The attempt to make political hay out of this proves that the suspicions were well founded. Let's remember that South Carolina is Network affiliated. This alone gives us grounds to suspect any candidate they put forward. We should not pretend that ACN affiliation is an innocent fact. Our concern about Mark Lawrence was never about his conservative views but about his intentions to keep his vows. Was there a consent fight over Bishop Bauerschmidt in Tennessee? No.

I agree. My first reaction to reading these posts was wow this guy doesn't want to be elected bishop. He's wants to be a wedge issue. He wants to force a schism in TEC and once either a PV or an alternate province (the latter preferred no doubt) is definitely on track he will be consecrated. Makes you think maybe there was something more than ineptitude behind SC not being able to submit the necessary documented consents.

Lawrence's comment that the right began to organize after GC 2003 and +Gene's consecration is not borne out by "Follow the Money" found on this web site. The IRD has been organized to undermine mainline Christian denominations for much longer.

Sadly, the real problem is with the Diocese of SC -- more than Mark Lawrence+. The Standing Committee stacked the election by ruling out other candidates than the radicals and then failed to follow-up on the necessary consents for 5 months. Was it a plot? Probably not, but it certainly makes the whole group of leaders look foolish. There are a great many people in the Diocese who are NOT in sympathy with Kendall Harmon or the secessionists. The SC leaders could have elected any number of conservative, pastorally gifted people, but chose instead to elect a pal of +Duncan. These folks are playing politics in a very disturbing fashion that other Standing Committees are unlikely to overlook. So, a rerun may not be a slam-dunk for Lawrence+.

From the provocative nature of the comments attributed to Lawrence and the president of the standing committee, I'd say that the chances of their going through the electoral process again are pretty slim. If these people didn't start out looking for a confrontation (and I think they might have) that's what they appear to have in mind now.

It seems highly likely that actors from other parts of the Anglican Communion will become involved in the issue and that a consecration without the approval of TEC is definitely possible.

If they choose that course of action, it will prove the point definitively that consents should have been denied.

I fully expected that emotions would be running high right now, but even so, I am stunned at the level of vitriol I am seeing, both in the press and on the web. Every difference of opinion in the church has become, apparently, evidence of a liberal campaign to advance a “heretical“ agenda and to silence conservatives.

Stand Firm's Sarah Hey, for example, says that the PB’s letter of notification to South Carolina was “angry [and] defensive,” and that the denial of consent was “a breathtakingly petty, childish, and vengeful” action on the part of “the progressive leaders of our church” (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/2568/). The more diplomatic Kendall Harmon+ (in the Washington Post article that Jim’s post links to) still tells a reporter that “a double standard is used for conservatives,” and that “conservatives are…being driven out of the Episcopal Church." The invective has become so nasty at titusonenine that when repeated requests from the blog “elves” were ignored, KSH+ himself had to appeal to his followers to “breathe deeply and pray before you post.” When Mark Lawrence+ tells a Charleston reporter (see the Post and Courier link in Jim’s post) that TEC’s reaction to his election was that "people went berserk, people went apoplectic," I wonder, which people is he talking about?

One of the things I value most deeply about the Episcopal Church is its Anglican sense of intellectual freedom and willingness to encompass a wide range of theological viewpoints. When Fr. Lawrence says that Episcopalians must “wake up and decide which side you are on," it is hard to escape the feeling that he is the one who is creating the division, by insisting on adherence to a version of Anglicanism that I don’t even recognize.

As this thread and other discussions continue, let's make sure that we don't become the rhetorical mirror image of SF and other sites.

It is my understanding that many of the rejected consents were sent by email. I should state for the record that there are very good reasons why an email consent does not have the same authority as a written one. It is very easy to spoof the return address on an email. There is nothing in the workings of the internet which prevents me from dashing off emails signed gwbush at whitehouse.gov. In fact, this lack of authentication is a major driving force of the spam epidemic we are all struggling with.

I am not suggesting that anyone involved in the consent process resorted to such tricks. I am simply stating a matter of principle that an email does not meet the legal standard of a signed document.

Of all possible outcomes, this is probably the worst. I am sorry to see these events used in such a divisive manner. I pray that cooler heads will prevail.

I echo Jim's comment -- I've seen ugly comments on our side of the street too. Uglier perhaps.

Some commenters above speak of what various paths of action would mean. The Living Church has interviewed McCormick, president of their Standing Committee at
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3141

Here's the relevant quotation:
Under the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention, the diocese has several options in addition to holding another election. However, holding another election seems to have the most support at the moment, Fr. McCormick said.“If anything this has galvanized the people of South Carolina and brought us closer together,” he said. “Our position all along has been that we will follow the canons. Perhaps holding a second election will reassure those who voted ‘no’ the first time because they were concerned that we might try to leave The Episcopal Church.”

Does anybody have any information about what role Mark Lawrence has played in the D of San Joaquin in the movement toward separation from TEC?

I would also be interested in knowing what role Lawrence has played in San Joaquin's campaign for schism.

And lest anyone have any illusions about how "orthodox" that diocese is, check out their own blog's account of the recent visit of a "prophet" who will, for just $150, make you a prophet, too.

http://surrounded.classicalanglican.net/?p=80#comments

Bear in mind that this happened not in a tent out by the bypass, but in their cathedral.

This certainly calls into question the Network talking point that the secessionists are just old-fashioned, traditionalist, cucumber sandwich Episcopalians being driven out of the church by a bunch of radicals in rainbow sashes and Birkenstocks.