Support the Café

Search our Site

Bishop-elect Sumner receives canonical consents

Bishop-elect Sumner receives canonical consents

From the Public Affairs Office:

Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and Registrar of General Convention, the Rev. Canon Michael Barlowe, have notified the Diocese of  Dallas that Bishop-Elect George Sumner has received the required majority of consents in the canonical consent process.

You may read more coverage of Bishop Sumner’s election and progress towards canonical consents here and here. As Bishop-elect, he telegraphed his support of the Salt Lake City Statement issued by Bishops who were opposed to the new provisions for same-sex marriage adopted at General Convention; at the same time pledging his continuing commitment and loyalty to the Church.

I return in my mind to the three goals that were expressed in our recent episcopal search. We want to articulate the traditional teaching on marriage. … We do well to think of this witness as actually a gift to the whole church. This is just the perspective of the bishops themselves in their generous mind-of-the-house statement toward the Communion Partners bishops at Convention. I pledge myself to do whatever I can to advocate for this continuing witness in our Church among my future colleagues in the coming years. Secondly, we remain loyal to our church, even as we remind it that the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you.’ (I Corinthians 12:21).

Bishop Sumner will be consecrated on November 14. Read the full press release here.



Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
prof christopher seitz

I have seen no clear response to the question posed by Sumner’s consecration and the release of same-sex rites in Advent.

Will there be a standard protocol for ‘make provision’ such as we see being requested in Albany and urged by, e.g., Mr Deimel? Will LGBT Episcopalians in places like Dallas need to drive to another diocese? How will this work out?

Paul Woodrum

Reality check, guys. Think shingles. Lawrence had the San Joaquin virus. Election to South Carolina turned it into an itch that had to be scratched. The SC calling committee knew this. Most of the rest of the church missed the diagnosis because of its own case of conflict avoidance. Cook case suggests that it’s still not cured.


How so? The statements and documents were, still are, public. When Lawrence first went through the process Lambeth and Primates asked for a moratoria, discipline was a possiblity, what the communion would do or would be was not to clear to anyone on either side, and Lawrence was open about his views. TEC kept moving along same trajectory, ignoring Lambeth and ‘gracious restraint.’ No revisionism here. You can say Lawrence didn’t really “mean” to stay in TEC, and attribute ulterior motives, but his dealings with the right wing, let’s call it, in his own diocese proves otherwise. They pressured him, even if as friends. He didn’t depart with them. He let them go. No revisionism here. And then the mechanism was put in place for an automatic disaffiliation if, and only if TEC moved against him as it did against Bob Duncan ignoring plain language of canons (about public renunciation, in writing,attested by 3 out of 4 senior bishops, majority of bishops entitled to vote) to depose him. What specifically is not true of this? Maybe you took on another narrative which ignored the facts to paint ML as intending to do something from before Day 1 of his episcopacy so this sounds like a revised account. But check out the facts. Or point to soemth abov

Please follow the comment policy and post every time with your first and last name. – ed

Paul Woodrum

Or what Bishop Lawrence did in South Carolina after taking similar stands and making similar promises to get consents.

William (Bill) Paul III

Lawrence pledged, at a time when TEC status with the Anglican Communion was under some threat of discipline, to work to keep in TEC and in the Anglican Communion. The Diocese he inherited wanted in large numbers to leave TEC (ECUSA then, I think). But he labored to keep them in and eventually allowed those congregations to leave who wanted to, upsetting TEC which eventually moved against him, which triggered the resolution to depart. He would have been a dissenting voice within TEC had KJS not moved against him. And any fair reading of the canons makes her creating another representative of the Diocese in the Diocese of SC prior to the departure, makes her look bad.

I seem to recall a moderator here jumping all over C Seitz for attributing motives to someone. Why is this post not similarly chastised?

Deacon Jim

An interesting bit of revisionist history!

Deacon Jim Brown

prof christopher seitz

Quite right.

The Diocese disassociated from GC actions just as their own diocesans canons permitted — this was not +ML’s private doing more anything he could simply say No to.

When he was attacked and declared abandoned, the Diocese had done the legal work necessary to protect itself and him.

So TEC effectively drove off an entire Diocese. Whether +ML and others were glad of that outcome is not ingredient in what actually transpired. SC defended itself and won. At least thus far.

Deacon Jim

I hope that he doesn’t do to Dallas what Mr. Iker did to Ft. Worth.

Deacon Jim Brown

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café