TOWARD A RESOLUTION

Part II

(First posted on Jan. 7, 2018).
In my blog post of January 5, I offered a list of questions to be considered as a way of helping people reach a truthful understanding of what happened in the schism. I will begin addressing these today by looking at the first: 

DID THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH TRY TO REMOVE BISHOP LAWRENCE FROM THE DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA?

For more detail on this, I am listing the page numbers from my book, A History of the Episcopal Church Schism in South Carolina. I urge all of you to consult the book both for a more extensive explanation and for the documentary sources.

For a long time before, during and after the schism, a common fear spread through the diocese that I called the victimization theme. This was the charge, or at least strong suspicion, that Bishop Lawrence was deliberately mistreated by the Episcopal Church leadership. The assertion is still being made in DSC that TEC was trying to flip the diocese from "orthodox" to liberal. Numerous witnesses testified on the stand in the circuit court trial that Bishop Lawrence had been badly treated by the Church leadership. In my four years of research on the schism, I found no evidence to support this commonly held victimization allegation.

Having studied the documents, the following is my understanding of the answer to the question at hand.

We need to consider several factors.

In the first place, on January 26, 2008, Mark Lawrence made a written and oral oath to obey the discipline of the Episcopal Church. This was the condition for his consecration as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Once having taken the oath, he was honor bound to follow it.

The discipline that Lawrence promised to obey is found in the laws of the Church called "canons." Title IV of the canons dealt with rules for bishops and other clergy (p. 306).

A reform of Title IV led to the creation of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops in 2011. It was composed of 18 persons from across the Episcopal Church. It was required to investigate charges presented to it by church people against bishops.

(There may have been a widely held suspicion in DSC that the Title IV reform was deliberately made to get rid of Lawrence. I found no evidence to support this belief.)

In May of 2011, a group of communicants of DSC sent to the DBB, a presentment against Bishop Lawrence (p. 312-321). Under the canons, the DBB was required to consider the charges and evidence. There were 12 charges and 63 pages of material.

It is important to note that the charges against Lawrence came from ordinary members of the diocese, not from the DBB, not from the Episcopal Church leadership, and not from the Presiding Bishop.

The chair of DBB, bishop Dorsey Henderson, notified Lawrence of the investigation. The news produced a raging political war in the church. The ultra conservatives came out all guns blazing against the DBB and particularly against the presiding bishop. The DBB thus had to conduct its work under fierce onslaught from the ultra conservatives' public relations machine.

It was generally assumed that a move against Lawrence would lead to the fifth diocesan vote to withdraw from TEC (four dioceses had voted to leave TEC in 2007-08). In fact, at the time in 2011 and in secret, the DSC standing committee met with Lawrence and the lawyers and adopted a resolution to do just that.

The main charges against Lawrence in 2011 were his roles in the diocesan conventions that declared DSC's virtual independence from TEC in 2009 and 2010. In several conventions, DSC had voted to remove itself from all but the constitution of TEC. 

After much consideration, the DBB decided to exercise caution and declare that the charges were not strong enough to warrant a certification that Lawrence had abandoned the Episcopal Church. Many people in the national church went out of their way to try to please the unhappy bishop and diocese. However, canons did not preclude new investigations in the future. Lawrence could be charged again and everyone knew it.

Sure enough, the year 2012 brought a second investigation of Lawrence (p. 354-361). This was prompted by his issuance of quit claim deeds to the parishes in November of 2011, just days before the DBB ended its first investigation. The quit claim deeds could not be used in the first investigation because they came too late.

As the first, the second investigation originated with ordinary communicants of DSC, a group of 24 from across the diocese. Once they presented their charges and evidence, the DBB was required to consider the matter of whether Bishop Lawrence should be charged with abandonment of the Episcopal Church.

The second investigation was much more serious than the first because it involved Lawrence's flagrant disregard of the Dennis Canon. TEC had adopted this in 1979. DSC had officially adopted it from 1987 to 2010 (the convention vote to revoke it in 2010 is of dubious legality). The Dennis Canon said that all local property, even with deed, was under trust control of both the Episcopal Church and the diocese. Under the Dennis Canon, a bishop had no right to surrender the church trusteeship and only dubious right to give up the diocesan part of the trusteeship. Lawrence had acted in disregard of a cardinal law of the church. The church could hardly ignore this.

The diocesan leadership claimed that they could not follow the Dennis Canon because SC law did not recognize its validity, as per the state supreme court's All Saints decision of September 2009. However, documents showed they were already disregarding the Dennis Canon before that (as in the St. Andrew's, of Mt. Pleasant, property transfer of May 2009).

Although the second DBB investigation was private, everyone knew Lawrence could be investigated again and perhaps widely assumed he would be, in view of the explosive issuance of the quit claim deeds. Although there was no evidence that they were aware of the second DBB investigation in 2012, the DSC leaders moved apace to prepare for separation from TEC. They staged a dramatic break in the general convention of July 2012. On August 21, the leadership met in an ultra-secret session to plan action. I think it is safe to assume, although under the secrecy there was no documentary evidence, that this was the time the two dozen or so diocesan leaders actually planned out the schism. On Sept. 21, the standing committee asked Bishop Lawrence for his guidance on how to separate the diocese from TEC. On Oct. 2, Lawrence delivered a secret 16-page letter to the standing committee giving them his opinion that they had the power to disaffiliate the diocese from TEC. That day, the committee secretly passed a resolution removing the diocese from TEC if anyone in the church took "any action of any kind" against the bishop. This was to remain secret until Oct. 17. It was a hidden trap unknown outside of the diocesan leadership. It would provide the post-event rationale for the schism. (p. 347-353)

Also meeting in private, the DBB voted, on Sept. 21, that Lawrence had abandoned TEC. The official certification was sent to the Presiding Bishop who received it on October 10.

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori certainly wanted to avoid a fifth diocesan vote of secession. She tried to get a quiet, private, and quick resolution of the crisis at hand. She met with Lawrence and Bishop Waldo, of Upper SC, on Oct. 3. Lawrence did not tell the other two of the standing committee resolution of the day before. Jefferts Schori could not tell the other two about the DBB finding since she had not received it (she got it on Oct. 10).

After the Oct. 3 meeting, Lawrence refused to see the presiding bishop again. She asked to meet on Oct. 11. He refused (a funeral was the excuse). She asked him to meet her in Atlanta on Oct. 13. He refused. She asked to see him on Oct. 22. He knew the Oct. 2 resolution would kick in if she acted against him; and he kept it from her for the time being. (p. 360-362)

On receipt of the certification from the DBB on Oct. 10, Jefferts Schori had to inform Lawrence soon about this. Since he refused to see her in person, she called him on the telephone at noon on Monday, Oct. 15. She informed Lawrence that under the canons, he was now restricted from exercising ministry until the matter was resolved. She asked Lawrence to keep this private (so that they could discuss it in person at their scheduled meeting on Oct. 22). She wanted to resolve the issue quietly. Restriction meant just that. It was not a removal from office. In the view of the Church, Lawrence remained the bishop of the diocese, albeit it under restriction. (p. 362-365) 

Immediately afterwards on the 15th, Lawrence called his lawyers and the standing committee. They all agreed that TEC had taken "any action of any kind" against Lawrence and that the secret Oct. 2 resolution had gone into effect and that DSC had disaffiliated from TEC as of noon Oct. 15. To them, it did not matter that Lawrence was only restricted and not removed or deposed as the bishop. Lawrence ignored the restriction and went ahead with his ministerial duties. If the diocese had left the Episcopal Church, he obviously had too as the bishop of the diocese.

Thus, by his actions, Lawrence removed himself from the Episcopal Church on Oct. 15 as he ignored his consecration oath by refusing the discipline of the Episcopal Church.

On Oct. 17, Lawrence informed the presiding bishop, and the world, that the diocese had separated from the Episcopal Church and he would continue on as the bishop. This meant he too had left the Church. So much for restriction. So much for consecration vows.

Under the canons, Lawrence had two ways he could have removed the restriction and restored himself as the Episcopal Church bishop:

 1-Within 60 days he could submit a letter to the presiding bishop explaining himself. She would then have the option of removing the restriction and restoring him to full authority. 

2-He could await the next meeting of the House of Bishops (March 2013) and plead his case there. The bishops would vote by majority whether to exonerate him or depose him.

(It should be recalled that the DBB was akin to a grand jury. It could investigate and recommend charges, but could not prosecute anyone. If it certified abandonment, the charge would be handed over to the presiding bishop and the House of Bishops for action. The DBB itself could not take any action to punish anyone. Thus, DBB had no power to remove any bishop from office.)

Lawrence rejected both of these as he proclaimed the diocese, with himself as the bishop, had left the Church and was no longer subject to TEC rules. There was plenty of evidence that the Church leaders tried to appease Lawrence and keep the diocese in TEC. It was seven weeks after the self-proclaimed disaffiliation that the presiding bishop finally accepted that Lawrence had left the Episcopal Church. This came only after his public declaration of secession in the special convention of November 17. On Dec. 5, Jefferts Schori granted to Lawrence a formal Release and Removal. He offhandedly dismissed it as "superfluous."

Short answer to the question above:

Mark Lawrence removed himself as a bishop of the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church reluctantly accepted this seven weeks later.

It is not true to say that the Episcopal Church tried to remove Bishop Lawrence from the Diocese of South Carolina. 


In the next post, we will take up the second question, Did the Episcopal Church attack the Diocese of South Carolina?