The news came through last night that the Anglican Communion is to have its second bishop who happens to have a gay partner. Canon Mary Glasspool was elected as a new suffragan bishop in Los Angeles a few months ago. What’s happened since is that the wider American church has had a chance to say yes or no to her appointment. The system in the US is that after an election, bishops with jurisdiction and diocesan standing committees are asked to confirm the election of a new bishop. There has to be a majority of both bishops and standing committees.
Our system is different in Scotland. It used to be that after an election, the College of Bishops was asked to confirm it. Now, the confirmation process takes place before the election in that the bishops agree to each of the names that go onto the shortlist, confirming that they will consecrate anyone from that list who is elected. (It is this confirmation process which our bishops have abandonned for partnered gay candidates in Scotland, preferring to declare a blanket ban on such people being considered rather than to accept due process and vote amongst themselves in regards to each candidate).
Anyway, Mary Glasspool has the requisite number of consents. She will be consecrated. There will be a fuss. The world will keep turning. She is not the first partnered lesbian bishop we are in full communion with anyway. That honour went to Eva Brunne some time ago.
I think people are weary of the fuss and generally just want to get on with being the church.
So, good wishes to the Diocese of Los Angeles and to Bishop-Elect Mary who will serve them. Peace and blessings be upon the fuss-makers.
I agree with you, Kimberly, but think that the use of “we” in your comment is a little unfair on all but one of the people who have been commenting on this thread.
I certainly wished to comment myself, and know Kelvin to be more than happy to chat/debate/answer questions etc. But the tone of one person’s responses to another has quite put me off. Which is a shame – for me, at least.
Come on Nick, a lenient moderation policy is very much *conducive* to fair and open dialogue. Much better than assuming the worst and banning comments which, irrespective of what some identify as an unhelpful tone, very much do not run afoul of Kelvin’s moderation policy. After all, you think the “Christian” Institute’s stories on the SEC are accurate (they’re not) and non-offensive; others would disagree. Kelvin moderating every comment, aside from the time commitment, would surely preclude much genuine debate. Nothing kills debate like heavy-handed sour maid “moderation”. If nothing else, the indepth and factual nature of David’s responses are very far from the mindless flaming that usually denotes a troll. He’d probably get banned from the st.silas “egroup”, but that says far more about its failings than his 😉
Ryan – do take care not to be naughty to Nick when he is feeling sensitive and shy. He is expressing his emotional side. (Rugby players are like that, Ryan. Don’t you know anything about them….?)
Let us all try not to jump down one another’s throats. Huh?
Moderation is on for some comments. (Here is a hint, it depends at the moment on your use of certain words, a list of which I won’t be publishing).
One or two people who have posted to this blog in the past have all their comments moderated by me. Since I started this blog in 2005, I’ve only set it to competely ignore the postings of a couple of people whose postings seemed to me to be unacceptable for the goodwill of those who hang out here. The only time I’ve ever banned someone for theological reasons was someone who was becoming rather boring about substitutionary atonement. When I chose to do that, the system simply deletes posts from that person without me seeing any more of them.
I continue to enjoy the postings of those who disagree with me. I will continue to feel free either to moderate or delete comments which seem to me to be outside the bounds of what is helpful to community life on this blog.
With regard to David | Dah•veed’s comment earlier about Fr Ross, I know that I don’t know Fr Ross well enough to make presumptions of that kind and not knowing him, I’d not be inclined to have made such a comment with the force that it had myself. I also know that David | Dah•veed does not write with English as his first language, and it may be that he might want to reflect on whether he went just a little further and used a little more force than he might have done.
Re: Ryan’s comment: For goodness sake don’t take the “Christian Institute” as an example of how to promote dialogue – they don’t seem to know the meaning of the word.
I am afraid David’s statements regarding me personally and my style of ministry are very far from ‘factual’ and are based on nothing more than the few comments I made on a certain matter. Certainly not an’ indepth or factual’ analysis of who I am and what I think.
Nick, sorry if you got tarred with my ‘we’. Of course, not everyone got caught up in the tensions. I do think that more than one person has been involved in unpleasantness in the comments (generally) lately. Perhaps my early morning ‘be nice’ was unwise.
I have returned to this blog almost a dozen times to compose a comment and each time have abandoned my effort because I do not wish to be insulting to Father Kelvin and the level of discourse he has set for his blog, nor at the same time have to apologize that I am not a tea & scones type of guy. I eat tacos by hand from carts in the street.
Father Ross, I intended my words to sting, to apologize and say that was not my intention would be a lie. And yet even in hurling words you found hurtful, or which you say are unrepresentative of you or your ministry, you still seem to have failed to see any of yourself reflected back. In hit & run fashion you judged the life and ministry of the bishop-elect and the many folks in Dio LA, TEC and scattered in many AC provinces who were/are involved in her elevation, whether by vetting and election process, assenting to her election, or just simply lifting this election and assent in prayer. You judged us and found us wanting because we did not/do not choose any longer to sacrifice ourselves on the idolatrous alter of AC unity.
I think that I am too unrefined and rough around the edges to comment here. I spend more time participating in the internet because I spend so much more time in my home than in the past. It is a dangerous place, Mexico right now. There is a civil war occurring in our streets between our military and drug gangs and traffickers. When I leave home now, it is in carefully planned trips with other members of my local family and an armed escort (also family). We are not individually wealthy, but we are from an agricultural co-operative village of extended family, and so corporately have money and are subject to kidnap for ransom. Those situations almost always end tragically here. We have buried three extended family members who were unwise or simply caught off guard over the last five years. As does every member of my family over 18, men & women, I personally carry two weapons at all times. I can use them with accurate and deadly aim. Unfortunately, if you must use a weapon here in Mexico you must draw it with intent to kill, if not to save yourself, at least for those whom you love.
I do apologize that I bring that baggage with me when I comment. I do not suffer fools happily. I have had to stand my ground far too often with racists and bigots as well, as I have been confronted by them face to face in the streets of the USA, in spite of being there legally. Also, what is but frank conversation in my culture does not always seem to translate to just frankly speaking in English. However, participating in Anglican blogs has filled a hole in my life of having more contact with Christian people. It is not always fair or safe for parishes here when a family rolls up for worship in an armed convoy of four SUV-type 4x4s and ready for small arms warfare!
Thank you David – I do appreciate the time and effort you have taken to explain your very strong feelings which I do understand and respect. Just to let you know something of my background: I am a single man aged 70 years of age and because I am single some people assume that I am gay which amuses me most of the time but irritates when I encounter ignorance and prejudice. I come from a working class Scottish family (although my extended family is of mixed race) where seven of us shared a two bed roomed house – I failed my eleven plus, was educated in a tough secondary school, worked in several factories and in general and psychiatric hospitals , including a venereal diseases clinic. And learned through all of that not to be judgemental – although I have to confess that, at times, I am.
In did not intend to insult Canon Mary by my comment – I have read much of what she has said and recognise and accept that she is a very sincere Christian, active in the Lord’s work. I also have a deep love and concern for the Episcopal Church in America because it was in one of their churches, during a visit, to New York City, that I rediscovered my Christian faith and my vocation to serve God (which I fulfilled in the Church of England). My concern (perhaps poorly expressed) in my initial comment was not about Canon Mary’s suitability but about the disunity that is fragmenting the American Church due to the all the arguments about sexual ethics, etc – arguments which have resulted in whole dioceses and parishes breaking away. All this was compounded, I believe, by the fact that the Episcopal Church (TEC) decided to ignore the pleadings of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council for ‘gracious restraint’ in these matters . I am sadly of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that the decisions of the American Primate, the majority of the Episcopal Bishops ( though not all) and the electing bodies in confirming the good Canon’s appointmnt have merely exacerbated the deep and wounding divisions within the American Church. Now the disturbing news is that there are squabbles and litigations over church properties – hardly edifying for the Body of Christ.
Anyway I do hope that explains my position more clearly and that in spite of our different viewpoints we can remain brothers in Christ.
May God bless you,
Sincerely
Ross
> It is not always fair or safe for parishes here when a family rolls up for worship in an armed convoy of four SUV-type 4×4s and ready for small arms warfare!
And Fr.Kelvin thinks the South Side is a bit rough…. 😉
For what it’s worth David – I , for one, would miss your comments if you decided to abstain from posting here.
David, I too have been very glad for your participation in these conversations over many months (years?). Often, you bring clarity and insight from a very different context. Thank you for sharing so much of your situation too. Please stay with us.
David we welcome your comments and insights at all times as we also welcome the comments of others. I agree with the wonderfull Kimberly please stay with us
Thanks.
I was in part thinking out loud that I might not have the refinements required for posting to a proper Anglican blog.
You lot are stuck with me unless/until Father K throws me out!
I shall work on keeping my latin blood in check, not taking offense too quickly or too personally and approaching posts like Father R’s first one from a different tact.
No te tomes nada personalmente: Lo que los demás dicen y hacen es una proyección de su propia realidad, de su propio sueño. Nada de lo que hacen es por ti. Cuando seas inmune a las opiniones y los actos de los demás, dejaras de ser la vÃctima de un sufrimiento innecesario.
Don’t Take Anything Personally: What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. Nothing others do is because of you. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.
Don Miguel Ruiz
The Four Agreements