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.
[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.
