Saturday, August 04, 2007

South Carolina re-elects Mark Lawrence as Bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina

Read about it TitusOneNine. As we recall, this is the second time the Diocese of South Carolina elected Mark Lawrence to be their new diocesan bishop. Last time Via Media, protomoted by 815, led a lobbying campaign to defeat the Standing Committee consents (and it was close), finally defeating his election by a technicality that the PB blamed on the canons (see here and here). Since then we've discovered the the Diocese of Virginia's consent process did not follow the canons (some canons apparently being more equal than others) - which was not known until the Diocese of San Joaquin finally made public their inquiry to 815 when the national church ignored their requests.

Last time, ENS - the communications office of 815, actively promoted rejecting Mark Lawrence as bishop. In "Episcopal Forum calls for caution in consent process," 815 promoted efforts to reject the South Carolina bishop-elect. This was a follow-up to an earlier article 815 used to promote Diocesan Standing Committees to reject Mark Lawrence as a bishop in "Via Media group asks bishops, standing committees to refuse consent to South Carolina bishop-elect."

Now the people of the Diocese of the South Carolina have bravely re-elected Mark Lawrence and it will be interesting to watch Via Media and 815 this time. One thought is that they will stay silent, hoping to make South Carolina a "loyalist diocese" and promoting dissension from within.

Read more here.


Ann said...

Episcopal News Service did not lobby for or against Mark Lawrence. They reported the news as it related to South Carolina and the election.
Just go Just go here and search for "South Carolina" See what comes up.
I am disappointed that you did not do your research for this - you are usually more diligent.

Unknown said...

What is sad is that 815 promoted the efforts of Via Media to get the word out that they did not support Mark Lawrence instead of revealing that this was lobbying effort aimed at the Standing Committees. One isn't in Washington for very long to know that political tactic. Remember, Via Media is filled with activists who learned how to do political action at the street level. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing - it is a political tactic and it worked very well for them to isolate South Carolina (the affect on their efforts is still being felt).

We shouldn't be naive. What will be interesting is to see if 815 and Via Media (which actually seems to have been folded into 815's strategy so that it's not really a separate organization, it's clear that 815 and the Via Media folks are working together - but I would wonder if the Episcopal Institutionalists are happy with that merger and if the Via Media folks will get what they want or if institutionalists like Peter Lee will bolt at some point. So far he seems more than willing to be folded into the 815 Collective. Do they think that Mark Lawrence will also be folded into the Collective? It will be interesting to watch how this process unfolds, especially since it concludes after September 30. Perhaps TEC should change their moto from "The Episcopal Church welcomes you" to "Resistance is Futile."

What do you think?



Anonymous said...

I thought that the ENS coverage was very good. And, I thought the PB was gracious in extending the deadline for consents.

The bottom line is that SC did not get its stuff together on time. I hope the diocese will do better this time.

Linda McMillan

Unknown said...

The Diocese do better this time? As we have since learned, 815 does not handle all bishop elections equally (funny, that's not be in ENS list of "articles" yet). Canon Matthews aided the Diocese of South Carolina to follow the Canons specifically, while the Diocese of Virginia was permitted to not follow the canons and to treat the canons like administrative guidelines.


Kevin said...


DioSC would to have LOVED to have the rest of TEC act as promptly as they did for DioVA, simple fact is bishops and standing committees dragged their feet for some reason, then when the did get the necessary votes, they were ruled invalid due to a technically, rules are rules, you know. However it is odd that the very next election the was found a violating, but that one sailed through.

You are VERY incorrect about blaming DioSC, maybe you should review a little history. However your post does exemplify the double standard in which TEC operates and attitude of blaming the victim quite well.

[*Shaking head*]

Oh well ...

I glad DioSC is taking a fortitude without a lot of noise approach, I'm sure if this happen to one living in a manner which presents a challenge to the rest of the Communion that not only would there be a re-nomination but much noise as well and even the exact words of Linda would be declared bigotry ...