I have a comment. Vicki Gene in, Mark Lawrence out due to a technicality. Sorry Madam Schori, that lame excuse doesn't fly. If you had any leadership capabilities you could have easily withheld consent until all members of those two standing signed. This is HUGE. The Episcopal church had better brace itself for repercussions.

I think that if Fr. Lawrence had said he would not leave the Episcopal Church under any circumstances rather than being coy and saying he had no intention of leaving, he would be a Bishop. If he honestly cannot abide the church as it is I can't see why he wanted a bishopric unless he thought he would emerge with the other Network bishops as the new leaders of the 'real Episcopal Church' after TEC is kicked out of the Communion.

Said with great Virtue, Brad. So you mean if the canons mean as little to your presiding bishop as they mean to the rule-benders in the Network, she could bend the rules a little bit for Mark Lawrence?

Honestly, I never knew such end-justifies-the-means relativism until I started paying attention to the American Anglican Council.

According to ENS:
"Canonically adequate ballots were received by South Carolina from 50 diocesan standing committees. Several other standing committees were reported to have consented, but no signatures were attached to their ballots, or the ballot itself was missing from South Carolina's records, Jefferts Schori reported. Any committee that did not respond is considered to have voted no."

Usually this does not matter but this time it did. It was South Carolina's responsibility to make sure all was in order. They had 3 extra days over the deadline to get the right info. What else could the PB do? If the shoe was on the other foot (for instance in NH)- the cries would have been reversed, no doubt.

I am so sick and tired of the anti-robinsons referring to the Bishop of New Hapshire as "Vicki". How about you guys surpising everybody sometime by taking the high road?

I wrote personally to over 50 Diocesan bishops asking that they NOT consent to Lawrence. If South Carolina choses to elect him again, I will enlist a committee and we will lobby every bishop and every standing committee. I realize the anti-robinsons think they are being singled out for punishment. Of course that's not the case. It's just their turn to fast for a season. Have a holy and blessed lent, dearies.

Why is this HUGE Brad? The process was followed and DOSC got three extra days from what I've read. By being honest about where he stood on the issues and where a presumed majority of the church is, I'm surprised Fr. Lawrence got as many concents as he did. Comparing this election to NH and crying foul doesn't wash, +VGR loves the church and has no interest in actively working for it's demise, Mark Lawrence+ didn't give a lot of people the same impression or he likely would have received the support he needed to become a bishop. The Network folk, and he is one of them, have appeared to want it all their way from the start of this dispute, they've never given any indication they were or are interested in honestly trying to compromise and work at reconciling, but instead want TEC to repudiate the inclusion of LGBT people and beg forgiveness from people in the global south who have their own issues to deal with. The Communion makes itself look bad when it stands by in silence as one of it's Primates supports what is going on in Nigeria and the ABC doesn't speak out forcefully against it and take ++PJA to task for it.

The outcome might have been slightly less messy had the PB's office simply said, "the Diocese of South Carolina was able to provide documentation of only 50 consents."

The rules have been clearly prescribed for years. A signed ballot is a valid ballot. An unsigned ballot is not. A phone call saying "we voted yes," but without any accompanying documentation, is not a valid ballot.

This is NOT a technicality. It is election monitoring. It is the way we ensure that only valid votes are counted.

If a standing committee is unable, in the four months alloted, to gather the required signatures, we have every reason to be sceptical of any claim that a valid vote was ever taken.

Is Vicki his name or not?
HUGE: reject traditional,
accept homosexual and now we are proven exclusive, no longer can falsely claim to be inclusive.
Badger539: dearies? are you in or out?

It's a matter of common decency to call someone by the name he or she uses. And a bishop of the Church is always called by the Christian name taken on at his or her ordination, as in Bishop Katharine or Bishop Gene. Christian charity ought to exceed the standard of common decency.

I can understand that it would be heartbreaking to be invested in Mark Lawrence as bishop and then see consent denied. But that's no excuse for abuse.

Probably just feeding a troll here, but I think we ought to extend Brad the benefit of the doubt. That's what Christians do.

If Lawrence wants to prove that he's up to being bishop, he should not lash out but offer another set of explanations, perhaps less defensive ones, and allow himself to be elected again. Any other course of action would just prove his critics (and I have been one) right.

I pray that God's will may be done.