Diocese of Virginia Denies Consent to Bishop of South Carolina Election
Jean Reed, president of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, announced that that Standing Committee denied consent to the election of Mark Lawrence as BIshop of South Carolina.
9 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The Standing Committee's decision is sad but not surprising given their antagonistic attitude toward the congregations which recently voted to leave TEC.
On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if the Standing Committees of the respective orthodox dioceses should respond by denying consent to Shannon Johnston's election as Bishop Coadjutor of Virginia. Granted, such denials would likely not affect the outcome, but they would make a powerful statement.
Letter to the Diocese of Virginia August 7, 2003 From Bishop Lee
" ... The Convention consented to the consecration of the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Those of us who voted for consent (including Virginia's celrgy and lay deputations ... and including me) placed a high priority on the importance of diocesan autonomy in the choice of its bishop. That des not mean we agree ..."
But they stated they voted to confirm Bishop Robinson because it was inappropriate to deny consent if the election had been in accordance with the process of the diocese and the will of the people.
So the question here is "What's changed?"
There was no opportunity to ask the Standing Committee Chairman about his announcement that they had not given consent. But boy was I tempted to ask what was different now from 2003. Especially after Bishop Jones made it clear (?) in his address that nothing in the teaching of the church has changed at all.
From Bishop Lee's statements in the New York Times, January 2, 2004
"I am absolutely convinced of the need to respect the Diocese of New Hampshire's decision, in spite of my personal reservations and our current diocesan policy, which would notpermit Canon Robinson to be ordained in Virginia."
Again, it was the claim to local autonomy that Bishop Lee offered first as his reason for consenting to the elction of Bishop Robinson. Why is local autonomy no longer a viable reason for consenting to the election of a bishop, especially one with whom the rest of the Anglican Communion would not have trouble accepting as a bishop for the whole church?
Logic has been displaced by the logic of convenience ... which stands for what a person wants and is replaced when the same argument becomes inconvenient. There seems to me to be a real lack of genuine integrity whenever this sort of thing is attempted.
In a news conference afterward, Bishop Lee said that he, unlike the standing committee, had given consent to Fr. Lawrence’s election.
“My hope is that he will be confirmed as a sign that The Episcopal Church is a big tent, and that we have room for people of his theological convictions,” Bishop Lee said.
Fr. Johnston agreed with Bishop Lee regarding consent to Fr. Lawrence’s election, saying he was pleased to be part of the Mississippi standing committee’s decision to grant its consent.
Does this mean that the Standing Committee did not take to Bishop Lee's counsel (after all, it's the Standing Committees who make this decision about confirming bishop elections between General Conventions, not the bishops)? Or is that the Standing Committee is divided and the majority voted against Mark Lawrence?
I wonder what the vote was? In the old days, Mark Lawrence would have had no problem at all, he's totally qualified, he's just orthodox. I guess "inclusion" and the "big tent" stretches only as far as personal politics will provide.
It is interesting that Bishop Lee was so public about taking a different position than his Standing Committee (which is charged with giving him advice). I'm very surprised. It is considered bad form for a rector to speak publicly against the majority decision of a Vestry (though it happens, but usually when things aren't going so well).
bb: The standing committee and the ordinary of each diocese have to each, separately, give or withhold consent to a bishop elect. The bishop elect has to receive consents from the majorities of the diocesan bishops AND from the majorities of the SCs.
This is roughly equivelent to what happens when an election is timed such as to go to general convention: the bishop elect has to be approved in both houses there.
So while it is still interesting to speculate why Lee and the SC voted differently, they do both each have separate votes in the matter.
Jean Reed, president of the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia, announced that that Standing Committee denied consent to the election of Mark Lawrence as BIshop of South Carolina.
9 comments:
The Standing Committee's decision is sad but not surprising given their antagonistic attitude toward the congregations which recently voted to leave TEC.
On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if the Standing Committees of the respective orthodox dioceses should respond by denying consent to Shannon Johnston's election as Bishop Coadjutor of Virginia. Granted, such denials would likely not affect the outcome, but they would make a powerful statement.
Letter to the Diocese of Virginia
August 7, 2003
From Bishop Lee
" ... The Convention consented to the consecration of the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Those of us who voted for consent (including Virginia's celrgy and lay deputations ... and including me) placed a high priority on the importance of diocesan autonomy in the choice of its bishop. That des not mean we agree ..."
But they stated they voted to confirm Bishop Robinson because it was inappropriate to deny consent if the election had been in accordance with the process of the diocese and the will of the people.
So the question here is "What's changed?"
There was no opportunity to ask the Standing Committee Chairman about his announcement that they had not given consent. But boy was I tempted to ask what was different now from 2003. Especially after Bishop Jones made it clear (?) in his address that nothing in the teaching of the church has changed at all.
Go figure. I can't.
From Bishop Lee's statements in the New York Times, January 2, 2004
"I am absolutely convinced of the need to respect the Diocese of New Hampshire's decision, in spite of my personal reservations and our current diocesan policy, which would notpermit Canon Robinson to be ordained in Virginia."
Again, it was the claim to local autonomy that Bishop Lee offered first as his reason for consenting to the elction of Bishop Robinson. Why is local autonomy no longer a viable reason for consenting to the election of a bishop, especially one with whom the rest of the Anglican Communion would not have trouble accepting as a bishop for the whole church?
Logic has been displaced by the logic of convenience ... which stands for what a person wants and is replaced when the same argument becomes inconvenient. There seems to me to be a real lack of genuine integrity whenever this sort of thing is attempted.
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=2890
In a news conference afterward, Bishop Lee said that he, unlike the standing committee, had given consent to Fr. Lawrence’s election.
“My hope is that he will be confirmed as a sign that The Episcopal Church is a big tent, and that we have room for people of his theological convictions,” Bishop Lee said.
Fr. Johnston agreed with Bishop Lee regarding consent to Fr. Lawrence’s election, saying he was pleased to be part of the Mississippi standing committee’s decision to grant its consent.
Well, then I guess +Lee owes the Standing Committee a spanking, huh?
Wow, wow, that's just unbelievable. So if you agree politically than it is about autonomy, what it is it when you don't agree politically???
Does this mean that the Standing Committee did not take to Bishop Lee's counsel (after all, it's the Standing Committees who make this decision about confirming bishop elections between General Conventions, not the bishops)? Or is that the Standing Committee is divided and the majority voted against Mark Lawrence?
I wonder what the vote was? In the old days, Mark Lawrence would have had no problem at all, he's totally qualified, he's just orthodox. I guess "inclusion" and the "big tent" stretches only as far as personal politics will provide.
It is interesting that Bishop Lee was so public about taking a different position than his Standing Committee (which is charged with giving him advice). I'm very surprised. It is considered bad form for a rector to speak publicly against the majority decision of a Vestry (though it happens, but usually when things aren't going so well).
bb
bb: The standing committee and the ordinary of each diocese have to each, separately, give or withhold consent to a bishop elect. The bishop elect has to receive consents from the majorities of the diocesan bishops AND from the majorities of the SCs.
This is roughly equivelent to what happens when an election is timed such as to go to general convention: the bishop elect has to be approved in both houses there.
So while it is still interesting to speculate why Lee and the SC voted differently, they do both each have separate votes in the matter.
I had not heard that the bishops votes were counted, only the standing committees. Do you know where that canon is? It would be good to post it.
bb
Post a Comment