So is it official then?

It won't be official until all the documents are reviewed and the PB's office reports.

paigeb, by "have worked to muster the necessary consents" I think Jim meant "have worked to [try to] muster the necessary consents."

They're close, and we won't know until, as ann says, the PB's office reports.

I, too, admire the way Lawrence’s supporters have energetically supported their bishop-elect. Two other things also stand out for me in the aftermath of this campaign:

(1) The totally different perspectives on the election held by the opposing camps.

In reading the comments posted at Stand Firm and Titus One Nine, it seems clear that this consent process is widely viewed by Lawrence’s supporters as a referendum on moral theology: Fr. Lawrence is a good man, a brilliant pastor and leader, and an upholder of orthodox sexual morality; therefore to deny consent to his election is to proclaim opposition to the One True Faith.

Those opposed view the issue as one of church order. While many liberals disagree with Fr. Lawrence’s theology, no one really thinks that South Carolina can do other than elect a conservative bishop. The question is, will that bishop commit to remaining within the discipline of TEC, or will his confirmation mean that the wider church will continually be subjected to the threat of schism? Fr. Lawrence’s several statements on this subject have obviously failed to convince many.

(2) The disarray in the management of the consent process itself.

First there was the confusion over the date of sending the requests for consent; now there is confusion over the deadline for receiving consents. Given the report that the requests for consent were posted November 9, the canonical 120 day period ended on March 9. South Carolina, however, has proclaimed March 12 as the deadline, and now the PB’s office appears to be willing to accept that date.

ENS first reported that the consent period would end March 9, then later amended that to say “Consents will be accepted until March 12 to take into account the movement of mail.” Louie Crew has reported a conversation with the PB’s office in which he was told that “three days have been added as a grace period,” and that consents postmarked March 12 would be accepted.

Why the confusion? And by whose authority has the deadline been extended? Canon III.16.4(a) is quite clear that the consent period is 120 days from the day the request for consent is sent, to the day such consents are sent back to the electing diocese. Because it counts the days from postmark to postmark, the canon already accounts for the movement of the mail. By this standard, only statements of consent postmarked by March 9 should be accepted. If there is to be a deviation from this canonical requirement, the whole church deserves a clear explanation of how and why it happened.

I see that my diocese (San Diego) was one that consented to this election. While I do not have any inside information from the Standing Committee, I would guess that San Diego saw this election as being the result of a fair and spirit-led process within a diocese and that it was not our role to disagree with the process merely because we might disagree with some of the positions that the new bishop might take.