The bishops of the Episcopal Church’s Province IV have asked their colleague, Diocese of South Carolina Bishop Mark Lawrence, to meet with them “to have a clarifying conversation” about his decision to issue property deeds to each diocesan congregation.Collegiality! It seems only right.
Diocese of East Carolina Bishop Clifton Daniels, provincial vice president, requested the meeting with Lawrence. He said in a letter to him that that bishops had “determined that it is our duty as bishops of this province to address these concerns in direct communication with you, as Jesus exhorts his followers in Matthew’s Gospel (18:15-20), and in accord with our ordination vows regarding the unity and governance of the church.”
He noted that “we have had no direct communication from you regarding these reported actions.”
Daniels said that Lawrence’s fellow bishops discussed his action “with some concern” at the Nov. 29 – Dec. 1 meeting of the provincial House of Bishops. He told Lawrence that the other bishops want to know under what canonical authority he proceeded, whether he involved the diocesan Standing Committee, and whether the members of the Standing Committee were in accord with his action. Daniels also asked who signed the quitclaim deeds.Bp. Lawrence said that the day after he issued the quitclaims to the parish properties was the first time that he felt like the bishop of the diocese, which seems rather strange to me. You'd think it would happen at his consecration. What has Mark Lawrence been all this time if not bishop of the diocese? Is issuing quitclaims to parish property now part of the process of becoming a bishop in the Episcopal Church?
Daniels asked Lawrence to provide a sample copy of a deed and the letter of explanation that accompanied it.
The provincial bishops “respectfully request,” Daniels wrote, that Lawrence meet with several of them in Charleston, the seat of the South Carolina diocese, “or elsewhere if you desire.”
If you don't like the rules, then make them up as you go along.
Matthew 18:15-20
‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.’H/T to Jim Naughton at The Lead.
The whole of the diocese of South Carolina ¨argumentative¨ and ¨we´re more Christian than thou¨ character makes we woozie. There is something deeply flawed here and self-destructive actions will NOT result in greater peace of mind (for anyone concerned)-- the Bishop harms others, I wish it were not true.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be the appropriate path to follow for the other bishops. I wonder if he will meet with them. I'm not betting.
ReplyDeleteIf Mark Lawrence does not attend the meeting, it won't look good for him, but there's much that does not look good for him. Is he crying out to be made a martyr?
ReplyDeleteIt seems quite authentically biblical, as Rowan Williams might say. Seems things are coming to a head in the AMIA as well:
ReplyDeletehttp://anglicanink.com/article/recant-or-resign-rwanda-tells-chuck-murphy
Brian, I just saw the article to which you link. Contumacy! What is the world coming to?
ReplyDeleteAh, a little bit of accountability shines a bright light...
ReplyDeleteAs for the Conger article, my former bishop had the best one-liner: "Perfection is so difficult to maintain."
I only hope that the letter was got to Lawrence before it hit the innertubes. I seem to recall that the PB got a very patronizing letter from one or other of the Gafconeers about having just seen a letter that had already been discussed by one and all, and not before he had already made plans to visit the US and could not even if he wanted to change the plans. . . . or something like that.
ReplyDeleteRichard, your bishop's words are wise.
ReplyDeletesusan s., the article at ENS says:
Daniels said that Lawrence’s fellow bishops discussed his action “with some concern” at the Nov. 29 – Dec. 1 meeting of the provincial House of Bishops. He told Lawrence that the other bishops want to know under what canonical authority he proceeded, whether he involved the diocesan Standing Committee, and whether the members of the Standing Committee were in accord with his action. Daniels also asked who signed the quitclaim deeds.
Yes, Mimi, I saw that, but I'm not sure from that read whether Lawrence was at that meeting or not. It would have been just like him not to have been there. Why else would they need to write a letter? ;-)
ReplyDeleteHe (Daniels) told Lawrence....
ReplyDeleteOkay. I just took that to mean that was what he told him in the letter. Obviously it means something different to at least two of us!
ReplyDeleteNot to beat a dead horse, but the following quote from the Bishop's letter is what lead me to believe Lawrence was not at the meeting. . .
ReplyDelete“we have had no direct communication from you regarding these reported actions.”
susan, I take that to mean something like, "What the hell are you doing, Mark?" Not that they have not communicated, but that Mark Lawrence has not vouchsafed to inform his brother bishops what he is about with the quitclaims. Whatever. I don't know the definite answer. You could be right.
ReplyDeleteI hear Susan S's concerns.
ReplyDeleteAs I just said at Episcopal Cafe/The Lead, it's not clear to me who published the letter (it may have been one of the writing bishops, but then again, it may have been ?Lawrence himself).
The Scribd scan of the (hardcopy) letter is published by The Living Church (not MY first choice for publisher, if I were one of the bishops representing the GC majority!)
I see Jim Naughton suspects it was ?Lawrence (& Co) who published it (my hunch, too).
ReplyDeleteNot that it really matters how reports about the letter came about, but I'd say its likely +Lawrence himself revealed the letter as a gift to his cheerleaders at The Living Church.
ReplyDeleteTLC has doing a bang-up job reporting the talking points of +Lawrence.
I've believed all along that Mark Lawrence released the letter. From the beginning, Bp. Dorsey Henderson said that so far as he and the other members of the Disciplinary Board were concerned, the process was confidential. Bp. Lawrence wanted to play the martyr.
ReplyDeleteAmused by the way in which Lawrence, in his rush to dissociate his diocese from the hierarchical model, has painted himself into the corner of Congregationalism.
ReplyDelete