Posted on 12/26/2006 6:14:46 PM PST by sionnsar
The Episcopal Diocese of Kansas is well-acquainted with the pain caused by disagreement and schism. A person being ordained as a bishop of the Episcopal Church is asked if they would “conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church” and “guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church.” Consent to a person becoming a bishop in our church should focus on the candidate’s willingness to live by these ordination vows. We find that the statements by the Very Reverend Mark Lawrence raise serious questions about his willingness to remain in the Episcopal Church and thus his ability to guard the faith and unity of the Episcopal Church.
Father Lawrence refused to answer the question of what he would do if the Diocese of South Carolina voted to leave the Episcopal Church. A bishop who vows to guard the unity of the Episcopal Church must be expected to remain in the Episcopal Church and make every effort to keep his or her diocese within the Episcopal Church. Father Lawrence stated only that he will work at least as hard at keeping the Diocese of South Carolina in the Episcopal Church as his fellow bishops work at keeping the Episcopal Church in covenanted relationship with the worldwide Anglican communion.
In other words, Father Lawrence refuses to commit to keeping his diocese within the Episcopal Church unless the Episcopal Church surrenders its autonomy with its “ethos of democracy” and the “heresy” of a national church and conforms to the decisions of the primates of the Anglican Communion. A vow to conform to the doctrine and guard the faith and unity of the Episcopal Church cannot be conditioned by a candidate for bishop on doing so only if the Episcopal Church conforms to his beliefs concerning church governance or church doctrine. A bishop is certainly free to advocate for changes in church governance or doctrine, but he or she must be willing to conform to the decision of the Episcopal Church once that decision has been made by the church.
We also are deeply disturbed by his statement that the Presiding Bishop would not be welcome at his consecration. One cannot vow to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the church and at the same time state that the Presiding Bishop would not be welcome to attend his consecration. A bishop of the Episcopal Church cannot precondition his or her acceptance of the authority of the Presiding Bishop on whether the Presiding Bishop conforms to certain beliefs of that bishop.
It is with deep regret that we must withhold our consent to the ordination of Father Lawrence as Bishop of South Carolina because, for the reasons set forth above, we are not satisfied that he will “conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church” and “guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church.”
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. The Bishop's loyalty should be first to God, and then to the [apostate] organization called TEC.
I love to feel the love from these inclusive heretics.
Now we see how long that writ runs in reality. Peter Lee had his own interpretation of the canons and that interpretation obliged him to allow that dreadfully schismatogenic consecration to take place. And now another interpretation is offered to disallow the consecration of someone who wants at least the freedom to be an Anglican, to conform, to avoid schism.
And somehow both Bp. Lee's consent to Vicky Gene's election and this denial get by without mentioning the core issue which is whether homosexual genital acts (commonly called sodomy) are consistent with Christian morality.
"From those who have held in contempt the Word of God, shall the word of Man also be taken away." If we cannot will with God, sooner or later, we cannot will at all. And this is sooner, but at last it comes.
A number of the ECUSA bishops used that justification and Lee may have been among them, but I recall he also piously evoked the "Forces of History" and how he regretted not marching with MLK, blah, blah (so his liberal guilt means that he throws believing Christians to the wolves).
The NYT Magazine did a puff piece along those lines soon after GC 2003.
This Bishop Lee?:
"If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy," said the Rt. Rev. Peter J. Lee to 500 Episcopalians meeting for the annual diocesan council at the Hyatt Regency in Reston.
"For as a heretic, you are only guilty of a wrong opinion," Bishop Lee said, quoting Presbyterian scholar James McCord. "As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time."
Wow! That's a great quote! That is just such remarkably crappy reasoning! A guy starts drinking alcoholically and molesting his children, but it's his wife's fault when she leaves the house and takes the children with her? Unbelievable!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.