Readers respond to stories about Los Angeles bishop election
Episcopal News Service. December 8, 2009 [120809-03]
Episcopal News Service has received several letters responding to the stories "Los Angeles diocese elects openly gay bishop suffragan: Mary Douglas Glasspool" and "Canterbury issues statement on Los Angeles' election of openly gay bishop suffragan."
A selection of those letters follows.
Responding to: "Canterbury issues statement on Los Angeles' election of openly gay bishop suffragan"
I'd have been a lot more interested in the archbishop's response to the election in L.A. if he'd first given some sort of rebuke concerning the draconian anti-gay legislation in Uganda. The ABC's failure to expect restraint from the other side has bankrupted his coinage.
I might also have been a little more sympathetic if not for the fact that some of the same individuals and groups that are encouraging and financing schism in the Anglican Communion have also been backing and financing the major players in the Ugandan anti-gay legislation.
- - - - -
We should honor the democratic process. The United States broke away from England more than 200 years ago and the Episcopal Church created a representative form of government at the same time. That is more important than the opinions of other members of the Anglican Communion. I hope that the bishops and standing committees will remember this.
- - - - -
This is why we left the Episcopal Church, with great sorrow that it has left the faith that I knew.
- - - - -
I do not approve of homosexuals being ordained, much less consecrated bishops, nor do I approve of blessing same-sex relationships. When Jesus instituted the sacrament of marriage at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee, he instituted it for heterosexual relationships. We, as his followers, do not have the right to transpose this to homosexual relationships.
- - - - -
The Archbishop of Canterbury's statement must be viewed as inappropriate and an unwelcome attempt to interfere in the workings of the Episcopal Church.
- - - - -
The archbishop needs to take a clear stand and state what the "serious consequences" will be if a partnered lesbian is chosen for the episcopate.
- - - - -
How did consecrating a bishop who does not practice promiscuous or predatory sex become more of an "implication" on the worldwide Anglican Communion than having bishops and primates of the communion refuse to take Holy Communion with other bishops or primates of the communion? It appears to me that the Archbishop of Canterbury is allowing politics to trump the sacred bonds and bounds of covenant. If we are to believe the essence of the Gospel stories, and I do, even Judas was a participant in the institution of communion. What is "gracious" or "mutually affectionate" about Anglicans not taking Communion with Anglicans? It would seem to me that if we started with the primacy of Communion together, we could find the way through this interpretative quagmire.
- - - - -
We cry for our new Episcopal Church, the Body of Christ no more. We pray that Christ will come again.
This new Episcopal Church is no longer our Episcopal Church.
We are still Episcopalians in our own faith now without a church. It is in Christ that we trust and by our faith Christ will not leave us.
- - - - -
The only irregular aspect of the election in Los Angeles is the posture by Canterbury. Mr. Archbishop, where has reason gone?
I was disappointed by the news this weekend; not by the results of either of the three elections, but rather by the response from our own Archbishop of Canterbury. In his brief statement he writes, "The process of selection however is only part complete. The election has to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan standing committees. That decision will have very important implications." Indeed! It would not only be highly unusual for the consent process to declare this election 'irregular,' it would be unjust, illogical and make a mockery of our own canons, let alone the baptismal covenant. Oh, I forgot... the Church of England does not have such a document that declares our belief and commitment to "seek and serve Christ in all persons" as well as to "strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being." Perhaps we silly Americans were simply not invited to the session which changed the definition of "all" to mean "almost all" or "the acceptable all."
I, for one, hope we live into our calling that we have discerned from the beginning of our history as a distinct expression of Anglicanism which has sought to model principles and faith for the "New World," rather than harkening back to tradition based on the seven deadly words of the church: "We have never done it that way!" As a priest of more than ten years now, my prayer for the Episcopal Church is that we truly trust the Holy Spirit to guide us, rather than act out of the fear of possibly offending another culture. As I recall, Anglicanism itself came into its own as a distinct expression of the Christian faith in a time when it was felt that it was no longer tenable for the domestic church to have various matters be ultimately decided on a foreign shore.
Autonomy, diversity, and reason became hallmarks of our tradition; the latter joining Scripture and tradition as the basis of our authority. Why is it implausible for you and others to see that what may be discerned as the right calling for one church may not be so for the others? Oh, I forgot -- no one likes to recall the fourteenth chapter of Romans when discerning the scriptural basis of authority on ecclesiastical or even moral issues. So then, Mr. Archbishop, where has reason gone in your view of what it means to be Anglican today? From the way the expression seems to be used lately, "our bonds of mutual affection" can feel more like the "tether of coercion."
- - - - -
Unfortunately, I do not perceive "mutual bonds of affection." It seems quite one-sided to me.
- - - - -
I'm disappointed that the ABC even commented on the election -- our Presiding Bishop doesn't go around commenting on elections/appointments in other jurisdictions of the Anglican Communion. To me his statement seems an attempt to intimidate those involved in the consent process to capitulate to what might make for an easier life among members of the communion. To make any decision of the Body of Christ dependent upon the willingness of everyone to concur seems antithetical to gospel imperatives as I understand them. Living between what has been and what is coming into being has never been simple or easy. I can respect those other jurisdictions who, in their own contexts, don't see Mary's election and possible confirmation as right for them. I only ask that our discernment and call process be respected.
- - - - -
Does the Archbishop of Canterbury have some illusion that the Episcopal Church cares at all what the Anglicans feel about our communion, culture, and bishop choices? I moved from the Roman Catholic Church when the new bishop offensively suggested that we should actively oppose the legalization of gay marriage. If the Episcopal Church ever falters on this issue, many other liberal denominations remain. Christ is our Light!
- - - - -
The key term in the archbishop's statement seems to be "gracious restraint." There was no rush to election for ideological purposes but rather a thorough nominating and voting process, even though one could argue that the election of a partnered lesbian is long overdue. From that point of view, Glasspool's election is an example of restraint. "Gracious" might mean (1) deferential or (2) the working of God's grace, as in "our gracious Queen." Regarding meaning (1), I understand the spirit of the communion to be mutual responsibility and interdependence, not theological deference. And regarding meaning (2), I have a reasonable hope that this election is gracious in exactly that sense.
- - - - -
This election spells the end of any pretence of Christianity for your "church." You no longer follow Christ, but [what] your ears want to hear. I, like many other Anglicans around the globe, am now forced to reject you as brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ. Farewell.
- - - - -
Unfortunately, "gracious restraint" is apparently a one-way street in the minds of many in the wider Anglican Communion, since it clearly does not include bishops elsewhere restraining from meddling in the affairs of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, or from supporting the most heinous of anti-homosexual legislation, such as in Uganda. Frankly, the time and money currently spent on the Anglican Communion is completely wasted and would be far better spent on aid and mission projects where our input is welcome and valued. We have four centuries of our own tradition -- we do not need to bow and scrape to Canterbury for validation.
- - - - -
I have deep respect for the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury and its historic role in the Anglican Communion. Consequently, I have waited for a word from Canterbury repudiating the situation in Uganda that puts at substantial risk the lives of gays and lesbians. For me, that word would be some faithful muscle behind any kind of covenant, baptismal or otherwise, to which I would ever consider being a part.
Into the silence on Uganda, however, comes a word from the Archbishop to Los Angeles and the Episcopal Church: "I know nothing about Mary Glasspool or her gifts, but do not endorse her. Thwart this calling."
"Gracious restraint?" I wish.
- - - - -
I continue to pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury. He has been so quick to respond to the election in Los Angeles with a veiled threat, and not a word about the dangerous situation happening in Uganda that threatens the lives of LGBT people. May God guide him to a greater wisdom.
- - - - -
Once again the liberal wing of the U.S. Episcopal Church thumbs its nose at anybody who disagrees with its actions, and especially to the Archbishop of Canterbury who is trying to keep people communicating and respectful of each other. The arrogance and self-righteousness of the liberal dioceses of the Episcopal Church knows no bounds. Respect the dignity of every human being? Not if you don't agree and toe the line with the liberal dioceses.
- - - - -
So many people in my generation joined the Episcopal Church because of the welcoming and inclusive community. Unfortunately, the wider Anglican Community is turning us away and turning us off.
Responding to: Los Angeles diocese elects openly gay bishop suffragan: Mary Douglas Glasspool
I have read the accomplishments and qualifications of the newly-elected bishop and can see why she won. I'm a 74-year-old cradle Episcopalian from St.Paul's, Waco, a very conservative church. Most will NOT read her qualifications and will be very angry because she is lesbian. I wish that all could read what [Bishop] Bruno said in her defense. May God continue to bless her in her work! From a fellow Cursillista: De Colores!
- - - - -
It is sad to see people and certain groups within the church put their personal agenda ahead of the Episcopal Church, knowing that the election will fracture the membership even more. If you think the budgets of churches are tight now, just wait!
- - - - -
The respectable Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, canon theologian from the Diocese of South Carolina, said the election "represents an intransigent embrace of a pattern of life Christians throughout history and the world have rejected as against biblical teaching."
Roman Catholicism claims that marriage of clergy is "a pattern of life Christians throughout history and the world have rejected as against biblical teaching."
Conservatives in all religions claim that homosexuality is "a pattern of life people throughout history and the world have rejected as against their religious teaching."
I would be accepted by them as normal, as I have a wife and two sons. But do I need their blessing to tell me who I am and what to do?
How much of the rejection of the minority in sexual inclination is mass tyranny and how much is Gospel truth?
How much of it is innocence and how much ignorance?
Has this great liberal religious faith given up reason, empathy and passion to power, self-righteousness and authority?
Is this great religion trumpeting the glory of the majority in power at the expense of the minority who are pushed out and to be left in the wilderness? Is so, how is it different from Roman Catholicism?
Do ultra-conservatives bring credence or discredit to a great liberal religious faith? Do they attract or drive people away from the church?
- - - - -
This is beyond my belief. It seems that each and every day this church goes out of its way to try to become more detached from the orthodox Christian faith. How can we survive within the Anglican faith?
- - - - -
I have to say that I am always impressed with the quality of news reported by the Episcopal News Service. However, I must comment on the "headline." Without commenting on my views regarding the election of bishops who are gay or straight; I do not understand why a headline would read "...elects openly gay bishop..." I must point out that, in all the episcopal elections that have recently taken place, I have never seen a headline "...elects openly straight bishop..." or "...elects divorced bishop..." I just don't understand why it is relevant to post the Rev. Mary Glasspool's sexuality in the headline of a story. Your article points out Glasspool's amazing record as a priest and as a human being. I just simply find it unfortunate that some may not even read the well-written article describing Glasspool's professional background before they start "debating" her private life.
- - - - -
The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon and those in agreement with him are either fools or bigots. Their theory is that our lives are to be controlled by a book written 3,500 years ago. If this group truly believes in this book, then why are they not keeping kosher? Why are they not refraining from all work on the Sabbath? Why are they not requiring their women to take ritual cleansing baths after their periods? Why are they not calling for all adulterers and adulteresses to be put to death as it clearly calls for in Leviticus 20:10? The answer is evident -- these people want to pick and choose those parts of their book which please them and reject or conveniently forget those parts which they do not like.