Now that Canon Mary Glasspool has received the expected consents for ordination as bishop, it seems in order to consider further the role of the standing committee of the Diocese of Texas. I received information that on March 12, 2010 the standing committee of the Diocese of Texas released the following statement concerning its consent to Mary Glasspool’s becoming a bishop. (I received this statement in an email and assume it to be accurate.)
The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Texas met on February 12, 2010 to consider consents to election for several bishop elections, including Canon Mary Glasspool as a Suffragan Bishop of
Representing a diverse spectrum of theological perspectives, the Standing Committee prayerfully considered multiple facets of this election, including canonical compliance and Canon Glasspool’s suitability for the Diocese of Los Angeles and the larger church. While not uniform in our discernment, we felt led by the Holy Spirit to a strong majority decision to consent.
We sincerely thank our brothers and sisters in Christ for your prayers and invite continued dialogue on this issue and others. We are aware that our decision differs from Bishop Doyle’s position; we have communicated with him about this issue and will continue to work with him collegially and congenially. We appreciate Bishop Doyle’s recognition and support of the Standing Committee as an independent body, and will continue to be in conversation with him about all aspects of our communal life.
Prior to the issuance of this statement, a report on the Diocese of Texas web site (http://www.epicenter.org/edot/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=646&SnID=1834046764) quoted the new president of the standing committee as saying, "We voted on the side of justice" and also, "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." This seemed to me to be glibly dismissive of the views of a majority of the world’s Anglicans and at the same time suggestive of an intention to press further in the same direction in the future (because those who make something into a "justice" issue are not going to be inclined to allow the injustice to continue).
When I read this earlier report, I thought surely the standing committee owes the diocese a better explanation than this. I suppose we now have the formal explanation in the form of the statement quoted above, but it hardly seems better. For example, the explanation fails to explain why the committee chose to disregard the understanding of sexual ethics reflected in the diocese's canon on moral discipline (canon 43), which classifies as the received teaching of the Church the teaching that all of the Church’s members are to abstain from sexual relations outside Holy Matrimony, defined as between a man and a woman. Canon 43 also states that the moral qualifications of a person, as that term is used in the Canons of the Episcopal Church, include conformity to the obligation of clergy to model in their own lives this received teaching. This canon on moral discipline has withstood several attempts at prior annual councils to change or repeal it.
Although the standing committee’s statement makes reference to canonical compliance, the action it took was in no way required by TEC’s canons. On the other hand, the standing committee’s action is inconsistent with the Diocese’s own canonically expressed views as to the Church’s received teaching and as to clergy qualifications. Perhaps the standing committee thinks the moral discipline canon won't survive the next council, and if so perhaps they are right. But it hardly seems their role to act unilaterally to anticipate such a result. Too, nowhere do the standing committee members even mention the significance of what they have done as an act in furtherance of a violation of one of the moratoria to which the Anglican Communion instruments have repeatedly urged adherence.
It appears the standing committee did what they wanted to do because they could. Saying that "this is where the Holy Spirit led us" is but the usual euphemism for behavior sought to be justified on grounds that are hard to regard as other than self-referential.
Unfortunately, the Diocese's problems are not confined to a rogue standing committee. I return to the subject of the so-called unity resolution that was passed at the annual council last month (referred to in the two entries immediately below) and ask, if presumably orthodox leaders are supporting the view expressed in this resolution, who is going to credibly challenge actions like the standing committee's? The standing committee’s vote on the Glasspool consent took place on the day the Diocese’s annual council convened. (This is according to the statement quoted above; the report on the Diocese’s website says the vote took place the preceding day.) One might have thought the standing committee, having waited over two months since the election, would have considered it wise to obtain a sense of the Council. But given the support for the resolution on same-sex relationships, it seems reasonable to wonder what that sense might have turned out to be.
To recap, the "unity resolution" had its origin in the form of two resolutions affirming the integrity of same-sex relationships. They did not claim to be unity resolutions. Two rounds of pre-council adjustment and tweaking consolidated the resolutions into one, left the substance the same (as confirmed by successive claims that the "spirit" of the resolutions was retained through both sets of changes), added a bare claim to unity in the first resolve and changed the title to "a resolution of unity within our diversity." The original proponents, including one of the standing committee members advancing the Glasspool consent, were still quite satisfied. But along the way, a group of clergy identified generally as conservative apparently decided (in effect), "let's tell ourselves it can be read to mean something else, and sponsor it too."
There do not seem to be many other than those involved more or less directly who are interested in trying to defend the actions of the conservative clergy group that signed on to the resolution legitimizing same-sex relationships. Some of the few who have tried are insistent that the resolution that emerged as a result of their involvement was at least a minor improvement on what the resolutions committee put forward. But when they are pressed to explain how so by reference to specific language, no coherent explanation seems to me to have emerged.
Is there an explanation for the endorsement by nominally conservative leaders that goes beyond naïveté and language skills that weren’t quite up to the task? If this resolution amounts to anything other than the complete capitulation on sexual ethics that it appears on its face to be, a likely alternative explanation is that it’s a less sophisticated version of the kind of “evolving” thinking reflected in the recent Presidential Address by the Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones. Bishop James, once an evangelical Anglican committed to traditional teaching, has apparently been in the process of shifting his positions in recent years. In his recent address, he argues for an overt acceptance of ethical diversity on sexuality without basing his argument on any engagement with Scripture or Anglican tradition. Viewed as a similar tilt in the direction of ethical diversity, the resolution and the rationalizations for it deserve the same criticism given to +James Jones' address by the Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard: ". . . [T]he whole pattern of reasoning is disturbingly like that of the North American churches - weak on biblical and theological reasoning, emphasising the reality of diversity of views found within the local or national church, and calling for seemingly uncritical acceptance of that diversity and hence abandonment of traditional teaching and discipline."
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=518.
How, more specifically, does this James Jones-like ethical diversity manifest itself in the resolution? There is evidence that some people who have been viewed as orthodox leaders are saying that the place we are going to hold the line in our parish is on sacramental recognition of same-sex unions, specifically, on calling or employing ordained ministers in such relationships or allowing same-sex marriage rites or blessings of unions. Short of this sacramental line, however, they are emphasizing in an increasingly open manner that they are accepting of ethical diversity on how to regard non-celibate same sex relationships. In the context of the resolution approved at council, one such member of the clergy argued to me that we "honor" gay couples (in the sense endorsed by the resolution) by our hospitality, by inviting them to join the parish, by allowing them to serve in ministries and by welcoming them to the Lord's Supper. He additionally cited an instance of baptism of the child of a same-sex couple as something that in some sense legitimized the same-sex relationship. Note that the argument here goes beyond an affirmation of an intent to provide pastoral care to individuals in such relationships and to be generous in the exercise of discretion in the administration of that care. The argument is rather that these things and others are ways of honoring or legitimizing same-sex relationships as such. And the drawing of the line on a sacramental versus non-sacramental basis was affirmed by the same priest in stating his view that the parish is of one mind regarding sacraments that would legitimize sexual activity outside of marriage, but are all over the map when it comes to honoring, supporting or legitimizing such activity other than sacramentally. He further said that persons in the “all over the map” category include a number of the parish’s strongest and most visible leaders.
In all this, there is an apparent lack of recognition that this distinction (sacramental versus non-sacramental) is not ground that is capable of being held, and indeed it is wrong to try if one is proceeding rationally. Reasons for this include that without the ethical undergirding, the sacramental restrictions seem arbitrary, that abandoning the ethical teaching cannot be done without distorting sound anthropology, soteriology and Christology, and that pastoral care that attempts to legitimate same-sex relationships is not really in the best interests of the intended beneficiaries of that care.
The possibility also exists that in some cases there is not a lack of recognition that maintaining sacramental restrictions while abandoning the moral and ethical undergirding is not ground that can ultimately be held, but a calculation that it will keep people in the boat until culture and demographics evolve to the extent it will no longer be necessary to maintain the distinction. I am not suggesting this is true in any particular case, but it certainly seems to be a possibility.
Comments