Key moment in the fight to control the future of the Episcopal Church

[stonebone]

Nothing comes easy these days in the Episcopal Church. Its latest controversy involves the Rev. Mark J. Lawrence, the former rector of a McKeesport parish who is bishop-elect of the Diocese of South Carolina.

Church canons dictate that his election be approved by a majority of both of the denomination's 111 diocesan bishops and standing committees. The former have done so. The latter have not, and as the midnight Monday deadline for consent approaches, the Rev. Lawrence could become the first clergyman in more than 70 years not to be confirmed as bishop.

The combination of the Rev. Lawrence's conservative theology and a determined effort by church liberals to block his confirmation have caused Episcopalians to characterize the vote as a bellwether of where the 2.2 million-member church is headed.

"It has nothing to do with Rev. Lawrence," the Rev. J. Haden McCormick, president of the standing committee of the Diocese of South Carolina, said of the vote. "It has everything to do with the politics of the worldwide Anglican Communion and the meltdown in the Episcopal Church."



http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07069/768400-85.stm

[xchrom]

1. get on with the split already --

most of us liberals are sick and tired of talking about the same things over and over with never a resolution -- because there can't be one.

if it isn't gay and lesbian priests and bishops -- it's women priests and bishops.

if it isn't marriage equality -- it's denying the eucharist to persons x, y and z.

there are better things to do with our time and money -- than to keep talking to these backwards fuckwads.

most unjesus like language of me -- but i'm sick the ''debate'' -- and sick of conservatives.

[Solo_in_MD]

2. The real issue is the property

There is a lot of high profile real estate assets. Current rules are that it belongs to the Diocese, not the local church members or the national church. The Diocese could in and of itself go renegade, and there is little the national church can do. Right now in the DC area the diocese is busting the chops of the local parishes who want to stay conservative and affilate elsewhere. Its going to get down right nasty.

[xchrom]

4. yes i know what the issues are -- i'm an episcopalian.

but the conservatives are never going to be content to leave the church alone to grow and develop -- and the african church wants a say so in the american churches business.

there's no way there is going to be any resolution but a split -- so get on with it. the church will survive.

[Solo_in_MD]

9. Parish by parish or by diocese?

That is a key point...

[xchrom]

11. and they have to decide --

there are far fewer conservatives than liberals here in the states -- and they do tend to be in geographic locales -- even here in cali -- so diocese by diocese might make the process less painful.

[JerseygirlCT]

13. Except that even w/in dioceses there's nothing monolithic

Lots of people who wish to stay located in dioceses that are threatening schism. In those cases, the "loyalists" are the ones being threatened with loss of property.

It will undoubtedly be messy, messy, messy and very ugly.

[xchrom]

14. well, it's messy and ugly now.

get through the split and move on.

[JerseygirlCT]

6. I'm not sure I completely agree

That's a big issue, to be sure -- on a financial basis as well as that of simple fairness (you don't want to give in to extortionists).

But I truly think there are those deeply troubled by a break, who genuinely believe that they must give their every effort to finding that via media.

I'm becoming more convinced that they're on a well-intentioned but foolish mission. But I don't think it's as simple as money, really.

[skepticscott]

3. I'm perfectly happy

to sit back and let them fight it out until all their treasure is in the pockets of lawyers, if need be. Religion is inherently contradictory in that it fosters both a strong sense of community and deep divisions over the (very personal) areas of belief and interpretation of doctrine and scripture. The history of organized religion has been a constant tug-of-war between the need for community among the believers and the need for the believer's money among the church leaders on the one hand, and the desire for doctrinal purity on the other.

[JerseygirlCT]

7. That's a pretty cynical attitude, and

not exactly full of empathy for those believers who have found comfort and community, not to mention meaning, in their churches.

One of the earmarks of the Episcopal church has been its openess to a diversity of opinions on all things theological. Interpretation of doctrine and scripture has been strongly tilted toward individual discernment. It's actually a democratically-run church intentionally based on a model of the US government. The laity has a say in all aspects of the church.

I think you're expressing a pretty reflexive response to organized religion (we get it, you don't much like it). Perhaps it's not the most educated response, however.

[skepticscott]

15. It's simply a recognition

of the hypocrisy inherent in most organized religion. Do religious bodies like the Episcopal or Catholic churches have firm, immutable doctrines that people admitted as members are supposed to adhere to and believe in, or don't they? Do they say "These beliefs are the core and foundation of our religion, but you can feel free to consider them as just friendly suggestions and to pick and choose the ones you want and ignore the rest"? If every member of a church is free to believe anything they want and act any way they want, then what exactly IS that church other than just a bunch of people getting together to make each other feel better? Where is the scriptural and religious basis? There's nothing wrong with creating a sense of community, but that's not the only thing a church is supposed to be (or pretends to be) about. All the talk about openness and diversity of opinion is very pretty, but what it really means is that the church hierarchy is afraid (largely for reasons I cited) to actually enforce rigid guidelines with regard to religious doctrine, even though they pay lip service to them in their official pronouncements. The current situation in the Episcopal church is simply the result of certain factions within that church being unwilling to carry this hypocrisy any further.

Is there anything absolutely fundamental to being an Episcopalian, anything concerned with religious belief, that distinguishes it from all other denominations, anything about which you can say "You must believe this to be an Episcopalian, and if you don't, you're not one"? If so, are people who fail to adhere politely asked to leave the church? If not, why does being an Episcopalian mean anything?

[JerseygirlCT]

16. What's distinquishing is what I said: via media

We have always been the "middle way" -- what joins us is not doctrinal orthodoxy, but common prayer. We have made room for a variety of views and for using the intellects God gave us to personally interpret scripture and tradition. And we can disagree about those interpretations and yet come together in common prayer, based on our Book of Common Prayer. We share prayer and communion and fellowship and the love of God.

Sorry if that's not doctrinal enough for you. It *does* rather make it hard to paint a target on us, doesn't it?

[skepticscott]

18. Still wondering why

if it's not doctrinal orthodoxy that joins you together, why are disagreements about doctrinal orthodoxy (specifically concerning homosexuality) splitting you apart? Why isn't the sharing of common prayer and communion (which presumably still exists) more important to the congregations that want a separation than the doctrinal disputes over consecrating a gay bishop?

[JerseygirlCT]

19. Great question!

Unfortunately, the only ones with answers are likely to be those who are so eager to leave the Episcopal Church and the African and Asian Primates who've made it a mission to interfere in our church's decisions.

From my perspective, they are simply attempting to dress bigotry in religious clothing, and position themselves as somehow more Christian than the evil TEC. Of course, their behavior really shows them for what they are.

You've hit on it exactly -- we've gone through many changes over the years -- the last big uproar was over women's ordination, and there are still some bishops in TEC who (wrongly, and without permission) refuse to ordain women. It takes time, I guess.

Part of this is wrapped up in the way the US is seen in much of the developing world. TEC becomes inextricably linked to US gov't policies, and so we reap the resentment of that. There's a bit of "we'll show them" going on here from Akinola et al.

In the US, there are simply people so horrified at the very idea of homosexuality that they let their fear and hatred get the best of them, and they make this the fight. It's very un-Anglican, and not in sync with the basic characteristics of the church.

[JerseygirlCT]

5. Hmmm... I have mixed feelings about this

The article doesn't really give any information about what exactly Lawrence has said. Has he espoused schism? In that case, yes, there is no way he ought to be made a bishop of a church he's threatening to leave.

OTOH, if it's just about his conservative opinions, then refusing him the episcopate sets a dangerous precedence. Gene Robinson is Bishop in NH, b/c the people of NH wanted him. If SC is a more conservative diocese, should they not choose someone who more closely represents them?

All this said with unease, b/c I have no question whatsoever that inclusion is the ONLY moral way to proceed. I have little tolerance for those who would disenfranchise GLBT members of the church.

I think the problem is that the article is not particularly well-informed, going instead for the sensational...

[JerseygirlCT]

8. Ok, second thoughts

From a letter he wrote:

"In answer to one of the eight questions Lawrence addresses in the letter, he writes that the presence of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori at his consecration would be "a most unwelcome situation for the vast majority of priests and laypersons of the Diocese of South Carolina."

and

"He wrote that the primates of the Anglican Communion "alone have a sufficiently representative authority to set theological boundaries and perimeters for the individual provinces until the Communion can do the necessary constitutional work to realize the intercultural, inter-provincial unity we have claimed for ourselves over the past two centuries."

From: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_80394_ENG_HTM.htm

[toddaa]

10. Any ideas who is backing him, JerseygirlCT?

Sounds like the the IRD to me.

[JerseygirlCT]

12. I'd guess there's a good chance for that

He's from San Joaquim diocese -- the one that's trying to leave. And there's been talk about trying to lead SC out as well. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he was receiving support for all that from IRD.

If I get a chance, I'll dig around a bit and see if I can find some more.

[JerseygirlCT]

17. Both his old diocese and SC are affiliated with

the Anglican Communion Network --

More info here:
http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2006/04/diocese-of-washington-follows-money.html

[kwassa]

20. It appears that Mark Lawrence lost by one vote to become Bishop

though nothing has been confirmed yet. He needed 56 standing committeee votes to get a bare majority, and only had 55 as of late last night. A blow to the conservatives, if this is true.

Nothing has been confirmed yet, however, and I haven't been able to find out any more info.

edited to add this, which I did find:

http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3133

"The 56 affirmative votes necessary from bishops was received several weeks ago. Early in the afternoon on March 12, the Rev. J. Haden McCormick, president of the South Carolina standing committee, reported having received unofficial positive votes from 55 standing committees, one less than necessary for the consecration to proceed.

In order to count in the affirmative, the consent form must be signed by every standing committee member voting in favor and it must be sent either by U.S. mail or by FAX prior to the deadline. Even though the deadline has passed, it is possible that a few more results may still be en route. Consent forms mailed close to the deadline by one or more of The Episcopal Church’s 10 international dioceses require additional time to be delivered. The results are not official until they have been certified by the Office of the Presiding Bishop."