So it's okay to grant consent, and to publicly cheer them on, but NOT okay to attend their consecration?

I've been told that the laying on of hands at ordination is really about removing the spine of the person being ordained. Apparently the practice removes logic as well...

Paige Baker

P.S. I won't even touch the sexist implications of two male, non-TEC bishops demanding that +Gray-Reeves stay home as some sort of show of solidarity for the lukewarm "Wait until later" brigade...

Paige, I'm sorry, but I think your comment is a cheap shot. How carefully have you read +Mary's statement? (And +Michael's?) Had I been Mary Gray-Reeves, I might have made a different decision. But, as you will notice, I am not. Clearly it was a difficult decision for her, and a difficult issue for Bishops Michael and Gerard. But +Mary said, "You may not like the decision I made, but let me be clear, it was mine to make, not +Michael's or +Gerard's." I think charity and courtesy require us to take her at her word.

"Reconciliation requires something of you."

This word from Eliacin Rosario-Cruz touched me, and I see what it cost you. It's not clear to me what reconciliation has cost +Michael or +Gerard.

Bunker Hill+
Spearfish, SD

I don't get it. I'm sure that +Mary Gray-Reeves came to her decision thoughtfully and prayerfully, but I don't understand her explanation at all.

I'm sorry, but I don't see favoring justice and equality as personal opinions. We call ourselves a Christian church.

I don't understand +Perham's position either. What I hear in his letter is that he believes welcoming all persons to all orders in the church is the right thing to do, but let's not do it just yet.

As Martin Luther King said, "A right delayed is a right denied".

June Butler

Paige, I'm sorry, but I think your comment is a cheap shot. How carefully have you read +Mary's statement? (And +Michael's?)

I read them both very carefully, thank you.

+Gray-Reeves' explanation makes no sense to me. If she voted to consent to +Glasspool's election, and publicly declares her delight in that election, what does it mean to stay away from the consecration? Surely it's an empty gesture to +Glouchester and +Western Tanganyika--and a very mixed message to the LGBTs in her own diocese?

And I have grave difficulties with +Glouchester's "ask" to begin with. It was totally inappropriate and I am stunned that she agreed to it.

I echo June's comments. "Wait until X is on board" has never, EVER brought the Gospel to anyone. It certainly will not do so in the case of LGBTs.

Just ask Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza in Malawi.

Paige Baker

Paige - not a cheap shot but a good question. I realize that not attending did not make a difference to whether Bruce/Glasspool were made bishops but the incarnation of our beliefs is supposedly what Christianity is all about. I don't think one can have it both ways. In pleasing bigots it pleases no one. They know what you really think and the gesture is empty to them - (regardless of +Gloucester thoughts) - and those on the margins -especially those in Africa see the absence and feel abandoned once more. Putting one's body on the line is important. Good thing for this bishop someone stood up for women at a critical time and personally that many showed up for her consecration. Easy to forget the shoulders you stand on IMO. And not guilt free in my life either.

I'm not sure I would have come to the same decisions as +Mary Gray-Reeves, but I can respect her decision as being consistent with her hopes and having integrity.

She also has to represent her diocese, and my understanding is that it is a diocese all over the map on the place of Gays and Lesbians in the church. If she is able to keep the conversation going while being clear where she stands, I say more power to her. While the consecration is the moment of truth, what really counted for full inclusion was her vote, and she gave it.

My fear for the church is that we are at a point where we're ready to say, "This is the way it is, lump it or leave it" instead of trying to move forward in a way that helps more move along with us.

That +M G-R could vote to consent and still remain in partnership with England and Tanzania, suggests that there is still room for disagreement and diversity of practice without ripping us apart from one another.

Dirk

I am a member of El Camino Real and I can attest to Bp. Mary's comments about the state of disfunction we were in before the election process. Dispite all the stereotypes that come from our geography (clinging to the left coast) we are not uniformly progressive, and sometimes our conversations are strained, and sometimes, some folk find they cannot stay. At the same time, Bp. Mary and the bishops of Gloucester and West Tanzanyika have embarked on a triad relationship that magnifies the differences, as was witnessed by those who attended the discussions during the recent visitation here in California.

+Mary is a straight shooter. Her position about the consent was no surprise to anybody in the diocese. But neither is her rock-solid commitment to keeping the channels of dialog open and active. At this she is brilliant.

I would personally rather we move more quickly. But to move more quickly would strain already difficult relationships beyond the breaking point. Our bishop has found a middle-way, and in the process has thrown nobody under the bus.

Lou Poulain
Lay
Sunnyvale CA

A bishop is charged with guarding the unity of the church. It is a task I would fail miserably at.

From what I've seen, +Mary Gray-Reeves did nothing to try to stop the consecration. All she did was step aside.

You cannot compare what the Bishop of El Camino Real has to do with whatever else any other bishop has to do. There is no promise of what is done being the part of an even trade. The only thing we, as Christians, are called to do is sacrifice.

I believe I heard a note of sacrifice from +Mary Gray-Reeves in this letter.

Her only problem is that she is trying to explain logically what is at best emotional and spiritual. It isn't going to happen too clearly (as anyone trying to understand the Revelation of John will soon figure out).

If the absence of +Mary Gray-Reeves tells someone with whom she disagrees that she is listening to them (even if it does not stop the consecration), it may be enough.

We are called to sacrifice, not claim victories.

Rrchapman - please sign your full name next time. ed.

Bishop Mary Gray-Reeves gave her consent to the election of Mary Glasspool and then, just because some in the Anglican Communion hold a superstitious view of the laying on of hands, she decided not to participate in the consecration. Sounds like a politician signing an unpopular bill at midnight when nobody is looking. Because some in the Anglican Communion don't do consents she can get past their radar screen for orthodoxy.

I am tired of seeing justice issues in TEC being subordinated to English and/or African politics--or even the diocesan politics of El Camino Real. Why do the sensibilities of the Church of England or African Churches have to be taken into consideration in the self-governance of this denomination?

Saying she knows better only makes her refusal to participate in the consecration worse.

Not participating gave her deniability.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Although she goes to great lengths to discuss the diocesan relationship between El Camino Real, Gloucester and Western Tanganyika, from information provided by James at his blog, http://threelegedstool.blogspot.com/ , I believe that her decision had more to do with the situation in her home diocese than with the requests of her companion diocese partners. If the folks at home were not ready for that amount of visible statement, then we need to give her the benefit that she was following the Spirit's leadership. She states it was a serious matter of prayer on her part. I see no contradiction, the Holy Spirit can lead TEC's pioneering steps in support of GLBT inclusion and at the same moment be prompting +Mary, ECR that the time is not yet right for her to rock the boat at home in Dio ECR.

Had +Gloucester not opened his big mouth, if none of us knew the back story at all, the fact that she had major surgery and was in recovery that was causing her to need to cancel standing appointments for episcopal visits in Dio ECR, those of us who were angry at first with her for not showing up in Long Beach last Saturday would have felt egg on our faces.

So we can disagree with her decision, and what did or did not influence it, but in the end, she could not have attended regardless, she was in bed following surgery.

As a priest relatively new to the Diocese of El Camino Real, I find the implication that my bishop was something other than courageous, thoughtful, or prayerful about both her consent to the ordinations and her absence from the ordination itself wide of the mark. I know her as a thoughtful, compassionate, and passionate person.

In any relationship, whether a marriage, friendship, or church relationship, there is always a give and take. I constantly ask myself in many such relationships "Do I want to be right more than I want to be in relationship?" It is ironic that as people seek to have GLBT relationships recognized and affirmed we simultaneously often discount or dismiss the relationships that we already have with one another. Bishop Mary took a middle way, a way that made no substantive difference in the moving forward of the consecrations but was a symbolic gesture to her fellow bishops with whom she is in relationship.

As she writes: "You may not like the decision I made, but let me be clear, it was mine to make, not +Michael's or +Gerard's." The fact that one is in relationship with another person and decides to act in ways that best support that relationship does NOT equate with political or personal pressure to take a given action.

Tom, just so I can get this straight in my head: If I am in relationship with a racist and it would be seen as supportive of me to decline to attend the consecration of a bishop of color then that would be a Christian thing to do (as long as I had given my consent)?

Or, if I am in relationship with a misogynist and it would be seen as supportive that I not attend the consecration of a female bishop that would be a Christian thing to do (as long as I had given my consent)?

Whitewashed tombs -- seemingly pure on the outside and filled with death and corruption comes to mind but that is not charitable of me. The two young men in Malawi could do with some cost from the good bishops of Gloucester and Tanganyika about now too, I’m sure. Are they willing to pay something too?

Forgive me but I fail to see how this is different in any way whatsoever from the admonition of Jesus when he proclaimed the Pharisees to be hypocrites because they pray loudly in public and make a show of giving alms while remaining blind to the need of living people who are spiritually starving in their very midst.

Giving a consent and then physically boycotting the consecration, which involves the actual human neighbors and the very human touch are far, far apart in my spiritual book.

I certainly may be wrong. I certainly see the cost of this stand to the new bishops of LA, the GLBT supportive members of the diocese of El Camino Real, and those of us who fight every day for full, baptismal equality. What, exactly, was the cost to Tanganyika and Gloucester? What suffering did they have to undergo or have they undergone to sustain this relationship?

It always seems to fall to GLBT Episcopalians to hang on the cross in suffering for yet another season and then be told to be silent and thankful for that privilege. Brings to mind something about throwing stumbling blocks in the path of seekers of righteousness and such stuff but then who am I to judge.

My prayers for Bishop Mary, her valued friends, and the new bishops of LA.

Priscilla Cardinale

"We are called to sacrifice, not claim victories."

The problem here is the usual one: The sacrifice always seems to occur from the one side, not the other.

And so it is that, say, TEC and ACoC accede to requests to be but "observers" at the ACC -- which opens a door through which a truck drives through, and votes succeed that would not have otherwise.

And so it was that Jeffrey John was asked to stand down, and for ++Rowan, he did so -- and that "success" only emboldened the anti-LGBT forces in the Communion.

So too now, +Mary Gray-Reeves' decision is not only a "gracious" - and unilateral, with no reciprocity - sacrifice; it too gives aid and comfort and encouragement to the anti-LGBT forces in the Communion, even though the good Bishop and her defenders here may choose not to see how that all works.

Yet her staying away is not merely some restraint in the interest of "keeping the conversation going"; it is now actively (and unsurprisingly) being deployed by the anti-LGBTs as evidence that yes, restraint and refraining from the actions that offend them is only eminently reasonable, and as a concession that really these *are* "Communion-breaking" and "communion-breaking" (both upper and lower case) matters.

It plays into their hands, and becomes Exhibit B for the prosecution. Not to have foreseen such (mis)use is naive in the extreme.

Her only problem is that she is trying to explain logically what is at best emotional and spiritual.

Which, I will note, was my point from the beginning--her explanation is not logical.

Had +Gloucester not opened his big mouth

But what good is a sacrificial gesture if no one knows about it?! [sarcasm]

+Glouchester wanted everyone to know that he exercises influence in TEC. Whether that is true or not, he made his point at +MGR's expense. In the future, I would be very wary of having such a "friend" if I were her...

Paige Baker

It is so easy for us to condemn Bishop Mary when we don't inhabit the relationships she is attempting to sustain. Her letter embodies grace in the face of the harsh "damned if you do, damned if you don't" reality so many of our bishops are living in right now. And she does not demand agreement with her position. I hear instead a much more modest desire for at least some understanding.

It seems to me she is standing in humble reliance on the promise of our beloved Christ and that of Christ's true Church: a church built not on judgment, but forgiveness. That to me is admirable whether or not I agree with her decision.

Before Lambeth '08, there was discussion of excluding the bishops who (physically) consecrated +Gene Robinson (but then Rowan in his infinite wisdom decided Gay Cooties were not transferable {snort}).

That's my only concern: in the FUTURE, would +MGR attend an episcopal function that +Mary Glasspool's consecrators (or +MG herself!) were excluded from?

Though I doubt I will, I would like to hear from +Mary Glasspool herself on this matter. But if she was fine w/ it (as +MGR states), then to me, the matter is closed.

[I much more concerned w/ hearing from ALL our bishops---beginning w/ ++KJS---about the obscenity in Malawi. God bless and strengthen Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza!]

JC Fisher

The bishop's letter is quite moving, and I do not doubt her sincere feelings.

But I do not understand how one can do these two things: (1) Privately vote consent to Glasspool's election and (2) Take a very public stance against attending the consecration of that person.

What kind of two-headed thinking brings those two things together? I just don't get it.

Like Bishop Gray-Reeves, I am in a diocese that has companion relationship with Anglican dioceses in the UK and in Africa. Ours are in Salisbury and Sudan. Our bishop was crystal-clear from from the outset. He didn't need to hide at Lambeth, nor has he needed to apologize or temporize about his position. We have some disagreements with some of our partners. But we were all honest at the beginning.

I do not understand why Bishop Gray-Reeves would seek to find peace by voting for consecration but then absenting herself from the consecration service. What did she achieve in that move which looks -- to me -- like duplicity?

This story reminds me of another story: the scriptural references to the behavior of the disciples at the time of Jesus' crucifixtion. Each had their own way of struggling with their loss and dealing with the threat they felt toward their own identity and even survival. For one the cock crowed three times. For each it was a different journey. Denial and avoidance were common immediate responses in their grief and fear. What stands out to me in the stories are two facts we have been told: none of Jesus followers who were women are described as denying him as their Lord and the stories go on to reveal that the male disciples and followers of
Jesus eventually faced martyrdom for their quite powerful and well-pubilicized (via their acts abd testaments) commitments and allegiance.

Have you seen Jesus, my Lord?
He's here in plain view....take a look!

I have been trying to decide if I wanted to "comment" on this posting or not, as there is an abundance of discussion here, but after re-reading Bishop Gray-Reeves letter for the fourth time, I think that I will throw in a few thoughts.
First, I think that Bishop Gray-Reeves opens herself to criticism quite readily by her writing here. Had she said nothing, we would have nothing much on which to comment.
Secondly, I have to say that I find that her letter, looked at from a whole does not represent any reasoned/logical process that I can see, but looks like the production of someone "caught" in a dilemma rather of a "no win" scenario. Faced with a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" conflict, there are only so many ways to resolve it. One way is to "do nothing." She might simply have not replied on the request to consent and absented herself from the consecration and said nothing. Another option is to make a decision in the opposite direction, consent and consecrate and "to hell" with the storm that follows. She took the "other path" to try to conciliate. She consented to the election perhaps capitalizing a bit on the lack of international understanding of our Episcopal election and confirmation process because it has the flavor (because of the word "consent") of a sort of passive non-resistance and had the "good" effect here of at least passive support for the election. At the same time, she eschewed the positive action (and the photo publicity) of participation in the liturgical rite and the laying on of hands that is the international/ecumenical symbol of action for creating a bishop. As she said, there were plenty of other hands, and hers was "not needed."
Did, however, she accomplish anything positive? Perhaps the "conciliatory bread" that she has "cast upon the waters" may bear some positive fruits. If that is her "sacrificial offering" to the process, then I would hope that it would be received by those to whom it was offered in a spirit of extreme humility. Unfortunately, I am not sure that such gestures to our English/African brothers and sisters have always been received as such. I am also suspicious of the moral rectitude of "sacrificing" someone/something who is in a position of being a victim already. Such vicarious offerings can certainly have the unintended consequence of increasing the suffering of those (in this case overseas and local LGBT persons) individuals.
In the end, I am inclined to think that it is best for those of us who are convinced of the rightness of what we do to simply go ahead and do it. We have our Lord's word to "let your yes be yes and your no be no."
To do otherwise is to fail to "listen" in the opposite direction, meaning to fail to participate in the "conversation" with honesty and every effort to avoid duplicity for the sake of avoiding disagreement.
For myself, this event has helped to clarify the "two way" nature of these requests to "gracious restraint." I am going to honestly request from our dissenting English and African brothers and sisters that they offer us "gracious consent" until such time as we are convinced by the spirit and our own charism that we should do otherwise.

It is so easy for us to condemn Bishop Mary when we don't inhabit the relationships she is attempting to sustain.

Richard, in no way did I condemn +Mary. I said I didn't understand her explanation about why she voted consent and then stayed away from the ordination of +Mary Glasspool. Neither puzzlement nor disagreement is the same as condemnation. I hold no unforgiveness toward +Mary for not attending the ordination.

June Butler

+Mary's equivocation on the matter of the ordination of Mary Glasspool is, sadly, one of the distinguishing marks of the whole Anglican Communion at this time. To have agreed to the canonical ordination and then to have resiled from being present - to meet the demands of an overseas bishop - is, to say the least, inconsistent.

In this instance, +Mary's decision to absent herself from the actual episcopal commissioning of a bishop she approves of, says more about +Mary's greater concern for Unity than for Justice. One wonders what would have happened in the case of her own ordination? Would +Mary have approved of the same equivocation from her colleagues in ministry?

Bishop Mary Gray Reeves, a staunch supporter of LGBT inclusion, has made a thoughtful and sincere decision and given an honest nuanced explanation for her actions. She has my deepest respect. Some of the conservative wing of the church express fear not so much of LGBT inclusion but of their own exclusion. I do not beleive that is the intent of those who strive to broaden the church to fully embrace and affirm the LGBT community. However, attacks on people like Bp Gray Reeves for striving to maintain lines of communication do not futher our mission "to reconcile all people to God and each other in Christ."