Responses have been swift and vigorous to the election of the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool as a suffragan bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles.
 
The Archbishop of Canterbury issued a statement on Nov. 6, one day after Canon Glasspool’s election.
 
Canon Glasspool’s election “raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole,” Archbishop Rowan Williams wrote. “The election has to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan standing committees. That decision will have very important implications.”
 
“This decision represents an intransigent embrace of a pattern of life Christians throughout history and the world have rejected as against biblical teaching,” said the Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon of the Diocese of South Carolina. “It will add further to the Episcopal Church’s incoherent witness and chaotic common life, and it will continue to do damage to the Anglican Communion and her relationship with our ecumenical partners.”
View the original post

I think that critics of the ABC on both sides have again shown their lack of understanding of how he thinks. Conservatives have belittled him for not acting with more force, both in the past, and now, and do not believe he matters. Liberals criticize him for “butting in” (the often raised point that he has not done enough rwt Uganda is way beside the point. We are not talking about Uganda).

Given his normal, quiet, measured response to all that has come before, this statement is a “quick left jab.”

The response may have been a quick left jab, but I suspect that it was written a long time ago and was ready to be issued with names inserted when a diocese in TEC elected a partnered LGBT bishop.

The response may have been a quick left jab, but I suspect that it was written a long time ago and was ready to be issued with names inserted when a diocese in TEC elected a partnered LGBT bishop.

Then that:

a) Makes it more remarkable for it’s force;
b) Means that he knew TEC was walking away.

Charlie Clauss - 07 December 2009 08:15 PM

I think that critics of the ABC on both sides have again shown their lack of understanding of how he thinks. Conservatives have belittled him for not acting with more force, both in the past, and now, and do not believe he matters. Liberals criticize him for “butting in” (the often raised point that he has not done enough rwt Uganda is way beside the point. We are not talking about Uganda).

Given his normal, quiet, measured response to all that has come before, this statement is a “quick left jab.”

Charlie:  I think that it is more than just conservatives who “do not believe he matters”.  It seems to me that one of the reasons why TEC has acted so aggressively this past year (i.e. since Lambeth 2008) is that they now understand that regardless of what Rowan Williams says, the reality is that there will be no formal consequences to what they do.

I do agree that many don’t understand how Rowan thinks.  For me, I think that a key to understanding Rowan’s pronouncements is to think of them as coming from a hapless observer of the Anglican situation, rather then as the moral leader of the Anglican Communion.  So Rowan says something like “this is problematic, I hope it doesn’t happen as there will be unfortunate consequences.”  Liberals get upset because they don’t like anyone criticizing their socio-political agenda, and they see Rowan as a traitor to their cause.  Conservatives, on the other hand, assume that as LEADER of the Anglican Communion, when Rowan speaks of unfortunate consequences, that he will work to effect these consequences….as a strong and competent leader would in any other context.

When I hear Rowan make his response to the Glasspool election, I realize that he is correctly predicting the further disintegration of the Anglican Communion, but I also realize that Rowan Williams will not do anything to stem this further disintegration.

Conservatives, on the other hand, assume that as LEADER of the Anglican Communion, when Rowan speaks of unfortunate consequences, that he will work to effect these consequences….as a strong and competent leader would in any other context.

This assumes a theology/philosophy of LEADERSHIP that the ABC does not hold. The “any other context” is precisely the point: this isn’t just any context. It is a Church based on the Gospel where the LEADER is called to much more than to what the world calls it’s leaders.

James Wirrel - 08 December 2009 12:00 AM

It seems to me that one of the reasons why TEC has acted so aggressively this past year (i.e. since Lambeth 2008) is that they now understand that regardless of what Rowan Williams says, the reality is that there will be no formal consequences to what they do.

I don’t think that’s it at all. I think the faction which is in control is betting on one of two options: either they take control of the C of E too, in which case Cantuar doesn’t matter because he will be eventually replaced by one of their own; or they do get booted, in which case they get the win of being persecuted for being right. At this point the only formal consequence that would have any real impact would be for the courts to give control of Anglicanism (and therefore ECUSA) over to Cantuar, which is utterly beyond possibility. Even if Cantuar recognizes some other church as the true Anglican church of the USA, I don’t think the right people would care.

Daniel Weir - 07 December 2009 08:58 PM

The response may have been a quick left jab, but I suspect that it was written a long time ago and was ready to be issued with names inserted when a diocese in TEC elected a partnered LGBT bishop.

The same possibility occurred to me earlier today. It seems like it usually takes the ABC a week or so to respond to TEC’s actions. I don’t recall that he has ever done so this quickly before.

I notice you wrote “when a diocese…” rather than “if a diocese…”—I wonder if the ABC has also suspected all along that it was just a matter of time until TEC broke whatever moratorium may have been in effect. Otherwise, why prepare a response in advance?