Scroll down to view all documents in order from most recent to oldest
December 5, 2011 Letter from the Rt. Rev. Clifton Daniel of the Diocese of East Carolina to The Right Reverend Mark Lawrence
Dear
Mark, I write to you following the regular annual meeting of the
bishops of Province 4, gathered this year in Memphis,Tennessee. We
missed you and understood your need to stay at home and close to your
diocese.
The meeting covered a variety of topics: the
Denominational Health Plan; the beginning of a search process fora new
dean of the School of Theology at Sewanee; the upcoming Provincial Synod
in June and the General Convention in July; ministry to retired clergy
and their families; Daughters of the King; a prison ministry networkin
our province; ongoing concerns about the sin of racism in our world and
church; and immigration, amongother topics.
We also considered,
with some concern, recent publicly reported actions regarding quitclaim
deeds given to parishes in the Diocese of South Carolina. Since we have
had no direct communication from you regardingthese reported actions, we
determined that it is our duty as bishops of this province to address
these concernsin direct communication with you, as Jesus exhorts his
followers in Matthew's Gospel (18:15-20), and in accord with our
ordination vows regarding the unity and governance of the church. What
we seek in the coming weeks is a face-to-face meeting with you and and a
representative group of your fellow Bishops Diocesan of Province 4 in
order to have a clarifying conversation and to address the concerns
raised among us:
A. We have heard and read reports that you have
given a quitclaim deed to each congregation in your diocese. Is this
true? If this report is true, under what canonical authority did you
proceed? Did you involve the Standing Committee and are the members of
the Standing Committee in accord? Who signed the deeds? Would you
provide a sample copy of a deed and the letter of explanation that
accompanied it?
B. In
order to better understand your action, the Bishops of Province 4
gathered in Memphis respectfully request that you meet with several of
your fellow Provincial Bishops Diocesan in Charleston, or elsewhere if
you desire, to discuss what has been noted above. We make this request
in a spirit of collegiality and fellowship as well as out of concern for
the people of the Diocese of South Carolina and concern for the
well-being of The Episcopal Church.I have contacted you earlier today by
telephone and shared with you the content of this letter, as well
as seeking a date in the very near future for our proposed meeting. I
will send you an email and hard copy of the letter. I am also releasing
this letter to Episcopal news organizations today after our conversation.
Clifton Daniel, 3rd Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of East
Carolina
Vice-President of Province 4 of The Episcopal Church
November 27, 2011. A Statement by the President of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops regarding the Bishop of South Carolina
Tthe Disciplinary Board for Bishops met via conference call to consider whether, based on information previously submitted to the Board by lay communicants and a priest of the Diocese of South Carolina, the Bishop of that Diocese, the Right Rev’d Mark Lawrence, has abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church.
Based on the information before it, the Board was unable to make the conclusions essential to a certification that Bishop Lawrence had abandoned the communion of the Church. I have today communicated the Board’s action to Bishop Lawrence by telephone, to be followed by an e-mail copy of this statement.
The abandonment canon (Title IV, Canon16) is quite specific, designating only three courses of action by which a Bishop is to be found to have abandoned the church: first, “by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of the Church”; second, “by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with” the Church; and, third, “by exercising Episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than the Church or another church in communion with the Church, so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as the Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in the Church….” Applied strictly to the information under study, none of these three provisions was deemed applicable by a majority of the Board.
A basic question the Board faced was whether actions by conventions of the Diocese of South Carolina, though they seem—I repeat, seem--to be pointing toward abandonment of the Church and its discipline by the diocese, and even though supported by the Bishop, constitute abandonment by the Bishop. A majority of the members of the Board was unable to conclude that they do.
It is also significant that Bishop Lawrence has repeatedly stated that he does not intend to lead the diocese out of The Episcopal Church—that he only seeks a safe place within the Church to live the Christian faith as that diocese perceives it. I speak for myself only at this point, that I presently take the Bishop at his word, and hope that the safety he seeks for the apparent majority in his diocese within the larger Church will become the model for safety—a “safe place”—for those under his Episcopal care who do not agree with the actions of South Carolina’s convention and/or his position on some of the issues of the Church.
The Right Rev’d Dorsey F. Henderson, Jr.
President, Disciplinary Board for Bishops
November 18, 2011. Purported Letter from the Chancellor of the Diocese of South Carolina as released by a anti-Church splinter group calling itself the American Anglican Council:
“For 190 years (1789-1979) there had never been any idea that somehow the parishes did not completely and fully own their property. Our Supreme Court has now said that the attempt to change that in 1979 by the General Convention was not binding on the parish of All Saints, Pawley's Island, SC. In recognition of that ruling, and in continued pursuit of our historic unity based on common vision rather than legal coercion, the Diocesan Convention removed the relevant section from our canons in October 2010. The issuance of these quitclaim deeds lays to rest any lingering issue that may exist for some parishes when they seek to obtain title insurance or secure bank financing for parish projects. Parishes may choose to file them or not based on their individual needs. We trust this action will enable parishes to freely exercise their rights and responsibility to oversee that which God, through the faithfulness of prior generations, has bequeathed to them.” Wade Logan III, Chancellor of the Diocese of South Carolina
October 15, 2011. Statement by The Rt. Reverend Dorsey Henderson on the withdrawal of Josephine Hicks as Church attorney in the matter of Mark Lawrence, Bishop of South Carolina
Sisters and Brothers, today I have accepted the withdrawal of Ms. Josephine Hicks from further participation in the matter before us regarding Bishop Mark Lawrence.
Ms. Hicks has withdrawn from all involvement in the Board's investigation and/or consideration of the Bishop Lawrence matter because unanticipated circumstances have created the possibility of a conflict arising regarding fiduciary responsibilities for members of her law firm as matters develop. For reasons of professional responsibility, she is not at liberty to disclose any details concerning that possibility.
You know as well as I that she has never been a member of the Disciplinary Board. We retained her to serve as the Board’s attorney as one of the decisions we made during our organizational meetings, conducted by conference call. However, the roster of the Board’s membership on the General Convention web site includes her name—obviously a clerical error. (I have requested that this error be corrected, and Canon Straub, Secretary of the General Convention, has assured me that this has been done.) Any apprehension, implication or suggestion that Ms. Hicks’ work would not be impartial is unfounded, just as the claim that she served as a member of the Board is unfounded.
I retain full confidence in Ms. Hicks, not only in her objectivity in her work, but in her proven professional ability, typical for lawyers, to represent their clients rather than their own personal interests.
I will contact you promptly regarding efforts to retain another attorney to assist us in the Bishop Lawrence matter. Ms. Hicks will continue to assist us in other matters which are, or may be in the future, before us.
With continuing prayers for God's guidance for us all, for the mission, faith and unity of the Church, I remain
Faithfully yours in our Lord, +Dorsey Henderson, President of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops
_____________
October 13, 2011 - Statement by the Rt. Reverend Dorsey Henderson on the Role of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops regarding the matter of the Bishop of South Carolina
Public media has recently reported that the “The Episcopal Church is alleging that Bishop Mark Lawrence has abandoned the church….”
That is incorrect.
This action originated with communicants of the Bishop Lawrence’s own diocese, who submitted information to the Disciplinary Board for the House of Bishops. Those communicants requested that the information be studied in order to determine if abandonment had occurred. The Disciplinary Board, made up of bishops, other clergy, and lay people from many dioceses across the country (none of whom are in the employ of, or under the direction of, the Episcopal Church Center), does not have the discretion to decline to study the matter.
The role of the Disciplinary Board in circumstances which may constitute abandonment is to:
1. Determine whether the actions and/or conduct included in the information submitted to it is factual; and, then,
2. Determine whether the information submitted, even if true, constitutes abandonment as defined by the Church’s canons (laws).
The Disciplinary Board is only in the earliest stages of its work and has not reached any decision regarding the credibility of the information received or whether the actions and conduct reported actually constitute abandonment. It has made no “charges” of any kind; neither has any other part or structure of The Episcopal Church.
The Disciplinary Board will, by the grace of God and with diligence, proceed methodically, carefully, prayerfully—and confidentially—to meet its canonical responsibility, including a request for, and consideration of, any and all input that Bishop Lawrence wishes to be considered.
The President of the Disciplinary Board has provided Bishop Lawrence with all of the information it has received and is under consideration, and will continue to do so.
