Bishops, Committees Asked To Refuse Consent

[angli_fan]

(from Episcopal News Service)

In letters sent October 19 to bishops with jurisdiction and all the Episcopal Church's diocesan standing committees, Via Media USA argues that the episcopacy of the bishop-elect of the Diocese of South Carolina "would represent a threat to the unity of our church and to the cohesion" of the diocese.

The Very Rev. Mark J. Lawrence, 56, was elected September 16 on the first ballot out of a field of three nominees as the 14th bishop of South Carolina. He is the rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Parish in Bakersfield, California, in the Diocese of San Joaquin.

..."The case against consenting to Father Lawrence's election is not based on his theology or personal beliefs, but on the way these are likely to affect the polity, and hence the unity and integrity, of this church," the letter sent to the presidents and members of diocesan standing committees says.

"Father Lawrence has endorsed separating the Diocese of South Carolina from the Episcopal Church and has advocated that the authority of the General Convention be surrendered to the primates of the Anglican Communion. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to see how Father Lawrence could be asked or expected to take the vow required of each bishop in The Episcopal Church to 'guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church' (BCP page 517)."

www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_78832_ENG_HTM.htm

The letters sent out by Via Media to bishops & standing committees can be seen in PDF form here:

www.deimel.org/church_resources/ml_bishops.pdf

and here:

www.deimel.org/church_resources/ml_sc.pdf

The essay arguing against consent, authored by Lionel Deimel, a member of Via Media USA-affiliated Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, can be found here:

Imagine a candidate running for the U.S. Senate who was on record as being opposed to maintaining the Constitution as the basis of our government. Imagine further that this person wants to replace our current government by a ruling committee consisting of the heads of various English-speaking nations. I suspect that such a candidate would be soundly rejected by voters, irrespective of his or her sincerity or positions on other issues of the day. That rejection would be utterly justified.

This scenario seems absurd, of course. How could such a candidate entertain even the remotest hope of being elected? Bizarre as this situation sounds, however, it is not much different from one that has arisen in The Episcopal Church.

www.deimel.org/church_resources/no_consents.htm

[anglicansablaze]

The election, confirmation, and consecration of Gene Robinson threatened the unity of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Yet the liberals of which Via Media is representative had no difficulty in calling for his confirmation and preceding with his confirmation.

Let us not forget that Robinson's confirmation and consecration were rationalized on the basis of the argument that the diocesan convention of the diocese of New Hampshire had elected him as bishop of that diocese. To quote an old saying, "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander." If the diocese of South Carolina elected Mark Lawrence, then he should be confirmed.

The objection that Via Media raises against Lawrence, that his consecration is likely to affect the polity of the Episcopal Church, certainly can be applied in retrospect to Robinson. His consecration has created deep divisions in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. It has led to a large number of Anglican provinces declaring a state of impaired or broken communion existing between the Episcopal Church and themselves. It has led to a number of clergy and congregations withdrawing from the Episcopal Church and placing themselves under the oversight of global South Anglican provinces. It has also led to the formation of the Anglican Communion Network, an organization of conservative clergy and congregations in the Episcopal Church that dissent from the actions of the 2003 and 2006 General Conventions. It has led to calls for alternative episcopal oversight, alternative primatial oversight, and the establishment of an alternative province in the United States.

If Lawrence is not confirmed, it will send a definite message to conservatives in the Episcopal Church that they cannot expect a fair shake from the liberals and will further push liberals and conservatives apart. Don't be surprised if you hear more calls for alternative primatial oversight and the establishment of a alternative province in the United States. Conservatives are not going to stand for liberals seeking to control who becomes bishop of a conservative diocese anymore than liberals would stand for conservatives seeking to control who becomes bishop of a liberal diocese.

Via Media's letter certainly shows that the members of Via Media are not the "moderates" that they like to claim. They have in so many words said that anyone who shares Lawrence's theology and personal beliefs is a threat to the Episcopal Church's unity and should be disqualified from holding the office of bishop in the Episcopal Church. There is no room in the Episcopal Church for conservatives who actively defend the historic Christian faith.

[alan1803]

I would agree with Anglicans Ablaze that Via Media are anything but "middle of the road". Indeed, this letter is likely to alienate a wide band of middling-to-conservative opinion.

The "I did it my way" approach of ignoring the Anglican Communion advocated by Via Media seems designed to brass off non-American Anglicans. I must confess that I am always slightly baffled by a mindset which seems to accord to the canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America the authority and infallibility which fundamentalists ascribe to Holy Scripture.