McCormick writes that Lawrence said during election process that he would be able to sign the oath of conformity required of all bishops of the Episcopal Church found on page 513 of the Book of Common Prayer. The oath requires the signer to declare that he or she believes that bible is the Word of God and contains "all things necessary to salvation," and vow to "solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church."
McCormick's response continues with a summary of the growth of the diocese, concluding with the suggestion that "the tree is known by its fruit."
On concerns about whether the Presiding Bishop would be welcome to participate in Lawrence's consecration, McCormick reports that diocesan bishop Edward Salmon "had negotiated with the Presiding Bishop's office to find a chief consecrator acceptable to the Diocese of SC" before the original scheduling of the election of the next bishop of South Carolina (prior to the House of Bishops' decision in March 2005 to withhold consents to all episcopal elections until the beginning of the 75th General Convention in June 2006).
McCormick reports that a "tentative agreement" to do so was reached.
"Our Bishop-elect had nothing to do with this arrangement as this decision was worked out by the ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese of South Carolina before we held our election," McCormick writes.
Canon III.11.6 calls for the Presiding Bishop to "take order for the ordination of the Bishop-elect" after receiving the necessary consents and "assurance of the acceptance of the election by the Bishop-elect." The Presiding Bishop is assumed to be the chief consecrator, according to the canon, but in her stead the president of the House of Bishops of the Province of which the electing diocese is part and two other bishops, or any three bishops chosen by the Presiding Bishop, can perform the ordination.
In response to concerns about the diocese's request for a relationship with a primate other than Jefferts Schori, McCormick writes that the request came from the standing committee prior to the episcopal election. The request, he writes, was meant to "restore peace to the diocese and to prevent happening in the diocese what was being experienced in other diocese[s] within the Church" and to "provide space for the conflict raging in [the Episcopal Church] and to protect the common life and mission of a diocese that has grown faithfully for eighteen years."
McCormick notes that Salmon discussed the request during a September 2006 meeting with Jefferts Schori, then-Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and others.
"We have consistently sought to deal with these matters within the framework of the Church as a sign of our long-term commitment to the mission of the whole Church," McCormick writes. "In the past, [the Episcopal Church] has created a climate for discussions of these matters for congregations in an imaginative way and this is simply an expansion of that spirit."
Both South Carolina and San Joaquin are part of a group of seven dioceses, out of the church's 110 dioceses and one convocation of European congregations, which have requested a relationship with a primate of the Anglican Communion other than the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, citing 2003 and 2006 General Convention actions.
In the weeks following Lawrence's election, questions arose about Lawrence's intentions concerning the diocese's membership in the Episcopal Church. Two affiliated groups issued statements of advice to the bishops and standing committees, and other individuals expressed concern either privately to Lawrence and the diocese or through postings on Internet commentary sites.
This is the second time that Lawrence or the diocese has contacted standing committees about his election. In December Lawrence sent a letter to standing committees and bishops in responses to several inquiries about his stance on certain issues.