Jefferts Schori Invokes the Patriarchs

According to a Religion News Service story, the new presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church has warned the Diocese of San Joaquin not to try to leave the Episcopal Church. Katharine Jefferts Schori told its bishop, the genial and courageous John-David Schofield,

"Our forbears did not build churches or give memorials with the intent that they be removed from the Episcopal Church. Nor did our forbears give liberally to fund endowments with the intent that they be consumed by litigation."

One would think she'd have someone at the Episcopal Church headquarters to say "Don't go there" when she starts writing like this. Strictly speaking, she is right in claiming what she does, but this is not an argument an advocate of approving sodomy and marrying homosexual people who is rather vague on the exact purpose of believing in Jesus Christ should raise.

The obvious response is: "Our forebears did not build churches or give memorials with the intent that they be run by people like Katharine Jefferts Shori and used to marry people of the same sex and employ heretics and skeptics."

Even assuming that many of the Episcopalian patriarchs to whom she appeals were cultural Episcopalians more than Christians, it does stretch one's credulity to think that they would, if someone had thought to predict such a future, side with Mrs. Jefferts Shori rather than Bishop Schofield. If she really cares what her forebears wanted, she ought to tell her lawyers to give up right now.

Comments

[Robert Buechler]

If she really cared what her forebears wanted, she would repent herself and believe in the Lord Jesus.

Since she obviously doesn't care about that, it isn't surprising that she puts her focus elsewhere.

Shame.

Peace in the Lord!
Rob Buechler, Pastor
Trinity-Bergen/Faith Lutheran Parish
Starkweather,ND

[The young fogey]

Well put!

Your argument points out that this liberal religion is a house of cards logically: 'we have bishops and go to church because tradition including the Bible says so' but 'we approve sodomy and marry homosexuals because it doesn't matter what tradition including the Bible says'.

Given that towering illogic it's understandable that I recently read most people who grew up Episcopal end up in no church or if they 'get religion' go someplace conservative.

[The young fogey]

P.S. I didn't intend the above as a knock on all Episcopalians - far from it.

[DGP]

It's not really illogical; it's just filtered through an entirely different soteriology. What's worth preserving of the past is the sense of community, inclusion, social justice, and public charity. Purity and property laws, as LW Countryman and similar Anglicans have described sexual ethics, were dissolved with the coming of Christ.

[Deacon John M. Bresnahan]

The bishopess Shori probably thought that changing "forefathers" to "forebears" covered her butt upon using her own warped version of tradition.

[LaVallette]

Bishopess Mrs. Katherine Katharine Jefferts Schori, I challenge you to demand that the Anglican Church in England, Scotland and Ireland hand back all the Cathedrals and Churches which they seized at the time of the Reformation back to the Catholic Church.

[Stuart Koehl]

The following interesting letter appeared in the American Spectator Online site:

Re: Mark Tooley's Not Much Thanksgiving for Episcopalians:

Bishop Jefferts Schori's interviews always feature softball (or even NERF-ball) questions. Here are some questions I would like to see a reporter ask her (I can dream can't I...)

In your papers and press releases prior to your election as Presiding Bishop, you made a big point of "el buen Samaritano" and your deanship of the "Good Samaritan School of Theology." Yet, you have admitted both of these were inflated terms. They have also disappeared from any post-election materials (such as the Episcopal page "Who is the Presiding Bishop?"). Why did you lie on your resume?

Why were you elected? On paper, even with your inflated claims, you were clearly the least qualified candidate. Were you elected solely because of your gender?

During your tenure as Bishop of Nevada, you used the Kairos Prison Ministry materials inappropriately. This organization considers the breaches significant enough that they are suing the Nevada Diocese for copyright violations. Would you care to comment?

The Kairos organization feels that their approach of gender-specific ministers for prison populations is both sound Biblically and practically? Would you care to comment.

What happened to "el buen Samaritano"?

Reporters seem to be very impressed by your experience as an oceanographer and as a pilot. Why are these relevant?

During you tenure as Bishop of Nevada, how much did the diocese grow? In that same period how much did the state of Nevada grow? Why do you think the Episcopal percentage is so much lower?

Jesus said, "No one comes to the father except through me." What does that mean?

The Episcopal Church has been losing members for many years, why?

Do you really think, as you said in a New York Times Magazine interview, that the conservatives (such as Catholics) are "outbreeding" the Episcopalians?

Is it not possible that the liberal social gospel and ordination and promotion of gay ministers bears some responsibility for the membership loss?

In recent memory, two ministers confessed to breaking their wedding vows, one left his marriage and one did not. Why has one been made an Episcopal bishop and the other has resigned his position in disgrace. Compare and contrast -- Vicki and Gene Robinson's marital breakup and Ted Haggard's fall.

You state in the New York Times Magazine interview that we "are all hypocrites." Isn't the Christian belief that "we are all sinners?"

What is sin?

The Episcopal Church in America was at one time named the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. With this Protestant background, how is "deeds-based evangelism" consistent with the Protestant principle of "faith alone"?

Why was one of your first acts as Presiding Bishop the formation of a committee to make sure property does not leave the TEC when parishioners leave the TEC?

Why does all material related to the issue of gay sexuality refuse to include references to Dr. Gagnon's work. For example, the study guide prepared by the association of Episcopal Seminary Librarians has expressly excluded Gagnon's work. This is so, even though Biblical scholars consider it a masterful treatment of the Biblical issues.

If the Millennium Development Goals are so important, why is the TEC allocating only seven-tenths of one percent of its budget to them?

If the MDGs are a sign of our deeds-based evangelism, how do you justify the buildings, salaries, and budget of the TEC bureaucracy?

Why have you singled out eight dioceses as "problem dioceses"? What exactly is the problem?

Has the Dennis Canon ever been tested and upheld in a court of law?

You and your supporters often criticize the African Bishops for turning a blind eye to polygamy. Where is the evidence of this?

You have an "honorary" doctorate from CDSP. The African Bishops, as a group, have a significant number of earned doctorates from major Western theological schools. Why should we listen to your theology rather than theirs?

Why is the Episcopal Church in Nigeria one of the fastest growing churches anywhere on earth?

Who is Jesus?

In what way is threatening churches consistent with deeds-based evangelism?

Two churches in Virginia have just proposed leaving the TEC. Their Average Sunday Attendance exceeds that of the entire Nevada Diocese. Shouldn't their concerns be taken seriously?

In your New York Times interview, you discuss the relative childlessness of Episcopalians in terms of stewardship of the Earth's resources. In light of this stewardship, what percentage of the TEC budget could be reduced if the offices at 815 were moved to say, Topeka or Omaha? In this day of instant communications and the Internet, surely a less expensive and wasteful location could be found for the headquarters of such an environmentally responsible church.

Why should I be Episcopalian rather than sleep in on Sunday morning?

I understand your mother became an Orthodox Christian in the 1970s. What was that like?

You have criticized some for placing God in a "little box." Jesus speaks of the "eye of the needle" and the "narrow way." Compare and contrast your and Jesus' viewpoints.

Why has the outreach to LGBT individuals been such a failure in terms of growing the Episcopal Church?

A significant portion of Christianity (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) does not allow women to be priests. What is your response to this fact?

At your investiture, I noticed that none of the major celebrants nor you had any cross symbols on their vestments. Was this intentional?

What is the Resurrection?

[Bobby Winters]

You mean you're not interested in what kind of tree she would be?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You mean you're not interested in what kind of tree she would be?<<<

All trees are wood. Wood is used to make posts. We all know the expression "Dumb as a post".

[Bobby Winters]

I've actually met her husband and been in her house. He's a topologist, as I was educated to be. He's not dumb, and I don't believe she is either. However, she has certainly come to different conclusions than I have on what I would consider very important matters. Our desires often flavor (drive?) our reasoning processes.

Anyway, watching the Episcopal Church go down is not pleasant, and I only wonder whether my United Methodist Church will follow, and if so at what distance. My annual conference has a new, more conservative Bishop in Scott Jones. I live in hope.

[David Mills]

I think DGP is right about the presiding bishopess's idea of what it is in Episcopalianism that she is preserving, and actually made this point several times when I still wrote on Episcopal subjects, arguing against conservatives who declared that the liberals ought to leave because they didn't believe what had been believed. But in this case she was appealing explicitly to what she believes her Episcopal forebears wanted, and there is no way in the world they wanted what she defends.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>He's not dumb, and I don't believe she is either. <<<

No, you mean she's not stupid. The world is full of smart dumb people.

[David Gray]

>The world is full of smart dumb people.

Some call them foolish.

[Stuart Koehl]

This appeared in First Things today:

November 27, 2006

Jordan Hylden writes:

No one thought it possible, but there is a wave of nostalgia sweeping through the ranks of conservative Episcopalians for their old presiding bishop, Frank Griswold. Of course, he may well have been heretical, but no one could really tell for sure. His statements were a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a bureaucracy, raising what commonly is known as “Episco-babble” to something of an art form. By and large, we conservatives could confidently ignore what he said, resting assured that no one understood him anyway.

But those days, alas, are now gone. Our new presiding bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori, is by comparison a model of clarity, and within the span of a month has managed to offend a rather astonishing range of people, including Catholics, Mormons, individuals without a graduate degree, and mothers with children. Lord Carey, former archbishop of Canterbury, has said that conservatives ought to give her a chance, which is of course the charitable thing to do. But for those less inclined to charity, there is good reason to believe she intends nothing less than to run conservatives out of the church, finalize the split between the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, and set up an international communion of liberal Anglicanism as a rival to Canterbury. In short, from her recent actions and public statements, it is reasonable to infer that her term is likely to tear the Episcopal Church in two—and, what’s more, that that is precisely what she intends.

To her credit, Bishop Schori has always been quite forthright about her intentions. Prior to her election as presiding bishop, she told a liberal Episcopalian magazine that:

As a church we have got to be better self-differentiated. We have to decide what it is we are going to stand for and be clear about it, and then say “these are the consequences.” Yes, Anglicans don’t much like to do that, but we do do it about some things. . . . I think we are getting there about the issues that are dividing us right now.

In the Anglican world, which tends to treat theological fuzziness as a virtue (we call it “comprehensiveness”), these are fighting words. With great frequency and clarity, she has committed herself to the full affirmation of homosexual practice, including ordination to the episcopate and same-sex marriage. This, she has stated, is the “reasonable conclusion and consensus” of the Episcopal Church, regardless of the contrary decisions of the Anglican Communion as a whole and the continued objection of a sizeable minority within ECUSA. In fact, she has said that their continued objection is “schismatic,” distracts from the real mission of the church (i.e., social justice), and will no longer be tolerated.

And, unlike her predecessor Frank Griswold, she has shown already that she is willing to put her money where her mouth is. A task force has been set up to deal with “property disputes,” and so far eight “problem dioceses” have been identified, which may or may not be met with legislation. Letters have been sent to the bishops of Fort Worth, Quincy, and San Joaquin, warning that nothing less than “unqualified accession” to the decisions of General Convention will be allowed. In short, Bishop Schori has in no uncertain terms laid out the agenda for her tenure of leadership—as she signaled before her election, she is making clear that the Episcopal Church has decided where it stands and that there will be “consequences” for those who disagree.

The problem is that she is on a direct collision course with the rest of the Anglican Communion. And, while she will not admit it in so many words, it has become increasingly clear that Bishop Schori and her supporters know perfectly well that their actions will end in a final break with Canterbury and the Global South. The church’s Executive Council has already proposed the formation of an “Anglican Convocation of the Americas,” comprising liberal churches such as ECUSA, Canada, and Brazil. Even the Episcopal Church’s name no longer officially includes reference to the United States, which Bishop Schori has stated reflects the “transnational” character (better put, “ambition”) of the church. Liberal voices from England and elsewhere have signaled their desire to join such a convocation, which almost certainly will set itself up as a “progressive” alternative to mainstream Anglicanism.

Quite obviously, this puts Episcopalians who wish to remain in full communion with Canterbury in a bind. This past September, nearly a quarter of diocesan bishops met at Camp Allen, Texas, and stated their firm desire to remain both Episcopalian and Anglican. The hope, which still is expressed by many, is that a compromise solution will be reached, allowing the Camp Allen bishops to provide a safe haven within the Episcopal Church for those who continue to profess Anglican orthodoxy.

That hope is not dead, but it is becoming more and more unlikely by the day. The actions of Bishop Schori have so far demonstrated that she does not intend to allow Episcopalians to do anything less than adhere fully to the decisions of General Convention, however they may conflict with the rest of the Communion. The Camp Allen bishops, if they are to have any chance at succeeding in their goal, must firmly and consistently articulate their opposition to what so clearly is happening to the Episcopal Church. If they do not do so, the rise of Bishop Schori will constitute the clearest example in years of the truth of Neuhaus’ Law: “Where orthodoxy is optional, it will sooner or later be proscribed.”

It is all very unfortunate, particularly since most Episcopalians sincerely hope that a compromise will be reached. It is a great pity that it almost certainly will not be, unless a significant number of bishops and laypeople refuse to follow the so-called “inclusionary” agenda of Bishop Schori. As it stands, it will not be long before she “includes” conservatives right out of the church.

Jordan Hylden is a junior fellow at First Things.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>>No, you mean she's not stupid. The world is full of smart dumb people.<<<<

Separate these words for me, if you would. I plead guilty to using dumb to mean unintelligent rather than mute, which is its original meaning. Yet if the Bishop where dumb in that sense we would not be aware that she is a heretic.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Separate these words for me, if you would. I plead guilty to using dumb to mean unintelligent rather than mute, which is its original meaning. Yet if the Bishop where dumb in that sense we would not be aware that she is a heretic.<<<

Let me put it this way:

I have a truly brilliant daughter. I stand in awe of her incandescent intellect. But every now and again she will do something so mind-numbingly DUMB as to beggar belief--on par with sitting on a limb and cutting it off behind you. She is smart, but like all teenagers, she can be really dumb, sometimes.

[tony]

Seems to me she IS following in the footsteps of her "founders," wasn't it all about property in the first place (lands, abbeys, monasteries, rents, plate and furnishings)? Did not the Cecils and the Cromwells and many others of the nouveaux riche of the 16th century fatten their estates on pilfered property?

Painful as it may be to any authentic Christians left in ECUSA, the logical response to this implosion of ego and heresy is simply "good riddance;" to paraphrase another founder, "you have sat long enough; begone with you."
And may your remaining few return at last to the Mother that was abandoned at the "founding."

[David Gray]

>Seems to me she IS following in the footsteps of her "founders," wasn't it all about property in the first place

No.

[Richard Ball]

Once we understand that the Church has had it all wrong for 2,000 years, but now has it right thanks to and only thanks to the liberal minds that now occupy power, and no thanks whatsoever to foot-dragging traditionalists and fundamentalists, it all becomes clear and easy to accept.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Seems to me she IS following in the footsteps of her "founders," wasn't it all about property in the first place (lands, abbeys, monasteries, rents, plate and furnishings)? Did not the Cecils and the Cromwells and many others of the nouveaux riche of the 16th century fatten their estates on pilfered property?<<<

My own particular Church, the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropolia, went through something quite like this back in the 1890s and 1930s. In our case, our Churches were founded by Carpatho-Rusyn immigrants from Eastern Europe. At first, they were placed under the local Latin ordinaries, who were so obnoxious and repressive, particularly in regard to priestly celibacy, that there was a schism in which about 125,000 people reverted to the Orthodox Church. To avoid recurrences of this sort, many of our parishes incorporated as "social organizations". In the 1930s, the Latin bishops again appealed to Rome to suppress married Ruthenian priests in the U.S., resulting in another schism involving about 80,000 people. In this instance, some parishes left en masse, other stayed put, and some were split down the middle. Because so many were incorporated as social organizations, the issue of property divisions became very contentious. Eventually they all ended up in civil courts, in lawsuits that lasted for years and left a bitterness that endured for two generations (and is only now passing). Regardless of how these things end, disputes involving ecclesiastical property invariably leave deep scars.

We see this in Eastern Europe in spades. In the late 1940s, the Communist authorities outlawed and abolished the Eastern Catholic Churches in what is now Ukraine, Slovakia and Romania. The property of the Eastern Catholics was seized and either destroyed, desecrated or given to the Orthodox Church. At the same time, Orthodox properties were seized and either destroyed or desecrated, thereby making the Orthodox entirely dependent on the Eastern Catholic properties.

In 1989, the Eastern Catholics came out of the catacombs and wanted their churches back. But the Orthodox, who had been worshipping there for four decades, naturally objected. The result was an extremely bitter custody battle that has not been resolved to this day, and explains a lot of the Orthodox vehemence towards the "Uniates" at the ecumenical encounters.

Bishop John Michael (Botean), the Romanian Greek Catholic Exarch in America, said of this, "If the Church breathes with two lungs, then Satan has two hands around the neck of the Church, choking the breath out of it. One hand is property and the desire to possess it. The other is the willingness to use violence to get it". Matters have gotten only marginally better since he uttered those words almost a decade ago.

[tony]

I stand corrected; there was also something about lust and power, the Boleyn sisters, a male heir, etc.

Seems sadly ironic that the founder started the Church in order (ostensibly) to get a male heir, while the present leaders are destroying it by denying all heirs (nothing like sodomy and abortion to put an end to sibling rivalry).

But as the good Bishopress has told us, the enlightened few always have fewer children, reminding one that the problem will eventually solve itself out of sheer demographic inertia.

[David Gray]

>I stand corrected; there was also something about lust and power, the Boleyn sisters, a male heir, etc.

If you still think that was all that was at work you have more room for correction.

[DGP]

Mr. Koehl,

You mentioned Gagnon, with whose writing I have only a shallow familiarity. I'd be delighted to hear a more thorough review from the Eastern perspective.

[James A. Altena]

Interesting to see that the bigoted mythological version of 16th c. history lives on in Tony. But if one wants to play that sort of game, the shenanigans of Henry VIII pale in comparison to those of Pope Alexander VI Borgia.

Or, we can all agree to let the dead bury their dead and follow Our Lord in charity instead.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Pope Alexander VI Borgia.<<<

What a guy! But most of the stories about Lucretia are just lurid fiction.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You mentioned Gagnon, with whose writing I have only a shallow familiarity. I'd be delighted to hear a more thorough review from the Eastern perspective.<<<

I merely posted a letter written by someone else. I confess I have not yet read the works of Robert Gagnon. I note that there is also a Dr. John Gagnon who is something of an authority on human sexuality--are the two doctors related?

[Bill R]

Robert Gagnon is, I believe, a professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I haven't heard of John Gagnon.

[DGP]

Yes, I had Robert Gagnon visit the Diocese of Pittsburgh once for a masterful exegetical presentation unrelated to sexual ethics, but I understand his magnum opus to date is a crushing commentary on homosexuality in the Bible. I say "crushing," in that it's said to crush all the scholarly misdirections on the topic.

I never heard of John Gagnon until Stuart Koehl mentioned him. Amazon says he "paved the way for Foucault" -- not exactly a promising endorsement, by my reckoning.

[Bobby Winters]

Google Robert Gagnon and read some of the criticisms of his book by the some of the left wing Episcolpalians. It will make your skin craw.

[tony]

I believe the point was, not the lurid wanderings of lusty potentates, but the founding of a theo/political sect called the Church of England; the last time I checked, the Borgia Popes founded a few children but left the Church intact; would that Henry Tudor had begot bastards rather than heretics and schismatics.
Just a gentle reminder: the issue is issue, and while the ECUSA is issuing boldly conventional pronouncenents on sexuality it is issuing little else; Amsterdam anyone?

[Bobby Winters]

>>>would that Henry Tudor had begot bastards rather than heretics and schismatics.<<<

Wasn't that a regretable little turn of histoy? To my mind comes thoughts of a Catholic John Wesley. Would he've been a saint of the Church or something else?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>would that Henry Tudor had begot bastards rather than heretics and schismatics<<<

He did beget bastards. Several, in fact.

>>>Wasn't that a regretable little turn of histoy?<<<

Well, Henry did have a right to expect that anulment. And he would have gotten it (he paid enough for it) if only the Pope had not been a prisoner of Catherine of Aragon's uncle.

[James A. Altena]

"...the Borgia Popes founded a few children but left the Church intact..."

The first point is that it was the papacy that split the church by its corruption. Without that, the Reformation would never have occured. The late Jaroslav Pelikan rightly called it a "tragic necessity" -- and the conduct of Alexander VI and his ilk in the Papacy was what made it necessary. Your rationale for exculpating the Renaissance Popes in this regard is at bottom no different from that of the apostates now running the Episcopal Church, who constantly push the line of institutional unity trumps both orthodox doctrine and morality.