What follows is a letter I will be sending out tomorrow morning. I plan to file disciplinary charges against the Presiding Bishop if I don't receive an answer in a timely manner. To whom it may concern, I have been observing the news in the Church, especially in relation to the Diocese of South Carolina, and the recent actions against its Bishop, Mark Lawrence. I would like to request that Bishop Lawrence's written renunciation of orders be made present to the public, which should have been submitted in accordance with Canon III. 12.7 to the Presiding Bishop's Office. In a related manner, I should like to inquire about a matter pertaining to Sec. 7 (b) of the same Canon. This section delays the acceptance of written renunciations of ministry until such a time after trials for canonical offenses have been resolved (as you certainly are aware) -- have the disciplinary charges against Bishop Mark Lawrence been resolved, and, if so, could I be pointed to the results of those proceedings?
Hackney. The Reformers, a.k.a. the Reformed Churches (of which the CofE used to be a part), declared universally that to be a valid Church (that thing we call "the holy catholic Church") there needed to be these three markers, and only these three: that the singular Gospel of Grace ("the pure Word of God") is clearly and completely preached. that the Sacraments (two only) are honored and faithfully celebrated. that discipline is carried out justly so that God's church should ever remain pure and holy. I think that you agree that these principles are taught in the Articles (19 and 26). Question: Are you claiming your right, as a layman, to make charges yourself (Article 26), or are you merely asking for charges to be brought by others who presumably have more authority than you do? I should say that under the Articles (#26), you have a right in your own person to file charges and to depose the parties as necessary: "it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that enquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offenses; and finally being found guilty, by just judgement be deposed." This right belongs to ALL members of the Church. You will probably disagree, but to me this right should supersede any limitation of those rights in the Canons. This is in fact one of the reasons why I cannot return to Anglicanism with a clear conscience. Is it not true that this canonical problem is the reason discipline against bishops never goes anywhere, unless of course it is discipline being exercised by a "presiding" or "arch" (monarchial) bishop with Roman-like powers unimagined by our Reformed Anglican ancestors?
Yes, the Board of Bishops should meet and formally depose Bishop Lawrence. However, there is no doubt that he cannot and will not obey the cannons with regard to gender issues. He has made that very clear. So, we could have the need for an additional meeting of the Bishops. I guess the open question is whether the PB and the House of Bishops has the authority to depose a bishop. Bishop Lawrence says not. He does not accept the canons of the Episcopal Church that provides for such authority. You seem to argue with the form. Personally, I think that it is the substance that is far more important. The Bishop believes that we need new forms for the 21st Century and this could take decades to develop. He simply doesn't accept the current provincial structure.
I do disagree with Bishop Lawrence's decision but I think he has followed the canons up until this point, nor do I think his decision or the Diocese's decision to disassociate gives the Presiding Bishop the authority to change the canon.