The Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert notifies the diocese that Bishop-elect George Sumner has received consents.
September 15, 2015
My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I have been notified, by the Office of the Secretary of the General Convention, that Bishop-elect George Sumner has received the requisite number of consents from the House of Bishops and Standing Committees of the Episcopal Church. We are very pleased by this good news and give thanks to God and the Church for reaffirming our choice for our next Apostolic Father in God.
We will move forward with our plans for the Bishop-elect’s Consecration on Saturday, November 14, 2015 at First United Methodist Church Dallas. The service will begin at 11 a.m.
Warm congratulations to George Sumner.
Yes — but this is The Very Last — I mean, [i]the very very very very last one[/i] [not all the others that were so named] — conservative Episcopal Bishop that will ever receive consents.
The very very very last one. I mean . . . the [b]really[/b] last one.
+Sumner was the strongest of a strong group of candidates, and I hope and pray that he and his diocese weather the storm. I admit amazement that the HoB actually did consent, after so many had compared him to +Mark Lawrence. I will admit greater amazement if he stands up against GC and refuses to submit to the tyranny to which his brother bishops have already submitted.
In response to Sarah1, it is a matter of definition. No “conservative” bishop (in the +Bob Duncan, +Mouneer Anis or even +NT Wright sense of the words) could possibly comply with the resolutions and new canons of last GC. And no bishop who refuses to comply will be a bishop of TEC very long. So it will be interesting to see how he handles his first application for gay marriage, which if I correctly interpret the commentary over at the Piskie Bistro, will be submitted shortly after his consecration. The “nuanced” position that one can “live with” arranging gay marriages with neighboring liberal bishops, and then recognize the couple as married when they return to the diocese (as canonically required- all marriages performed anywhere in TEC are recognized everywhere in TEC), is in and of itself, a disqualification of one from the ranks of conservative. Preaching an orthodox sermon does not make one orthodox if one’s practices are heterodox.
A petition circulating in the diocese, with 200 signatures from parishioners in 7 or so parishes in EDOD, makes it clear this will be hard ball from Advent on, or just days after the consecration, when new ssm rites are authorized and disseminated. It is sent to all clergy in EDOD and cc’d to every Bishop, Standing Committee, PB and new PB in TEC. None of this should be a surprise. This is the New TEC in full parade dress.
RE: “In response to Sarah1, it is a matter of definition.”
A helpful [and needed, for the purposes of continuing the now 13-year prediction], TJ. Under that definition, Bishop Iker was not a conservative bishop, since he worked with Bishop Stanton on the ordination of women which was a significant question of sacramental integrity and efficacy.
Sarah,
Bishop Iker did not allow any of the women who were put forward for ordination by Bishop Stanton (or any other women priest or bishops, for that matter) to perform sacramentally as priests in the Diocese of Fort Worth. As of Advent this year, a “married” gay couple may return to their home diocese, and MUST be treated as married by the parish and diocese.
In point of fact, the question of whether the bishop can enforce either the geographic or clergy residence/license standards has yet to be tested. And who will pay travel expenses to a “neighboring diocese”? Not a small consideration if you are diocese of Haiti and have to contend with a wedding party of 100 people. And a small diocese like Springfield might be challenged if it “exports” a couple gay weddings and has to pick up the hotel bills in Saint Louis.
The enforcement of the Title III canons related to “discrimination” against women clergy were a major factor in why the Anglo Catholic dioceses left TEC. There was a movement underway to bring charges against the bishops, and the GC of 2009 tightened up the canons to the point (you will note) that there no longer are any bishops (other than a few retirees) in TEC who do not recognize women clergy.
RE: “Bishop Iker did not allow any of the women who were put forward for ordination by Bishop Stanton (or any other women priest or bishops, for that matter) to perform sacramentally as priests in the Diocese of Fort Worth.”
Understood. I only referred to his working with Bishop Stanton on getting women purportedly ordained — something that, frankly, was absolutely anathema to Anglocatholics and effected the actual efficacy of the sacraments [I’m not Anglocatholic].
RE: “And who will pay travel expenses to a “neighboring dioceseâ€?”
I’ve seen that question asked and it’s really a silly one, TJ. Nothing in the canons could be construed as requiring a diocese to pay travel expenses. I suspect that Bishop Iker’s Fort Worth did no such thing either.
It will be interesting to see what is deemed “acceptable” canonically speaking. My bet is that, save for the frothing activists, pretty much *anything* will be acceptable, including nothing at all.
The reason for this is the same reason for Sumner’s receiving consents easily and with barely any fuss at all, as I predicted.