Earlier today Archbishop Jensen (Sydney) issued a statement regarding the gathering of consents necessary for Mary Glasspool, a non-celibate lesbian, to be consecrated as Suffragan Bishop of Los Angeles. In it he praises the patience and gentility of those within and without the American church who have sought to be a “middle group” or a third way. I have argued that the supposed third way – in but not in/out but not out – is a mythological and vain hope that fails the first test of logic. In a different context: one is either in a marriage or one is not in a marriage. If a couple, due to marital infidelity, decides to separate, either by moving down the hall to a different room within the house, or by departing the house, they are STILL married. To remain within TEC, in spite of its biblical/theological infidelities, is to remain within TEC regardless of the linguistic gymnastics employed to persuade/delude oneself otherwise. Mary Glasspool as a bishop of the church is a bishop for the church, including South Carolina. It is a logical and ontological impossibility to be in but not in.
Now, Archbishop Jensen presses the “middle groupers” with these words:
With the election of the Reverend Mary Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, as a Bishop in Los Angeles in The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion reaches another decisive moment. It is now absolutely clear to all that the national Church itself has formally committed itself to a pattern of life which is contrary to Scripture. The election of Bishop Robinson in 2003 was not an aberration to be corrected in due course. It was a true indication of the heart of the Church and the direction of its affairs . . . . This is a decisive moment for this ‘middle’ group. Their patience has been gentle and praiseworthy. But to wait longer would not be patience – it would be obstinacy or even an unworthy anxiety (emphasis mine).
Now, my wondering eyes turn to the Convention of the Diocese of South Carolina and I wonder with the psalmist, “how long, O Lord?” How long, and by what rationale, can we remain covenanted with an institution that has severed itself from its head (Colossians 2.18-20) and embraced another lover?
Related Articles
8 users responded in this post
The Diocese of SC should immediately make a resolution stating that it is not in communion with any diocese who does not uphold classical teaching on sexuality and a classical understanding of the Gospel. With that, we’d be like the rest of the Anglican Communion who is “in” the Church but not in communion with those TEC diocese.
Steve… be the man and make the resolution!
Greg, two things: first, resolutions are pointless, always have been, always will be. Why? they are non-binding expressions of the mind of the house at a given point in time. So, a resolution to break communion does not accomplish anything. Secondly, in light of our parish discernment process, I’m not the guy who should be formally proposing any course of action for this diocese – asking questions, yes; expressing opinion, fine; but not introducing resolutions. To do so would appear to be, and may in fact be, self-serving.
Mr. Smith, I strongly agree with you that your diocese should no longer be in communion with the heretical wing of TEC. But to simply introduce another resolution, this time symbolically terminating “communion” with dioceses that have abandoned the historic teachings of the Faith (beyond its symbolic quality, what specific impact would that resolution have on the ground, btw? Who determines which dioceses have gone too far and which have not, and how does that disfellowship make any practical difference?) seems too little, too late. You have already stopped participating in the “councils of governance” in TEC, correct? Add to that withdrawal from councils a symbolic termination of “communion” with 90% of the dioceses of TEC and what is left of our TEC membership except on paper? Why not make it official and do what San Joaquin, Quincy, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth have done and come out from among them, formally ending your accession to TEC’s constitution and canons? IMHO, that is what it will really take to end your ties to that heretical conventicle. A piecemeal approach such as you propose looks like little more than a “have your cake and eat it too” maneuver, to somehow be out of TEC in all but name but (hopefully) still not trigger lawsuits for property ownership by 815.
Of course, to end accession to TEC’s national constituion would probably take amending DioSC’s constitution, which usually takes at least two years to accomplish. In practical terms, it seems that the logical course is for individual parishes to come out of TEC ASAP and leave the structures of the present diocese of SC to the pro-TEC minority to soldier on as they might. That could still be done in a reasonable time frame, correct?
In the interest of full disclosure I should state that I am a presbyter in the diocese of Fort Worth, ACNA. So I know such a move would not be easy. But from my perspective here it was well worth doing.
The Anglican Mission is praying for all of you in SC!
The only thing wrong with the advice above, is that it will never happen. KJS will move quickly, and thoroughly to depose +Lawrence, and appoint another bishop and standing committee. There will not be a two year period where anything much can be changed.
Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if she didn’t try to pull a group together at the upcoming HoB, to get it done there.
We all know, no canon, or constitution will stop her from acting. And, I suppose no Bishop either, not even the ABC.
Whatever we do, it should be quickly while we still have the lampstand. After the light goes out, its over.
Grandmother in SC
Why not make it official and do what San Joaquin, Quincy, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth have done and come out from among them, formally ending your accession to TEC’s constitution and canons?
— — —
It’s a great idea… but the canons and constitution haven’t changed. Leaving and being a part of the AMIA keeps one in the same level as the Dio. of SC.
I’m not a fan of our current approach. We’re responding to their silliness rather than defining our course. But, it is a course that is within the bounds of classic Anglicanism.
Finally – Steve… you’re still a part of the diocese. You have a duty as a presbyter to help provide leadership — that’s part of your vows. A self serving direction is to be silent and do only what you want to do rather than living in community. I’m not attacking… just responding to words.
Thanks for your non attacking suggestion, Greg.
Three things: First, leaving the accession article in our Constitution creates all kinds of problems. San Joaquin, Quincy, Pittsburgh, Fort Worth and the AMiA may retain a fraternal relationship with TEC through the WWAC/ABC, however, they are in a vastly different status that the DSC, as they have no accession clause. Our retention of the accession clause explicitly submits us the the judicatory oversight of TEC’s Constitution and Canons, and I would suggest (as have our lawyers) invites/grants participation in our diocesan life from the PB or her designee(s).
Secondly, I, too, disagree with our current approach. However, I am evaluating this approach from a perspective beneficial to me and St. Andrew’s. I am content that +Mark and the SC are acting in the perceived best interest of their interest(s).
Finally, I will participate in the Convention tomorrow fully – as I always have. Your original suggestion to me was to take up your cause and present a resolution of your creation, I think your words were: “be the man.” I offered you a rationale as to why that would not be a welcomed addition to the Convention from St. Andrew’s. I would suggest two further items for your consideration. First, if you are so persuaded and convicted, you introduce your resolution, I don’t share your conviction nor do I find resolutions anything more than a cathartic release assuaging a need to express one’s opinion. And, secondly, having had more conversations about these matters with more people than I had ever imagined, I am content with the course of action chosen by the leaders of this Diocese who will, by necessity, have to address the consequences of actions taken at, and as a result of, Convention.
Blessings, brother.
@Greg – Are you ‘being the man’ and introducing a resolution at convention? Are you being a presbyter and providing leadership on these matters? Or are your convictions so weak that you can’t stomach the criticism and backlash that would surely come your way were you to step out of whatever box you think protects you?
I thought the backbone removal surgery was reserved for bishops.
BTW – I’m not attacking you, just responding to words.