Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori continued preparations for a vote to depose Bishop Robert Duncan at a special House of Bishops’ meeting before the Lambeth Conference this July. E-mail messages were sent April 8 to all members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote.
A disciplinary “Review Committee” of bishops found sufficient evidence to conclude that Bishop Duncan had abandoned communion , a charge he has formally denied. Bishop Duncan has never been inhibited, a canonical objection raised by John Lewis, a lawyer retained by Bishop Duncan.
According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, David Booth Beers, chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, recently sent an e-mail to about two dozen Pittsburgh Episcopalians explaining that Bishop Jefferts Schori was not “seeking approval to proceed; rather, she seeks the mind of the House as to when to proceed” with a vote to remove Bishop Duncan. Shortly after the March 12 conclusion of the House of Bishops’ spring retreat, Bishop Jefferts Schori called a Sept. 17-19 meeting in Salt Lake City.
She should remome everyone she is capable of. Then we wil know who are the true people of God.
As I’ve sid before, Schori will ignore Canons, elbow aside senior Bishops who refuse to assent to her pogrom and run the HoB as little more than a mob, a mouth-breathing kangaroo court. QED
Does anyone need any further proof of her intentions? She is out to purge The Episcopal Church of every vestige of conservativism, and she’s succeeding!
No matter how much people try to resist and fight back by remaining in TEC instead of leaving for other parts of the Communion, they are not going to succeed, unless a Heaven-sent miracle occurs. I expect nothing good to come from Lambeth, and I certainly am not alone in that opinion, so what’s the point in staying any longer?
Even with all of the trials and tribulations that lie ahead of us, I am ecstatic that my bishop and diocese left for the Province of the Southern Cone. I have no regrets for having voted to leave last December.
Where, oh where, is the Archbishop of Canterbury?
The next thing you know after she’s purged the conservative clergy, she’ll go after the conservative laity……if they’ve been dumb enough to stick around!
The really unfortunate thing is that a real leader could make a difference in the life not only of TEC but of the whole communion. Why was Dr. Schori elected? We know it was not for her outstanding skills as a Rector (she has never been one), certainly not for her skills in leading a large community of Christians (the Diocese of Nevada has fewer communicants than some parishes) nor was it because of her holiness (we have heard nothing about this; she has not written about her Christian walk. As far as I know, she has no great reputation as a retreat conductress.
Was it political correctness? Why not chose a far more seasoned female Bishop in that case. Other blogs have noted the possibility of political machinations to secure her election, notably with the behind the scenes efforts of the Bishop of Los Angeles. Perhaps some sought to polarize rather than unify, to punish rather than to serve.
Perhaps orthodox Anglicans need to look to other ways to chose Bishops than the “democratic” model long used by TEC. Should Bishops perhaps be chosen by other Bishops? Does there need to be (or could one even devise) a spiritual vetting process?
I look forward to the insights of others.
Islandbear+
It’s become very hard to keep track of these actions – she has belligerently gone after +Schofield, +Steenson, +Kelshaw, +Cox, +MacBurney, the ADV and now +Duncan all within about a year – there may be some bishops I’ve forgotten already who should be in that list, and that’s not mentioning any priests. The increasing frequency of attacks reminds me of timing of labor contractions, as ‘mother Jesus’ Schori perhaps strives to give life to one of the ‘conjoined twin’ church bodies, TEC, as she referred to it in some early pronouncements upon election. Re-reading some of the media coverage from mid-2006, which may have seemed dire at the time, it is remarkable how prophetic many of the predictions have turned out to be.
Islandbear, I think it makes more sense for bishops to choose from among themselves who will be the spiritual leader of the Church. What TEC has now is a popularity contest. Only THEY are well-qualified enough to know who would be the best spiritual leader, in my opinion.
Albany*, the more pertinent question is “Where, oh where, is the Bishop of Albany?”
From the collective wisdom here, are all of Schori’s actions coming directly from her, or elsewhere? Is she really the main one behind all of this purging, or is it the bishops who supposedly got her elected?
Over on Hills of the North, someone called it living under “Shoria”…………I thought that very appropriate.
Ruth Ann, I doubt very much that this is all KJS’ doing. The bishops who schemed to fast-track her and get her elected are well-known to anyone who’s bothered to keep track of the shenanigans of the past two years. Do the initials JJB ring a bell, for instance?
Albany* said, “Where, oh where, is the Archbishop of Canterbury? ”
This is the key question.
If ++Williams truly supports the Church Catholic, then he must support the canons and the the canonical process of the Church Catholic. If he does, how can he tolerate the communion-destroying behavior of Schori and her progressive enablers?
Those canons, with their precedents bound in tradition and the respect for due process under episcopal church rule are a major part of what makes Anglicans Anglican.
What ECUSA under Schori’s leadership is doing is in direct contradicton of the form of governance that makes ECUSA part of the Church Catholic and therefore part of the Anglican Communion.
Her actions are more akin to the radical behavior of those protestants, mostly radical Calvinists, who totally rejected the Church Catholic at the very beginning of the Reformation.
If ++Williams tolerates Schori’s actions by not speaking out, then he is tacitly telling the Anglican Communion that the assaults by progressives upon orthodox Anglicans within ECUSA is acceptable behavior.
In a historical sense, his silence on this matter can be compared to other historical points in time when Christian leaders remained silent in the face of the persecution of others.
#6 Islandbear,
Of course there was pc involved, Remember the quote from a priest,
“we need to have a woman at every microphone” when the presiding bishop was elected. If there was a gloria praised that day, it was Steinem.
More to the point, apart from Orombi, Akinola, and some others … Primates of the Communion: are you still in “fellowship” this perversion?
Are you and your bishops still coming to Lambeth as if nothing is wrong? This is your primary, and [i]last[/i] opportunity to stand on principle. What are you going to do? [i]Threaten[/i] that if things don’t change you won’t come in 2018 ?
If you choose not to stand on principle in such an egregious case of abusive application of power in the name of political correctness it will be safe to assume you’ll not stand up against anything else.
What I see here is the PB actually doing what she was “hired” to do. In the evil private sector, it’s nothing unusual for a company being bought out to have the “new” CEO bring in a shark to eat all the little fish.
The GC has slowly and methodically been taken over by the post-modern theologically based “clergy” and new-aged boomers. Once in control (by deceit – think Genesis 3), they then name a head shark to go after everybody they don’t like. Like the Cylons, they have a plan…
The traditional and historically based Christians failed to see the writing on the wall. Now it is probably too late to save anything resembling the older ECUSA (pre-’80s).
H
97 and a half days until a little gathering in London. Will +Duncan or be there, or +Schofield? Will their invitations be rescinded? Or will it be an ecclesiastical awkward and incoherent moment covered over by tea and crumpets with the Queen?
TEC should be renamed the Fratricidal Union of Bishops Advancing [url=http://marrowcleaver.blogspot.com/2008/04/tec-smackdown.html]Reconciliation[/url].
#6 Islandbear: People who partcipated in the last General Convention can tell you that there was a concerted campaign by Bp Bruno and others to convince the more moderate/conservative bishops that Jefferts-Schori was, “the kinder, gentler candidate who would be most definitely pledged to deal with conservatives with the greatest fairness and understanding.” She was sold to them based on the belief that she would offer a “no fault divorce” to those wishing to leave TEC. This phrase was used by many.
I am not inventing or exagerating here. This is what was said. I can only surmise that this obvious falsehood was deliberately invented to make sure that the orthodox would be crushed altogether — the plans were laid long and deep.
Why are you so surprised/distressed at this? There is nothing new here, and you know perfectly well t hat she will pursue this course to purge the system. And see the hand wringing over the ABC’s palpable unwillingness to act. Who is surprised and why?
There is one question that remains to be answered: What are you going to do about it? What we actually need here is not sighs or imprecations, we need ideas, we need fresh approaches that do something other than move the same counters to different places on the same board.
By the be, an interesting potential pattern for the Schori-watchers: How many men will be replaced by women in the TEC system? Has it occurred to you that this is one of her goals, to replace all the men with women, little by little? Larry
at least you know where she stands.
#6 Islandbear,
The 11 remaining Apostals showed how bishops should be picked when they replaced Judas. Our vote should be turned over to the Holy Spirit and the choice by lots.
Re #6 & #8: The Presiding Bishop is already chosen by other bishops; the House of Deputies only votes to confirm the election. As to the selection of other bishops, in almost every election I have seen recently it was the lay voters who supported the more reasserting of the major candidates, while the clergy supported the more reappraising. There is no reason to believe that the same House of Bishops that confirmed Bishop Robinson would vote much more conservatively if they were electing in the first instance.
The seeds of this were sown decades ago…. Chickens have come home to roost…. pick or add your own cliche’
In my opinion she never should have been able to be ordained as clergy to begin with, much less become PB. That cow is long out of the barn though.
Just for context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon's_Enemies_List
Doesn’t the fact that this woman was elected Presiding Bishop in the first place say pretty much all there is to say about TEC? Does anybody really seriously believe that the denomination itself is going to do some sort of about-face? How could a rational person believe such a thing?
furnituremaker,
With Man it is impossible, but with God — all things are possible!
Re-reading one of my favorite books about Iosef Vissarionovich Djugashvili (Stalin) and this passage hit me between the eyes like a baseball bat:
Now, don’t go flying off believing I’m comparing our beloved PB to Stalin, the idea here is, a church leader believes “getting rid of the opposition” is ok to do, just like Iosef did.
A bit scary, n’est pas?
KTF!…mrb
To think that TEC will ever do an about-face is irrational in the extreme. They’ve gone too far for that to ever happen, so the wisest thing for everyone to do is to leave. Would that mean falling into their trap and surrendering to them? No, it wouldn’t. Rather, it would mean following Christ and continuing to do His work…….and not the works of those who can only CLAIM that “God is doing a new thing.”
And Michael, I believe that at one time, Joseph, the son of Vissarion Djugashvili, a Georgian, was a divinity student. Rather an odd parallel, isn’t it?
#27 Cennydd, funny how that works, isn’t it?
Good Call!…mrb
Agree with you No. 27… don’t really see this as “fighting the good fight” at this point. Just leave ’em to the den of iniquity they’ve created for themselves. For some, it’s a matter of unshackling oneself from a regular paycheck. I do pray for those so situated. What a total beeootch to have to take a dime from such a thoroughly contemptible organization. Or give a dime for that matter.
#20
Dale: thanks for your comments. I was aware of the procedure for election and confirmation of the TEC PB, and you are certainly right that that HOB would not be overly concerned with the suitability of candidates for the Episcopate.
What I was suggesting was that Dr. Schori seems to lack the basic qualifications to be bishop of a Diocese, let alone PB..For that the laity and clergy of Nevada bear responsibility. I was also suggesting that in the emerging orthodox anglican province perhaps a different method of selecting Bishops would be useful. I would trust those Bishops with the choice — or with drawing lots as Baruch suggests.
Islandbear+
In my “humble opinion,” Katharine Jefferts Schori should never have been admitted to seminary. As for selecting bishops: I’d just as soon leave that to the bishops themselves……especially in the matter of selecting a primate. I think we can do without the popularity contest.
Michael, I came to the study of Soviet history only in the last five years or so. Just in time.
There’s a legal expression, “Hard cases make bad law.” It applies to theological responses to crisis, also.