(ENS)
Much of the Anglican world must be lamenting the latest emission from GAFCON. Anglicanism has always been broader than some find comfortable. This statement does not represent the end of Anglicanism, merely another chapter in a centuries-old struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers. Anglicans will continue to worship God in their churches, serve the hungry and needy in their communities, and build missional relationships with others across the globe, despite the desire of a few leaders to narrow the influence of the gospel. We look forward to the opportunities of the Lambeth Conference for constructive conversation, inspired prayer, and relational encounters.
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church
Unfortunately the initial comments were unduly personal, sarcastic, and did not advance the discussion. Let’s try again please.
I believe that we see in this statement more proof of Dr. Schori’s lack of formation. Is she aware of the historic struggle between orthodox belief constantly challenged by heresy and syncretism? Or is all orthodox belief to be characterized as “narrow” as opposed to her “broader” understanding? Woe to us poor folk who place our belief in the Scripture and historic faith rather than MDGs and political correctness!
Yours in narrowness,
Islandbear+
Of course the bishops at GAFCON don’t consider themselves the only true believers. There are loads of true believers all over the place. There are zealous believers in Islam, in atheism (Dawkins, etc.), in Judaism, in feminism (KJS), in environmentalism (KJS), in the MDGs (KJS), gay rights (KJS) and so on. The question is in WHAT a person believes.
So her language here (basically something to the effect of: these GAFCON people are so elitist, they are the only ones who think they are a believer) is just more smokescreen to hide the fact that what they say is TRUE. Notice that she doesn’t say: hey, me and my colleagues absolutely believe in a bodily risen Lord, in a blood atonement, in the unique salvific event of Christ and his cross, of sola Christus, of eternal life, etc. She doesn’t say any of that because, of course, she actually doesn’t believe any of that and has said so in media interviews. So she slyly allows readers who don’t know all that to imagine she is contradicting GAFCON when in fact she isn’t.
Anglicanism has always been narrower than some find congenial.
It’s hard to believe that the word “emission” here was anything else but an attempt to compare a carefully thought out statement by fellow Anglicans to flatulence. If so, shame on her. If not, if it was just an accident, then it’s one more example of her inability to serve as PB, which is in part the symbolic head of TEC and the ability to represent our church with dignity and gravity and respect. If she’s so inept with words then she can do this accidentally, then she isn’t qualified to be PB.
I can appreciate why the earlier comments were removed but some were amusing and no more sarcastic than those of KJS. I can’t really add more than what has already been said, but I am simply flabbergasted by her lack of thoughtful response to this situation. Consider the ABC’s response in contrast. He [i]did[/i] affirm the uniqueness of Christ and his deity in his statement, affirmed the common purpose and goals and then had very reasonable criticisms of the GAFCON proposal. From KJS? We have scatological aspersions.
I guess we know what General Convention ’09 will look like.
It’s a foregone conclusion that absolutely nothing will come of Lambeth ’08 except talk, talk, talk, and listen, listen, listen and listen. NO ACTION! Is it any wonder that things have gotten to the point where GAFCON was considered necessary?
And by the way, I saw nothing in GAFCON that was not rational, and I find it hard to believe that anyone could’ve believed otherwise.
A remarkably ungracious response.
Rather than comment on any negative emissions by the presiding bishop and giving her the gravity due her, I think it would be better to question whether Kendall has any real hope that the Cubbies will even make past the playoffs and if so who their likely opponent will be.
(Harmon, you have to lighten up a bit.)
[i] I’m going to pre-delete my comment now.[/i]
I think that the PB may have meant “effusions”, still rude but better English.
“Narrow the influence of the gospel” What does that mean? I can not understand much that she says. It is my failure to communicate.
[i]”desire of a few leaders”[/i]
Would some one shake her and tell her to quit it. I asked her in a public forum why she uses such language about any oppoisition, referring to it continually as less than one percent of Episcopalians, or as a small minority or whatever … She said she used those words because they were true. Spoken from on high. I followed with a question about whewther she felt the words at all demeaning … Of course not she said, it was just the truth …
She has used this tactic over and over. It must be obvious how she tries to “belittle” anyone who is not in agreement. It’s not just patronizing. It’s also a far from inclusive way of suggesting that a small group (in whatever size you want) is somehow unimportant because it is just a small group.
And people call conservatives ungracious? Hmph.
When she uses “we” in terms of looking forward to Lambeth and its emissions, is she speaking for the Church, or imperially for herself?
Has she been reading Queen Victoria’s diary?
As to “the latest emission from GAFCON,” my first thought was that she’s likening the communique to air pollution from cars — but the connection with her Easter message is ironically more appropriate.
Her statement sounds like something hurriedly dashed off in an immediate burst of anger (read: snit), not the carefully considered and measured response one would expect from the head of a national church. Dr. Williams did far better.
I wonder what her response will be if she ever gets around to actually reading the Jerusalem Declaration!
A piece by Charles Moore ([i]Daily Telegraph[/i]) was recently headlined [url=http://tinyurl.com/4n34l5]”The Archbishop of Canterbury is not the Empress of India.”[/url] Neither is the Presiding Bishop of TEC. “We” indeed!
Folks, what you are seeing (as manifested in these beyond ridiculous comments) is someone who is still seething over the cathartic cross-examination the CANA lawyers gave her, which proved particularly fruitful in Judge Bellow’s recent ruling. I keep telling the faithful to be calm and patient. Jefferts Schori is a gift to the Church whose ministry is not just prophetic – its REVELATORY!
This just sounds a *little* clenched to me. Sputtering noted…I think the tension is building. I wonder who else thinks she isn’t likely to serve a full term? Something tells me there not only may not *be* an ECUSA to manage by the end of her administration, but she may just step down. Not that she has ever stepped up.
What a petulant and childish response! At least +Williams had the good sense and character to appreciate some of what is good in the Gafcon statement. This ridiculous characterization could have been (and probably was) written before the Jerusalem Declaration was even published. There is no grace, no tact, no substance. Her mischaracterizations are maddening, her misreading of history is crazy-making, and her attempt to coopt Christian mission is disgusting (as if conservatives aren’t interested in feeding the poor!). This is not the statement of a Christian leader, and that is just sad. I will keep her in prayer, because she has such an admirable heart for the poor, if only she wouldn’t misapply her gifts so.
Dr. Harmon, you should close the comments. Because this statement is worth nothing more than sheer derision. My own sense of propriety was so greatly shaken in reading it, I had to calm down my own rising ire.
“……unduly personal, sarcastic, and did not advance the discussion. Let’s try again please.” In all honesty, after reading the statement posted, I actually thought that comment by Kendall was referring to the post, and only slowly figured out he meant some earlier comments that he had found unacceptable.
Several above have said better than I might how awful the posted response is.
#12, Jeffersonian: Clever! Got a good chuckle out of that, thanks.
No. 20 Tory, you make a very good point. Such remarks by the PB remove any illusions about the character of TEC’s national leadership.
Sorry, Canon Harmon. 🙁 I’ll admit to being one of those responders.
There is such a lack of substance, let alone grace, in her response that it’s difficult to comment objectively and without derision. And, as a church member, I see that it’s become increasingly obvious that she has no use for anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as she does. I mean, we’ve known that for a long time but at least she TRIED to be publicly gracious in the beginning. No more, apparently, and that’s disheartening.
No. 24 Elves, so did I. Good one, Jeffersonian!
How ironic — in the most non-humous, deadly serious way in which no actual person, living or dead is directly or obliquely referred to in any way — that the Encyclical against Modernism emmitted by the late and most seriously honored Pope Pius X, was entitled, “Lamentabili”
Just a completely academic and theoretically non-specific, impersonal and non-humorous observation.
Great minds discuss ideas. Mediocre minds discuss people. Small minds discuss things. Reread +Katherine’s response and decide what type of mind she has.
A long time ago I stopped considering her as anyone important enough to pay attention to her words or thoughts. I pray for the souls of those Bishops who made her the PB. They chose her not because of her Christian Revelation but for her politics and theirs.
As a Christian I also pray for her poor lost soul to someday see the True Light.
Her response to GAFCON is that of someone clearly on the defensive; she doesn’t like being told that she’s wrong, and she’s lashing out at what she sees as schismatics…..us…..and by doing so, she’s dragging her Church ever deeper into the mire of apostasy. Unfortunately, her actions affect those whom she claims to represent…..the people in the pews, their friends and families, and Christians everywhere.
All, there’s beginning to be a lot of speculation about +KJS’ motives and emotions, etc. on this thread. Much better to focus on her words and not try to guess her intent or her feelings. Thank you.
–elfgirl
With all due respect, it doesn’t require much guessing or speculation on her feelings when she refers to us in this way:
“struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers.” So, I stand by what I wrote — there isn’t much grace in characterizing us this way and I AM disheartened that the presiding bishop of my church did so.
Dad, who is that lady in the pointy hat?
That’s the Presiding Bishop (and Primate), Son!
She doesn’t look happy, Dad!
Don’t worry, Son, she just failed her emissions test…
Has anyone reminded the good lady that Jesus was the one who said, “narrow is the way”?
Oh, forget about it. I just remembered she does not put much stock in anything He said about ‘the way’.
Praying for narrowing, and that the focus would be Jesus,
— Stan
She’s right. People in my parish don’t really care about GAFCon or Lambeth. Even the conservatives. They might be upset if some churches find reason not to help us fund mission (say, AIDS orphans) because they thought we were beholden to whatever agenda they fantasize runs our church. But I suspect most Episcopalians are moderate and just don’t know what the big issue is.
But if this means that Canterbury doesn’t have authority the way it used to, I’m all for it. Let the TEC go! Sometimes I think Liberal Episcopalians had a Celtic fetish that was unnecessary.
In my church, Nigerians, Caribbeans, Indians and Asians have decided to become Americans. And they just don’t judge the gays in the parish. Why? Perhaps they’ve become too Americanized…. “tolerant” as the Pew report notes.
Of course, I think she’s right on target that those at GAFCon consider themselves the only “true” believers. Modern Pharisees, in a sense. God bless them.
John Wilkins, perhaps you’d like to tell the people in your parish to get their heads out of the sand and pay attention to what’s going on in the Communion instead of caring only about what’s happening inside their four walls. Anglicanism is more than just being Episcopalian, you know.
One of the problems I found in the Diocese of El Camino Real, my former diocese, was the fact that so FEW parishioners CARED about what was happening in TEC. When I tried to explain, for example, what went on at Deanery meetings that I attended, I was greeted with a stony silence. No one cared! When I tried to get people involved in Church affairs, the only things they cared about were when we were going to have the next fund-raising party or wine and cheese tasting soiree!
Is it any wonder why people don’t care enough about their Church? It’s a little thing called “apathy,” and that’s only ONE of the reasons why The Episcopal Church is in so much trouble!
I wonder which meaning of “emissions” she was using — from dictionary.com.
[blockquote] e·mis·sion –noun
1. an act or instance of emitting: the emission of poisonous fumes.
2. something that is emitted; discharge; emanation.
3. an act or instance of issuing, as paper money.
4. Electronics. a measure of the number of electrons emitted by the heated filament or cathode of a vacuum tube.
5. an ejection or discharge of semen or other fluid from the body.
6. the fluid ejected or discharged. [/blockquote]
I suspect she was thinking along the lines of the example given in 1.
Well, brother John (#35), if the GAFCONers are latter day Pharisees, then I fear that many in the Liberal Episcopal wing of TEc would feel right at home with the theology of the Sadducees (denial of bodily resurrection, etc.). And, at least some of the Pharisees were open to Christ’s convicting and transforming message (Nicodemus and St. Paul, to name two). As for the Sadducees…
I’d be all for “letting TEc go,” if it meant that TEc would show some Christian grace and humility and stop waging its brand of merciless “reconciliation” on its reasserters.
God bless you, and our Lord have mercy on us all.
John Wilkins — re:
[blockquote] She’s right. People in my parish don’t really care about GAFCon or Lambeth. [/blockquote]
The value of quoting from your own experience depends on how typical that experience is. I believe your parish is in the Diocese of New York – a diocese which has been steadily losing members for a prolonged period. What is there to stop me claiming that those who left were the ones who did care?
Further your particular parish has also been steadily hemorrhaging members — it had c120 attending services in 1996 and could muster c70 in 2006. Again it leads one to think there used to be members who cared — but they have chosen to go to greener pastures where they would get the encouragement and support they needed. Please note I am not making a personal attack in saying this – I do not know how long you have been at the parish — it may well have been only a short time.
http://12.0.101.88/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_71200814318AM.pdf
Of course, both the diocese and parish are part of a much larger pattern of decline in the Episcopal church as a whole — indeed if the Presiding Bishop wanted to discuss emissions, it would have been very appropriate for her to discuss the discharge of parishioners that is troubling her own church and which has weakened over the period since her own appointment.
Most of the folks in my parish don’t understand GAFCON either. They don’t understand all the acronyms, many of them don’t really know what Anglican means. I don’t count any of those as things to be boasted of, but it perhaps is the reality. But do most of them care about what the diocese and national church is doing – you bet they do. They’re angry and confused. They see the faith being sold down the line by a bunch of activists who couldn’t care less about folks like them. They see the relentless politicization of their church. And they don’t like it one bit.
“struggle for dominance by those who consider themselves the only true believers.â€
Hey, leave us poor ignrent breedin’ Catliks alone! 😉
Schori’s remarks give us a reasonably accurate measure of how desperate her situation has become. She is rarely ever anything but plodding and matter of fact stylistically; her tone is flat and colorless. The above is so angry, so frustrated at her present situation, that her language level has changed. There is a acrid flavor here, a bitterness, a personal surliness which we may see in “dominance by those…,” “narrow…” that have forced her to stoop to what is for her name-calling. She is spinning the trip to Lambeth hard, as one would suppose she should, but her real feelings are elsewhere and they bleed through her usual monotone.
I cannot guess what she will do now, for Rowan Williams has essentially fallen on his own sword. She has cultural momentum with her, of course, and she may rely on that. I expect a level of harshness from Lambeth now because the gloves have come off, and one of them has been thrown on the floor before the king. The talk is that the communion will not be split, but the Siamese twins have been split, GAFCON has wielded the scalpel, and it is now time to go head to head.
I might add, I hope that this is precisely what will happen. Cultural momentum will win as it always does, but the clash of armies will build strength for the New Instauration, not crush it. I am glad I am not is Schori’s shoes now. Larry
As I said in another post, I think the systemic problem tearing the church centers around pride, not gay rights. Since to be a Reasserter is to be oppressed, a certain humility and reliance on God comes with the territory. Look how TEC continues “building proud towers that shall not reach to heaven.” It claims direct prophetic witness from the Holy Spirit. It claims the mantles of justice, truth and liberation. It claims rightful ownership of property. It claims correctness of Anglican expression and interpretation. It claims control over the meaning and exercise of the Seven Sacraments. It claims new light in the reading of the Bible. If these people were really concerned with compassion and otherness they would try harder to love the orthodox as we are and give us our freedom. Instead, the best people like Jefferts-Schori can do is try to demonize us. Painful as it is, it is a great gift in a way as it draws us closer to God.
I subscribe to the “Encounter with God” scripture readings and was struck by today’s reading from Timothy ([b]emphasis mine[/b]):
[b]1 Timothy 1:1-11[/b]
[1] Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, [2] To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. [3] As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus [b]so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer [4] nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work-which is by faith.[/b] [5] The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. [b][6] Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. [7] They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.[/b] [8] We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. [9] [b]We also know that law is made[/b] not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, [10] for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and [b]for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine [11] that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.[/b]
NIV
It seems to me that GAFCON is taking on the role of Timothy and standing in the way of unsound doctrines represented by the Presiding Bishop.
A fart from Africa…It was this kind of insulting talk that was so surprising and saddening to our brothers and sisters from Africa at the last Lambeth.
Hi Margaret,
Unfortunately, you’re right, you don’t know much about my situation. I inherited 14 years of mediocre clergy (or perhaps 40, but who’s counting) and was given an instruction to only love the people. Since I’ve been here people have moved because of housing costs or died because the average age when I got here was 75
The age of people in my parish is now at 40, and we’ve had 35 people join within the last year. We now have families from all throughout the globe. We have relationships with parishes in South Africa and Tanzania, as well as local mission projects with Rural Migrants. But most of them see the Communion’s stance on sexuality as a reason why most churches don’t work for them. The would remain unchurched.
There are many reasons for that, but in church growth circles, the insight is that it takes 6 years of normal leadership to become a safe space after the place has been poorly run. But why are we discussing this? I did some number cleaning last year, but given that every week we get one or two new families, I’m feeling good. For them GAFcon is the way church has always been done: exclusive, angry, hostile. They are looking for something different.
#48: I didn’t read GAFCON as exclusive, angry and hostile. I thought I saw something else again. What “different” is it tha they want? L:M
Larry Morse [#49], if you’re looking for “exclusive, angry and hostile” in the Jerusalem Statement, try this excerpt:
Exclusive, angry and hostile….an excellent description of the PB’s peurile comments.
Sorry #50 this quotation does not by any means fit my understanding of e, a, and h. It is forthright and declarative, but I cannot see where one finds, exclusive and hostile. Is this an angry statement? It is if you read into what what is not present in the text. “Oppose these forces and liberate…” is to be taken as cognitive language, not the language of affect. This is for GAFCON a statement of intention derived from the evidence which has been cited. False gospel is a statment of fact; once again this is the language of cognition and you are speaking the language of affect.
LM