From here:

Like many other Dioceses across the Episcopal Church, we will soon consider the election of Canon Mary Glasspool as Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Los Angeles. We pledge to do so prayerfully, recognizing, as the Archbishop of Canterbury stated, that our decision “will have very important implications” for the future of the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion.

We regret the recent statement by the Bishop of Los Angeles, The Rt. Rev. John Bruno, that withholding consent because of Canon Glasspool’s sexuality “would be a violation of the canons of this church.” The theme of the most recent General Convention, hosted by the Diocese of Los Angeles, was “Ubuntu.” At that convention the Presiding Bishop invited the Church “into a larger and more expansive way of understanding identity in community.” We thus find the threat of canonical discipline, however veiled or unintended, sadly ironic to the call of living in community despite our differences, even differences on the subject of human sexuality.

For our part, we pledge to respectfully and prayerfully consider Canon Glasspool’s election, not only in light of her qualifications, but also in light of our valued place in the Anglican Communion and the call of the proposed Covenant to act in continuity and consonance with Scripture and the catholic and apostolic faith, order, and tradition, as received by the Churches of the Anglican Communion. We encourage other Standing Committees in the Episcopal Church do the same, pledging our prayers for Canon Glasspool, Bishop Bruno, The Diocese of Los Angeles, and the Episcopal Church.

With the election of a non-celibate lesbian priest as Bishop Suffragan, the Diocese of Los Angeles has demonstrated its belief that membership in an international communion of churches is less important than unilaterally proceeding with an agenda of sexual liberation. We believe that this action is contrary to the best interest of the Episcopal Church and the health of the wider Anglican Communion. Where restraint has been respectfully requested by the leadership of the Communion, this action by the Diocese of Los Angeles is provocative, defiant and uncharitable.

We wish to distance ourselves from this action and urge our bishops and standing committees, as well as those of all the dioceses, to withhold consent for the consecration of the Bishop Suffragan-elect of the Diocese of Los Angeles.

The signatories may be found here.

From here:

As you may be aware, on Saturday, December 5, the Diocese of Los Angeles elected the Rev. Mary D. Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, as one of two bishops suffragan elected in that diocese over the weekend. This election, like all elections to the episcopate, must receive a majority of consents from bishops exercising jurisdiction (that is, diocesan bishops) as well as diocesan Standing Committees of the Episcopal Church within 120 days of the election. In response to this election, the Archbishop of Canterbury released the following statement on December 6: “The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole. The process of selection however is only part complete. The election has to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan standing committees. That decision will have very important implications. The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold.”

Previously, the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church meeting in Columbus, Ohio, in June 2006, passed resolution B033 that called “upon the Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on the communion.” There was much conversation at this year’s 76th General Convention in Anaheim about whether the actions of the 2009 Convention had repealed B033. We are mindful of the statement of this summer’s General Convention that acknowledged that “members of The Episcopal Church, as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters” (resolution D025). We reiterate our belief that The Episcopal Church should exercise the restraint called for by the Anglican Communion and, likewise, will not consent to this election.

This election in Los Angeles comes at a time when we are expecting, within the next few weeks, the release of the final draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant, which seeks to guide our common life as a communion of churches. Our diocese, through actions at Diocesan Council and statements from our leadership, has consistently affirmed our support of the requests of the wider Communion in these matters, as well as the ongoing Anglican Covenant process.

Thus ++Rowan played true to his role as Archbishop of Canterbury, while Bishop Griswold, enthusiastically supported by the same-sex activists in ECUSA, arrogated to himself the right to act in derogation of the bishops of Lambeth. Both did so despite the scorn which each thereby called upon his decision — although the collective scorn heaped upon ++Rowan has never ceased, while that allocated to Presiding Bishop Griswold ended with his retirement. By remaining on the stage, and what is more by remaining steadfastly true to the limitations of his position, Archbishop Rowan has remained the sole target on which both sides could vent their anger. Hence he is in the impossible part of a “first among equals” who is now seen as neither “first” nor “equal”.

Meanwhile, back at ECUSA, the Most Reverend Frank Griswold has given place to the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori. If Bishop Griswold arrogated to himself the right to act in derogation of his colleagues at Lambeth, Bishop Jefferts Schori seized the opportunity to so to act even before she had ever gone to Lambeth and met her equals. What is more, she has from the outset of her term in office presumed to act in derogation of her own equals in her own Church. The result has been a double usurpation of authority: where ++Griswold claimed only the right to consecrate a duly elected bishop in defiance of the advice of Resolution 1.10, ++Jefferts Schori has not only announced that she will do the same if the requisite consents for Canon Glasspool are received, but she also has made herself the sole arbiter of whether a bishop who transfers to another Church in the Anglican Communion thereby renounces his orders.

In presuming to claim that the Right Reverend Henry Scriven so renounced his orders in transferring from the Diocese of Pittsburgh to the Diocese of Oxford, and in recently declaring that the Right Reverend Keith Ackerman had done the same in resigning the Diocese of Quincy and going to work under the Bishop of Bolivia, the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA has effectively declared that she alone will be the judge of who can become, and who can remain, a bishop in the Episcopal Church (USA) — regardless of what her equals in the Communion may believe. They are, to that extent, no longer her equals, but only bishops to be tolerated if they stay out of her way, to be ignored if they presume to disagree, and to be denounced and punished by any means possible if they try to hinder or interfere.

When one bishop so distorts the polity of the Communion as to claim the power to decide status without regard to the opinion — nay, the full consensus — of the other bishops in the Anglican Communion, what we have is no longer a Communion, but an autarchy.

Read it carefully and read it all.

The Anglican Church has been divided on openly homosexual clergy, with some saying Canon Glasspool’s election makes a schism inevitable.

”I think this will confirm the view of people who say the communion is already broken, let’s face up to the facts, let’s not pretend,” said the Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth.

”There is deep division here on profound principle, about which I can see no middle ground.”

Read it all.

On Monday, Archbishop Luke Orombi’s assistant for International Relations, Ms Alison Barfoot, described as “funny and unbiblical” the choice of Ms Glasspool.

“We believe the Bible condemns homosexual behaviour as immoral. So how can a homosexual be a bishop?” she said. “This decision of the Episcopal Church in America [the equivalent Anglican Church there] will only bring more problems and divisions.”

Canon Glasspool appeared unfazed by the criticisms, telling The Times newspaper of London in comments published on Monday: “Any group of people who have been oppressed because of any one isolated aspect of their persons yearns for justice and equal rights.”

Read it all.

From here:

The people of the Diocese of Los Angeles have elected two extraordinarily gifted priests to serve them as Suffragan Bishops. They have chosen the two people who, in their minds, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are best suited for this ministry, and one of them happens to be a lesbian. But let us be clear: it is Mary Glasspool’s experience, skills and faith which will make her a good bishop, and are the reason for her election. Rightly so, the people of Los Angeles have not let current arguments over homosexuality or threats to “unity” impair their choosing the best persons for these ministries.

This is the inclusive Church we declared at this summer’s General Convention we would be, following God’s call to us as best we can discern it, and we are now living into that calling. I am delighted over the elections of Diane Bruce and Mary Glasspool and, upon consent by the wider church, look forward to welcoming them both into the House of Bishops.

[Mary] Glasspool, canon to the bishops of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, was elected bishop suffragan of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles on Saturday. The Annapolis resident is to be installed in May, pending the consent of the bishops and standing committees of the 108 other Episcopal dioceses of the United States.

In a release, Bishop of Los Angeles J. Jon Bruno said the denial of consent “would be a violation of the canons of this church. At our last General Convention, we said we are nondiscriminatory.”

Bruno, whom Glasspool would assist as bishop suffragan, acknowledged rumors of a concerted effort not to give consent over her sexuality. Glasspool has been in a committed relationship with her partner for two decades.

“I would remind the Episcopal church and the House of Bishops they need to be conscientious about respecting the canons of the church and the baptismal covenant to respect the dignity of every human being,” Bruno said. “To not consent in this country out of fear of the reaction elsewhere in the Anglican Communion is to capitulate to titular heads.”

Read it all.

This speaks volumes, but not in the way its author intends.

The spiritual leader of the global Anglican Communion issued an unusually sharp and swift rebuke to Episcopal Church leaders over the election of an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.

In a terse statement, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams delivered a warning to bishops, clergy and lay representatives of the U.S. church about the confirmation of the Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool, a lesbian who has been in a partnered relationship for two decades.

Glasspool must still gain a majority of votes from bishops and standing committees of clergy and lay leaders in the Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of the worldwide communion. That voting process will unfold over the next four months as U.S. leaders consider Glasspool and another priest, the Rev. Canon Diane M. Jardine Bruce, who was picked for a second “suffragan,” or assistant bishop post in Los Angeles.

Read it all.

“The General Convention’s decision to approve the appointment of Gene Robinson will inevitably have a significant impact on the Anglican Communion throughout the world and it is too early to say what the result of that will be.
It is my hope that the church in America and the rest of the Anglican Communion will have the opportunity to consider this development before significant and irrevocable decisions are made in response. I have said before that we need as a church to be very careful about making decisions for our own part of the world which constrain the church elsewhere.
It will be vital to ensure that the concerns and needs of those across the Communion who are gravely concerned at this development can be heard, understood and taken into account.”
August 6th 2003
—————————————
Archbishop to convene primates meeting

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is to convene an extraordinary meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion this autumn. The meeting will take place in London in mid-October and it is expected that invitations will be sent out in the next week.

Dr Williams said that the effects of recent developments at the ECUSA General Convention were being felt throughout the Communion and there was a need for the Primates to meet to consider them.

“I am clear that the anxieties caused by recent developments have reached the point where we will need to sit down and discuss their consequences. I hope that in our deliberations we will find that there are ways forward in this situation which can preserve our respect for one another and for the bonds that unite us.

“I hope we can use the time between now and then to reflect, to pray, to consult and to take counsel.”
August 8, 2003
———————————————-

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has issued a statement following the consecration of Canon Gene Robinson as bishop coadjutor of New Hampshire. The text is below.

“It was recognised fully at last month’s meeting of Anglican leaders that the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop in New Hampshire would have very serious consequences for the cohesion of the Anglican Communion. That meeting requested the setting up of a Commission which would examine these consequences in depth. Last week the membership of that group was announced and I look forward to being in close touch with it as its work develops. [See ACNS3652]

“The meeting also encouraged me to be in discussion with the leaders of the provinces concerned about provisions made for those alienated by decisions which appear to go against Catholic order or biblical teaching. Such discussion has already begun.

“The divisions that are arising are a matter of deep regret; they will be all too visible in the fact that it will not be possible for Gene Robinson’s ministry as a bishop to be accepted in every province in the communion.

“It is clear that those who have consecrated Gene Robinson have acted in good faith on their understanding of what the constitution of the American church permits. But the effects of this upon the ministry and witness of the overwhelming majority of Anglicans particularly in the non-western world have to be confronted with honesty.

“The autonomy of Anglican provinces is an important principle. But precisely because we rely on relations more than rules, consultation and interdependence are essential for our health. “The Primates meeting last month expressed its desire to continue as ‘a communion where what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us’. We need now to work very hard to giving new substance to this, and to pray for wisdom, patience and courage as we move forward.”

November 3, 2003

“I can’t say it surprises me,” said the Rt. Rev. Mark Lawrence, bishop of the South Carolina diocese, which has begun withdrawing from some of the national church’s councils to protest the policies on gays. He said the split in the church is likely to endure:

“Is there anything that can be done to bridge it? No one has come up with it yet.”

—From one version of an LA Times story

BBC religious affairs correspondent Chris Landau says that for an Anglican Communion already fracturing over the issue of homosexuality, this election is yet more evidence of the church’s divisions.

He says that for many in the US, electing openly homosexual bishops is simply a reflection of the diversity long affirmed by that Church and that it would be very surprising if Mary Glasspool’s election wasn’t approved.

Episcopal Church leader, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, has said she will consecrate any bishop whose election follows the rules.

Read it all.

The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.

The process of selection however is only part complete. The election has to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan standing committees. That decision will have very important implications.

The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold.

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles elected a lesbian as assistant bishop Saturday, the second openly gay bishop in the global Anglican fellowship, which is already deeply fractured over the first.

The Rev. Mary Glasspool of Baltimore needs approval from a majority of national church leaders before she can be consecrated as assistant bishop in the Los Angeles diocese.

Still, her victory underscored a continued Episcopal commitment to accepting same-sex relationships despite enormous pressure from other Anglicans to change their stand.

Read it all.

This decision represents an intransigent embrace of a pattern of life Christians throughout history and the world have rejected as against biblical teaching. It will add further to the Episcopal Church’s incoherent witness and chaotic common life, and it will continue to do damage to the Anglican Communion and her relationship with our ecumenical partners.

–The Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon is Canon Theologian of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina

We are committed to Jesus Christ and also to The Episcopal Church and we rejoice in its rich historic, authentic tradition of worship, outreach, and evangelistic mission while also seeking to be a place where all are welcome to worship the Lord and grow in grace.

However, recent actions in some portions of the church have raised great concerns for us. Specifically the actions of the 76th General Convention in resolutions D025 and C056 which we believe do not serve the Church well, especially in the wider context of our relationship to The Anglican Communion. While we understand that we represent a congregation with varying opinions on issues of sexuality, we also believe these resolutions open the door to innovations, which are not in concert with the majority of the Church and certainly The Communion. We are concerned that the passing of these resolutions will continue to strain our international relationships and we believe that they encourage an ethical stance, which is contrary to scripture. For these reasons we reject them.

We are also concerned with opening remarks made by The Presiding Bishop at the General Convention. We find her statement that the “great western heresy (is that) we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be right with God” extremely troubling. We have read the full text of her speech and while we appreciate her emphasis on exercising our faith in right relationship, we believe her statement about individual salvation to be wrong, and we reject it.

Read it all.

The history and constitution of the Episcopal Church commits it to historic Faith and Order as set forth in the classical Prayer Book ”“ which is to say, the teaching of Scripture, as received in the tradition of the Church, and held in common by the churches of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Over the last thirty five years or so, however, the General Convention has established a dangerous habit of ignoring its fundamental commitments of Truth and Unity, and thereby compromised both its witness and worship. In the face of these broken commitments to Truth and Unity, we cannot remain silent. We must bear witness.

The Commitment to Truth. Christian life begins in hearing the Word of God, and receiving it for what it is, the life-giving word of truth. This word is not something we just naturally know, or that the world teaches us: it is revealed to us in Jesus Christ, and communicated to us by his Spirit, through the witness of the Apostles, recorded in the New Testament. Such faith in the Word of God is not opposed to reason: indeed, faith seeks to understand what it believes, to grasp its meaning and implications, and therefore reason is indispensable to faith. Nor is such faith opposed to the Church’s tradition: for it is only in the company of the saints, that we can truly understand what the Word of God is saying.
For Episcopalians, the wisdom of Scripture and the saints, is embodied above all in the historic Prayer Book. It is no accident that when the historic prayer book was jettisoned in 1979 a tide of false teaching, moral relativism, and cultural conformity rushed in. Episcopalians still read the Bible in their services, recite the Creed, profess faith, and refer to the Church’s tradition: but as a church they do not pay much attention to them. The controversies in the church about its ordained ministry and about marriage are just two examples of this deaf ear. There may be many good reasons to ignore the scriptural distinction of sex in marriage and ordained ministry. But no one has yet demonstrated that these reasons are in accord with the Word of God. This will not do. If we are serious about being Christians and being a Church, we must not be silent in the face of this broken commitment to the Truth. We must bear witness.

The Commitment to Unity. Those who believe the word of God are called to love one another, and accept the constraints of love binding them together in the unity of the Church’s fellowship. The current controversy in the Episcopal Church makes clear that this challenge to love one another and to maintain the bond of unity is not just a local effort, but a global one. Unity in the Body of Christ means that local or national churches do not have the moral right to make decisions about matters that affect the faith a global church holds in common. As the Archbishop of Canterbury recently reminded the Episcopal Church, “What affects the communion of all should be decided by all”. When churches make unilateral decisions about matters of faith, in the words of the Windsor Report, they are breaking the “proper constraints of the bonds of affection”. They sin against charity.

In this regard, the recent record of the Episcopal Church is nothing short of disgraceful. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference, the bishops of the Anglican Communion overwhelming reaffirmed traditional teaching about sexuality in Resolution 1.10. The Episcopal Church has chosen to ignore and reject this consensus, at times by direct defiance, and at other times through deliberate ambiguity – saying one thing and doing another. Instead of engaging honestly in the “dialogue” about which it so often speaks, it has sought to intimidate its critics by litigation, and to subvert them by bureaucratic manoeuvre and financial incentive. This is not the act of the Church, but of a schismatic sect. In the face of this broken commitment to Unity, we cannot be silent. We must bear witness.

The Commitment to Witness. As the lessons for this Sunday teach us, the Word of God not only opens our deaf ears to hear the truth: it also releases our tongues to sing his praise in worship and in witness, making us, who are not “sufficient in ourselves to think any of ourselves”, to be “able ministers of the new testament” ”“ effective witnesses to the judgment and mercy of God in Christ.

Structural reforms of the Church are no doubt in order. But what is primary is the work of witness, just as it was for Christ and his Apostles. In a world where the political and religious authorities were alike opposed to God, their primary work was that of witness. As Christ said before Pilate, “to this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth” (John 18:37). Nor did he keep his head down and his criticism private. “I spake openly in the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple”¦and in secret have I said nothing” (John 18:20). It is not witness, unless it is public. “Pray for me” says the Apostle, in prison for the sake of the gospel, “that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make know the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak” (Ephesians 6:18, 19).

Dear friends in Christ, the time has come for us to speak boldly. I do not mean stridently, or bitterly, or harshly, or self-righteously. Our principle must be that of the Apostle ”“ “speaking the truth in love”. But speak the truth we must. It is my hope that the Statement of the Clergy, Wardens and Vestry (August 30th) will indeed find wide dissemination, and that it will indeed provoke comment. Some of that will come to the clergy, some to the vestry, some to parishioners. We must not see such comment as threat but as opportunity: an opportunity to speak with clarity and charity and conviction about what matters critically to being the Church, and being a Christian. We may not always find agreement: but I suspect we shall often find respect: more importantly, we shall be bearing witness to the hope that is in us.

For such mission, such witness, such testimony is always an act of hope in God: it is God’s to vindicate, when and as he chooses. But the Scripture assures us that God most certainly does vindicate true witness. And it is in vindicating true witness that God’s plan for his Church and people is carried out. I doubt that any of us will have to die for our faith, or suffer gravely for it. But there will be no reform of the Church, if we keep our heads down, and our mouths shut. In the face of our Church’s broken commitments to Truth and Unity, we cannot remain silent. We must bear witness. May the Lord who does all things well, who makes the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak, open our ears to his Word of truth, and our mouths to his praise. Amen.

—-The Rev. Gavin Dunbar is rector of Saint John’s, Savannah, Georgia; this is a shortened form of a sermon Father Dunbar gave toward the end of August

Where does all this leave us as Anglicans? Our problem, as has been made painfully clear in the current crisis, is that we do not really know who we are. It will not do to defer to scripture as if scripture stands outside the catholic and ecumenical tradition, for this attitude easily suggests, however unintentionally, that we read the scriptures alone, and that we alone mediate their interpretation.

Instead, let us follow the vision of Lambeth 1920, at which the bishops urged “every branch of the Anglican Communion” to “prepare its members for taking their part in the universal fellowship of the reunited Church, by setting before them the loyalty which they owe to the universal Church, and the charity and understanding which are required of the members of so inclusive a society” (Resolution 15).

Read it all.

8. The autonomy of TEC dioceses has long been recognized as a feature of TEC polity. For example, the standard text on polity when many of TEC’s current bishops were trained was the volume in the widely-distributed official series in the 1950s and 1960s entitled “The Church’s Teaching.” It was written by the long-time sub-dean and professor of church history at the General Theological Seminary with the assistance of an “Authors’ Committee” composed of numerous church leaders. The author, Dr. Powel Mills Dawley, summarized the role of the diocese as follows:

Diocesan participation in any national program or effort, for example, must be voluntarily given; it cannot be forced. Again, while the bishop’s exercise of independent power within the diocese is restricted by the share in church government possessed by the Diocesan Convention or the Standing Committee, his independence in respect to the rest of the Church is almost complete.

9. Moreover, the preamble of TEC’s constitution explicitly identifies TEC as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, which it characterizes (quoting the well-known Lambeth Conference resolution) as a fellowship of “Dioceses, Provinces and regional Churches.”

10. Thus, in the case of TEC the relevant constitutional procedures for adopting the Covenant include direct adoption by its autonomous dioceses, which are the highest governing bodies within their territory and enjoy a particular constitutional prerogative concerning constituent membership in the Anglican Communion. Indeed, given the autonomy of TEC dioceses, central bodies such as General Convention could not commit individual dioceses to the Covenant over their objection. Thus, when the Covenant is sent to the member churches, dioceses are appropriate bodies to respond at that time under the unique constitutional procedures of TEC.

Read it all.

An Anglican church cannot simultaneously commit itself through the Anglican Covenant to shared discernment and reject that discernment; to interdependence and then act independently; to accountability and remain determined to be unaccountable. If the battle over homosexuality in The Episcopal Church is truly over, then so is the battle over the Anglican Covenant in The Episcopal Church, at least provisionally. As Christians, we live in hope that The Episcopal Church will at some future General Convention reverse the course to which it has committed itself, but we acknowledge the decisions that already have been taken. These decisions and actions run counter to the shared discernment of the Communion and the recommendations of the Instruments of Communion implementing this discernment. They are, therefore, also incompatible with the express substance, meaning, and committed direction of the first three Sections of the proposed Anglican Covenant. As a consequence, only a formal overturning by The Episcopal Church of these decisions and actions could place the church in a position capable of truly assuming the Covenant’s already articulated commitments. Until such time, The Episcopal Church has rejected the Covenant commitments openly and concretely, and her members and other Anglican churches within the Communion must take this into account. This conclusion is reached not on the basis of animus or prejudice, but on a straightforward and careful reading of the Covenant’s language and its meaning within the history of the Anglican Communion’s well-articulated life.

Read it all.

THE first openly gay bishop in the Anglican communion yesterday criticised the Archbishop of Canterbury’s suggestion of a possible “two-track” church. Gene Robinson, the Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire, said: “I can’t imagine anything that would be more abhorrent to Jesus than a two-tier church.

“Either we are children of God and brothers and sisters in Christ, or we aren’t. There are not preferred children and second-class children. There are just children of God.”

Read it all.

General Convention’s Committee on World Mission spent nearly 90 minutes Saturday morning revising a resolution that, while using polite language about preserving the unity of the Anglican Communion, ultimately repeals Resolution B033.

The amended form of Resolution D025 says the 76th General Convention acknowledges that God may call gays and lesbians, “like any other baptized members, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church.”

Read it all.

[Barbara] Harris referred briefly to a reading from Acts about St. Peter hearing God’s call to welcome Gentiles into the church. Otherwise, her sermon was a collection of barbs””most aimed at conservatives, but with a few challenging her fellow progressives.
”” “Unfortunately, many people who need to be reminded of these truths are not here,” she said, referring to the lesson from Acts.
”” “Some glibly speak of our diversity. ”¦ I am reminded that there was diversity at the Tower of Babel.”
”” Resolution B033 was “not just a grudging response to the Windsor Report, but a ticket ”¦ to attend the Lambeth Conference and to make false peace.”
”” The Archbishop of Canterbury’s message to General Convention, as condensed by Bishop Harris: “Don’t make another unilateral move on the Communion chess board.”
”” “If you don’t want GLBT folks as bishops, don’t ordain them as transitional deacons.”
”” “Better yet, don’t baptize them in the first place.”
”” “Don’t initiate someone and then act like they’re half-ass baptized.”

Read it all.

I now will take comments on this submitted by email only to at KSHarmon[at]mindspring[dot]com

A majority of bishops, deputies, visitors and others who testified before a World Mission Committee public hearing July 9 indicated they hope the Episcopal Church will move beyond resolution B033.

As many as a thousand people attended the two-hour hearing which began at 8 p.m. in the Pacific Ballroom of the Hilton Hotel. A total of 51 people testified; 41 said they hoped the church could move beyond B033, a moratorium on the consecration of bishops whose manner of life presented a challenge to the wider church. Ten others indicated they wanted to retain B033.

Following the hearing, Bishop Gene Robinson -”” who was among those testifying -”” said his “spirit is buoyed” despite stories of pain. “I was overjoyed at the hope and reconciliation people have found in our church. Someone mentioned being a beacon of light. That is a ministry we can reclaim.”

Read the whole article.

For the moment I will leave aside the many problems that attach to TEC’s press for a polycentric communion. It is enough to say that their argument will work only if communion excludes common belief and practice but focuses instead on cooperation in good works and mutual aid. (Though even here, because of conflicting theological commitments, “good works” can be construed quite differently) Of more immediate importance is the logic of inclusive justice. The logic of inclusion employed by progressive Episcopalians excludes meaningful opposition from the start.

This exclusion is of such importance that it must not go unchallenged. It is a matter that concerns all Episcopalians. Exclusion of meaningful opposition in respect to the matters now before The Episcopal Church in the end will produce a niche church rather than a catholic church. Progressive claims to inclusivity are in fact false. The logic of their position drives relentlessly toward an increasingly constricted identity. The question progressive Episcopalians must answer is why members of the Episcopal Church that do not share their views ought to think otherwise. To put the issue more directly, progressive Episcopalians need to show the membership of their church and the rest of the Anglican Communion why their position does not end in an exclusive form of church life rather than a diverse one. This observation leads to a direct question. The question is what reason can be given from the point of view of progressive Episcopalians to a traditional Anglican for being a member of The Episcopal Church. I certainly have my own reasons and have stated them on many occasions. But progressive Episcopalians have claimed something that both their words and actions belie, and it seems only right for them to confront and explain this inconsistency to the rest of us.

Read it all.

Three main problems face the newly formed ACNA, and they are all formidable. All of them in a sense limit the ability of ACNA to break free of its emotional and psychological attachment to that which has brought them to this point. The first revolves around property disputes. I wrote to bishops and deputies to General Convention today suggesting that a trust or trusts be formed to administer disputed property and to enter into temporary agreements in cases in which a vast majority of parishioners in such properties wish no longer to be in TEC, negotiating leases, shared arrangements and creative solutions to take these disputes out of the secular courts. I was not encouraged by the responses I received, most of which accused those leaving us off stealing property or of being so bigoted against gay and lesbians that in justice they should be shunned. Justice, I am told, trumps charity.

The second problem revolves around the language used to depose bishops and other clergy who have joined ACNA which, if language means anything at all, purports to laicise such clergy rather than merely to desprive them of the right to exercise ministry in Provinces in which they have no desire to exercise ministry.

The third is the problematic relationship between ACNA and the Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion which has exported American problems worldwide and threatens to destroy the unity of the entire Communion. If indeed the Communion comes apart because of what has happened here, ACNA will, whether it deserves to be blamed or not, bear a good deal of responsibility for a tragic schism, a responsibility in which it will ironically, be accused of sharing responsibility with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, to what extent perhaps is a judgment differently assessed by people on differing sides of this tragedy.

Read it all.

The alliance between the Anglican Communion Office, the Rev. Marta Weeks, and the Satcher Institute leaves many questions unanswered:

— Who decided this alliance was worth pursuing? The Anglican Communion Office? The Episcopal Church? The Archbishop of Canterbury?

— Who investigated the previous work of the Center of Excellence for Sexual Health and its directors? Did they assume Anglicans would not look closely at this next phase of indaba and miss the potential entry of a Trojan horse into the listening process? How will the ACO ensure that CESH does not influence Continuing Indaba in any way when CESH effectively holds the purse strings and this is exactly the type of process they are actively seeking to be involved in?

— Why is the ACO continuing to misuse the indaba process to bridge opposing theologies and moralities when the process is based on developing consensus within a village or tribe with shared values and morality?

Read it all.

The [Episcopal Church General] convention’s host, the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, has tried to send a message by approving a policy at its December convention that gives local priests permission to officiate at rites of blessing for same-sex couples.

“I think it’s about time we get about the business of having marriage equality in the church,” said the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Los Angeles Diocese. “I am waiting with bated breath to see what happens” at the Anaheim meeting.

Conservative Episcopalians argue that liberalized policies will not only alienate U.S. parishes but will also add further strain to the church’s troubled relationship with church leaders in Africa and elsewhere in the global Anglican Communion.

This month, one of the communion’s worldwide leadership bodies affirmed its support for moratoriums on consecrating non-celibate gay bishops and on blessings for same-sex couples. The group was led by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the communion’s spiritual leader, who is scheduled to attend the Anaheim convention.

Resisting those mandates will “turn up the flame,” said the Rt. Rev. Edward S. Little II, bishop of the Diocese of Northern Indiana and a leader in a group of clergy trying to strengthen Episcopal ties to the Anglican Communion. “If we take a step at General Convention that takes us down the road, we will lose more people,” he said.

Still, the Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, said she believes the U.S. church and its global partners can co-exist even if they disagree on the rights of gay men and lesbians in the church. She also said she did not expect this year’s convention, at which bishops, clergy and lay leaders are allowed to vote, to reach a decision on the issue of same-sex blessing rites.

“We’re not afraid of people watching over our shoulders,” Jefferts Schori said. “We live with diversity on issues that get people charged up.”

Read it carefully and read it all.