Wednesday, 31 October 2007

South Carolina re-election confirmed

The Diocese of South Carolina announces that it has been notified that a majority of bishops with jurisdiction and a majority of Standing Committees have consented to the election of the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence as the 14th bishop of South Carolina.

The consecration will be held January 26, 2008 at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul in Charleston, South Carolina. There is no indication in the official announcements of who will preside at this service.

More details of this in the Episcopal News Service report here.

The Diocese has also announced that:

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori has accepted our invitation to meet with the leadership of the Diocese of South Carolina February 25-26, 2008. This will give us an opportunity to state with clarity and charity the theological position of this Diocese in a manner similar to when we met with Most. Rev. Frank T. Griswold shortly after his Installation as Presiding Bishop.

An appropriate agenda will be developed after the Consecration.

Press reports:

Associated Press New Episcopal Bishop for S.C.

The State Diocese names new bishop

Bakersfield Californian Pastor named bishop after long struggle

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 at 10:12pm GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA

Shame this has taken so long and involved so much acrimony and politics.........

Posted by: NP on Thursday, 1 November 2007 at 7:40am GMT

"It's a serious matter when someone as gifted and highly qualified as Mark takes this much work to confirm," he said. "It simply is one more manifestation of a church that is in a very serious state of struggle at this time."

I knew I'd find it. Now AP, and the Bakersfield Claifornian both make it appear his original rejection was because of his politics. I at first first felt sad for the new bishop. After all, despite two newspapers valiant efforts, his status as conservative martyr seemed untenable. I mean, he was turned down because he didn't have the correct consents, now he does, so the consecration goes ahead. All the cries of him being silenced before were thus nonsense, right? Oh no. This might be a victory, but that we have to fight for it shows how put down we are, so never fear, we're still victims! This is typical among acitvists, I've talked about it before. So, by snatching victimhood from the jaws of victory, we yet again see how people who deride others for selling out to the world have done so themselves. Glad he's confirmed, though, it'll be really interesting to see how far the conversion of victory to oppression will go.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Thursday, 1 November 2007 at 12:08pm GMT

It is telling that the media coverage fails to point out that, far from conspiring in the previous rejection, the Presiding Bishop actually took the unprecedented (and possibly uncanonical) step of extending the deadline by a couple of days in an effort to make up the small defecit in consents from standing committees. But then, that fact gets in the way of the "conservative" mythology of persecution.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Thursday, 1 November 2007 at 5:10pm GMT

So he is staying in TEC after all, then? Or will this be a short-lived promotion?

Posted by: Merseymike on Thursday, 1 November 2007 at 5:12pm GMT

Bishop designate Lawrence believes in the ordination of Bishops Iker and Schofield will only be in impaired communion with him!

Posted by: Robert Ian Williams on Thursday, 1 November 2007 at 9:23pm GMT the last couple of years, consents were given for others who had not sent in the right forms.....

Posted by: NP on Friday, 2 November 2007 at 7:30am GMT

"consents were given for others who had not sent in the right forms"

Who? Don't ignore this. If you do not prove this allegation, I will be forced to think it nothing more than propaganda you have been fed to justify the martyr myth.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 2 November 2007 at 11:02am GMT

Why ever should NP have to offer evidence? Surely "everyone knows" that consents for "liberal" bishops-elect aren't really checked for correct form. After all, everything in the Episcopal Church is driven by the massive EHBL plot to persecute the puir, wee "conservatives."

NP will not present any evidence because there is no evidence. In fact, the only evidence at hand is that the EHBL-in-Chief, the Presiding Bishop, actually bent the rules by extending the deadline for consents, thus improving the field for Lawrence.

But the facts get in the way of the paranoid rantings of the "conservatives," so the facts shall be ignored and new "facts" created to support their false paradigm.

Stephen Colbert refers to that as "truthiness" - the utter falsehood that is made to sound true. Dr. G had another name for it.

Posted by: Malcolm+ on Friday, 2 November 2007 at 4:18pm GMT

NP has another name for it too, but that only applies when it's the EHBLs. Like I said, it'll be interesting to see how far people like NP will go to snatch persecution from the jaws of victory. It's a prime example buying into one of the prevailing trends of modern society: defining ourselves as victims fighting against an oppressor. To admit a victory is to be less of a victim. So, to win, paradoxically, diminishes us. Thus, we must avoid at all costs admitting a victory, and, if it can't be avoided, we must downplay its significance. Both sides are gulty, but the Right accuses the left of it, not vice cersa, so I think it appropriate to keep pointing out to them that perhaps they need to look at this closer to home. They'd be a lot more credible if they could prove they actuially have any confidence at all that "Christ giveth us the victory".

Posted by: Ford Elms on Friday, 2 November 2007 at 5:07pm GMT

Ford, here you go...

And...some here complain when I tell you of how God has blessed us with so many people of all ages and types... (this is seen as boasting and triumphalism) while at the same time accusing me of playing the victim.......have you seen me arguing for scriptures to be ignored because not to do so is discriminating against some victimised group?? (clue - the answer is not yes) ("playing the victim" is using emotional arguments, not addressing the facts or the scriptures)

Posted by: NP on Monday, 5 November 2007 at 3:46pm GMT

"have you seen me arguing for scriptures to be ignored because not to do so is discriminating against some victimised group??"

No, we have seen you ignoring Scripture and pretending you don't. As to the issue of consents, the link you post gives a situation in which the request for consercation was unusual but had been used before, and the person in question got the required consents. Fr. Lawerence, on the other hand, used the correct form in requesting consecration, but did not get the required consents. The two issues are not the same. I admit this is uneven, and was a dumb thing to do, giving ammunition as it does to the "other side". The defect in the first case, that of the wording of the request, is not the same as the defect in the second, the consents. You will note that Fr. Lawrence did NOT make the same mistake as Bp. Johnston. I'm also relieved, BTW, that he has been approved this time, I dislike procedural disqualifications. They tend to look like an act of desparation.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 at 2:37pm GMT

Ford - glad you can see that I was not making up "propaganda" and playing the victim as you suggested I may have been above....

Posted by: NP on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 at 4:27pm GMT

"glad you can see that I was not making up "propaganda" and playing the victim as you suggested I may have been above...."

Well, thanks, I guess, but I still don't see your point. One person was approved despite one type of irregularity. The other was not approved because of another irregularity entirely. The two are not the same, so the comparison of them proves nothing. I do think your attempt to link these two different issues proves my point. "Your guy" has been approved, having gotten the required consents. Rejoice! You won! But, as I said, to claim that victory is to make yourself somewhat less of a persecuted victim, and you can't do that. It's too romantic to fancy yourself valiantly fighting the good fight. You are snatching victimhood from the jaws of victory. You'd get my point, I'm sure, if that didn't mean giving up a chance to be victimized.

Posted by: Ford Elms on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 at 5:29pm GMT

All-Nighters: Mind Games
Jonah Lehrer explores how the nature of the human mind can make it an enemy of sleep.

Posted by: msmarystrikens on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 at 8:25am GMT
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.