Three events in the recent past have posed a serious question. Does the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC) know what she is doing? The possible answers to this question have raised even greater concern than the question itself. For, I have concluded, if, on the one hand, she does not know what she is doing then TEC is without effective leadership at perhaps the most crucial time in its history. If, on the other hand, she does know what she is doing, she is leading TEC in directions for which she has no warrant.
To be specific, her decline of an invitation to greet the Pope on his present visit calls into question her understanding of the office of Presiding Bishop. The canonical irregularities surrounding the specially called convention in the Diocese of San Joaquin and the actions to depose Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan raise questions about the way in which she understands and deploys the Constitution and Canons of TEC. Finally, her Easter Message to TEC raises a question about the adequacy of her grasp of the Christian Gospel.
But surely those who elected her were aware of her dearth of pastoral experience. If she was who the majority wanted as PB then they must have had a specific agenda in mind and believed she would best suit their needs to that purpose.
I generally don’t buy into conspiracy theories but in this case I am willing to make an exception.
Of course she knows what she is doing and who is going to stop her? Who will file the presentment? None of the “Camp Allen” or “Windsor Bishops” that’s for sure. Of course even if it is filed a presentment will go nowhere. But one has to be amused at an organization that claims to be terrified of an “anglican Pope” but is turning a Presiding Bishop with limited powers into an “Episcopal Pope” with metropolitan powers.
It shows what they are willing to do with their precious polity when it suits them.
I think those who elected her did so because of her gender (thus making a statement for the 21st century), not because of her experience or breadth of theological knowledge. And, just as those who elected people to office because of their gender or sexuality specifically, they (and we) are now reaping what they sowed. Truly sad and disappointing. Turner is spot on.
And in terms of population adjusted growth, she was dead last (99 out of 99) as bishop of Nevada – the state has been the fastest growing in the union for the past decade and she managed to shrink membership by 10% in a short tenure with her heavy handed style.
Kirk Hadaway, the official Episcopal statistician, was asked to look at this on the liberal blog Episcope. He tried to down play it, “Well, there were some diocese that shrunk more in absolute numbers”, but he did not deny that in terms of population adjusted numbers, KJS was the worst. Was this even brought up at GC 06???
There are rumors that some conservatives voted for her to torpedo the liberal movement. That sounds a little paranoid to me, but she is certainly living into that role.
I cannot imagine anyone thinking she is doing a good job. to snub the pope is an arrogance that defies all logic and her grasp of theology is so thin it is almost laughable. I feel better equipped to the task and am only a very junior priest.
#4 Robroy, I am aware of the “rumors” to which you refer, and I once would have agreed with you that they “sound a little paranoid.” But I have since heard it attested by multiple eyewitness (“ear-witness”?) sources–and, yes, I’m talking about bishops–so I believe it. This, of course, makes any talk of the agenda of “those who elected her” more complex than it might appear. Precisely because her tenure is turning out to be such a disaster, I find myself increasingly disturbed about some of the circumstances surrounding KJS’s election.
This article is the most condensed and “right on” analysis I have read on the PB. It takes all of the varied “concerns” many of us have and articulates them in a cohesive way painting a picture of a disasterous season in the life of the TEC. I wouldn’t be surprised if both liberal and conservative history does not bear withness to this season as that which nailed the coffin shut on the TEC as a main stream member of the Christian expression. It is certainly a study in the “hi-jacking” of a denomination.
#5: But at least you play a proper game (I hope…).
I wonder if she isn’t trying to prove that TEC is a hierarchical church. That, indeed, all power is at the top.
I remind one and all of who it was that fast-tracked KJS to the episcopacy in the first place, and how they got her to 815. For instance, do the initials JJB look familiar? And that’s just for starters!
“many of us have struggled for years to insure that women take their rightful place within the leadership of TEC and the Anglican Communion.”
Unfortunate use of “rightful.” A right is defined by natural law. If a woman being a bishop falls under the rights of natural law, a female presiding bishop is, ipso facto, a pointed rebuke to the Pope. It might well have been diplomatic to stay away.
WO, etc., used to be cast as a “holy experiment” that would go through a “period of reception” to test whether it was of God or man. Now even reasserters speak of it as a “right.”
One might point out that the fruits of WO have tended rather more in the direction of Dr. Schori and less toward renewal and revival. But once the matter has been decided a priori, the debate is already closed.
As gramma used to say: “If you plant beans, you get beans.” TEO is getting EXACTLY what they planted.
The short answer, of course, is yes.
Hence, the talk of presentment – most likely coming from those who thought they could control Kathy Schori and then got the very rude awakening that she’s her own woman with her own agenda.
The longer answer, of course, is no – she never has. She was never even a rector, not even in a small parish. She was a bishop in a small, rather “fly-by-seat-of-our-pants” sort of diocese (the whole attitude that the rules are more like “guidelines” unless WE need to be rules is fairly prevelant in the West, and said disease seems to have a strong hold on Western dioceses.) And she does not believe in Catholic Christian doctrine, she believes in Spongism, so she can hardly be faulted for not guarding the former. She does truly believe in Spongism, and hence is committed to keeping everyone at the table until indoctrination is reached. And she’ll do so by whatever methods she finds available to her, canonical or not, whcih has her centrists and moderate leftists in a tiz.
However, I, for one, do not believe that Kathy “refused” the Pope. I believe Benedict’s people publically invited her, and privately encouraged her STRONGLY to have a “conflict.” It simply makes more sense.
#11. It must be remembered that Dr. Turner’s wife is an Episcopal priest.
[blockquote] …her decline of an invitation to greet the Pope on his present visit… [/blockquote]
Am I the only one who is wondering what the Pope was thinking when he invited Ms. Schori, to meet with him? I mean really. What did he hope to accomplish by that, other than giving some dignity or gravitas to one underserving of either?
Christ is Risen!
John
I think a better question is:
Does KJS [i]CARE[/i] about what she is doing?
NOPE!
I will pos there my questions that I also put on the next entry, because I am at a stand as to what actually in being undertaken. Is Schori required to respond to the memorandum? Is the HOB required to respond in some manner, and if so, in what way? Can this criticism be left hanging in the air in the hopes that it will simply dissipate? Is a substantive case is made that Schori has violated the canons, MUST the HOB of act? Is some sort of presentiment obligatory? Larry
Larry, so far this memorandum is just talk. No action is required. Its significance lies in its layout of a roadmap in case anyone did want to present the PB, and noting the roadblocks that would need to be overcome. The other shoe has not dropped. No response is required, and yes, this can just be left hanging in the air.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Thanks, #20. Larry
I would urge caution with regard to rumors. If people are going to allege who voted how, then they need to ante up and give us bishop’s names so that they can be checked. This is complicated by the fact that many bishops will not reveal for whom they voted.
I have checked with several reasserters who at the time of the vote were diocesan bishops and they did not vote for Katharine Jefferts Schori.