Glasspool Consents Tally

Andy Doyle—Bishop of Texas—NO
http://texasbishop.blogspot.com/2009/12/statement-for-recent-election-in-los.html

Lillibridge and Reed (West Texas) will not consent.  See last sentence in paragraph 4
http://www.dwtx.org/var/files/File/Current News/Los Angeles Suff Election Statement Dec 2009.pdf

We don’t have a bishop at the moment, but I just wrote the secretary of our Standing Committee about this issue.  I’ll let you know if I get a reply.

Oops!  Sorry for the link problem in post [2] on Lillibridge and Reed.  Try this one.
http://www.dwtx.org/var/files/File/Current News/Los Angeles Suff Election Statement Dec 2009.pdf

Bp.Schofield says NO…but I guess he is a bit of an outlaw now isn’t he Dorsey.
Intercessor

Red Bird,

The link problem is caused by the spaces in the URL, but no problem - I got it. Thanks!

Diocese of Central Florida:  no on both counts

Why not tally Thompson and Waldo?  They are not gay but they believe in and have voted for all the things which will insure us a never ending stream of Glasspools and Robinsons.  Their consents need to be defeated also.

Reed has no vote, he has no jurisdiction, he is a suffragan.

CDW, while I see your point, and certainly agree that things would have been a lot better if the heterosexual liberal bishops of the last several decades had not recieved consents, the Anglican Communion has asked for restraint on practicing homosexual bishops but has not asked for restraint on liberals.  However, I would not be suprised if one or more of the StandFirm bloggers is keeping an eye on the consent process for the two bishop elects you mention.

The voters are “bishops with jurisdiction.”  That is bishops whom TEC recognizes as holding office as a diocesan.  The presiding bishop is a voter not by virtue of that office but as the diocesan of the European churches.  Bp. Whalon does not have a vote as he is a suffragan—patently unfair as he does all the actual work, but that is the way it is set up.

Each diocese has a standing committee, so that is a clear number. Of course that committee must be one that the church sees as existing, so for instance the one that Bp. Schofield took with him to more Southern places (to borrow from Intercessor’s note above) is not getting a ballot.

So a diocese has one vote for its standing committee and may have one vote for its bishop if it has one.  Diocese themselves involved in seeking a new bishop while the seat is empty have only one vote.

  And we dare claim the English system is confusing?

FWIW
jimB

jimB-
In this case, because consent is for a suffragan and not the diocesan office, I believe Bruno does get a vote as a sitting diocesan- so LA gets 2 votes, one for its diocesan bishop and one for its standing committee.  Only in those cases where the sitting diocesan has died in office, or retires before the consent process for his replacement (that is to say, only when the see being elected is open) does the diocese not get a “bishop vote”.  In the case of N Michigan last year, they did not get a bishop vote because Jim Kelsey died in a tragic auto accident- leaving the see vacant.  In general, it is probably not considered “good taste” for a bishop to vote on the consent for his successor, but I believe he has the “right” to.  Until the Forrester election last year, no one kept a tally of “no” votes- they only counted those in favor, and as soon as they got to 51%, declared that consent had been given.

jimB (#10) et al.—I’m not sure you are suggesting this, but just to be clear: the votes of the Standing Committees are not combined with the votes of the diocesan bishops. It takes a majority of both groups separately to confirm the election of a bishop. A Diocese without a current bishop simply reduces the number which makes a majority of the total number of bishops with jurisdiction required to confirm.  Thus if (as ECUSA currently pretends) there are 110 dioceses, but only (say) 105 bishops exercising jurisdiction at this point, it would take approval by at least 56 standing committees and by 53 bishops to confirm the election.

Does anyone have the opening and closing dates for the Glasspool consent process?  Have the requests for consent yet been published?

#3—Keller would be Upper SC.
I’ll put in my $.02 with the Standing Committee also.

P.S. About adding Bishop-elect Waldo to the watch list….
Don’t waste your time; he’s in like Flynn (apologies for the worn simile).

Well, our Suffragan +Reed would vote no if he could! This thread is going to get awfully long with all the sidebar comments. Let’s stick to info concerning votes of Diocesans and Standing Committees, eh?

“...the votes of the Standing Committees are not combined with the votes of the diocesan bishops. It takes a majority of both groups separately to confirm the election of a bishop.”

Interesting.  What happens if the vote splits; the standing committees vote “yes” and the Bishops vote “no?”  What’s the tie-breaker?

Pilgrim,

There is no tie breaker.  They vote separately.  To be confirmed there must be a majority in each house counted separately.  Diocese do split from time to time.  That happened on the recent Dio of Northern Michigan election.  I think at least 2 or 3 diocese split.

FWIW
jimB

Pilgrim, if consent fails among either the bishops or the SC’s, the bishop-elect is not approved.

In another count, the Manhattan Declaration just reached 365,000 signatories…almost 20,000 since yesterday.

#13
I believe the LA diocese is palnning her consecration for May 15. I am not sure of the deadline to get the consents in. The LGTB crowd will also be keeping track. This maybe easier than Forrester in knowing who voted yeas and no. It maybe one of the few cases in which the two groups work together ...

Of 105 bishops (I know 110 dioceses, but there are some open sees), my prediction is 53 yes, 40 did not return ballot before deadline, 12 no.  That way, the bulk of the Anaheim statement bishops and the “I’m really revisionist, but I play orthodox” bishops can say either “Of course I withheld consent” or “Of course I voted in favor, but my ballot was delayed in the mail” according to which parish they are addressing at the moment.

Is there a total of known votes anywhere?

Consent requires a majority of bishops with jurisdiction (i.e., diocesans) AND a majority of standing committees.

There is no such thing as a “no vote”. There must be an absolute majority of bishops giving consent AND an absolute majority of standing committees giving consent. “Silence is not consent” so is effectively a “vote” NOT to consent.

And it is not over until either (1) a majority of bishops with jursidiction give consent AND a majority of standing committees give consent or (2) the time limit (90 days?) passes without the bishop-elect receiving the necessary consents, in which case the consecration is NOT agreed to.

ALL,

THERE NEED NOT BE ANY MORE DISCUSSION OF HOW BISHOPS OBTAIN CONSENT TO THEIR ELECTIONS.

SEPTUAGENARIAN HAS EXPLAINED IT ACCURATELY IN THIS POST.

PLEASE READ IT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS.

I’D LIKE TO KEEP THIS THREAD AS A PLACE FOR US PEOPLE TO POST INTEL AND LINKS REGARDING BISHOPS AND STANDING COMMITTEES.

so what’s the tally at present? I cannot tell in all that conversation, somewhat redundant though well-intentioned.

(2) the time limit (90 days?) passes without the bishop-elect receiving the necessary consents,

When is the time limit? Presumably before May 15th?

Sorry Greg #24, but Septua #23 needs correcting.

Under the canons of the Episcopal Church (III.11.4 (a)) a majority of bishops exercising jurisdiction and diocesan standing committees must consent to the ordination as bishop within 120 days from the day after notice of the election was sent to them.

My OCD kicked in.

It would be way cool if you would preface this item with Tables at which one could glance:  (i) to see which dioceses voted which way; and (ii) to learn the bishop elect’s progress toward the necessary magic numbers.

comment deleted, user banned

Drunky McSwerveandcrash…one of the great one and done’s in the annuals of Stand Firm. Thanks and good-bye.
Intercessor

Amen to that, brother. I think ol’ ‘Drunky’ just Swerved and Crashed.

I doubt if it was a tally, however. I love #28’s idea of a preface with a table.

It there anyone really thinking this could possibly come down to a tie-breaker?  Give me a break.  Consider the women consecrated!

No one, but no one has the slightest doubt about the outcome when the consents are tallied!

BTW, Episcopalians in my part of the world are flocking to LCMS, Roman and Evangelical Free and some mega-churches.  Not advocating this, it is just a fact.  Three more families left last week.  More and more have announced their intentions.

Priestwalker,
Seeing the same in Maryland.  I’m suddenly hearing from quite a few people I know at the church where I “belonged”  for 27 years, Glasspool’s former church BTW, and they want to know what churches are out there for those who love liturgy and need to get back to what they had ten or twenty years ago (at the very least.) I’m getting facebook friend request from these folks, and I assume it’s because we have been at Anglican and EP churches for the last three years.
Very interesting!
And relevant to the Glasspool consent because she is from our diocese (as priest and canon); that there are some here who believe she will be consecrated, and that it is not such a hot idea, is relevant because they were the same ones who were supposedly willing to “tolerate” her previous under-the-rug sexuality as priest and canon. 
Can’t wait for her consecration

As a hypothetical; if Glasspool+ garners the necessary consents and is consecrated, what effect will that have on the “3rd way” effort?

#34
Something like:
“We’re here! We’re Episcopalian! We’re not going anywhere else. Get used to it!”
Also, I thought this was a Consents Tally.

Let the count down to the consent tally begin:
http://episcopalnews.ladiocese.net/dfc/newsdetail_2/124
Brought to by the folks over at T19.

The official “Get Smart” Cone of Silence has descended over Jon Bruno’s Diocese. I wonder how tightly they’ll be able to control the news leaks.

If I counted correctly, the process closes May 25. Wasn’t she scheduled to be consecrated on May 15? Hmmmm…

Ummmm, I think you counted incorrectly, Brer.  Consents were sent out (acc. to TEC) on January 5.  120 days will be May 5. (1 extra day in January and March, but Feb is only 28.  April is 30, so in this case the 120 days works out to 4 months even.)

Math was never my best subject.

#35
Sorry. I consider myself chastised…

Seriously though, the consents process for Glasspool+, rather the fact that we’re even counting consents at all indicates to me that TEC has consciously separated itself from the “mind of the Communion”.

At what point or after what demonstration are we willing to admit that there is no possibility of a third way? Is it possible that we have been fighting so long that the fight is at least nearly as important as the outcome? When do we just say “enough” and go to ACNA?

Tangentially, I believe these questions are related to the consents process for Glasspool+.

TEC has consciously separated itself from the “mind of the Communion”.

This certainly appears to be true in the LA Diocese and I believe the “consent” process for Glasspool+ is actually a vote about the importance of the Anglican Communion to TEC. If Glasspool+ is approved, the question then is whether TEC separates itself lock, stock and barrel from the Communion or this happens by Diocese. Either way, if we pray sincerely in our hearts, the Lord will remain present with us.

See through a Glasspool darkly.

Is the Glasspool half full or half empty?

Those who live in Glasspool houses….

There doesn’t appear to be any tally of Glasspool consents yet, but the Manhattan Declaration hit 400,000 today.

Standing Committee Dallas voted NO.

#44 Siangombe, Do you have a link for that statement?

The Dio of Tennessee is having its annual convention this weekend, Jan 22-23. I don’t think the SC has voted on consent yet but I will find out at convention.
I predict that +Bauerschmidt and the SC will both deny consent but I’ve been surprised before.

My best guess is that Western NC bishop and Standing Committee will vote to confirm, though I have no special knowledge.

Relatedly, and concurrent with the Glasspool consent process, note that all TEC bishops are being asked to report to Ruth A. Meyers, the Chair of the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music, about

any provisions they have made for “generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this Church,” and any theological and liturgical resources they are commending to the congregations and clergy in their dioceses. Responses to this letter will help the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music in our development of resources for the church.

This would appear to be the beginning of the active phase of development of official TEC liturgies for SSM.

A link to the original letter from the SCLM with more details about the C056 process can be found here .

A member of the HoD from E. Tennessee is reporting on the HoBD listserve that the standing committee of E. Tennessee has voted to consent.

My computer’s been down for a while, and I lost track of the consents.  Where is Glasspool in the consent process now?  And I’m happy to find the Manhattan Declaration signatures are over the 400,000 mark….no surprise there.

I received this via e-mail:

Consent process continues for bishops-elect
Public tally will reflect Standing Committee results
As the standing committees of the 110 dioceses of the Episcopal Church continue to provide formal consents to the recent elections of the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce and the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool as bishops suffragan in the Diocese of Los Angeles, an overall count of consents received will be provided online, officers of the L.A. diocesan standing committee have confirmed.
The tally—which will be made available later this month on the diocesan website—is set to provide a numeric total of consents received toward the target number of 56 (majority plus 1) needed to affirm in each election, officials said. Names of respective dioceses will not be released at this time, officials said.
A full report on the consent process, which also asks bishops with jurisdiction to provide their consents to the presiding bishop’s office, is here.

Western Louisiana’s MacPherson will vote “no” and challenges all Anaheim Statement Bishops to “contend for the faith once delivered for all to the saints.”  See my post at http://cottoncountryanglican.blogspot.com/2010/01/bishop-macpherson-to-fellow-anaheim.html.
Joe Roberts <><

My guess would be no from both Bishop Lawrence and standing committee. I checked our diocesan website- no info about the diocesan response.  However as some of our standing committee are to be elected at our Diocesean Convention in March, I doubt a answer will come from the Standing Committee until that election takes place.

When it happens, I will let you all know.

This has nothing to do with Glasspool but Borg is coming to Dallas to give a couple lectures:
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/01/marcus-borg-to-speak-at-dallas.html

Any word our our friend and Orthodox Bishop Henry Parsley?

55—That will be interesting. Parsley has gone on record with the Alabama media as stating that the GC resolutions changed nothing (obviously ridiculous), so he will have to come up with more creative reasoning if he votes to confirm. Maybe his response will get lost in the mail.

Complete speculation ..
Alabama:
The bishop voted against D025 but for C056. The laity in the deputies at GC voted, no, for both but the clergy voted for both. Interesting in the split for it signals a more conservative laity and a more liberal clergy. The diocese for the past two years has paid about 19% in the diocesan commit. to TEC. That signals a relatively strong support for TEC. So it will interesting to see how their Standing Com. votes for Glasspool. Judging by how the bishop voted against D025, he is not likely vote for Glasspool.
Looking at voting records, diocesan financial commit. and general knowledge of some dioceses, I came up with 43 dioceses that I think would vote in favor. That doesn’t mean she won’t get consent. It just means that I need to see who the 8 or so might be.

It will be interesting to see how the standing committee votes…must be a secret who they are though because the web page is blank.  The suffragan Bishop Sloan voted yes on both proposals at convention.  I think most of the laity is more conservative than both the priests and bishiops in Alabama.  Who knows what Henry really thinks because he’s too political to tell you which is of course rediculous.  Isn’t that what he’s supposed to do?

#58 I imagine Bishop Parsley will vote no on the basis of congeniality with the rest of the AC, and not on any religious rationale.

Regarding the Diocese of South Carolina, our Standing Committee last met just prior to the Glasspool consent information being sent out.  Thus, it hasn’t yet come before us.

[comment deleted—troll banned]

+Beckwith of Springfield voted no.

The Lead lists the Standing Committees of these dioceses as having consented (56 needed for approval):

California
Chicago
Delaware
East Tennessee
Hawai’i
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Northern Michigan
Pennsylvania
Rochester
San Joaquin
Texas
Vermont
Wyoming

And it lists the Standing Committees of these dioceses as voting “no”:

Dallas
Georgia
Lexington
Tennessee
West Texas

I see no contradictions here with the information in earlier posts. So the current total of the Standing Committees is:

Yes - 15
No - 5

As for bishops, the Presiding Bishop receives and keep that tally entirely separate from the Diocese of LA, which receives only the votes of the various diocesan standing committees.  According to the posts above, the totals for bishops are as follows thus far:

For - 13? (assuming the bishops vote with their standing committees - but subtracting the dioceses of Pennsylvania and Northern Michigan, which currently have no bishop).

Against - 3 (minimum; add likely S. Carolina and Western Louisiana, for a current total of 5)

The deadline to receive consents for Glasspool’s election is May 5.

I was under the impression that Texas was a Communion Parter diocese.  Perhaps I’m mistaken.

Uh oh, Jim Naughton has scooped me on N. Michigan. It was, of course, a forgone conclusion, unless they determined that Glasspool was too conservative.

It is good to see the SC of Georgia voting “no” after the outcome of the bishop election, maybe that will send a signal to the new bishop about just how welcome his innovations are in the diocese. 

Overall, we should expect the consents among standing committees to mirror the vote in favor of D025.  Things to watch will be how many Anaheim Statement bishops flip flop, and how many standing committees split with their bishop.

Please correct me if I’m wrong - but - I believe that “consents” are required only for Mary to assume membership in the TEC House of Bishops and NOT for her consecration as a Bishop.

After all - none of the recently consecrated AMiA or CANA or ACNA bishops received “consents” from the TEC house of Bishops.

The Bishop of LA can proceed with the Consecrations (assisted by 2 other Bishops) at any time, and they would be “Suffragan(s) of LA” but NOT members of the TEC House of Bishops.

I believe that there is NO requirement for a Diocesan Bishop to be a member of the House of Bishops.  In fact, a Diocesan Bishop is a option - the Standing Committee runs the Diocese in TEC.

From the Constitution for the government of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America Otherwise Known as The Episcopal Church

No one shall be ordained and consecrated Bishop until the attainment of thirty years of age; nor without the consent of a majority of the Standing Committees of all the Dioceses, and the consent of a majority of the Bishops of this Church exercising jurisdiction.

I think Already-Gone already went with that erroneous information. None of which is factual. The Presiding Bishop alone determines who has received sufficient consents, from the Standing Committees and from the bishops. She personally is responsible for the consecration. She may invite someone else to stand in for her as the chief consecrator, as in the case of +SC’s consecration, but +Bruno cannot consecrate the bishops elect on his own, not canonically anyway.

I see that accoring to The Lead, the TN Standing Committee has already denied consent. I just got elected to SC this weekend but I guess I won’t have to vote on this one.

66, 67, 68
I think that with 70% of HoB and HoD voting in favor of D025, any talk of Bruno consecrating Glasspool as some sort of “episcopa” vagans is mere hypothetical speculation.  From an ecclesiological point of view, he could do it (although the resulting bishop would not be a bishop of TEC, or, strictly speaking, even, the TEC diocese of LA- and he would be subject to discipline by TEC) but given that sufficient consents are likely to be in long before the deadline, why would he?  He already has rented out a big hall and invited everyone who is anyone from the mayor of LA to the PB to probably the ABC, although I would be very surprised if the latter made an appearance.

No, ALREADY GONE, the consents are required for the consecration to take place canonically.

Why on God’s green earth would AMiA, CANA or ACNA need or even want TEC consents? They aren’t under TEC canons. The other provinces of the Anglican Communion do not requrie TEC consent to consecrate bishops.

If Claypool should not receive the necessary consents will Bruno and a couple of other bishops proceed with the consecration anyway? Well, that’s certainly a possibility. Remember the Philadelphia Eleven? Radical TEC bishops are not noted for their fidelity to their ordination vows.

If Bruno et alia so act, will the House of Bishops discipline them. Hardly. Remember the Philadelphia Eleven. Would Claypool be recognized by TEC in such a case. Most likely. Remember the Philadelphia Eleven. The precedents are all there.

You must remember that it is only traditionalist bishops who are ever disciplined by TEC. The likes of Bruno get a free pass.

Northern Indiana Standing Committee—No.

Is the main post going to be updated with totals?

As a former member of the Diocese of Western Michigan, I would be very surprised if they deny consent. But let it be noted that I don’t know for sure how/if they’ve voted.

DavidSh-
As one former member of W Michigan to another, I was quite pleasantly surprised when the Standing Committee broke with the bishop and voted (or so it was reported) against the Forrester consent.  So it may be that there are some voices of sanity on the Standing Committee- or at least those who take some heed of the opinions of the people in the pews (given the campaign of the bishop to rid himself of orthodox priests, I hardly imagine that it was the clergy who influenced the standing committee).
While the W. Michigan delegation at GC voted the party line, it may be worth watching the standing committee, not sure how much overlap there is between the two.  While the liberal parishes who fawn on the bishop will not doubt be 100% behind him, you and I could name a number of both urban and rural parishes where the Glasspool consent is going to go over like a lead balloon.

There seems to be little point in continuing this thread if it isn’t going to contain the tally it promises.

There seems to be little point in continuing this thread if it isn’t going to contain the tally it promises.

I imagine Greggo would have done a tally long ago if the thread hadn’t been junked up with all manner of non-tally posts.

the snarkster™

From LA Diocese:

Of a total majority of 56 Standing Committee consents needed in each election, 17 have been received for the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, and 16 for the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce, said the Rev. Canon Cindy Evans Voorhees, president of the Los Angeles diocesan Standing Committee.

Can anyone confirm that the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Texas voted “Yes”?  There is no source stated for this information at “The Lead”.

West Texas Standing Commitee statement:
http://www.dwtx.org/var/files/File/Current News/Standing Com Stmt Glasspool corrected.pdf

The Lead has a tally of Standing Committee’s at:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/bishops/an_early_report_on_the_glasspo.html

Cedric-
Naughton stopped updating shortly after it was published.  One notes over the last several weeks that communication from TEC, other than the EL propaganda and press releases, has vanished.  There has not been ONE WORD published on the listserve about ++Mouneer Anis, or the AAC report, or Naughton’s remarks, or the upcoming CoE Synod- and few words about anything else.  So either the entire HoD has suddenly taken vows against internet use, or….. well, I would not want to put ideas into anyone’s head.

There are things they really don’t want discussed in public.  They certainly do not want people knowing that their own standing committee and bishop, regardless of all the promises made in conventions and parish meetings of the last decade, have consented to the election of Ms. Glasspool.

And they certainly do not want members of the Synod of CoE reading more about what TEC officials think of ++Mouneer Anis.  Or even what they think about ++Rowan Williams and the CoE.

It’s hard to believe that they could be silenced so thoroughly - esp. after TEC’s “news” service gave such play to Naughton’s offensive quote. But they sure are being quiet about major news. Has the Iron Fist come down?

As of Feb 3, LA Diocese is reporting 29 for Glasspool and 36 for Bruce. 
http://episcopalnews.ladiocese.net/dfc/newsdetail_2/138
Please put tally at the top of the article.

Is the Dio. LA aware that Glasspool’s nickname when she was in the Dio. MA was “Mary Cesspool” because of her filthy mouth? Good choice there, LA.

Rio Grande Standing Committee voted no
see pg 6: http://www.dioceserg.org/docs/02_2010.pdf

Just passing on gossip #85, or do you have a verifiable reference to this slander?

Gossip is a beautiful and natural method of human communication. People do not choose to be gossips, they are born that way. It’s the way God made them, and to suggest that there’s anything wrong with it is just hate speech.

In fact, at the next General Convention we hope to introduce resolution which will add a Gossip Blessing ceremony to the Book of Occasional Services.

Free at last, free at last.

which will add a Gossip Blessing ceremony to the Book of Occasional Services

At Baptist churches, that’s called the prayer meeting, where everyone exchanges “prayer requests.”

I think at Anglican churches, it would be Coffee Hour (aka Cocktail Hour at the really upscale ones).

This thread has remained at the top of the SF page for weeks now, and I check it regularly; as a concerned Episcopalian and a Marylander, I am very concerned about this issue.  Canon Mary Glasspool is an incredible priest, outspoken, personable, and a great preacher.  Facebook friends commented enthusiastically about a diocesan women’s retreat she recently led. 

Now Mary is not my candidate for a priest or bishop.  I do not believe a partnered homosexual is eligible to serve as ordained clergy in a Christian church.  Mary is part and parcel of the liberal clergy that so dominates life in TEC.  And her consecration as a TEC bishop will be a final breach with the Anglican Communion, according to the Windsor Report.

But if this thread is to serve as simply a slander board (see comment #85), perhaps SF should simply take it down.

Reply constrained to avoid banning, yet….

How can she be a great priest while openly and notoriously engaged in unrepentant sin?

Bo,
Like Dick Mitchell, I am from MD and know Mary personally.  He knows her through Cursillo, I through being in her parish for eight years. His point is well taken - Slandering Mary isn’t the point of this thread, although it appears comments about why she shouldn’t be consecrated as a bishop are being allowed. I have never known Mary to swear nor heard the above referenced insult about her language, either when she was a priest or as a canon to the ordinary.  It appears to be from her time in MA before coming to MD.
Mary is very “popular” as a person, although Dick and I have extremely different experiences. (And I suspect it’s the new wave in the gay leadership thrust - People who are NOT like Gene…) Dick’s experience is that Mary is a nice person, and I must admit, most people I know are of the same opinion. I know there is another side to Mary, a very cunning side that works hard and at any cost to get what she wants.  She has, IMHO, perfected the appearance game.  However, again IMHO, she is without a doubt not to be trusted in leadership, not qualified for leadership, no matter how “nice” she seems.  There is an openly gay priest living with a partner now at her former parish, and people seem to have the same weak response to why it is okay, because he’s so very personable and nice. (Dick, however, is able to separate being a nice person from being qualified for church leadership - Way to Go, Dick!  You are one of the few in MD).

The bloggers continue to allow comments about qualifications for this office, rather than a running tally, but I haven’t noticed whether anyone has made a checklist. A general checklist, suitable for any bishop search committee, can be derived without much trouble from 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:7-9, and a study of some appropriate commentaries. The two passages have some overlap.

It seems that in the Apostolic Era, the church fathers had the highest expectations of bishops. A bishop was (is still) to be of unimpeachable character. One of the jobs of the overseer was (is still) to defend the Christian community from distortions of Scripture and challenges from the secular world. Certainly, not to contribute to them.

I would respectfully advise our bishops and standing committees to reflect on these things, as part of the consent process for any bishop-elect.

cityonahill,
I asked how could she be a great priest, not how could she be a fine person.  One who will not repent of open and notorious sin is to be denied communion (1 Corinthians and the BCP 1662 at least), not consecrating it!

Ralph,
What a great plan, use the check-list God gave us!

Bo - I agree completely with you, and was trying to clarify that Dick was also saying the same thing as both of us.  His greater point was that slandering Mary (not your comments, of course) is not reflecting Christ-like character from those who comment of SFIF. 

Perhaps another thread is needed to isolate the tally???

Here is the latest from the NY Times

With Glasspool halfway there with another 90 days to go, it is time to consider what happens after she is consecrated. Personally I hope that Archbishop Rowan lets TEC go its own sweet liberal way, and looks for communion with us diocese by diocese. How on earth can he negotiate with TEC as currently constituted and its ‘Jesus is/was a good liberal reformer’? There is probably a place for that . . . . somewhere!

#97 - Should a TEC diocese develop the cojones to do other than what TEC headquarters decrees, they would most likely find themselves in the same hassles as the four dioceses that already DID move contrariwise… San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Quincy, and Pittsburgh.  UNLESS enough of the TEC dioceses could band together and back up their NO MORE with total dried up cash flow????

Mike Brit,

My prediction is that +++Rowan will continue in full communion with TEC. Everything he has said or done indicates that he covertly sympathises with the direction TEC is following. “Eventually, way down the track” (to quote Les Grossman) he will meet Ms Glasspool publicly and thereby endorse her.

However, he may not get the opportunity - the real issue will be what General Synod (of CofE) does, and what the Primates do.

As for General Synod, if they haven’t already recognised ACNA (at the synod about to take place), then this may be enough to sway waverers to recognise ACNA at the next synod.

As for the Primates, thus far ABC has managed to keep them (relatively) quiet by declining to call a Primates Council. He can’t undo the results of the last two Councils (in Dromantine and Dar Es Salaam) which condemned TEC’s direction in no uncertain terms, but he avoids any further embarrassment to TEC (and himself) by not calling another Council. Thus far, many Primates have been happy to wait for the next Council, but sooner or later they will run out of patience.

The danger for ABC is that the Primates may meet in council without ABC’s involvement if they are pushed far enough, and the Glasspool consecration may do that. If they do, then I suggest ++Anis’ recent public statements give a good idea of what will happen - a covenant for the communion, with no input from TEC or ACC, and with TEC not being permitted to sign it, and dissenting but orthodox groups being invited in.

#99 That is sounding like an ever more attractive way forward!

Everything he has said or done indicates that he covertly sympathises with the direction TEC is following.
then
a covenant for the communion, with no input from TEC or ACC, and with TEC not being permitted to sign it, and dissenting but orthodox groups being invited in.

Thank you for those thoughtful comments, Goughdonna. Either way it looks like a serious reordering within TEC unless Glasspool is NOT elected. But I think you are a little hard on +++Rowan.  In his book “On Christian Theology” after exposing the flaws in theology in general, he returns to the ‘truth’ and complexity of the narrative, that is to say scripture itself. This seems to me a unifying principle except within TEC at least the LA Diocese.

I don’t think so Mike Brit….not according to this latest statement:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/church_of_england/abc_williams_speaks_to_general.html

I think *if* Mary Glasspool fails to receive consents, it’s more likely to not come from the Bishops. And most of the bishops have not/will not reveal their votes. So it will be difficult to predict the outcome until the consent period is over.

The freedom claimed, for example, by the Episcopal Church to ordain a partnered homosexual bishop is, simply as a matter of fact, something that has a devastating impact on the freedom of, say, the Malaysian Christian to proclaim the faith without being cast as an enemy of public morality and risking both credibility and personal safety.

Thanks TLD and for pointing me to the above quotes by +++Rowan. He is a remarkably brilliant and complex person who has made some distinctly liberal and often silly comments at least about economics etc (at least IMHO). He is also a very difficult person to pin down. Has anyone read a gloss by him on Romans 1?

103 and 104-
People might be advised to read or listen to the whole speech here:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2741
as Naughton has provided only excerpts selected by Naughton.

I think I would correct the statement “Everything he has said or done indicates that he covertly sympathises with the direction TEC is following” to read: “While he frequently indicates in written and verbal communication that he believes that TEC has breached the trust of the Communion, and indeed torn the fabric, his actions indicate that he sympathizes with the direction TEC has taken, and will not himself impose any discipline.”

Amen Tj, I concur.

“My prediction is that +++Rowan will continue in full communion with TEC. Everything he has said or done indicates that he covertly sympathises with the direction TEC is following. “Eventually, way down the track” (to quote Les Grossman) he will meet Ms Glasspool publicly and thereby endorse her.

However, he may not get the opportunity - the real issue will be what General Synod (of CofE) does, and what the Primates do.”

Agree, but I believe you overstate the votes in the COE. The resolution(s) before the Synod do not come close to recognizing the ACNA, and the recently offered amendment is a step away from future recognition.

MichaelA, there is no Primates Council. There is a Primates Meeting for an opportunity of “leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation”. The meeting has no combined authority over the AC. The ABC has not neglected to call the meeting. The primates ususally meet every two years and recently have met in 2005, 2007, and most recently in 2009, in Anis Mouneer’s backyard in Alexandria, Egypt. So based on this schedule the next meeting is sometime in 2011.

In the end, though, Going Home, it won’t really make much difference, since it is the primates and not solely one province who decide who is in communion with them.

Hi David, sorry my earlier post seems to have been lost.

I agree that I have been unduly dimissive of the 2009 meeting, particularly as this is the one that led ++Venables and ++Orombi to state publicly that the dissolution of the Communion in its present form is inevitable. Ironically, the fact that the meeting was less contentious seems to have allowed greater clarity as to the irreconciliable divide.

No doubt that is why ++Anis recently called for TEC to be precluded from signing the covenant (if it ever comes into existence) unless it repents of apostasy.

I take your point re “council” vs “meeting”, despite the former creeping into regular use these days.

Re “The meeting has no combined authority over the AC”, in a sense this is true, but then in the same sense neither does anyone else! In particular, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the ACC or anyone else you want to name have no authority over the Anglican Communion. The Primates themselves derive their status really from only one source - each is the leader of an autonomous Anglican province.

Moral authority is another matter. I think it would be fair to say that most Anglicans in the world recognise the AC as a real and important entity, and accord considerable respect to the Primates as the major authority in that entity. Once, I would have said that the primary moral authority in the AC was the Archbishop of Canterbury - he still is for some, but that appears to be changing rapidly.

I am not getting into the thorny issue of ‘whether we should have a covenant’ which has been debated on other threads, but just saying this is where we are at now, and presumably where we remain unless some form of covenant comes into existence.

The only real authority in the AC is the ACC. That is the only thing close to being a constituent synod made up of reps from the orders of laity and the ordained of the various provinces based on their population. Only it controls actually who is, and subsequently who is not, a member province of the AC. It controls the roster.

Moral authority is another matter. I think it would be fair to say that most Anglicans in the world recognise the AC as a real and important entity, and accord considerable respect to the Primates as the major authority in that entity.
I think that is a very recent construct and solely of conservative devising, and one would be sore pressed to get provinces outside of GAFCON to accept/embrace that idea.

David, You said

The only real authority in the AC is the ACC. That is the only thing close to being a constituent synod made up of reps from the orders of laity and the ordained of the various provinces based on their population.

Now that is really funny though I don’t think you mean it to be.  Here is a helpful wikipedia article on the ACC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Consultative_Council If you read it you will see that TEC is considered a large province and is accorded the same number of representatives as Nigeria a province with ten times as many members.  How is this representative of population?  If the ACC were representative of population I don’t think you would like the ACC as much as you apparently do.

Also using your argument it would seem that the Anglican Communion lacked any real authority until the ACC was created by Lambeth in 1968.  Astonishing! How did we manage?

The only REAL authority in the Anglican Communion is Jesus Christ.  If you do not believe that, you are wasting your time arguing over the rest of it.

Amen Tj…amen…..I could care one wit whether ACNA gets CofE recognition…..as it is CofE is not better off than TEC. My boss is a Jewish Carpenter….His recognition is all I need….

And yet Ed, that is exactly what the first paragraph says, representation is determined by the size (population) of the province. So obviously based upon the by-laws of the ACC, all the provinces considered to be the largest get the same three reps. And all of the tiny provinces, including mine, get one lay rep.

Ed, I did not say I did or did not like the ACC. I just pointed out that it is the only one of the 4 “Instruments” that actually has any sort of authority. It determines who are its member provinces. And that roster of member provinces is the Anglican Communion. A second “Instrument”, the ABC, has the authority over the invitation list to his once-every-10-years Tea Party, with said Tea Party being a third “Instrument.”  So once every ten years what is a virtual “Instrument” becomes physical for a short period, but it has no authority aside from hoping its published opinions on matters may have some influence. The final “Instrument” is the Primates Meeting, which is sort of a retreat for them every two years, with the ABC as its de facto president. But I am not aware that he can even not invite someone. But the Retreat has as much authority as the Tea Party. However, it gets to offer its joint opinion, so hopefully influence folks, more often.

Please stop nit picking every tiny morsel of what I may write and trying to read between the lines. You can take anything I say at face value. I do not write here with a hidden agenda.

I agree TJ.

David at 122,

The only real authority in the AC is the ACC. That is the only thing close to being a constituent synod made up of reps from the orders of laity and the ordained of the various provinces based on their population. Only it controls actually who is, and subsequently who is not, a member province of the AC. It controls the roster.

This is wrong at just about every point:

Firstly, you can’t describe the ACC as an “authority” in any sense, let alone “the only real authority”. The instrument constituting the ACC lists a number of functions which are all expressed in accordance with its title - consult, advise, develop policies, foster exchange of information etc. It has no function that requires or confers authority.

Secondly, whilst I suppose you could describe it as a “synod” in the very broad sense, that is not really accurate either. Synod’s decide things, as an end in themselves. The ACC has no function outside of those bodies it assists and advises.

Thirdly, the ACC may keep a roster but it doesn’t control it, because ACC has never been given the power to determine membership, although it certainly has a role to advise on same. Last I heard, ACC resolutions about membership are still expressed in the following format (resolution 38 from the 2002 meeting):

“This Anglican Consultative Council, noting with pleasure the growth of the Church in Tanzania, resolves, subject to the assent of the Primates, that the Church of Tanzania should be transferred from Category (c) to Category (b) of the Schedule of the Constitution.”

Note the rider: “subject to the assent of the Primates”.

I think that is a very recent construct and solely of conservative devising, and one would be sore pressed to get provinces outside of GAFCON to accept/embrace that idea.

I agree that it is recent - I think even ten years ago ABC was held in far higher esteem than he is now. His failure to give firm leadership against liberal apostasy has cost his standing dear.

Your references to “conservative” and “Gafcon” seem confused - I assume you are not suggesting that “conservatives” are limited to the 280 bishops from 17 provinces who attended the Jerusalem Conference in 2008? Just because a particular bishop or primate did not attend that conference doen’t mean that they condone the apostasy of TEC and ACoC.

Could we start a new consents tally list?  This one appears to have drifted pretty far off-topic and I don’t see it returning to counting votes.

As for membership in the ACC:  The only fair way of apportioning membership is one primate, one priest, and one lay person from each province.  No rich province should have more influence than any poor province….but the rich provinces would never stand for that, would they?

There may be some “rich provinces” that like the idea, because it would allow them to pull along side a “poor province” that has more representation because it has more members.

Such as Nigeria or Uganda….where the AC membership far and away outstrips anything in Western Anglicanism?

Supposedly, the ACNA motion was passed in the CofE Synod. What motion? The original or the amendment?

Actually LA Diocese reported “as of Feb. 3, Standing Committee consents numbered 29 for the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, and 34 for the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce.” I would guess that the Glasspool enthusiasts would vote early!

David,

My apologies if I misconstrued your meaning.  I thought I was taking it at face value.  The ACC is a relatively new thing within the Anglican Communion and is technically the child of Lambeth.  It meets at the invitation of the ABC.  Like the Primates Meeting.

The one thing that is very clear is that the ACC is not representative by population save in a legal technical sense devoid of substance.

I do think the question of who or what is the closest thing to a central authority is very much a question without a present answer.  On paper it remains the ABC.  In practice I don’t think there is one. Rowan Williams is 59 years old and could conceivably serve as ABC another 12 years.  It is unlikely that he will change his leadership style anytime soon, so the prospects of an assertive ABC are dim for the foreseeable future.

Bishop Gray of Mississippi has denied consent. Standing Committee will take up question in next month’s meeting.

Thanks Greg,

Is there a running tally somewhere of those who have consented and those who have denied?

The Diocese of La reports on their homepage,

As of Feb. 10, Standing Committee consents numbered 36 for the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, and 48 for the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce.

I expect this next two weeks will see the majority of Standing Committees report back.

Standing Committee of Diocese of Southwest Florida- NO

Fond du Lac Steering Committee voted no to Glasspool.

As of Feb. 10, Standing Committee consents numbered 36 for the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, and 48 for the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce.

I was going to point out that this quote indicates that there are at least 12 SCs who denied consent to Glasspool, assuming that 1) no one has denied consent for Bruce and 2) all the committees represented have voted on both candidates.

However, I know that Tennessee denied consent for Glasspool at the January meeting, and gave consent for Bruce at the 2/11 meeting, so my initial assumptions are not legitimate. The requests for consent were apparently not sent at the same time.

Fl - no

Wow- you mean Florida went to all the trouble to depose 41 priests, and still voted no on Glasspool?  Is Bp. Howard not so popular?

Does anyone know how San Diego voted?

As of Feb. 17, Standing Committee consents numbered 45 for the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, and 56 for the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce.

From http://episcopalnews.ladiocese.org/dfc/newsdetail_2/153

As of Feb. 17, Standing Committee consents numbered 45 for the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, and 56 for the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce.

A question out of ignorance: is Diane Jardine Bruce controversial in any may (for Standing Committees, that is)? Would it be safe to say that not many more than 56 Standing Committees have sent in their “vote”, and that Mary Glasspool would, therefore, have around 70-80% approval at this point?

Does anyone have any input on this?

Erak,

There may be some sense connection between the votes but the relationship is not clear.  Anecdotal information suggests that the two consent requests were prepared and sent separately.  Standing committees set their own agendas.  So it may be true that some part of the different totals represents a yes / no set of votes, it is difficult to say what part.  It is pretty easy to imagine an SC saying to itself that it wanted more time on the one vote.

Reading the tea leaves on this vote is not simple.  I still think both will be approved but having raised teenage sons, I know I can be wrong!  They told me I was often enough. 

FWIW
jimB

Diocese of Kentucky standing committee voted yes, but we wouldn’t have known if someone hadn’t directly asked the president of the standing committee.  Wonder why they haven’t been out and proud of their decision?

@jimB: Thanks a lot for the input!

I guess guessing time might be over already on Wednesday…

Any word about Alabama?

Hmm.  It’s almost 5pm PST and no Wednesday weekly update on the Diocese of LA website. Interesting. I can only think of three likely scenarios that would account for this. In order of probability,

1. The consents came in and 815 is attempting damage control in the Anglican Communion before making an announcement.

2. Enough consents were received from Standing Committees but not enough yet from Bishops.

3. The Webmaster is too busy to bother to post a weekly update.

I’m guessing the answer is #1

LA Diocese website says she has 51

Here is the link:
http://episcopalnews.ladiocese.net/dfc/newsdetail_2/162

This seems to be so secretative. I have no doubt it will go through. If there isn’t enough votes come April, I wonder what 815 will offer the dioceses to change theor vote. Free membership?

There’s never been any question that they wouldn’t get enough Standing Committee consents. Whether or not they will get enough Bishops to consent is less certain (but still likely).

South Dakota SC has voted but their position is that they don’t have to reveal votes until their report to Diocesan Convention in Sept.

Glasspool 51, Bruce 66. Pretty much a done deal folks. Next, let’s see what AB Rowan says and does. The hope is parallel jurisdictions.

Mike Brit—that count is for Standing Committee consents only, not the bishops.  That’s why we have this nice handy Open Thread so that people may hound their bishops to find out how they have voted and post it here.

Oh my gosh—you people love the misery.  Why WHY are you expecting something different from RW than what you have experienced for the last years?  WHY do you expect this time will be different.  Like I said—abuse is predictable and will continue until the divorce. Then you will only need restraining orders against their stalking and harassment.

What happens if the standing committees consent and the Bishops dont?

Then the PB starts threatening to depose those bishops who voted no until she gets the magic number. If they don’t follow in step .... then Glasspool fails to be elected and all hell breaks out in the LGTB community.

TheBeat,  the process is pretty clear.  A bishop-elect must get majorities in both houses within the time frame or fail.  In cases where that does not happen, the election is null.  While the sarcastic here would have you believe the liberals won’t accept a loss, the record recently (Western Michigan and South Carolina) is the a diocese whose election is rejected simply does the next step—a new election.

FWIW
jimB

JimB, sorry, but I agree with TheBeat.  If Glasspool doesn’t receive the necessary votes in the HoB, the GLBT crowd will cry foul, and there will be a new election. If there is a non-celibate lesbian candidate again, she will lose that election, too.

Pardon my cynicism JimB…There is a big difference IMHO between W.Michigan with a pagan and Jon Bruno’s handpicked partnered lesbian. The restraints by canon law can be altered on a whim. Glasspool will not be denied.
Intercessor

For the record,I was not being sarcastic but being truthful. I was basing my opinion on what happened in California over the vote on Prop 8.

Just a correction to some of the recent posts: the bishop-elect who was turned down was in NORTHERN Michigan, not Western. Dave (former member of the latter diocese.)

Dave, I sit corrected—wrong Michigan.

Others, let us look at the record.  Then Fr. Lawrence was denied consent.  SC held a convention with an election featuring one and only one candidate.  Subsequently consents were received and Bp. Lawrence was duly consecrated.  Northern Michigan’s candidate was denied consent and the diocese is in the process of assembling a new slate. 

In neither case was there any moment when anyone on national staff intervened and no moment when canon was in any way ignored.

It is easy I am sure to feel persecuted when as let’s be honest, you are in a constant minority.  But the simple truth is that the process does have its own integrity and there is no evidence to the contrary in either recently disputed election.  Which is why, even though I suspect he would deny me communion, I respect Bp. Lawrence’s status as a for real bishop. 

A Canadian conservative friend of mine and I joke that as the last two honest to God moderates in North America we are standing on the bull’s eye. Mayhaps we are.  But here is the truth, were Rev. Glasspool denied consent (I don’t expect this to happen) LA could follow the South Carolina precedent and try again or elect someone else.  Yes they might re-elect her.  And yes consent might fail twice.  That is the way the process is structured.  But it is fair and it is followed.  Sorry but that is the simple truth.

Frankly the idea that somehow this has anything to do with Prop 8 is silly. 
FWIW
jimB

The level of scrutiny for the proper form of consents for Bp. Lawrence was much higher than ever before (or since).

The suggestion that the PB would do arm twisting to get her way has been demonstrated before (Virgina) and the idea that she would do it again, for Glasspool is likely.

I suspect the reference to Prop 8 is, just as the GLBT supporters are unwilling to accept the legal passage of Prop 8 and continue to try and find ways of usurping the legally implemented will of the people, the GLBT supporters in TEC are not likely accept any denial of Glasspool and will do whatever it takes to get her in.

With all due respect to my esteemed colleagues on the thread, I do not think that there is need to speculate that the votes of the bishops will need to be “fudged” in any way.  At GC, the votes of bishops in favor of C056 and D025 mirrored those of the deputies- that is to say, about 2/3 in favor.  We can assume that if they are willing to blow raspberries at the ABoC in a public forum, in this more private one they are almost certain to consent.  Else they will appear hypocrites even to those liberals in their dioceses. (Conservatives already know them to be hypocrites, for the most part.)  The only detail I see as potentially interesting in all this is how many of the “Anaheim statement” bishops who voted in favor of one or both of the resolutions vote to consent (note that many of the signers were retired or suffragans, so they don’t have a vote one way or the other).  I have speculated (although I do not have actual knowledge) that +Pierre Whalon’s recent article may have been in response to his being informed that the PB had cast the “Europe” vote to consent to Glasspool.  My prediction is that most of the Anaheim signers will let the consent date pass by without taking an actual position.  This will count as a “no”, but give them cover after the consecration (“I abstained in order to maintain our relations with the Communion, but of course respect the decisions of the other bishops and standing committees”- or something like that).
  In all likelihood, we will know by this time Wednesday.

When Glasspool is confirmed, RW will kick the Episcopal Church out of the Anglican Communion, or at least create parallel jurisidiction. His steps up to this point to thwart discipline have actually been part of a carefully crafted plan to give TEC enough rope to hang itself. I can’t wait. Happy days!

PS-the next round is on me.

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/4549
Oh then Sarah must be in error??? BeerKat and the Canonbenders seem to have a new hit every week!
Heavens to Murgatroyd !!
Intercessor

#159 Going Home-Rowan will do nothing of the sort.  He has
demonstrated time and time again that he is not willing to alienate TEC and their $$$‘s.  Even setting up a parallel jurisdiction (which BTW has precedent in Philippines) would alienate TEC.  Not going to happen.

#158, I’m afraid I disagree. Should the Rev. Glasspool be confirmed (which appears likely), I think the Archbishop of Canterbury will be serving up a double portion of Anglican fudge. He will likely write a firm note and he may even taken note. If he’s really peeved, he may issue a stern warning. Dire consequences indeed, but short of what you are contemplating.

160+161-
I think you missed Going Home’s tongue being firmly planted in his (or her) cheek.  Hence his “PS-the next round is on me.”  Obviously, he is not from either Michigan or Wisconsin, where the phrase is a legally enforceable contract.  But I think that he meant to imply that ++Rowan actually doing what he suggested was as realistic as all of us showing up at his local tavern and him actually standing us to a round.
“Yeah, that’s the ticket”- might be more appropriate for the Jon Lovitz fans.

Even so, it might not hurt us to pray that ++Rowan has a “Thomas Becket moment,” sees the light, and takes on the courage of some of his illustrious forebearers.

Hmmm…..according to the official dictionary of Redmond Washington, that should have been “forebears” not “forebearers.”  Seven years in university just doesn’t go as far as it used to.

If a parallel jurisdiction is NOT set up by Rowan Cantuar, the primates who support the ACNA and who don’t kowtow to him could take the matter out of his hands and do it for him.

Going Home and Cennydd may be correct.  I hope so.  I do not think the Church of England is even close to as revisionist as TEC, and they certainly appreciate “Interdependence” far more.  If the ABC and the New Joint Standing Committee do not act on behalf of the Primates Meeting and Anglican Consultative Council I think it unlikely that either will meet anytime soon.  They will no longer be perceived as Instruments of Unity in any substantive way.  The Global South will likely just stay away, or resign en mass.

#58 Going Home must live in a parallel universe where there is an ABC with that type of authority. The ABC in this universe, one Rowan Williams, does not have any of the level of authority you wish him to have. He cannot unitarily remove TEC or any other province from the AC, nor can he grant any such thing as dual jurisdictions and introduce any other entity as a province in the AC.

There is a process for entering the AC. That process involves a petition for entrance in the Anglican Consultative Council. There is currently no entity involved in that process.

So when the ABC does not do as you wish, please do not be angry with him. What you want him to do is beyond his faculties.

Excuse me, that should read #158, not #58.

[166] David |däˈvēd|

Strange that such a powerless man as RW has been so successful at thwarting any and every effort to hold TEC accountable for its actions.  It’s not like he could have .. I don’t know ... withheld Lambeth Invitations or anything.  All poor powerless RW could manage was to sabotage the Primates Conference in Feb 2007.  And everything else that TEC has found threatening for the last three years.  Pity the poor powerless RW.

carl

This is what +++Rowan said in February:

“But when the affirmation of that good takes the form of pre-empting the discernment of the wider Anglican (and a lot of the non-Anglican) fellowship, and of acting in ways that negate the general understanding of the limits set by Bible and tradition, there is a conflict with another undoubted good, which is the capacity of the Anglican family to affirm and support one another in diverse contexts. The freedom claimed, for example, by the Episcopal Church to ordain a partnered homosexual bishop is, simply as a matter of fact, something that has a devastating impact on the freedom of, say, the Malaysian Christian to proclaim the faith without being cast as an enemy of public morality and risking both credibility and personal safety.  It hardly needs to be added that the freedom that might be claimed by an African Anglican to support anti-gay legislation likewise has a serious impact on the credibility of the gospel in our setting.

And in the Communion we have no supreme executive to make the decisions that might settle how the balance of freedom might be worked out.  The Anglican Covenant has been attacked in some quarters for trying to create an executive power and for seeking to create means of exclusion.  This is wholly mistaken.  There is no supreme court envisaged, and the constitutional liberties of each province are explicitly safeguarded.  But the difficult issue that we cannot simply ignore is this.  Certain decisions made by some provinces impact so heavily on the conscience and mission of others that fellowship is strained or shattered and trust destroyed.  The present effect of this is chaos – local schisms, outside interventions, all the unedifying stuff you will be hearing about (from both sides) in the debate on Lorna Ashworth’s motion.  So what are the vehicles for sharing perspectives, communicating protest, yes, even, negotiating distance or separation, that might spare us a worsening of the situation and the further reduction of Christian relationship to vicious polemic and stony-faced litigation? As I have said before, it may be that the Covenant creates a situation in which there are different levels of relationship between those claiming the name of Anglican.  I don’t at all want or relish this, but suspect that, without a major change of heart all round, it may be an unavoidable aspect of limiting the damage we are already doing to ourselves.  I make no apology, though, for pleading that we try, through the Covenant, to discover an ecclesial fellowship in which we trust each other to act for our good – an essential feature of anything that might be called a theology of the Body of Christ.” 

As far as TEC is concerned and maybe England and Canada, this seems to me to include the idea of parallel jurisdictions. Someone remarked to me the other day that +++Rowan envisioned a mother Christian Church including Orthodox, Lutherans etc. Personally I seek parallel jurisdictions with a vision of a bigger church not one in my case dominated by a sort of idolatrous liberalism.

David [Da-veed], I agree with Fr McNeill.  The Global South IS quite likely to disagree with RDW.  He does NOT run the Anglican Communion, and as you say, he has no authority to recognize the ACNA or any other jurisdiction seeking entry to the Communion, and he may very well choose not to recognize us.  The Global South primates….and a good many others, by the way, DO have that authority, and they have it because they give themselves that authority as members of the Communion.  Whether or not they could continue to call themselves the “Anglican Communion” is another matter, and personally, a whole LOT of us don’t really CARE whether they do or not.  I for one don’t.  I used to, but not any more!  As Archbishop Akinola so aptly said no long ago, we don’t need to go through Canterbury to be Anglican Christians….or something to that effect.  Therefore, if the Global South and GAFCON primates should choose to lead their provinces out of the Canterbury Anglican Communion, I would be extremely elated and happy to go along with them.

I might add, too, that the vote in the CofE Synod acknowledging the ACNA as an authentic Anglican province has put RDW in the position of having to admit that he knows we’re authentic, and this could make things difficult for him by forcing his hand.  The question is, whom will he continue to serve….TEC and KJS because of their monetary largesse, and therefore their undue influence….or the rest of the Communion, and through them, Christ and His Church?

And since KJS sits on the ACC….and therefore she thinks she runs it because of TEC’s money….she will tell them that she doesn’t want the ACNA to be recognized as a province of the Communion.  That’s the truth as I see it….and I’m sure quite a few others do as well.  Anyone care to argue the point?

Gang, as stated above, my tongue was firmly in my cheek. I would place the odds of TEC being expelled, or the ACNA recognized in any formal fashion as part of the Communion, at about zero percent. So be it.

the vote in the CofE Synod acknowledging the ACNA as an authentic Anglican province

I am sure that the person who believes this is what happened at General Synod is Peter Pan.

David [da-veed], you really need to review what happened at the CofE Synod.  I didn’t say that the ACNA was recognized by them as a member province of the Communion.  They did, however, recognize us as a province desiring recognition by Canterbury.  I once thought such recognition by Canterbury was important, but as I said earlier, I changed my mind, and for some very good reasons, which I need not explain.  Go back and re-read what I said earlier about that. 

Four years ago, I believe, several African primates….you know, the same ones whom Bishop Chane referred to as “having just come down from the trees,” stated that the then “Anglican Communion Network” was the “sole authentic representation of Anglicanism” in North America.  Aside from Schori and Company and their cronies, no one in the Communion….with the exception of a few revisionists from other provinces….has yet argued against that.  And I remind you:  The Anglican Communion Network was founded at the suggestion of Rowan Cantuar!  He encouraged us!  It is a matter of record, in case you’d care to check.  Next time, do your homework.

WE didn’t leave the Episcopal Church.  THEY LEFT US!

And I reiterate:  an authentic Anglican province.

And PLEASE:  Don’t try to tell me than in order to be an authentic Anglican province, we must be part of the Communion!  While it might be desirable, it isn’t essential.

Perhaps you should check with Matt Kennedy. He does not see what you think that you saw.

No where in the resolution passed by CoE General Synod do the words authentic Anglican province appear. The motion recognizes that ACNA wants to remain in the Anglican family. A bit of polite English nondescriptness going on there.

The motion went from we should recognize them to they want to be recognized by us. Wannabes. It was gutted and they wording to recognize ACNA was further rejected a second time as an amendment to the gutted motion. And then further they refused a motion to recognize your Holy Orders. They recognized ACNA as wannabes. No more.

Anyone who believes more lives in Never Never Land.

I must remind you, then, that our bishops and clergy are now and have been for over a year under the protection of the Province of the Southern Cone, and are licensed to officiate and function as Anglican deacons, priests, and bishops by the Most Rev Gregory Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone.  In addition, since they are, they are in effect functioning as part of the Communion, and in fact, my own bishop, the Rt Rev John-David Schofield, has been recognized as such by none other than ++Rowan Williams….and THAT is a matter of record.  Our bishops are also members of the Southern Cone House of Bishops, as well as that of the ACNA….and this includes Archbishop Duncan. 

Now, may I suggest that perhaps you would like to take the matter of acceptance up with Archbishop Venables himself.  I’m sure he could clear the matter up to your satisfaction.  This of course does not mean that the ACNA is, as you say, recognized as a province of the Anglican Communion, but time is on OUR side, and we will eventually officially join the Communion.  Or we will go with the Global South and GAFCON primates when and if they leave the Communion.  That will depend on how soon they get fed up with ++Rowan’s coddling of TEC and the ACofC.  Personally, I’d just as soon the ACNA chose the latter course, rather than be even remotely associated with the heretical revisionists in TEC and the ACofC.

And the recognition of ACNA holy orders is moot, as I referenced above.

See that is one of the problems with a church which is Sybil in Anglican clothes. Some of your bishop, priests and deacons aligned with the Southern Cone, and now they have a foot each in two boats. Others are members of African provinces and also have a foot each in two boats, avery precarious situation, a bit unique. In fact, there are no Anglican provinces in the Anglican Communion with such freaky circumstances. Then you also have a pack of bishops, priests and deacons who split with Canterbury over 100 years ago. There is nothing uniform or standard going on with Holy Orders in your church.

If ACNA wants to join our Anglican Communion it is a simple process. Your leadership has been pointed to it a number of times. It takes a few years to complete, but ACNA does not fathom doing anything by the process. It keeps trying to cut corners and come in through the backdoor.

Apply for membership in the Anglican Consultative Council. If ACNA is approved for membership then it is legitimately a recognized Anglican province in the Anglican Communion. If it is denied, at least it can hold its head high that it tried and was told no.

David and Cennydd
I find it interesting the discussion about whether not a group will be recognized or de-recognized at part of an organization (the Anglican Communion) that has no organization.
What I see as important is what Anglicans are in communion with each other.  If I recall correctly TEC is in broken or impaired communion with a provinces representing a majority of Anglicans and ACNA is in communion with a provinces representing a majority of Anglicans. 

Which is more important?  Being in Communion with Anglicans or being in the Anglican Communion?

Did y’all notice there was no weekly update on consents at the Diocese of Los Angeles web site?  My guess is that Glasspool has enough standing committee consents and now 815 gets to spin the release when enough bishop consents come in (if they haven’t already).

182.  You’re quite right on all accounts, JustOneVoice!  Thank you.

Ralinda, They have been posting on Wednesdays haven’t they?  I would not expect anything today.

FWIW
jimB

David [da-veed], who do you know who thinks she holds all of the cards (and the money) and who therefore thinks she holds sway over what the ACC says and does concerning ACNA’s aspirations for membership in the Communion?  Do the initials KJS look familiar?  And what do you suppose will happen if Dr Noll’s two amendments to the Anglican Covenant are adopted?  Will Schori and Company accept them and the second tier status resulting from those amendments?  I seriously doubt it.

A lot depends on whether or not Mary Glasspool becomes a bishop.  We shall soon see.

Bp. Hollingsworth of Ohio posted on the diocesan website on March 1 his decision to consent to Glasspool’s nomination.  No mention of the Standing Committee in his announcement.  Link below.

http://www.dohio.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3027&Itemid=1

Some primates have declared that they are in impaired communion with TEC. Those same primates are the ones who have stated that they are in communion with ACNA. How many of the provinces of those primates have followed any canonical preceding to break communion with TEC and declare communion with ACNA. I believe a few have, but certainly no where near a majority of Anglicans in the Anglican Communion.

As it stands today, a super majority of Anglican primates are in communion with TEC and a super majority of Anglicans in the Anglican Communion are canonically in communion with TEC. And also today there is not a majority of Anglican primates in communion with ACNA and there is not a majority of Anglicans in the Anglican Communion canonically in communion with ACNA.

You didn’t answer my question (186).  The ACNA may have to wait for several years, or they may decide their future lies with the GAFCON and Global South provinces.  Time is on their side.

What happens next between TEC and the rest of the Communion partly depends, as I said, on whether or not Mary Glasspool becomes a bishop.

#181 David |däˈvēd|:

A lot of people might view The Philippine Independent Church and The Episcopal Church of the Philippines as an example of ‘freaky circumstances’.  Interesting that both of these ‘overlapping provinces’ has roots in TEC.  Kinda hypocritical if you ask me.

David- 189-
TEC impaired communion with the Church of England, and all other churches in communion with the Church of England, when it removed the Holy Orders of +Henry Scriven, a bishop both consecrated by an Archbishop of Canterbury, and at the time the PB “renounced” his orders for him, was serving as a bishop in the Church of England.  All Churches which refuse the ministry of VGR are in impaired communion with TEC. At last count, that was 29 or 30 out of 38.
The seven churches of Gafcon, which between them represent over 50% of the membership of the Anglican Communion, voted through their synods to break communion with TEC altogether.
In 2003, the Synod of the Church of South East Asia voted a resolution breaking communion, by see (in the case of diocesans) or name (in the case of suffragans, retired, assisting, etc), with every bishop who consented to, or participated in, the consecration of VGR- including, the then bishop of Nevada.
So yes, there is documentary evidence that TEC- as an entity- is not in communion at all with the majority of Anglicans, and that it is in impaired communion with almost everyone else.  KJS has even threatened to remove the orders of a former TEC bishop (+McDonald) now serving in Canada.
Please do your homework, and take you fiction somewhere else.

Ralinda-
The diocesan update is due today at 5 pm, PST.  Last week, Wednesday, they posted one, but did not put it (at least initially, on the head line page.  Somewhere up above, a link was posted for it. As of last week, 51 of the standing committees had consented.

tjmcmahon
Thank you for those facts.

I note that in David’s post he mixed majority of primates/provinces with a majority of Anglicans.  If he would had stuck with stating a majority of primates/provinces he would have been correct.  He would have changed the subject, but he would have been correct.  However in his last sentence:

And also today there is not a majority of Anglican primates in communion with ACNA and there is not a majority of Anglicans in the Anglican Communion canonically in communion with ACNA.

The first part is right, the second part is wrong.  To help clarify:

TEC is in communion with more provinces (many are small, shrinking provinces). 

ACNA is in communion with more individual Anglicans (many are in large, growing provinces).

take you fiction somewhere else

The fictions are in your heads, the oft repeated mantras on conevo blogs.
TEC impaired communion with the Church of England, and all other churches in communion with the Church of England, when it removed the Holy Orders of +Henry Scriven, a bishop both consecrated by an Archbishop of Canterbury, and at the time the PB “renounced” his orders for him, was serving as a bishop in the Church of England.
You purposely misrepresent what the PB did. She did not depose him, she canonically removed his facility to act as a bishop in TEC, because he had left the ministry of TEC when he returned to England. That facility had been canonically extended to him when he took up residence in the USA and sought permission from TEC to serve as an assisting bishop in the diocese of Pittsburgh. The same holds true for Bishop McDonald when he is no longer serving in the ministry of TEC. I believe that he is still serving Navaholand until they elect a new bishop. He has canonically been granted faculty as a bishop in ACoC and when his ministry to the Navaholand is finished he will be canonically prohibited from further exercising his facility as a bishop in TEC. There is nothing adversarial about either situation, it is the canonical process of changing jurisdictions according to TEC canons. It would be the same for bishops entering or leaving the province of the ACoMexico.

The seven churches of Gafcon, which between them represent over 50% of the membership of the Anglican Communion, voted through their synods to break communion with TEC altogether.
May I have the links to the evidence that all seven have canonically done this. I do not believe that this is the case. I think you misread the non-canonical pronouncement of a prince bishop in the person of a primate as the official acts of a province.

The situation raised for the Philippines is a a non-sequitar. One church is a member of the Anglican Communion, and the other is not. The church which is not a member of the Anglican Communion however is in communion with a few churches that are in the AC, including the other church in the Philippines.

David
Was this meant to be funny:

I think you misread the non-canonical pronouncement of a prince bishop in the person of a primate as the official acts of a province.”

It sounds like you are describing KJS.

Again you are arguing political, organizational, legal points.  The Anglican Communion was built and held together by “Bonds of Affection”.  You and I both know ACNA is tied together with Bonds of Affection with more Anglicans than TEC.

Some of the links you asked for are below.  I’m not sure the process that each provinces needs to go though to make communion canonically proper (you know, that unique polity thing).  Perhaps some of the provinces have not done it YET, maybe I they did and I can’t find a link (I have better things to do), maybe the primate has the authority to do it, but you know very well where they stand.

Uganda - http://www.acnaassembly.org/index2.php/acna/page/109
Nigeria - http://www.canaconvocation.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=315&Itemid=50
Diocese of Sydney - http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/communion/what_is_full_communion/

And of course the GAFCON Communique - http://www.gafcon.org/news/gafcon_communique_issued_-_ACNA_recognized 
Which even Mark Harris recognizes that it means what it says: “PRELUDIUM: GAFCON recognizes ACNA. They said it, they mean it.” http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2009/04/gafcon-recognizes-acna-they-said-it.html

I’m really confused: can someone point me to a site that explains the jurisdiction and membership of ACC, ACNA, GAFCON, the Anglican Communion and who is in communion with who?

Hi Mike,

It’s a lot simpler than it sounds.

Various orthodox provinces of the Anglican Communion are “in communion” with entities that are not a part of the Anglican Communion.  Those entities might include CESA [in South Africa] with which the Diocese of Sydney, for instance, is in communion but which others are not in communion.  A number of orthodox provinces within the Anglican Communion are in communion with ACNA.  [And I expect there will be more added to the list this year.]  TEC is in communion with the ELCA [Lutherans]—but obviously the ELCA is not in The Anglican Communion. 

The Anglican Communion is made up of 38 Provinces in its membership.  Some would like for ACNA to be a 39th Province.  It is not yet so.  It may be one day.  Who knows if or when that will be.

Sarah
Your explanation of who is in communion with who and who is in the communion is good as far as it goes. I think another very important part of the puzzle is that there are provinces in the Anglican Communion that have declared broken or impaired communion with TEC.  These provinces represent over half of the members of the Anglican Communion.

Thank you, tjmcmahon, JustOneVoice, and Sarah….you made my day!  The thinking of revisionist heretics does tend to get rather irksome these days.  They’re always trying their best to claim they’re right, while everyone else is somehow wrong.  I guess we’ll simply have to tolerate it, won’t we?

Uganda 15mm, Nigeria 35mm, Rawanda 10mm have BROKEN communion with TEC and ACofC. That is just for starters!
Add Glasspool in the mix is like tossing a match into a gasoline can.
I guess for TEC 60mm+ people who are not in communion with you is insignificant.
Intercessor

RE: “I think another very important part of the puzzle is that there are provinces in the Anglican Communion that have declared broken or impaired communion with TEC.  These provinces represent over half of the members of the Anglican Communion.”

Hi Just One Voice—it’s true that a number of provinces—I believe it was 22 total are in broken or impaired communion with TEC.  They have acted in ways that bear that out as well, including sending away TEC missionaries, forcing them to serve under other entities, not receiving Eucharist with TEC Primate, refusing money, and on and on it goes.

However—all 38 Provinces are within one body—the Anglican Communion.

Ultimately, of course, that position is untenable.

What will most likely occur—even if 10 years hence—is that the various provinces which are in impaired or broken communion with TEC will leave the Anglican Communion, thus ending that Communion as we presently know it.  Or TEC will leave or be booted.

Those are—and have been for the past six years—the only two options before us.

And one or the other will come to pass.

And thus the $64,000 question:  Will TEC leave or be booted?  Since the Communion has no procedure….yet….for booting any errant province, I predict, as have others, that TEC will leave rather than assume a second tier status within the Communion, as Rowan Cantuar has indirectly intimated could apply to any such errant province.

Cennydd

I don’t see TEC either leaving or getting kicked out of the Anglican Communion.  I think GAFCON, or some similar group, will become more organized, relevant, and active.  I see more and more provinces doing less and less in the Anglican Communion and it will wither.

One day someone will ask if a province is in the Anglican Communion and the answer will be they were once, but no one is sure now, and no one will care either way.

Will the consents tally be finalized before the global south encounter in mid April in Singapore? There is only about a month and a half left before the GS primates meet.

Daveed, I have no links or quotes to back this up - but the language Bp Schori used in talking about Bp Scriven and Bp MacDonald was that of renunciation - that is to say, that these bishops are no longer bishops from the point of view of ECUSA.  When any cleric transfers from one of the 38 provinces in the Anglican Communion to another, there is a recognized process for doing so (Letters dimissory in the case of deacons and priests; I do not know what the credentials are for bishops).  The receiving province recognizes the ministry of the arriving cleric and grants the proper credentials for serving in a new diocese.  It does not ordain the person again - nor does the sending province regard the person as having renounced his ordination, so that he is no longer able to function as a cleric in his former jurisdiction.

Last fall, I was received into the ACNA.  In due course, I received a letter from my former bishop, stating that in so doing, I had renounced my standing as a priest in ECUSA and was no longer permitted to serve as a priest in any ECUSA congregation.  He and the standing committee accepted my implied renunciation, and I was officially dropped from the roles of ECUSA clergy.  I cannot celebrate the sacraments in any ECUSA congregation - and the bishop would probably frown on my being invited to preach as well.

All Bp Schori needed to do was to transfer, or recognize, the transfer of, Bp Scriven back to England.  He would of course no longer have seat, voice, or vote in the ECUSA House of Bishops.  But he would still be a bishop, and her talking of “renunciation” means that ECUSA would no longer recognize him as a bishop.  That is an absolutely unprecedented step.  (Her talking of Bp MacDonald as needing to renounce his ministry is somethng she was dragged into in an effort to be consistent.)

It has been apparent for some time that Bp Schori is woefully ignorant of theology.  It is now becoming clear that she does not understand a great deal about the structure and laws of her own church.

Nor, apparently, does she care.

On the subject of Bishop Scriven, to quote KJS verbatim (it was on ENS, for pity’s sake- do your own research before calling me a liar):
Henry Scriven “is deprived of the right to exercise the gifts and spiritual authority as a Minister of God’s Word and Sacraments conferred on him in Ordinations.”
That is pretty clear.  The ordinations in question were at the hands of bishops of the Church of England.  His ordination as bishop (ie- consecration) was presided over by none other than Archbishop (or Canterbury) Carey.

Assuming Glasspool has not been confirmed by the time I get home later (in which case I imagine this thread, or the one to replace it, will be swamped), I’ll provide a few links to what GS HoBs and Synods have had to say about TEC and its relative state of communion with other churches.

I look forward to reading those links, tjmcmahon…..should be very interesting!

Apparently Mrs Schori also doesn’t accept that a bishop who hasn’t officially renounced his holy orders in writing, and who has left TEC for another province, is still a bishop of the Church, and his orders are recognized by every province of the Anglican Communion.

Except TEC and the ACofC, of course.

Cennydd-
In point of fact, to the best of my knowledge, the ACoC has never formally recognized the removal of Bp. Scriven’s orders, since he is not an ACNA bishop.  I rather doubt the Canadians would join their TEC brethren in repudiating the holy orders of a Bishop of the Church of England, as the English are known not to take such things well.  Note that the English are politely pretending that nothing happened, but, well, ask an English bishop what he thinks.

Now, back to #189 and 196.
Here is the statement of the Province of Southeast Asia, 20th November, 2004 (have fun trying to spin this) “RESOLUTION passed unanimously at the Extra-Ordinary Meeting of the 2nd Session of Synod of the Province of South East Asia on 20 November 2003 at Kudat, Sabah, MALAYSIA :”
http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/statement_of_breaking_communion_province_of_sea_20_nov_2003/
That link may have been broken up, in which case you may need to copy and paste into your browser.
Excerpts:

In view of the serious breach of fundamental teachings of the Bible and the long established doctrines of the Church Universal, we make the following declarations:

  (i) We do not recognize the ministry of Dr Gene Robinson as a Bishop in the Anglican Church.

  (ii) We are no longer in communion with the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA and all those Bishops and Dioceses [Appendix A] who voted for the confirmation of Dr Gene Robinson’s election and those who joined in the consecration of the same….
—————————————————————————-
We affirm and endorse the Statement of Breaking Communion issued by the House of Bishops of this Province, to the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada, dated 6”’ June, 2003 in consequence of its authorization of public rites for the blessing of same sex unions and the implementation of the same, effective 28”’ May, 2003…...
——————————————————————————-
Appendix A New Hampshire Consecration I] List of Bishops who voted for the Confirmation of Dr Gene Robinson 1. Bishop of Alaska 2. Bishop of Arizona 3. Bishop of Arkansas 4 Bishop of Atlanta 5. Bishop of Bethlehem 6. Bishop of California 7. Bishop of Central New York 8. Bishop of Central Pennsylvania 9. Bishop of Chicago 10. Bishop of Churches in Europe 11. Bishop of Colorado 12. Bishop of Connecticut 13. Bishop of Delaware 14. Bishop of East Carolina 15. Bishop of Eastern Michigan 16. Bishop of Eastern Oregon 17. Bishop of Easton 18. Bishop of El Camino 19. Bishop of Hawaii 20. Bishop of Idaho 21. Bishop of Indianapolis 22. Bishop of Iowa 23. Bishop of Kansas 24. Bishop of Kentucky 25. Bishop of Lexington 26. Bishop of Long Island 27. Bishop of Los Angeles 28. Bishop of Maine 29. Bishop of Maryland 30. Bishop of Massachusetts 31. Bishop of Michigan 32. Bishop of Minnesota 33. Bishop of Missouri 34. Bishop of Navajoland 35. Bishop of Nevada 36. Bishop of New Hampshire 37. Bishop of New Jersey 38. Bishop of New York 39. Bishop of Newark 40. Bishop of North Carolina 41. Bishop of Northern California 42. Bishop of Northern Michigan 43. Bishop of Ohio 44. Bishop of Oklahoma 45. Bishop of Olympia 46. Bishop of Oregon 47. Bishop of Pennsylvania 48. Bishop of Puerto Rico 49. Bishop of Rhode Island 50. Bishop of Rochester 51. Bishop of South Dakota 52. Bishop of Southeast Florida 53. Bishop of Southwestern Virginia 54. Bishop of Spokane 55. Bishop of Utah 56. Bishop of Vermont 57. Bishop of Virginia 58. Bishop of Washington 59. Bishop of West Missouri 60. Bishop of Western Michigan 61. Bishop of Western New York 62. Bishop of Western North Carolina 63. Bishop Wyoming Participating Bishops at the Consecration of Dr Gene Robinson Primates The Most Rev. Frank T Griswold Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and Chief Consecrator The Most Rev. Martin De Jesus Barahona Primate of the Province of Central America and Bishop of El Salvador International Bishop Krister Stendahl, Lutheran Church of Sweden Bishop Emeritus of Stockholm and Co-consecrator The Rt. Rev. Bruce Stavert, Bishop of Quebec (Canada) The Rt. Rev. Michael Ingham, Bishop of New Westminster (Canada) Episcopal Diocesan Bishops The Rt. Rev. Joe Burnett, Bishop of Nebraska The Rt. Rev. John B. Chane, Bishop of Washington The Rt. Rev. George Councell, Bishop of New Jersey The Rt., Rev. Thomas Ely, Bishop of Vermont The Rt. Rev. James J. Jelinek, Bishop of Minnesota The Rt. Rev. Chilton Knudsen, Bishop of Maine and co-consecrator The Rt. Rev. James A. Kelsey, Bishop of Northern Michigan The Rt. Rev. Jack M. McKelvey, Bishop of Rochester The Rt. Rev. M. Thomas Shaw, SSJE, Bishop of Massachusetts The Rt. Rev. Andrew Smith, Bishop of Connecticut The Rt. Rev. Douglas Theuner, Bishop of New Hampshire The Rt. Rev. Orris G. Walker, Jr., Bishop of Long Island Suffragan, assisting and retired Episcopal Bishops The Rt. Rev. Craig Anderson, Bishop of South Dakota (retired) The Rt. Rev. G. P. Mellick Belshaw, Bishop of New Jersey (retired) The Most Rev. Edmund L. Browning, retired Presiding Bishop and co-consecrator The Rt. Rev. William G. Burrill, Bishop of Rochester (retired) The Rt. Rev. Roy F. Cedarholm, Bishop Suffragan of Massachusetts The Rt. Rev. Otis Charles, Bishop of Utah (retired) The Rt. Rev. Steven Charleston, Bishop of Alaska (resigned) The Rt. Rev. James E. Curry, Bishop Suffragan of Connecticut The Rt. Rev. Jane H. Dixon, Bishop Suffragan of Washington (retired) The Rt. Rev. Herbert a. Donovan, Jr., Bishop of Arkansas (retired) and co-consecrator The Rt. Rev. A. Theodore Eastman, Bishop of Maryland (retired) and co-consecrator The Rt. Rev. C. Christopher Epting, Bishop of lowa (retired) The Rt. Rev. Richard F. Grein, Bishop of New York (retired) The Rt. Rev. Gayle E. Harris, Bishop Suffragan of Massachusetts The Rt. Rev. Barhara C. Harris, Bishop Suffragan of Massachusetts (retired) and co-consecrator The Rt. Rev. Donald P. Hart, Assistant Bishop of Southern Virginia The Rt. Rev. Clarence Hobgood, Bishop Suffragan of the Armed Forces (retired) The Rt. Rev. Harold A. Hopkins, Bishop of North Dakota (retired) The Rt. Rev. George N. Hunt Ill, Bishop of Rhode Island (retired) The Rt. Rev. Edward W. Jones, Bishop of Indianapolis (retired) The Rt. Rev. David B Joslin, Bishop of Central New York (retired) The Rt. Rev. H. Coleman McGehee, Jr., Bishop of Michigan (retired) The Rt. Rev. Vincent K. Petit, Bishop Suffragan of New Jersey (retired) The Rt. Rev. Wilfrido Ramos-Orench, Bishop Suffragaon of Connecticut The Rt. Rev. Walter C. Righter, Bishop of lowa (retired) The Rt. Rev. Hays H. Rockwell, Bishop of Missouri (retired) The Rt. Rev. Cathy Roskam, Bishop Suffragan of New York The Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Bishop of Atlanta (retired) The Rt. Rev. Philip. Smith, Bishop of New Hampshire (retired) The Rt. Rev. Daniel L. Swenson, Bishop of Vermont (retired) The Rt. Rev. Arthur Walmaley, Bishop of Connecticut (retired) The Rt. Rev. O’Kelley Whitaker, Bishop of Central New York (retired) The Rt. Rev. R. Stewart Wood, Jr., Bishop of Michigan (retired)

Let us remember that SE Asia is NOT a Gafcon member, and is indeed seen as among moderates in the Communion, although I believe that Archbishop Tay was still in office at the time.  However, the vote to break communion with TEC was unanimous- so this was clearly not a case of a primate imposing his opinion upon the Church.

The Church of Nigeria Synod of 2006- hard to read anything into this other than a call to remove TEC from the Communion altogether- I figure David would not trust a SF or Virtue or Church of Nigeria link- so here is the one courtesy of Canon Kearon:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2006/7/4/ACNS4162
(bold below is mine)

Episcopal Synod held at All Saints’ Church Wuse Zone 5 Abuja from Tuesday 27 - Wednesday 28 June 2006

Communiqué......

2.  THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

Synod is satisfied with the move by the Global South to continue with its veritable project of defending the faith committed to us against present onslaught from ECUSA, Canada, England and their allies. The need therefore, to redefine and/or re-determine those who are truly Anglicans becomes urgent, imperative and compelling. Synod therefore empowers the leadership of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) to give assent to the Anglican Covenant.

3.  THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE

The Lambeth Conference which is one of the accepted organs of unity in the Anglican Communion is due for another meeting in 2008. the Synod, after reviewing some recent major events in the Communion, especially the effects of the ‘revisionists’ theology’, which is now making wave in America, Canada and England, observed with dismay the inability of the Church in the afore­mentioned areas to see reason for repentance from the harm and stress they have caused this communion since 1988 culminating in the consecration of Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual in 2003 as a bishop in ECUSA. Synod also regrets the inability of the See of Canterbury to prevent further impairment of the unity of the Church. It therefore, believes strongly that the moral justification for the proposed Lambeth Conference of 2008 is questionable in view of the fact that by promoting teachings and practices that are alien and inimical to the historic formularies of the Church, the Bishops of ECUSA, Canada and parts of Britain have abandoned the Biblical faith of our fathers.

As of 2004, 13 Churches had made clear their impaired communion with TEC-
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2004/2/9/ACNS3773

And here we are- the Anglican Communion News Service article on the first 9 churches to break communion with TEC- hopefully I have satisfied David that the Gafcon churches are, indeed, not in Communion with TEC, and that other Churches are in various states of impaired communion.
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2003/12/9/ACNS3703

Oops, David (196), that last was the 2003 ENS article picked up by ACNS, acknowledging that 9 churches had broken communion with TEC. You might try reading your own news service next time.

The idea of Primates imposing their will over dumb pewsitters is just ludicrous, unless we take TEC into account.  The Southern Cone has given their Primate carte blanche (that’s French for “whatever it takes”) to deal with the situation in the Communion.  That was a unanimous vote of the Synod in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, in November, 2004.  The Synod has the representation of clergy, lay and Bishops of every diocese; every order!  Unanimous.  There’s no more you can require.  Some still squirm over that resolution.  Unusual, but complete.

Among the Standing Committees of the 110 dioceses of the Episcopal Church, a total majority of 56 consents is needed to each of the two bishop suffragan elections for the Diocese of Los Angeles. As of March 3, Standing Committee consents numbered 55 for the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, and 72 for the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce.

One more week should do it.

Martin,
I imagine there will be a competition for which standing committee gets the honor to be acclaimed #56.  They really are drawing this out, aren’t they?

The question was never the Standing Committees but rather the bishops.  And I doubt that that will be a problem either.  The bigger questions are (1) what, if anything, will Rowan Williams DO about it (as opposed to mumbling about his disappointment); and (2) what will the moderate Global South primates do in response to Rowan Williams probable non-action?

Is there any info on the bishops tally?

ACNA, no. It seems that once the Standing Committees have given their consent, then the PB announces that there are enough bishops giving their consent. Which is why I made the comment earlier. Very little appears to be said of who has given consent, and I wonder if bishops may change their vote. I just don’t trust TEC.

Sherman, turn on the Way Back Machine.

Years ago, some of us pointed out that it was entirely possible that ++RW was carefully structuring a situation over which he had no control and thus for which he could not be blamed, viz: Trapped in its own trajectory, now a force it cannot control, TEC violates the expressed, voted upon directions of the Primates of the Church by consecrating yet another deviant, and is declared out of communion with these same primates and their provinces. I even recall ++Rowan implying something to this effect some years past.

The scenario (hate that word)is that he recognizes the fact of TEC’s self destruction, tut tuts appropriately about The Final Rending Of The Fabric, and suggests we move on to more productive pursuits.

He is just Byzantine enough to have spent a decade pulling this off.

Retires covered with acclaim over his non interference in the process.

jamesw, I would expect the ABC and the Primates to continue to do nothing.

The Diocese of LA announced last night that Glasspool is one vote away from the necessary consents. http://episcopalnews.ladiocese.net/top-story.html

#225- Retires covered with acclaim over his non interference in the process.
Scary to think what you might get then. First ++ Carey and now ++ Rowan. The trend does not bode well.

Glasspool’s consecration is a grenade launched at the GS primates meeting in April. Some GS bishops believed that TEC would not consecrate another partnered gay bishop because of the uproar over VGR’s consecration. And that argument held sway UNTIL now. These institutionally minded conservative bishops will now have to take sides when the consents are confirmed.

That is interesting O Beat.  May I ask whether you think the GS leaders will give the Communion a lead, or continue to be led around in circles by the Communion bureacracy?

There are two tendencies in the GS. There are “moderates” who still believe in the ABC and the leadership of the COE. The second group are the “radicals” who have given up on the COE as long as RW is the ABC. Abp Mouneer sorta kept these groups together but his resignation from the standing committee sent a very strong signal to ABC that we are entering a new phase.

Glasspool’s consecration will blur the line between moderates and radicals. I suspect that some kind of a synthesis will take place in April between these two groups at the GS meeting. In a sense Glasspool’s consecration is a blessing in disguise because it will end the ambiguity as to where TEC stands on partnered gays as bishops.

Dear PageantMaster:
The GS moderates look to ABC and the COE for leadership in this crisis. If they prevail then they will be led by the communion bureacracy. I suspect however that the synthesis between the moderates and the radicals will stick a knife in the bureacracy. Whether they turn the knife in the gut remains to be seen.

Dear The Beat - there is much to think about in your considered reply.  Thank you.

“These institutionally minded conservative bishops will now have to take sides when the consents are confirmed.”  Never underestimate the ability of so called moderates and institutionalists to rationalize and do nothing.

I am led to wonder if they didn’t really have 56 on Wednesday, but wanted an extra week to line up a couple of extra bishops and get the press releases set up for the “big announcement.”

When the news breaks, please inform us asap. thanks

TJ, I was thinking the same thing - or perhaps, following the DC crowd, they wanted to release the news on Friday evening (the slowest news time for controversial legislation to be published). However, it’s more likely they wanted teh additional time to set things up.

#237- Are you kidding?  They want the whole world watching while the give the Anglican Communion the middle finger (again).  I wonder why that scene from Animal House comes to mind…“Thank you sir and may I have another?”

I wonder if Rowan has started formulating his strongly worded statement yet.

I wonder if they will wait a full week ... build up the suspense.

It is time to give up the conspiracy theories.

FWIW
jimB

There is a difference between conspiracy theories and political maneuvering.  We all know the GLBT advocates play the politcal maneuvering game in their sleep and do it well.  Most of the speculation I have read here is more about policitcal maneuvering than conspiracy.

jimB-
I certainly did not indicate any conspiracy in Diocese of LA.

A conspiracy is what TEC is doing in South Carolina- you know, secret investigations, financial inquiries, trying to organize underground opposition to the bishop and rectors in the diocese.  Using undisclosed amounts of money from slush funds to pay for the above, since GC did not allocate a budget for overthrowing bishops.  That is a conspiracy.  Or was, til they were caught.

I believe there is evidence proving that the “conspiracy” theory has some truth in it, otherwise it wouldn’t keep cropping up.

In 2008, GAFCON concluded “What had been ‘in the works’ for some years – the challenge to the authority of the Bible, in all matters of faith and practice, both within the Church and in personal morality – suddenly became a public reality when, in 2003, Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual, was consecrated bishop in the United States of America.”

It is one thing, as far as I am concerned, to interpret Romans and 1st Corinthians as meaning ‘self control’ in sexuality, it is another to argue simply that Paul was wrong because our ideas of morality today have changed.  It is one thing to bless lifelong covenants between publicly practicing homosexuals, it is another to use the BCP words of marriage and Sacramentalize the ‘physical sexual union’.  Actually it would be interesting to hear Glasspool (almost certain to obtain the necessary consents) and Robinson gloss those two letters. Last Sunday, I heard Spong who reminded me of the importance and danger of brilliant oratory.

I am beginning to understand that the nature of ‘Anglicanism’ permits remarkable latitude regarding those dioceses or provinces with whom you have full communion, recognition of ordination and consecration of bishops. There are also certain groups within which those formal communions are fully recognized, GAFCON being one. Other groups, such as TEC, are still being cleansed.

It seems to me that ++Bruno, supported by the majority of TEC, has thrown down the gauntlet to +++Rowan, yet judging from the Archbishop’s complex language, he will not respond since he has already done so. He apparently sees ‘Anglicanism’ in the US as fragmenting, probably elsewhere also. It is not a matter of fighting TEC about this likely appointment, but rather determining those diocese that wish to establish full communion with Canterbury. Considering the nature of ‘Anglicanism’, we will see more and more inter communion, diocese by diocese, as provinces fragment. I wonder if it is within the power of the Presiding Bishop, once TEC is deemed out of communion with Canterbury (if that is the correct way of putting it), to expel those dioceses that separately establish communion with Canterbury. If the land is owned at the diocese level, and the Presiding Bishop claims it, this would become a Supreme Court matter. Anyway, if this is +++Rowan’s plan, we can at some stage in the future anticipate the establishment of an Anglican Diocese in Southern California in full communion with Canterbury.

While the vote was not easy, quickly taken, or unanimous, we voted to grant our consent to the election of the Rev. Mary Glasspool.
Standing Committee of the Diocese of Missouri

The whole thing can be found: http://www.diocesemo.org/news/2010/03/02/standing-committee/
Not sure if this is the magic number for they could have sent it in by the last Wed. Other Standing Committees that voted ,yes - according to the Lead, Bethlehem and Rhode Island. That is old news but wanted to include it on the thread.

When Glasspool is consecrated, will it matter?  Will the ABC do anything?  No.  Will more people leave TEC?  Yes, but that’s the trend anyway.  Will TEC be any different than it has been for years?  No.  Everything will be the same, and the homosexual lobby will be delighted.  Soon thereafter they will consecrate another active homosexual.  TEC is boring.

will it matter?

Yes, it will. We will then see the fragmentation of TEC and the Anglican Communion IMHO. The RC Church will pick up some pieces, Canterbury will pick up some pieces of TEC. Much of TEC will ally with Canada and NZ, the Christian voice of liberalism. I doubt if even TEC sympathizers in England will ally with TEC but they may. By “ally with” I mean have full intercommunion. It will I think be intensely interesting and actually rather healthy since we can all stop worrying about ‘those guys’.

We will then see the fragmentation of TEC and the Anglican Communion IMHO.

I agree that this will continue in slow motion, which has been happening since 2003.  I would be stunned if anything dramatic happened though.

A report of the Diocese of Texas Standing Committee’s vote on February 11, 2010 to consent as to Mary Glasspool appears at http://www.epicenter.org/edot/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=646&SnID=1692981504.  According to the report, there was only one dissenting vote.  Also mentioned is a reference by Bishop Doyle to the report of the theology committee of the House of Bishops on same-sex relatioships being in the hands of the bishops and that it will be discussed at the forthcoming House of Bishops meeting.

From the Texas Standing Committee:

“We voted on the side of justice” said Sandra Kelley, a member of the Standing Committee who was elected president following the conclusion of Council on February 13. Kelley said she believed Glasspool was qualified and that the Canons had been followed. “I felt any dissent to her election was only based on her sexuality and we’ve been discussing that in this diocese for 30 years,” she said.

Social justice:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/08/glenn-beck-urges-listeners-to-leave-churches-that-preach-social/

Very fascinating that the Texas Episcopalian compared difference in vote between the Bishop and Standing Committee of EDOTX to that of Bishop Benitez voting to consent to Bishop Iker and the SC voting no. My, how the tables have turned.

Bishop-elect Glasspool has received her consents from the Standing Committees:

http://episcopalnews.ladiocese.net/dfc/newsdetail_2/174

A stern note from the Archbishop of Canterbury should be winging its way towards California shortly then. He may even go so far as to ‘view with alarm’. Dare we hope that he caution them? Or possibly even issue a warning?

Add this to the timeline of the decline of TEC.

“L.A. Diocese receives majority of Standing Committee consents to elections of two bishops suffragan

[The Episcopal News - Los Angeles, March 10, 2010] The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Los Angeles has received the necessary majority of Standing Committee consents to the December 2009 elections of the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce and the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool as bishops suffragan to serve the six-county Los Angeles diocese.

The Los Angeles Standing Committee reported March 10 that within the last 64 days it has received 61 consents needed to the election of Glasspool, and 78 consents to the election of Bruce. In each election a majority of 56
consents was needed from the counterpart Standing Committees of the 110 dioceses of the Episcopal Church.

The consent process to Glasspool’s election is not complete until the Presiding Bishop’s Office in New York confirms that it has received the necessary majority of consents from bishops with jurisdiction in the dioceses of the Church. Meanwhile, the Presiding Bishop’s Office has notified the Los Angeles Standing Committee that 58 of the 61 Standing Committee consents received have been verified to date.

Completion of the consent process in Bruce’s election was confirmed with a March 8 announcement from the Presiding Bishop’s Office.

“I give thanks for the Standing Commitees’ prompt action, and for the consents to the elections of my sisters,” Los Angeles Bishop Diocesan J. Jon Bruno said on March 10. “I look forward to the final few consents to come in from the bishops in the next few days, and I give thanks for the fact that we as a church have taken a bold step for just action.”

Public comment from Bruce, who is rector of St. Clement’s by-the-Sea, San Clemente, Calif, and Glasspool, canon to the bishops of the Diocese of
Maryland, will follow completion of the consent process to Glasspool’s election.

The Los Angeles Standing Committee, led by its president, the Rev. Canon Cindy Evans Voorhees, launched the 120-day consent process on Jan. 5 for Glasspool and on Jan. 8 for Bruce following action by Presiding Bishop
Katharine Jefferts Schori to request consent to the elections from bishops with jurisdiction across the Episcopal Church. The consent processes conclude May 5 and 8 respectively.

Canon III.11.4 (a) of the Episcopal Church requires that a majority of diocesan bishops and a majority of diocesan standing committees must consent to each episcopal election.

These separate actions must be completed within 120 days from the day after notice of the election was sent to designated recipients, and each bishop-elect must receive a majority of consents from the diocesan bishops
as well as a majority from the standing committees in order for ordination to proceed.

If a majority is not received and verified from the bishops and/or the Standing Committees, the Presiding Bishop is required by Canon III.11.5 to declare that election null and void.

Pending completion of the consent process, the ordination and consecration of the two new bishops is scheduled for Saturday, May 15, at the Long Beach
Arena. An opening celebration will begin at 12:30 p.m. with the liturgy itself beginning at 1:30 p.m. The Presiding Bishop is scheduled to offiicate.”

—
Blessings,

(the Rev’d Dr.) Elizabeth Kaeton
The Episcopal Church of St. Paul
200 Main Street
Chatham, NJ 07928

Wonder what Canterbury and the rest of the AC will do now…..more of the same????

So, Mary Glasspool has now received the necessary consents?  Why am I not surprised??

And no, I’m not holding my breath to see what the hapless ABoC will do (or not do, as usual).  Nor am I waiting with baited breath to see what the FCA/GAFCON primates will do.  They’ve already broken off communion with TEC and launched their movement to reform Anglicanism. 

No, the interesting thing is going to be what the non-FCA Global South primates and provinces do now.  Hopefully, more of them will now jump on board the FCA bandwagon, perhaps starting with that prince of a guy, ++Mouneer Anis.

David Handy+

Bruno is quoted here (RNS)
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15748
as saying

“I look forward to the final few consents to come in from the bishops in the next few days, and I give thanks for the fact that we as a church have taken a bold step for just action,” said Los Angeles Bishop Jon Bruno.

Not a holy step for holy action, mind you, but bold, and just, according to Bruno. 

Also in the news- new liturgical rites for ELCA ordinations:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=15753

Oops, I see Kendall and the elves beat me to it-
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/28772/
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/28771/

Just Announced

The Episcopal Church
Office of Public Affairs

Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop’s office notifies Diocese of Los Angeles of successful canonical consent process Bishop-Elect Glasspool ordination and consecration on May 15

The Governance of The Episcopal Church: This information is another in an ongoing series discussing the governance of The Episcopal Church.

[March 17, 2010] The Office of Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has notified the Diocese of Los Angeles that the canonical consent process for Bishop-Elect Mary Douglas Glasspool has been successfully completed.

And the slide of TE<{[(C)]}> into apostasy accelerates into a full-on plummeting…

“As of April 26, Standing Committee consents number 69 for the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool, and 93 for the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce. A news report is here. More on the 120-day consent process is here.”
(from diocesan news)

No info given on bishops’ consents.