I don't know the best answers to the questions you have raised, but for the female bishop of El Camino Real to fail to show up when her neighboring diocese consecrates its first women bishops simply makes me sad.

I don't know the internal dynamics of her diocese. I gather they've had a tough time in the recent past. Maybe it's okay that she's chosen to honor her ecumenical relationships. But what an opportunity lost for so little gain. She's just dissed every Gay person in Southern California; how holy is that.

Maybe she'd have boycotted the consecration of James Theodore Holly to accomodate the "sincere views" of racists. I mean, what does this accomplish, except to make the faith look bad to everyone under 40?

Perhaps this is a category mistake. The decision made by this bishop, unknown to me, may be about relationships rather than local/global dichotomies. I can understand that she may have voted to confirm an election as a matter of principle or belief, and then realized that rebuffing the request of another bishop with whom she has what she considers a vital relationship not to participate in the consecration would jeopardize or greatly impair that relationship. Is it to be assumed that just because she is herself a female bishop, that she is obligated to make secondary all other relationships? If so, this is a very costly, and not a very well thought-out solidarity. What do we know of her thoughts or of her relationships or of the hierarchy of values which inform her choices? There is a lot of judgment informing the editorializing on this bishop's choices. No cost involved there, as is the case in a lot of judgments. Who of the commentators has the intimate knowledge required to make a reasoned judgment in this matter?

One more consideration. Not attending the consecration of a very able candidate who happens also to be gay is not a case of "dissing" every gay person in California, or anywhere else. To make this judgment seems to say that the most important thing about Mary Glasspool is that she is gay. I think not. Though I have never met her, we have a number mutual friends, including her former bishop, and the consistent testimony is that she is an immanently qualified person to be a bishop. That is all I need to know about her.

The Bible (1 Timothy 3) commends bishops as being dually capable, and therefore dually loyal: they not only manage their own families well, but also are respected among outsiders. I suspect these are mutually dependent characteristics, and that it would be unhelpful to think of them as unnaturally separated, overly compartmentalized, or as silos of thought. The diocese (and the diocesan) are both radically interconnected to the larger world, but the diocese is also a discrete unit, and those elected are done so out of need of their skills, passions, and commitments, local and global. Indeed, the bishop is the very symbol of the constraints of this dual loyalty and must work it out with fear and trembling; and if s/he has grave doubts or concerns about one loyalty endangering the other, then "owes" the potentially offended party an explanation as to behavior should there be an irretrievable perception of disloyalty. (Even, and especially, when it would seem cut-and-dried from any one side.)

All of which explains why we take such great care in choosing these folks, or had better.

Mind you, it isn't that loyalty is the highest possible good a bishop can model. This is simply in answer to a thoughtful question.

Sorry to sound so flagrantly predictable. See you in 12 hours when my ban has been lifted!

Torey Lightcap

Can I buy part of bishop by working hard to get the bishop elected? Is a bishop expected to execute the preferences of the majority of her diocese? Or is she expected to make hard decisions based upon things she knows because she is closer to the decision even if those decisions are at odds with those who helped elect her, and to represent as best she can even minorities in her diocese?

To turn the racism example around, what should a bishop serving a southern diocese in the 1950s have done? Represent the majority? Represent those who elected him and expected him not to stir the pot when it came to Jim Crow? Become open to listening to the voices that were saying Jim Crow is wrong?

I think in the tension between local and global is precisely where a Bishop's sacramental ministry is lived.

Taking this simile with great care, one old word for bishop is "pontifex" which is derived from Latin for "bridge." One could say that it is the office of bishop to be a bridge between the local and global church. To take the image one step further, any engineer will tell you a bridge is a study in balancing stresses and tensions.

I would argue, in our Church at least, that the Bishop's primary allegiance is to the people she or he most directly serves, and with whom pastoral authority is most directly exercised. That is where accountability matters most, and so where allegiance is most important. But that authority also comes from the wider Church, which must always be "in the room." Hence the tension.

As I wrote in a comment on the posting of Bishop Mary's letter before, the current conflict leaves many of our bishops in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. That may be one reason they come down all over the map on the questions at hand.

"Dear Diocese-members (my beloved flock), brother & sister bishops of TEC (my peers & kin) and world-wide partners (w/ whom I hope to be blessed as "peacemakers"):

I love you all.

...and, at the same time, while loving you no less, I'm going to have to tell some or ALL of you to "Sod Off" from time to time. (Part of Keeping Jesus First).

In this particular instance, the Sod-Off party is _____________. I pray it this won't make you, __________, write me off permanently (if it makes you feel any better, [other group], whom you can't stand, is sure to be the Sod-Off party NEXT time).

Please keep me in your prayers, as we work for that blessed day when NO ONE has to be Sod-Off (OR me, in reaction, Sawed-Off!).

Your sinful fellow/sister apostle,
+[My Name Here]"

JC Fisher

I remember hearing one of my brother bishops refer to "his constituents" once in a debate during a business meeting of the House of Bishops. I think, Jim, that you have fallen into the same mistake, of considering an episcopal election to be like electing a representative or senator.
Bishop Griswold used to quote regularly Bp Hélder Camâra: "The bishop belongs to all, let no one be scandalized if I frequent those who are considered unworthy or sinful. Who is not a sinner? Let no one be alarmed if I am seen with the compromised and dangerous people, on the left and the right. Let no one bind me to a group. My door, my heart, must be open to everyone, absolutely everyone."

It isn't a matter of both/and or either/or. Nor is being a bishop about responsibility to constituents, for we are all members of one Body and all responsible one to another. That is represented by the consents necessary for a consecration to go forward.

Bishop Gray-Reeves is picking her way through, just as you are and I am.

John Chilton asked:

"What should a bishop serving a southern diocese in the 1950s have done?"

Well, we know that now, don't we? He should have fought racism at every chance.

But our bishops didn't. They were too busy listening to other, moderate, racist voices; Amos was never one of them.

Philip Cato makes a claim nowhere found in my post, that Bishop Glasspool's only qualification is being a Lesbian. I said something else, that Mary Gray-Reeves dissed all her Gay and Lesbian neighbors in the diocese adjacent to hers. Let Cato be responsible for his distortion, and let Gray-Reeves answer the LGBT folk in her own diocese, the people she failed, the women she failed, in favor of her foreign diplomacy.

As for Richard Helmer's "damned if they do, damned if they don't" comment, ask Martin Luther King what's the right course. Then I suggest we actually follow his advice.

Gray-Reeves has managed to alienate everyone; oh, so middle way.

I think the lady erred. A bishop should be fighting evil and preaching the gospel in season and out of season (apologies to Timothy.) As much as I want to see the international relationships work out, there are limits.

FWIW
jimB

Jim Beyer

On the issues of what Bishop Gray-Reeves should have done, I honestly have no opinion. I was attempting to get us to revisit her decision, and nothing that follows is veiled commentary on her actions.

Now then:

Bishop Pierre, I don't think I have made the mistake that you describe. I simply note that bishops frequently have to make decisions about where their allegiances lie. Dom Hector, whom you quote made decisions on behalf of the marginalized that put his life at risk. I observe many bishops who make decisions on behalf either of their careers, or their good standing in the Bishops Club, that put the marginalized at risk. Once a bishop becomes a bishop, the good opinion of the lay people and clergy who voted for that bishop, or worked to change the canons of the church to make his or her election possible, may mean less in purely practical terms that the good opinion of other bishops. Hence, some of us become suspicious when bishops explain that they have made a decision that rips our hearts out and stomps on them in the name of church order, ecumenical outreach, the welfare of the broader, blah, blah, blah. Because while we are sure someone's welfare has been advanced, we aren't always certain whose.

This is why I am glad that there is a General Convention, but that is another thread.

"One more consideration. Not attending the consecration of a very able candidate who happens also to be gay is not a case of "dissing" every gay person in California, or anywhere else. To make this judgment seems to say that the most important thing about Mary Glasspool is that she is gay. I think not. Though I have never met her, we have a number mutual friends, including her former bishop, and the consistent testimony is that she is an immanently qualified person to be a bishop. That is all I need to know about her."

That's a straw man.

"To make this judgment seems to say that the most important thing about Mary Glasspool is that she is gay." -- Um, *no*. To make that judgment is to say that the most important thing about Mary Glasspool ***to those opposed to her consecration and to those who requested Mary Gray-Reeves to stay away*** -- is that she is gay.

Staying away makes a statement about the legitimacy of lesbian identity as the grounds for the opponents' opposition; it lends a cloak of credibility and reasonableness to what is, at the end of the day, anti-LGBT prejudice.

In other words, Bishop Mary G-R has naively lent a patina of respectability to the view that Bishop Mary G's being a lesbian tainted the consecration with the theological equivalent of "cooties," and that in order to appease those who find such taint, apartheid-like avoidance of such ritual impurity and pollution is an acceptable Christian choice.

Josh, I'm suspect you've misunderstood my point. It was in the context of Jim's question: should you dance with the partner that brought you? My answer is that depending on the case -- as in the one I gave -- the thing to do is to listen to other voices even it costs you friends and membership.

Or, again, to stay with Jim's question, but bring it up to present day think of the Bishop of Liverpool. He recently stated that due to his partnerships with other bishops (notably the bishop of Virginia), and listening to minority views in his diocese, he made substantial change in his position on homosexuality towards a more liberal view. A view that is far from the views of those who originally elected him.

As for Richard Helmer's "damned if they do, damned if they don't" comment, ask Martin Luther King what's the right course. Then I suggest we actually follow his advice.

Josh, I agree with you here. Which is precisely why the prophetic voices like those of MLK should always be carefully and prayerfully heard, even if the course they correctly point to brings danger.

But the question remains before a number of our bishops, which danger is the more appropriate one to choose? I think Bishop Gray-Reeve's position is subtle enough to at least leave the door open to that question.

(Apologies to Jim if I am venturing where he'd rather things not go.)

As an illustration, when it came for her to exercise her authority over the consent process, she acted in full support of the consecrations in LA. When it came for a matter of her being present at a consecration where her authority, while welcome, was not essential, she decided to offer an olive branch to those who disagreed with her consent.

I am not defending the inconsistency here, but only trying to understand it better in light of the pressures all our bishops are under.

Jim, there is no question that bishops err on the side of respectability, careerism, or to keep the good opinion of other bishops, "sin being what it is…" as Churchill Gibson used to say.

The local usually trumps the global. But to decide where your allegiances lie is always first of all a decision about where your conscience tells you to be. "Sin being what it is," that can be hard to hear or difficult to follow or whatever excuse we make for not listening.

If I thought Bishop Gray-Reeves was not following her conscience, I would not say anything at all.

Jim, this is precisely an either/or situation. A Bishop, like all of us, can only be in one place at a time, pay attention to one task in any given moment, etc. Life is a series of either/or decisions. Yet the position of "Bishop" requires both/and behavior- both paying attention to the particular flock/diocese and bridging to the "general" church/world.
No one person can do both things well. That's why we have Suffragan Bishops. Except, of course, in our diocese of Washington.

This is the problem with an institutional church, What is the role of Bishop? Priest? I have been told the job is not one of teaching or of example, but rather of proclaiming the Gospel, quite convenient for maintaining the larger institution. If maintaining "peace" in the existing membership is the goal then by all means the Bishop is responsible to maintain the status quo as long as possible, following her flock as it were. If the title Bishop is granted as a job in an institution, like CFO or or CEO then their responsibility is to preserve the viability of the company that employs them, if that means not meeting the needs of a new market to preserve the patronage of an existing market, then they are responsible to the share holders to determine which is more profitable and lead in that path. If the job of Bishop is to maintain the largest number of constituents contributing to the institution,,,, well you get the idea, if the Bishop is titled only by the existence of the institution their responsibilities lie with the established rules and doctrines of that institution.

If the election of Bishop is granted in faith, by faith, and perceived to be a calling and not a job, then the Bishop stands alone in her decisions and displays the Gospel message by her actions, responsible not to her flock, nor to her peers. It is an either or decision that displays to us outside the faith, what it is all about.

[Bruno - Welcome to the Cafe. As a first time commenter you get a pass, but please note our comment policy: sign your first and last name. We look forward to your continued participation. - eds.]

A bishop's allegiance should lie with Jesus and the Gospel. Actions speak that Gospel far louder than all those guilt induced words of +Mary Gray-Reeves' apologia for deliberately avoiding the consecrations of Bruce and Glasspool lest she miss an opportunity to reinforce negative perceptions of women and gay people as bishops.

Even for this East-coast Episcopalian, well over 40, it was painful to focus on those words as my cheek was still stinging from once again being bishop-slapped for, by the grace of God, being gay.

With all respect to her conscience, perhaps an adjustment is in order.

In reviewing the promises bishops make at their consecration, the promises themselves embody some of these conflicts.

What this suggests to me is that we stop lending a sense to the episcopate that Christianity is raised or lost by their actions. We each as disciples are responsible. How is it that we are living out our own discipleship in solidarity with the marginalized? Jim's willingness to be so bold and blunt in challenging our bishops in this post is an example of lay leadership.

Actually I have a lot of sympathy for bishops who have to cope with a tension that I think is inherent in their jobs. I just wanted to point out that sometimes the inducements to play to the prestige audience are greater than the inducements to satisfy the local one.

I personally do not understand how Bishop G-R arrived at her decision. Don't consent if you're not willing to consecrate. As an Anglican bishop you are elected to follow your conscience, and we are to elect bishops whose conscience we trust. Two things: I am concerned about those bishops who asked G-R to not attend the consecration, for they were guilting and manipulating her into doing something contrary to her conscience, which I find to be a very serious and disturbing matter. The more you look into that, the worse it gets. Second of all, I am disappointed in Bishop G-R's acquiescence to this kind of pressure, for as a bishop in God's Church she should have told the other two to back off, that such a decision was hers to make in absolute freedom without any coercion or pressure whatsoever, and that such coercion and pressure would be considered a breach of collegiality. It is the place of all bishops to speak truth as they see it, but it is not their place to manipulate and coerce their colleagues into courses of action, particularly courses of action that are obviously against a bishop's conscience.
Bishop G-R's weakness in this acquiescence can and must be forgiven, but the other two bishops must not be allowed to get away with this kind of coercion and manipulation. With "friends" and "relationships" like that, who needs enemies?

One more thing. In my mind, a bishop ministers locally and witnesses globally. Allegiance concerning local ministry always lies with people, never with just things or ideas. This allegiance does not require unanimity of belief or bowing to majority pressure. It requires most of all a deep listening and attentiveness to the concerns of all the people and clergy under one's care. It requires an inquiry into the reasons for belief and theology, and being satisfied that the steps that lead to a conclusion are sound and reasonable, and that the foundations of a belief are solid rock and not sand. This is rarely a fun process when ministering to the moneyed and powerful amidst hot-button issues, and usually feedback only comes from the faithful who are dissatisfied with a position of witness that a bishop has taken. But this is a necessary part of being a good shepherd.

Allegiance concerning global witness is also to people, but this time to those who have little or nothing, to the poor, persecuted and disenfranchised. This is a bishop's most important allegiance in the wider world, these are the people to whom s/he is accountable before God, and the relationships between bishops must depend on how much this allegiance is manifested or compromised. Beyond all ruminations on the invisible (read "doctrinal statements"), it is the treatment of human beings that must be the determining factor whether communion is maintained or impaired. People believe what they have to (or some times, want to) believe, but if, for instance, an African bishop actually tells a woman that she must stay with her abusive, HIV+ husband for "doctrinal" (probably cultural too) reasons, then it's time to start impairing communion and witnessing, I don't care how bad you feel about being the old white European guy telling the black African guy he's wrong and taking the side of evil. If your conscience can stand letting that slide, then you need to let your mitre slide right off your head and step down because you're not gifted appropriately for episcopal office.