# A Bishop in Pinstripes!



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

https://imageshack.us*Photograph by Mackenzie Stroh*

*Katharine Jefferts Schori*
*Presiding Bishop **of **the Episcopal Church *
*of the United States of America*​
The above photograph is of the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. Her investiture occurred on November 5th, 2006. She is the first woman to head the Episcopal Church of the United States of America ... moreover, she is the first woman to head _any_ of the 44 member churches of the Anglican Communion. 

While it was the photograph of Bishop Schori wearing pinstripe (or is that chalk stripe?) trousers that first caught my attention -- not surprising given the nature of this website -- I discovered the question and answer session accompanying it to be most interesting as well. I originally planned to include this post as part of another thread, but my thinking now is to start anew. 

*Questions for Katharine Jefferts Schori*
*By Deborah Solomon*
*Photograph by Mackenzie Stroh*

*State of the Church **The new leader of the Episcopal Church talks about squaring evolution with the Bible, why Episcopalians don't have more children and why she loves the word "shalom."*

*You just took office as the first woman to head the Episcopal Church, and curiously enough, you come from a science background, having worked as an oceanographer for years.* *I worked on squids and octopuses. *

*As a scientist with a Ph.D., what do you make of the Christian fundamentalists who say the earth was created in six days and dismiss evolution as a lot of bunk?* _*I think it's a horrendous misunderstanding of both science and active faith tradition. I understand the great creation story in the scientific sense - big bang and evolutionary theory - as the best understanding of how we have come to be what we are: not the meaning behind it, but the process behind it. Genesis is about the meaning behind that.*_

*Your critics see you as an unrepentant liberal who supports the ordination of gay bishops. Are you trying to bolster the religious left? *_*No. We're not about being either left of right. We're about being comprehensive.*_

*How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?* _*About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentage wise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing more children.*_

*Episcopalians aren't interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?* _*No, it's probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not to use more than their share.*_

*You're actually Catholic by birth; your patents joined the Episcopal Church when you were 9. What led them to convert? It was before Vatican II had any influence in local parishes, and I think my parents were looking for a place where wrestling with questions was encouraged rather than discouraged.*

*Have you met Pope Benedict? I have not. I think it would be really interesting.*

*He became embroiled in controversy this fall after suggesting that Muslims have a history of violence. So do Christians! They have a terrible history. Look at the history in the Dark Ages. Charlemagne converted whole tribes by the sword. I think Muslims are poorly understood by the West, and it is easy to latch onto that which we do no understand and demonize it.*

*What do you make of Ted Haggert, who just stepped down as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, after he was accused of cavorting with a gay escort? I think it's very sad. We're always surprised when we see people's clay feet. Our culture seems to delight in exposing them. I think we have a prurient interest in other people's failings.*

*You can't blame the Haggert case on the culture or the media. It isn't a story about sex so much as the disturbing hypocrisy of a church leader. But we're all hypocrites. All of us.*

*You're very forgiving. I like the word "shalom." I use it in all my correspondence, I use it in my sermons, and that's how I sign my e-mails - "shalom." To me it is a concrete reminder of what it is we are all suppose to be about.*

*Because it means peace in Hebrew? It means far more than peace. I think it's a vision of the human community. Those great visions of Isaiah - every person fed, no more strife, the ill are healed, prisoners are released.*

*You were previously Bishop of Nevada, but your new position requires you to live in New York City. Do you and your husband like it here? He is actually in Nevada. He is a retired mathematician. He will be here in New York when it makes sense. *

*I hear you are a pilot.* *I got my license when I was 18.*

*You have many talents. Many crazinesses, many passions.*


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

RSS said:


> https://imageshack.us*Photograph by Mackenzie Stroh*
> 
> *Katharine Jefferts Schori*
> *Presiding Bishop **of **the Episcopal Church *
> *of the United States of America*​


For some reason this photograph puts me in mind of Johnson's famous remark: "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." Female clerics in monotheistic faiths always strike me as incongruous. I guess that comes from reading too much Robert Graves in my youth, with his "There is one story and one story only . . ." obsession. I should say goodbye to all that, but for some reason I can't - as Graves predicted.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Aimee Semple McPherson started the Pentecostal Four Square Church denomination. https://www.foursquare.org/landing_pages/8,3.html

There are a number of other women preachers, too, that are long gone dead. But, I don't know of any of them that would call themselves a Bishop.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

WA said:


> There are a number of other women preachers, too, that are long gone dead. But, I don't know of any of them that would call themselves a Bishop.


WA, the Episcopal Church operates in the Catholic tradition ... however we allow women and the married into the priesthood. She calls herself a bishop as she was elected to the office. And now she has been elected to the office of Presiding Bishop ... the American Church's equal of the Archbishop of Canterbury.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Is she the first one among all the denomination to be elected Bishop?

Women certainly have other talents than men have. And talents are a contribution.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

WA said:


> Is she the first one among all the denomination to be elected Bishop?
> 
> Women certainly have other talents than men have. And talents are a contribution.


No, she is not the first woman elected to the office of bishop. There are at least 12 women holding the office of bishop in the Episcopal Church. In the Anglican Communion's other member churches, I know of three women bishops ... two in Canada and one in New Zealand.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Yet another use for a stroller. Well done.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Concordia said:


> Yet another use for a stroller. Well done.


Pants that go with a stroller would be white, black or grey check or stripes, wouldn't they?

RSS- Is this Episcopal Church the first denomination to have women Bishops? By denominations that would include everything that considers it is Christian.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

There was a famous stagecoach driver who, upon death was discovered to be a woman. From Pirates to Stiesand in Yentle, women assuming male dominated roles is nothing new. That this Bishop isn't going to be burned ( hopefully) like Joan of Arc for wearing men's armor is an ongoing evolution ( oops, THAT WORD AGAIN) in this community of Anglicanism. It seems to me anyone upset or bothered by this should attend to their own affairs first.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> That this Bishop isn't going to be burned ( hopefully) like Joan of Arc for wearing men's armor is an ongoing evolution ( oops, THAT WORD AGAIN) in this community of Anglicanism.


Now,now, Joan of arc wasn't burned for wearing armor; nor for assuming a traditionally male role. Se was burned by the English for being so damn effective at rallying the French. Politics- oops, that word again:icon_smile_big: .

As far as female Espicopalian bishops, if that's what they want, more power to them. It will make future ecumenical talk with the Catholic Church more difficult though, assuming there is still interest in continuing that dialogue.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

WA said:


> Is this Episcopal Church the first denomination to have women Bishops? By denominations that would include everything that considers it is Christian.


The term bishop is used differently by various denominations ... and I cannot speak for all denominations. I can speak only for those with bishops in the catholic sense ... the member churches of the Anglican Communion (sometimes referred to as Anglo-Catholic), the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

To date only a limited number of the member churches of the Anglican Communion allow women to be ordained to the priesthood ... and include those of Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Central America, England, *Hong Kong* (the first to have a woman ordained a priest), Kenya, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand (including Aotearoa & Polynesia), Northern India, Philippines, Rwanda, Scotland, Southern Africa, South India, Sudan, Uganda, the United States, Wales, West Africa, and the West Indies.

Those allowing women to be consecrated bishop include Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Central America, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, *New Zealand and including Aotearoa & Polynesia (the first to have a woman consecrated a bishop)*, Northern India, Philippines, Scotland, Southern Africa, Sudan, and the USA.

The member churches which have actually consecrated a women as bishop include (in the order of election), New Zealand, the USA, and Canada.

The first woman consecrated as a bishop within a church of catholic tradition was Penny Jamieson ... as Bishop of Dunedin.



yachtie said:


> It will make future ecumenical talk with the Catholic Church more difficult ...


 The interest continues ... but lets be honest ... the fact that Anglican priests can marry was already a fairly big issue. We aren't talking merger any time soon.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

Female preachers are irrelevant. I'm not certain why any man in his right mind would give them a serious thought.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Brompton, the Catholic high churches of Rome, Canterbury and Constantinople have a long tradition of women active in church affairs. From the Blessed Mother, virtually ignored in protestant practise to the incredible music and writings of Hildegard Von Bingen, the role of often female monarchs of Great Britain and countless numbers of women in orders or the laity women are very much a part of the church. It is a question to some of us what Jesus established as his church with male disciples as leaders and it's present interpretation. Some might explain it all away as ancient patriarchical socieities vs matriarchal and the few known coarchial systems of power and lineage, or even simple biological fact. Given the horrors of warefare, economics and politics you must either admire or shudder at women wanting any part in it at all.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Concordia said:


> Yet another use for a stroller. Well done.


I rather like the look she has put together. As noted ... it was indeed the photograph -- not the article -- which caught my attention.

However given the darkness of the jacket ... I couldn't make out the detail. I supposed it could be a stroller ... it would certainly work.

As for the trousers, WA ... women have a bit more liberty when putting together their ensemble.

I almost posted the photo on the fashion forum ... but alas the forum is about men's style. Of course she is a woman in a "man's" world.

EDIT: Sometime this year I'm going to add a stroller to my wardrobe.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

RSS, the Catholic Church has in fact accepted a few married anglican priests as converts and priests. They are still married, but obviously at present could not remarry . Othodoxy has a long tradition of married priests. These are issues of import, but not insurmountable in the continuing dialog toward eventual reconciliation and union of christianity.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

SHE? In the military they aren't a sir, madam or miss, but a Major, Commander, General or Admiral. The title is Bishop, pure and simple.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Kav said:


> RSS, the Catholic Church has in fact accepted a few married anglican priests as converts and priests. They are still married, but obviously at present could not remarry . Othodoxy has a long tradition of married priests. These are issues of import, but not insurmountable in the continuing dialog toward eventual reconciliation and union of christianity.


True, I've met a few. The issue of womens ordination to either the priesthood or episcopacy is another matter. One is a dicipline and as such can be amended as you note above. The other is a more radical difference and may not be amenable to compromise since from the Catholic and Orthodox viewpoint a woman can not confect the Eucharist.


----------



## Old Brompton (Jan 15, 2006)

There's a significant difference, I would aver, between women "active in Church affairs" versus women _acting_ as priests and bishops. The Christian (Catholic) Tradition clearly precludes women priests (let alone bishops!). There's absolutely no justification for it. What is more, patriarchical societies are the norm; matriarchical societies are extinct, which in fact is what I would argue is happening to modern European and North American societies.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Old Brompton said:


> Female preachers are irrelevant. I'm not certain why any man in his right mind would give them a serious thought.


A preacher is simply one who delivers an sermon or homily ... essentially a speech. Might you be suggesting that what women have to say is ... well ... irrelevant?

EDIT: The above was written after your first but prior to my seeing your second post. I now realize that you're reference to preacher was more the protestant view as church leader.



Kav said:


> RSS, the Catholic Church has in fact accepted a few married anglican priests as converts and priests. They are still married, but obviously at present could not remarry . Othodoxy has a long tradition of married priests. These are issues of import, but not insurmountable in the continuing dialog toward eventual reconciliation and union of christianity.


 Kav, I didn't mean to suggest that the ordination of women to the priesthood didn't complicate the road to reconciliation ... it certainly did. My talk of marriage was just my cavalier way of saying ... it's not the only issue. Moreover, I agree that the marriage issue is not insurmountable ... but as far as the RCC & AC are concerned, it's unlikely to be resolved in the near future.

But women in the priesthood is becoming a hot topic in the Roman Catholic Church. Who knows what will happen down the road.

Regarding SHE: Yes, the title is bishop pure and simple. However, when it comes to clothing ... you can't really ignore gender. Well, one can ... but that's another matter.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> But women in the priesthood is becoming a hot topic in the Roman Catholic Church. Who knows what will happen down the road.


Hot in the press (where it sells magazines)- stone cold dead in the Curia (where it matters).

Married priests is still getting some discussion and will get more as the Eastern churches get closer to Rome.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Old Brompton said:


> There's absolutely no justification for it.


There's absolutely no justification against it.


yachtie said:


> Hot in the press (where it sells magazines)- stone cold dead in the Curia (where it matters).


 It is a hot topic among some of your membership. But I'm talking future ... not today ... not anytime soon. I realize change comes slowly.

Lets leave the press out ... if anyone gets it wrong ... it's the press. Every article I've seen about me or my work gets at least half or more of it wrong. I can only assume that is true for everything else.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> It is a hot topic among some of your membership.


Almost exclusively older members though ( and a rather small, albeit noisy, number at that). The young'uns raised under JPII are a generally more conservative bunch. Between the kids and the hierarchy,that's why I don't think it'll go anywhere. Remember JPII nixed the idea as being impossible without changing the Deposit of Faith, which can't happen. I too think we'll have to wait this out (just a few more centuries)



> Lets leave the press out ... if anyone gets it wrong ... it's the press. Every article I see about me or my work gets at least half or more of it wrong.


Only _half_ wrong? They must _really _be paying attention! LOL:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

yachtie said:


> Married priests is still getting some discussion and will get more as the Eastern churches get closer to Rome.


Yes, I think this is related to the issue of why the idea of a rapprochement to the Episcopal/Anglican Church is not to be take too seriously. I think the Catholic Church is far more interested in rebuilding relations with the 250 million member Eastern Orthodox church than with the 80 million member Anglican communion. Given the doctrinal "mobility" of the British/Canadian/American Anglican/Episcopal churches since the 1970s, closer ties with them is probably more likely to offend the Eastern Churches than anything else and make closer relations with the Eastern Orthodox church impossible. It makes more sense for the Catholic Church to approach the Eastern Orthodox church and let the Anglican communion implode (as it seems to be doing), leaving it's more conservative members the opportunity to join the Catholic Church on its terms. There is far more difference between Episcopal doctrine and Roman Catholicism than there is between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. There's little to be gained by the Roman Catholic church in trying to reach a substantive ecumenical understanding with the Anglican communion and much more to be gained in healing the ancient rift between the Western and Eastern churches.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Rocker said:


> I think the Catholic Church is far more interested in rebuilding relations with the 250 million member Eastern Orthodox church than with the 80 million member Anglican communion.


I am not in disagreement with you.



Rocker said:


> ... let the Anglican communion implode (as it seems to be doing), leaving it's more conservative members the opportunity to join the Catholic Church on its terms.


Given the division in the Anglican Communion, the _"conservatives"_ are going to leave, most of us have no doubt. The only question is when. Frankly, there is only one reason they are waiting ... and that has to do with money and property.

Moreover, given their objections to women (and homosexuality) in the church, it would leave one to believe that it will be easier for those in schism from the Anglican Communion to join with Rome.

Thomas Bushnell, BSG sums it up rather well ... but before I quote from him, I note for those unfamiliar ... Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury ... Peter Akinola (Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria) is threatening schism in the Anglican Communion ... Robert Ducan and Jack Iker are bishops threatening schism in the Episcopal Church.

*From:* *What Would +Rowan Do?* 
*by Thomas Bushnell, BSG*

_Suppose Peter Akinola comes to Rowan Williams tomorrow and says: "Tell the Episcopal Church that they are no longer in communion with you, or else we will say we are no longer in communion with Canterbury." What would +Rowan do? We already know; he'd say, "Good bye, and godspeed; we're sorry to see you go, Peter." Suppose Robert Duncan comes to Rowan Williams tomorrow and says: "Tell the Episcopal Church that they are no longer in communion with you, but that you are in communion with this new organization Jack Iker and I have set up, or else we will say we are no longer in communion with Canterbury." What would +Rowan do? We already know; he'd say, "Good bye, and godspeed; we're sorry to see you go, Bob._

_...there is no reason to think anything other than the following. If there are to be two communions, and each province votes which it will be in, we can already line up pretty much every province (with a few uncertain cases) and see where it will be. And we know, with dead certainty, that the Church of England, the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of Wales, and the Episcopal Church of Scotland (and plenty others) will all be in the same group when push comes to shove._

_In the United States, Canada, and Great Britain, a small minority will leave, take as many toys as they can get their hands on, form jurisdictions, and join up with the new "continuing Anglican communion," in opposition to the actual See of Canterbury. They will claim, as continuing Anglicans always have, to be "continuing Anglicans" in some curious sense in which "continuing" means "in schism" and "Anglican" means "not connected to the Archbishop of Canterbury."_

_Duncan and Iker are smart men, and they know as well as I do that this is the upshot when all the dust finally settles. This means that all their noise is not an attempt to achieve some other (essentially impossible) result, but rather an attempt to simply carry away as many toys as they can in the end. It is up to the rest of us, who don't intend any leaving, to decide how many toys we are willing to let them steal._


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Actually, most episcopalians like myself when deciding to leave join the orthodox church, which currently is enjoying the highest rate of new membership of all churches in the US to date. And while matriarch societies are in great decline, they are not extinct. And it doesn't take an anthropologist to realise women can yield vast and subtle power far beyond cookie sales at church festivals.


----------



## AOI Photo (Dec 19, 2006)

RSS said:


> I
> _Duncan and Iker are smart men,_


Well +Duncan is. Living in the Diocese next door to +Iker, I have my doubts.
That is not a dig at his honestly held (though in my view wrong) beliefs, but he is much less skillfull in the political arena than +Duncan, or +Stanton for that matter.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I left the Episcopal Church when it commenced ordaining women in 1977 and remained very active in the Traditional Anglican movement for about 14 years after that. (I am proud to say that I played a key role in winning a valuable piece of ecclesiastical property away from the Episcopal Church.)

I think Rocker's assessment about Anglican-Roman relations are pretty much spot-on. I think the likelihood of any kind of union between the Roman Catholic Church and the mainstream Anglican Communion is about on the same level of probability as the conversion of the Islamic world to Christianity.

Someone earlier stated that "Anglo-Catholic" was a synonym for "Anglican." This is incorrect. The Anglo-Catholics were and are a party within the Anglican Communion. The position was (and I suppose still is) that it is possible to practice the full Catholic faith within the "big tent" of Anglicanism as a sort of non-Papal Catholicism analogous to the Orthodox in the east. The intellectual weakness of the position was that it involved a willingness to coexist with perceived heresy, either in the form of classical protestantism or in later years with Unitarians in vestments. Eventually, in the USA and the other churches of the Anglican communion when the ordination of women was adopted, it became an intellectually intolerable position.

His Holiness Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders invalid in his famous encyclical "Apostolicae Curae" because of a "defect of intention"--that the Anglican ordinal did not intend to ordain priests in the historic sense that the Church had understood the term. Cogent arguments can be and have many times been raised against Pope Leo's position. However, it seems to me that with the ordination of women, the mainstream Anglican bodies that do so have formally repudiated the Apostolic Ministry of the historic Church, and at least in my opinion, the validity (from a Traditional Anglican perspective) of even men ordained by these organizations must be highly suspect.

Arguments against ordination of women, briefly summarized:

It is contrary to Dominical Institution: Jesus Christ limited his apostles to men. (Catholic doctrine is that the bishops are the successors to the apostles and receive the Holy Spirit bestowed upon them at Pentecost through consecration by other bishops going back to the apostles. Some theologians argue that presbyters (priests) share these gifts. In the late Middle Ages, there were arch-priests who performed sacramental duties--ordination, confirmation--limited to bishops today.) Some have argued the ordination of women is an affront to the Blessed Mother since she was part of his following, yet he did not make her an Apostle.

It is also contrary to Catholic and Apostolic practice and Church tradition. The RC and Orthodox Churches have never and obviously have no immediate intention of ordaining women. No Anglican body did so until the 1970s. By surrendering to an essentially secular and trendy feminist movement, the Episcopal Church and other Anglican bodies in all probably forfeited both any claim to be part of the historic church founded by Jesus Christ and continued through Apostolic Succession as well as any possibility of corporate re-union with either the RC Church or the Orthodox--the other major bodies regarded as "Catholic" by High Anglican Theologians.

There are also more "mystical" arguments against the ordination of women--that the priest stands as an "alter Christus" in offering up the sacrifice of the Mass, and having a woman attempt to do this is like having crucifix with a nude women in place of an image of Our Saviour. 

As to the question of whether there will be a vast schism in the Episcopal Church, I doubt it. Most Americans are too theologically unsophisticated to care about such matters, and most of those Episcopalians who did care left a long time ago--either to Traditional Anglican bodies, the RC Church, the Orthodox, even to conservative protestant bodies, and a good many probably just drifted away.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

JLibourel said:


> I left the Episcopal Church when it commenced ordaining women in 1977 and remained very active in the Traditional Anglican movement for about 14 years after that. (I am proud to say that I played a key role in winning a valuable piece of ecclesiastical property away from the Episcopal Church.)


If it makes you happy ... then I'm happy for you.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Curious how some things come full circle. I think most everyone of european heritage can trace families who somewhere in the mists of time were converts to christianity and on to the great schism of 'east' and 'west' and then the rise of protestantism. If the myriad of 'churches' springing to life with often more absurd beginnings than the gods of ancient Greece aren't satisfactory there are even the sad, ersatz neo pagans recreating a fairyland mythos unrecognisable to Julius Caesar or C. Evans- Wentz. I truly , deeply appreciate the grounding my Angican association gave me. But in the end it was a single man's desires, even if he was a king, which created it. And with every change it became yet another man, or woman's desire and convenience. Episcopalians are hardly a Doctor Gene Scott, glaring silent into the T.V. camera for minutes because the donations for his saddlebred horses, wine, cigars and his 'superior biblical intellect' weren't matching those rival preachers he envied. But a pluralist democracy christianity was not. And in their generous but flawed ideology of embracing all, the episcopalians have closed their arms on air like a maiden aunt wishing to chill the arteries of grandnieces and nephews with kisses nightmares are made of. My motives for conversion were truthfully twofold. A long period of study and consideration was given impetus by a romanian girlfriend. But there I was, like the true Peter played by Robin Williams in HOOK was first recognised by one of the LOST BOYS. Past excommunicated Catholic IRA men turned C of I, Dutch and german lutherans once catholics and on back to some reindeer hunters painting Elephants in France if I looked deep enough. But for me, there it was again like the forever boy Pan: What I accept as the church of apostolic succession and some truly simple notions of belief and behavior that work for me. Not what I determine will work at my convenience. 



kisses


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

JLibourel - very interesting. There are number of RC's here that believe in macro-evolution. Has any Pope said that macro-evolution is true? When you mentioned the Unitarians (humanist, not Christians) my thoughts went 'the American Episcopal Church seems very much humanist and not Christians'. From Scott I get the impression that Christ is whatever Episcopal's will Christ to be, so Christ in New Testament is not the same Christ they have. And Christ never changes, being the Truth. Whereas, the Episcopal's Christ changes to how they wish.

Kav - I don't believe I ever said in any threads here that those that believe in macro-evolution are going to hell, but it seems silly for anybody to believe in it. For me, if God is the Creator of physics, why would he be bound by it, the angles aren't.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

*Please, I started this thread ... no talk of evolution* ... take it back to the other thread ... there's plenty about it there. I really don't want this one to degenerate as the other did. Nothing personal, WA ... I just want to avoid the horrible comments (yours were not but some of the others' were) which occurred in that thread. 

As for *JLibourel's* and *Kav's* posts, I look forward to responding. I'm away much of today and tomorrow ... but I'll be back. 

As for *JLibourel's* comment:



JLibourel said:


> Most Americans are too theologically unsophisticated to care about such matters, and most of those Episcopalians who did care left a long time ago--either to Traditional Anglican bodies, the RC Church, the Orthodox, even to conservative protestant bodies, and a good many probably just drifted away.


Yes, the majority of Americans are theologically unsophisticated. The the comment _*"Episcopalians who did care left"*_ is just *sanctimonious bull* (pun intended) ... a bit in the David Virtue tradition. As for where those who left went ... you're probably correct.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

RSS said:


> Given the division in the Anglican Communion, the _"conservatives"_ are going to leave, most of us have no doubt. The only question is when. Frankly, there is only one reason they are waiting ... and that has to do with money and property.


Well, that is in the fine tradition of the Anglican church, isn't it? Wasn't that what motivated the dissolution of the monasteries and the state seizure of Church property by the head of the Anglican Church, Henry VIII (i.e., the gain of property and money?) I'm sure the dissenting Episcopal bishops who break with Canterbury will enjoy a better fate than did Bishop John Fisher. :icon_smile:


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

RSS said:


> As for *JLibourel's* comment:
> 
> Yes, the majority of Americans are theologically unsophisticated. The the comment _*"Episcopalians who did care left"*_ is just *sanctimonious bull* (pun intended) ... a bit in the David Virtue tradition. As for where those who left went ... you're probably correct.


Perhaps my phraseology was a bit wanting. Let me clarify it by saying that "most Episcopalians who did care about theology and found such changes offensive left." Obviously, a large faction within the Episcopal Church adopted a liberal, progressive, humanistic interpretation of Christianity. This is a perfectly legitimate intellectual position that many intelligent and decent people have adopted. I am sure the Rev. Mrs. Schori is a highly capable woman. As I recall, she only took 14 years from her ordination as a priestess to becoming the presiding bishopess (if there is such a word). And this is indeed the faction that triumphed in the Episcopal Church 30 years ago. Episcopalians of traditional leanings have been doing nothing but fighting rear-guard actions ever since.

The liberal humanists have done a very thorough job, I'll have to admit: They have junked the historic ministry of the apostolic church in favor of contemporary feminist ideology.

They have jettisoned the linguistic and liturgical treasures of the Anglican Tradition--the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer--in an effort to be more trendy.

Most recently they have flouted the most explicit teaching of Holy Writ--both the Old and the New Testaments--on homosexuality.

I suppose it really boils down to your view of religion--whether you view it as maintaining a right relationship with a transcendant personal God who has revealed Himself and His Will to mankind in certain ways or whether it is just a matter of being nice, kind, concerned and caring. In the latter case, I can and do strive to be all those things, and one can do so very nicely without a lot of pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo, unless you really get off on bake sales, rummage sales, pot luck suppers, clean-up days and the other appurtenances of parish life that I always found thoroughly dismal.

This may explain why, as the population of this country doubled, the membership of the Episcopal Church dropped from a nominal 3.5 million to a very optimistic 2.2 million.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Rocker said:


> Well, that is in the fine tradition of the Anglican church, isn't it?


Actually our approach is in Anglican tradition. We've made it clear that the Churches and Bishops threatening schism are welcome to remain. But the only way they will remain is if the remainder of the Anglican Communion gives into their ultimatum. They are saying ... "We want everyone forced to do it our way ... or we won't stay."

Rocker, for those who are leaving ... it's really in their hands. We haven't asked them to leave ... it is their choice.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

JLibourel said:


> Perhaps my phraseology was a bit wanting. Let me clarify it by saying that "most Episcopalians who did care about theology and found such changes offensive left."


Thank you for clarifying. I withdraw my reference to David Virtue ... you are far too much the gentleman.



JLibourel said:


> They have jettisoned the linguistic and liturgical treasures of the Anglican Tradition--the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer--in an effort to be more trendy.


I'm hardly thrilled with the 1976 Prayer Book. I still find myself accidentally slipping into the 1928 Prayer Book. Well, sometimes it's not accidentally. Heck at Evensong, I've found myself thinking "Queen" rather than "State." Now that is going back to a "real" Prayer Book. Of course, the Anglicans (particularly the ECUSA and the C of E) have most certainly kept our tradition of worship through great music ... which the Romans seem to have jettisoned.



JLibourel said:


> I suppose it really boils down to your view of religion--whether you view it as maintaining a right relationship with a transcendant personal God who has revealed Himself and His Will to mankind in certain ways or whether it is just a matter of being nice, kind, concerned and caring.


 This depends on two assumptions, 1) that God stopped revealing truth at some point (okay, the Bible is finished, Good Bye) and 2) that being nice, kind, concerned and caring is at odds with God's intent and is the only thing about which Episcopalians care.



JLibourel said:


> This may explain why, as the population of this country doubled, the membership of the Episcopal Church dropped from a nominal 3.5 million to a very optimistic 2.2 million.


 Bigger is not always better or right ... were it ... we'd have no reason to support Savile Row and Naples. Uhhh ... just to bring the topic back to the subject of AAAC. Now ... back to the subject at hand ... as Schori says -- and from what I see -- Episcopalians tend to have smaller families ... with few to no children. Given the state of the world ... I certainly elected to have none.

Now, I've got to get some work done ... and call Wippell's to order a new Verger's wand ... but I do want to return -- when I have time -- to properly address your comments about apostolic succession as well as the arguments you cite against the ordination of women. I also want to address Kav's comments about the Church of England and the Anglican Communion _"... in the end it was a single man's desires, even if he was a king, which created it. And with every change it became yet another man, or woman's desire and convenience."_ A lot of what both of you say requires one having made significant presumptions about the founding of the Anglican Church, about the establishment of The Roman Catholic Church as well as its guidance under the Bishop of Rome.

So fellows, I'll be back to say more ... perhaps too much (so what's new). And when I finish ... we'll all still be where we were when we started this discussion. Some of us have obviously given serious thought to where we are ... and we like it. And I certainly want to ensure that we're each allowed to remain there when it comes to freedom of religion in this country.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

RSS, it is very obvious to me that you are a real gentleman in the gracious Anglican tradition. 

In fairness, I will have to concede that the God of contemporary Anglican theology, as exemplified by the Right Rev. Mrs. Schori, is probably a more benign and, in many ways, more attractive (if somewhat amorphous and ill-defined) entity than the rigid, patriarchal, punitive God of more orthodox Christian theology.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

All the more reason I'm really glad not to have a dog in this fight.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

RSS said:


> This depends on two assumptions, 1) that God stopped revealing truth at some point (okay, the Bible is finished, Good Bye) and 2) that being nice, kind, concerned and caring is at odds with God's intent and is the only thing about which Episcopalians care.


Yes, well, what's odd is that God has revealed his "truth" to a ridiculously small minority of members of the Anglican communion (let alone the Christian community) who probably disproportionately drives Volvos, patronize boutique coffee shops, and go "antiquing" on weekends. What's odder still is that this "truth" should only have been revealed in the last 30 or so years, that it runs contrary to the "truth" claimed by the Episcopal church for the previous 400 or so years of its existence (or 2,000 years, if one insists), and is so in-line with modern, "progressive" social thought. This oddity is compounded by the fact the Episcopal church alleges that it honors faith, tradition, and scripture - yet it has clearly made a break with its approximate 400 year tradition and the clear understanding of the scripture for the same period of time.

When Episcopal bishops and priests are unwilling to affirm even basic, traditional creeds and doctrines, or worse, yet, openly attack their truth or validity - the truth of which was asserted and affirmed by the Episcopal Church - how is one to know what truth, if any, resides there?

It may be true, as a result of Vatican II and its consequent liturgical reforms, that, as you wrote earlier, " . . .the Anglicans (particularly the ECUSA and the C of E) have most certainly kept our tradition of worship through great music ... which the Romans seem to have jettisoned." But the important issue is that while the Episcopal church may have retained the traditions of the theatrics of the liturgy (vestments, music), it has clearly broken with both its historical/traditional understanding and teachings regarding scripture, morality, and Jesus and while some of the externals of the Catholic liturgy have changed (e.g. latin mass), the Catholic church has remained steadfast in its teaching and its historical understanding of truth in the face of the cultural forces/trends to which the Episcopal church seems only too willing to surrender to, or to adopt and further the modern zeitgeist.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

xxxxxx


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Ah, but, dear Rocker, it may be cogently argued that both the liberal Christians (not just in the Episcopal Church) and the RC Church have more in common with each other than you might like to suppose. Much of this idea of "progressive revelation" and the idea that the Holy Spirit was continuously leading us into new truths was very ably articulated by His Eminence John Henry Cardinal Newman in works like "The Development of Christian Doctrine" to justify what Anglican critics regarded as Roman Catholic "accretions" to the historic faith of the Church.

It was certainly the unanimous doctrine of the Fathers of the early Church that all doctrine necessary to salvation was contained in Holy Scripture. This was particularly articulated to oppose the fantastic speculations of the Gnostics and such. 

Is there that much difference in the RC doctrine that the Holy Spirit has led the Church into proclaiming such beliefs that are clearly not found in Scripture, such as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility and the Assumption, as dogmas necessary to salvation and the liberals' claiming that the Spirit has led them to do a 180 on questions such as the female ministry and homosexuality?

Oh, I might also mention, since you are one of the people who brought it up, that really the whole business of Henry VIII's schism and the ascendancy of Protestantism under Edward VI, are really immaterial to the story of the separation of the Church of England and the Church of Rome since the Church in England was restored to full communion and obedience to the Holy See under Queen Mary. The actual break occurred after Elizabeth I and her ecclesiastical advisors attempted to formulate a compromise settlement which could embrace Henrician Catholics and moderate Calvinists in one national church. This was quite unacceptable to the Pope, obviously, who excommunicated Elizabeth and absolved her subjects from loyalty in the bull Regnans in Excelsis in 1571.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Good point JLibourel. I think, though, the test for the legitmacy of a progressive revelation might be whether it adds to revelation without being contradictory to previous understanding and teaching versus whether it is a complete about face on previously accepted doctrine/teaching.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Rocker said:


> *Yes, well, what's odd is that God has revealed his "truth" to a ridiculously small minority of members of the Anglican communion (let alone the Christian community) who probably disproportionately drives Volvos, patronize boutique coffee shops, and go "antiquing" on weekends.*


Rocker ... I never suggested anything of the sort.

However, that once sentence tells me quite a lot. You seen to feel a need to insult others. You just have to sling mud. And what I find even more interesting is your certainty that sentence expresses an insult. How arrogant.

When you can express yourself without adding what you perceive to be an insult, I'll consider responding. But until then, I have no intention of addressing you, period.

Just consider the sanctimony of it. Your way is the only way ... and all others must be put in their place ... must be insulted.

I have a couple of questions for you. Does insulting another make your belief more valid? What is the point of your insult?

I used to enjoy AskAndy ... it was a nice diversion from work & my vocation as a verger. But I just don't have the time or the willingness to subject myself to your effete attempts at wit. At the risk of being less than a gentleman ... frankly (my dear) I don't give a damn. Have at it! I refuse stick around simply so that you can attempt insult.

When I do have time ... I still plan to address JLibourel and Kav. I also want to thank Concordia for his kind comment. And, WA, I may not always agree with you ... but you are always a nice fellow.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Honestly, didn't think anything I said was insulting. It was your own Bishop Schori, according to your first post, who said Episcopalians were better educated than other denominations and implied that while Episcopalians "encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not to use more than their share [whatever the hell that means]" Catholics and Mormon were out there ignoring the earth and stewardship and breeding like rabbits - talk about sanctimony!

If you find characterizing Episcopalians who have favored the radical changes in doctrine over the last 35 years as people "who probably disproportionately drive Volvos, patronize boutique coffee shops, and go "antiquing" on weekends" to be some scathing insult, I think you are a bit thinned skin. As it so happens, I know a number of Episcopalians who meet all three criteria (well, actually - one of them drives a Mercedes).


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

Rocker said:


> I think you are a bit thinned skin.


Some simply can't write without attempting insult. I'm sitting here grinning from ear to ear. It came even faster than I expected.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again.

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again. 

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again.

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again. 

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again.

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again. 

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again.

I promise never to talk anything other than clothing on AAAC ever again.

Hopefully this thread will be locked for all eternity.


----------

