Elections and consents

The big news flaming around the Anglican Communion this morning, of course, is the declaration as null and void of the election of the Rev. Mark Lawrence as the next bishop of South Carolina. Insofar as I can understand, this was a close thing: 56 diocesan standing committees (a majority) needed to give consent by the extended deadline, which was Monday. The diocese initially said that 57 appeared to have done so, a number having apparently changed their votes at the last minute. However, it seems that several standing committees had not followed the necessary canonical procedures, so only 50 were actually able to be recorded as consents.

I feel badly for all concerned-- and especially for Fr. Lawrence and his family, who have no doubt waited on tenderhooks while the process ground inexorably on. However, that is the way our church governs, and while painful, it is also appropriate. A bishop is a bishop for the larger church as well as his/her own diocese.

That said, I could wish that our diocesan standing committees had gotten their individual acts together. This is not a tricky process, people! From our National Canons:

Each Standing Committee, in not more than one hundred and twenty days after the sending by the electing body of the certificate of the election, shall respond by sending the Standing Committee of the Diocese for which the Bishop is elected either the testimonial of consent in the form set out in paragraph (b) of this Section or written notice of its refusal to give consent.

(b) Evidence of the consent of each Standing Committee shall be a testimonial in the following words, signed by a majority of all the members of the Committee:

We, being a majority of all the members of the Standing Committee of ______________, and having been duly convened at ______________, fully sensible how important it is that the Sacred Order and Office of a Bishop should not be unworthily conferred, and firmly persuaded that it is our duty to bear testimony on this solemn occasion without partiality, do, in the presence of Almighty God, testify that we know of no impediment on account of which the Reverend A.B. ought not to be ordained to that Holy Order. In witness whereof, we have
hereunto set our hands this _____ day of _________in the year of our Lord _________.
(Signed) _______________

In other words... have a meeting within 120 days (that's four months), sign the required consent form or a letter saying you refuse, and move on. The last minute politicking and arm twisting that I know went on is inappropriate. Likewise, not responding at all, as some apparently chose to do, is wholly unacceptable.

So if we must play the blame game, folks, I would suggest that starting with our Presiding Bishop is not appropriate here. She did not arbitrarily "decide" to declare the elections void; she is bound by canon to do so. Check to see how your own standing committee voted-- heck, make sure they even bothered!

Those who do not care for the results do have recourse. The Diocese of South Carolina will be holding another election, and they are certainly free to elect the same man again if they choose-- and if he cares to submit to the gauntlet again.

I will admit that, had I been a voting member, I would not have given my consent to this election. Put simply, what I had read of Fr. Lawrence (including such of his own writings as were available) led me to believe it was not inconceivable that he would consider trying to lead the diocese away from the larger church-- and we have enough "Lone Ranger" behavior, thank you, in both polar extremes of our church.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure... this would not be the first episcopal election to which I would have refused consent. The last was in 2006: the bishop of Northern California, a man twice divorced and three times married. I'm sorry... no. And by the same token (and though I have some friends who will find this hurtful), I do not believe I would have consented to the election of Bp. Robinson. Even if one is willing to consider the validity of same-sex relationships, one needs to acknowledge that he is living in a relationship not yet sanctioned by our collective theology, liturgy and canons. Electing him to the episcopate puts the cart before the horse.

That's what it boils down to. We have not done what we need to in the way of prayer and study and theology and teaching and listening and learning that still desperately needs to be done-- and obdurate, polarizing behavior on both sides of the issue is not the least helpful.

Interested in other news and views? Check out the listing of articles at Episcope, or Reverend Ref, or Tobias Haller.