The consents continue to come in for the election of the Reverend Canon Mary Glasspool as a Bishop Suffragan here in the Diocese of Los Angeles -- and as the 17th woman elected as a bishop in The Episcopal Church. (The Reverend Canon Diane Bruce having been the 16th.)Today's report on the diocesan website is that we only need ONE more Standing Committee consent to achieve the necessary majority.
And while the exact number of consents received by the bishops with jurisdiction is known only by the Presiding Bishop's office, at this point what we DO know "anecdotally" is that MOST bishops and standing committees are coming out in alignment.
And while (of course) it isn't over-until-it's-over, I can tell you there is a heightened sense of anticipation and excitement here in L.A. as we are "waiting to exhale" with the whole church poised to say "Amen" to what the Holy Spirit did in our electing convention in December.
So I invite your continued prayers for the consent process and for the Diocese of Los Angeles as we prepare for the ordination of two new bishops on May 15th in Long Beach. AND prayers of thanksgiving for the dawn of a new era of mission and ministry for the whole church ... poised to put "the inclusion wars" behind us and move forward into God's future proclaiming the Good News of God in Christ Jesus made available to ALL!
18 comments:
I will rejoice with you when that consent is reached.
Let us be mindful that that future is closer for all by this great achievement but not a living reality until all places in the Church of God are as open to such action as Los Angeles and New Hampshire and some others dioceses that have not taken that same step yet.
Let us remember that we are far from parity in clergy access and lay access to all the sacraments.
We have but to move through 3 contiguous dioceses, Massachusetts, Western Mass and Albany, to see the disparity in the acceptance of couples whose love is known to God.
I know that All Saints and Los Angeles will continue to work for justice until All means All.
I pray that we all can look beyond our local successes as we celebrate them to be there for the "other."
God's Peace,
Neil
That's what we mean by "set audacious goals and celebrate incremental victories."
There are miles to go before we rest on ANY of the issues that challenge us as a church ... and a lesbian bishop in L.A. doesn't end homophobia anymore than a woman PB has taken care of sexism.
At the moment, however, let's give those with cause to celebrate some elbow room to do that ... even as we gird our loins for the work ahead.
Any word in L.A. about how the votes of the bishops with jurisdiction are going? I will be more willing to exhale when both totals are clearly 'aye.'
Still it is good to see it going as it appears!
FWIW
jimB
I like how you put the word "whole" in bold letters so vainly...While some may "rejoice" about this error know that some are weeping (like myself) in deep sorrow. However I do praise God that I'm not forced to go to any parish she be visiting or run the risk of her presiding over my confirmation. It wouldn't be valid.
So forgive me for the fact that I and many others can't in good conscience pray for this. Instead I will pray that our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on us all.
Martin, while I can appreciate that you do not believe LGBTQ people should be bishops (or presumably priests or deacons), your suggestion that her sexuality would invalidate any sacraments she performs is purely heretical by any standard of Christian orthodoxy.
I refer you to Article XXVI as one example where the heresy of Docetism is thoroughly disposed.
I stand corrected,Father. I guess future members don't need to fear anything then.
"[that]...her sexuality would invalidate any sacraments she performs is purely heretical by any standard of Christian orthodoxy."
Actually, "standard Christian orthodoxy" finds her sacraments invalid because to most of the Christians in the world her ordination is invalid. She -- and our gracious host, amongst others -- are women. Now this is of no consequence in the Episcopal church and that is fine: if you want to ordain practicing gays, women, whatever... feel free. But do not state that this is "standard Christian orthodoxy" when the overwhelming majority of Catholic and Orthodox Christians do not recognize your orders, precisely because of this nonstandard, unchristian and definitely heterodox practice.
Thanks for this reminder, Pilgrim.
It only serves to highlight how utterly ridiculous it is to insist that somehow the "fabric of communion" has been ripped to shreds since +Gene became a bishop in 2003 when if your standard for being "in communion" is having all your bishops' orders recognized then we've been OUT of communion since 1989 when +Barbara Harris's consecration.
If I ever am so privileged to be ordained, I would not care whether the bishop is male or female, gay or straight, monogamous or promiscuous, as long as he/she is in the succession of the Apostles. I will leave to God alone to judge that person's values and lifestyle.
For what it's worth, the Roman Catholic Church has not recognized Anglican orders since Pope Leo XIII issued the bull Apostolicae Curae in 1896. The sex or sexual orientation of the person being ordained as an Anglican had nothing to do with that decision.
It's a good thing Jesus made sure to follow all the rules of Tradition and Scripture equally.
It makes us good, law-keeping Jews, now, instead of some break away cult!
yeah, Mark, and did you hear about the hippy carpenter who hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors, scolded the priests and overturned the tables in the temple....?
With a clear conscience, I am waiting prayerfully until Mary Glasspool's consents are in.
So who knew the comments on this blog were now fodder for Titusonenine blog blather?
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/28644/#comments
(And for the record, David, I really don't care how high church, low church or in-between church anyone is ... but I do think "promiscous bishops" are a REALLY bad idea. And if you need to ask why, probably the ordination process isn't a good idea.)
IT,
You mean that filthy hippy who started that . . . what is it . . . The Way?!
Take my word for it, they'll wind up taking pills to meet the comet. Feh!
I don't believe it's up to me or anyone to pass moral judgment on another's sexuality. People are what they are. I prefer to leave judgments in that area in God's hands. I also don't think the Church's mission has a whole lot to do with sex. It is about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, educating the ignorant, and putting the unemployed to work.
Let me get this straight: You (David) think that a person being "promiscuous" is just a part of a person's "sexuality"? Is it April 1st? I sincerely hope that it was a typo.
Post a Comment