LA diocesan bishop J. Jon Bruno has, however, stated, “to not consent in this country out of fear of the reaction elsewhere in the Anglican Communion is to capitulate to titular heads”.
Notice the politicised language and assumptions. Nationalism – “in this country” – has no place in the Christian conception of koinonia. Lambeth, the other Instruments of Communion, and Anglicans across the globe are not “titular heads” – this is not how Anglicans refer to their pastors or brothers and sisters. Bruno’s invocation of the spirit of 1776 signifies something of the cultural conformity in parts of TEC far more significant than differences over same-sex relationships.
Perhaps Los Angeles should be thanked. The diocese has now forced TEC to reflect on whether koinonia or independence are of greater significance.
Bruno also had the temerity to say that failure to consent is non-canonical. The heady way that he and others react to their decisions and to the idea of an actual Communion is a good sign of where TEC now is. Its own church. Proud. Outed.
Risible is the idea of a Bishop condemning ‘titular heads’ — what does he think HE is?
No one in the Anglican Communion is ever forced to do anything. We don’t solve or settle issues, we discuss them into the ground, and then discuss them some more. According to the ABC this: “raises serious questions.” Wow. The one thing absolutely to be avoided is any kind of resolution or closure. There will just be some more of the endless dithering.
TEC has proved it can’t reform or even discipline itself.
So who can do it?
TEC will continue to sail on where no man has gone before. They took the off-ramp to nowhere some time ago.
To quote myself from a thread on SF:
According to Bruno’s own statement, TEC should follow its own canons, in which case, he should immediately inhibit all the priests of his diocese who are communing the unbaptized, then file presentment against himself for the same charge.
1.17 Sec. 7. No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy
Communion in this Church.
And, lets point out that under the canons, the all members of GC who voted for C056 are subject to discipline:
1.18 Sec. 2b (b) That both parties understand that Holy Matrimony is a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman, entered into within the community of faith, by mutual consent of heart, mind, and will, and with intent that it be lifelong.
So, does Bruno really want to trust in the canons? I guess some canons are more equal than others.
The Diocese of Los Angeles is the lunatic fringe. It is a chatty little club of nattering ninnys. Most of the people have not a clue about the history, tradition, or theology of the Episcopal Church. Every person has their own theology: They worship feelings and celebrity. Where else could one first be elected to the Vestry and only subsequently confirmed when the priest in charge realized a step was missed?
[i] Slightly edited. [/i]
The Diocese of Los Angeles has now made it crystal clear that the Episcopal Church is absolutely hell-bent on going on going their own way, no matter what effect their actions have on the rest of the Anglican Communion. They can deny it all they want, and their apologists and spin doctors can prattle on and on until Hell freezes over if they care to, but that isn’t going to change things. They have “made their statements and done their damage,” and as far as I’M concerned, [i]they are personae non grata[/i] amongst the rest of us.
“Lambeth, the other Instruments of Communion, and Anglicans across the globe are not ‘titular heads’ – this is not how Anglicans refer to their pastors or brothers and sisters.”
I agree. In fact, I find that phrase (titular heads) offensive. Rowan Williams is the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion. “Titular” means “existing in title only: nominal.” Bishop Bruno should read the political economist Max Weber on the sources of a leader’s authority: legal or jurisdictional authority is only one source of power or influence, and not always the most important or effective. In the Anglican Communion, a bishop or archbishop is often respected (and carries weight) on the basis of traditional authority or charisma. To speak of “titular heads” frankly smacks of arrogance and ignorance. To be honest, and apart from everything else: a bishop who speaks this way is not the kind of bishop I would think people should feel inclined to pay much attention to.
“The diocese has now forced TEC to reflect on whether koinonia or independence are [is] of greater significance.”
Another good point, but perhaps better expressed as “reflect on whether interdependence [within a worldwide communion / a truly catholic emphasis on the whole church across time] or a prophetic stance [in their own hearts and minds–mainly hearts–anyway] leading to independence is of greater significance.”
I don’t think that TEC sees independence as the highest good–to be fair to TEC. Rather, independence arises out of their desire to go forward, come what may, with their conviction that they are doing the right thing. And they believe that they do not need to put on the mind of the whole Church to determine what the right thing is. As they have said all along, they, in my opinion, glibly proclaim that the Holy Spirit is on their side. (But then I wrote my dissertation on Abraham Lincoln, who was the greatest American theologian of the Civil War because he eschewed that kind of language.)
How is capitulating to a vocal and tyrannical minority any better than capitulating to a titular head ?
Bishop Bruno mischaracterizes the likely reaction of his colleagues. I doubt that “fear” will motivate negative votes. More likely it will be concern for unity of the Church. It cannot be a surprise that this diocese has taken this action. It would be more of a story if the majority of bishops who recently did not confirm the northern Michigan choice of a bishop who had mixed his interest in Buddhist teachings with his liturgical activities would now confirm the elevation of any person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, living in a non-matrimonial, non-celibate relationship.
#6, Dio Mass is not far behind. At least the Vestry members in Dio LA were subsequently confirmed. Vestry members, including wardens and officers don’t even have to be confirmed or received into the church in Dio Mass before serving a term. It is much easier for agenda driven clergy to make up their own church when the decision makers in the parish have no idea about “about the history, tradition, or theology of the Episcopal Church.â€
On the whole, we should be glad of Glasspool’s potential election – though, as I said elsewhere, it may be iffy-er than most think – because it will confirm and yet reconfirm that TEC is an outlaw, that it has become non-Christian, and that it is marginalizing itself of its own free will. If the Anglican commiunion lacks the courage to cast TEC into the outer darkness, as it clearly does, it need do nothing but wring its tender paws, and TEC will do the rest. Nothing TEC can do now will save its skin; it has simply become another Unitarian-Universalist church without the credentials. Larry
Since canon meets as much as Holy Scripture these days, am I entirely off my nut to think that they might not get consents yet consecreate anyway at the behest of KJS?
Grady
RE: “It would be more of a story if the majority of bishops who recently did not confirm the northern Michigan choice of a bishop who had mixed his interest in Buddhist teachings with his liturgical activities would now confirm the elevation of any person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, living in a non-matrimonial, non-celibate relationship.”
NOVA Scout — I’ll take your odds.
I predict 30 bishops vote against consent.
“The diocese has now forced TEC to reflect on whether koinonia or independence are of greater significance.”
Actually, TEC has been reflecting on, and making statements concerning, that for several years now.
No.14: no wager intended, and I have no reason to doubt your calculation. However, the logic of the Forrester vote would, it seems, dictate that it would be even less likely that this candidate for the episcopacy would be confirmed. Whether this logic has any real world viability is another story.
NoVA Scout-
The number of bishops who voted for D025 will be more telling than the number who voted against Forrester. Forrester lost because a large number of pro-gay bishops voted against him, either because he re-wrote their precious baptismal covenant, or for procedural reasons. With 7 ballots and a half dozen candidates, I don’t see much argument that there was not a valid election. (Granted, of course, there are canonical questions about her qualification, but since canons suddenly can be overridden by GC resolutions, those questions are moot) And her theology, while out there from your point of view, or mine, is by all accounts mainstream TEC in the modern day (that is, in line with the PB, Bruno and their ilk). So I think Sarah has a pretty good estimate- figure that most of the pro Do25 bishops will vote in favor. Of course, only the first 56 “yes” votes really get counted, so it may look closer than it is.
This will put the ABoC in full communion with his second openly lesbian bishop- don’t forget Sweden. He sent a strongly worded message about that one too, but still hasn’t actually done anything.