As head of the Episcopal Church, the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori’s style has been more affected by her training as a scientist than by her gender, she said Friday.
Before her ordination into the priesthood in 1994, Jefferts Schori earned a doctorate in oceanography. She learned to build from a hypothesis, test alternatives and weigh perspectives before drawing final conclusions. That scientific approach has helped Jefferts Schori, the 2.5 million-member Episcopal Church’s first female presiding bishop, maintain her composure amid increasing tension over the church’s elevation of a gay bishop. It also helps her balance all the competing claims on her time.
Jefferts Schori will dedicate the new Episcopal Church Center of Utah in downtown Salt Lake City today, as well as preach in a special, celebratory service at St. Mark’s Cathedral next door. She also is scheduled to meet with the LDS Church First Presidency and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.
“We understand our mission as reconciling the world to God in Christ,” she said in an interview. “That means peacemaking, working toward social justice, and healing human beings in their psyche, souls and physical bodies.”
Anybody else feeling queasy or is everybody basking in the after-glow of the Pope’s visit and donning swimsuits in preparation of backstroking across the Tiber?
As long as the overwhelming majority of reasserters, Network Dioceses and Windsor Bishops remain in TEC, she is correct when she says, “It’s a very, very small part of this church, less than 1 percent, that sees this of sufficient concern to want to leave over it.”
More Like one million-member church.
The PB’s data set is so poor she has no basis for stating the size of TEC. Her ears are so poor she has participated in no listening process with those leaving. Her eyes are so poor that she cannot see the data showing a church perhaps one-quarter the size it would have been if its historic growth had continued past 1970. Oh well, all is well. Sorry, I guess that is trademarked.
“She learned to build from a hypothesis, test alternatives and weigh perspectives before drawing final conclusions.”
But wouldn’t she have to admit that we don’t have enough evidence (on the purely scientific level) to reach final conclusions about homosexuality (e.g., that one is created that way; that homosexual unions are as potentially beneficial to the partners and to their adopted children as heterosexual unions; that same-sex activity is not physically harmful; etc.)? And if she does admit this, wouldn’t approving of the ordination of an openly gay man as a bishop suggest that she in fact has reached a final conclusion? I’m not convinced that as a bishop she thinks as a scientist.
Hypothesis:
Schori’s tenure is a wreck due to poor experience, symbolic investiture, and non-existent problem-solving.
Alternatives:
1. All is well.
2. All ain’t.
If #2. She should be fired for believing/saying #1.
But, in the Schori world of shaky PhD status, alternatives don’t have to be really given. Perhaps this is the reason why she didn’t last as a viable, print-worthy oceanographer. Focused too much on her biases.
There was an interesting post on Stand Firm where someone challanged the scientific basis of homosexuality as percieved by,I think, the presiding Bishop. Once it was realized that there is no scientific basis the converstion ended. We have had all the dialogue we need! Dialogue won’t change scripture, tradition or reason.
No offense, but I just can’t read anymore about the Presiding Bishop. My reaction to the headline is to say we’ve done enough talking about sexuality, we need to proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
I’m very concerned about her meeting with the “LDS Church First Presidency”. She doesn’t seem to know enough Christian theology to understand mormonism. I’m sure the local papers will make much ado about the leaders of two “Christian faiths” meeting.
Maybe she’d like to come down and meet the leader of the FLDS in Eldorado as well?
We aren’t seeing a lot of signs of intelligent life in the PB’s office.
Using the scientific method as head of a religious body is called rationalism, or phariseeism. Scripture? Tradition? Let’s start over. Nothing can be believed until proved. The Enlightenment rides again!
We read that she has stated that she had done all she could do as an oceanographer. So she went to seminary, became a deacon, then a priest. She rocketed to the position of bishop, and then was a “dark horse” in the PB election. So, she’s done all that she can do as an Episcopalian. Unless, of course, she wants to be the first American female to be Archbishop of Canterbury, or just bring the Canterbury see to 815.
#7, maybe – just maybe, God is calling her to the LDS church. Maybe she’ll convert! (Alternatively, maybe she’ll share her “new thing” with the First Presidency. I’m certain that they will be most impressed.
We can continue to pray for her radical transformation. Jesus did that with Saul. It can happen.
I am bad at math but I can not believe the 1% figure. Are we talking about 25,000 folks using her numbers? Also, I have never understood homosexuality in the Darwin idea of natural selection. What possible aid is it to the survival of the species?
Ralph ( #8 ): Thanks. I jest and chide and offer up bad jokes sometimes, but I never stop praying for our leaders’ hearts and minds to change. Our gracious Lord had mercy on me (not that I’m in the same ballpark as Saul) and I continue to be transformed in and by His grace; and I pray for KJS and our other leaders to be transformed as well.
Pb, I think the figure is closer to 250,000……and growing. It’s slightly over ten percent…….not one percent. She really does need to do her math much better than that!
Since it is the conservatives that were always accused of wanting to talk about sexuality, I find it amusing that now that we are going, going, gone from TEC…that the PB thinks that the remaining liberals need to talk about sexuality. A few other observations:
“Ultimately, Jefferts Schori does not believe the Anglican Communion will splinter over it.”…..Duh, she has not noticed that it already has!!!
“It’s a very, very small part of this church, less than 1 percent, that sees this of sufficient concern to want to leave over it,” …..By “it” Does she mean the traditional faith and the Lordship of Christ?? And one would have thought that a Ph. D. would have a better grasp of numbers???
“Our job is to bless their going and reassure them our door is always open and that we’ll keep the light on for them.”…..And we (i.e. the PB and TEC) will joyfully sue the pants of anyone who disagrees with us about this new leading of the Holy Spirit.
“Those remaining need to keep talking about issues such as sexuality, even when they disagree.”
Ah yes, this is THE important evangelization issue for TEC within the Anglican Communion.
#9 – Good gay aunts and uncles invest in their nieces and nephews. That’s the evolutionary mechanism by which genes for non-reproductive individuals are conserved.
Schoori is here something of a parody of herself. There is little point in criticizing what she says, since her actions and words do not match and since her interest in scripture is limited to the t ext as an advice column.
Why homosexuals, given evolutions “rules?” It seems to me pretty obvious that homosexuals exist in the same way that autistic children exist. Reproduction is hardly flawless, nor was it ever meant to be. There are evolutionary castoffs at all points and reproductive mistakes are frequent. Homosexuality is no more than this. I strongly suspect, even if I cannot prove, that there is a strong genetic basis for some homosexuality. This should hardly be surprising. And the genetic flaw produces behavioral aberrations. This is not surprising either. Larry
I don’t think the lawsuits and questionable depositions constitute “blessing their going and reassuring them that the door is always open.”
#9 A good question I wondered about for years. The answer may lie in the fact that certain conditions, when reflected partially in an individual, may provide survivial or reproductive advantages that do not exist when the condition is fully present. An example would be the genes for sickle-cell anemia. The disease injures the individual; but when the condition is only partly reflected (and the individual has slightly sickle-cells) the individual gain a protection against malaria. That is why sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disease, persists in African populations – sometimes it provides the individual an advantage.
Sexuality may not be an ‘all or nothing’ condition; it may well be a continuous spectrum. So being ‘somewhat gay’, but mostly straight might provide some unseen advantage.
It is a myth that evolution always promotes survival of the species. Check out this recent article from New Scientist on 24 myths and misconceptions about evolution (you’ll have to scroll down for it:)
http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns
Yes, we’d better talk about sexuality. At last. We must break the vast conspiracy of silence that has concealed this issue from any consideration whatsoever.
Did Dewey really beat Truman in her world?
The PB’s analogy to the Elizabethan Settlement leaves one speechless. Her careless use of history emphsizes at best her lack of knowledge or at worst, an absolute disregard for the truth. Perhaps she has in mind her own Act of Uniformity and Act of Supremacy in mind for GC ’09? Her previous inference of changes necessary to the Constitution & Canons of TEC to avoid “situations” like the Diocese of San Jauquin makes you wonder.
I’m very shocked the Mormons would meet with Schori. And I think most Mormons would be shocked if they knew it was happening. I hope this is a misprint.
Meeting with a Mormon cleric (of course, any boy over about 12 is, isn’t he?) doesn’t surprise me. However, would she give him communion should he (unlikely, he has standards, but likely offered, she has none) come to her church? We know she will clebrate the eucharist with the Bishop of Utah. And for some reason this still evokes no feeling of unease among even rather catholically-minded Anglicans; she is *still* unbaptized. They have been affected by KJS more than they care to notice.
Hmm. Re: communion. One wonders. My best friend’s daughter, a former Episcopalian and now a Mormon, (and isn’t that telling) when visiting attends church with her mom and receives communion. She is, as so many converts, totally immersed in her religion, following it to the letter. I’ve often wondered why she even attends with her mom, let alone receives communion, but have never asked.
T
“We understand our mission as reconciling the world to God in Christ. That means peacemaking” —KJS
When does she plan to start?
As a scientist, I have not been impressed that her scientific training included the meaningful use of minimal basic elementary statistics, so I haven’t seen how that’s alleged to have influenced her message. Statistics don’t validate NEW AGE universalism and misuse of them doesn’t either. But her declaration of axioms out of whole cloth (canons, in technical terms) is rank credulism and so doesn’t fit the religious model either, anymore than spontaneous generation fits her scientific training.
[blockquote] “It’s a very, very small part of this church, less than 1 percent, that sees this of sufficient concern to want to leave over it,” [/blockquote]
The only objective information she can possibly have is how many people have left. She cannot possibly know how many people “want to leave”.
Yes the TEC has certainly been taciturn on issues sexual. Perhaps a few questions with that shy, self effacing, humble, Greta Garbo of Bishops, Bp Robinson could shed some light on this matter. One does hate to disturb him as he seeks refuge in his quiet country abode as he strives to not be the “gay bishop”. But truly this whole sexuality thing has me stumped, just what the hell is it and why has no one mentioned it before?
She’s not concerned about the 1 percent or so? I seem to remember hearing about a shepherd who was concerned about one lost sheep…..
Ms Schori’s “1 percent or so” must not include all those folks who have just faded away. I am involved in a ministry to regather those who have drifted away, and they are delighted to be sought out and brought back to the Communion Table.
desertpadre
[blockquote][/b]Episcopal leader: We need to talk about sexuality[/b][/blockquote]
Yes we do. We need to say things like ‘putting a penis in an anus is categorically different from putting a penis in a vagina’.
Admittedly, the Robinson ceremony was not really a practical forum for getting that conversation off the ground, but until we can sit together and have it said and have its consequences delineated we will be neither “dialoging” nor “listening”, and until it can be said in our vestry meetings and conventions we will not really be engaging in “prophetic action”.
Martin Luther gives some guidance here.
http://www.issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/journals/luther.htm
With reference to parts of two comments above: there is sometimes too little care by commenters regarding basic facts, such as the reason KJS gave for leaving oceanography. It was this: “After preparing for a career in marine biology and working for the National Marine Fisheries Service as chief scientist on oceanographic cruises, Jefferts Schori saw federal funding for research dry up in the mid-1980s. “And at the very same time, three people in the congregation asked me if I’d ever thought about being a priest.†”
By way of clarifying, what it likely means to say she saw federal funding ‘dry up’ after serving as chief scientist on cruises, is that she didn’t want any lesser role than that again, thank you, and she wasn’t interested enough in that research field to pursue funding when the gravy train of federal money ran out. However, I have never read anywhere that there is anything ‘shaky’ about her status as a PhD recipient.
It took me less than 5 minutes to find that information by googling for ‘Schori oceanography funding’. It was in the Jan/Feb Stanford Alumni magazine, and interestingly in the same article I found that one Ann Braude of Harvard (Hahvahd!) – who is part of its Women in Religion Studies program – was quoted as saying only a tiny percentage of Episcopal churches, less than 1%, were objecting to KJS as the PB. One suspects that KJS has merely been quoting her ever since.
Do your homework, people.
[blockquote] She learned to build from a hypothesis, test alternatives and weigh perspectives before drawing final conclusions [/blockquote]
TACit, post 30,
Her hypothesis must be that “less than 1 percent sees this of sufficient concern to want to leave over itâ€.
Her unproven hypothesis may or not be correct but she is the one who made the claim and she is the one who should do her homework.
It’s hard to sort the spin from the reporter’s errors in that.
#31, you’ve misinterpreted my comment. I think yours #24 is in fact fine. Others should be able to recognize the points I was addressing, and my suggestion that people do their ‘homework’ is not w/r/t the 1% business, but to unfounded statements regarding KJS’ leaving oceanography, for the greener pastures of TEC. Perhaps I should have said ‘research’ instead which is what google enables, at a superficial level at least. And, the Harvard woman might just possibly have thought it her academic prerogative to take a % of parishes and fling that around as if it represents the same % of souls in TEC.
Question? In the MDGs, where KJS is concerned about infant and child mortality rates, do you think she has considered that ABORTION is NOT THE ANSWER to lowering the rate. Oh that’s right, they are not alive until they are born so they can die!
TACit, Her “status as a PhD recipient” is not questioned as much as her status as a Bishop and an Apostle of Christ. Some think a Priest or Bishop should have a calling, not just be searching for greener pastures.
We may find her lack of belief very frustrating, but we do pray that God will lead her to His path and that she will eventually understand the true faith as revealed in Scripture.
Betty, it was #4 which referred to ‘shaky PhD status’ and since this is emphatically not the case it leaves commenters here open for deserved criticism. I realize KJS’ status as the ‘Dean of a Theological School’ is highly dubious, of course.
in fact I don’t think that KJS is a bishop at all, because I believe it is impossible for women to be made bishops. (As an aside I believe this because I have repeatedly witnessed disastrous consequences both for witness to the Faith and for the faithful when women are ordained ‘priest’ or worse yet, ‘consecrated’.)
I was only attempting to call attention to the need for more care in composing comments, and tried to suggest that a little research is easily accomplished to keep the facts straight.
[i] Please do not turn this into a WO issue. [/i]
[blockquote]We understand our mission as reconciling the world to God in Christ [/blockquote]
I was struck by this statement. My understanding is that God [i]already[/i] has reconciled the world to Himself in Christ, and our mission is to tell people that wonderful news. Maybe this is just an issue of poor wording, but that quote makes it sound like she thinks that the church itself is the agent of salvation.
I do not believe that KJS believes that the church is the agent of salvation. It is just “our” agent of salvation.
We need to talk? Oh, right. We have not been talking. There has been no communication, not for the past 40 years or so. There was no Windsor report. There were no warnings about splitting the Anglican communion.
Science? What did I miss? Science is about the inanimate world. The world of living beings does not submit to science; living beings are constantly subject to Hesienberg uncertainty (free will); the best that can be said about the social sciences is that some social science does indeed make predictions about large groups, but predictions about individuals fail.
PB Schori should take a month off, learn something about the modern discipline of chaos theory, and discover the fascinating difference between systems which have closed solutions and systems for which no closed solution exists. She might even take a look at weather forecasting, where predictions more than seven days in advance do not exist.
Sorry. There is nothing left to discuss. Either one accepts that God made us male and female, or one does not believe that we are created beings. If one accepts creation, then homosexuality is a perversion of God’s order. If one does not accept creation, then homosexuality is a distortion which is self-limiting, as homosexuals lack the ability to reproduce and suffer a catastrophic diminution in lifespan and overall health.
I am still waiting to hear the scientific basis for raiding all of the trust funds of TEc for the lawsuits which have been filed. Or the scientific basis for ignoring the Canons of TEc in deposing Bishops. Or the scientific basis for replacing Matthew 28 by the MDG’s.
You couldn’t make this stuff up!