From Bishop Mark Lawrence of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina:
"This morning while saying Morning Prayer in my dorm room and having my meditation time before the final day’s session, I begin to write down a few impressions forming in my mind. Before the day was out I had read them before my Indaba Group....Here’s what I wrote in my journal. For me it is primarily a metaphor of hope."
Canterbury, England
I am glad I came here for this Lambeth and worshipped one last time in the Cathedral home of Augustine and Dunstan, Anselm and Becket, Cranmer and Laud, Temple and Ramsay. I had come to speak a word of hope and perhaps to intervene on behalf of our beloved, but in the last resolve the family refused the long needed measures. So he just slipped away, our noble prince, one dreary morning in Canterbury with hardly even a death rattle.
The new prince was born last month in Jerusalem. I was there—arriving late, departing early. I was never quite sure what I was witnessing. It was an awkward and messy birth. He hardly struck me as I gazed upon him there in the bassinet as quite ready to be heir to the throne. I even wondered at times if there might be some illegitimacy to his bloodlines. But that I fear was my over wedded ness to a white and European world. May he live long, and may his tribe increase—and may he remember with mercy all those who merely mildly neglected his birth.
As for me my role for now is clear, to hold together as much as I can for as long as I can that when he comes to his rightful place on St. Augustine’s throne in Canterbury Cathedral he will have a faithful and richly textured kingdom.
In all fairness, I urge you to read Bishop Lawrence's entire statement. Perhaps, the rest of his words will clarify the impressions from his journal. I don't know what to make of it, except that he was at GAFCON, he was at Lambeth, and that he has hope.
Thanks to Fr Christian for the link.
Even the eminent Dr Troll fails to understand this garbage.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think it's just Jack Shit.
This is a long answer, because relatively little has been posted on the future of secession in South Carolina (how's that for a line?) and this cloud has a very silver lining.
ReplyDeleteBishop Lawrence's statement interested me when I read it a few days ago. Remember that Lawrence, who in his last incarnation was -John David Schofield's cathedral dean at San Joaquin, failed initially to gain sufficient consent from TEC's bishops - in no small part because of his evasive response to questions concerning his likely intentions in SC were he consecrated bishop - for his consecration to be approved. He scraped by on the second try.
The future of secessionism in South Carolina has been obscured by the ongoing (since 2000) law suits concerning All Saints, Pawley's Island. In 2004, the majority of members of the church voted to secede from TEC and join the Anglican Mission in America. The question of ownership of the church itself is working its way through the SC courts. On account of its having been established under a 1745 deed of trust, the issue of whether the church is owned by trustees or by TEC though the diocese of SC is still under litigation, though at this point the courts favor the trustees (and the secessionists). However, property NOT covered by the 1745 deed, together with church monies and the right to use the name "All Saints, Pawleys Island", has been awarded by the courts to the continuing Episcopal congregation.
The court based this decision on a 1973 case involving the First Presbyterian Church of Rock Hill, in the north of the State. The judge said (I quote here from "The Coastal Observer") that "the majority of members withdrew from the Presbyterian Church and united with another denomination but still wanted the church property.
"He said the court [in 1973] ruled the remaining minority members owned the property and that the majority had no right to the property because they severed their relationship with the First Presbyterian Church."
"When a division occurs in a church," Cooper [the judge in the current, Pawleys Island case] said. "The congregation is answered by who is the representative of the church before it split."
In short, from its dealings in the matter of All Saints, Pawleys Island, the diocese of South Carolina knows full well, in advance, that under the 1973 Rock Hill ruling, if it takes the San Joaquin route, the diocese and almost all of the seceding congregations, can kiss their property and endowments goodbye.
For some reason, while the CANA Virginia case, which initially under a unique state law, favors the seceding congregations, the Pawleys Island case, which speaks far more strongly as to how the majority of secessionist cases will fare in state courts, has received relatively little coverage.
"When a division occurs in a church, the congregation is answered by who is the representative of the church before it split."
Lapin, I'm glad you posted your long comment. I remember Bishop Lawrence's history immediately preceding his two elections, but I'm interested to know about the status of the property disputes making making their way through the courts.
ReplyDeleteBp. Lawrence is not your bishop, is he? Nevertheless, I was waiting for you to weigh in.
No, we're in Upper SC, thank God! Me and Sarah Hey, both. Our bishop, Dorsey Henderson, who has described himself as "Windsor compliant", is pretty-well respected across the board. He chaired the Title IV Review Committee which in January of this year declared that -John David Schofield and +Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh have abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.
ReplyDeleteWell then, I suppose that's a good thing.
ReplyDeleteGrandmere--
ReplyDeleteI found this post troublesome when I first read it a couple of days ago. It seems as though he is saying that Akinola or one of the other GAFCONites (perhaps Australia) is the ascendent prince, and rightful heir to the throne of the dead prince.... the dead prince I am assuming is the ABC and the See of Canterbury.
The language used is weird --like it's code or mystic revelation crapola.
It also reminds me of the so-called prophetc whooo-whooo of the "breaker" out of Pittsburgh too.
I find this kind of stuff extremely troubling out of a bishop.... almost like gnostic hidden to be revealed only to those in the know poo-poo caa-caa.
and whatever it means, I don't think it is good, nor honest, nor of God. If it were of God, it would be plain as day.
Mimi,
ReplyDeleteI fear the new bishop has had a vision.
He never,ever intended to REALLY honor his commitment to the Episcopal Church, because he is an acolyte to +/- Schofield. Let's say it right up: he's a big liar.
We should have never given consent to his election as bishop of South Carolina.
He despises our church, but he isn't man enough to declare it.
A travesty.
I wonder what his indaba group at Lambeth made of it. I wonder what the folks in the diocese make of it.
ReplyDeleteMargaret, it doesn't read like a "word from the Lord" to me.
John, I agree that he does not seem to care much for the Episcopal Church. He was elected twice, so I suppose that's why consent was given.
It would be an honour to be linked with this extremely rude blog
ReplyDeleteWhoever Lawrence's "new prince" is, it won't be Sydney. The rumour around here is that more than a few American GAFCONites were alarmed at how readily +Jensen jumped up into the limelight at Jerusalem, and have come to realise that Sydney's Calvinist Puritanism would see them pushed to the margins quicker than you can say "Oliver Cromwell". Besides, if Schofield/Iker/Duncan et al wanted to be led by Baptists they wouldn't need to look as a afield as Australia ;-)
ReplyDeleteThanks for your info Lapinbizarre (love the new avatar!) - it's interesting to see how it's panning out elsewhere in the States. What +Jensen is really hoping for is a US split of the kind that occurred in South Africa in the late 1930s, but one in which Lambeth is forced to remain in communion with both sides. Sydney won't leave, because under Oz law the property would be determined by a Federal court who would be bound by the overarching Federal legislation of the National church - in short Sydney would lose everything. But if enough of a precedent can be set elsewhere in the Communion the national church's arm just might be twisted enough to let +Jensen get his way... Hearing that Virginia won't neccesarily be the rule for the rest of the US brings hope that his plan will fail.
I was so busy being serious up above that I forgot to comment on the content of Mark Lawrence's statement. This is hippy-dippy bull-crap of a high and aggravated nature. I am constantly amazed by those, living themselves in a 60's time warp, still fighting its culture wars, who accuse us of this "sin".
ReplyDeleteI'm with the Rev'd Dr Troll's Bishop Quinine, by the way. "Interesting mushrooms."
Or, as Father David said over at Fr Christian's place, it could be the aftereffects of jogging in Canterbury under a full moon.
ReplyDeleteYup. Could well be.
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean? It means "I said I wasn't going to leave or try to take the diocese with me, but I think I will anyway.?
ReplyDeleteHey! That should be " not ? at the end of the last sentence. Crappy keyboard!
ReplyDeleteIf that is really a reflection of where his heart is then it is lamentable. I can think of all the Standing Committees that agonized over the decision to consent---what a further erosion of trust in the integrity of the word of people who claim they are committed to the "literal" truth! I hope he is just pandering to the darker forces in his diocese with words they want to hear. This really, really is a disappointment to read.
ReplyDeleteI think under all the claptrap, he is saying that the gaffe will replace the Anglican communion and his task is to be sure the diocese is there for the eventual succession of some replacement for Dr. Williams. Why this needed to be couched in such weird writing is beyond me, but that is what I think I read.
ReplyDeleteIf I got it right (without the same mushrooms in my diet it is hard to be sure) then what we can expect is that he will be the designated dissenter awaiting the arrival of a new primate inter pares who will lead us all to the homophobic promised land. I at least am not going there!
FWIW
jimB
Alcibiades, if Jensen is not the one who will ascend to to "his rightful place on St. Augustine’s throne in Canterbury Cathedral", I can think of several other unpalatable candidates that Bp. Lawrence may have in mind. But no Jensen is, indeed, good news if it's true.
ReplyDeletePadre Mickey, my sympathy about the crappy keyboard. They're recalcitrant critters sometimes, aren't they? They go their own way.
Under There, sometimes when folks want to equivocate, they end up not making much sense, and it could be Bp. Lawrence wants it that way.
Jim, Bp. Lawrence is truly in la-la land if he thinks the gaffe will replace the Anglican Communion.
"Slouches towards Jerusalem to be born"?
ReplyDeleteThe possibilities are endless.
ReplyDelete"Slouches toward Jerusalem to be born" is poetic reference to the last line of William Butler Yeats' poem, "The Second Coming".
ReplyDelete"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
Interesting piece at
http://www.yeatsvision.com/SecondNotes.html
And it could also be a political reference...i.e.,
http://www.transnational.org/Area_MiddleEast/2007/Falk_PalestineGenocide.html
and even more likely a reference to the "Left Behind" series, because here is a direct quote from a site about that...
They believe that things must fall apart and the center must not hold, because even now the beast is slouching toward Jerusalem.
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2005/11/lb_the_nonatten.html
also...
ReplyDelete"He just slipped away, our noble prince" and "
and "when he comes to his rightful place on St. Augustine’s throne in Canterbury Cathedral he will have a faithful and richly textured kingdom"
might be with reference to Christ himself...
The Anglican Church League reprints part of Lawrence's piece here
http://acl.asn.au/he-just-slipped-away/
with a footnote about him upholding "the uniqueness of Christ"
Scott, ya think? Maybe it's in code for those of like mind to Bp. Lawrence. The statement has an apocalyptic ring to it.
ReplyDeleteYes, it does. I'm guessing that he buys into the "pre-millenial return of Jesus" thing, and that this piece is not about GAFCON, but about the second coming when the "center must not hold", etc. What he means by keeping things together remains to be seen. I'd say the new "province" will launch on All Saints' Day (I know a CANA-ista who says he'll be "TEC until All Saints' Day."
ReplyDelete"I can think of all the Standing Committees that agonized over the decision to consent-"
ReplyDeleteOurs certainly did -- we probably spent four hours talking about it -- we couldn't decide in one meeting so had to come back and ultimately, despite our wanting to honour the election of a diocese, we just weren't convinced that he would honour the doctrine and discipline of The Episcopal Church smf consequently voted not to consent. Sounds as though we weren't wrong, alas.
Each time I read this statement my already crossed eyes cross even more because it is just too weird for me.
Grandmere --on another look, I noticed that he said he was saying Morning Prayer alone... Perhaps there is part of the root of what is wrong with this picture: "This morning while saying Morning Prayer in my dorm room ..."
ReplyDeleteHe capitalizes it, which I am interpreting as the formal MP from the BCP. Was he praying morning prayer alone in his dorm room? Why? If so, how the hell does anyone say Morning Prayer alone???? And, WHY, when one is at Lambeth, would one not gather with others at the public liturgies???? Morning devotions and meditation--fine. That can be done alone. But Morning Prayer--as found in the BCP??? Can't be done.... it's a public and community-oriented liturgy.
This isolationist mindset is part and parcel of a greater sickness, which speaks of cult.
And what does this mean?
ReplyDeleteI am glad I came here for this Lambeth and worshipped one last time in the Cathedral home of Augustine and Dunstan, Anselm and Becket, Cranmer and Laud, Temple and Ramsay.
More and more, I'm inclined to think it may be written in code. I know that sounds absolutely nuts
grandmere,
ReplyDeletelol
In ten years he'll be retired. Only active diocesans and suffragans and a few others are invited.
Clergy often (more often in previous generations) "say" the daily offices privately. It was pretty much expected of TEC clergy a generation or two ago. Many of the laity do, too. He very well may have said Morning Prayer privately before he went to corporate worship, if he went to corporate worship.
Yeah --but Scott --the assumption is that you say it alone because there is no one to say it with you.... But in a gathering of 670 bishops or so..... it just doesn't cut it to say it alone.... That type of action speaks of purposeful isolationism and separatism.
ReplyDeleteAnd Grandmere --yes, it does sound absolutely nuts....but I don't think any of us are the nutty ones.... If so, at least we don't speak and write in weird mystic code!
OK, Scott, I'll give him that one as "not mysterious" after your explanation. It's weird.
ReplyDeleteDid y'all read Fr Christian's post and the comments there? The link is at the bottom of this post. It's hilarious.
Trust me: it's code. And, it's hardly brilliant. In fact, it's quite transparent.
ReplyDeleteYou are all being quite generous.
What a sham!
Mark Lawrence is 58 years old, Scott, young enough that if he is alive and if he wishes it to be so, he might perfectly well be Episcopal Bishop of South Carolina ten years from now.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention the crappy, seriously over-ripe prose, Elizabeth.
Elizabeth, I trust your word that it's code. He's sending a message to a select group.
ReplyDeleteOK, now I'm flip-flopping from Scott's view to Lapin's view.
Well, Elizabeth is right, I'm generous to a genuine fault. I didn't realize that Lawrence might be around at the time of the next Lambeth. So, I retreat to my other view, to which no one has yet responded, that the new province will launch on All Saints' Day.
ReplyDeleteScott, if GAFCON or whoever launch a new province on All Saints' Day, I'll headline a post "I Heard It First Here From Scott". I'm caring less and less what they do, but if Bp. Lawrence actually plans to be part of the new province, then he was not honest in his answers to the questions asked before the vote on consent to his consecration was taken.
ReplyDeletegrandmere,
ReplyDeleteI warned against Lawrence at Fr. Jake's. Fred and I even listed his co-consecrators (40 of them, about three times!). It's a done deal. They're gone.
I'm caring less and less what they do. -- Mimi.
ReplyDeleteMe, too. They're on a roll, or is it a slide, and they're going to do what they do.
As for Bishop Lawrence's scrawl, it may be in code, but I suspect that it has no literal meaning.
Scott, I'm not arguing with you. What you say may well come to be. Maybe I'm naive, but I find it shocking that a priest would be dishonest in that manner.
ReplyDeleteAllen, had I written that, I would be embarrassed to have it on the diocesan website. It makes him an object of ridicule - as you can see, however much it may please his select group of like-minded folks.