NEXT STEPS

I woke up this morning to read that the election of the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence as bishop of South Carolina has been voided due to a lack of the necessary affirmative (and proper) votes from standing committees. If I'm posting on this, you can be sure that this story is burning like a Montana wildfire and everyone has, on one side, a well-considered opinion or, on the other side, a conspiracy-theory rant about how the Evil Empire is out to get them.

Now, I am not on my diocesan standing committe, nor am I a bishop (thank you Jesus), so I don't have a vote in any episcopal election. However, I can tell you that I wouldn't have voted for Fr. Lawrence. I wasn't comfortable with his lack of clarity about remaining within TEC. I don't have the exact quote handy, but I seem to recall his answer about remaining went along the lines of, "I am committed to remaining in TEC . . . as long as they hold to traditional, biblical teachings that are not contrary to traditional orthodoxy."

In other words, I thought that he would stay as long as TEC met with his interpretation and approval of what was correct. Once he decided it had moved away from that, well . . . all's fair in love and war.

And then there was the issue of a pre-emptive strike against ++KJS: (again from memory because I don't have the exact quote) "If elected bishop, then Presiding Bishop Katharine would not be welcome at my ordination." Making it quite clear that he didn't want to be contaminated with heretical female cooties.

For me, this wasn't about a person who was neo-conservative or ultra-orthodox or a reasserter or whatever sort of right-wing name we want to use. It was about an honest application of B033. And if this man wasn't ready to fully commit to remaining in TEC, or was looking for an escape clause that justified his desertion, or who doesn't acknowledge ++KJS as Presiding Bishop, then, yes, he presents a problem for the wider church.

And in case you're wondering, I wouldn't have voted for Rev. Barry Beisner (Northern California) either. If we are going to take B033 seriously, then the confirmation of Fr. Beisner never should have happened. A man who has been married three times definitely poses a problem for the wider church as a (then potential) bishop. In fact, I think he never should have even been considered for election. And if, for some reason, I end up getting divorced from Mrs. Ref and then being nominated to the episcopate, I would be inclined to refuse based solely on that fact.

(And no, MJ, that doesn't mean that I'm open to be nominated for bishop now)

Going back to the election of Gene Robinson in '03, I'm not sure how I would have voted. I have some friends who definitely say, "I wouldn't have." But that was a long time ago and I was in a different place then. So I can't say for sure one way or the other. Duly elected? Yes. Living in a non-marital relationship? Yes. B033? Not yet.

So, Fr. Lawrence wasn't elected bishop. From what I've seen of the job, he should be thankful. In the meantime, I'm hoping that the Diocese of South Carolina will reopen the nomination process and eventually elect a person (let's be honest . . . a man) who will be an effective bishop for them while also refusing to acquiesce to the calls of secession.

Pray for the Church.