First female Anglican leader prepares to weather the storm
-28/06/06
By Simon Barro
First female Anglican leader prepares to weather the storm
-28/06/06
By Simon Barrow
While the 77 million Anglican Communion absorbs the latest documentary quest for reconciliation from its spiritual head, Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, one woman is keeping a relatively low profile ñ probably in anticipation of the coming storm.
US Episcopal Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori was recently elected the first-ever female head of an Anglican province, and achieved global publicity for becoming (technically on 4 November 2006) the highest-ranking woman priest in the world.
It is a far cry from the relative obscurity of Nevada, where she serves her episcopal title. And it pitches this thoughtful woman headlong into the global Anglican row about authority, decision-making, sexuality and gender.
But Jefferts Schori doesnít look likely to buckle. In the aftermath of her election during the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA, she remained un-swayed both by the euphoria of many and the annoyance of a few ñ brushing aside a press conference attempt to put her at odds with the entire ëGlobal Southí on the issue of gay Bishop Gene Robinson, but also voting for a ëwait and watchí compromise resolution about refraining from further controversial ordinations.
The Bishop of Nevada also preached a coherent and quietly inspirational closing sermon, and demonstrated a good line in self-deprecation and gentle irony when interviewed. ìWhen I was growing up, girls didn’t aspire to such things. Girls sang in the choir.î
As commentators are quick to point out, Jefferts Schoriís new place within the Anglican leadership highlights the discord and fault lines which have developed, in fits and starts, ever since the first ordination of an Anglican women priest, Florence Li Tim-Oi, in 1944 in Hong Kong.
The current rules throughout the Communion now range from full rejection of women in holy orders to full acceptance. Nigeria and Sydney are united in not ordaining women, for example. But the United States, Canada and New Zealand permit women to be bishops, with England discussing the issue at its forthcoming Synod. Africa and Asia are divided. It isnít a simple ëWest versus the restí split, as some like to pretend.
The underlying issue is not (explicitly, anyway) gender but authority. Hard-line evangelicals say the Bible forbids women ëheadshipí within the church, while hard-line catholics say a woman cannot represent Christ at the altar.
Those who hold a different view (by no means all ëliberalsí) say that the trajectory of the Gospel message is clearly towards the breaking down of barriers of gender and culture in the new community of Christ, and that rejectionist texts are part of an argument that finally goes against their prohibitions within the New Testament.
Similarly, progressive catholics say that Jesus Christ, in taking us to the very heart of God, transcends in his flesh the limitations of ours ñ including gender.
Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori cut to the core of those concerns with a brief aside in her ECUSA sermon last week ñ when she referred to ëChrist our motherí.
Immediately denounced as a heretical modernist in a media environment where rhetoric often trumps knowledge, she pointed out that she was in fact quoting an ancient and respected source, the saintly Julian of Norwich. And that even the Hebrew Scriptures depict God as a ëmother hení.
The point, her supporters say, is that taking gender language of any kind ëliterallyí when it comes to God is a category mistake, and that such stultifying literalism is a peculiarly modern disease. It occurred in earlier times, but was only deified when the ideology of fundamentalism colonized the biblical text in a way which is actually alien to its poetry and variety.
The tradition is much richer than some ëtraditionalistsí allow, in other words.
While the harbingers of doom in the matter of Jefferts Schoriís election are not hard to find, a Vatican spokesperson said last week that having a woman as presiding bishop (a kind of coordinator among equals) does not change the existing argument about women and ordination fundamentally.
And Christina Rees, chair of Women And The Church
and a member of the General Synod of the Church of England, offers ñ perhaps unsurprisingly ñ a much more upbeat interpretation of the Bishop of Nevadaís ascendancy, writing in the otherwise conservative Church of England Newspaper this week.
She comments: ìBishop Schori was an oceanographer before she became ordained. She will be able to provide valuable knowledge and insight to the wider Churchesí response to the increasingly important issues of the environment, and she will be able to engage with these issues both as a Christian and as a scientist. As an oceanographer, her natural instincts will be to think globally, to consider the whole, rather than just the parts of any issue or dilemma, which is good news, not just for ECUSA, but also for the entire breadth of the Anglican Communion.î
Says Rees: ìShe will be accustomed to thinking and dealing with issues of complexity, diversity and interdependence. Contrary to what some commentators have been saying, Bishop Schori will be a unifying figure for her own Church and for many across the Anglican Communion. One eyewitness at the General Convention .. reported a tense, dreary, lack-lustre atmosphere which, at the news of her election, erupted spontaneously into ëunrestrained delightí by the majority of those present. Perhaps the Spirit of God who was moving over the waters in creation is still moving over the somewhat murkier waters of Church governance.î
In terms of the Church of England, Ms Rees adds: ìBishop Schoriís election is also extremely good news for our own Church. In just over a fortnight General Synod will be debating whether having women as bishops is ëconsonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh in this generation the grace and truth of Christí.
She concludes: ìThe Church of England has been debating this for nearly 30 yearsÖ We can be faithful by not unduly delaying this decision nor by deflecting our focus disproportionately towards those who cannot accept this as Godís call. Of course, we will need to work out arrangements for those who will not want the ministry of their bishop if she is female.î
Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori preached the homily at the Closing Eucharist of the General Convention in Columbus, Ohio on 21 June 2006. Her theme was ëGrow in All Things into Christí, and her lectionary texts were Colossians 1.11-20, Canticle 18 and St John 18. 33-37.
Her message, reproduced in full below, was described by one conference deputy ñ who admitted he remained nervous about the wider reaction to Jefferts Schoriís election, as ìa real ray of hope.î
He told Ekklesia: ìTo characterize what she represents as ëliberalí or to denounce it because you think of yourself as ëconservativeí is to miss whatís on offer here. I was quietly inspired. Maybe God is doing a new thing which actually makes sense of a lot of the stuff heís done before ñ and weíre too busy bruising each other to notice. That would be a real tragedy.î
Bishop Jefferts Schoriís homily
This last Sunday morning I woke very early, while it was still dark. I wanted to go for a run, but I had to wait until there was enough light to see. When the dawn finally began, I ventured out. It was warm, and still, and very quiet, and the clouds were just beginning to show tinges of pink. I ran by the back of the Hyatt just as two workers were coming out one of the service doors. They were startled, I’m afraid, but I nodded at them, and they responded. I went west over the freeway, and encountered a man I’d seen here in the Convention Center. Neither of us stopped, but we did say a quiet good morning. Then I found a lovely green park, and started around it. There was a man with a reflective vest, standing in the street by some orange cones, as though he were waiting for a run or a parade to begin. I said good morning, and he responded in kind. Around the corner I came to a bleary-eyed fellow with several bags who looked like he’d just risen from sleeping rough. I said good morning to him too, but I must admit I went past him in the street instead of on the sidewalk. Then I met a rabbit hopping across the sidewalk, and though we didn’t use words, one of us eyed the other with more than a bit of wariness. Around another corner, a woman was delivering Sunday papers from her car. She was wary too, and didn’t get out of her car with the next paper until I was a long way past her. Back over the freeway, and a block later, two guys seemingly on their early way to work. We nodded at each other.
As I returned to my hotel, I reflected on all those meetings. There was some degree of wariness in most of them. There were small glimpses of a reconciled world in our willingness to greet each other. But the unrealized possibility of a real relationship – whether in response of wariness, or caution, or fear – meant that we still had a very long way to go.
Can we dream of a world where all creatures, human and not, can meet each other in a stance that is not tinged with fear?
When Jesus says that his kingdom is not of this world, he is saying that his rule is not based on the ability to generate fear in his subjects. A willingness to go to the cross implies a vulnerability so radical, so fundamental, that fear has no impact or import. The love he invites us to imitate removes any possibility of reactive or violent response. King Jesus’ followers don’t fight back when the world threatens. Jesus calls us friends, not agents of fear.
If you and I are going to grow in all things into Christ, if we’re going to grow up into the full stature of Christ, if we are going to become the blessed ones God called us to be while we were still in our mothers’ wombs, our growing will need to be rooted in a soil of internal peace. We’ll have to claim the confidence of souls planted in the overwhelming love of God, a love so abundant, so profligate, given with such unwillingness to count the cost, that we, too, are caught up into a similar abandonment.
That full measure of love, pressed down and overflowing, drives out our idolatrous self-interest. Because that is what fear really is – it is a reaction, an often unconscious response to something we think is so essential that it takes the place of God. “Oh, that’s mine and you can’t take it, because I can’t live without it” – whether it’s my bank account or theological framework or my sense of being in control. If you threaten my self-definition, I respond with fear. Unless, like Jesus, we can set aside those lesser goods, unless we can make “peace through the blood of the cross.”
That bloody cross brings new life into this world. Colossians calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn from the dead. That sweaty, bloody, tear-stained labour of the cross bears new life. Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation – and you and I are His children. If we’re going to keep on growing into Christ-images for the world around us, we’re going to have to give up fear.
What do the godly messengers say when they turn up in the Bible? “Fear not.” “Don’t be afraid.” “God is with you.” “You are God’s beloved, and God is well-pleased with you.”
When we know ourselves beloved of God, we can begin to respond in less fearful ways. When we know ourselves beloved, we can begin to recognize the beloved in a homeless man, or rhetorical opponent, or a child with AIDS. When we know ourselves beloved, we can even begin to see and reach beyond the defence of others.
Our invitation, both in the last work of this Convention, and as we go out into the world, is to lay down our fear and love the world. Lay down our sword and shield, and seek out the image of God’s beloved in the people we find it hardest to love. Lay down our narrow self-interest, and heal the hurting and fill the hungry and set the prisoners free. Lay down our need for power and control, and bow to the image of God’s beloved in the weakest, the poorest, and the most excluded.
We children can continue to squabble over the inheritance. Or we can claim our name and heritage as God’s beloveds and share that name, beloved, with the whole world.
[Also on Ekklesia: Archbishop sees covenant not contract as Anglican way forward 27/06/06; Ecumenism not hit by woman presiding bishop, say observers 23/06/06; US Episcopal Church turns down ban on gay bishops 21/06/06; Joy greets the first-ever Anglican woman leader 19/06/06; Don’t practice divisive religion, UN man tells Episcopalians 18/06/06; Worrying new Anglican dispute about David Beckham 19/06/06 Inclusive Church reports on key US Episcopal gathering 16/06/06; Episcopal Church USA faces pressure on Anglican gay split; Lord Carey says ordaining a gay bishop verges on heresy; Conservative Episcopalians break away ahead of Eames report; African bishops say Windsor Report is offensive; Windsor Report does not call for apology; Episcopal bishop rejects Nigerian criticism on gays]
First female Anglican leader prepares to weather the storm
-28/06/06
By Simon Barrow
While the 77 million Anglican Communion absorbs the latest documentary quest for reconciliation from its spiritual head, Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, one woman is keeping a relatively low profile ñ probably in anticipation of the coming storm.
US Episcopal Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori was recently elected the first-ever female head of an Anglican province, and achieved global publicity for becoming (technically on 4 November 2006) the highest-ranking woman priest in the world.
It is a far cry from the relative obscurity of Nevada, where she serves her episcopal title. And it pitches this thoughtful woman headlong into the global Anglican row about authority, decision-making, sexuality and gender.
But Jefferts Schori doesnít look likely to buckle. In the aftermath of her election during the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA, she remained un-swayed both by the euphoria of many and the annoyance of a few ñ brushing aside a press conference attempt to put her at odds with the entire ëGlobal Southí on the issue of gay Bishop Gene Robinson, but also voting for a ëwait and watchí compromise resolution about refraining from further controversial ordinations.
The Bishop of Nevada also preached a coherent and quietly inspirational closing sermon, and demonstrated a good line in self-deprecation and gentle irony when interviewed. ìWhen I was growing up, girls didn’t aspire to such things. Girls sang in the choir.î
As commentators are quick to point out, Jefferts Schoriís new place within the Anglican leadership highlights the discord and fault lines which have developed, in fits and starts, ever since the first ordination of an Anglican women priest, Florence Li Tim-Oi, in 1944 in Hong Kong.
The current rules throughout the Communion now range from full rejection of women in holy orders to full acceptance. Nigeria and Sydney are united in not ordaining women, for example. But the United States, Canada and New Zealand permit women to be bishops, with England discussing the issue at its forthcoming Synod. Africa and Asia are divided. It isnít a simple ëWest versus the restí split, as some like to pretend.
The underlying issue is not (explicitly, anyway) gender but authority. Hard-line evangelicals say the Bible forbids women ëheadshipí within the church, while hard-line catholics say a woman cannot represent Christ at the altar.
Those who hold a different view (by no means all ëliberalsí) say that the trajectory of the Gospel message is clearly towards the breaking down of barriers of gender and culture in the new community of Christ, and that rejectionist texts are part of an argument that finally goes against their prohibitions within the New Testament.
Similarly, progressive catholics say that Jesus Christ, in taking us to the very heart of God, transcends in his flesh the limitations of ours ñ including gender.
Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori cut to the core of those concerns with a brief aside in her ECUSA sermon last week ñ when she referred to ëChrist our motherí.
Immediately denounced as a heretical modernist in a media environment where rhetoric often trumps knowledge, she pointed out that she was in fact quoting an ancient and respected source, the saintly Julian of Norwich. And that even the Hebrew Scriptures depict God as a ëmother hení.
The point, her supporters say, is that taking gender language of any kind ëliterallyí when it comes to God is a category mistake, and that such stultifying literalism is a peculiarly modern disease. It occurred in earlier times, but was only deified when the ideology of fundamentalism colonized the biblical text in a way which is actually alien to its poetry and variety.
The tradition is much richer than some ëtraditionalistsí allow, in other words.
While the harbingers of doom in the matter of Jefferts Schoriís election are not hard to find, a Vatican spokesperson said last week that having a woman as presiding bishop (a kind of coordinator among equals) does not change the existing argument about women and ordination fundamentally.
And Christina Rees, chair of Women And The Church
and a member of the General Synod of the Church of England, offers ñ perhaps unsurprisingly ñ a much more upbeat interpretation of the Bishop of Nevadaís ascendancy, writing in the otherwise conservative Church of England Newspaper this week.
She comments: ìBishop Schori was an oceanographer before she became ordained. She will be able to provide valuable knowledge and insight to the wider Churchesí response to the increasingly important issues of the environment, and she will be able to engage with these issues both as a Christian and as a scientist. As an oceanographer, her natural instincts will be to think globally, to consider the whole, rather than just the parts of any issue or dilemma, which is good news, not just for ECUSA, but also for the entire breadth of the Anglican Communion.î
Says Rees: ìShe will be accustomed to thinking and dealing with issues of complexity, diversity and interdependence. Contrary to what some commentators have been saying, Bishop Schori will be a unifying figure for her own Church and for many across the Anglican Communion. One eyewitness at the General Convention .. reported a tense, dreary, lack-lustre atmosphere which, at the news of her election, erupted spontaneously into ëunrestrained delightí by the majority of those present. Perhaps the Spirit of God who was moving over the waters in creation is still moving over the somewhat murkier waters of Church governance.î
In terms of the Church of England, Ms Rees adds: ìBishop Schoriís election is also extremely good news for our own Church. In just over a fortnight General Synod will be debating whether having women as bishops is ëconsonant with the faith of the Church as the Church of England has received it and would be a proper development in proclaiming afresh in this generation the grace and truth of Christí.
She concludes: ìThe Church of England has been debating this for nearly 30 yearsÖ We can be faithful by not unduly delaying this decision nor by deflecting our focus disproportionately towards those who cannot accept this as Godís call. Of course, we will need to work out arrangements for those who will not want the ministry of their bishop if she is female.î
Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori preached the homily at the Closing Eucharist of the General Convention in Columbus, Ohio on 21 June 2006. Her theme was ëGrow in All Things into Christí, and her lectionary texts were Colossians 1.11-20, Canticle 18 and St John 18. 33-37.
Her message, reproduced in full below, was described by one conference deputy ñ who admitted he remained nervous about the wider reaction to Jefferts Schoriís election, as ìa real ray of hope.î
He told Ekklesia: ìTo characterize what she represents as ëliberalí or to denounce it because you think of yourself as ëconservativeí is to miss whatís on offer here. I was quietly inspired. Maybe God is doing a new thing which actually makes sense of a lot of the stuff heís done before ñ and weíre too busy bruising each other to notice. That would be a real tragedy.î
Bishop Jefferts Schoriís homily
This last Sunday morning I woke very early, while it was still dark. I wanted to go for a run, but I had to wait until there was enough light to see. When the dawn finally began, I ventured out. It was warm, and still, and very quiet, and the clouds were just beginning to show tinges of pink. I ran by the back of the Hyatt just as two workers were coming out one of the service doors. They were startled, I’m afraid, but I nodded at them, and they responded. I went west over the freeway, and encountered a man I’d seen here in the Convention Center. Neither of us stopped, but we did say a quiet good morning. Then I found a lovely green park, and started around it. There was a man with a reflective vest, standing in the street by some orange cones, as though he were waiting for a run or a parade to begin. I said good morning, and he responded in kind. Around the corner I came to a bleary-eyed fellow with several bags who looked like he’d just risen from sleeping rough. I said good morning to him too, but I must admit I went past him in the street instead of on the sidewalk. Then I met a rabbit hopping across the sidewalk, and though we didn’t use words, one of us eyed the other with more than a bit of wariness. Around another corner, a woman was delivering Sunday papers from her car. She was wary too, and didn’t get out of her car with the next paper until I was a long way past her. Back over the freeway, and a block later, two guys seemingly on their early way to work. We nodded at each other.
As I returned to my hotel, I reflected on all those meetings. There was some degree of wariness in most of them. There were small glimpses of a reconciled world in our willingness to greet each other. But the unrealized possibility of a real relationship – whether in response of wariness, or caution, or fear – meant that we still had a very long way to go.
Can we dream of a world where all creatures, human and not, can meet each other in a stance that is not tinged with fear?
When Jesus says that his kingdom is not of this world, he is saying that his rule is not based on the ability to generate fear in his subjects. A willingness to go to the cross implies a vulnerability so radical, so fundamental, that fear has no impact or import. The love he invites us to imitate removes any possibility of reactive or violent response. King Jesus’ followers don’t fight back when the world threatens. Jesus calls us friends, not agents of fear.
If you and I are going to grow in all things into Christ, if we’re going to grow up into the full stature of Christ, if we are going to become the blessed ones God called us to be while we were still in our mothers’ wombs, our growing will need to be rooted in a soil of internal peace. We’ll have to claim the confidence of souls planted in the overwhelming love of God, a love so abundant, so profligate, given with such unwillingness to count the cost, that we, too, are caught up into a similar abandonment.
That full measure of love, pressed down and overflowing, drives out our idolatrous self-interest. Because that is what fear really is – it is a reaction, an often unconscious response to something we think is so essential that it takes the place of God. “Oh, that’s mine and you can’t take it, because I can’t live without it” – whether it’s my bank account or theological framework or my sense of being in control. If you threaten my self-definition, I respond with fear. Unless, like Jesus, we can set aside those lesser goods, unless we can make “peace through the blood of the cross.”
That bloody cross brings new life into this world. Colossians calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn from the dead. That sweaty, bloody, tear-stained labour of the cross bears new life. Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation – and you and I are His children. If we’re going to keep on growing into Christ-images for the world around us, we’re going to have to give up fear.
What do the godly messengers say when they turn up in the Bible? “Fear not.” “Don’t be afraid.” “God is with you.” “You are God’s beloved, and God is well-pleased with you.”
When we know ourselves beloved of God, we can begin to respond in less fearful ways. When we know ourselves beloved, we can begin to recognize the beloved in a homeless man, or rhetorical opponent, or a child with AIDS. When we know ourselves beloved, we can even begin to see and reach beyond the defence of others.
Our invitation, both in the last work of this Convention, and as we go out into the world, is to lay down our fear and love the world. Lay down our sword and shield, and seek out the image of God’s beloved in the people we find it hardest to love. Lay down our narrow self-interest, and heal the hurting and fill the hungry and set the prisoners free. Lay down our need for power and control, and bow to the image of God’s beloved in the weakest, the poorest, and the most excluded.
We children can continue to squabble over the inheritance. Or we can claim our name and heritage as God’s beloveds and share that name, beloved, with the whole world.
[Also on Ekklesia: Archbishop sees covenant not contract as Anglican way forward 27/06/06; Ecumenism not hit by woman presiding bishop, say observers 23/06/06; US Episcopal Church turns down ban on gay bishops 21/06/06; Joy greets the first-ever Anglican woman leader 19/06/06; Don’t practice divisive religion, UN man tells Episcopalians 18/06/06; Worrying new Anglican dispute about David Beckham 19/06/06 Inclusive Church reports on key US Episcopal gathering 16/06/06; Episcopal Church USA faces pressure on Anglican gay split; Lord Carey says ordaining a gay bishop verges on heresy; Conservative Episcopalians break away ahead of Eames report; African bishops say Windsor Report is offensive; Windsor Report does not call for apology; Episcopal bishop rejects Nigerian criticism on gays]