THE BISHOP, THE DIOCESE, AND THE CHURCH

Sorry, but I don't know how else to give the background to the story of Bishop Mark Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina vis-a-vis the Episcopal Church, except to quote the first two sources whole and entire.

Disciplinary Board for Bishops certifies that South Carolina Bishop has abandoned the church

[October 17, 2012] The Disciplinary Board for Bishops has advised Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori that the majority of the 18-member panel has determined that Bishop Mark Lawrence of the Diocese of South Carolina has abandoned the Episcopal Church “by an open renunciation of the Discipline of the Church.”

Following complaints of 12 adult members and two priests of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, the determination was made under Canon IV.16(A).

The 18 member board – composed of 10 bishops, four clergy, four laity – issued a letter dated September 18. Following the assembly of numerous documents, the Presiding Bishop received the letter in her Church Center office on October 10; the letter was received via U.S. Mail.

On Monday October 15, the Presiding Bishop called Lawrence and, speaking directly with him, informed him of the action of the Disciplinary Board.  She also informed him that, effective noon of that day, the exercise of his ministry was restricted. Therefore, under the canon, he is not permitted to perform any acts as an ordained person. 

From here, Lawrence has 60 days to respond to the allegations in the certification.

Acts of abandonment

The Disciplinary Board for Bishops cited three particular acts of abandonment

“Bishop Lawrence failed to “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church” by presiding over the 219th Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina on October 10, 2010, at which the following acts were adopted, without ruling them out of order or otherwise dissenting from their adoption, but instead speaking in support of them in his formal address to the Convention.”

“Bishop Lawrence further failed to “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church” by presiding over the 220th Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina on February 19, 2011, at which Resolution R-6 was finally adopted on the second reading, without ruling it out of order or otherwise dissenting from its adoption.”

“On October 19, 2011, in his capacity as President of the nonprofit corporation known as The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina, Bishop Lawrence signed, executed, and filed with the Secretary of State of the State of South Carolina certain Articles of Amendment, amending the corporate charter 4 as stated in Resolution R-11, described in paragraph 7.c above. That amendment deleted the original stated purpose of the corporation “to continue the operation of an Episcopal Diocese under the Constitution and Canons of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America” and replaced it with the stated purpose “to continue operation under the Constitution and Canons of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Carolina.”

“On about November 16, 2011, in an apparent effort to impair the trust interest of The Episcopal Church and of the Diocese of South Carolina in church property located in that Diocese, Bishop Lawrence directed his Chancellor, Wade H. Logan, III, to issue quitclaim deeds to every parish of the Diocese of South Carolina disclaiming any interest in the real estate held by or for the benefit of each parish.”

  South Carolina Episcopalians explain complaint against bishop:

With much deliberation, Melinda A. Lucka, an attorney in the Charleston, S.C. area and an active communicant in the Diocese of South Carolina, requested that the Disciplinary Board for Bishops review various actions of Bishop Lawrence that have taken place over the past two years. Ms. Lucka asked the Board if it could make a determination as to whether or not the actions were consistent with the mission and polity of The Episcopal Church.

Lucka made the request on behalf of 12 lay communicants and two priests in the diocese. The communicants are: Robert R. Black, Margaret A. Carpenter, Charles G. Carpenter, Frances L. Elmore, Eleanor Horres, John Kwist, Margaret S. Kwist, Barbara G. Mann, David W. Mann, Warren W. Mersereau, Dolores J. Miller, Robert B. Pinkerton, M. Jaquelin Simons, Mrs. Benjamin Bosworth Smith, John L. Wilder, and Virginia C. Wilder. The clergy who were named are longstanding Episcopal priests Colton M. Smith+ and Roger W. Smith+.

Generally, names of individuals who initiate ecclesiastical requests are held in confidence through privacy provisions of the Canons; however, the complainants in this request gave their approval to allow themselves to be made known to the Bishop.

Lucka said that they agreed to be named “as a courtesy to Bishop Lawrence, so as not to be cloaked in a shroud of secrecy.” They hope that this “will prevent any suppositions that may be asserted in the upcoming days or weeks that The Episcopal Church may have initiated or encouraged the filing of this request.”

“They also want to clarify that although most individuals are members of the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina, an organization of mainstream Episcopalians in the diocese, this was not an action taken by the Forum or its Board. In addition to the individuals who made this request, there are many, many other loyal Episcopalians in the diocese who felt strongly that Episcopal Church officials should review the Bishop’s actions.”

“There is definitely a place for orthodox and evangelical views within the diocese; that’s the beauty of being under the large tent of The Episcopal Church; however, viewpoints and practices in the diocese began to take large leaps away from the broader Church when various actions took place. Severing the legal connections to the governing laws of the Church and essentially forming a new corporate entity, outside of The Episcopal Church by changing the diocesan corporate purpose statement to no longer accede to the Constitution and Canons of our Church seemed to be going too far out of bounds.”

“The hope of these individuals is that the diocese will continue to be a home for all Episcopalians to worship and live together in God’s love through Jesus Christ. They ask the Church for prayers for the Bishop and all involved.”

The names of the complainants are now known.

Partial responses by +Lawrence and the diocesan officers are quoted below.  For the complete responses follow the links.

The Episcopal Church (TEC) has made an attack against our Bishop and Diocese, in the midst of efforts for a negotiated settlement, which has fundamentally changed our common life. You may have heard or read about this over the last week but it is vital today that we all understand what has occurred and what it means as clearly as possible.

-----------

This action is a deplorable assault upon the Bishop of this Diocese. The attack came in the midst of negotiations whose stated intent was to find a peaceful solution to our differences with the Episcopal Church.  It involved a process in which there was no prior notice of the proceedings, no notice of the charges against him nor any opportunity to face the local accusers (who remained anonymous until today).

The rhetoric of the response is typical of +Lawrence.   The bishop seems to have survived the attack and assault and is not yet a martyr to the cause, but he stands ready.  From his words in the past, I've suspected that long-suffering Bishop Lawrence was desirous of martyrdom, and perhaps he believes he already wears the martyr's crown, but - alas - not everyone would agree.

What was the Disciplinary Board to do once the diocese voted that the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of South Carolina trumped the Constitutions and Canons of the Episcopal Church, the church in which the bishop vowed to "guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church", and +Lawrence did not object?  In which church did Bishop Lawrence think he was consecrated bishop, and on what basis does he now see himself as released from his vows?

Still +Lawrence will stand in the breach and protect the diocese, which he now claims has been abandoned by the Episcopal Church, along with its bishop, which is himself.  How much more clearly could the diocese and the bishop have declared their independence from the Episcopal Church at their convention?  I'm not grasping the logic here.  Kendall Harmon, Canon Theologian, says:

As a result of TEC's attack against our Bishop, the Diocese of South Carolina is disassociated from TEC; that is, its accession to the TEC Constitution and its membership in TEC have been withdrawn.

The diocese withdrew at its last convention, and the bishop did not object, and now they say they have withdrawn because of the attack on their bishop?  What am I missing?

H/T to Thinking Anglicans.   

DRAMA - MYSTERY - SECRETS - SUSPENSE!

Letter to the members of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina from Bishop Mark Lawrence.

Click on the letter for the larger view.

In other words, we have a secret.  We know you are anxious and concerned, but we can't allay your anxiety and concern quite yet, because it would be imprudent to reveal the secret at this time.  Sorry about that.  Although the decision has been made, the situation remains fluid and requires discernment, thus you must be patient for a while longer.

Unless the letter is written in code that only the in-group in the diocese understands, the gist of the communication is so very immature that it could have come from a child of elementary school age were the language less high-flown.  One is left puzzled wondering if the decision (whatever it is) was premature.  Is it possible the course of action could change in response to discernment on the fluid situation?  The bishop assures the members of the diocese that the leaders "are progressing" and have not "stopped or dropped the ball".  If the decision is already made, then why the hesitation in disclosure?

But why am I surprised?  The letter is typical +Mark Lawrence.  Will he or won't he take the diocese and himself out of the Episcopal Church?  The bishop or any member of the diocese is free to leave the Episcopal Church at any time, as the church does not hold its members in chains.  My guess is that the "discernment" is about finding a way to take church property with them if and when they depart the Episcopal Church and a way for the diocese to claim to be still a part of the Anglican Communion.  Of course, I could be wrong, and I hope I am.  The matter remains of the vows +Lawrence made at his ordination as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I,Mark Lawrence, chosen Bishop of the Church in South Carolina, solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church.

H/T to Mark Harris at Preludium, who brought the letter to my attention.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPUTATION LEAVES GC

Due to the actions of General Convention, the South Carolina Deputation has concluded that we cannot continue with business as usual. We all agree that we cannot and will not remain on the floor of the House and act as if all is normal. John Burwell and Lonnie Hamilton have agreed to remain at Convention to monitor further developments and by their presence demonstrate that our action is not to be construed as a departure from the Episcopal Church. Please pray for those of us who will be traveling early and for those who remain.

Thanks to Susan on Facebook.

MARTYRDOM POSTPONED FOR BISHOP MARK LAWRENCE

 

Click on the letter for the larger view.

From Mark Harris at Preludium:

The Living Church has posted the letter from Bishop Henderson concerning the charges against Bishop Lawrence. The letter is dated November 22nd. Read it HERE.

I am glad the specifics of those charges were not found sufficient. I too felt they fell short of the abandonment canon.

They did not include the matter of the quitclaim deeds, as those were issued only on November 15th and were not part of the charges first brought.

The headline on my post is mine, not Mark's. I agree the charges were not sufficient for the Disciplinary Board to conclude that Bp. Lawrence abandoned the Episcopal Church, Although, at times, the bishop seems to long to be a martyr, I'd rather the church did not make him one.

The quitclaim deeds which the bishop issued to the parishes in the diocese are another matter about which we shall wait and see what develops. Mark Harris' previous post to the announcement by the Disciplinary Board concerns the quitclaims.

SUMMARIES OF THE INVESTIGATION OF BISHOP MARK LAWRENCE OF THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

If you're interested in reasonable and non-hysterical summaries of the investigation of Bishop Mark Lawrence of the Diocese of South Carolina ('Episcopal' has been removed from the name of the diocese at the website) and the complaints (no charges!) against him by persons within the diocese, which the Disciplinary Board of the Episcopal Church is now investigating, as it must, check out the posts at The Lead here and here and the article at The Living Church.

In an update, The Living Church also notes that Josephine Hicks has recused herself as the attorney representing the Disciplinary Board in the investigation.

WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE [EPISCOPAL(?)] DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA?

"Episcopal" is no longer part of the name of the Diocese of South Carolina. Nothing new there. "Episcopal" was removed some time ago.

Two resolutions, both of which passed at the previous convention, passed again, by more than the required two-thirds margin in both the clergy and lay orders, amending the Diocesan Constitution. The first resolution removed the accession clause to the Canons of the Episcopal Church, and the second, enabled the Convention to meet more frequently than annually, if needed. These resolutions seek to protect the Diocese from any attempt at un-Constitutional intrusions in our corporate life in South Carolina and were in response to the revisions to the Title IV Canons of the Episcopal Church.

What's going on? Is the Diocese of South Carolina still part of the Episcopal Church?

In the comments to the post on the actions of the convention of the Diocese of South Carolina at The Lead, Tobias Haller says:

The accession required is in Constitution V.1. The question raised in SC is whether the accession to the law of the church required for the admission of a diocese into union with this Church must necessarily remain in place. Their view, in the retail world, is called "bait and switch."

What is cited above is the "Dennis Canon" -- which is also an area of concern, but isn't about accession to the C&C.

Well! Bait and switch is it? Who would ever have thought...?

Bishop Mark Lawrence's address to the convention is in his usual bombastic style and includes the usual disparaging commentary about the leadership of the "national" church, along with the usual "scare quotes".

As I have spoken in recent days to Diocesan Council, the deans, and the Standing Committee, it is my expressed hope that this year of 2011 will be free from constitutional and canonical challenges from the “national” leadership of the Episcopal Church, and that we in the Diocese of South Carolina can get on with the work of growing our parishes, strengthening the lives of our parishioners and churches, and planting new congregations.

Bishop Lawrence continues with a reference to Nehemiah, noting that he will not employ the martial metaphor from Ch. 4.

A Biblical metaphor I have employed from time to time is from Chapter 4 of the Book of Nehemiah where the workmen rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem labored with a tool in one hand and a weapon in the other. But as I have said, my hope is that this will be a season for the trowel not the sword. Time alone will tell if we will be permitted to do our work unencumbered by intrusions. I am eager to see this Diocese of South Carolina add daily to its number those who are being saved; and what better way to do this than by growing our existing congregations and planting new ones. This work, not the controversies of the day, will be the thrust of this address.

Rather, he will move forward with trowel in hand, yet ever on guard against "intrusions", presumably by the "national" leadership, when he may again require a "sword".

Bishop Lawrence's rhetoric is unlike any other Episcopal priest or bishop that I've read or heard. He sounds more like Billy Graham - not that there's anything wrong with that!

The weekend began Friday afternoon with a presentation by the Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, who now serves South Carolina as Visiting Bishop for Anglican Communion Relationships, on “Triple Jeopardy: The Challenge of Islam, Secularism and Multiculturalism.”

Bishop Nazir-Ali also preached a sermon. I searched for a link to the actual text of Bishop Nazir-Ali's sermon and presentation without success. The link to MP3 version of the sermon, to which I have not listened, is below:

Sermon by the Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali.

The link at the diocesan website to the Presentation, "Triple Jeopardy: The Challenge of Islam, Secularism and Multiculturalism," by the Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali is broken.

SUSPENSE IN SOUTH CAROLINA

From Andrew Gerns at The Lead, we learn that the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina will meet in convention on March 26. I wrote earlier of Bishop Lawrence's pastoral letter announcing that the convention was postponed because requests for certain documents from an attorney for the national office of the Episcopal Church troubled Bishop Lawrence, and he didn't think he should comply with the request.

The resolutions proposed for consideration at the convention, which are now posted at the diocesan website, would make explicit that the diocese intends to position itself with one foot in and one foot out of the Episcopal Church.

Gerns says:

It appears from these resolutions that the Diocese of South Carolina wants to act as if they are an independent body free of accountability to the Episcopal Church, it's governing bodies (that it has heretofore participated and assented to) or her sister dioceses and bishops. They are trying to do what the former leadership in Pittsburgh attempted. Unfortunately, right now there is no Grace Church to hold them accountable from within.

Having declared that they want to isolate themselves from General Convention resolutions and Episcopal Church ministries that they don't like, now they will claim that they do not have to follow any canon of the Episcopal Church that they disagree with. Their resolutions stating that the PB has no ecclesiastical (R-3 and R-4) or legal (R-2) jurisdiction in their space is essentially saying that no one has a claim on their ministry and they are accountable to no one but themselves.

The Special Convention last fall, gave authority to the bishop and the Standing Committee of the diocese to withdraw from participation in bodies in TEC whose "actions [are] deemed contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the communion, the Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons, until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions."

Gerns adds:

Of course there are limits to independence. We wonder if, as outward signs of their independence and self-sufficiency the clergy of South Carolina would like to live without a Church Pension Fund, which depends on all of us. Or if their parishes will make do with Church Insurance, which equally depends on all of us, or if a disaster should strike their diocese if they would refuse the work Episcopal Relief and Development. They should probably stop using the Book of Common Prayer or any hymnals printed by Church Publishing. They know better than the rest of us anyway and probably do a better job.

Yes, indeed! One wonders why the pension plan and health insurance are not tainted by association. By refusing to participate in those programs, the leaders of the diocese could show forth with dramatic clarity that they have the courage of their convictions and are willing to make sacrifices for conscience's sake.

Will the delicate balancing act succeed? Tune in for the next episode of the saga of the Diocese of South Carolina when the convention meets later this month.

BISHOP MARK LAWRENCE'S RECENT PASTORAL LETTER

In Bishop Mark Lawrence's recent pastoral letter to the members of the Diocese of South Carolina, the bishop seems distressed by the request for certain documents from the diocese and a number of the churches within the diocese by the office of the Presiding Bishop. I read over the letters of request by the attorney for the PB's office, Thomas Tisdale, to Wade Logan, Chancellor of the diocese, and I see no reason why the diocese objects to supplying the documents. Of course, I have no special knowledge of canon law nor of the law of the land.  The bishop asserts that he is the only bishop with canonical jurisdiction in the diocese, and he, along with his Standing Committee, claim sovereignty for the Diocese of South Carolina. Note that "Episcopal" is missing from the name of the diocese.

My first thoughts upon reading Bishop Mark Lawrence's letter were, "Whining, self-pitying, and sanctimonious!" - which led me to wonder if, in his letter, Bishop Lawrence is setting up his case for a claim of persecution by the office of the Presiding Bishop against him and his doocese.

Bishop Lawrence counsels against a unilateral, precipitous response to the "unjust intrusions", "provocative interference", and "unprecedented incursions" into the affairs of the diocese.

In the service for the Ordination of a Bishop in the Episcopal Church, Mark Lawrence was asked:

Will you guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church?

He answered:

I will, for the love of God.

One presumes that Mark Lawrence affirmed the statement in the knowledge that "the Church" meant the Episcopal Church.

Surely statements such as the one below from his address to the Special Convention of his diocese had nothing to do with the request for documents:

Surely most of you know that I believe the foundations of The Episcopal Church and this Anglican way of being a Christian are being bit by bit destroyed.
....

This false teaching, that I have called the Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity, has challenged the doctrine of the Trinity, the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ, the Authority of Scripture, our understanding of Baptism, and now that last refuge of order, our Constitutions and Canons. (This is the kudzu.)
....

The General Convention has become the problem. It has replace a balanced piety in this Church with the politics of one-dimensional activism.

And his mantra repeated no less than five times:

"When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Ps 11:3)

On Bp. Lawrence's Address To The Special Convention in The Diocese Of South Carolina

On my first go at reading Bishop Mark Lawrence's address to the Special Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, I only made it to page 4 of the 9 pages, before I had to stop because the words disturbed me so. I thought to myself, "What a self-aggrandizing, self-pitying, self-justifying, disloyal load of bombast!" How could anyone listen for 40 minutes? Grandpère saw the print-out on the counter and read a bit of it and asked me, "What is this?" When I told him, he asked, "Do people listen to this?" Apparently so. The address received a standing ovation at the convention.

I took up the speech again and went through to the end, and I watched the video of the address. Nothing in the second reading or the video caused me to revise the words in my first paragraph.

"When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Ps 11:3)

After Bp. Lawrence quoted the verse for the fifth time, I got it. Truly, I did. Bp. Lawrence and his cohorts are "the righteous". He made his point. I understood. Oh, the humility! The rest of us are what? I can't say, but I gather that we are not the righteous.

Aside from kudzu, squirrels, wives who sleep in separate bedrooms from their husbands, trains, babies, and angels what is this address about?

Bp. Lawrence's charges against the Episcopal Church are grave, indeed.

Surely most of you know that I believe the foundations of The Episcopal Church and this Anglican way of being a Christian are being bit by bit destroyed.
....

This false teaching, that I have called the Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity, has challenged the doctrine of the Trinity, the Uniqueness and Universality of Christ, the Authority of Scripture, our understanding of Baptism, and now that last refuge of order, our Constitutions and Canons. (This is the kudzu.)
....

The General Convention has become the problem. It has replace a balanced piety in this Church with the politics of one-dimensional activism.

The bishop mentions the loss of membership since 1968, "a 44% decline one generation" (a generation as the Bible defines it).

He compares the Episcopal Church to a train that "is moving fast toward a station where many of us in this diocese do not want to go. We fear the track this train is on - this train ain't bound for glory, this train." He wonders "how long the average Episcopalian will just sit there and let this trainload of radical activism roll them along to a dead end station".

Bp. Lawrence apparently did not notice that much of this was happening, because he was busy being faithful to his tasks, which he details, (They were many!) and plowing his fields.

And yet, and yet, in 2007, when he was asked to submit his name as a candidate for bishop on the "train that ain't bound for glory", the present Bishop Lawrence said, "Yes"! Was he still unaware of the sorry condition of the church in which he was possibly to be a bishop? What did he know, and when did he know it?

After a second round of voting in the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies diocesan Standing Committes, (the first round having resulted in a vote to withhold consent) consent was given to Bp. Lawrence, after he reaffirmed, with stronger emphasis than before the initial vote, his intention to remain loyal to TEC. He was ordained Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina on January 26, 2008.

From the Ordination Rite for a bishop in the Book of Common Prayer:

The Examination
All now sit, except the bishop-elect, who stands facing the bishops. The Presiding Bishop addresses the bishop-elect

My brother, the people have chosen you and have affirmed their trust in you by acclaiming your election. A bishop in God’s holy Church is called to be one with the apostles in proclaiming Christ’s resurrection and interpreting the Gospel, and to testify to Christ’s sovereignty as Lord of lords and King of kings.

You are called to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church; to celebrate and to provide for the administration of the sacraments of the New Covenant; to ordain priests and deacons and to join in ordaining bishops; and to be in all things a faithful pastor and wholesome example for the entire flock of Christ.

With your fellow bishops you will share in the leadership of the Church throughout the world. Your heritage is the faith of patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, and those of every generation who have looked to God in hope. Your joy will be to follow him who came, not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Are you persuaded that God has called you to the office of bishop?

Answer

I am so persuaded.

The following questions are then addressed to the bishop-elect by one or more of the other bishops

Bishop [Lawrence]

Will you accept this call and fulfill this trust in obedience to Christ?
Answer

I will obey Christ, and will serve in his name.

Bishop [Lawrence]

Will you be faithful in prayer, and in the study of Holy Scripture, that you may have the mind of Christ?
Answer

I will, for he is my help.

Bishop [Lawrence]

Will you boldly proclaim and interpret the Gospel of Christ, enlightening the minds and stirring up the conscience of your people?
Answer

I will, in the power of the Spirit.

Bishop [Lawrence]

As a chief priest and pastor, will you encourage and support all baptized people in their gifts and ministries, nourish them from the riches of God’s grace, pray for them without ceasing, and celebrate with them the sacraments of our redemption?
Answer

I will, in the name of Christ, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls.

Bishop [Lawrence]

Will you guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church of God?
Answer

I will, for the love of God.

Bishop [Lawrence]

Will you share with your fellow bishops in the government of the whole Church; will you sustain your fellow presbyters and take counsel with them; will you guide and strengthen the deacons and all others who minister in the Church?
Answer

I will, by the grace given me.

Bishop [Lawrence]

Will you be merciful to all, show compassion to the poor and strangers, and defend those who have no helper?
Answer

I will, for the sake of Christ Jesus.

All stand. The Presiding Bishop then says

[Mark], through these promises you have committed yourself to God, to serve his Church in the office of bishop. We therefore call upon you, chosen to be a guardian of the Church’s faith, to lead us in confessing that faith.

As you read on, keep in mind that Bp. Lawrence freely chose to answer, "I am so persuaded" and "I will" to the questions included in the Ordination Rite.

Bp. Lawrence says:

I put forward what I believe ought to be four unswerving principles to guide us: The Lordship of Christ and the Sufficiency of Scripture; Godly Boundaries; Domestic Engagement for Missional Relationships; and Emerging 21st Century Anglicanism.
....

Then there is the question often posed to me - if your intention bishop is to more thoroughly engage the "national" church and the culture and the culture, how does withdrawing from certain bodies of the Church enable us to more fully engage? To that question I say three things - first, remember there are four principles.... Secondly, most of us at some point in our lives have found ourselves in a dysfunctional system or relationship. We eventually recognized the need for appropriate boundaries. It is the only way to remain engaged with the family or system that embodies the dysfunction. Thirdly, it is the very withdrawing that facilitates the engagement.

As to Bp. Lawrence's four guiding principles, what is his difficulty with the Episcopal Church and his first principle? I don't see a problem. The Episcopal Church affirms the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the Sufficiency of Scripture. The remaining three of his principles are mushy in meaning, although those like-minded to him may understand more than I what he's getting at. Maybe he uses code language.

Did Bp. Lawrence have in mind, from the beginning, when he assented to be a candidate for bishop in the Episcopal Church and when he made his ordination vows to "guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church of God" and to "share with your fellow bishops in the government of the whole Church" to engage by disengagement with the church in which he made those vows?

I'm curious to know if the diocese will disengage with the pension plan. It's surely tainted, because partnered gay and lesbian clergy and bishops participate in the plan. I'm also curious as to whether Bp. Lawrence's stance in keeping a toe in the door of the Episcopal Church has to do with property settlements which, in overwhelming numbers, are being decided by the courts in favor of the national church.

To claim to remain in a church, all the while undermining that same church on every possible occasion with accusations of false teaching and destruction of the foundations of the church, is a strange sort of loyalty. Their decision to disengage with much of the governance and many of the programs of the Episcopal Church, leaves the leadership of the diocese skating on thin ice, indeed.