Thinking Anglicans

Mark Lawrence re-elected

Episcopal News Service reports that South Carolina re-elects Mark Lawrence as bishop.

The Very Rev. Mark Lawrence was re-elected as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina August 4 at a special electing convention held at St. James Church on St. James Island, South Carolina. Lawrence was the only candidate in the election since no petitions to add other names to the slate were received by the July 11 deadline…

The diocesan website announcement is here:

The Diocese re-elected the Very Rev. Mark J. Lawrence as the 14th Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, August 4, at a special called election at St. James Church, James Island. Mark, had been previously elected by the diocese in September of 2006, but that election was declared null and void by the Presiding Bishop in March of 2007.

Prior to the election, a service of Holy Eucharist, Rite I, was celebrated. The Rev. Steve Wood, Rector of St. Andrew’s Mt. Pleasant, challenged those present to engage the culture with the gospel, and not stand apart from it.

Fifty eight congregations were represented with 201 lay delegates and 82 priests. In a vote by orders, 78 clergy voted for Mark Lawrence, with two abstentions. Missions cast seven yes votes, with one half deputation divided. Among congregations, forty-three yes votes were received, with three congregations voting no and one abstention.

Once the vote, re-electing Lawrence was announced the congregation voiced their pleasure with applause.

And here is an eyewitness account of the event from the Living Church, No Surprises, Much Rejoicing.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
79 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Leonardo Ricardo
Leonardo Ricardo
13 years ago

Timing is everything.

Andrew
Andrew
13 years ago

Unless he makes his commitment to the Episcopal Church much less equivocal, he may be rejected again. Much of what he has said sounds like “Network.” TEC does not need or want another Scholfield.

Margaret
Margaret
13 years ago

Timing is everything?

You mean the saviour of all?

Jay
Jay
13 years ago

I’m with you, Leonardo.

It’s kind of sweet when the legalists follow, you know, the rules. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Prayers and best wishes to Bishop-elect Mark. Perhaps this is a teaching moment for the insurgency.

Prior Aelred
13 years ago

Timing is everything.
Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Saturday, 4 August 2007 at 11:00pm BST

And location is the rest (unless it is theater — then it is lighting — which is this?)

Well, the election is not exactly a surprise (Stalin couldn’t have arranged it better — I don’t suppose it ever occurred to the authors of the canons that any diocese might not have more than one candidate) — the question is whether Fr Lawrence will get the consents this time around (after even more outrageous statements and conduct on his part than the first go)

Göran Koch-Swahne
13 years ago

Is it even canonical to hold an election with only one candidate? To chose between what?

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
13 years ago

“Is it even canonical to hold an election with only one candidate? To chose between what?”

So what happens when there genuinely is no second candidate?

Göran Koch-Swahne
13 years ago

No candidates?

No purple fever in the Anglican Communion these days ;=)

drdanfee
drdanfee
13 years ago

The issue with Lawrence is very much the same same same as before: Will he pledge to TEC via GC? Or does he dissent to the extent that two prior qualifications must be made by him in that assent, i.e., (1)What GC discerns is NOT believer alternative discernment, but NON-believer period?, plus (2)Given the frame(s) in point one, Will he lead the diocese to stay in TEC as pledged via GC and other processes, or will he lead the diocese to leave? Anybody in eighth grade in USA can hear how his prior published comments hedge his willingness to stay… Read more »

Prior Aelred
13 years ago

What drdanfee said — plus the fact that when attending the “baby bishops workshop” he publicly refused to receive communion when Presiding Bishop Katharine celebrated the Eucharist — apparently he is already “not in communion” with the PB of his own church — I really think South Carolina should just tell Chuck Murphy that he was right & they were wrong & announce that they are joining AMiA (which they can’t as a diocese, but that is the logic of their actions)

Cheryl Clough
13 years ago

Drdanfee Your comments about souls having nothing in particular for or against Them reminds me of Revelation 3:15-22: “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm — neither hot nor cold —I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so… Read more »

MG
MG
13 years ago

Drdanfee I am interested in your comment: “His previous comments about queer folks mostly involve the mid-range homphobias – (as loosely evaluted on the Riddle Scale, negative ranges 1 to 2, barely glimmers of negative 3). His views tell us in effect, I have nothing in particular against Those Folks, but I have nothing in particular for Them, either.” I wonder what the relevance is of your statement. You see the TEC is inclusive — therefore it will include any viewpoint. If ML has this viewpoint (and I don’t know if he does or not) then that is irrelevant. Inclusive… Read more »

harvard man
harvard man
13 years ago

Thank you, MG.

Mark Lawrence said he’d work as hard to keep So. Carolina in ECUSA as ECUSA would work to stay in the AC. Fair enough. And perhaps those responding so shrilly understand ECUSA is not headed in a direction to keep it in the AC.

Mark Lawrence seems to be trying to remain faithful, in a difficult time. His commitment to Christ is encouraging.

Neil
Neil
13 years ago

I think you will have to take Mark Lawrence at his word. After all, the Bishop of Hereford is in trouble for not doing so in refusing to appoint a gay man who promised celibacy.
Also, I should hope there is no requirement to receive communion from anybody within the Church if your conscience so dictates. Man or woman. Indeed it would be a disgrace for somebody like ML to receive communion from a woman priest or bishop if he is an ‘impossibilist’ about women’s ordination.

dmitri
dmitri
13 years ago

Neil
Is Mark Lawrence an “impossibilist” about WO? Are there no women ordained in South Carolina? Since KJS has been accepted as a primate in the AC and is on the exec committee, one wonders how much longer any impossibilist would WANT to remain in the AC. Fr. Lawrence is clearly in a difficult and contradictory position–seeking confirmation of his episcopal legitimacy from the very people he’s struggling to have declared anathema.

Lapinbizarre
Lapinbizarre
13 years ago

“Inclusive means inclusive — everything is acceptable. Otherwise it is exclusive.”

As the earwig said as it fell of the cliff …….

Lou Poulain
Lou Poulain
13 years ago

Saith Neil: Also, I should hope there is no requirement to receive communion from anybody within the Church if your conscience so dictates.

The PB is not just “anybody in the church.” Refusal to be in eucharistic fellowship with the Presiding Bishop is a powerful symbolic statement that ought to be heeded carefully by the Standing Committees of the dioceses of TEC. Something along the lines of “actions speak louder than words.”

Lou

Göran Koch-Swahne
13 years ago

“I think you will have to take Mark Lawrence at his word. After all, the Bishop of Hereford is in trouble for not doing so in refusing to appoint a gay man who promised celibacy.”

Fortunately we don’t “have to take Mark Lawrence at his word”.

We will all know by his actions presently (that is if he gathers enough consents and South Carolina Standing Committé doesn’t screw up a second time ;=)

Chris
Chris
13 years ago

Lou,

And being divorced and living in a homosexual relationship is something SCs should ignore?

mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
13 years ago

I suppose Neil’s thing about receiving communion is OK if you’re a protestant at a memorial meal. For me, it would be turning away Christ because I didn’t like the waiter.
Even critical catholics have some sticking points.

Chris
Chris
13 years ago

Wait, DioSC followed the Canon and assuming Bishop-elect Lawrence says the right things and gets the consents of the SCs there shouldn’t be any questions – he will be a “duly elected” bishop in TEC.

I mean, if we’ll chirp on with that logic for Robinson (who is obviously in a gray zone as indicated by his quasi-invite to Lambeth), it seems like the same logic should hold here. Unless you make the presupposition that TEC Canon has more authority than Scripture.

Ford Elms
Ford Elms
13 years ago

“Inclusive means inclusive — everything is acceptable.”

Nonsense! We can be inclusive without accepting pedophiles who refuse treatment, for example. Inclusive is about meeting people where they are and bringing the love of Christ to them. Exclusive is about requiring people to comply with a particular moral code before deeming them acceptable to us and to God. WWJD? You will find the anser in the mouths of those who the Gospel tells us criticized Him. “This man eats with sinners.”

Lou Poulain
Lou Poulain
13 years ago

Chris asked: And being divorced and living in a homosexual relationship is something SCs should ignore? If Mark Lawrence is not in eucharistic fellowship witht he Presiding Bishop, who was elected by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and ratified by the House of Deputies at General Convention, then I think it raises a serious question whether the Standing Committees of the various dioceses should ratify his election. I didn’t say anything about “ignoring” the issues of divorce and homosexual relationships. However your question cuts to the heart of this thing. Either one can live with the tension… Read more »

Chris
Chris
13 years ago

“Inclusive means inclusive — everything is acceptable.”

Actually, any line of inclusion is at the same time a line of exclusion. Notice how many people like to draw the line of inclusion in such a manner that it excludes someone juuuuuust past what ever belief or activity they hold tightly.

Chris
Chris
13 years ago

Lou said: “Either one can live with the tension of differing views and interpretations within a church, or one cannot.” That is an oversimplification as no evangelical or conservative is demanding total agreement to a body of doctrine on every point. Even the ACN board has Anglo-catholics sitting on it. The real question is what are the limits of diversity that a church can hold and a) still remain w/in the bounds of orthodoxy and b) still have a meaningful unity over doctrine? Surely the Communion is more than unity of belief in Christ – even the demons believe. I’m… Read more »

Lapinbizarre
Lapinbizarre
13 years ago

“Notice how many people like to draw the line of inclusion in such a manner that it excludes someone juuuuuust past what ever belief or activity they hold tightly.” You’re not speaking for me on that one Chris, and I think I can safely say that you’re not speaking for the majority of those who post on TA. So who might you be referring to?

Pluralist
13 years ago

I prefer the idea of orthopraxy over orthodoxy – right actions over right belief. Right actions would include worship and symbolism. Theology that is Christian is too diverse now to say that the Creeds are straightforward items to believe, however they may define the line of tradition. The discussion group I attended seem to regard the 39 Articles as statements of their time and not very consistent ones. The Lambeth Quadrilateral – is it a dance?

Weiwen
13 years ago

If Mark Lawrence had toned down what Titus One Ten once called the “whore of Babylon rhetoric” after his consecration was denied, I’d be a lot more comfortable consenting to his consecration this time. I pray that our standing committees will have the wisdom to make what might be a difficult choice – and I also pray that it won’t be a difficult choice.

Scott Henthorn
Scott Henthorn
13 years ago

“Inclusive means inclusive — everything is acceptable.” Nonsense! We can be inclusive without accepting pedophiles who refuse treatment, for example. Inclusive is about meeting people where they are and bringing the love of Christ to them. Exclusive is about requiring people to comply with a particular moral code before deeming them acceptable to us and to God. WWJD? You will find the anser in the mouths of those who the Gospel tells us criticized Him. “This man eats with sinners.” I agree the above quote is nonsense. It is illogical. Untenable. Unbiblical. If everything is acceptable, nothing is of particular… Read more »

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
13 years ago

“You, and many others, confuse invitation with inclusion. WWJD? He would offer healing and love, followed by his doxology, “go and sin no more”.

Which he said only once in the whole of the NT. There are many other instances where he healed without demanding that the sinner be pure forever onwards.

I’m not saying its ok to keep going wrong in life once you’ve understood what you’ve done wrong, but we really need to stop portraying Jesus as a moral policeman.

Erika Baker
Erika Baker
13 years ago

“”Inclusive means inclusive — everything is acceptable.” It is true, our increasing understanding of the human condition with the help of science and psychology, has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable. But what is so wrong with that? In many cases this has led us to understand that what we thought to be sinful isn’t sinful at all, and is truly included in God’s creation. Accepting that the earth wasn’t flat didn’t deny God’s truth, although the church at the time feared that it would. Neither does accepting those who we have previously held to be sinful deny God’s… Read more »

NP
NP
13 years ago

Scott – you are right but the problem is that many “liberals” have made up their own Jesus who says, “go and sin, its ok as long as you don’t hurt anyone…..”

The fact that the real Jesus used very exclusive language and pictures does not seem to matter to such “liberals”…..they obviously think they know better.

Göran Koch-Swahne
13 years ago

“That is an oversimplification as no evangelical or conservative is demanding total agreement to a body of doctrine on every point.”

Funny, because this is precisely what is heard when people try to make, what is at best tertiary issues, primary.

“Even the ACN board has Anglo-catholics sitting on it.”

Now, that’s more on topic. “Even…”

The schismatics aren’t even acceptable to themselves.

Chris
Chris
13 years ago

“It is true, our increasing understanding of the human condition with the help of science and psychology, has pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable. But what is so wrong with that?”

Well, science and psychology often get it wrong. If you actually peel the onion on much of it you find the answers offered are less robust than we’ve been led to believe. This idea replaces the words of God with the ever changing theories of man. That’s a fairly raw deal.

Rejecting the idea of Jesus not caring about morals seems to discount the doctrine of sanctification.

Scott Henthorn
Scott Henthorn
13 years ago

Erika,

The Bible never said the earth was flat.

And much of the new science, while not placing the earth at the centre of the cosmos insists that the earth would not be unless the cosmos were not just so.

Chris
Chris
13 years ago

Re: placing our trust in science

It would appear TEC’s science is more than a decade out of date. Here is a very interesting article from the dreaded ACI, written by Dr. Jacqueline Jenkins Keenan, detailing research over the past decade.

http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/108/1/

Chris
Chris
13 years ago

Scott Henthorn,

See Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Faith” for two interviews with practicing scientists on cosmology and evolution. Even men like Dr. Crick (co-discoverer of DNA’s double helix structure) are conceding that after 50 years of intense research, science can’t produce a better explanation than the Bible.

choirboyfromhell
choirboyfromhell
13 years ago

Chris: “Rejecting the idea of Jesus not caring about morals seems to discount the doctrine of sanctification.”

It isn’t that some are arguing about Jesus dismissing morality as is what is truly holy?

Do you for a minute believe that we know all that there is to know about Jesus?

Do you evangelicals EVER question yourselves?

drdanfee
drdanfee
13 years ago

The problem with Bishop-elect Lawrence’s views is not so much that they are evo-con in tilt. But that they participate so frequently in the new realignment spin which claims that these are the only views believers can legitimately hold as an Anglican, while often trash talking de facto and de jure any other Anglican believer’s views. I doubt very much that the bishop would accept the Chicago-Lambeth Quad as a sufficient boundary/guide for being Anglican, plus his comments published might lead us to doubt that he views alternative thinking believers as anywhere near as close to God by following Jesus… Read more »

Chris
Chris
13 years ago

choirboyfromhell,

Absolutely I question myself and test my ideas and theology against what others are saying and in my prayer time. I don’t for a minute think I know everything about Jesus. But I accept what He has revealed to us and believe the Scripture – all of it – is part of that revelation.

Lapinbizarre
Lapinbizarre
13 years ago

Dr. Crick concedes that “science can’t produce a better explanation than the Bible”? Citation? (Preferably from a credible source.)

Chris
Chris
13 years ago

Lapinbizarre,

That’s YOUR interpretation of the posts at TA…

mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
mynsterpreost (=David Rowett)
13 years ago

Scott, the anthropic principle which you appear to defend is no more a conclusive pro-creation/ID argument that a winning lottery ticket. If the electron voltage of Carbon were not as it is (as Hoyle calculated) we wouldn’t be here to marvel. But that’s a long way from saying that the EV of carbon was designed to get us here.

Or as the late Douglas Adams said, ‘isn’t it wonderful that the water in a puddle exactly fits the hole made for it?’

Lapinbizarre
Lapinbizarre
13 years ago

I’m sorry, Chris, but your last statement promoting Strobel’s “Case for faith” adds nothing to this already pretty itinerant thread. Strobel’s “two interviews with practicing scientists”, out of the tens of thousands of “practicing scientists” out there, are meaningless. And attempting by implication to represent Francis Crick as tolerant of Biblical creationism is plain ridiculous.

“Even men like Dr. Crick” – Englishmen? Former Fellows of Churchill College, Cambridge? Discoverers of DNA? Winners of the Nobel prize for Physiology or Medicine? Bi-peds? All of the above?

Give me a break! Though I’ll settle for a half-way reasoned argument.

Pluralist
13 years ago

_the real Jesus_ (NP)

Who’s that then?

Lapinbizarre
Lapinbizarre
13 years ago

Chris – And YOUR interpretation of what you wrote is?

JPM
JPM
13 years ago

Did anyone else notice that Dr. Jacqueline Jenkins Keenan is a veterinarian?

choirboyfromhell
choirboyfromhell
13 years ago

Chris: “in my prayer time…” Are you questioning yourself during that time? You have said that you do not know everything that there is to know about Christ, at least that part of that revelation as in scripture. So what about the part that has not been revealed? Am I correct in that are you limiting Jesus’s teaching to what is solely written in scripture? Nothing about the Holy Spirit being relevant in this? Or a person’s justification by faith alone. Oh yes… Article XI. The Bible, whether we like it or not, is a work of man. That’s not… Read more »

Scott Henthorn
Scott Henthorn
13 years ago

mynsterpreost (=David Rowett),

Are you a Theist?

Chris
Chris
13 years ago

Lapinbizarre, Perhaps I overstated Dr. Crick’s comments, mea culpa. But he no doubt was at a loss to come to a scientific explanation for how life began. “Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.” -Life Itself, pg. 153 But when confronted with the lack of evidence supporting evolution, Crick speculated that life on Earth came from outer space. That does nothing to solve the spontaneous generation issue inherent in evolution. It simply moves the problem to another… Read more »

79
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x