Thinking Anglicans

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

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Prior Aelred
13 years ago

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

Cynthia Gilliatt
Cynthia Gilliatt
13 years ago

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.

JPM
JPM
13 years ago

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

L Roberts
L Roberts
13 years ago

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

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

“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?

Chris
Chris
13 years ago

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.

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

“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… Read more »

Lapinbizarre
Lapinbizarre
13 years ago

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… Read more »

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

“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… Read more »

NP
NP
13 years ago

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

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

“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?

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

“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.

12
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x