The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles elected the Reverend Mary D. Glasspool of Baltimore as an assistant bishop. She is expected to be consecrated as bishop on May 15 in Los Angeles.
This comes during a time frame that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has said is a season of “gracious restraint” on both sides of the gay debate.
Please read the whole of Albert Mohler’s blog post on the matter. I will post the conclusion here and add more thoughts afterword. Mohler concludes:
Here is a great lesson: We cannot reduce a question of truth to a question of process. The real question that confronts the Anglican Communion is whether their churches will bless homosexuality. Liberals see this as the necessary liberation of oppressed human beings from prejudice. Conservatives see the blessing of homosexuality as a direct rejection of Scripture, a violation of Christian tradition, and an act of rebellion against God.
“Gracious restraint” will not hold back strong conviction, as the actions in Los Angeles make clear. The conservatives and the liberals agree on this much — “gracious restraint” is no excuse for violating conviction on a matter of this significance.
The conservatives are profoundly right. The blessing of homosexuality is an affront to Scripture and an act of rebellion against God. They are also correct in understanding that the Archbishop of Canterbury knows that a lack of decisive action on the part of the Anglican Communion will lead to the eventual normalization of homosexuality. But the liberals show their public disrespect for the Archbishop by flaunting their disregard for his calls for “gracious restraint.”
When truth is at stake, denominational etiquette is no basis for courageous leadership. A call for “gracious restraint” is no leadership at all.
via NewsNote: When “Gracious Restraint” Fails — The Real Anglican Tragedy – AlbertMohler.com.
If some of the leadership of the Episcopalian Church want to continue down this path of undermining the scriptures and redefining the debate over homosexuality to be in line with liberal gay ideology instead of a Biblical sexual ethic, they can certainly do that if they wish. It is pretty clear that they already have as we watch denominational activism being empowered to press the issue and win over the necessary votes.
For those that disagree with the current direction of the Episcopal church, I humbly believe the gracious thing to do is to follow the Matthew 18 model of attempting conflict resolution as far as one can go. However, once that is exhausted of all possible options (that seems to be the case here), make a gracious exit if you can no longer follow your leadership.
Matthew 18 (from various interpretations) says at that point you should treat the one you are in conflict with like an unbeliever, someone you are not associated with spiritually. Some mean spirited Christians, or maybe not the mean but hurt and insulted Christians, might use that as an excuse to hold on to bitterness and talk badly about those they are separating from. I humbly submit that this attitude is not righteous anger, grace or truth.
We in the church at large often talk all about those who do not have a saving knowledge of Christ needing His love and to see His grace and Spirit in us. Matthew 18 says to me that we are to have that same attitude toward those we no longer associate with spiritually. It doesn’t say to judge their salvation, it just says we are to treat those we are seperating from as we would the unbelievers around us. For me, that means dignity, respect, service and a prayerful desire for them to change their mind. We also need to be available if and when they do want to talk or change their mind.
Two people cannot walk along the same path if they are headed in different directions. Just hanging out a the cross-roads of “gracious restraint” won’t get anyone anywhere. I totally believe Archbishop Rowan’s heart breaks to see what is happening. I feel bad for my Episcopalian siblings in Christ but separation must happen for the good of both sides.
About Randy Thomas
I understand where people that disagree with this are coming from (as much as I can being where my mindset is). I wonder, though, why this issue is the one that gets called an affont to scripture. The Anglican/Episcopalian Church went down that path long ago when they ignored the Bible’s rules regarding divorce. That’s why to me, this sort of uproar from this particular denomination seems a bit deeper than just a call for biblical sexual ethics.
Hi Brady, I totally agree on the point that the wanderings away from the authority of scripture has been happening for decades in western culture and not just the Episcopal church. I have shared often that I once challenged a Methodist Bishop to stop using gay people as scapegoats… the real issue was a split over Biblical interpretation and authority.
I understand where people that disagree with this are coming from (as much as I can being where my mindset is). I wonder, though, why this issue is the one that gets called an affont to scripture. The Anglican/Episcopalian Church went down that path long ago when they ignored the Bible’s rules regarding divorce. That’s why to me, this sort of uproar from this particular denomination seems a bit deeper than just a call for biblical sexual ethics.
Hi Brady, I totally agree on the point that the wanderings away from the authority of scripture has been happening for decades in western culture and not just the Episcopal church. I have shared often that I once challenged a Methodist Bishop to stop using gay people as scapegoats… the real issue was a split over Biblical interpretation and authority.
In his career prior to being named archbishop, Williams was considered a leader in moving the church toward greater moral acceptance of homosexuality.
It’s possible that his heart breaks about difficulties faced by the church. It’s unlikely, however, that he also believes the Bible speaks to a simple, absolute, sexual ethic which must be defended at all costs.
That sort of ambiguity is central to the way the Anglican Communion has functioned for a long time. In the U.S., conservative congregations which are adamant that women shouldn’t serve in the priesthood, or as bishops, have existed as amicably as possible along side congregations with female clergy, and in recent years, Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori.
I was active in an Episcopal congregation as an openly gay guy. Served on the youth ministry board and as interim musician for worship services, and wasn’t the only openly gay person who was fully integrated into the life of the church. Another member of the congregation was a law professor who regularly published editorials in the major metro paper which argued against gay rights; he wasn’t the only openly conservative person in the congregation. In that community, gracious restraint was not always easy, but it was real. We were more focused on the ministries that brought us together than the difficult stuff on which we didn’t agree.
HI Bose, good to see you again.
Your right, and there is a lot more info in the Mohler post than I quoted here.
If you and others were in visible authoritative leadership roles, unless I am misunderstanding, that isn’t gracious restraint. Your leadership was ok with putting you in that role. I very much doubt the social conservatives were ok with that.
Doing good works that we can agree on is one thing but approving of and submitting to church leadership you believe to willfully live outside of clear biblical mandates and teach errant doctrine is not being on the same page even if you both put on a smile because you both love the story of Jesus healing the leper. And this statement (this paragraph) can be made by either side.
Your case kind of also goes to prove Mohler’s point, gracious restraint is to redefine the context with conservatives being silent while pro-gay initiatives are publicized and implemented.
Why are people so afraid to accept that sometimes there isn’t any middle ground to bridge over? Sometimes I think the unattainable utopian views do more damage than just accepting that we are not on the same page and don’t have to be in order to be able to work together where we can and civilly disagree where we can’t.
Hey Randy… thanks for engaging. I love your smile, your thoughtfulness, the willingness to engage, and I wouldn’t be here if I believed your hug was anything less than sincere when we met.
More soon.
Of course it was sincere. I always liked you online. OK maybe not all the things you say but …
you are cool.
I think there may be a few people (from your sphere of influence) who assume I wouldn’t care about them because I disagree with them all the time. But I do.
I always appreciate when you come around.
Sometimes there isn’t any middle ground to bridge over?
My experience was that the congregation came together as a Christian family, worshiping together, working together, breaking bread together, and caring for each other through the best and worst days. It wasn’t huge; avoiding folks we disagreed with wasn’t an option. No one was silenced. Sexual orientation wasn’t discussed often. There were more conservative, as well as more liberal, parishes close enough that anyone who felt uncomfortable or unwelcome could go elsewhere.
I’m not trying to argue or question your experience. I’ve just experienced Christianity differently.
there could be middle ground on a lot of different things but on some … there isn’t. When it comes to pro-gay ideology redefining theology to ordain gay leadership and bless the redefinition of marriage … there really isn’t any common ground there as the denominational splits are proving.
Can a gay identified person and I go to the same church? any church? Sure! But when it comes to leadership and the policies of the church … we are not going to agree.
Thanks for not questioning my experience but I don’t mind if you do. I am certainly questioning yours and siblings in Christ should.
What you describe is not any different in the worshiping together, breaking bread and caring … what is different is they allowed you to teach young people (leadership) in spite of the fact you don’t hold the same authoritative view of scripture as clearly exemplified by you living in gay relationships and feeling that is ok with God.
And according to my understanding, that’s isn’t gracious restraint my friend. If there was truly more conservative and more liberal minded people in the same congregation … someone is being dishonest somewhere. You can’t have that fundamental difference of opinion in the same church … on your leadership team … without someone being shut down from expressing their views and moving on. Again, that could be true of either side of the situation.
In his career prior to being named archbishop, Williams was considered a leader in moving the church toward greater moral acceptance of homosexuality.
It’s possible that his heart breaks about difficulties faced by the church. It’s unlikely, however, that he also believes the Bible speaks to a simple, absolute, sexual ethic which must be defended at all costs.
That sort of ambiguity is central to the way the Anglican Communion has functioned for a long time. In the U.S., conservative congregations which are adamant that women shouldn’t serve in the priesthood, or as bishops, have existed as amicably as possible along side congregations with female clergy, and in recent years, Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori.
I was active in an Episcopal congregation as an openly gay guy. Served on the youth ministry board and as interim musician for worship services, and wasn’t the only openly gay person who was fully integrated into the life of the church. Another member of the congregation was a law professor who regularly published editorials in the major metro paper which argued against gay rights; he wasn’t the only openly conservative person in the congregation. In that community, gracious restraint was not always easy, but it was real. We were more focused on the ministries that brought us together than the difficult stuff on which we didn’t agree.
HI Bose, good to see you again.
Your right, and there is a lot more info in the Mohler post than I quoted here.
If you and others were in visible authoritative leadership roles, unless I am misunderstanding, that isn’t gracious restraint. Your leadership was ok with putting you in that role. I very much doubt the social conservatives were ok with that.
Doing good works that we can agree on is one thing but approving of and submitting to church leadership you believe to willfully live outside of clear biblical mandates and teach errant doctrine is not being on the same page even if you both put on a smile because you both love the story of Jesus healing the leper. And this statement (this paragraph) can be made by either side.
Your case kind of also goes to prove Mohler’s point, gracious restraint is to redefine the context with conservatives being silent while pro-gay initiatives are publicized and implemented.
Why are people so afraid to accept that sometimes there isn’t any middle ground to bridge over? Sometimes I think the unattainable utopian views do more damage than just accepting that we are not on the same page and don’t have to be in order to be able to work together where we can and civilly disagree where we can’t.
Hey Randy… thanks for engaging. I love your smile, your thoughtfulness, the willingness to engage, and I wouldn’t be here if I believed your hug was anything less than sincere when we met.
More soon.
Of course it was sincere. I always liked you online. OK maybe not all the things you say but …
you are cool.
I think there may be a few people (from your sphere of influence) who assume I wouldn’t care about them because I disagree with them all the time. But I do.
I always appreciate when you come around.
Sometimes there isn’t any middle ground to bridge over?
My experience was that the congregation came together as a Christian family, worshiping together, working together, breaking bread together, and caring for each other through the best and worst days. It wasn’t huge; avoiding folks we disagreed with wasn’t an option. No one was silenced. Sexual orientation wasn’t discussed often. There were more conservative, as well as more liberal, parishes close enough that anyone who felt uncomfortable or unwelcome could go elsewhere.
I’m not trying to argue or question your experience. I’ve just experienced Christianity differently.
there could be middle ground on a lot of different things but on some … there isn’t. When it comes to pro-gay ideology redefining theology to ordain gay leadership and bless the redefinition of marriage … there really isn’t any common ground there as the denominational splits are proving.
Can a gay identified person and I go to the same church? any church? Sure! But when it comes to leadership and the policies of the church … we are not going to agree.
Thanks for not questioning my experience but I don’t mind if you do. I am certainly questioning yours and siblings in Christ should.
What you describe is not any different in the worshiping together, breaking bread and caring … what is different is they allowed you to teach young people (leadership) in spite of the fact you don’t hold the same authoritative view of scripture as clearly exemplified by you living in gay relationships and feeling that is ok with God.
And according to my understanding, that’s isn’t gracious restraint my friend. If there was truly more conservative and more liberal minded people in the same congregation … someone is being dishonest somewhere. You can’t have that fundamental difference of opinion in the same church … on your leadership team … without someone being shut down from expressing their views and moving on. Again, that could be true of either side of the situation.
As an Episcopalian, this is all very troubling to me. I have continued to stand on the ground that my church (local) is very conservative and committed to scripture. However, I am becoming disturbed that certain topics are not mentioned for fear of offending anyone. I believe the church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints, but I also think the church has a responsibility to teach the Truth of all scripture and to pray that all are convicted of sin and repent. Very difficult topic, Randy!
Ann you are awesome for coming over here from facebook and leaving a message! Thank you
.
Thanks again Ann.
The whole “not wanting to offend” is counter-weighted by a lot of Pastors who only want to offend! The Church needs to get out of the culture war pendulum and do the really hard work of not condemning or condoning and start speaking redemptive, gracious truth instead.
And I am just preaching to the choir!
As an Episcopalian, this is all very troubling to me. I have continued to stand on the ground that my church (local) is very conservative and committed to scripture. However, I am becoming disturbed that certain topics are not mentioned for fear of offending anyone. I believe the church is a hospital for sinners, not a country club for saints, but I also think the church has a responsibility to teach the Truth of all scripture and to pray that all are convicted of sin and repent. Very difficult topic, Randy!
Ann you are awesome for coming over here from facebook and leaving a message! Thank you
.
The whole “not wanting to offend” is counter-weighted by a lot of Pastors who only want to offend! The Church needs to get out of the culture war pendulum and do the really hard work of not condemning or condoning and start speaking redemptive, gracious truth instead.
And I am just preaching to the choir!
Thanks again Ann.
As a priest in the Episcopal Church, let me say that there has been gracious restraint. It has been shown by the Archbishop of Canterbury and many other leaders throughout the Anglican Communion, who have warned the Episcopal Church again and again of the potential consequences of the course it has chosen. Such restraint has not been shown by Katharine Jefferts Schori and those in authority in the Episcopal Church, who have used their power to wield a political campaign without regard either for Scripture or for the warnings of their fellow Christians. The primates (national leaders) of the Anglican Communion have bent over backwards to make sure that they have been obedient to the gracious provisions of Matthew 18, but that has been ignored by the Episcopal Church. At the same time there are still many like myself and my congregation who are appalled and dismayed by the unbiblical direction the Episcopal Church is taking. Please pray that we may have wisdom, courage and grace in this spiritual battle.
As a priest in the Episcopal Church, let me say that there has been gracious restraint. It has been shown by the Archbishop of Canterbury and many other leaders throughout the Anglican Communion, who have warned the Episcopal Church again and again of the potential consequences of the course it has chosen. Such restraint has not been shown by Katharine Jefferts Schori and those in authority in the Episcopal Church, who have used their power to wield a political campaign without regard either for Scripture or for the warnings of their fellow Christians. The primates (national leaders) of the Anglican Communion have bent over backwards to make sure that they have been obedient to the gracious provisions of Matthew 18, but that has been ignored by the Episcopal Church. At the same time there are still many like myself and my congregation who are appalled and dismayed by the unbiblical direction the Episcopal Church is taking. Please pray that we may have wisdom, courage and grace in this spiritual battle.
I lived in the homosexual lifestyle and believed God made me “gay” for more than 20 years. The grace of God delivered me from the behavior in 1985 and from the identity in 1988. Praise the Lord! I am free today.
My viewpoint is that organized religion should take a stand when it comes to selecting religious leaders. Jesus is building his one Church body, and he is building it his way. How Christians treat active and former homosexuals is a witness to the world.
This is an excellent article. Thank you for posting it.
I lived in the homosexual lifestyle and believed God made me “gay” for more than 20 years. The grace of God delivered me from the behavior in 1985 and from the identity in 1988. Praise the Lord! I am free today.
My viewpoint is that organized religion should take a stand when it comes to selecting religious leaders. Jesus is building his one Church body, and he is building it his way. How Christians treat active and former homosexuals is a witness to the world.
This is an excellent article. Thank you for posting it.