They blew a gasket this week.
With the title, "Fulcrum Response to Consents being given to the Consecration of Mary Glasspool," this is what they had to say:
This is a clear rejection of the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates' Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council. We believe that it is vitally important for the Primates' Meeting planned for January 2011 to go ahead, and that for this to happen the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church should not be invited to attend. Actions have consequences."
(i) Correction... this is a clear recognition of the authority of the electors and of The Episcopal Church as a body that gives consent by way of its bishops and standing committees. We in TEC may be puzzled just how bishops in the Church of England get chosen, but we don't suggest that we should call the Church of England to account for not having diocesan election and synodical confirmation. We would not dream of suggesting that the election / appointment methods in the Church of Nigeria or of Kenya or of Australia are right or wrong.
What we do is in no way a rejection of the authority of the above mentioned worthies, primarily because they have no more authority here than any other foreign bishop or organization, which is to say they have the authority of esteemed brothers and sisters to be heard, but not necessarily to be heeded. They have the authority we give all voices in the Christian community and more than most, for we hold them in high regard.
(ii) The Primates Meeting in January 2011 should of course go forward. I have heard nothing to suggest that they might not meet. But the threat (or is it hope?) is put forward that either it will not be held IF the Presiding Bishop goes, because others will boycott the meeting, OR that it can ONLY be held if she does not because some how those same persons who might boycott will demand that she be excluded.
Fulcrum is testing the waters, or worse yet poisoning the well. Does Fulcrum know something that is already out there being discussed, or is it pushing for something to be done. Their reaction is nicely positioned as a talking point for the Global South meeting in April. It would appear that the folks with the Fulcrum are ready to take a long rod and try to move the world, and the leverage point they will use is the fact that our system of electing bishops has led to the election of someone they consider a member of a restricted class of persons.Restrictions by class of persons is a nice separate and unequal sort of thing.
Fulcrum ends its short statement with this simple declarative sentence, "Actions have consequences." Such wonders of declaration are right up there with, "You better watch it!" and "You'll be sorry."
Of course actions have consequences. I am sure the electors and those who gave consent were fully aware of the fact that in electing and consenting they were going to end up with Mary Glasspool as bishop and this would contribute to a break down the restrictions for a class of persons.
That's the whole point of election and consents, to act on purpose. The electors and those giving consent believe she is a fit candidate for bishop and her election valid. They did so on purpose and their actions do indeed have consequences, but not the ones Fulcrum envisions in their machinations.