Updated again Friday
The Episcopal Church’s Office of Public Affairs has issued a statement titled Presiding Bishop accepts Lawrence’s renunciation.
Citing Title III, Canon 12, Section 7 of the Constitutions and Canons of The Episcopal Church, and following thorough discussion with the Council of Advice, with their advice and consent, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has accepted the renunciation of the ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church of Mark Lawrence as made in his public address on November 17 and she has released him from his orders in this Church.
The Presiding Bishop made the announcement December 5. The Presiding Bishop informed Lawrence by phone, email and mail on December 5. Following that, the House of Bishops was notified.
According to the documents, Lawrence “is therefore removed from the Ordained Ministry of this Church and released from the obligations of all Ministerial offices, and is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred on him in Ordinations. This action is taken for causes that do not affect his moral character.”
The renunciation is effective immediately on December 5.
The renunciation was consented to by the members of the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice, who are the presidents or vice presidents of the nine Provinces of the Episcopal Church: Bishops Stephen Lane of Maine (Province I), Lawrence Provenzano of Long Island (Province II), Neff Powell of Southwestern Virginia (Province III), Dabney Smith of Southwest Florida (Province IV); Wayne Smith of Missouri (Province V), Rob O’Neill of Colorado (Province VI), Larry Benfield of Arkansas (Province VII), James Mathes of San Diego (Province VIII) and Francisco Duque of Colombia (Province IX). Also members of the Council of Advice are Bishop Dean Wolfe of Kansas, vice president of the House of Bishops and Bishop Clay Matthews of the Office of Pastoral Development. Note: Bishop Dabney Smith was not present at the meeting because of illness…
The public address on 17 November referred to above is this one. Also available as a PDF here. The events surrounding this were previously reported here.
There is additional background material in the announcement linked above, and also on this page. An earlier letter from the Presiding Bishop is available here.
Update
Bishop Lawrence has issued this letter: Bishop Lawrence Writes Regarding Renunciation.
The Presiding Bishop called me this afternoon to inform me that she and her council of advice have accepted my renunciation of ordained ministry. I listened quietly, asked a question or two and then told her it was good to hear her voice. I did not feel any need to argue or rebut. It is the Presiding Bishop’s crossing of the T and doting of the I—for their paper work, not my life. I could bring up the canonical problems with what they have done contrary to the canons of The Episcopal Church but to what avail? They will do what they will do regardless of canonical limitations. That is already well documented by others and hardly needs further documentation by me. She and her advisers will say I have said what I have not said in ways that I have not said them even while they cite words from my Bishop’s Address of November 17, 2012.
Quite simply I have not renounced my orders as a deacon, priest or bishop any more than I have abandoned the Church of Jesus Christ—But as I am sure you are aware, the Diocese of South Carolina has canonically and legally disassociated from The Episcopal Church. We took this action long before today’s attempt at renunciation of orders, therein making it superfluous…
There is a lot of useful background information on earlier comparable cases, and how they were dealt with, towards the end of this ENS news report.
A further statement from the diocese: Diocesan Statement Regarding Claimed Renunciation
…This action by the Presiding Bishop will come as no surprise to most, though it should be a disappointment to all. It has been done before. Just as the Episcopal Church has been increasingly characterized by ignoring the plain meaning of biblical texts, that same behavior has now come to characterize the application of their own governing canons as well. Those canons are quite explicit about the renunciation of ministry. It is to be a request, made in writing, to the Presiding Bishop, that the bishop in question wishes to be released from the ministry of the Episcopal Church. None of those qualifications have been complied with. Bishop Lawrence has never renounced his orders or expressed the desire to do so.
It is also clear in the canons that a release from ministry is not possible when another disciplinary process is in force. With the previous certification of abandonment by the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, it should not have been possible, without violating the canons, for there to be a declaration of the renunciation of ministry. As surely as these same interpretive habits have created theological chaos within the Episcopal Church, these latest actions are further evidence of increasing canonical chaos and a leadership that has slipped all restraints in pursuit of its agenda and goals. For those remaining within the Episcopal Church, these developments should be cause for serious concern. For the Diocese of South Carolina, which has already departed, they are viewed with a certain amazement, but also with gratitude that we have disassociated ourselves from the increasing dysfunction.
“If any Bishop of The Episcopal Church shall express, in writing, to the Presiding Bishop, an intention to be released and removed from the ordained Ministry of this Church and from the obligations attendant thereto, including those promises made at Ordination in the Declaration required by Article VIII of the Constitution of the General Convention, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to record the matter. The Presiding Bishop, being satisfied that the person so declaring is acting voluntarily and for causes, which do not affect the person’s moral character, and is neither the subject of information concerning… Read more »
“The public address on 17 November referred to above is this one.”
talk about fine print lol. /me heads to the attic to hunt for a telescope to be able to read the font size on that page.
It’s puzzling how the Presiding Bishop could accept something that has not been offered. +Lawrence has abandoned the Episcopal Church, but he clearly has not renounced his orders.
ECUSA’s continued misuse of the canon dealing with renunciation is troubling, and is bound to cause us problems down the line. Why General Convention hasn’t framed a canon to deal with attempted diocesan secession is a mystery.
Well I suppose, if he promised – before his ordination as Bishop of South Carolina – not to take the Diocese out of TEC; then this subsequent action taken by the Presiding bishop and her Council can only be expected. Rebellion is a hateful word, but then, so is schism. And promises made as a bishop ought to be sacred. It would appear that justice has been done, and been seen to have been done.
Dr Seitz makes an excellent point. Resolution A030 was supposed to change the canon’s language from renunciation to removal and release.
I don’t suppose anyone can actually force former South Carolina TEC Bishop Lawrence to stay with TEC if he has already said he no longer wants to be a part of that Province. But, are his Orders not indelible? – Of course, he will readily find an African GAFCON Province to give him credibility – perhaps eve ACI could fix him up in their outfit.
cseitz: neither can we presumably ‘make up’ the fact that the Bishop (ex Bishop we should now say) was absolutely clear on Nov 17th that he had ‘moved on’. He was clear that his decision had been made. He was no longer a part of the Episcopal Church. He stated it very publicly in a deeply self righteous and unpleasant piece of polemic. The Ex Bishop can assume whatever ‘orders’ he likes in his own church, and indeed ACNA or whoever may be prepared to recognise the orders he once had. And if he should ever decide that he wants… Read more »
Mr. Seitz, why not?
On his website he expressed his renunciation in writing to the entire world. That would include the Presiding Bishop.
I believe this was the most appropriate action and the PB does indeed have the power to do such an action when warranted. In this case it was more than warranted. This is not in the least inappropriate. In addition to the outright dishonesty of Bishop Lawrence before and then after his consecration as a bishop, he fully deserves the response from the PB has taken. Like other fundamentalist bishops who have homophobia as an issue within themselves his behavior as a bishop is unacceptable. There is also the issue of property theft. Bishop Lawrence is not entitled to Church… Read more »
Don’t see why Lawrence’s apologists are carping about this, given that he claims to have severed his diocese from TEC.
The validity of Lawrence’s orders as a deacon/priest/bishop in the Episcopal Church is contingent on his commitment to adhere to the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church. He has publicly abandoned his commitment to adhere to the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church. Hence he no longer wishes to be recognized and to function as a deacon/priest/bishop in the Episcopal Church. The Presiding Bishop has graciously acknowledged his openly stated wishes and relieved him of that responsibility. The authority to practice an ordained ministry is contingent on recognition of one’s commitment to the source of that authority. Just… Read more »
We are “carping” about both the Orwellian way this was handled as well as the PB’s misuse of canons – the one she used was superseded by one passed by the last General Convention. We had great fun trying to explain all of this at the ACC in New Zealand where many asked what was going on in TEC. It is in fact impossible to explain coherently according either to canon or Christian civility. The PB is and has been out of control for some time, BUT those who publicly dissent are cut down.
I would agree with Chris Seitz and Bill Dilworth, that this does not technically comply with the letter of the canon, in several ways (including that there is a disciplinary complaint pending against Bishop Lawrence filed by members of his diocese).
But, I do find it a pastoral response. Bishop Lawrence has quite publicly stated that he no longer wishes to be considered a bishop in the Episcopal Church, and the Presiding Bishop has recognized that graciously, and left him free to follow his heart to ACNA or wherever he finds himself. (it is a release, not a deposition)
“Don’t see why Lawrence’s apologists are carping about this, given that he claims to have severed his diocese from TEC.” The problems are severalfold, even for those (like myself) who think that Bishop Lawrence is a scoundrel. At stake is the rule of canon law, and simple honesty. 1. He did not, in fact, renounce his orders, as is obvious from the fact that he has consistently said that he is still a bishop. The renunciation canon is (or was until the incumbency of ++KJS) used when an ordained person wished to give up the ordained ministry completely, not cease… Read more »
Regarding the concerns expressed by Dr Seitz and myself about the changes in the renunciation canon made via Resolution A030 at this year’s General Convention, posters on other sites have noted that the revised canon goes into effect at the beginning of next year.
Mr Godsall, You state “What is clear – and important – is that [+Lawrence] is not in good standing with any Church with which the C of E is ‘in communion’ and so can’t come and pretend to be a bishop with those in the C of E who seem to have sympathy for him.” This assertion is patently false. The General Synod of the CofE clearly stated that they had not picked a side in this fight–and have no intention of doing so anytime soon. But they did refuse the Presiding Bishop’s request to break communion with Mark Lawrence… Read more »
“The validity of Lawrence’s orders as a deacon/priest/bishop in the Episcopal Church is contingent on his commitment to adhere to the doctrine and discipline of the Episcopal Church.”
I don’t think validity is the word you’re looking for here. His orders would still be valid even if he had renounced them; once a deacon/priest/bishop, always a deacon/priest/bishop. The validity of Holy Orders don’t come and go depending on – well, depending on anything. What can come and go is permission to function as an ordained person.
Mr. Smith, you write “There is also the issue of property theft. Bishop Lawrence is not entitled to Church assets. They do not belong to him. They belong to The Episcopal Church.” Bishop Lawrence has made no claim on the parochial assets of the Diocese. Quite the contrary: he issued quit claim deeds (in accordance with South Carolina law) to each parish stating that the diocese has no claim on any parish’s property. You claim that the assets of “the Church” (I presume you mean parish property within the diocese) “belong to the Episcopal Church.” The Supreme Court of the… Read more »
Renunciation of Holy Orders is unrelated to what +ML has done and is in all events not something conforming to the letter of the canon if it had been sought. One writes a letter. One writes it to the PB and HOB. One asks to have their orders removed because they have left for Rome, etc. The highlight of absurdity was using this with +Henry Scriven who of course remains a Bishop in the C of E. It almost suggests that TEC’s orders are in the nature of the case unrelated to any other judicatories where Bishops exist. Nice ‘catholic’… Read more »
So, Bishop Lawrence has said he doesn’t want any part of TEC. TEC has noted this, and told him he no longer has any role in TEC.
And his supporters are upset? His supporters are calling TEC and PB Jefferts Schori tyrannical?
The world is indeed turned upside down.
Perpetual self-martyrdom must be a wonderful thing.
Lawrence: I am no longer in the Episcopal Church.
Jefferts-Schori: OK, you’re not in the Episcopal Church anymore.
Lawrence: Bully!! Heretic!! Meanie!!!
Bryan Hunter”
“The General Synod of the CofE clearly stated that… “
This is not correct. The GS has made no formal statement at all.
What has happened is that one of the bishops of the CofE, who has some responsibility in dealing with matters of this type has answered a Question during the recent synod Question Time. As he makes clear in his answer, absolutely no decisions have been made.
The exchange is fully transcribed on TA at this article:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/005755.html
“The Supreme Court of SC has ruled that the so-called Dennis Canon has no effect in the state.” How many times does one have to reiterate (“none so blind….”) that it has done no such thing? The state supreme court has ruled that an early 20th century quitclaim from the diocese to a single parish (Pawleys Island) trumped other claims on the property of that parish – and only of that parish.
Dr. Seitz: “It almost suggests that TEC’s orders are in the nature of the case unrelated to any other judicatories where Bishops exist. Nice ‘catholic’ teaching.” It does seem that some of the defenders of the PB’s action have the belief that the Episcopal Church has a priesthood of its own, apart from that of the Ordinal’s “Church of God.” JPM: “Jefferts-Schori: OK, you’re not in the Episcopal Church anymore.” No. The transcript should read: “OK, then, I infer from your leaving the Episcopal Church that you are voluntarily asking to renounce your priesthood and episcopacy, and I accept that… Read more »
When accusing the PB of tyranny and misusing the canons, please note “the renunciation was consented to by the members of the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice, who are the presidents or vice presidents of the nine Provinces of the Episcopal Church.” The PB is not all powerful and dictating. If there is a misunderstanding of the canons, it is shared by at least 9 other bishops. The Nov. 17 speech sounds like renunciation to me. Renunciation of his participation of TEC. Best to move on and help Episcopalians in SC reorganize. The sad fact is that Lawrence’s actions are… Read more »
I think all the talk of renunciation of Holy Orders is spurious at best. The canon in question is quite specific and does not have to do with anything other than status IN THIS CHURCH (meaning TEC). He is removed from ordained ministry IN THIS CHURCH. To involve a discussion of the indelibility of his ordination as deacon/priest/bishop is not relevant. Clearly Bishop Lawrence did renounce the Episcopal Church in his public statement. The PB has exercised some latitude in interpreting this as a request, to be released from responsibility and privilege in TEC and, in apparently letter perfect compliance… Read more »
“If there is a misunderstanding of the canons, it is shared by at least 9 other bishops.”
Frankly, that doesn’t stretch my power of belief at all.
Dr. Seitz writes: “There is no longer a renunciation canon (the one used for CofE Bishop Scriven…) but that doesn’t apparently stop the PB from accessing it anyway. You can’t make this stuff up.” However, I’ve read it asserted that the revised canon adopted this year does not actually enter into effect until Jan. 1, 2013 (i.e., the start of the new triennium). If this assertion is true, then the un-revised canon is still in effect and the revised canon is not yet in effect, and any blustering about the use of the unrevised canon instead of the revised canon… Read more »
“To suggest that the canon, as revised at the most recent GC is miss-applied in this circumstance seems to ignore what the canon says.”
As noted above, the revised version does not go into effect until the beginning of the year. If this were the revised version, the word “renunciation” would not appear.
Bryan Hunter: as many bishops as possible can say they support Lawrence but it doesn’t alter the fact that he is not actually a member of any Anglican Church at the moment apart from the one in his own head. Because of that lack of membership he can’t actually qualify for all kinds of things. I think Scott is right – there is no question about ordination anywhere here. It is simply that Lawrence has no permission to do anything anywhere because he has given up being a member of any church. That doesn’t mean he isn’t a Christian, or… Read more »
If Lawrence thinks that his orders exist independently of the Episcopal Church, that they are not dependent on recognition by the church which ordained him, then Lawrence should go over to the office of the Catholic Diocese of Charleston and ask to be recognized as a bishop.
From their perspective, he is a layperson and his claim to Holy Orders is spurious.
As it now is to members of the Episcopal Church, whose authority over him he has so publicly renounced.
“If there is a misunderstanding of the canons, it is shared by at least 9 other bishops.”
Yes indeed. That is the nature of the situation in TEC at present.
It is that bad. And it will only get worse.
I would also add for the sake of proportion. +ML is and has been the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of SC. He remains in the diocesan center. He continues to do episcopal acts. His churches, standing committee, executive committee, etc all acknowledge he is the Bishop. Those who disagree are just that: those who disagree. They may claim that he is not the Bishop of SC, but the point is that he continues to function as such, on the ground, in his place. Those who disagree, in order to establish their point, will need to have him removed from… Read more »
Lapin, re: Dennis.
September 18, 2009
The South Carolina Supreme Court handed down a decision in a lawsuit brought by the Diocese of South Carolina against a departing parish on Pawleys Island. In that case TEC and the Diocese were aligned on the same side against the departing parish. The Court ruled against both the Diocese and TEC, stating “we hold that neither the [diocesan assertion of a trust interest] nor the Dennis Canon has any legal effect.” Under the Court’s decision, the parish was permitted to withdraw from the Diocese and TEC and keep its property.
“If Lawrence thinks that his orders exist independently of the Episcopal Church, that they are not dependent on recognition by the church which ordained him…” It turns out that not only does Bishop Lawrence think so, but so does the Episcopal Church. Which is why when he was presented at his ordination, the form was “N., Bishop in the Church of God, the clergy and people of the Diocese of N., trusting in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have chosen N.N. to be a bishop and chief pastor. We therefore ask you to lay your hands upon him and… Read more »
“Under the Court’s decision, the parish was permitted to withdraw from the Diocese and TEC and keep its property.” And was permitted to do so on the basis of a 1745 deed of trust and on a 1903 quit-claim deed, by which the diocese specifically ceded possession of the property to the congregation, Christopher Seitz. The case is specific to All Saints, Pawleys Island and only to All Saints, Pawleys Island. Why, if the decision was a general rejection of the Denis canon, would Lawrence’s lawyers have spent so much time ($500,000+ in attorneys’ fees since L’s consecration) doling out… Read more »
Dr Seitz, the reason that the SC Supreme Court found in favor of All Saints, Pawleys Island is precisely because in 1903 they received a quitclaim deed and therefor clearly held title to the property. The decision doesn’t apply to SC Episcopal parishes as a whole – unless they all received quitclaims back in 1903.
cseitz: indeed let’s not avoid the reality on the ground. The reality is that ML has left the Episcopal Church. He is not a bishop in any other Anglican church. He is not in communion, therefore, with the Archbishop of Canterbury. He can’t be. The reality is that no other bishop of the Episcopal Church has yet been appointed to replace the vacancy he has so publicly announced. The reality is that he is simply a cuckoo in the nest and has invented a diocese which he is calling the diocese of SC. Any of us could do that. His… Read more »
Dr. Seitz’s misleading and selective quotation from All Saints v. Campbell is particularly disturbing as he and I discussed this case on this very blog a few weeks ago, and when I pointed out the case did not mean what he then said and now reiterates, he just moved on to other topics. Here is the holding of the South Carolina Supreme Court, after finding that the 1903 quitclaim deed clarified that the Diocese had stripped itself of any interest in the property: “Furthermore, we hold that neither the 2000 Notice nor the Dennis Canon has any legal effect on… Read more »
Let me see if I understand your thinking. The Courts in SC are going to hand over the parish properties, seal, name, all assets to a Bishop appointed by 815 Second Avenue. 20,000+ parishioners are going to say goodbye to their church homes, graveyards of relatives, rectors, clergy and Bishop, and so forth. This is because the Dennis Canon is in effect in SC and the courts will so rule when a new Bishop is appointed. Is this roughly what you believe will unfold? St Michael’s, St Philip’s, the Cathedral, the Diocesan House, Camp St Christopher, and all the churches… Read more »
Act Three:
¨Quite simply I have not renounced my orders as a deacon, priest or bishop any more than I have abandoned the Church of Jesus Christ—But as I am sure you are aware, the Diocese of South Carolina has canonically and legally disassociated from The Episcopal Church. We took this action long before today’s attempt at renunciation of orders, therein making it superfluous…¨ +Lawerence
¨His pretence of humility and martyrdom mask a rather scheming and dishonest reality.¨ Andrew Godsall
Curtain (the audience filed out of the theatre quietly with their heads down)
Leonard Clark/Leonardo Ricardo
What an interesting notion of episcopal orders!
“If he really thinks he is an Anglican bishop let him apply for permission here in England under the overseas clergy measure. I don’t think he would get very far.”
BTW, I see the Oregon Supremes have now seconded the decision of the SC Supremes in the Pawley’s Island case.
“Do you any idea what the cost of this will be? Who is going to pay for it?” Who paid the $500,000 and counting that Lawrence has spent on attorneys since his consecration, none of which money was used either for his legal defense or to ward off TEC “property grabs”?
Absolutely, cseitz, it is all property held in trust for TEC, and as the beneficiary of the trust, TEC is entitled to recover it.
It’s a relatively simple case, and it can probably be brought as one litigation, because it arises from one person’s pattern of unlawful acts.
As for the expense, I hope that TEC will bring a RICO claim and make the separatists pay treble damages.
If I were in his shoes, I’m not sure I’d be as wildly enthusiastic as Dr. Seitz about the Oregon Supreme Court decision in Hope Presbyterian Church of Rogue River v the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Presbytery of the Cascades, which you can read at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S059584.pdf . The court noted that the trust issues must be determined under state law, which means that to the extent that trust law differs from state to state — and it often does quite significantly — the result will differ from state to state as well. The court held that the Presbyterian constitution’s… Read more »
Mr Wirenius, sorry to be slow to respond. Your attempt to distinguish the PI ruling fails on your own chronology. The PI QCD was issued early in the 20th century, 1903 I believe. Under the theory espoused in your comment, the diocese would have regained a trust interest in 1979 when the Dennis canon was passed or when the local canon was passed. And on this theory the 2000 Notice would have been effective since the diocese would have had an interest at that time to record. The court ruled otherwise. And because they ruled this way about the PI… Read more »
From the Hope Presbyterian v. PCUSA case: “Based on Hope Presbyterian’s conduct, PCUSA’s constitution cannot be irrelevant, as Hope Presbyterian contends—even though it is not dispositive, as PCUSA contends. By voluntarily associating with the denominational church when Hope Presbyterian first organized in 1901—and remaining associated with the denominational church for over 100 years until 2007—Hope Presbyterian demonstrated that it intended to be bound by the governing documents of the church, including the constitution containing the express trust provision. In applying the neutral principles approach, we do not treat as dispositive the “orders and judgments” of the denominational church in resolving… Read more »
“Absolutely, cseitz, it is all property held in trust for TEC, and as the beneficiary of the trust, TEC is entitled to recover it.” And how do you imagine this is going to happen? When a new 815 appointed Bishop takes over, the SC Courts will hand him keys and titles to all property, the seal, and the name, and 20,000 parishioners will say, ‘goodbye, it was nice worshipping here for 300 years.’ RICO charges? You seem to be under the impression that SC Courts will hand properties over to an 815 appointed Bishop because the Dennis Canon will be… Read more »
It’s very odd, Dr Seitz, that you seem to think a diocese is mostly a collection of real estate. Or, for that matter, that questions of Church polity are actually decided by secular courts. Even if the State countenances it, the pretended secession of the Diocese of South Carolina is wrong.