The Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, a priest of the Diocese of Maryland and a partnered gay woman, was elected to serve as a bishop suffragan in the Diocese of Los Angeles in December 2009. The consent process, a 120-day period, requires the receipt of consents from majorities of the Standing Committees throughout the Episcopal Church and from the Church’s bishops with jurisdiction. On March 17, just before the opening of the House of Bishops meeting at Camp Allen, Texas, the presiding bishop’s office announced that Canon Glasspool had received the number of consents required to proceed with her ordination and consecration as a bishop.
Along with several other bishops, I had been delaying my vote until the House of Bishops meeting so that we might confer with one another as to the implications of this episcopal election. As consent is a responsibility upon all diocesan bishops, I then sent in my ballot even though the process had already been decided. Understandably, the diocesan offices have received numerous inquiries as to how I voted. I write this to announce my decision for this particular process and to say something about what this means (and doesn’t mean) for my leadership in the Diocese of Virginia.
Bishop-elect Glasspool’s election has been both a source of celebration and of alarm for many in our diocese, just as in the Episcopal Church and our wider Anglican Communion. In my judgment, both “sides” make compelling arguments and have quite legitimate concerns. Personally, I am more torn by this decision than by any other decision I’ve yet faced, whether as priest or bishop. After deep prayer and thought, I voted to decline consent to the ordination of Bishop-elect Glasspool. This is not to reflect on Bishop-elect Glasspool herself (who, by all accounts, is indeed highly qualified and well suited for the ministry of bishop) but rather is about the circumstances of this case.
“In my judgment, both “sides” make compelling arguments and have quite legitimate concerns.”
The “side” that he seems to ignore is that of God’s. I do suspect that God does have an opinion. He made his decision after “prayer”. I wonder who he prays to?
Compare this letter to Mr. Orombi’s letter and see the stark difference in clarity. God speaks softly, but very clearly, to those who will listen. Just ask Mary, the mother of our Christ.
Don
Although he was required to vote, he makes it seems as though he
wants it both ways. I think he’s a stickler for the various guidelines
laid down by the AC, but his heart and spirit are far from them.
He wrote …
The Communion is not some patched together entity“. True
enough, but the actions of TEC and several other AC churches is
causing the AC itself to resemble a Frankensteinish pastiche of
ecclesial elements.
Bishop Shannon Johnston’s letter is dated April 9, 2010, after the House of Bishops’ meeting and after he has had time to read and reflect seriously on the differing views expressed in the report of the House’s Theology Committee. He believes he can still conclude:
[blockquote] . . . I am both “pro-Communion” and “pro-inclusion.” I reject completely any notion that these positions are mutually exclusive. I remain hopeful, even confident, that there is a way to be faithful to this “both/and” witness. Our history teaches us that we Anglicans-when we are at our best-have been able to hold perceived opposites in a creative and liberating tension that has room for everyone and gives birth to new answers. This is the time to reclaim our best yet again.[/blockquote]
He does not, however, give an actual example of history that teaches us how something creative and liberating should be associated with the difference between the acknowledged teaching of the Anglican Communion generally and the views of the TEC leadership majority he represents. I would think that if Bishop Johnston wishes to be taken seriously when he speaks about what our history teaches us, he should set forth the closest historical examples he can think of that are instructive with reference to the particular situation that we face, and give some examples of the sort of “new answers†he is confident will emerge.
“I have been delaying my vote till after Ms Glasspool received sufficient votes so that I can cast my vote against her knowing that it provides cover for my hind quarters.”
Call me unimpressed.
A fit follower of Lee, now reposing in a sinecure for his lack of backbone. Perhaps they’ll have a similar position for this chappie. Seems to be made of the same squid or a similar nonchordate.
Dr Stroud’s choice of biological analogies continues to amaze and delight! Nonchordate or the equivalent term “invertebrate” is a splendid description of both the previous and current Virginia bishops. However, there are some vertebrates that might also be suitable as totem animals for these gentlemen; weasel comes to mind.
There are several points in the Bishop’s letter that warrant respect.
1) He is right that one of the greatest scandals of this election was the simple unwillingness of the Bishops as a House to wait to discuss this election together as its great seriousness deserved.
2) He rightly alerts his fellow Bishops that B033 remains in effect.
3) He understands the AC at the most fundamental level of his faith as requiring catholicity.
4) He speaks directly to the total lack of integrity in the HOB’s action in light of the Covenant.
Why must it be that every single thoughtful response of those with whom we disagree receives no quarter?
Bravo, Albany+!
By this standard George Custer won a great victory.
Albany+:
This bishop just gave the rational for a qualified “NO!” vote to the election, while also giving a rational for his qualified “YES!” to SSB’s , all while then claiming that he can hold both as being congruent with one another. (From the full text: “From this, it follows that I am both “pro-Communion” and “pro-inclusion.” I reject completely any notion that these positions are mutually exclusive.”)
The good Bishop has a large contingent of well heeled, orthodox parishioners who would not tolerate being out of communion with the AC. So, what does he do? In the long standing tradition of many an Episcopal and Anglican bishop, he resorts to F-U-D-G-E.
I say, let his “YES!” be a yes, and his “NO!” be a no. An affirmation or denial which bears a side qualification is no decision at all. The man is the Ordinary of his diocese and his vote is clearly “his vote” and not the collective “mind of the HOB.” Stuffing a timely decision off on the lack of HOB communication and discussion with regard to such a matter has no merit whatsoever. He’s just cranking up more FUDGE. Nothing more, nothing less.
I’m sorry to say, I remain unconvinced by his verbal subterfuge.
Let him attend the faux “ordination-consecration” and stand with others to voice objection. Then we will know where he stands.
He waited long enough hoping that others would make the decision without him having to declare his intention. His vote now rendered meaningless by others actions the good bishop was now free to act with total expediency. He quickly sized up the politics and “voted” to withhold consent knowing that Glasspool would become bishop anyway thus ameliorating the anguish of his liberal constituents and being able to appease what’s left of his orthodox parishioners. Shannon Johnston is the model of a modern Episcopal bishop (to coin Gilbert and Sullivan’s, Pirates of Penzance ). I only wish it had been tied and his would have been the deciding vote — that would have been justice. Amazingly gutless, even by TEC standards — and he wrote a letter about it too!