(RNS) Since becoming the first lesbian to be elected a bishop in the Episcopal Church on Saturday (Dec. 5), the Rev. Mary Glasspool has been hailed as a gay rights pioneer and maligned as the straw that will finally break the back of the Anglican Communion.
Glasspool “wavered two or three times” before agreeing to be nominated as an assistant bishop in Los Angeles, she said in an interview Wednesday. But friends and spiritual counselors reminded her to follow her own preaching.
“Look, you believe in the Holy spirit,” she said they told her.
“You’ve always said the Holy Spirit is in charge. Your job is to follow where it leads.”
The global fellowship of 77 million Anglicans has been in an uproar since an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, was elected in New Hampshire in 2003; several U.S. dioceses and overseas Anglican provinces have cut ties with the Episcopal Church.
The spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, has all but told Episcopalians not to vote to confirm Glasspool’s election. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the communion, but could lose its place over Glasspool, Williams warned.
“He clearly was saying something like that,” Glasspool said. “And again, I’ve done what I could do to allow myself to be available to God’s call, and the people of Los Angeles have spoken and voiced their trust in me and my potential leadership.”
Before Glasspool can be consecrated a bishop, a majority of the more than 100 Episcopal bishops and dioceses must confirm her election within the next several months. Robinson predicted Thursday that process will be “a little more difficult” than when he was confirmed by delegates to the church’s triennial General Convention in Minneapolis.
“At the General Convention you can reach the people who are going to be doing the voting a little easier,” Robinson said. “It’s very difficult to get to more than a hundred-something groups scattered across the country if there’s a case that needs to be made by the Diocese of Los Angeles or Mary Glasspool.”
The man who would be Glasspool’s boss in Los Angeles, Bishop Jon Bruno, has already pledged to “work my fingers to the bone, dialing telephones to talk to people” in support of Glasspool’s election.
But in an interview on Wednesday, Bruno hedged a little, saying he will defend, but not campaign for, his new assistant bishop-elect. “I will do my best to serve Jesus Christ and I’m not gong to strong-arm anybody,” he said.
Until recently, the confirmation of bishops in the Episcopal Church was little more than a formality. Now, however, the process has become politicized, as activists go online to campaign against candidates and dredge up opposition research. Two elections have been nullified in the last two years, though one of the bishops was later re-elected.
Glasspool said she will respond to questions from dioceses, but otherwise will not take an active role in the confirmation process, even to defend herself if it gets ugly. “Frankly, my time is too precious to become embroiled in following that kind of thing or trying to control it,” said.
Instead, the 55-year-old said, she will stay focused on her current job, as a special advisor to the bishop in the Diocese of Maryland, where she has worked since 1992. The native New Yorker, whose father was an Episcopal priest, has also worked in parishes in Philadelphia and Boston, where she met Becki Sander, her partner of more than 20 years.
Glasspool said a “huge part of her job” is ideally suited for what Los Angeles sought in an assistant bishop: she has traveled to parishes to support clergy and congregational development, served as a substitute preacher, and sat on countless church committees.
But Robinson said he has told Glasspool that when bishops and dioceses consider whether to confirm her election, her resume and qualifications will not be the prevailing issues.
“I told her, `At the end of the day, this is not about you,”‘
Robinson said. “`It’s not about your experience and credentials, but about whether a gay or lesbian person is fit to be a bishop.”‘
In a majority of the Anglican Communion, the answer is a resounding no. Several times since Robinson’s election, Anglican leaders, including Williams, have asked Episcopalians to “exercise restraint” by not consecrating any more gay bishops. Williams reiterated that request on Sunday in his strongest language to date.
“The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to me to have been pushed over the tipping point,” said David Steinmetz, a professor Christian history at Duke Divinity School in Durham, N.C. “That’s very hard to say about him; he’s such a gentle man. On the other hand, they really have thumbed their collective noses at him.”
Glasspool, though, said the Episcopal Church held a moratorium on gay bishops from 2006-2009, and that’s long enough.
“We have waited, we have held back,” Glasspool said. “And now we need to get on with the mission and ministry of Jesus Christ, and proclaim who we are: an open and inclusive church.”
By DANIEL BURKE
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted December 10, 2009 at 6:36 pm
What was it it President Obama just said before the Nobel Peace Prize Panel? Oh, yes it was, “No Holy War Can Ever Be A Just One.”
posted December 10, 2009 at 6:43 pm
the straw that will break the back of that church and yet undaunted.
posted December 10, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Home Run!!!!
Andrew Klavan sums this up perfectly for this Episcopalian.
Please read:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240504574586021678337980.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
posted December 10, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Rowan Williams is in England…so who cares what he says?
This won’t hurt the church forever. It will survive in either one form or several, but it will survive. Time will tell. Look what Henry VIII started? He just wanted to get rid of yet another wife so he kicked the RCC out and started his own religion…look what 1 man can do!
posted December 10, 2009 at 10:47 pm
The human interest about her was new, otherwise same old same old.
posted December 11, 2009 at 12:02 am
Robinson said. “`It’s not about your experience and credentials, but about whether a gay or lesbian person is fit to be a bishop.”‘
But Bshp Robinson, don’t her experience and credentials have any bearing on whether she is fit to be a bishop (sexual orientation not withstanding)? This is one of most ludicrous statements I’ve ever read.
posted December 11, 2009 at 1:25 am
Robinson also bragged openly about being both with a woman and a man on public tv
posted December 11, 2009 at 6:10 am
Depending on what you mean by “with”, I doubt very much that a public tv station would broadcast such behavior. They are really pretty staid.
posted December 11, 2009 at 10:45 am
You’re right, Pagan, Henry the VIII started his OWN religion, it was not biblical Christianity. Jesus says that if one divorces his wife and marries another, they commit adultery. Henry wanted another wife, voila, gets rid of any barriers that stops him from doing so (the RC church)………now, with his “new” religion he is not an adulterer, but rightly has another wife(according to his own religion). I’m sure God was very pleased with him
See where the “original” sin began with the Church of England? It began with acceptance of adultery………..and has now moved on with acceptance of homosexuality—though there are some holdouts in the church of England—-the few faithful to God’s Word. Most of the other protestant denoms are moving in the same direction: they too now have accepted biblical adultery in their midst (remarriage after divorce) and soon the acceptance of homosexuality will be widespread (already is in the UCC, some methodist churches, ELCA, PCUSA, etc).
posted December 11, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Yes, Lastblast, Henry started a church that seems to have lasted, huh? Many churchs have broken off from others, and have made it. C of E is just as legit as all those other denominations…the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Baptists, the UCC etc. FLASH! There is NO ONE CORRECT church, inspite of what the RCC thinks.(and you apparently). What you have basicly said is that if a church doesn’t follow what you as a Christian ( I suppose you are) then it isn’t really a church. That is what puts off many folks…non-acceptance of ALL people in a religion that claims to “love”. That is a joke.
posted December 11, 2009 at 12:04 pm
OOPS: skipped a word;
“……if a church doesn’t follow what you as a Christian()THINKS then it isn’t really a church.
posted December 11, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I believe that not only has Glasspool gone astray, she is leading others astray, and for that she is surely going to hell.
posted December 11, 2009 at 8:27 pm
“I” No one is “leading” anyone astray. People make their own decisions about things,including who to follow and what to believe. And since there is no hell, she has nothing to worry about. IOW, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Obviously those who disagree have left the church or gone over to the really conservative side.
posted December 11, 2009 at 8:46 pm
And some that do agree have left church and became pagans so…
posted December 12, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Yes, cknuck…and become pagans so….
) Not a bad choice at all. Key word, is “choice”. Religion/beliefs come from many places and each individual has to make up their own mind. Freedom to do so is a right in this country….one of our many “blessings”. As I have said many times….there is absolutely no one correct way to believe…I’m no more right or wrong than you are. You’re a happy camper and so am I. What else is important?
posted December 12, 2009 at 2:48 pm
pagan you are so right when you talk about this being a free country and we have the right to worship or not worship in the way we freely choose. I agree with you on that, where we run into trouble with each other is when you (and some others) make absolute statements about a belief they don’t even believe. I try not to do that so you rarely if never see me talk about other faiths. I do toward you (and some others) because you sometimes make absolute statements about my faith that are not true and in doing so you are (whether you admit it or not) attempting to sway others against Christianity. To me as a Christian that type of activity is bordering demonic activity, in that you would direct people away from the Savior Christ the true path to God, the Way. It is written “no one come to the Father but through Me” so that pretty much seals the deal for me and I don’t think Jesus Son of God came to the earth and died for nothing, you don’t think that way, once again your privilege as a citizen but when you say things that you say you confront my very being thus I respond.
posted December 12, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Has someone ever lied on somebody you knew and you knew it was a lie? Well regardless of the fact that you have no knowledge of Christ it doesn’t change the fact that I (and many others) do know Him and have a personal relationship with Him and when you tell a lie on Him that I know without a shadow of doubt is a lie, I respond. If a person is a person that is open I respond one way, if it is a person who is not open then another but if it is a person that attacks the person of my Lord then I respond in another way.
posted December 12, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I’ve tried 2 times to respond to you and the post wouldn’t refresh, so I’ve given up, cknuck. Suffice it to say, I have knowledge of Christ, over my entire life, it is hard not to. Started in my 1st 17 years, continues with my sisters, who have a personal relationship with him. Am going to stop, so I can hopefully post this…a 3rd time. This is shorted than my last 2 tries. No demons here, as the devil doesn’t exist.
posted December 13, 2009 at 2:14 am
pagan how on earth can you infer that my relastionship is with a figment of imagination and there is no God but at the same time claim that you family and some of the folk on these board that agree with you have a true relationship with the same God you claim is not real. You do know what that makes yo sound like?
posted December 13, 2009 at 11:48 am
Pagan,
If something (a denomination/religion, etc) is not founded on the ONE TRUE GOD and HIS truths, then it is not a “legitimate” organization–it is a man made organization/religion. Legitimacy to GOD truly is all that should matter to those who desire to follow Him. The truth is: Man wants to do things his way(so he finds a church that uplifts “his” ways), or we have only “partial” light in an area, hence all the different denoms (and no, I am not Roman Catholic and do not believe they are the one true branch of Christianity—they too have gone off into error in many areas). The TRUE church can be found within all the various denominations. The TRUE church is an entity—the Body of Christ—TRUE born again/converted believers, having the Spirit of Christ dwelling within them. Each true believer doesn’t have FULL LIGHT, they only have partial understanding of truth in many areas. However, as God gives “light/truth” in an area, many find they can no longer do “church” as usual—especially if their churches are practicing/accepting immorality or teaching false doctrines the Lord has shown them are such.
The reality is this: Truth is not what we want it to be—–it IS absolute. God is absolute and He will absolutely judge all of mankind on the appointed day—whether mankind wants to acknowledge His existance or not. Scripture teaches us that EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess that He is Lord. If you reject this as truth, then you too hold absolutes, even though you may deny it. One cannot say the Christian God does not exist in one breath and in the next breath say the Christian religion is just as “legitimate” as other religions. You understand?
posted December 13, 2009 at 3:34 pm
cknuck, My sisters think their relationship is real, as do some on these boards. What difference does it make if I think that it’s real or not? To them (and you) it is. It makes them happy and apparently makes you happy. No problems. I just don’t happen to believe that way. How hard is that to understand?
posted December 13, 2009 at 3:50 pm
LB:
With all due respect, I’ve heard all that before…nothing new in your statements and they didn’t convince me before and they don’t now. What you state, if something isn’t founded by the ONE TRUE GOD, then it isn’t legit is, IMO, your opinion. Again with the “my religion is founded by THE GOD, is part of many reasons that I can’t go that route. The superior attitude of many “true” believers. The old “my god is better thatn your god” routine.
This world is fortunate that there are many, many religions/beliefs in this world. None are superior to the other as far as I’m concerned. Paganism has been around longer than Christianity, the Jews are have been around longer than the Christians, thus their impact on Christianity… So, what’s your point again? Oh! That’s right, you still have the only religion, because God did it. I happen to totally disagree with your last statement. Not complicated.