Do we know who made these charges? It would be useful to know whether they originated within the diocese or outside it. I am no expert, but if the diocese has the presentment, does it know who filed it? I suspect there will be heated conversation about this issue in various quarters, and it would be helpful to have all of the relevant facts.

The excerpts within the charges give the superficial impression, to me at least, of a diocese trying to cope with a set of contrary and contradictory demands and influences while concerned deeply about Lambeth's and TEC's respective future positions on Covenant matters. (Some of the resolutions are from several years ago.)

It seems that certain resolutions made in response to different concerns at different times have been attached to a gigantic central gripe relating to the PB's South Carolina lawyers' claims of Vatican Curia-equivalent status and the Diocese's well-known resentment of that... er, shall we say, "misunderstanding of church history, basic theological precepts, and fundamental beliefs," on the part of the lawyers? Then a list of "omissions" was tacked on in allusion to some form of sinister intent on the Bishop's part. (Though what, precisely, he was "supposed" to do about the parishes, other than try to talk them out of their choices, is left unstated.)

Between that structure, repeated, "upon information and belief," and the charges' abrupt appearance without provenance, it looks likely to have come from one of the lawyers in South Carolina whom the Bishop offended by preferring not to "kiss his ring."

If so, this was coming for a while and will predictably end in tears. TEC does not have a Pope, there is no Curia, and a flock of lawyers who cannot discern the difference between a fatuous, legalistic, corporate "mission statement's" empty words and a Church's genuine mission is quite likely to prove to be a noisy but otherwise purposeless group of birds.

I hope and pray that's all it is. TEC really doesn't need any more headaches.

Rev. CW Brockenbrough

Seems like the charges were made and sent to the Disciplinary Board that is directing the investigation following the new Title IV procedures against bishops - but not from +KJS office. Executive Council had not heard of it according to members.

It looks like there's more information here:
http://www.scepiscopalians.com/ (including a response from the diocese). It looks like the "Episcopal Forum of South Carolina" brought it to the attention of the Executive Council and PB's office in the first place, and they are the group being "blamed" in today's response letter from the diocese to the Executive Council. Whether they did in fact bring the charges or not is not entirely clear.

To correct my previous comment, the letter from the diocese to the Executive Council actually dates to last Thursday, just before these charges were presented. Might the letter have been a catalyst for them?

The San Jose Mercury News reports that the SoCarolina clergy and bishop will meet next week about this.

We need to be careful with this story. Methinks Bp. Lawrence very much wants to appear a martyr.

June Butler

Being from South Carolina, I've followed this story since the beginning. June is right; Mark will play martyr. Based on my own correspondence with him, he goes on the offensive quite easily and to a strong degree. He enjoys battle imagery, so he will likely see this as a battle and relish it.

How this man got through the majority of bishops able to vote and the Standing Committees of dioceses is beyond me.

There's an "Episcopal Forum of South Carolina" link that comes up when it's googled; it runs to "The Living Church Foundation," and displays: "Bp. Lawrence Responds to Episcopal Forum." It's dated September 23, 2010, and contains what appears to be the current complaint.

So, a group who levied the same charges over a year ago to the House of Bishops and Executive Council is now being "credited" with filing the current complaint, which the Executive Council says it only recently received.

It seems unlikely that the more than year-old complaint is the one currently being investigated - regardless of its' remarkable conformity to the current complaint. Although, it certainly appears possible that someone chose to revive the old complaint by copying it and signing it.

The web address for the 2010 "Response" is: http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2010/9/24/bp-lawrence-responds-to-episcopal-forum

Rev. CW Brockenbrough

Rev. CW Brockenbrough - it could be the same complaint as the Title IV canons have changed since last year and make it possible for laity to file a complaint and have a system that investigates it. See new post on this subject.

Commence (um, continue?) chorus of well-justified "I told you so's!" from every Episcopalian who urged bishop-elect Lawrence NOT be confirmed...

JC Fisher

[Full-disclosure: w/ no canonical say in the matter anyway at the time, I nevertheless abstained. Anxiously.]

Is anyone surprised by any of this? Really?

When I was president of the standing committee I voted against consent to his election. Twice.

I was not wrong. Either time.

I do not follow the argument of this last remark: "not wrong" about what? That someone would act to try to drive Lawrence from the church? That someone within his own diocese would put the rest of the parishes in a mind to leave with him?

If I am surprised by it, it's because the tactic seems ill-advised.