Celebrating Katharine Schori

Like many Episcopalians, I am rejoicing at the news that Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of Nevada has been elected the new presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, USA.   A relatively young (54) progressive, Schori is the first woman to lead a province of the worldwide Anglican Communion.   My friend and pastor Susan Russell wrote last night:

And so the very idea that the bishops of the Episcopal Church could elect a woman to lead them ... and the House of Deputies concur OVERWHELMING to that election with barely a murmur of dissent is so overwhelming I'm almost afraid to go to bed tonight lest I wake up and find out it was all a dream.

I am so proud of this church I could just burst.

Proud that we were ready, willing and able to put everything else aside and select the person the Holy Spirit anointed to lead us with grace, with concord and with great joy.

Proud that through the many dangers, toils and snares we have come over the divisive issue of the ordination of women we have emerged on the other side of those challenges stronger, bolder and more open to God's Holy Spirit.

Amen, Susan.  (To continue my bad but exuberant habit of name-dropping, church scuttlebutt suggests that the bishop of Los Angeles, my old friend Jon Bruno, played a vital -- perhaps even the key -- role in advocating for Bishop Schori.  That thought pleases me greatly.)

As a progressive evangelical Episcopalian, I'm thrilled by the choice of Schori.  She's a strong supporter of same-sex blessings, and was an early backer of Gene Robinson, the bishop of New Hampshire whose election in 2003 led to the current crisis in the Anglican Communion.   Of course, both her sex and her theological views will engender (sorry) significant opposition.

Now this presents an interesting problem for conservative traditionalists in the church.  Some conservatives in the national church are open to female leadership, but not to acceptance of homosexuality.  Others, farther right, are opposed to both same-sex blessings and women priests (not to mention female presiding bishops!)   When they express concerns about Katherine Schori, smart traditionalists will need to differentiate between their objections to women in leadership and their quarrels with her progressive theology.  If they don't, I can be fairly confident that my fellow liberals will deftly play the "sexist troglodyte" card against them!

As a pro-feminist Episcopalian (and dues-paying member of the evangelical, egalitarian Christians for Biblical Equality)  I'm obviously enthusiastic about the Schori election.  But even I struggled for years with the idea of women priests!  As I've written before, I began my Christian journey with a conversion to Roman Catholicism in college.  I seriously considered becoming a Dominican and giving my life to the church.  Though at university I worshiped with liberal Paulists, I became comfortable with an all-male priesthood.  It wasn't a theological objection to women preaching or consecrating the host, it was simply an issue of familiarity.

I remember the first time I saw a woman preside at an Episcopal Eucharist.  It was about a decade or so ago; I was estranged from Christ and His church and in the midst of a long and troubled peregrination on the "dark side".  A friend of mine invited me to All Saints Pasadena (for the first time), and I came.  Our current rector, Ed Bacon, had just joined the staff, but the bread and wine were consecrated by a woman I (quite accidentally) already knew well, Mary June Nestler.  Mary June, a priest and now dean of the Episcopal seminary out at Claremont, had been a classmate of mine in grad school at UCLA where we both got our Ph.Ds in medieval Christian history.  Back in 1991 (1992?) we sat together in a very interesting seminar on early Irish canon law.  (See, I was an intellectual, once; I wrote a paper, still lurking somewhere, on the office of the episcopos as conceived in the Collection Canonum Hibernensis. Fun!) 

Anyhow, I recognized Mary June and was startled.  I had known two woman priests at UCLA: Mary June and  the philosopher Marilyn Adams, now at Oxford and in the early '90s, on my dissertation committee.  But it's one thing to know that a professor or a schoolmate is a priest, and another to see them "on the job"!  And let me admit this embarrassing truth: as I watched Mary Jane say the Eucharistic blessing, I felt scandalized -- and guilt-ridden for feeling that way. Intellectually and theologically, I was more than prepared to embrace women in leadership.  Heck, by the time I showed up at All Saints that spring day ten years ago, I hardly considered myself a Christian anymore, so I didn't feel I had much say in who ought to say mass in the church!   Yet my few but intense years as a Catholic had so conditioned me to an all-male priesthood that I felt distinctly uncomfortable throughout the remainder of the service. 

Obviously, once I finally did come "home" to Christ a few years later, I quickly became completely accepting of women in church leadership.  I was helped in this by a brief sojourn with some hardcore Pentecostals, who combined charismatic faith with a belief that all spiritual gifts were equally open to women.  Today, I'm glad to worship in a church where most of the ordained staff is female; I haven't had even a flash of discomfort with a woman preaching or consecrating in years and years.  But I haven't forgotten that embarrassing and shocking moment many years ago, as I watched a former classmate pronounce words that I had hitherto only heard from the lips of men.  I'm thus quite sympathetic to those who are initially squeamish at the notion of female priests; I know (as they will know, if they don't run away screaming) that that discomfort vanishes with familiarity.

So, a big "hurrah" for Katharine Schori, our new presiding bishop, and for all of those women who came before her to open the priesthood to all.

Comments

[Tom Head]

This is indeed delightful news. +Schori was by far my favorite of the nominees, but I never considered for a moment that she might actually be elected given what I had taken to be the current disposition of the HOD with regard to conservative primates abroad. She will be a great, great leader for the church.

Cheers,

TH

[John]

Sigh.

My favourite Episcopal bishop (+ Ackerman) will be so sad. I am pulling for Forward in Faith today-I hope they are let go with some grace. I have a huge soft spot for Anglo-Catholics, "trogodytes" or not, because they are the "peaceful and faithful in Israel" who are most persecuted by the so-called "liberals" who don't seem to welcome diversity when it is actually diversity between different opinions. Mrs. Schori seems to think they'll get over theological principle in the same 15 minutes it takes to get over prejudice. Good luck with that.

I tend to think the election of Katharine Schori a work of the Holy Spirit-We prayed for clarity and got it. ECUSA is irrevocably devoted to a revisionist agenda, and has completely capitulated to the culture. Requiscat. How sad.

[NancyP]

I don't know that I see the sort that hangs out on VirtueOnline to be all that peaceful. One of the posters today said that TEC was at such low ebb that it had to settle for a tart (and I am sure they didn't mean the food kind). Not terribly mature or peaceful, to my mind. Plus, there seems to be a glorification of Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which pretty much indicates a desire for the good old days when women were silent in church - and that seems to be a common theme, whatever the day holds, at VOL.

[Hugo]

John, it has been a while! I'm sure you'd agree that in the contemporary Episcopal church, NONE of us should speak of being persecuted when very real persecution of Christians is happening in places like the Sudan, Nigeria, and China. But you and I agree that sometimes, to let one's former partner go in peace is the most loving, wise, and spiritually mature thing one can possibly do. None of us should value unity over conscience.

[evil_fizz]

None of us should value unity over conscience.

Hugo, I think that this comment is worthy of its own post, especially in light of a lot of the criticism you've been getting in the blogosphere lately. I find it fascinating that you're able to stand on principle when it comes to something like ordaining liberal female bishops, but you still have lunch with Glenn Sacks (to use an old and well-thrashed example).

[Hugo]

Evil_fizz, I don't see how those two things are the same. Friendship and unity are not the same thing. Unity, whether in marriage or in a denomination, is about saying "We believe the same things and are building a common life together." Friendship, on the other hand, says "We may not believe the same things, but we still see value and goodness in each other."

You're right, it's worth a post.

[Tom Head]

I had the unity-conscience dilemma myself (in my very conservative diocese), and resolved it by returning to my Unitarian church and leaving the Episcopal Church behind. But it's still a very happy thing for me to see +Schori as the U.S. primate.

Cheers,

TH

[evil_fizz]

Friendship and unity are not the same thing. Unity, whether in marriage or in a denomination, is about saying "We believe the same things and are building a common life together." Friendship, on the other hand, says "We may not believe the same things, but we still see value and goodness in each other."

I see your point, but it's not sitting well with me for some reason. Maybe it's because I see one of the fundamental tenants of both of these kinds of relationships as sticking up for others? (The people in your denomination, your marriage, and your friendships are supposed to be one your side in my way of thinking.) I'm really not sure, and I'll see if I can come up with something more specific.

I wasn't sure if the Glenn thing was the analogy I wanted to draw, but I left it up there because in a lot of your writing, I've noticed your desire for unity in all areas. You want to be friends with all sorts, to reach out, to convert, and that's frequently a good thing. But I suspect that unity and friendship as you've defined them can readily come into conflict.

In any case, I'll think some more about it and get back to you.

[John]

Well, there is persecution and persecution. Persecution doesn't have to be physical to be real and felt; I agree with the gay community about that much at least. (Yes, it has been a while. I've been reading, but rather busy with the rest of life to comment)

If you take VirtueOnline as your sampling of Conservatives, no doubt we do look combative and nasty, especially in the aftermath of a great hurt. But I defy you to look me in the face and say that + Keith Ackerman is anything but peaceful and faithful. He doesn't believe women should be in Holy Orders. That's an issue of conscience. And given the way the debate over WO was handled, I am in sympathy with him. The election of Schori and VGR is the latest in a long line of decisions where theology took a back seat to politics. There is a theological case for WO (which I accept, by the way), but the attacks of ECUSA on those English Catholics who disagree have been nothing short of a disgrace. +Schori should let them go to the ABC with her blessing. If she did that, I might believe her when she says she's a reconciler.

[Hugo]

Not a comment, but an explanation for readers not used to Anglican-speak:

ABC: archbishop of Canterbury
VGR: Vicky Gene Robinson, bishop of New Hampshire
WO: women's ordination
Keith Ackerman: Bishop of Quincy, Illinois, and one of the most conservative in the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA, of course)

[John]

Thank you for the translation service, Hugo. Appreciate it. :-)

[Oriscus]

Um, Cap'n Pro-Feminist Hugo:-)

It appears to be +Jefferts Schori, not +Schori. She may not hyphenate, but all the press reports - even those from the troglodyte Right - have used both names.

Oh, and Virtueonline is *not an example of a conservative Anglo-Catholic blog. DV and company are generally "evangelical"/fundie in sympathy, though they do make common cause with FiF ("Forward in Faith" - the dominant Troglo-Anglo-Catholic grouping, despite their name). Anglo-Catholics of whatever stripe have been generally misunderstood from the very beginning (by ourselves too, if the truth be told). "Affirming Catholic" is the more socially progressive expression of the same movement from the nineteenth century working itself out today.

Gotta say I'm downright giddy about being able to type ++Jefferts Schori, though. (+Atlanta was my first choice, because he is a musician - nobody who has ever worked as a Church musician will fault me for that; +Nevada was tied with +Lexington for second place in my book)

[Antigone]

Not to go OT here, but this is where I have to agree with the more "conservative elements". The Bible is pretty explicitly against women in power (Even Debrah had to work through her drunken husband). Of course, to me, this is a reason to reject the whole power structure and but *Shrugs*. I'm glad it's progressing, if for nothing else than a lot of people believe it.

[BONNIE]

WA...................MR.HUGO...
YOU ARE SO HANDSOME..HAHAAH..
AND U R SO COOLL....IF MY ENGLISH IS PRETTY GOOD, I WILL CHOOSE HISTORY MAJOR TO TRANSFER ..BUT MY ENGLISH IS NOT GOOD.....SIGH..
I LOVE UR CLASS.IT'S VERY COOL..I LEARNED MANY FROM YOU.....I LIKE HISTORY NOW...
ALTHOUGH UR FINAL PAPER IS VERY HARD..I SPENT THREE WEEKS TO DO IT..I KNEW MORE HISTORY KNOWLEDGE FROM THE PROJECT...HAAH..SO COOL...
THX A LOT..U R A GREAT HISTORY TEACHER..
THANK YOU FOR GIVING US A WONDERFUL CLASSES....
BEST WISHES FOR YOU...

[Mike]

You know, I used to be in favor of women's ordination, now I am not so sure. As I have come to learn more about how the Catholic Church derives its authority, I'm not certain She has the authority to ordain women.

When they express concerns about Katherine Schori, smart traditionalists will need to differentiate between their objections to women in leadership and their quarrels with her progressive theology.

I can't say for certain what is going on in the minds of conservative Anglicans, but I disagree that opposing women's ordination means opposing women taking leadership roles in the Church. Women may contribute greatly to both the intellectual, spiritual, and pragmatic workings of the Church without necessarily receiving the sacrament of Holy Orders.

[Hugo]

Antigone and Mike, do visit the CBE website I link above in the original post. The Pauline case for the ordination of women is powerful indeed. I'm glad to say that a remarkable and growing number of serious evangelicals support women in all forms of pastoral leadership.

[Chris]

Hugo, have you spoken with your "old friend" Jon Bruno abot his (thus far) futile scheme to sue the dissenter parishes in his diocese into handing over their property? About the $300 attorneys at Morrison Forrester who are assiting him in this terribly un Christ like pursuit?

With "friends" like Jon Bruno, as the saying goes, who needs enemies?

[Chris]

that's $300/hr.

[Antigone]

Mike:

Call a spade a spade: influence is not power, and nor is it leadership. Yes, women contribute a lot to a church, but in onces where they cannot be the pastor (priest, bishop, what have you) they have no actual power, just influence.

[westcoast2]

I am probably one of the few to be saddened at this news.

Is it really 'progressive' to continue to press further and cause disunity?

Is it really 'progressive' to alientate other churches (esp Catholic)?

Hugo said...
" smart traditionalists will need to differentiate between their objections to women in leadership and their quarrels with her progressive theology. If they don't, I can be fairly confident that my fellow liberals will deftly play the "sexist troglodyte" card against them!"

And will you condone this?

I probably fall into the "Dumb sexist troglodyte" camp. Still at least its a sincere belief and one that is open enough to discuss the issues, rather than just calling people names.

be well

[Hugo]

Absolutely not, West, I don't endorse name-calling. Read my post today.

It's time for a sad, tender, peaceful break-up with fervent prayers for the health and spiritual well-being of those with whom we will no longer be in communion.

[Mike]

Hey Antigone-

You have a point- the actual policy and direction of the Church is determined by the clergy. I suppose though, they would not see themselves as coming up with policy based on their own desires and wants for how the church should go- but rather as interpreting the Apostolic Tradition handed down by Christ. Power does not flow from Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger and what they think should be done, but from (from our perspective) following and elucidating Sacred Tradition. They are just as bound by it as we are.

Women have served (and still do serve)as administrative heads in parishes and dioceses, and have been a significant part of Vatican administrative offices. They have even served as Papal envoys at times.

How leadership can be "uncoupled" from ordination is an interesting topic, and one I'm just staring to explore.

[The Happy Feminist]

Women may contribute greatly to both the intellectual, spiritual, and pragmatic workings of the Church without necessarily receiving the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Of course one wonders why on earth women would want to contribute to the workings of a Church that would deprive them of the opportunity to perform the most important functions of the church.

[westcoast2]

The Happy Feminist wrote
Of course one wonders why on earth women would want to contribute to the workings of a Church that would deprive them of the opportunity to perform the most important functions of the church.

I believe women and men perform different functions of equal importance within the church.

Why do you consider certain roles in the Church more important than others?

[SamChevre]

Happy,

You're missing a big point. It isn't that the church "won't let" women take certain roles; in the theologies that don't ordain women, the argument is that women CAN'T take those roles. A good parallel is marriage. The issue isn't that my wife won't let me bear children; it's that I can't. It's by being part of the marriage that I can have children--the question of "why do you want to be married if your wife won't let you fill the most important role in the marriage" is incoherent to the point of being nonsensical.