We congratulate you and the people of the Episcopal Church on the electoral process which has led to the election of the Revd Canon Diane Jardine Bruce and the Revd Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool as Suffragan Bishops of the Diocese of Los Angeles. We are aware that the process was carried out with great care and prayer, as will the decisions of Bishops and Standing Committees who consider whether to confirm the elections. We wish the elected candidates all joy in their ministries and assure them of our prayers.
The Anglican and Episcopalian tradition is, at its best, one which celebrates the breadth of human experience and welcomes the many ways in which we, as Christians, try to live out our vocations under God. We are therefore deeply sorry that the reaction from the Church of England to the election of Mary Glasspool has been at best grudging and at worst actively negative.
While it gives us no pleasure to dissociate ourselves from the sentiments expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose wisdom in so many areas we deeply respect, we greatly regret the tone and content of his response, particularly in the context of his failure to make any comment on the seriously oppressive legislation being proposed in Uganda.
I always find it most peculiar when these folks start talking about “The Anglican and Episcopalian tradition is….”
To the best of my knowledge, the Anglican and Episcopalian tradition has always been, until about 25 years ago, that sexual relationships were appropriate only between a man and a woman within the context of their marriage to each other and that while some failed to live up to that standard, those who chose otherwise were not appropriately in Holy Orders. And that older tradition is still the tradition as far as most Anglicans are concerned.
Elegantly written, entirely correct in address.
Elegantly written, entirely correct in address, and utterly confused in logic. The Archbishop of Canterbury is hereby forbidden to comment on any matters bearing on sexuality in the Anglican Communion until he first inserts himself into the political process on sexuality in the Uganda legislature. Truly a non sequitur.
Giles Goddard’s congratulatory message is predictable not only for its content but for its superficiality. To suppose, as he does and so many others unfortunately do as well, that the essence of Anglican tradition is its “big tent” approach (as if comprehensiveness were an end in itself or the primary point) is a very serious misunderstanding of the nature of Anglicanism. He completely misses, whether unintentionally or willfully, that there are very definite limits to such comprehensiveness, and that those limits are set by the Scriptures and the consensus of the whole Christian Church over two millenia. And when judged by that traditional standard, the pro-gay ideology, and the theological and moral relativism that lies behind it, are both manifestly contrary to both Scripture and Tradition, and hence utterly and totally unAnglican.
Anglicanism does have an irreducible core doctrinal content, with accompanying moral behaviors that aren’t up for renegotiation. It can’t be reduced to a mere theological method or ecclesial style; it has a definite subatance as well.
David Handy+
Excellent example. Very clear. Here are a few things I just learned from Inclusive Church:
1. Rebell against the leadership, including the ABC, whenever it suits me
2. Show flagrant disregard to the needs and well-being of fellow Christians, especially if they live in countries with governments I don’t like
3. Misrepresent church history to suit my own agenda
4. Encourage self-serving behavior whenever it suits my agenda
5. Undermine the Communion by encouraging TEC to be utterly independant
6. Use really really sophisticated language to call fellow Christians insecure and immature
7. Promote unilateralism while demanding we work together, as in, “it is time now to move on from these questions which divide us and focus on responding to the huge challenges we face together.”
Are these the lessons I am supposed to learn?
utterly confused in logic. The Archbishop of Canterbury is hereby forbidden to comment on any matters bearing on sexuality in the Anglican Communion until he first inserts himself into the political process on sexuality in the Uganda legislature. Truly a non sequitur.
Actually it is not a non-sequitur at all. The stated issue that the ABC has with the elections and possible (probable?) consent to (+)Glasspool is that it violates the requests of the Primates and the Windsor Report. The support and/or lack of condemnation of the Ugandan law also violates the requests of the Primates and the Windsor Report. So to question one violation and not another is disingenuous.
It wasn’t my experience in the COE that many people had any idea of what was hapening in TEC, let alone approved or disapproved. Good grief, may English parishioners have no interest in what their own diocese is doing 20 or 30 miles up the road so the thought that they are singing hosannas all over the COE becaus of the appointment of a suffragan bishop in Los Angeles is wildly impluasible.
As an aside I would be inteested to know how many supporters Inclusive Church actually claims before coming to a judgment about how far they reliably speak about what “many” people in the COE are thinking or feeling.
So those of us who don’t agree with them are “insecure and immature.” Wow, “sticks and stones…”.
The ABC has as much place in the Ugandan legislature as he has in the California legislature. NONE. And any one who disagrees with a sovereign country’s right to its own legislature can go to the European Union or its local branch at their mall.
You can cite the HOB on the ABC for this if you like. Somewhere around 2007 at New Orleans, as I recall.
…but it *is* nicely written. A single virtue, but an important one.
wow….self important blowhards sitting around in a big circle jerk congratulating eachother on how enlightened and smart they are. Quick, let me grab my surprise face.
BigTex AC
But, as others have said, what a nifty sounding letter.
I treated Mr Goddard’s letter with the respect which it deserves: I read it, and I put it into File 13.
#1 Actually, that was pretty much social convention all over, not just with Episcopalians. Children born out of wedlock were bastards; women worked in the home. Gay people were whispered about.
Perhaps true, John Wilkins/Gawain, but are you not capable of distinguishing the marriage of man and woman theologically from the social conventions you note?
Re #9: The issue is not the conduct of the Ugandan legislature, but of the Ugandan church. A number of senior figures in the Anglican Church of Uganda have come out in support of legislation that would, under some circumstances, impose the death penalty on consensual homosexual conduct, impose prison sentences on anyone who failed to turn in their gay neighbors, and criminalize political speech that advocated tolerance. That flies quite squarely in the face of repeated resolutions and statements by all four of the Anglican Instruments of Communion. The fact that TEC has flouted the will of the Communion does not justify the Ugandan church doing the same thing. If the conduct of one party justifies condemnation as tearing the bonds of affection among Anglicans (as I believe it does), so does the conduct of the other. If the Archbishop of Canterbury can speak out on one of the issues (as I believe he should), he can speak out on the other as well. The Ugandan legislation—and its support within the Ugandan church—provides just one more excuse for the proponents of the Los Angeles election to label their opponents as bigots. Why provide them with that excuse by not treating all transgressions of Lambeth I.10 as being equally grave?
Bravo!
By all means have the ABC speak. It is what he does. It is all he does. Just excuse me if I think that the ABC’s opinion is as received in the Ugandan church as it is, say, in the Diocese of LA or the ECUSA/TEc. I think it enormously ironic that LA constituents expect Uganda to pay the same degree of attention as they have. Goose, gander et alia.
Uganda and Los Angeles are two distinct issues. Those on either side who seek to conflate them are up to mischief. Each can be evaluated independently of the other.
RE: “The Ugandan legislation—-and its support within the Ugandan church—-provides just one more excuse for the proponents of the Los Angeles election to label their opponents as bigots. Why provide them with that excuse . . . ”
Wait — I thought we were all already bigots for believing same-gender sexual activity to be forbidden by Scripture, tradition, and reason?
You mean, if I just go ahead and raise a hand and mouth the words “Bad Bad Ugandans and Ugandan Law” I could possibly gain the good favor of those progressive gay activists whom we all hold in such high esteem and whose good opinion we have all so long sought?
#13 Sure: my point is that the argument “it’s always been this way” isn’t a very good one. If we’re arguing theologically – or even philosophically – then we are onto something different.
The reappraiser position is that complementarity is etiological, not sacramental or teleological. What is crucial to God is that we are each made in the image of God, not by being paired. Practically, what marriage does is create peace between the sexes and help protect children. Reconciliation is the point, not prongs and holes.