Post Reply
Page 1 of 17  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17 Next
Switch to Forum Live View 2nd Openly Gay Bishop for Episcopal Church - Your Thoughts?
5 years ago  ::  Dec 06, 2009 - 1:23AM #1
Merope
Posts: 9,768

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles (California) has elected the Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool as bishop suffragan (aka assisting bishop, in common parlance).  The Rev. Glasspool is openly gay and in a partnered relationship.  She is thus the second openly gay partnered priest to be elected a bishop in the Episcopal Church.  The first was Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who was elected in 2003.  Stories here and here.


Under the canons of the (US) Episcopal Church, her election still needs to be approved by a majority of bishops exercising jurisdiction and consented to by a majority of diocesan Standing Committees.  This is standard procedure throughout the Episcopal Church for all bishop elections.  Assuming all goes well, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church will consecrate the Rev. Glasspool on May 15 in Los Angeles.


Your thoughts?

Merope | Beliefnet Community Manager
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 06, 2009 - 1:37AM #2
rangerken
Posts: 16,406

Personally I don't care. I think my church is split in half between those who don't care and those who think we (Episcopalians) should not have homosexual bishops, or priests for that matter. This is one of those 'what would Jesus say' things. And since Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality (at least there's nothing in the New Testament about it attributed to Jesus) it's a matter of who do you want to follow, those who think homosexuals are loved by God or those who think they are damned by their actions.


I have some openly gay cousins. I've written before on other threads/boards about the gay soldier who was my best machine gunner. I just can't get worked up about adults doing whatever as long as it's not a mater or coercion, etc. But a lot of Episcopalians, or Anglicans if you prefer, particularly conservative Anglicans are really up in figurative arms about this.


I'm sure this will become a tempest in the Episcopalian teapot for a while.


Ken

Libertarian, Conservative, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 06, 2009 - 3:14AM #3
Merope
Posts: 9,768

I'm an Episcopalian, too.


I don't think that either gender or sexual orientation should be a bar to ordination or consecration; so if the diocese is happy with Glasspool's election, then so am I.  Members of the diocese know best who will best serve them as suffragan. 


The diocese incidentally made a bit of history earlier this weekend when, on Friday, it elected its first female priest as suffragan (the diocese has at least two suffragans, maybe more).


I'm interested to see how the bishops' consents and the Standing Committee approvals play out.  I hope Glasspool will get the required number of consents and approvals, and that the process will run smoothly.  Jon Bruno, bishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles, has already gone on record as observing that it would be a violation of the canons of the Episcopal Church (TEC) if a consent or approval were withheld because of Glasspool's sexual orientation and/or the fact that she is in a partnered gay relationship.


Glasspool's election is also significant from the church governance perspective because Glasspool is the first openly gay bishop elected since TEC's General Convention this year passed legislation specifically affirming that gay and lesbian priests are eligible for consecration to the episcopacy.  In 2004, the Anglican Communion asked TEC for a moratorium on electing another gay bishop (in addition to Bishop Robinson).  TEC generally agreed to that moratorium (some gay priests were nominated as candidates for bishop between 2004 and July 2009, but none was elected) but has since adopted the above-mentioned legislation.

Merope | Beliefnet Community Manager
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 06, 2009 - 10:44AM #4
REteach
Posts: 14,555

We know more about human psychology than we did 2000 years ago.  If one is going to stick with 2000 year old knowledge, then be consistent and forego antibiotics and air conditioning as well.

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 06, 2009 - 2:10PM #5
IDBC
Posts: 4,500

Howdy


Dec 6, 2009 -- 10:44AM, REteach wrote:


We know more about human psychology than we did 2000 years ago. 



That is  true however according to rumor the Bible is the word of God and according to rumor God knows more about human pyschology then we will 2000 years from now. 


Dec 6, 2009 -- 10:44AM, REteach wrote:

 If one is going to stick with 2000 year old knowledge, then be consistent and forego antibiotics and air conditioning as well.



I've heard a rumor that the truth of the word of God is eternal and that the "wisdom of men is but foolishness when compared to the wisdom of God" So far as I know God, through his word never addressed anti-biotics or air conditoning.  Neither were considered to be "abominations" unlike homo-sexuality.  


And so far as I know neither Jesus nor his apostles were homosexuals. 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile


P.S. I have a question.   I believe it is correct to say that one church-demonination cannot legally tell a different church that it can't have gay-clergy. 


So why is it legal from one church to tell a another church that it can't perform gay marriages? 


 


  

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 06, 2009 - 3:40PM #6
Merope
Posts: 9,768

Dec 6, 2009 -- 2:10PM, IDBC wrote:

Howdy


P.S. I have a question.   I believe it is correct to say that one church-demonination cannot legally tell a different church that it can't have gay-clergy. 


So why is it legal from one church to tell a another church that it can't perform gay marriages? 



Hiya, IDBC --


Do you have an example of one church telling another church that it can't perform gay marriages?  I've never heard of that -- not least because I don't know of any church that marries same-sex couples (as opposed to blessing their unions or their civil marriages).  


 

Merope | Beliefnet Community Manager
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 06, 2009 - 4:06PM #7
REteach
Posts: 14,555

Dec 6, 2009 -- 2:10PM, IDBC wrote:


That is  true however according to rumor the Bible is the word of God and according to rumor God knows more about human pyschology then we will 2000 years from now.




So, you follow the whole Bible?  Really? You stone to death women raped in town who were not heard crying for help?  You expect childless widows to marry their brothers-in-law?  You follow all 612 of the commandments?  Undecided


Yes, I know.  God didn't mean to continue the commandments that you ignore, only the others.  Cherry pie anyone?


 


And the reason many churches or other religious such as rabbis, are not marrying same sex couples in the US is become some churches rally their parishioners to vote to deny those rights.

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 06, 2009 - 8:13PM #8
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Don't you just love the smell of homophobia in the morning?

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 07, 2009 - 2:42AM #9
Merope
Posts: 9,768

Under the headline "Archbishop of Canterbury rebukes Episcopal leaders after L.A. diocese elects gay bishop" ... the Los Angeles Times reports that Archbishop Rowan Williams has "issued an unusually sharp and swift rebuke to Episcopal Church leaders over the election of an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles."  Story here.  


The full text of the Archbishop's statement on Sunday is as follows (in blue):


The election of Mary Glasspool by the Diocese of Los Angeles as suffragan bishop elect raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole.


The process of selection however is only part complete. The election has to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan standing committees. That decision will have very important implications.


The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold.


The Archbishop's message -- coming as Episcopalians in Los Angeles reflected on the Rev. Glasspool’s election at church services Sunday -- was his strongest to date on an issue that has reverberated across the global communion since the 2003 consecration of the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest, as bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire.


I may have given mistaken information in one of my earlier posts, so I'll clarify some of the backstory here:  In the wake of Bishop Robinson's 2003 election (and confirmation of that election by a majority of the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops), the Archbishop of Canterbury and a majority of the other 38 Anglican primates requested a moratorium on gay bishops (and same-sex blessings) in an attempt to prevent the Anglican Communion from splitting between evangelicals and liberals.  The Episcopal Church agreed in 2006 to refrain from electing additional gay bishops.  However, in July of this year the Episcopal Church reversed that de facto moratorium at its General Convention (the church's governing body), despite a plea from the Archbishop during a brief visit to the convention.  The Diocese of Los Angeles was the first to test the more lenient policy.

Merope | Beliefnet Community Manager
Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 07, 2009 - 10:04AM #10
Agnosticspirit
Posts: 9,244

I don't keep up on Episcopilian affairs, but isn't the issue of female bishops, gay bishops in this denomination creating a schism within this denomination?


BTW, I applaud the decisions..... my early exposure to the LDS and Catholic branches of Christianity and their LACK of acceptance for  female leaders contributed to my rejection of Christianity, then religion altogether. No matter how nimble the mental gymnastics performed by  Pauline apologetics, I've never understood the justifications and mind-numbing rationalizations that must take place to bar females from leadership in religious institutions merely on the basis that they were born a female... or gay....


 

Tribalism, ethnocentricism, racism, nationalism, and FEAR is the Mind Killer... >:(

For user to user support and to look up the latest glitch reports, check the Beliefnet Knowledgebase by clicking on the link below!

 Beliefnet Knowledgebase
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 17  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook