Consents and Covenant Considerations

[angli_fan]

(from Fr. Jake Stops The World)

I received an email from a reader who pointed out a couple of interesting things about the election of Mark Lawrence as bishop of South Carolina.

Consider some of his answers to the clergy survey. I specifically draw your attention to questions 17-21. The choice of responses were: strongly agree - agree - unsure - disagree - strongly disagree. Here are Mark Lawrence's responses:


17. There should be room in the Episcopal Church for priests and bishops who accept homosexual conduct as a valid, non-sinful choice. Disagree.

18. There should be room in the Episcopal Church for priests and bishops who consider homosexual acts to be sin. Strongly agree.

19. The church should not divide over this issue. Strongly disagree.

20. If the Diocese of South Carolina does not become separate in some formal way from ECUSA, I intend to resign my orders as an Episcopal priest. Unsure.

21. If the Diocese of South Carolina separates in some formal way from ECUSA, I intend to transfer from this diocese to an ECUSA diocese. Strongly disagree.

There are a few troubling things to be seen in these responses. According to the bishop-elect, there should be no priests and bishops who support gay and lesbian Christians in TEC. The church must divide over this issue. If the diocese separates from TEC (which it cannot do; as my reader pointed out, individuals can separate, but there is no process by which a diocese can), he will remain in the diocese. He will support schism.

One would think that the Standing Committees and Bishops will have a difficult time giving consents to this election. Although I would be hesitant to use the unfortunate resolution B033 passed by manipulation at our last convention, it would seem to me that anyone advocating for schism would fit the description of one "whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." Some of us were deeply opposed to this wording, but the majority wanted it. The question is, now that an opportunity has arisen to show that this was "not just about gay bishops," will they use it?

frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2006/09/consents-and-covenant-considerations.html

[Canadian Phil]

Interesting questions. Clearly, espousal of schism presents a problem with the wording of B033 and, indeed, to a robust ecclesiological sense (which seem quite lacking on both sides). I am starting to get disturbed that the conservative side has not recognized that schism constitues a strain on communion and that this, too, is in contravention of Windsor. I note, however, given the imperfect response of TEC to Windsor, this particualr strain is rather understandible. Doesn't make it a good thing, though.

Mind you, the fast way to precipitate schism would be to refuse a conservative candidate. We all know what the refrain would be "You accepted Robinson, but this conservative isn't acceptable!" To my mind, there is force in that because the Bishop elect Lawrence is replying to hypotheticals, whereas Bishop Robinson, by his ordination, tore at the communion bonds in reality. It is a small difference, but a real one.

Peace,
Phil

[angli_fan]

+Tobias Haller contributes to the above discussion re: consents to episcopal elections at his blog, In A Godward Direction:

Bishop-elect Lawrence’s responses are troubling. He appears to say (I will stand corrected if the double negative of question 19 confused him) that the church should divide over the issue of the rightness or wrongness of homosexual conduct. This in itself would appear to be countenancing schism, the technical name for division in the church. The bishop-elect is “unsure” as to whether he would remain in orders if his diocese does not separate from the Episcopal Church — and such insecurity is incompatible with an Oath. Finally, he intends not to remain with the Episcopal Church if South Carolina separates from it. That is, at least, how his answers appear. He surely deserves an opportunity to correct any misapprehensions, or wrong conclusions one might draw from a survey such as the one to which he responded.

Whether these survey responses by bishop-elect Lawrence constitute an impediment — and if he stands by them — thus remains to be seen — and needs to be seen — and will have to be judged by those preparing to give — or withhold — consent. Surely his statements are troubling on the surface. But I served on a committee with him at this last General Convention, and he seemed to me to be a man of high principle and conscience. I would pray that he would carefully examine his conscience and his principles in this present instant, and if there is any defect in his intent, mend it, or otherwise not place himself in the perilous position of taking an Oath he may not be prepared to maintain.

(Some of the most valuable material in this post is located in the comments to it...please do read the whole thing...)

jintoku.blogspot.com/2006/09/consenting-adults.html

[srigdon]

Does anybody have any idea why didn't he answer "Strongly disagree" to #17? If he is absolutely sure he is right about homosexuality, why hold back?

Why didn't he answer at least "agree" to #20? If he is a schismist, aren't we at the point where that choice is obvious for him? Why would he have second thoughts?

I don't think #19 is that big a deal. What are the consequences of this answer? Does it indicate he's going to *do* anything in particular? Nope. If things get even 'worse', it could just still mean he think ECUSA 'should' split. This is an answer given in the heat of an election. Unlike #20, there is no point at which he could be called for failing to live up to his answer.

My guess is that he'd follow the diocese out, but he wouldn't lead it unless most came with him.

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. The guy is pissed like a lot of people but he got elected. Now let's give him his miter.

[angli_fan]

Here is a piece written by Mark Lawrence, the bishop-elect of South Carolina, thoughtfully re-presented by Fr. Jones:

Remaining Anglican: In Defense of Dissociation

I need to say it clearly, I am eager for...unity. A unity drawn not along narrow lines of biblical interpretation, but from an inclusive and comprehensive use of the Bible. I am most eager to remain a Christian in the Anglican tradition. This is a tradition, which as the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has recently stated, has maintained “the absolute priority of the Bible, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility.” Unfortunately The Episcopal Church (TEC) in recent years has frayed this rope woven of three strands in a misguided passion to be culturally sensitive and intellectually flexible. In its need to be perceived as relevant to one segment of our culture, it has lost its commitment to the Gospel—which is the only hope we have to offer this segment or any other for that matter. In its desire to be more relevant than thou, TEC has cast aside scriptural faithfulness, particularly the broad and demonstrable teachings of the New Testament that would convict our lifestyle of sin, and call into question our overly permissive approach to morality. Even more disturbing is our grave disregard of fundamental Christian doctrines such as the nature of God, the uniqueness of Christ, the integrity and unity of the Spirit’s work, and the need of humankind for the redemptive work of the cross—for instance, assuming our sexual proclivities, given by nurture or nature, are, by that fact, necessarily God-given.

anglicancentrist.blogspot.com/2006/09/bishop-elect-of-south-carolina-article.html