Read it all.
Did anyone catch this statement in the article:
“Some conservative bishops who were planning to exit purposefully voted for her because they saw her as the most liberal candidate. They wanted a strong contrast between the leadership of the Episcopal Church and the leadership of what would become the Anglican Church in North America.”
Any truth to this statement? Sounds pretty scurrilous to me.
John-David Schofield of San Joaquin voted for her, and he wasn’t the only one. John Howe of Central Florida was reportedly furious with Schofield after the vote, but I think Schofield ultimately made the right decision – he was tired of seeing squishy liberals like Browning and Griswold obfuscate, and he knew that an over-the-top liberal like Jefferts Schori would be uninhibited in expressing her actual positions.
History would seem to have proven Schofield right.
Hi Jim the Puritan — there *is* truth to the statement that some 4-5 conservative bishops voted for Schori as over against Bishop Parsley, the bishop that the “moderate” [sic] bishops hoped would be elected, since Parsley was a revisionist, but rhetorically more along the lines of Griswold and would be willing to hide his views more from the parishioners back in the pews that the “moderates” are ever eager to deceive and spin about the state of the leadership and the goals at the highest levels of The Episcopal Church.
Given the choice between Schori and a man of the character, integrity, and honesty of Bishop Parsley — I would have voted for Schori in a heartbeat.
The outcry from various “moderate” bishops in TEC after Schori was elected proved [i]instructive[/i]. Their main goal in outcrying was to try to attempt to claim that Schori was [i]an anomaly[/i] — a “rarity” of rank open revisionism in TEC. So in order to explain to their parishioners back home about why on earth such a “rarity” would be elected by a majority vote of the House of Bishops, they seized upon the notion of a horde of scheming conservative bishops voting for her.
The reality, again, was some 4-5 older conservative bishops voted for her, and their votes did not make a difference, ultimately, in the election of Schori.
I wrote an analysis of the final tally over at SF back in 06, and here’s a part of the closing section:
[blockquote]We are left with perhaps three or four retired bishops who may have voted for Bishop Schoriâ€”but the fact still remains that their votes were not enough to surmount the 13 vote difference between Bishop Parsley and Bishop Schori.
No, the number which voted for Bishop Schori represents, frankly, the number of â€œprogressiveâ€ deputies at General Convention. To put it baldly, the progressivesâ€”the number of people who agree with Bishop Schoriâ€™s theology and actionsâ€”are in a majority at General Convention.
Not the â€œcenterâ€. Not the â€œmoderatesâ€. Not the â€œcenter aisleâ€. Not the â€œvia mediaâ€.
Those who were the majority at the convention were the radically progressives and the institutional progressives who supported Bishop Schori.
And even if all the â€œVastly Conservative Bishopsâ€ had voted *with* the â€œshrinking centerâ€, it would not have been enough to surmount the Progressive majority.
The sooner that the dreaming, shrinking center recognizes that truth about the convention from which they just returned, the more honestly they can deal with the concrete reality of their situation, at least with regards to the national situation.[/blockquote]
You can check out the post here:
But the reality was — there was no way that any conservative bishop worth his salt would be voting for Bishop Parsley. And so there was no way that the favorite of the scheming moderates would be elected. They preferred to focus on the fact that 4-5 conservative bishops voted for Schori — and of course, postulated that it was a far larger cohort, since 4-5 didn’t make much difference at all since the outcome was pretty much inevitable. The [i]real horde[/i] within the House of Bishops — the majority, in fact — were in 2003 and are the rank revisionists with which we are all well too familiar, and which moderate bishops [i]even now[/i] wish to pretend are not in the majority.
What you have — stunningly — is the rather silly rhetoric in 2009 and 2012 and will have in 2015 as to whether the General Convention will be “more moderate” and “sense will take over” and the “moderate middle” will at last rise up and declare a return to the old moderate TEC — you know, like Bishop Lee, and Bishop Griswold, and Bishop Parsley so freely provided in *their* “moderation.” What that means is “when will the slow, stealthy bishops with all their Southern Charm return to power, as opposed to the public, trampling, strident bishops?” ; > )
What they cannot accept — or at least publicly admit — is that the strident revisionist activists make up about 70% of the HOB, and the slow, stealthy, let’s-not-rock-the-boat-and-for-heaven’s-sake-remember-the-Stewardship-season-is-soon-upon-us-my-fellow-bishops-not-to-mention-I’ve-got-some-parishes-teetering-on-the-edge-of-too-many-losses, “moderate middle” bishops make up about 25%, with the remaining 5% being bishops who share the same faith as you and I and other Christians share, and believe the same Gospel.
Well, having left the denomination long ago at this point, I really don’t understand the machinations of Episcopal politics, but I guess I am surprised how Schori could have even gotten far enough for consideration in the first place. As I understand it, she had next to zero actual pastoral experience in a church, plus she faked her resume by claiming to be the dean of a non-existent seminary (don’t know when that last point came out, but that revelation and her response to it designated her as a fundamentally dishonest and untrustworthy person). To me, this was the equivalent of taking a green youth pastor with only a couple of years’ experience out of seminary and making him/her head of a national denomination. As can be seen from her speeches, her knowledge of Scripture and orthodox Church teachings is next to nothing. In a non-crazy world, I wonder whether she would have even have been qualified to be rector of a parish. So it kind of stuns me that anyone could have voted for her in the first place, especially orthodox, conservative bishops. And especially given the vicious attacks she eventually unleashed on them. Was there no possibility of just abstaining from voting? (Although of course that too would have targeted them for eventual liquidation by the TEC powers that be.)
RE: [blockquote]”As I understand it, she had next to zero actual pastoral experience in a church, plus she faked her resume by claiming to be the dean of a non-existent seminary (donâ€™t know when that last point came out, but that revelation and her response to it designated her as a fundamentally dishonest and untrustworthy person). To me, this was the equivalent of taking a green youth pastor with only a couple of yearsâ€™ experience out of seminary and making him/her head of a national denomination. As can be seen from her speeches, her knowledge of Scripture and orthodox Church teachings is next to nothing. In a non-crazy world, I wonder whether she would have even have been qualified to be rector of a parish.[/blockquote]
Sure, Jim, but that’s 3/4, easily, of our House of Bishops! Fundamentally dishonest? Check. Untrustworthy? Check. Knowledge of Scripture zilch? Check. Knowledge of actual Church history and tradition zilch? Check. Essentially incompetent? Check.
I think you’re *severely* underestimating the depth of incompetence, inexperience, deceit, corruption, ignorance, irrationality, and basic perfidy that has enveloped our HOB. Schori is a *perfect* representation of the HOB, except that she’s franker and more open about her contempt for the Christian faith and Gospel.
RE: “Was there no possibility of just abstaining from voting?”
Meh — that’s the coward’s way out. Had I been an orthodox bishop in the HOB voting in 2003, I guess I would have voted for Duque. *Maybe* Jenkins [which would have turned out to be a very very lousy choice and I would have kicked myself later on.] But those are also foolish choices, frankly. The ultimate choice — the *real choice* — was a choice between a man with the character and *known reputation* of Bishop Parsley. Or a rank, open, strident, ignorant revisionist activist like Jefferts Schori.
And the choice would have been very very easy for me — crystal clear, in fact — even back in 2006.
I well recall where I was — rolling down an escalator at GC 2006 — when I got the cell call that it was Jefferts Schori. I was thrilled — there was going to be no spinning or obfuscating her rhetoric or beliefs. She obviously did not share my faith or those of my friends in TEC — and that was apparent to anybody who read anything she wrote or said afterwards.
That kind of clarity was refreshing — and it still is, frankly. I’m still very very grateful that she was elected rather than Bishop Parsley.
She’s essentially an honest non-believer, in contrast to so many of her dishonest peers, and I am happy she was the Presiding Bishop for the past 8-9 years.
Is not sure she has really stepped aside…
Everyone ought to read the comment to which Dr. Seitz links in #6. I would put nothing past the Presiding Bishop. Do not take her statement as a clear statement of her intention to retire.
Interesting, Dr. Seitz. So she might be “persuaded” to accept re-election and then resign before the second nine-year term is finished. I presume there is nothing in canon to prevent this.
There has been some sober analysis, even from unlikely quarters, about the viability of 815 (leasing out worn out space) and a continued CEO-type role for the PB, invented latterly. Even questions about a return to the older model of PB as presider only and one who remains a diocesan have been raised.
Those who like the present arrangement have dug in. They may believe the tide is turning back from GC 2012 suggestions, and so they ought to grip the wheel tightly.
Enter a plan to stay on for 3-4 years and see that the status quo is maintained and greater centralization effected.
Those would be my hunches.