I had high hopes for Katharine Jefferts Schori when she was elected Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA. Although she appeared to be on the extreme ”˜left’ of the Anglican spectrum in many of her actions and statements, it was clear that here was a person of great depth, and a hinterland beyond church politics. There was a possibility at one stage that she might even attempt to lead the Episcopal Church into a process of reconciliation internally and with the Anglican Communion, at least temporarily stalling the lemming-like dash of her Church into heterodox oblivion.
It seems I was mistaken. So far she has shown the same adaptability of her predecessor. Like Bishop Frank Griswold she’s signed statements at Primates’ Meetings and then gone on to reject them in every particular. It always struck me as the height of absurdity that Bishop Griswold could sign the Primates’ Communiqué from the October 2003 meeting of the Primates, warning his own Church that to consecrate Gene Robinson would result in the ”˜tearing of the fabric’ of the Communion and then to preside at the consecration of Robinson himself only a month or two later. His adaptability owed itself to his oft-expressed belief in ”˜pluriform truths’. Consequently, he could enter into the opposing truths of the Primates, and the Episcopal Church, simultaneously. Most people would call this duplicity, his defenders would probably call it ”˜postmodernism’.
Interestingly enough, while ditching the nauseating term ”˜pluriform’, Katharine Jefferts Schori has taken a similar trajectory. At the Primates’ Tanzania meeting she assented to a communiqué calling on the Episcopal Church to put in place moratoria on same-sex blessings and consecrations, to cease lawsuits, and to provide a system of ”˜alternative primatial oversight’ which reported to an international Anglican panel, of which she herself would be a member. Months later, it turns out, that she didn’t mean this at all. Sure, the American House of Bishops have promised some restraint over elections of practicing homosexual bishops, but they’ve said nothing meaningful about either samesex blessings or instituted any real changes to their system of ”˜extended’ Episcopal visitation which is rejected by the very people it is intended to serve. But the area in which she has most betrayed the very same statement which she once signed up to, is on the matter of lawsuits. It feels impossible to keep count of the number of priests deposed by dioceses, or the number of disputes over property throughout the Episcopal Church. The biggest, of course, will be over dioceses extricating themselves from the Episcopal Church and linking to other Anglican provinces. It seems clear that Southern Cone is preparing to take dioceses under their wing, but there may also be African provinces prepared to offer similar ”˜oversight’ to so-called ”˜network’ dioceses. These dioceses argue that to be part of the Episcopal Church is a voluntary agreement, and testify that the diocese is the fundamental unit of the Church and the Bishop’s link to the Anglicanism through the recognition of the Archbishop of Canterbury is unrelated to the Provincial structures. So far three dioceses: San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh have taken steps to remove clauses relating to unqualified accession to the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church from their own diocesan constitutions. These steps require votes at two diocesan conventions. It is by no means certain that these moves at the second convention will gain the required votes, but Presiding Bishop Schori is out to get them.
In recent open letters to the dioceses she has threatened the bishops with deposition, under the almost summary procedure of a canon on the abandonment of communion. The canon is a housekeeping exercise, a way of deposing priests, and bishops separately who have already departed the Episcopal Church to another church completely. There is no trial, no ecclesiastical court, just a determination of abandonment of communion by a communion, a period of two months to recant, a hearing at the House of Bishops and a vote by the bishops. Ordinarily this canon shouldn’t be used until a bishop has actually departed communion, but the Presiding Bishop intends to use this measure, rather than presentment and a trial of a bishop, in order to hasten matters along. She will then declare the dioceses vacant, gather the parishes which remain loyal and have them elect a new bishop. Furthermore, it is the intention of the Episcopal Church to make sure that no churches, or dioceses, align themselves to any other part of the Anglican Communion and take their property with them. So the path she has chosen is not to seek reconciliation and peace with priests and bishops opposed to the direction of the Episcopal Church but to threaten them – thereby alienating them further. There is no doubt that this will be read widely as a further abandonment of the Anglican Communion by the Episcopal Church. But it may also be a sign that at last their true colours are being revealed and the dominant liberal faction in the Episcopal Church is resigned to accepting the logic of their position and going it alone.
–This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, November 16, 2007 edition, page 12
“here was a person of great depth, and a hinterland beyond church politics. There was a possibility at one stage that she might even attempt to lead the Episcopal Church into a process of reconciliation internally and with the Anglican Communion, at least temporarily stalling the lemming-like dash of her Church into heterodox oblivion.”
Is there anyone on this planet, in their right mind, who really thought that? Really?
All in all, though, good letter, and good for him for sharing those thoughts.
Unlike Andrew, I think my expectations for Mrs. Schori have held up pretty well. I wish it had been otherwise.
A dreary assessment. It seems there is no hope for TEC.
Br_er Rabbit, dreary because accurate. There is no hope for ECUSA/TEC by its own choices, persistence in error, and tactics. Judgment is the consequences of one’s choices, persistence and tactics. It need not be rendered from on High in bolts of lightning. It follows actions as night follows day.
Repentance is still possible in the grand scheme of things. But I believe it has been refused time and again.
[blockquote]So the path she has chosen is not to seek reconciliation and peace with priests and bishops opposed to the direction of the Episcopal Church but to threaten them – thereby alienating them further.[/blockquote]
Reminds me of…
[blockquote]The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
―Princess Leia Organa to Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin[src] [/blockquote]
If Andrew Carey really thought that about Kate, Andrew Carey desperately needs to get a clue.
[blockquote] the Presiding Bishop intends to use this measure, rather than presentment and a trial of a bishop, in order to hasten matters along. [/blockquote]
Substitute misuse for use in the above, and I think there’ll be a more accurate statement. Yet another among several possible reasons to bring presentment charges against the Presiding Bishop, herself. Gross mishandling of her office… The same could have been said of her predecessor.
Once one accepts that TEC is composed of religious zealots – just of a different religion – understanding the motivations and actions becomes much easier. The orthodox continue to have trouble in not judging TEC’s leadership by traditional Christian standards. TEC will always disappoint if viewed through a traditional or historical Christian lens.
chips, thanks for your acute observation. Nice post.
I kept searching for a rational explanation for this, like drinking too heavily. I could have accepted that. If you are going to hallucinate at least do it after enjoying a good beverage or two, or twenty two.
Yeah…that depth there is what we in reality call the pit of hell.
With Bishop Griswold there was no clarity.
With Bishop Jefferts Schori, as we say here in the southwest, there is severe clarity.
This makes it easier to follow the sign…and seek the Bright and Morning Star.
My mother, who is a liberal, saw Bill Moyer’s interview of KJS and was horrified at how shallow she was.
KJS’s theology is to someone’s like Andrew Carey (or his dad) what a tidal pool is to the Marianas trench.
ALthough not knowing much initially, like Andrew Carey I had the same view and hope that your PB would seize the opportunity to heal your church and to reconcile it to the rest of the Communion. Something happened on the flight home from Dar.
What a pity that she adopted the scheme provided by the presiding litigator and has prosecuted the conservatives with fervor. This more than anything else has turned the rest of the Communion off her and TEC.
A lost opportunity for everybody.
In defense of Andrew Carey, I do recall hearing some gossip that Bruno worked the room to get KJS elected as PB on the grounds that she would honestly work towards a mutually agreeable divorce in TEC. This was hope was further teased by KJS’s “conjoined twins” comment at GC06.
The foolish optimism that has been at play here in our time is one that assumes, if someone doesn’t sound quite like a serpent, that he might possibly be a dove after all. I have found countless times that the only sound policy in our environment is to assume that, unless they show themselves clearly to be doves, they are serpents underneath.
Robroy is generous:
Mmmpf. To those of us who’ve listened to a dozen or so of her sermons, it’s not so much a tidal pool as the gas slick on the water around the marina.
As to reconciliation, her management style here in Nevada put one in mind of the mallet method of reconciling a square peg with a round hole. I respect Archbishop Carey as a Christian man who expresses the boundless optimism of the Gospel, but there are limits…
I wish Andrew Carey was in Lambeth Palace right now.
RE: 15…
Indeed….it [i}is[/i] behavior which speaks loudest.
Thank you, #5, for injecting a little geek into the discussion. For myself, I tend to think of the faithful orthodox as James T. Kirk, stranded in the middle of the Genesis Planet.
“Khaaaaaaaaaaaaan!”
(that is *entirely* too silly.)
The Bible would says simply that KJS is simply ” double-minded”, as is Bruno. A couple of regular giants in the faith.
I had a rather long comment, so I decided to post it to Surrounded instead.
The one person who knew KJS for what she was and is seems to be Craig Goodrich. He was quite aware of her seedy side in Nevada. Craig, what was your reaction when you heard that she had been elected?
Dead last in diocesan adjusted growth because she managed to shrink the diocesan rolls by 10% in the fastest growing state in the Union. That should have been a warning on how bad she was.
I remember the talk of she was going to be a bridge builder. So many lies coming out of the HoB. What a corrupt body. The TEC as an ecclesiastical organization deserves the death penalty.
The link to Father Rob’s essay is [url=http://surrounded.classicalanglican.net/?p=139 ]here[/url]. The gist is that one should pray for one’s enemy. Sometimes it is hard to be a Christian. (Deliberate understatement.)
You can easily pray for your enemies, but you don’t need to pray for them to win.
It’s my fault, I prayed that the Anglo-Catholics would take a greater lead in GC06 and I guess the Lord answered my prayer with Shori, sadly I’m with Phil and my expectations have not been dashed, she has sadly fulfilled them. However as also pointed out, she answers the other prayer for GC06 for clarity. I like the why it was phrased, now “there is severe clarity.”
Does anyone else object to being called a “lemming” or of “rushing into oblivion”? Doesn’t this say something about ++Williams’s attitude concerning the orthodox or have I misunderstood that portion of his statement?
Actually, as another Nevadan, I sort of agree with Andrew, but for different reasons. Kathy is actually a decent negotiator, when she wants to be. Emphasis on the “when she wants to be.” Had she chosen to negotiate an amicable split, I still maintain that she could have done so brilliantly, and said as much at the time.
Unfortunately, it became obvious within the first few months that she had not learned a thing from the mistakes she made in Dio. NV, and that she was insistent upon using the same tactics nationally. (Definition of insanity, anyone?) Thus, my initial assertion of, This could be brilliant, or this will be a disaster, quickly dissolved to This IS a disaster and has no budged since.
Remember. Andrew Carey is the journalist –and a very good one. The Most Reverend George Carey is the retired Archbishop of Canterbury. IMO, both Anglicans set a good example as disciples of our Lord.
Pope Alexander VI, the Borgia pope, was surely shaking his head: “You elected her? What were you thinking?”
In defense of Andrew Carey, I do recall hearing some gossip that Bruno worked the room to get KJS elected as PB on the grounds that she would honestly work towards a mutually agreeable divorce in TEC.
I wonder what happened to her after election, seriously. Who got hold of her and told her the “conjoined twins” had to keep on until the unwanted one died?
Mea culpa — I, too, had hopes for her (like I did for her predecessor – I never learn, I guess).
She is abysmal.
David Booth Beers is the interregnum on-going mouthpiece and she does whatever he says.
Remember the shameful way that she behaved after the death of her mother, Elaine Ryan, around 1998? What, you don’t? It was “out and about” on the internet even before she was elected PB, and certainly received wide circulation when she was elected. Those of you who had “high hopes” of her when she became PB must either be habitues of the “ostrich position” or those for whom hope always trumps facts and experience.
The sad story to which Dr. Tighe refers is found [url=http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html ]here[/url].