December 19, 2014

December 5, 2009


BREAKING: Diocese of Los Angeles Elects Non-Celibate Lesbian As Suffragan Bishop

Larry Benfield, Bishop of Arkansas, on the passage of D025 at this years General Convention [the comments are a must read]:

The resolution that came out of the House of Bishops was a statement of the variety of places that the Episcopal Church finds itself today; it did not repudiate the statement of the last General Convention, that urged restraint on the part of standing committees and bishops as they gave consent to the sort of people considered for ordination as bishops.

Katherine Jefforts Schori and Bonnie Anderson, Presiding Bishop and President of the House of Deputies, in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the passage of D025 at this year’s General Convention:

Some are concerned that the adoption of Resolution D025 has effectively repealed Resolution B033. That is not the case. This General Convention has not repealed Resolution B033. It remains to be seen how Resolution B033 will be understood and interpreted in light of Resolution D025.

And five months later . . . “It Remains To Be Seen” No Longer Remains To Be Seen.

Here are the results of the 7th ballot...
Glasspool: Clergy: 153 Lay: 203
Vasquez:  Clergy: 87 Lay: 177

Necessary to win: Clergy: 123 Lay:193


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

115 comments

Here’s where the rubber will hit the road.  If she receives consents, then it’s crystal clear who the Episcopal Church is and what she intends to do.  Let’s now see how GC 2009 is interpreted.  Lord Have Mercy.

[1] Posted by Cranmerian on 12-5-2009 at 05:46 PM · [top]

Anyone surprised? With this action, TEC has joined the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others as a pseudo-Christian organization.

[2] Posted by BillB on 12-5-2009 at 05:54 PM · [top]

Neither surprised nor concerned.  I expect this sort of insanity from the diocese of JJ Bruno - an elitist, lying, Loon Lefty of great note.

-Jim+

[3] Posted by FrJim on 12-5-2009 at 06:03 PM · [top]

I join with Fr. Jim with the addition that the AC will continue to do absolutely nothing.

[4] Posted by Br. Michael on 12-5-2009 at 06:11 PM · [top]

Let the games begin.  Set a watch on the Bishop and Standing Committee counts.

[5] Posted by Katherine on 12-5-2009 at 06:13 PM · [top]

The Tiber is this way folks, the Bosporus is in that direction, and the last flight to Geneva leaves at Midnight…..turn out the lights here when you leave.

[6] Posted by Sacerdotal451 on 12-5-2009 at 06:13 PM · [top]

Bishops and Standing Committees will be voting one by one on whether the Anglican Communion means anything to them, and then, assuming Glasspool gets the consents, the Archbishop Williams will have to decide if the Anglican Communion means anything to him.

[7] Posted by Katherine on 12-5-2009 at 06:18 PM · [top]

Cranmerian:  It’s already crystal clear.
BillB:  At least the JW’s and Mormons don’t embrace immorality. (They’re simply theologically off.) This is a BIG boost to ACNA.

[8] Posted by MartyrsFan on 12-5-2009 at 06:18 PM · [top]

So very very thankful this evening not to be an Episcopalian.

[9] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 12-5-2009 at 06:35 PM · [top]

Another nail in the coffin.

[10] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 12-5-2009 at 06:42 PM · [top]

So very thankful this evening not to be part of DioLA, which extends its middle finger towards Canterbury in a gesture towards all of Anglicanism, as well as Christianity.

Perhaps she has a “past” (in addition to her present) that will prevent her from getting the needed consents.

Perhaps RW will go visit his physician for a testosterone level, and appropriate hormone replacement therapy. I suspect the more conservative Anglican bishops won’t have to do that.

[11] Posted by Ralph on 12-5-2009 at 06:46 PM · [top]

Hmmmmmm….this looks like a job for…...
The Bible Belt Blogger…..

OK, in the pool for how many Anaheim statement bishops vote to confirm, I have 7.  I called it first.

[12] Posted by tjmcmahon on 12-5-2009 at 06:54 PM · [top]

More interesting to me than her election is +Bruno’s statement on it in the Episcopal Life article:  to vote to withhold consent because of her sexuality is a violation of the canons.

[13] Posted by DavidH on 12-5-2009 at 06:57 PM · [top]

Clarity is golden.  As sad as I am for TEC and my friends still in it, I am grateful that with this act TEC has started the clock on an unspinable display of their unwillingness to live within an interdependent communion.  This will dramatically speed the acceptance of the ACNA as a province.

[14] Posted by Ed McNeill on 12-5-2009 at 07:00 PM · [top]

It will be interesting to see who gives/not gives consent.

[15] Posted by martin5 on 12-5-2009 at 07:13 PM · [top]

Withholding consent because of her sexuality would be inappropriate.

The bishops and Standing Committees are obligated to withhold consent because she is in a sexual relationship outside of Holy Matrimony.

Maybe there are other reasons, too.

[16] Posted by Ralph on 12-5-2009 at 07:15 PM · [top]

Are the bishops and standing committees “obligated” to without hold consent because she is in a sexual relationship outside of Holy Matrimony? It seems plausible to that many bishops and standing committee’s might not have anything wrong with someone having sexual relations outside of marriage, so long as the relationship is a “committed” relationship. Further, even if the marriage liturgy says that ‘proper’ sexual relations are a necessary condition for a valid marriage,  it does not follow that “proper sexual relations” take place only within marriage (that would be affirming the consequent). In short, where does it say that the Episcopal Church (qua institution) is opposed to people having sex outside of committed relationships?

[17] Posted by Cedric on 12-5-2009 at 07:26 PM · [top]

Oh, what a treat for Jesus!
NOT!

[18] Posted by priestwalter on 12-5-2009 at 07:27 PM · [top]

Episcopalian….Liars all.
Intercessor

[19] Posted by Intercessor on 12-5-2009 at 07:30 PM · [top]

[14]:
Ed McNeill and all,
This is not unspinnable.  “it’s just a suffragan, not a full diocesan bishop…”
This is clearly charitable restraint evidenced in full force, and B033 has not been repealed… wink

[20] Posted by Via Mead (Rob Kirby) on 12-5-2009 at 07:51 PM · [top]

“So very very thankful this evening not to be an Episcopalian.”
Amen and Amen!

[21] Posted by DaveG on 12-5-2009 at 07:53 PM · [top]

OK.  Is anyone on this blog really surprised by this?  Fr. Kennedy, I second your emotion.  wink

[22] Posted by Florida Anglican [Support Israel] on 12-5-2009 at 07:58 PM · [top]

There will be no problems with consent.  Who would TEC need to appease by refusing to consent?  The covenant is already in the hands of the JSC where it may be safely lobotomized.  RW has proven himself singularly unwilling to do anything.  He has no leverage at this point in any case. The ACC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TEC.  The Primates have been castrated by RW.  Lambeth is a decade in the future.  Nothing stands between TEC and its objectives.  So the full progressive agenda will be pursued without subterfuge.  Who will this benefit?  The liberals in TEC, of course.  ACNA.  FCA.  And the cause of disestablishment in the UK.  How does RW keep at bay the stresses that have rent TEC asunder?  How does he keep the CoE together as the Communion falls apart? 

carl

[23] Posted by carl on 12-5-2009 at 08:03 PM · [top]

In response to Cedric’s question(#17): The sexual relations outside of marriage was taken care of by resolution D039 of GC 2000:

...That we acknowledge that while the issues of human sexuality are not yet resolved, there are currently couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in marriage and couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in other life-long committed relationships; and be it further

Resolved, That we expect such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God; and be it further

This “preparative” resolution shows that the left has been working (scheming) for a long time.

[24] Posted by robroy on 12-5-2009 at 08:03 PM · [top]

I must agree with Fr. Kennedy in # 9. I, too, am very very grateful this night that I am no longer an Episcopalian.

The other posters are also correct. She will get the required consents for consecration and the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Communion will do nothing to stop it.

It is a sad, sad day for TEC. May God have mercy on us all.

[25] Posted by FrRick on 12-5-2009 at 08:15 PM · [top]

After watching the nonsense with GC 2009, I decided to serve out my term on vestry but withdraw from parish leadership, so I would not leave anyone in a lurch if Dear Hubby and I finally had enough.  I am therefore relieved that by the time this travesty runs to completion, we will have the freedom to follow our consciences, even if that means out the door.

[26] Posted by elanor on 12-5-2009 at 08:23 PM · [top]

I hope that the conservative Primates do turn up when the ABofC calls a meeting to decide about this.. even if he only invites his standing committee (which is skewed in a liberal direction and, therefore, not representative of the Communion as a whole)! 

Political manipulation, whatever the good intentions, is no longer acceptable - surely everyone realises now that this is not a crisis that will resolve itself without action!!

[27] Posted by Zwingli on 12-5-2009 at 08:57 PM · [top]

Part of this brings relief…in the sense that folks wanted clarity…WELL…you’ve got it. 
Waiting to see how ++Rowan Williams spins this one. 
Of course sophisticated Los Angeles was not to be outdone by piddly little New Hampshire. 
I am now waiting for TEC’s first Disabled Trangendered Latino-Inuit Vegan Wicca-Muslim as a “bishop”...surely there is someone that fits the need…the cry for diversity will surely fill the pews…

[28] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-5-2009 at 09:31 PM · [top]

“I am now waiting for TEC’s first Disabled Trangendered Latino-Inuit Vegan Wicca-Muslim as a “bishop”...surely there is someone that fits the need…the cry for diversity will surely fill the pews…”

And it’s okay, as long as the person is “of the baptized”...can’t forget the All-Holy Bapismal Covenant…

[29] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-5-2009 at 09:34 PM · [top]

The Standing Committee of the Primates
Orombi (conservative, but one representative for all of Africa- represents over 50 % of the membership of the Communion)
Anis (one representative for all of Asia)
Williams (nuff said- Liberal)
Aspinall (spin doctor at Lambeth- Liberal)
Morgan (has called for gay bishops in British Isles)
Schori

And these are the same folks who will meet in a couple weeks to decide what the new section 4 of the Covenant will say.  The vote will go 4-2 in favor of whatever Schori wants, unless both Aspinall and Williams completely reverse their last 5 years of appeasing TEC.

The ACC members of the JSC are more or less evenly split between extreme-progressives and moderate conservatives.  But when you throw in Kearon as the deciding vote in ties, it doesn’t really look very positive.

[30] Posted by tjmcmahon on 12-5-2009 at 09:37 PM · [top]

I am in ACNA…but some in ACNA have said to me, “Forget about TEC.” and…“Now that we’ve left, ignore them…it has nothing to do with us.”  WRONG!!!!!!!

By ACNA’s side-connections to various provinces, it is STILL in communion, albeit impaired, with TEC…as TEC is still in The Anglican Communion.  I cannot ignore that.  What a pus-filled, festering part of the Body does still affects the rest of the Body. 

I want answers from the ABC, the “conservative” Covenant bishops, and the Global South primates…how long are you gonna pretend, fellas???  What will it take???  This dang Covenant is USELESS!!!

[31] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-5-2009 at 09:42 PM · [top]

Instead of withdrawing from the Anglican Communion, why cannot those who are (rightly) outraged simply expel the U.S. Episcopal Church from the Communion?

[32] Posted by Apocalypse on 12-5-2009 at 09:46 PM · [top]

Speculating: the most we can hope for out of the JSC is a vigorous minority report from +Anis and +Orombi.

[33] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 12-5-2009 at 09:47 PM · [top]

tjmcmahon #30, Bishop Anis, while having some provincial presence in Asia, is in Africa.  Egypt does not really consider itself “African,” reserving that term for the sub-Sahara, but it is on the continent except for Sinai.

[34] Posted by Katherine on 12-5-2009 at 09:49 PM · [top]

Now, with this election, the Covenant is DEAD.  Guaranteed!  Just how much more has to happen before TEC gets sacked?  And Br Michael, let’s all hope and pray that the rest of the Communion DOES do something.

[35] Posted by Cennydd on 12-5-2009 at 09:49 PM · [top]

TXThurifer-
Most of the GS Primates have completely broken communion with TEC- it no longer exists.  What else do you expect of them, that they will leave a Communion where they represent 60% of the members?

Given the makeup of the JSC, it is difficult to see the Covenant surviving Rowan’s skillful maneuver to destroy it. (Let’s point out here that the Section 4 review committee supposedly met 2 weeks ago- scheduled for Nov 21 as I recall-, and the result is being kept secret until the JSC is done with it). What I wonder is, after he succeeds at sinking his own Covenant, what will Rowan do when another 10-12 provinces sign the Jerusalem Declaration?

[36] Posted by tjmcmahon on 12-5-2009 at 09:52 PM · [top]

32…that’ll be the day.  Those Standing Committee Primates would have to buy some cujones first.  Because of the irresponsibility of bishops, the Anglican Communion may indeed become synonymous for the Global North/West…

[37] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-5-2009 at 09:53 PM · [top]

[32] Apocalypse

[W]hy cannot those who are (rightly) outraged simply expel the U.S. Episcopal Church from the Communion?

Because the powers that be in the AC refuse to do it.  RW has spent the last six years making sure that outcome cannot happen.  Expelling TEC would likely lead to the establishment of a parallel progressive Communion, and the more liberal provinces would follow.  Plus, TEC has the money.  Many of the AC bureaucrats would become suddenly unemployed.  Expulsion of TEC would also expose the left flank of the CoE to the exact same discipline.  TEC isn’t all that far ahead of the CoE in terms of revisionist doctrine.

RW wanted stasis.  His problem was that there was no way to effect the outcome.  But he did try his hardest.

carl

[38] Posted by carl on 12-5-2009 at 09:56 PM · [top]

Am I the only one here who thinks this is great?

Seriously, did you really want more fudging, weaseling, denial and obfuscation from TEC?  More of what Chris Johnson aptly calls “compliantousness”?  Finally it’s all out in the open: no more pretense that they’re heeding Windsor and the moratorium, no more feigning to care what the Communion thinks.  It’s full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, baby! (Though it actually isn’t the torpedoes that will be damned, of course. wink)

I for one am deeply grateful for this rare outburst of honesty on TEC’s part.  All that remains now is to put on the popcorn while I wait for the fallout to begin…

[39] Posted by st. anonymous on 12-5-2009 at 09:58 PM · [top]

Carl, RW could have had many things. Stasis is the one thing that will forever be beyond his grasp.

[40] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 12-5-2009 at 10:00 PM · [top]

Katherine, I do realize where ++Anis is located, but he is elected as the “Asia” member of the standing committee (1 from Americas, 1 from Australia-NZ-Micronesia, 1 from Asia, 1 from Africa, 1 from Europe, and the ABC- it is not a matter of selection by majority vote of the primates).  At least, that is how I recall it being explained to me when I sent off an email a couple years ago (trying to figure out how KJS could have been elected- she was elected because Canada, Brazil, Mexico and TEC could outvote +Gomez and +Venables).
If I am wrong, I am open to correction.  It is difficult to see how, if things were based on fair election, KJS and Morgan would have been chosen to represent the primates who produced the Dar statement.

[41] Posted by tjmcmahon on 12-5-2009 at 10:01 PM · [top]

36…The answer is to kick ‘em out.  They’re pretending…they are still in communion with provinces in communion with TEC & ACoC…SEC, COE, CNZ etc.  They may not “take communion” together, but they still put up with ++RW’s silliness…and they still put fingers in their ears and eye-patches on…“You’re not there…I don’t hear you…you don’t exist…we said the fabric of the communion was torn…lalalalala!!!”  If the Pope can challenge Lambeth Palace…surely the Global South can.  It’s time for some SERIOUS force.

[42] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-5-2009 at 10:01 PM · [top]

The problem is that there is no mechanism in the Anglican Communion for expelling errant provinces, and therefore the only thing we can do is shun TEC and treat them like they’re not even there.  So unless they’re stupd….which they’re not, by the way, they’ll get the message.  Let them take their filthy lucre and form their own communion….which in effect, they’ve already done anyway.

[43] Posted by Cennydd on 12-5-2009 at 10:04 PM · [top]

When the Holy Spirit has left the building anything and everything is possible. Big deal. God has turned The Episcopal Organisation (TEO) over to its own desires. It’s a whitewashed sepulcher.

[44] Posted by JerryKramer on 12-5-2009 at 10:06 PM · [top]

The Covenant ALREADY was dead.  It has been dead.  it is not merely dead, rather, it has been well and truly dead.  It will stay dead.  The AbC killed it L O N G ago.  Everyone needs to realize NOW or at least ASAP there is less than zero hope for the formerly vaunted covenant.  Abandon all hope if you place any stock in the covenant.  Good LORD, wake up!!!!!!!

More importantly, if the suffragan-elect is approved and consecrated by any bishop in TEC, such bishop has in effect renounced his/her orders and is apostate.  Full stop.

What continues to occur at the hands of those mendacious “shepherds” in TEC is abhorrent.

[45] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 12-5-2009 at 10:06 PM · [top]

39…I agree with you for the most part…I am glad TEC is at least being honest about their intended iniquity…it’s more than I can say for the wishy-washy moderates(aka liberals minus the “complete gay thing”) and the lies many conservatives keep telling themselves.

[46] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-5-2009 at 10:07 PM · [top]

Response to Carl (#23):

There will be no problems with consent. 

Among the bishops with jurisdiction, what percent do you think will vote not to consent?  I would love to see your list.

[47] Posted by LouieCrew on 12-5-2009 at 10:09 PM · [top]

TXT: precisely.  This makes it much, much harder for the “moderate conservatives” and “squishy bishops” to claim that TEC is still being sincerely compliant.  TEC can’t lie to them anymore, and they can’t lie to themselves and us.  It’s all good.

[48] Posted by st. anonymous on 12-5-2009 at 10:12 PM · [top]

But 43…they won’t.  Surely as one in San Joaquin you know that the revisionists may play chicken and see if we will ignore them or if we will leave first.  They believe they own the communion and the name “Anglican”...and if we pretend they aren’t there, then it’s curtains for us, as far as membership in the Communion…we’ll be the ones having to form a new structure.  You all didn’t “pretend Shadow Joaquin wasn’t there”...you defended yourselves and said what they are doing is wrong.  The only way to avoid this may be to FORCE the ABC to listen…meeting to plan more meetings isn’t working.

[49] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-5-2009 at 10:15 PM · [top]

#49, Right on!

Global South and GAFCON, we’ll be waiting for some action for the next couple days.  For the orthodox in TEC, now’s the time to get (nicely) into your bishop’s (and/or standing committee’s) face and yell, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore.”

[50] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 12-5-2009 at 10:21 PM · [top]

[47] LouieCrew

Among the bishops with jurisdiction, what percent do you think will vote not to consent?  I would love to see your list.

I should think the consent tally will be overwhelming.  No more than a handful will refuse.  But I have no list, nor any particular understanding about why you should wish to see my list if I did have one. 

This is your moment, LouieCrew.  You have won the war.  The flood gates are open.  And great will be the consequences of the resulting deluge.

carl

[51] Posted by carl on 12-5-2009 at 10:24 PM · [top]

Dr. Crew (I’m guessing you are the real one, and not someone having us on),

It would seem probable that the bishops who voted in favor of D025 would vote in favor of consent, unless there is some obstacle that we don’t know about (re-writing the Baptismal Covenant, or some such).  Since the HoB commonly consents to bishops who violate the canon on holy communion, one suspects that theology will not stand in the way. 

The 20 “usual suspects” will withhold consent, but might have done so in the cases of any of several nominees.

If you have a list of 55 bishops who you think might withhold consent, WE would be very grateful if you would share it with us.

[52] Posted by tjmcmahon on 12-5-2009 at 10:25 PM · [top]

Athanasius Returns, I agree with you.  One hundred percent.  Personally, I think it’s high time for another GAFCON meeting….a Foundational Meeting with the leaders of the Global South provinces for a new Communion.  It’s time to put the squeeze on Rowan Williams….a HARD squeeze!

[53] Posted by Cennydd on 12-5-2009 at 10:28 PM · [top]

Oops,

LouieCrew,

One other note.  I suspect we both know that there will be as many “non-votes” as possible on this one.  Any of a number of the Anaheim statement bishops who voted for D025, and then signed the statement anyway, will not vote one way or the other in hopes that the 56 necessary for consent will be gained without their committing one way or the other. But if it is close, one suspects they will provide just enough votes to get to 56. Such is the Anglican way.
  Since the lay vote in favor of D025 approximately equaled the bishops, one assumes you are safe there as well.  Time will tell.

[54] Posted by tjmcmahon on 12-5-2009 at 10:32 PM · [top]

53…I agree…but the “new communion” should be the revisionists’ to have to create…the old communion just needs to do some house cleaning with some powerful leaf blowers and power-washers, including Lambeth Palace.

[55] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-5-2009 at 10:34 PM · [top]

54…and even if they don’t vote for it, they’ll do the laying on of hands at the “consecration”...in disguises if they must…then pretend it was their duty as bishops “to the baptized”...

[56] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-5-2009 at 10:36 PM · [top]

If she gets consents, I’d like to see how ++Rowan will try to string along the orthodox now.

He may not be able to this time . . . which would be a good thing.

[57] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 12-5-2009 at 10:37 PM · [top]

Yes, the Archdruid’s head must be throbbing tonight.  He’s already been blindsided by the Vatican in recent weeks; this will be salt in the wound.  Who knows, he might even be moved to make a mildly disapproving statement…

[58] Posted by st. anonymous on 12-5-2009 at 10:44 PM · [top]

Here is what we at the Washington Times wrote about Mary Glasspool: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/06/lesbian-elected-episcopal-bishop-in-los-angeles/

[59] Posted by JuliaDuin on 12-5-2009 at 10:52 PM · [top]

Thanks, Carl and tjmcmahon. 
Yes, time will tell, and it will be a long wait before we know.
Louie

[60] Posted by LouieCrew on 12-5-2009 at 10:58 PM · [top]

This election and +Shaw’s recent pronouncement should prove to the Communion that canons and promises no longer matter or have any meaning in TEC. Should this not offer hope to the faithful parishes and Dioceses that TEC is no longer a hierarchal church?  Does this not mean that each Diocese has the ability (and the authority) to make whatever decisions and pronouncements are necessary based on their individual interpretation of scripture and canon?

[61] Posted by iambutone on 12-5-2009 at 10:59 PM · [top]

“I have been touched and changed the most by issues of gender equity and the status of gay and lesbian people in the church and society,” she wrote in her biography, posted on the Los Angeles diocesan Web site. “Yet I am not a ‘single issue’ person, and I preach passionately about peace-making, reconciliation, the need to battle the evils of racism and overcome extreme poverty.”

In short, she’s a hard-left ideological activist.  Goodness knows the church needs more of those.

[62] Posted by st. anonymous on 12-5-2009 at 11:04 PM · [top]

Julia, you reported that a majority of the100 domestic dioceses must consent.  Actually all bishops with jurisdiction are counted in the consent process, not just those in the 100 domestic dioceses.  There are 111 diocedses.  A non-response has the effect of a ‘no’.  Some dioceses are currently without a bishop with jurisdiction.

[63] Posted by LouieCrew on 12-5-2009 at 11:07 PM · [top]

Those left in TEC need to grab their Bibles and tear out a few more troublesome pages.

[64] Posted by Theodora on 12-5-2009 at 11:19 PM · [top]

A few random thoughts, some of them irrelevant.

1) Honesty is good.  Of course, quite a few so-called “centrist” bishops are hung out to dry on their silly spinning statements to their dioceses post-General Convention—and that is most pleasant to see.

2) I am, of course, pleased to be an Episcopalian as this is where God has called me—and so very very thankful this evening not to be an ACNAian.

3) The most amusing part of the election is to ponder the frantic frantic lobbying on the part of the gay activists post ballot 5—take a glance at it and just imagine this line: “we simply must not have another devastating defeat in California—after Maine and New York and California. We must have the lesbian at all costs!”  ; > )

4) Consents won’t be a problem.

5) Very pleased that TEC is—because of their gospel—forced to be clear and cease lying, as they have tried so diligently to do over the past six years.  It’s good to see their gospel, again—the most important thing on this earth for them is the attempted affirmation of same-gender sexual relationships.  It’s their gospel and they’re committed to it.

[65] Posted by Sarah on 12-5-2009 at 11:20 PM · [top]

Thanks to Louie and Julia for dropping in.

Louie Crew asks for a list of bishops that might vote against the confirmation. There is a certain website that he might be familiar with (!) that is a wealth of information that lists diocesan bishops that voted against D025. Here is the list:

Alabama (?), Albany, Central Florida, Central Gulf Coast (?), Colombia, Dallas, Florida (?), Fond du Lac (empty?), Georgia(?), Haiti, Honduras, Louisiana (empty), North Dakota, Northern Indiana, Northwestern Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Southwest Florida, Springfield, Taiwan, Tennessee, Texas, Virgin Islands, West Texas, Western Kansas (empty?), Western Louisiana.

The question mark “(?)” means that I question their “orthodoxy” and most definitely could vote for confirmation.

[66] Posted by robroy on 12-5-2009 at 11:38 PM · [top]

#14:

Clarity is golden.  As sad as I am for TEC and my friends still in it, I am grateful that with this act TEC has started the clock on an unspinable display of their unwillingness to live within an interdependent communion.  This will dramatically speed the acceptance of the ACNA as a province.

What BCP do ACNA and CANA use?

[67] Posted by maineiac on 12-5-2009 at 11:42 PM · [top]

I am amused at the mere suggestion that anyone is worried about consents. I’m sure the partying began before the election was over.

[68] Posted by oscewicee on 12-5-2009 at 11:59 PM · [top]

Robert Piggott of the BBC reports:

Despite intense pressure to maintain a moratorium on ordaining gay bishops - the Episcopal Church’s ruling convention voted in July to allow homosexual men or women to become bishops.

This clarification of the Church’s policy makes all the more likely that Mary Glasspool’s election will be confirmed by its bishops and a committee representing the Church’s lay and clergy members.

If it is confirmed, Canon Glasspool’s election will set back attempts to preserve worldwide Anglicanism intact and makes it more probable that the American Church will be consigned to membership of the second of a two-tier Communion

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8397653.stm

What is interesting is that all this and Mrs Schori’s disengenuous interview comes as the Joint Standing Committee are due to meet in the meeting no one is apparently talking about.

Oh and a Filipino priest is getting rather hot under the collar.

[69] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 12-6-2009 at 12:03 AM · [top]

#67,

ACNA does not currently have one Book of Common Prayer.  Rather, the bishops with jurisdiction have authority to approve use of any Prayer Book within his diocese.  Any such liturgical text must be consistent with the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA as approved this past June in Texas.

There is a Task Force working on the Prayer Book issue, as I understand it.

Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. John’s Anglican, Park City, UT

[70] Posted by frdarin on 12-6-2009 at 12:21 AM · [top]

[29] TXThurifer Sir! Madam! or Who ever,

Please do not mess with the Inuit! My wife, not Inuit, was born in Aklavik, raised in Tuk & Inuvik.  They are overwhelmingly orthodox.  If you persist I will smoke you out! grin

[71] Posted by Ed McNeill on 12-6-2009 at 12:31 AM · [top]

#14, The ACNA is drawn together by a common mission that accepts in the best Anglican Tradition a diversity of expression gathered around a common commitment to Scripture. Reason, and Tradition. It is commonly taught that we pray what we believe, and the question of a common prayer book is on the table but the common lived out witness to orthodoxy evident in the ACNA today lets this be a future issue.  We are missional.  We are orthodox. Today, in recognition of this and in recognition of our varied rites, all PB’s are welcome that are in use within the ACNA. 

We’ll figure this out as we go.  In the meantime, How can I pray for you?

[72] Posted by Ed McNeill on 12-6-2009 at 12:39 AM · [top]

#67 I meant that for you.

[73] Posted by Ed McNeill on 12-6-2009 at 12:41 AM · [top]

72 Ed…I am sure you knew I was joking. I grabbed something out of the air.  We could insert probably ANY people group into that blank that has yet to have a bishop in TEC…Latino-Bulgarian, or Choctaw(part of my ancestry) perhaps???  I actually think the Inuit are wonderful…they have a great many Orthodox parishes…as a result of the Russian missionaries of the 18th and 19th centuries…I am sure they provide much better alternatives to TEC DioAlaska!!!  wink

[74] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-6-2009 at 12:53 AM · [top]

67…well…as one on the ground in ACNA and CANA, I’ll tell you it’s a hodge-podge.  I have seen the 1979 a lot, the Diocese of Jos Nigerian Liturgy, the 1928 BCP, the odd Anglican Missal, some happy-clappy concoctions…I am sure someone has tried the 1662 and the AMiA’s An Anglican Prayer Book.  I am for the American 1928, Anglican Missal, Original 1549, Scottish 1637…and tolerate the 1979 Rite I.

[75] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-6-2009 at 01:01 AM · [top]

TXThurifer, I got the joke! Just couldn’t resist the dig!

[76] Posted by Ed McNeill on 12-6-2009 at 01:06 AM · [top]

TXThurifer,
Russian Missionaries? Umm, they never went to the real north as far as I know.  They came down the west coast of Alaska as far as Northern California.  They had very little to do with Inuit.  They followed the coast south not the coast north and east where the Inuit live. The English Clergy who came with the Hudson Bay Company had far more to do with the Inuit.  Sorry to pop your love of the Russian Orthodox impact on the Inuit.

[77] Posted by Ed McNeill on 12-6-2009 at 01:16 AM · [top]

“This election and +Shaw’s recent pronouncement should prove to the Communion that canons and promises no longer matter or have any meaning in TEC”.

Yeah, and obviously those two dioceses are trying to compete with one another for the “prophetic” award. 

Or is it really another word beginning with p and ending with d?

[78] Posted by Passing By on 12-6-2009 at 01:23 AM · [top]

#45 It was amusing to see Athanasius Returns channel the coroner from the Wizard of Oz. “Really, Truly Dead.”

[79] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 12-6-2009 at 02:03 AM · [top]

This becomes very hard to explain to our Orthodox and Catholic friends way over here in Moldova.  Unfortunately there is a quick tendency to judge all American Christians by TEC’s actions.  And unfortunately, it is those who love our Anglican services and traditions, that get called out.
We are thankful for those Catholic (both Uniate and Latin rite)who have made room for us.

[80] Posted by Moldova on 12-6-2009 at 03:56 AM · [top]

There are so very many things that are wrong with this, that it’s hard to know where to begin.

[81] Posted by J Eppinga on 12-6-2009 at 06:17 AM · [top]

Agreeing with Fr. Kennedy and others, it is a great day not to be an Episcopalian.  In the past I would have a cold, sick feeling in my stomach on reading this.  Now, while I am disappointed, it is no longer something which I need to ignore or excuse to remain in TEC.  Now, off to church in the cafeteria.

[82] Posted by APB on 12-6-2009 at 08:09 AM · [top]

RE: “it is no longer something which I need to ignore or excuse to remain in TEC.”

Of course, for those of us happily in TEC it’s nothing that we need ignore or excuse either.

RE: “it is a great day not to be an Episcopalian.”

It’s a great day not to be an ACNAian.

[83] Posted by Sarah on 12-6-2009 at 08:21 AM · [top]

I wonder if any of the ‘centerists’ will try to pretend that because she is a suffragan bishop instead of a bishop with jurisdiction, that somehow TEC is still abiding by the moratorium.

[84] Posted by AndrewA on 12-6-2009 at 08:38 AM · [top]

Show me where Jesus himself disapproves of lesbians.

[85] Posted by DesertDavid on 12-6-2009 at 10:03 AM · [top]

That’s brilliant theology, DesertDavid.  Brilliant!

Whatever issue or lifestyle, just say “Show me where Jesus himself disapproves of ________”.  It’s like theology by MadLibs.  Any word or phrase fits there.

[86] Posted by DietofWorms on 12-6-2009 at 10:09 AM · [top]

[85] DesertDavid

Show me where Jesus himself disapproves of lesbians.

You have posited a false dilemma - as if somehow the words of Jesus are more authoritative and binding than the rest of Scripture.  This is not the case.  All Scripture finds its authority in God.  Paul spoke no less the Word of God than Jesus.  Nor Moses.  Nor Jeremiah.  The speaker is not the issue.  The One Who gives the word to the speaker is the issue.

To your direct question, there is no direct place where Jesus mentions Lesbianism.  Homosexuality was a non-controversial issue in Jewish culture.  There was no reason for Jesus to directly mention a part of the Law that was unquestioned.  But Jesus does affirm the integrity of the Law, and the Law condemns it.  We therefore cannot infer from silence that He was morally neutral on the subject.  If He affirms the Law, and the Law condemns, then He affirms the condemnation.  Nor would we desire to consistently apply this principle of inferring approval by silence.  Jesus also did not mention burning children in fires of Molech.  Should we therefore suspect He tacitly approved?

carl

[87] Posted by carl on 12-6-2009 at 10:35 AM · [top]

RE: “Show me where Jesus himself disapproves of lesbians [same-gender female sexual relationships].”

Easy—the same place where Jesus disapproves of same-gender male sexual relationships.

In his frequent injunctions against “porneia”—which encompasses the gamut of sexual sin according to Jewish law.

I’m going to assume that DesertDavid knows about this—and that therefore he’s just engaging in spin and obfuscation—just to see what we’d say.  To assume otherwise would be to assume that DD is vastly vastly ignorant of Holy Scripture, Jesus’s words, and Jewish law.

[88] Posted by Sarah on 12-6-2009 at 10:38 AM · [top]

Carl, thanks for #87.

AndrewA, maybe we should have a pool on how long it will take one of them to come up with that excuse.

Pageantmaster, is the feeling in England that, assuming there ever *is* a two-tier communion, TEC would be in the second tier? I am beginning to think that ultimately, the orthodox will be consigned to a second tier - assuming any would take that place.

[89] Posted by oscewicee on 12-6-2009 at 10:41 AM · [top]

Along with Jesus’ affirmation of male-female marriage as divine design, and his above mentioned endorsement of the Law and the Prophets as the guiding moral standard, he told us several other important things that rule out lesbianism as fit for Christian leadership.
Having grown up in L.A. and “heard the stories” in endless secular and church venues, I have to say that relatively few lesbians give the same testimony as gay men.  Many gay men speak of “knowing early on that I was ‘different’”.  Lesbians more often speak of choice , usually as reaction-formation to an abusive male.  When lesbians speak of “not liking men,” they don’t just mean sexual attraction.
And so we come to Jesus’ teachings on reconciliation, of hateful thoughts being as bad as murder, of refraining from retaliation, and his harsh words for those who use the clergy office to advance an essentially self-centered agenda.  Lesbian ideology often maintains stereotypes and resentments based upon past trauma, which is a deadly flaw to take to the altar or into a pulpit.

[90] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 12-6-2009 at 10:54 AM · [top]

#89 Oscewicee
“is the feeling in England that, assuming there ever *is* a two-tier communion, TEC would be in the second tier?”
A good question.  I think that this very much is in TEC’s hands.  If they carry on with gay bishops and gay weddings all the indications are that this will be the case.  In reality they already are; most of the Communion won’t talk to them.

I think the first question is will there be a Covenant.  So far Rowan Williams has bent over backwards to accomodate TEC on any terms, and I have no reason to believe that this will not continue, coupled with a fair amount of denial by our bishops judging by the Bishop of Bristol’s latest missive.

I think the question is becoming will there be a Communion with Rowan Williams in place or will other ad hoc arrangements come into play.  For the Communion and the CofE this is very serious.

When the dust has settled, the Church of England will have to decide on the second question of where we stand - with anyone else, or maybe even just on our own if we carry on on the current track.

[91] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 12-6-2009 at 10:55 AM · [top]

I might add to my #91 in reply to the second part of oscewicee’s piece:
“I am beginning to think that ultimately, the orthodox will be consigned to a second tier - assuming any would take that place.”
I don’t think so - the vast majority of the Communion is orthodox; there are only a few white liberals, hanging on for dear life to the levers of power, who are trying to wag the dog.  The orthodox will continue in communion together, including those in the UK, one way or another.

[92] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 12-6-2009 at 10:59 AM · [top]

Has anyone publicized the label AINO yet?

Anglican In Name Only.

This is truly sad, but expected, with the slate of candidates presented.  What I don’t understand is how one can be a partnered, unmarried, homosexual and be still be considered for bishop, and if one were partnered, unmarried, and heterosexual one would not be considered.  At least I hope that’s the case.

[93] Posted by Paul B on 12-6-2009 at 11:43 AM · [top]

This is the second of many more to come.  Good luck with TEC.

[94] Posted by Scott Boykin on 12-6-2009 at 12:39 PM · [top]

They really just need a bisexual bishop and a transgendered bishop and they have the whole set!

[95] Posted by DietofWorms on 12-6-2009 at 12:51 PM · [top]

Right, DoW, what’s up with this non-inclusiveness?

[96] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 12-6-2009 at 12:53 PM · [top]

I’m from the Diocese of Maryland. I’ve met Mary Glasspool on more than a few occasions, and I must admit to having more than a twinge of sympathy for her. Say what you will about her theology, etc., but it’s a fact that Mary’s never been anybody’s LGBTQXYZ poster child. And I’d venture to guess that - prior to this election - most people in this diocese had no idea that Mary had a partner at home at all. It’s not that she ever denied it, she’s just never allowed her sexuality to become her whole identity and raison d’etre. You know, kind of like a normal person.

So while I disagree with her stance on most of the important questions facing our church these days, in fairness I must grant that she’s never been one of the “Look at Me! Look at Me! I’m queer!” faction, like the Simple Country Bishop or the Swan of Newark. And, unless she’s done a complete 180° in the last couple of months, the folks who are expecting her to be the New Queer Face of the Episcopal Church are going to be severely disappointed.

[97] Posted by Athanasian on 12-6-2009 at 01:27 PM · [top]

#97, besides the myriad of problems that folks have touched on, I guess I’d want to respond this way to the “I’m gay but I don’t draw attention to it” bit. This woman knows the stakes for the church and for the communion if/when she is elected when she threw her name in the hat. She wants to be a bishop, which is supposed to be a symbol of unity for the church, which gathers around its bishops. She has to know that her election will further rip the fabric of the church rather than heal divisions. And yet she chooses to promote her own agenda by her stand for bishop, despite knowing the profound damage and division her election will do. It is a self-centeredness and myopia that just astounds me - to watch a church you presumably love being ripped apart by your very election to an office that is supposed to personify unity. Anyone who chooses to put their own need to be bishop above the greater good of the church has no business being a bishop.

[98] Posted by advocate on 12-6-2009 at 03:20 PM · [top]

77…Ed…touche…you’re right…I don’t know where my brain is.  I was thinking the peoples from the Aleutians on down into the Pacific Northwest…

[99] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-6-2009 at 04:23 PM · [top]

Canon Glasspool, who lives with her long-term partner Becki Sander, acclaimed her election as a victory for gay rights.
‘Any group of people who have been oppressed because of any one, isolated, aspect of their person yearns for justice and equal rights,’ she said.

I guess that clears that up.

[100] Posted by martin5 on 12-6-2009 at 05:10 PM · [top]

Folks, this is getting silly. If anyone can look @ the vote for BO25 & think that TEC will not approve their second GLBT bishop needs to ease back on the burbon & funny smokes. Bob Richenburg, Free evangelical

[101] Posted by Senger on 12-6-2009 at 05:56 PM · [top]

Already fallout from this in our parish.  Two families have indicated they can no longer abide with the apostasy and will worship in another denomination.  Several other families are talking of bolting.  Our parish was barely hanging in before this.  Now, I suspect we may have to throw in the towel.

[102] Posted by priestwalter on 12-6-2009 at 06:28 PM · [top]

#85 writes, “Show me where Jesus himself disapproves of lesbians.”

This is an interesting statement. The written Hebrew Scriptures are silent on female-female homosexual practice. There’s no affirmation, but also no “thou-shalt-not.”

Female-female homosexual practice is clearly forbidden in the rabbinic law, the oral tradition. Paul is speaking as a learned Pharisee when he directly addresses female-female homosexual practice.

One must assume that this tradition was older than Paul’s era, and I would guess that female-female homosexual practice DOES fall within the porneia of which Jesus speaks.

However, I’m hardly a Bible scholar.

So, one must also ask, “Show me where Scripture approves of female-female homosexual practice, or where Jesus specifically affirms it.”

[103] Posted by Ralph on 12-6-2009 at 06:55 PM · [top]

Athanasian,
Thank you for your frank remarks about Bishop-elect Glasspool(#97).  I too am part of the Diocese of Maryland, know Mary through her work, and concur with your observations and analysis.

[104] Posted by Dick Mitchell on 12-6-2009 at 06:58 PM · [top]

priestwalter, there are people you can call.

[105] Posted by Going Home on 12-6-2009 at 07:06 PM · [top]

Priestwalter,
CALL Diocese of SC ASAP! Our bishop is looking for parishes like yours for missional relationships. Not sure what that may entail but hey there are plenty of parishes here that would be glad to send you CDs of their services and other info. Also, get in contact SC anglican communion network. http://www.sc-acn.net

[106] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 12-6-2009 at 07:17 PM · [top]

I agree that only two votes in the JSC would do anything in response to this. Its a dead issue there.  The ABC will resist and subvert any up and down vote of the Primates, but even if one occurred, I doubt the votes are there to expel TEC. That war has been lost.

TXThurifer, I agree, and disagree.  Those of us in the ACNA need to accept the fact that there is no longer any chance, if there ever was, for a reformation of the Communion that will result in a linkage between Canterbury with the ACNA.  So what happens in LA, and between TEC and Canterbury, is intersting but not really relevant to us outsiders except to the extent that it produces new members from disgruntled Episcopaleons.  The future of our churches will rise or fall on our success in making solely with our Global South friends.

[107] Posted by Going Home on 12-6-2009 at 07:18 PM · [top]

#85,  How about “Therefore a man leaves his mother and father and cleaves to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.”?  Surely you can’t say that Jesus just didn’t happen to mention that this could happen with two men or two women as well?  When God speaks we don’t construe His words like a limited legal document!  It is so very obvious that two men or two women cannot be one flesh, since this is NOT something rooted in their emotions, feelings, or private will, but something rooted in the nature of their total persons including their bodies, which are clearly made by God for each other.  Their one flesh union enables them to fulfil the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. 
None of this has anything to do with what two women or two men might choose to do with each other,  to gratify themselves, or to please each other, or to express affection, which I don’t for a moment doubt that homosexual “sex” can do. 

God doesn’t “disapprove of lesbians” because there really aren’t any lesbians or any “gay” men either.  There are just men and women whose sexual desires are more or less disordered by the fall.  To ALL of them God forbids any use of the sexual organs for gratification except between a husband and wife in an act whose fruitfulness has not been deliberately frustrated.  That last phrase, of course is only taught clearly by Catholics these days,  but I think it is clear from the whole thrust of the Biblical understanding of man and woman and marriage, and its denial will eventually lead, not any specific individual necessarily, but the church or society which engages in it,  to the point where it cannot understand what is wrong with homosexual behavior, or how a homosexual “couple”  is so different from a man and his wife.

Susan Peterson

[108] Posted by eulogos on 12-6-2009 at 07:25 PM · [top]

This is such a yawn. When is TEC going to get truly progressive and elect an atheist bishop? (Out-of-the-closet atheist, I mean.)

[109] Posted by Romkey on 12-6-2009 at 07:34 PM · [top]

I’m sorry to have to disagree with my MD friends, but I was in Mary’s Annapolis church for her 7 years there, and she was definitely preaching about and supporting the GLBT agenda, albeit in a rather “nuanced” manner (couldn’t resist.) Many of us who are orthodox (and have all since left) were ready to run screaming from the church should we be subjected to another sermon about homosexuality, which was usually accompanied by her tears for the oppressed.  Very little said about sin or repentance (other than not being inclusive, of course) or holiness of life or transformed spiritual life.  The arrival of a gay community came through her doors.
  Just because she’s more subtle than Gene doesn’t mean she’s not part of the same group.  She rammed the “welcoming and affirming” designation through vestry, was unpleasant and disrespectful toward a conservative vestry member, and continued her work at the diocesan level to expand gay clergy and gay rights.

My guess is this has been the passion of her ministry for much of her ministry.

[110] Posted by cityonahill on 12-6-2009 at 08:31 PM · [top]

Response to #108:  The phrase “whose fruitfulness has not been deliberately frustrated” is clearly a reference to artificial birth control.  It is rather late in the day for Anglicans to be concerned about that.  My recollection is that a resolution, adopted by Lambeth Conference in 1930, acknowledged that the use of artifical birth control by married persons was a matter they were decide according to their own consciences.

[111] Posted by Apocalypse on 12-6-2009 at 09:13 PM · [top]

85…simply put…your statement is not genuine by intention or grammatically correct for this situation.  I think you’re just goading people…trying to trap them into a corner with the phrasing.  You’re saying if a person doesn’t approve of lesbianism, then they don’t approve of lesbians, right?  That’s very narrow-minded thinking.  It is possible to approve of a LESBIAN…but not approve of LESBIANISM.  Or do you tie your sexual identity and the rest of your identity together as one and the same???  I have many friends and family I love dearly, in that boat, but I…gasp…don’t approve of the non-celibate road taken.

[112] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-6-2009 at 10:25 PM · [top]

111…this Anglican is concerned about it…but I would be labeled an extremist by even some of the most conservative Anglicans for my position on the Lambeth 1930 mess.

[113] Posted by TXThurifer on 12-6-2009 at 10:28 PM · [top]

RE: “it is no longer something which I need to ignore or excuse to remain in TEC.”

Of course, for those of us happily in TEC it’s nothing that we need ignore or excuse either.

RE: “it is a great day not to be an Episcopalian.”

It’s a great day not to be an ACNAian.

Then, with this logic, is it right to say, “It IS a great day to be a great big, oozing, festering, hurting thorn in TEC’s (and EVERY other revisionist’s) side”?

Everyone is, at a maximum, but one episcopal election away from full control by a thoroughgoing revisionist.

I wonder how one can remain “happily in TEC” under these circumstances.  I understand the reasons those remain have (no need to reiterate the reasons, we know them), but I do not get the “happily” in light of the revisionists’ verbally and politically billyclubbing anything and anyone standing in their way.

Anyways, the happily thing has me gobsmacked.

I am a dodo.

[114] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 12-7-2009 at 03:30 AM · [top]

[comment deleted—troll banned]

[115] Posted by tertullian on 12-8-2009 at 12:47 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.