Sunday, 18 June 2006

ECUSA HoB elects Katharine Jefferts Schori

Episcopal News Service
Sunday, June 18, 2006

[ENS] Katharine Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, has been elected June 18 by the House of Bishops as the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

Voting results here.

Associated Press Episcopal Church elects female leader.
Reuters Woman chosen as top U.S. Episcopal Church bishop
BBC Female chief makes Church history

Ruth Gledhill has a roundup of comments from various people.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 18 June 2006 at 8:41pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA
Comments

Wow ! How wonderful ! --- another first for ECUSA, last GC the 'first' ( "openly" ) gay bishop, and this time the first woman Presiding Bishop !

(Which would 'traditionalists rather have plumped for, I wonder ?).

BTW I find the it intriguing that ' traditonal' and 'betrayal' have the same root.....
(James Hillman is very interesting on this).

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Sunday, 18 June 2006 at 9:11pm BST

Here is a link to PB-candidate Schori's streaming video interview.

At: http://download.trinity-global.edgesuite.net/anon.trinity-global/ondemand/schoriH.asx?res=High

I immediately feel that this election will keep us on a Via Media ECUSA path, hopefully unwaveringly.

Posted by: drdanfee on Sunday, 18 June 2006 at 9:15pm BST

And what will the next GC do for an encore?

Posted by: Alan Marsh on Sunday, 18 June 2006 at 10:07pm BST

Heh-heh: so much for keeping the *Primates Council* the last Old Boys Club! ;-p

Truly our God is great! Alleluia! :-D

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Sunday, 18 June 2006 at 10:22pm BST

I think that Bp Schori's election is a clear signal from TEC; as drdanfee says. I wonder whether it helped that her election will cause another stir in the Communion ? Anyway it's pretty obvious that TEC aren't going to stop pushing on with their liberal agenda. Which is fine by me, as long as they can bring themselves to respect non-liberals enough to allow them to stay with the Anglican Communion without being sacked, sued etc !

Posted by: Dave on Sunday, 18 June 2006 at 10:32pm BST

Dave, the only ones talking about sacking anyone are those who are conservative and who want TEC kicked out of the Communion so that they can take over as "the" Anglican franchise. While there are some liberals willing to hold the door for them as they exit (as they have threatened to do), most of us don't want them to leave but do want them to be willing to work together for common goals. At the moment, that appears about as likely as snow in a blast furnace, but God can do wonderful things -- even put out blast furnaces or protect those who walk around inside them (a la Shadrach et. cie)

Posted by: mumcat on Sunday, 18 June 2006 at 11:20pm BST

"respect non-liberals enough to allow them to stay with the Anglican Communion"

But what about Non-non-liberals (the vast majority of TEC)? Will they be allowed to stay with the Anglican Communion too? (Respected, even?)

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Sunday, 18 June 2006 at 11:27pm BST

Gracias a Dios! This is huge, this is bigger than HOPE...this is a bonafide Mircle/Blessing! We've been BLESSED AGAIN at TEC and our doors and hearts are opening even wider than before!

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Sunday, 18 June 2006 at 11:58pm BST

No reason to stay on a ship that is breaking into pieces. I should followed my conscience have left years ago.
Rome sweet home.
Bye Bye

Posted by: rizard on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 12:25am BST

Deo Gratias!

Posted by: Robert Zacher on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 12:32am BST

The liberals and centrists in TEC are not, for the most part, for pushing anyone out - it is the very conservative minority who keep threatening to leave. Some of us would, after all their tantrums and threats, not be overly grieved if they did leave. You know: leave the keys on the table and don't let the door slam on your way out. It would be sad and sorry. But I also think that when you keep giving in to bullies, they keep beating you up. Time for that to stop.

Posted by: Cynthia Gilliatt on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 2:19am BST

I attended GC2006 and I'm from Pittsburgh (AKA the land of ++Duncan++). I want to say that if you can't even pray together, to worship the Lord in the same room, there is little hope of finding any common ground.

Dave: My parish has declined membership in the Network. I being the most liberal person in the parish can talk and work with members who as conservative as they come. We pray together, we care for each others families, and we even have coffee and talk. We have a love for Christ as are common bond. We work the food bank, collect clothing for those in need, take up offerings for the women's shelter etc...

Peace, Bob

Posted by: Robert Christian on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 2:32am BST

I think this election is the spoonful of sugar which is going to make the WR medicine go down. GC has been dealing with the resolutions dealing with the WR very slowly. There seems to be some widespread chafing at the recommended resolutions. Now, with a single election, the mood in Columbus seems to have changed. I suspect the remaining resolutions will be passed without significant opposition.

The Network must realize that they've been outflanked.

Posted by: ruidh on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 3:37am BST

I suppose this is the way the Spirit is leading us into the future.

The arguments from tradition, put forward by Rome, just lack that pneumatic or prophetic oomph-factor that kindles spiritual assent.

Everyone will be happy if the Anglican Communion stops wrangling about gays and goes back to wrangling about women!

Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 5:33am BST

Most liberals don't want to dominate the conservatives, for example I recently had a conservative smarmily try to score a point that I was more "well-read" than her when I refused to sign a conservative petition. My response was that the church was big enough to embrace diversity and that we don't have to agree with everyone on everything to equally be brothers and sisters before God.

I also agree with Cynthia's point that bullies will attack those they think can not or will not defend themselves. However, unless they have wound themselves up into an irrational hate frenzy, most bullies will think twice if they think the collatoral damage to themselves will outweight the joy of humiliating another.

I would ideally love to see the church become more diverse and inclusive, but unfortunately there will probably be an element with hardened hearts who would rather split than compromise, lest they be judged and go to hell (their theological mindset, not mine).

And yes, it is wonderful news.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 10:05am BST

dear Robert Christian

This sounds like christianity !
Thank you so much.

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 10:45am BST

I'm reminded of the old New Yorker cartoon. A middle aged couple in the pew. A statue of Buddha on the Altar. The husband, looking at the wife, says, "I swear, Helen; just one more change and I quit!"

Posted by: Find The True Presiding Bishop on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 11:52am BST

Whoever says this is either a bad or a good appointment clearly can't believe in the equality of the sexes. Gender is not a mark of goodness or badnes: we all know that. So how good the appointment is, only time will tell. She can't be intrinsically a bad or good appointment simply by virtue of being a woman, otherwise Minnie Mouse would equally qualify.

In The Times, she is quoted as saying 'our heritage and context shape our theology'. This is too true. It reminds me of the guy I met in the street who hypothesised that Jesus was a chav. Or the blond Jesuses that have emerged from blond cultures. Or the pipe organs imposed on cultures with vibrant musical traditions of their own. In short, we are all inclined to think our own culture is normal. But the job of scholarship is precisely to give the wider horizons and cultural reference that can counteract this limited and limiting tendency. Far from being on the side of scholarship on this point, she seems to be on the side of the uninformed in the street and their projections and eisegeses.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 12:58pm BST

How does 'our heritage and context shape our theology' suddenly become 'she seems to be on the side of the uninformed in the street and their projections and eisegeses'??

Her comment is very accurate and yet is something which "traditionalists" have frequently and spectacularly failed to see in their own theologies.

If you think that your theology is completely unaffected by your heritage and context, that just means you're more than a little unaware (and probably rather naive).

We are ALL affected by context and heritage. The trick is to KNOW this, and so to ensure that the influence is for the good. If you don't know it ( or won't acknowledge it), you're still affected by context and heritage, but in a harmful way - because it is controlling you rather than vice versa.

Posted by: David Chillman on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 3:56pm BST

For me personally, as a person who has known marginalisation in my beginnings & after, it is meaningful and joyous to have women, people of colour, aboringinal pople and lgbt folks included as ministers at all 'levels' and included and honoured in other ways.

As for Buddha on the altar --you should see mine at home ! ----- I love humour and laughter, and value their truths. The inportant thing to me,whether you have Buddhas or anyone else on your altar, is not to miss out on their teachings and resources. Especially something as down to earth and practical for folks of all religions and none, as Buddha's suggestions-- like being aware of your breath, mindfulness, smiling as the 'present moment is a wonderful momenet.

Fr.BEDE Griffiths of the RC denomination had various deities and so on 'his' altar at mass, at his ashram, in India ....

There's nothing to fear, (Jesus & Buddha say this --what a team)......

smile.... breath......
:-)

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 4:01pm BST

"Gracias a Dios! This is huge, this is bigger than HOPE...this is a bonafide Mircle/Blessing! We've been BLESSED AGAIN at TEC and our doors and hearts are opening even wider than before!"


...truly. Matthew 7:13

Posted by: Richard on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 4:29pm BST

Very clever, "Find the True Presiding Bishop"...

...but should a member of the Church of "Mary, Co-Redemptorix" (and the Mexican "Our Lady the Moon-Goddess") really lecture Anglicans on *their* syncretism?

Posted by: Find the Chief Goddess on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 7:07pm BST

JCF wrote: "But what about Non-non-liberals (the vast majority of TEC)? Will they be allowed to stay with the Anglican Communion too?"

Dear JCF, Not if they don't want to be Anglicans (ie stay within the religion defined as "Anglican"). There can't be Unity without agreement on Truth.

I think that what has happened to conservatives within ECUSA over the last few years, and what is now happening *to* ECUSA, clearly demonstrate that if Unity is not defined by Truth it is defined by Power.

Posted by: Dave on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 8:30pm BST

When holding the hands of a group of people who have been abused and repressed, it is important to relish in their early victories. In Australia, most people lauded Cathy Freeman lighting the Olympic flame as she is an Aboriginal icon and role model for countless full- and part-blood Aboriginals. Plus there is the Aussie tendency to barrack for the underdog.

The early leaders have such a hard time, they are more closely scrutinised than their peers or others of their repressed group who come through years later when the controversy is over. Their faults and errors are highlighted and they suffer much more humiliation than people realise - look at Princess Diana's frustration about how the press and some royalists gloated over her early fumblings.

So if we make the effort to cheer a new representative, good on us for showing love. Plus, it reflects that we trust the diocese to have appointed someone they considered capable.

I also note from the links today, that Fort Worth has already asked for alternative communion. So the poor woman is already getting formal rejection signals from one side. So it is politically "incorrect" to affirm her, but it is okay to snub her? Who is showing love to their sister in God and/or their enemies and who isn't? I would rather be guilty of championing and cheering than of sneering and jeering.

Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Monday, 19 June 2006 at 9:07pm BST

This election can be considered a disaster or stroke of genius. It certainly has usurped the attention from the gay issue and the WR.

I want to say to those who already criticising +KJS to give her a chance and offer your support. This is like getting an present in box wrapped in brown paper and saying, "I already don't like it" Mind you, they've have no idea whats in the box. Maybe it's a diamond or better yet a gift from the Holy Spirit.
Some people just need something to be miserable about. I don't think thats what God intended us to be when he breathed life into each of us!

Posted by: Robert Christian on Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 12:20am BST

Hi David C-

I agree up to a point, and also disagree up to a point. Why do I disagree?
(1) Because some people are clearly less culturally bound than others, and, this being the case, we should listen more to those who are less culturally bound, rather than to those who are more culturally bound. It is precisely critical thinkers and scholars who are best in a position to be critical about their own culture, and to judge it in the light of other cultures.
(2) Because I can think of no reason for her to make this (rather obvious) point in the first place unless to indicate that we can learn from our own cultures. True, but a better perspective would be that we can *both* learn from them at times *and* be warned by their failures at other times.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Tuesday, 20 June 2006 at 12:21pm BST

Christopher

What about :

The instability of the signifier ?

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 at 4:32pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.