Is Bishop Mark Lawrence Committing Schism?

from Stand Firm by Matt Kennedy 

Here’s Bishop Martins’ tortured and torturous argument against South Carolina’s “schism”.

For better or for worse, my lodestar on this question has been a rather obscure 19th century Church of England ecclesiologist by the name of William Palmer, particularly his 1838 Treatise on the Church of Christ. Palmer sets a rather high bar for justifiable schism. In order to separate oneself in good conscience from the ecclesial body in which one finds oneself, that church must have, in effect, ceased to be a church. And how does a church cease to be a church? By advancing heresy that is substantial, formal, and perduring. This means that a break can’t be over a relatively inconsequential theological nicety. And it can’t be over the mere presence of error or false teaching in a church, even if that false teaching is expounded at the highest levels of leadership, and even if it is over a question of major theological importance. This is because, by Palmer’s standard, the false teaching, to be a matter that justifies schism, must be formal—that is, embedded in the official formularies of the church; namely, the core liturgical sources. But even major formal heresy doesn’t “unchurch” a church, according to Palmer, because, in order for that to happen, the major, formal heresy must endure over multiple generations. Only when all three of the tests are met—substance, formality, and duration—does an ecclesial body lose its ecclesial identity, and thereby release its members from the obligation of continued communion…read more

I’m not sure why William Palmer’s criteria ought to have the authority Bishop Martins gives to them? The Christian conscience is not held captive by the word of William Palmer. Why should William Palmer rather than St. Paul determine when and/or whether a body has or has not lurched into egregious error?

I also think it somewhat arbitrary to narrow the definition of “formal error” to liturgical practice and leave aside the thrice confirmed corporate decisions of General Convention, TEC’s formal legislative body, since 2003.
The Thirty Nine Articles, moreover, are quite clear with regard to the definition of a visible church:

XIX. Of the Church: The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

Bishop Martins repeats the canard that evangelicals repudiate the “visible church”. This is not true. We repudiate the idea that the Church is necessarily made visible whenever and wherever men (and now women) with pointy hats happen to be. Reject apostolic doctrine and you lose apostolic authority.

I deeply respect those faithful Christians, catholic or evangelical, who, knowing what lies before them, remain in the Episcopal Church to fight to the last. And I hate it when people try to push them to leave.
Interfaith evangelism is difficult and those who engage in it need our support.

That being said, the idea articulated by some of those who stay, that leaving the Episcopal Church is “schism”, is absurd. The Episcopal Church through formal corporate legislation embraced soul destroying heresy and, as a result, “formally” betrayed Christ. It is no schism to leave that body because in doing so one is not leaving the Body of Christ.