One running theme in recent comments here, but also for a long time now on many blogs, is the plea to see some real discipline of TEC. Something which did not occur with any substance after 2003 (the closest was the suspension of TEC for one ACC meeting at which its suspended members were observers), and something which should now happen with the Glasspool confirmation. So the argument goes, and it is an argument with merit because the Glasspool confirmation has a deeper significance than being the confirmation of a partnered lesbian person to be a bishop. That deeper significance is this: following Gene Robinson's consecration a series of restrained decisions on the part of TEC's GC meant that there was plausible argument in response to calls to discipline TEC that TEC might not actually be walking apart from the Communion, the Robinson consecration being a temporary diversion from the one path of Anglican polity; now however TEC has effectively announced that no temporary diversion has taken place, it is walking apart from the Communion.
Actually I want to suggest it is walking apart from the Communion in two ways. The first is walking apart from the common direction in the Communion, that Anglican bishops who are neither single nor married are living contradictory to Scripture and tradition. The second is walking apart from an emerging direction that the Anglican Communion cannot remain as it is, essentially a meeting point of Anglicans, but must move forward to becoming a worldwide church. To me it is inescapable that a consequence of the Glasspool confirmation is confirmation that TEC under no circumstances will be beholden to any authority larger than itself and thus is deeply opposed to any movement of the Communion towards becoming a worldwide church.
While I do not see any time soon that the majority of Anglican churches will signal that they are walking with TEC re homosexuality, it is possible that TEC's actions will be acknowledged as highlighting the question of whether the Communion should become a church or not. At which point TEC could be joined by a number of other Anglican churches who for various reasons would prefer to assert autonomy over accountability.
Back to the possibility of discipline. Please challenge me if I have this wrong, but I see no meaningful way in which the Communion - not being at this time a worldwide church - can discipline TEC in a manner likely to yield a change in direction. Sure, some invites to meetings could be withdrawn, but I do not see that as effective discipline.
Besides which, I am not convinced that this is a situation where TEC should be disciplined. What they are doing is responsible, considered, adult decision making. It would be wise to allow TEC to follow their path and see whether it is fruitful or not in respect of the well-being of their future life. In short, they do not believe they are rebelling against God's Word, rather they are obeying it. If that is so they will be blessed; if not so they will be judged. But if the latter it does not require humans to enforce the judgement. As with many situations, judgement will work itself out as life unfolds. A possible clue as to how it is working out lies in this report. Of course TEC's defenders will vigorously challenge that take ... on all sides, however, some more time is required as to how this might pan out.
Meantime, in respect of the emerging direction that the Communion might become a worldwide church, we now have a paper by Michael Poon to consider. I shall try to find time to read it and reflect on it soon.
PS To head off one possible critique of my supporting this emerging direction, there is no necessity for a worldwide Anglican church to be more or less Roman in structure. We could, for example, be conciliar rather than papal. In fact it would be fairly simple for us to become a worldwide church: approve the Covenant, restructure the shambles of councils we do have into one world council!