Friday, 13 July 2007

South Carolina election: no extra candidates

From the Diocese of South Carolina website:

No Petition Candidates Submitted for Bishop’s Election

The deadline for the submission of petition candidates for the Bishop’s Election of the Diocese of South Carolina has come and gone. No petitions were submitted.

The special Bishop’s Election, as previously called by the Standing Committee on June 9, will be begin at 10:00 am on August 4, 2007 at St. James Church, James Island. Registration of clergy and lay delegates will begin at 8:00 am. Immediately following the celebration of Holy Communion the convention will convene to elect the XIV Bishop of South Carolina. We request that each mission and parish submit the names of their specially elected lay delegates to the Diocesan office as soon as possible.

The Rev. J. Haden McCormick
President, Standing Committee

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 13 July 2007 at 3:01pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

Can this possibly be legal? (Even the PM has been given two names to choose from -- up till now, anyway).

Posted by: Prior Aelred on Saturday, 14 July 2007 at 3:06pm BST

Since the previous election failed in the consents process because the Standing Committee of the diocese failed to dot i's and cross t's, I suppose we can assume that this time around they have taken care to get all the legalities right. It will be interesting to see if they handle the consent process better this time around - and if they get the consents they need.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Saturday, 14 July 2007 at 6:18pm BST

Sounds like those elections they used to have in the old Soviet Union.

Posted by: JPM on Saturday, 14 July 2007 at 6:53pm BST

Gosh, I wonder who will be elected ! The suspense is killing me. (I may not be alone in this.).

Posted by: L Roberts on Monday, 16 July 2007 at 4:46pm BST

"It will be interesting to see if they handle the consent process better this time around - and if they get the consents they need."

What would be the fun in that?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Monday, 16 July 2007 at 7:09pm BST

If polity is a defense for +VGR then polity in DioSC should also be supported when they've already made their wishes known and are reaffirming the prior election.

Posted by: Chris on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 at 5:38pm BST

"If polity is a defense for +VGR then polity in DioSC should also be supported when they've already made their wishes known and are reaffirming the prior election."

Indeed. My understanding is that +Robinson obtained the required consents, SC didn't, despite being given a lengthy period for this, including an extension. Why? Either there aren't enough bishops in TEC that consent to his election, in which case this latest action seem like petulant children demanding their way regardless. Or, the diocesan bodies responsible for getting the consents fell down on the job. Or it was planned from the beginning as yet another trumped up accusation of persecution of the faithful remnant.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 at 2:40pm BST

The problem was with the consents, Ford, and yes, it seems that the diocesan bodies responsible for getting them were a bit lax. When "closing day" came it appeared that a sufficient number of consents had been obtained, but then it turned out that some of these had been faxed in when the requirement for a valid consent is that it be hard copy and signed. I imagine that Mark Lawrence will be approved pretty quickly this time around - I don't think that many folks in TEC want a fight on this ground. Fr. Lawrence has given assurances on his intended fidelity to TEC and who are we to doubt him? Of course, Cranmer swore allegiance to the pope to get his bull of appointment and his pallium, so I suppose "wriggle room" in these circumstances might be considered part of the Anglican tradition.

Posted by: Lapinbizarre on Thursday, 19 July 2007 at 1:39am BST

"I imagine that Mark Lawrence will be approved pretty quickly this time around"
I would hope he is, actually, since his diocese has chosen him, and if I'm going to claim the guidance of the Spirit for +Robinson's election, I can't do anything else here. Why the Spirit would guide the election of two such opposites is beyond me, but His "..ways are not (my) ways..."
I'm still suspicious about how the required consents were not properly gotten last time around. It all seems to me to smack of contrived "persecution" and I'm eagerly waiting to see if they have done the legwork this time, or if they come up with some other way to be victimized. I know, that's nasty. Sorry.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 19 July 2007 at 2:33pm BST

Ford - I think you have hit on something very important....it is not likely that the Spirit is choosing both these men in order that they contradict each other - this does not a united church make.

I think we should give the Spirit some respect for being rational and note that ML is not preaching that earlier revelation from the Spirit should be ignored as VGR does - on certain issues only, of course

Posted by: NP on Friday, 20 July 2007 at 8:27am BST


"ML is not preaching that earlier revelation from the Spirit should be ignored"

I have no idea what he preaches or what he doesn't. I rather doubt that he is compliant with Scripture on all points, however. How many divorcees has he told can get married?

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 20 July 2007 at 4:32pm BST

"we should give the Spirit some respect for being rational"


NP,
Isaiah 55:7-9

This is not a justification of anything, NP.just an admonition not to go remaking the Almighty in your own image. He says pretty clearly, He doesn't think like us. Also, Job 38, among many others.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 20 July 2007 at 5:01pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.