The conflict with South Carolina is in South Carolina

Two Primates of the Anglican Communion have written a letter of support to Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina and a neighboring bishop laments the collision course that diocese is on with the Episcopal Church. Both letters assume that the collision is between the Lawrence and the Episcopal Church, namely the Presiding Bishop. In fact, the conflict is between a bishop and the loyal Episcopalians of that diocese who have no other recourse except the canons.

The Most Revd Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis and The Most Revd Ian Earnest, writing on behalf of the Global South Primates Steering Committee, said the following:

Dear Bishop Mark Lawrence,

Greetings in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Several of the Global South Primates met recently as we gathered in Singapore for the Installation of Rt. Rev. Rennis Ponniah as the new Bishop of Singapore.

We were saddened, but not surprised, by the news of your inhibition and possible deposition by the TEC. We all want to assure you and the Diocese of South Carolina of our continuing prayers and support. We thank God for your stand for the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ! We are proud that you are willing to suffer for the faith once delivered to the saints.

Please be assured that we are with you, and that our Lord is also proud of you and our brothers and sisters in the Diocese of South Carolina.

May the Lord bless you!

Yours in Christ,
+ Mouneer Egypt

Today, Bishop Scott Behase of Georgia wrote the following to his diocese:

I was saddened when I heard that the Disciplinary Board for Bishops charged the Bishop of South Carolina, Mark Lawrence, with abandoning The Episcopal Church "by an open renunciation of the Discipline of the Church." They made that determination under Canon IV.16(A). You can read the details of this on the Episcopal News Service website and read reactions from the Diocese of South Carolina on their website. I commend both websites so you may better understand what is transpiring....

...I have prayed that the ongoing tension between Bishop Lawrence (and leaders of his Diocese) and The Episcopal Church would be resolved by other means and would come from our Anglican ethos of comprehensiveness and a generosity with those with whom we disagree. I regret that the Disciplinary Board for Bishops felt they had to act in such a way at this time. I'm not judging them harshly for I don't know all of what they know nor was I privy to their deliberations. I simply believe that the pastoral work of grace is sometimes impeded by the application of the letter of the law.

I also regret the actions that Bishop Lawrence and other leaders in the Diocese of South Carolina have taken. Their actions have been and continue to be provocative and have not been marked by self-restraint and our Anglican ethos. The escalation of this conflict mirrors other conflicts we have all seen in human history where two sides are unwilling to back down. Both are acting out of fear that the other side will get the upper hand, so they escalate their defenses, begin demonizing the other side, and the drum beat for more drastic action continues unabated. Bishop Lawrence, like some of those in disagreement with him, has in my judgment participated in this escalation.
He ends his epistle with a prayer for all concerned and for a faithful outcome.

Bishop Benhase knows that this is a fight that will not result in any winners. He knows from his extensive parish development experience that resolution is found when the two sides meet in complete honesty, prayerful humility and generous listening.

But what if one side is spoiling for a fight and is counting on people of good faith to follow stated procedures in a predictable way? What if the only acceptable outcome for one side is to repeatedly say "no?" This makes reconciliation very hard.

Both the Global South Primates and Bishop Behase's letters suffer from an assumption that is easy to make but crucial to avoid if any kind of positive outcome is to come out of this. Everyone assumes that "The Episcopal Church," mainly in the person of the Presiding Bishop, is somehow pulling strings to make this conflict happen.

The reality is that the charges the Panel of Reference reviewed were initiated by Episcopalians in the Diocese of South Carolina.

Once the canonical process is started, the process--if it is to have any integrity--must be followed step by step. Once before, South Carolina Episcopalians charged Lawrence with abandonment of the communion. At that time, the same panel of reference found that there were no basis to proceed and the matter stopped. This time, they are saying that there is a case. They are not saying Lawrence is guilty, only that that there is enough to warrant continuing the process to the next step.

The next step is that everyone step back and take a breath, for an investigation to happen and if, warranted, formal charges will be pursued. The Bishop and Standing Committee in South Carolina are treating this second step as if it were a verdict and are escalating the fight.

Those of us looking at this from the outside must remember that the Episcopalians in SC would not have gone taken this canonical and disciplinary route, where the steps are very much proscribed and once begun must be seen through, if they had not already been completely frozen out of the deliberations in the life of their own diocese.

It may be that an application of the "letter of the law" will not result in the best pastoral response nor in reconciliation. But this assumes that (a) reconciliation is the goal and (b) other pastoral options are available. The loyal Episcopalians on the ground have watched their Bishop, Standing Committee and Council manipulate the canons and change their constitution and have had no meaningful voice in what is being done quite openly. If they cannot exercise their rights under the canons, then what other recourse do they have?

This is not Bishops Jefferts Schori and Lawrence on a collision course. It is Lawrence and an inner circle of leaders who, with wide support from a group of diocesan clergy, who have set on a course that a handful of faithful clergy and lay Episcopalians are trying to avert using the only tools they have.

The two primates and their cc's in the Global South are wrong about this, too. If a bishop in their own provinces were acting in a similar manner to Bishop Lawrence, we have no doubt that they would want their canonical processes to proceed without interference from those outside their churches.

Comments (15)

It's yet another example of how conservative elements in the church are not interested in 'balance' but only in having their agenda as the only stated course. I wish they would come back so we could achieve a true balance but their hearts are cold, they've taken their toys home and they don't want to play with us anymore.

With due respect, Jesse, I think language such as that in your comment is part of the problem the church is facing. Not every "conservative element" is uninterested in balance, and comments like yours will do little to suggest to those who feel they are in an unprotected minority that there can still be a place for them in the communion of the church.

The article notes: "The next step is that everyone step back and take a breath, for an investigation to happen and if, warranted, formal charges will be pursued. The Bishop and Standing Committee in South Carolina are treating this second step as if it were a verdict and are escalating the fight."

That may (or may not) be so, but the responsibility the rest of us in the church have is to do what we can to put the brakes on escalation on our own part. As the article points out, this is a step in a process, not a deposition, and while the "triggered resolutions" (whether they're canonical, legal, etc) may have spiked up a lot of anxiety, I'd offer that the appropriate process has this situation covered, and that making this a target for the anger or frustration of longer-standing issues or other concerns is unhelpful (at the most-neutral), and ungracious (if we hold ourselves to a bit higher standard).

The church is hardly of one mind about this particular event, or the themes that it connects to. I'd suggest that the energy any of us feel when something like this comes up would be better spent if we can redirect it to prayers for reconciliation, deeper reflection on what binds us together and not those places we find ourselves apart, and attention to how we truly can live into Anglican ideals such as a "big tent." We can do better than oaths of conformity.

I think it's sad that we've gotten to this state as a Church. Where is the Christian love? The Hope for reconciliation? How do we expect 'reconcile the world to Christ' when we can't even reconcile ourselves to our Brothers and Sisters? Conservatives AND liberals have a lot to answer for--I blame both, and their desire to be 'right' over entering into dialogue for the current state of our Church.
Prayers are needed indeed

[Editor's note: Thanks for the comment. Please sign you full name next time.]

Loyal Episcopalians in the Diocese of South Carolina are those who, along with our duly elected, consecrated, and seated Diocesan Bishop, kneel, stand, and witness -- in continuity with our forebears and benefactors; in solidarity with biblically defined Christians throughout the Anglican Communion -- to the One who is Bishop and Shepherd of our souls (and of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church) and through whom alone any and all come to the Father.

I agree that the issue is as much within the diocese as TEC. I also think that the expiration date on victim/minority status for DioSC’s Angricans ran out as soon as Lawrence presided over the wrongly deciding diocesan conventions and wrote those quitclaim letters. Granted, TEC contains no Supreme Court as a protection for the minorities that the decisions which GenCon "creates." The impact of change being moderated by meeting triennially and requiring two readings for enforceable matters of canon or liturgy is some protection. But as far as the minorities Lawrence's decisions create, I think the inhibition should have happened much earlier.
Maybe the solution then is to cast lots when decisions like TEC’s A049 AND DioSC's “Corporation” are made. Until Lawrence is willing to protect the minorities his votes create then I guess we’ll just have to pray for mercy and a consistent application of the standing TEC canons.
Dann Brown

I find it offensive and abusive, to my very own being and understanding of God, that a couple of not-so-helpful Primates (from lands of dark persecution against LGBT people/others) know who God is ¨proud¨ of. They seem proud to announce who God is proud of? Por favor, arrogance and lack of humility at its they focus on their own cultural/religious *difficulties* at home.

"in solidarity with biblically defined Christians"

Who, pray tell William M, DEFINES "biblically defined Christians" (an unAnglican phrase if ever I heard one)?

xLawrence has been playing a manipulative con game with the faithful Episcopalians in the DioSC since Day One. THEY have had enough, and have asked the rest of TEC for (canonically-based) rescue from him. Do you stand w/ (among) these faithful Episcopalians, or with the increasingly-schismatic soon-to-be-ex-bishop Lawrence? Episcopalians pray you'll make the decision---based prayerfully in Scripture, Tradition and Reason---for the former.

JC Fisher

As I understand things, two of the three complaints were previously found not to rise to the level of a title 4 action by the Disciplinary Board for Bishops. The new one -- the quitclaim deeds -- strikes me as one that _could_ be made to "go away" since, under the Dennis Canon, the national church is the primary trustee and the role of the Diocese is secondary, so a quitclaim deed issued by a diocese has little more weight than a quitclaim deed issued by a parish sexton.

I doubt if the secret creation of the recently invoked secession trigger nor its hasty invocation would be seen as honorable behavior by most of the good folk in South Carolina pews.

Let's hope that the special convention at St. Philip's in Charleston (is it Nov 17?) decides to take a timeout.

While I don't agree with the SC leaders on the hot button issues, I would like to continue to be able to see that diocese as part of my church.

If "biblically defined Christians" is regarded by JC Fisher as an "unAnglican phrase" he evidently does not stand with the Thirty-nine Articles or such Anglicans as John Jewel, Richard Hooker, John Donne, George Herbert, Lancelot Andrewes, Jonathan Swift, John Newton, William Cowper, Charles Simeon, JW Burgon, JC Ryle, Stephen Neill, Donald Coggan, John Stott, JI Packer, et al.

Wrong again, William M (re your assertion---though I don't so much "stand with" this Cloud of Witnesses, as I am unworthy, as "ask their prayers").

But you still haven't answered my question.

JC Fisher

Good Lord, Dean McKeachie is still alive, and canonically resident no less? Most of the old "Manifesto" signatories either went into the Continuum or came around. For the sake of JCF and my other American brethren, I'm sorry that some have found their way into your province to continue speaking from a platform of a Jesus through whom "any and all [cisgender heterosexuals] come to the Father," while the rest of us languish in "discontinuity" with the Apostles and Fathers/Mothers (who were as we know all heterosexuals!)

Benedict is quite right that not all who identify as "conservative" are "uninterested in balance." But those are not the clergy and parishes we tend to hear about. They are not the ones seeking headlines or threatening to leave the party if they do not like some of the other invited guests, and reserving the right to take the furniture with them. They are the ones who continue to take part in the life of their dioceses in common mission and without fanfare, or a pre-condition of doctrinal agreement. I attend a tiny Anglo-Catholic parish where we are not all of one mind on the last gender issue, the ordination of women, from 30 years ago. We don't even use the new lectionary, with its newfangled Old Testament readings! But you won't see us in the Lead or TA anytime soon.

"In fact, the conflict is between a bishop and the loyal Episcopalians of that diocese who have no other recourse except the canons."

Nice farce. If these Episcopalians were loyal, they would stand with their bishop. If this were an issue internal to South Carolina, the Presiding Bishop would keep her meddling fingers out.

Begging your pardon, Nikolaus, but I don't think anyone sincerely wants "loyalty" to be to "whatsoever bishops say."

As for "the meddling fingers" of the presiding bishop (which is not usually capitalized unless it's followed by her name, for whatever that's worth), I think the article makes clear that the investigation was originated by communicants in the Diocese of South Carolina.

Also for whatever it's worth, there's a certain irony to describing it as "an issue internal to South Carolina;" the chair of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops is the Rt. Rev. Dorsey Henderson, Jr., a retired bishop of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. I'm unclear whether the presiding bishop has even an ex officio role in these processes.

This article is absolutely right. As far back as the 80's, a conservative coalition began building in the Charleston area, fed by clergy from Trinity. By ten years ago, they had a monopoly on the diocesan apparati. Actions of the Standing Committee became invariably unanimous. For many years there have been twelve dioceses in TEC (not counting the four groups that seceeded) that can be counted on to vote on the conservative side. Now SC is acting alone while not one of the eleven others comes to its defense. That shows how far right this SC ruling clique is. This conservative revolution in SC is from the top down, not from the people up. That is why not one other diocese in the southeast is following along.

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space