Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori challenged the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council Oct. 24 to avoid “committing suicide by governance.”
Jefferts Schori said that the council and the church face a “life-or-death decision,” describing life as “a renewed and continually renewing focus on mission” and death as “an appeal to old ways and to internal focus” which devotes ever-greater resources to the institution and its internal conflicts.
“We need some structural change across the Episcopal Church,” she said. “Almost everywhere I go I hear dioceses wrestling with this; dioceses addressing what they often think of as their own governance handcuffs, the structures that are preventing them from moving more flexibly into a more open future.”
Hmmm? Could this be the beginning of a ‘Piskie putsch? Rather strange article overall, considering the source.
Here’s a structural change for you: get rid of anything at 815 not having to do with Evangelism and Missions.
The structural change is already happening under the arrogation of powers to the “new sheriff” and her unremitting use of her flying monkeys to force compliance instead of listening to the meaning of fleeing congregations and parishes and dioceses. A perfect Screwtapian exposition of the situation.
This is, I think, one more example of her increasing desperation. Larry
Archer–Too late–they already got rid of the Evangelism desk, so they could hire a litigation coordinator.
No. 6,
Maybe we could kill 2 birds with one stone. Maybe we could create an Evangelism to the Heathen Lawyers department. After we baptize them, we can put the guilt trip on them and say that God is calling them to ordained ministry as lawyers because of baptismal vows. It’s a win-win.
😉
She identifies “A tension between bishops and deputies.” That tension was so thick in ’09 that you could cut it with a knife. Anderson keeps on arguing for the “we are the church” model of lay governance that characterized the 1970s Post Vatican II lay movements. In her statements, it is clear that Jefferts-Schori is trying to re-affirm the authority of bishops — even while she merrily deposes them for exercising it.
I agree with you, Larry — the tone of this thing is total desperation.
I wonder what the substance of her appeal to these vague phrases, “governance handcuffs” and managerial restraints” Actually is? Does she want yet [i]more[/i] power? Or is she trying to argue for some kind of ad hoc para-church model for mission?
There may be a ray of hope here. The Presiding Bishop is at least admitting that she is clueless. It’s a small step, but at least in a healthy direction.
#8. When can we expect KJS to undertake the next 11 Steps?
When she says “governance handcuffs” she mean “those pesky canons that don’t let us do what we want to do”, but she generally ignores them anyway.
“She identifies “A tension between bishops and deputies.—
That’s a warning to Bonnie Anderson to tone it down or KJS will remove her from office under the new Title IV (which appears to give KJS the ability to remove anyone in TEC from any office, from bishop to junior warden).
I have to wonder what a transcript of her address would say; I would like to believe that in context her quoted remarks wouldn’t sound so obtusely tone-deaf.
When she and Bonnie talk about ‘conversation,’ it really means more Obfuscatory Episcobabble.
Humph! Not a peep about reorganizibg to win disciples for Christ. What a contrast between this desparate gasp andd the joy displayed at the Lausanne Congress 2010 last week. Tell you something?
IHS
NW Bob
She who utterly worships power and is striving with all her might to convert TEC into a strictly hierarchical organization with, naturally, herself at the tippy-top is either blind to herself or obscuring the truth to further her own ends.
Whoops! Make that “and the joy…”
NW Bob
#15. Probably a little of each. God help us.
NW Bob
It’s hard for me to tell whether this sort of extreme rhetoric from the nefarious PB is a case of incompetence or deviousness. Either she is truly clueless (ala #7, etc.), which would be the more charitable assumption, or she is genuinely Machiavellian. I think the latter is distinctly possible.
I’m not sure that the PB’s complaints about institutional handcuffs have to do with “those pesky canons” alone (as #9 suggests). She
clearly wants a freer hand to reshape TEC to fulfill the unholy mission for which she is willing to sacrifice everything else. As the antinomian that she is, ++KJS resents any sort of restrictive law that inhibits her cause, whether they be biblical laws or merely church (or trust fund) regulations. She wants everyone to just trust her and her good intentions, e.g., by not asking too many questions about the expenditure of funds on lawsuits and such inconvenient things.
David Handy+
Can someone who follows these things tell us what she is talking about? She is almost apophatic. Does this bespeak some serious tension between Anderson and Schori? Does the PB want Bishops to have more authority in some way (the left seems to hear it that way)? How does that allign with things like Title IV? Or, is TEC in such dire straits that at last some reality is kicking in? I don’t track Exec Council machinations, so maybe someone can decipher this who does.
18. cseitz, Anglican Curmudgeon has posted on the matter.
#1, they need to get rid of *everything* ad 815 and move to a city less expensive to operate in.
#19 — thanks, that was somewhat helpful, though the intrepid Halley also seems baffled by the totally bizarre exec-speak of the PB. I gather he thinks there is a crisis in the EC of TEC. EC is not cooperating with ‘Staff’. Staff is the Litigation Team. The PB’s ‘speech’ signals both that that litigation will continue, and that 815 may need to move to cheaper space in order to stay solvent (and maybe join with other denominations to do admin and seminary training? — see the news re: GTS). This ‘off into the wilderness’ stuff usually worries people charged with financial management…Is the ‘business as usual’ mantra coming to a grinding halt due to lack of funds? And what diocese is it that owes a whopping overdue pledge?
Speculation: The Presiding Bishop is talking about two controversial subjects:
1. Funding the Litigation in full whilst cutting everything else, including staff at 815. I suspect that some on the Executive Council are beginning to resist the litigation, not because it is wrong to sue other Christians, but because the cost is beginning to bite into other programs they care about, i.e. staff positions at 815.
2. The Canonical changes (Title IV?) that concentrate power in the hands of the Bishops generally and in the hands of the Presiding Bishop particularly. Those changes may be stimulating resistance, not because they elevate the power of the leadership, but because they subordinate some leaders (e.g. the Executive Council; the House of Deputies? ) to others (e.g. the Presiding Bishop?).
Note to financial types: relatively few dioceses would contribute an “unpaid contribution” of the size the ENS article describes. Any chance to identify which diocese it is?
#22. Re: your 2. We had wondered where the genuine ‘liberals’ were, who otherwise are not wont to buy into Title IV type changes, giving more power away to hierarchy — even under the masquerade of being ‘more pastoral.’ Perhaps some on the Exec Council are beginning to see this as a problem, in addition to its linkage to your point 1 (aiding and abetting litigation by the PB).
I agree it ought not to be hard to determine what diocese is connected to such a high pledge — and perhaps also to learn if the delay is related to the concerns you mention here?
The battle of the life-boat occupants for the few crackers on board begins. This, too, must come to pass.
#22’s analysis sounds good to me. St. Paul’s advice in Galatians seems apt here: “If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.” The new “TEC Low-Carb Diet” is off and running in new directions.
It is curious. I will have to see if I can get a reasonable opponent from inside 815 to say what they think she is really talking about. But it sounds like she is sending a message to someone, and is very upset about some political opposition. The Executive Council? The Deputies? Since I don’t think they really disagree with her about the litigation (though they should), perhaps it is more about moving out of NYC, or layoffs, or modernising something or other, blown all out of proportion. It sounds like “Quit opposing my structural initiatives – you folks just go out and get me some more money, I mean members.”
Pastoral, she ain’t.
Though I have to admit that the one thing she has got right is moving the church HQ out of NYC. I’ve thought that was a great idea for decades, even though it is my home turf. It has just not been very good for TEC, for all the reasons people give. Not that I thought it ought to move to Kansas, but perhaps some regional financial center with convenient direct flights to other parts.
It’s a rare and rather candid–if obscure–look inside the operations at Progressive HQ. For those on the outside, it is curious how the various pieces fit together: 1) litigation full steam ahead; this costs money; 2) we need to streamline, get out of NYC?, spend less money elsewhere; 3) push-back inside the Exec Council needs to stop. One wonders who the allies for this kind of ‘into the wilderness’ TEC are? Perhaps it is simply that having got a green light on amassing authority, it is hard for anyone to know what lever to pull to make her stop. The principled/historical case has been made by conservatives, in my view, and resistance can be found at diocesan level. Perhaps what no one figured on was the progressives getting tired of this and then finding that, in their enthusiasm to bring in SSBs by any means, they have handed power to a person who likes having it and using it.
Those of us longer in the tooth than others still in the Episcopal Church may remember the old wartime acronym “FUBAR.” It could well be that this is the recognition dawning at 815 about what the Jefferts Schori administration has actually brought to pass.
[blockquote]Perhaps what no one figured on was the progressives getting tired of this and then finding that, in their enthusiasm to bring in SSBs by any means, they have handed power to a person who likes having it and using it.[/blockquote]Interesting insight, Dr. Seitz. For some time now, the rhetoric from Bonnie Anderson and the “deputies” side of things has been very anti-episcopal. Perhaps this is turning into real friction. I have also been speculating for some time that the current PB might be angling to find a way to run for a second term. Not sure if this is canonical, but since when during her tenure has that made much difference?
I also note in her speech references to looking into the future and not scrutinizing the present. I have my own speculations on what the reason for that might be, given the financial oversight responsibilities of the committee she was addressing.
Just a few months back, PB Jefferts Schori was talking about establishing district offices in different parts of the country; decentralizing instead of continuing to maintain the offices at 815 2nd Avenue. What happened to that idea? Or was it all talk?