I am writing to share with you my decision to give my consent for the consecration of the Rev. Mary Glasspool, bishop suffragan elect, in the Diocese of Los Angeles. What follows address both the considerations of my decision and also my interpretation of related Resolutions of The Episcopal Church, including C056 and D025 of the 2009 General Convention. In the consent process of an Episcopal election, the Church asks all bishops with jurisdiction and all Standing Committees to review the election process and discern the candidate’s suitability as a bishop for the entire Church. Only in a few cases are there questions about the suitability of a candidate or the election process. On such occasions, it has been my custom to inform the diocese of my conclusions.
Throughout her 30 years of ordained ministry, the Rev. Mary Glasspool has been faithful and consistent to the ministry, doctrine and teaching of the Episcopal Church. This includes her current ministry (since 2001) as Canon to the Ordinary in the Diocese of Maryland. In the one area where there is controversy, she has been unquestionably faithful to the spirit of the Church. I have known her for many years, and I have known her to be an excellent priest, pastor, administrator and servant of the church. What I have read of her writings, her preaching, her guidance of parishes in discernment for either deployment or congregational development of their mission has deeply impressed me. Her efforts in formal theological continuing education have reflected a desire to grow theologically as a leader in the Church. Her commitment to Jesus Christ has always been clearly expressed in her ministry. As I have been in discernment about consent for consecration, I have had extended conversation with bishops with whom she has served. It is their experience that she has been effective and well received by all clergy and parishes of her diocese, including those of decidedly conservative convictions. Canon Glasspool has been invited to lead vestry retreats and mutual ministry reviews in all parishes of the diocese. She has gained a common and mutual respect with all church leaders in her diocese.
Long story short, it’s a gay denomination; deal with it. (I’d respect such churchmen more if they were that direct.) In other news, sun rises in east.
From the article …
“Throughout her 30 years of ordained ministry, the Rev. Mary Glasspool has been faithful and consistent to the ministry, doctrine and teaching of the Episcopal Church.”
On the surface of it, this is a howler. However, closer examination
of the statement leads one to understand that she has been
faithful and consistent to the particulars of the Episcopal Church,
although she has not been faithful to the particulars of
Christianity. So, perhaps, the statement is true. Quod scripsit,
scripsit.
Absolutely no scriptural consultation to comment about:
[blockquote] After prayerful discernment and various contexts of consultation, I have determined that the House of Bishops would be enriched and be represented more holistically as a symbol of unity to the Church (as no one bishop in his or her self be an exclusive symbol of unity for the entire Church or interpretations of its core tradition) if Mary Glasspool were a member of that House. I also believe in this time of continued discernment and definition of full inclusion, that having the witness and wisdom of persons who are unquestionably faithful in the core theology of the Church, knowledgeable and respectful of the Church’s traditions, and pastorally sensitive to all its people, will only enrich the journey to which I believe the Spirit is continuing to call us. [/blockquote]
Who needs scripture when you are doing what feels right?
The reference to being “respectful of the Church’s traditions” is absurd.
I think it odd that he would bother to add the following detail in his summation:
[blockquote] I respect that these conclusions will not be those of all bishops or all the faithful we represent; nor do I assume that those whose discernment has led them to a different conclusion are necessarily homophobic, theologically uninformed, or enemies of justice. But this is the conclusion to which my discernment has led me; and I have given my consent for the consecration of the Rev. Mary Glasspool as a bishop. [/blockquote]
I am glad he does not assume those negative descriptors. So why mention them?
Bishop Baxter has obviously spent a great deal of time to reach his decision. I might be so bold as to suggest as much or more time be spent on an appraisal of his diocese. For 2002 through 2008 the diocese lost 14.5 percent of Members and 19.3 percent of ASA. It did fairly well with Plate & Pledge falling only 1.4 percent short of inflation. But the future does not look encouraging with 214 Infant Baptisms and 255 Burials in 2008. Also in 2008 40 of the 66 churches had an ASA of 70 or less; the odds of long-term survival for churches that small are very poor. And money may become an increasing problem given that 74 percent (49 of 66) of its churches had Plate & Pledge of less than $150 thousand in 2008. This means that for each large church there are three small ones neding help. Statmann
[blockquote]Who needs scripture when you are doing what feels right?
[i]…this is the conclusion to which my discernment has led me[/i][/blockquote]
Right. Protestant private judgement so the upper middle class does what it wants.
[blockquote]The reference to being “respectful of the Church’s traditions†is absurd.[/blockquote]
Indeed.
Is there ANY way we might be able to convince the apparatchiks within TEC to give up their use of the word “context” (and all variations thereof) for Lent?
Also…has anyone else noticed that the leadership in TEC routinely refers to “the Spirit” – but rarely references the [i]Holy[/i] Spirit? Is there any significance with this…or am I “straining on a gnat”?