More

HuffPost Social Reading

Episcopal Head Responds To Anglican Pressure Over Gay, Lesbian Bishops

Episcopal Church

First Posted: 06/ 4/2010 12:55 pm Updated: 05/25/2011 4:40 pm

By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service

(RNS) Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has forcefully defended her church's embrace of gays and lesbians, and firmly rejected efforts to centralize power or police uniformity in the Anglican Communion.

Anglicans should be led by local communities rather than powerful clerics, Jefferts Schori argued in a Wednesday (June 2) letter to her church's 2 million members. And, after 50 years of debate, the Episcopal Church is convinced that gays and lesbians are "God's good creation" and "good and healthy exemplars of gifted leadership within the church, as baptized leaders and ordained ones."

In May, the Episcopal Church consecrated its second openly gay bishop despite warnings the move would increase tensions in the worldwide Anglican Communion, many parts of which view homosexuality as a sin.

Last week, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams said Episcopalians, who form the U.S. branch of the 77 million-member communion, are out of step with fellow Anglicans and should not fully participate in ecumenical dialogue and doctrinal discussions.

As head of the Church of England, Williams is spiritual leader of the communion, but has limited power. He and other Anglicans have been pushing for more centralized authority in recent years as the communion struggles to overcome disagreements on how to interpret what the Bible says about homosexuality.

David Hein, a professor of religious history at Hood College in Maryland who has written about Episcopalians, said the Anglican Communion has been moving toward greater unity on matters of faith and doctrine for at least 50 years, as the denomination grows in disparate parts of the world.

Independent-minded Episcopalians, however, haven't always been willing to go along, and have pushed the boundaries of acceptable faith and practice.

Jefferts Schori firmly rejected the push to centralize power and discipline, saying that Anglicanism, and the Episcopal Church, were founded by Christians who wished to escape the strong hand of an established hierarchy.

"Unitary control does not characterize Anglicanism; rather, diversity in fellowship and communion does," she said.

Imposing uniformity on the 77 million Anglicans scattered across the globe runs the risk of repeating the "spiritual violence" and "cultural excesses" of colonial missionaries who built the communion on the back of the British Empire, the presiding bishop added.

"We live in great concern that colonial attitudes continue," said Jefferts Schori, "particularly in attempts to impose a single understanding across widely varying contexts and cultures."

The presiding bishop also said that criticism of the Episcopal Church often comes from parts of the communion that bar women from becoming priests or bishops; and charged that other Anglican churches allow gay bishops under an unofficial don't ask/don't tell agreement.

"In our context, bowing to anxiety by ignoring that sort of double-mindedness is usually termed a `failure of nerve,"' Jefferts Schori said.

Liberal Episcopalians applauded Jefferts Schori's letter, which was remarkable for its full-throated defense of Episcopal Church policies.

"It is an understated declaration of independence," said Jim Naughton, editor of the blog Episcopal Cafe. "The presiding bishop is not going to allow the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish the terms of the debate anymore."

Jefferts Schori's rehashing of Anglican history may seem innocuous to outside observers, said church historian Diana Butler Bass, but her strong defense of democratic Anglicanism is a "call to arms."

"Those are fighting words," Butler Bass said. "She's saying, `this is our tradition and you're violating it.' She is accusing Williams of being an imperialist."

In essence, Williams and Jefferts Schori are having a very old argument over local autonomy and central authority, Butler Bass said--two extreme and perhaps irreconcilable interpretations of Anglicanism.

"He's trying to find coherent Anglican identity and enforce it in a top-down way, and she's saying we've always been democratic, local, grassroots."

That argument seems to have reached a breaking point, the historian said.

"Scholars will look back on these letters in 150 years and say, `This is it. This is when it all went away,'" Butler Bass said. "The Anglican Communion is not going to make it."

Hein agreed, saying, "A path has been chosen. It seems (Jefferts Schori) has prepared to pack her bags and go off on her own."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

By Daniel Burke Religion News Service (RNS) Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has forcefully defended her church's embrace of gays and lesbians, and firmly rejected efforts to c...
By Daniel Burke Religion News Service (RNS) Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has forcefully defended her church's embrace of gays and lesbians, and firmly rejected efforts to c...
Filed by Jeremy B. White  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 149
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
11:46 PM on 06/22/2010
There is, at the very least, a possibility that the Holy Spirit is leading the Episcopal Church and the ELCA in the direction of full inclusion of our LGBT brothers and sisters.
photo
CarmenCameron
Prepping 4 US version of French Revolution
01:41 PM on 06/15/2010
Williams should look to the Roman Catholic Church if he wants to see what the natural outcome of centralizing power and top-down authority dictating belief leads to.

And if he wants to know what a real Christian would do, it's not LESS "ecumenical dialogue" with those who disagree with him but MORE. For Christ, himself, gave us the way to recognize a genuine Christian: they LOVE one another, not ostracize them for disagreeing.

Maybe Williams - just like Ratzinger - needs to focus more on Christian basics that UNITE us rather than on the hairsplitting definitions of sin that only serve to divide us.
photo
sydneymoon
Dismiss what insults your own soul
06:48 AM on 06/16/2010
You make too much sense. :)
01:28 PM on 06/15/2010
You have to wonder if "clerics" like this ever even crack a Bible or believe in God...because their position on this issue bears not resemblance whatsoever to Biblical teachings.
photo
sydneymoon
Dismiss what insults your own soul
06:47 AM on 06/16/2010
To whom are you referring, Schori or Williams?
KennebunkportIndependent
Back in my day, we had NINE planets.
11:35 AM on 06/14/2010
Perhaps by adopting a more inclusive role than the CofE, the US Episcopal Church will retain its 'market share' (slim that it is) while the CofE continues to decline into spritual and social irrelevance.

My observation: the Sunday before last I attended an Episcopal service that was 80% full. This Sunday I attended a CofE service that had less than 20% in attendance. The Episcopal church had families, children, the elderly; the CofE church was almost entirely elderly. Both churches are beautiful places with music to die for, but the preaching in the Episcopal church was stimulating while in the CofE church it was stultifying. If I were the Archbishop of Canterbury, I would take note of this trend in my own backyard, and worry less about the African Anglicans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TomFox
12:14 AM on 06/19/2010
Agreed....I think the Archbishop should watch a few re-runs of "The Vicar of Dibley", particularly the "Blessing of the Animals" episode.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:12 PM on 06/13/2010
episcopals just need to leave the anglican communion and live happily ever after.
KennebunkportIndependent
Back in my day, we had NINE planets.
11:36 AM on 06/14/2010
So should the CofE, which is dying right before this Archbishop's averted eyes..........
photo
LMPE
I connect the most dissimilar things
11:47 PM on 06/12/2010
Go Katharine Jefferts Schori!
04:13 PM on 06/12/2010
"Cogite intrare (Compel them to enter)!"

Spoken by Augustine of Hippo commanding the Roman authority to persecute the Donatists if they did not submit to orthodoxy. This phrase is the basis for the justification of coercion and torture in the Early Middle Ages. It was the doctrinal basis of the Church/State nexus that survived up until the Treaty of Westphalia.

"We make the God of knowledge guilty of twofold ignorance - of not knowing what he has made, and not knowing what he has comanded. As if in forgetfulness of human frailty, which he made, he had laid upon men commandments which they could not bear...so that God seems to have been seeking not so much our salvation as our punishment....No one knows better the measure of our strength than he who gave us our strength; and no one has a better understanding of what is within our power than he who endowed us with the resources of our power. He has not willed to command anything that is impossible, for he is righteous; and he will not condemn a man for what he could not help, for he is holy."

Written by Pelagius to Demetrias, explaining why he still had hope despite everything. Spurred on by Augustine, Pelagius was eventually found in council to hold heretical views, in part, for failing to accept the Augustinian doctrine of "original sin." Pelagius left the Roman West finding a more tolerant environment in the Roman East.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Treehuggindirtworshiper
Steward of God's Creation
08:18 AM on 06/12/2010
I love the Episcopal Church because we get outside of the box and dare to be inclusive! Bishop Schori you are leading this flock to do great things!
photo
sydneymoon
Dismiss what insults your own soul
06:13 AM on 06/13/2010
She is a rational, intelligent and compassionate leader.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TomFox
12:17 AM on 06/19/2010
Well said.... we have a choice, inclusion or disdain for the other in our midst. I'm glad we are choosing inclusion. It is my belief that as people hear the good news of the inclusive gospel we will grow....but hopefully not into "mega-churches".
06:00 PM on 06/11/2010
World wide Anglican communion was built by force. Any who wouldnt join were killed by QE1= Queen Elizabeth. I believe around 68,000 were martyed in creating the Anglican Communion.

What a testamony to the Anglican Church existence that it was created out of the force of arms and now its dying in the wimper between liberals who do not want to offend each other.
KennebunkportIndependent
Back in my day, we had NINE planets.
11:41 AM on 06/14/2010
And yet the Pilgrims and Puritans were direct bye-products of this 'force'. One wonders how different America's founding would have been if Henry VIII's church hadn't split from Rome? Or whether the US would have embraced 'separation of church and state' (which actually means preventing an official state religion) which was a reaction to the CofE's status as implied by its name?
09:27 PM on 06/09/2010
I actually think the Presiding Bishop reached in this letter. The Archbishop of Canterrbury didn't remove Episcopalians from all the commissions just the ones that represented the totality of the Communion. He also removed the African Churches that crossed jurisdictional lines. We need to remember that this is an ecclesiological argument not necessarly a theological one. Katherine sees a democratic Church like the one that occured in the US. Rowan sees a hierarchical church like in England. Rowan has worked hard to create organizations like the society for Catholic priests which allow for multiple opinions and also I believe helped found the Affirming Catholicism movement. This is Bishops frustrated with each other just like Bishops have been for centuries and does not necessarly point to a big break just an argument.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TomFox
12:18 AM on 06/19/2010
I appreciate your optimism.
thebigbike
ran away to be a cowboy
08:06 PM on 06/09/2010
I'm waiting for inevitable development of "Worldwide Angican Communion" to vest the titual authority in the world region with the most members. To the Archbishop of Kampala, say? might put some british knickers in a twist
photo
MIKEBC
Old school Roosevelt democrat
09:49 PM on 06/07/2010
Is that a man or a woman?
11:12 PM on 06/07/2010
With a name like Katharine you need to ask?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vern58
09:48 AM on 06/08/2010
Funny. Really funny.Ugh.
08:42 PM on 06/07/2010
The main problem here is that Schori's stance is not Biblical. The Biblical verses on homosexuality (see below) are unequivocal, with only some very, very minor translation debate. Most of us will agree that the church is full of sinners, but the question is less about allowing homosexuals to worship than it is whether they should be held up as leaders when their lifestyle is in direct violation of the book from which they intend to preach. Leaders must be held to a higher standard and for some reason we can all agree that drunkards, swindlers, liars and adulterers should not be ordained or resign if they are caught, but then that same argument is not applied to homosexuality. For some reason, homosexuality is the one thing mentioned amongst all those others that gets a pass. Maybe we should give some thought to why that is - without just defaulting to our stock answers. Maybe there are good reasons, and maybe the reasons are not so good. One thing is clear though, Schori does not have to like or agree with the Bible and can attempt to create a church that abandons Biblical teaching if she would like, but then she moves one step away from Christianity and one giant leap toward humanism. The Epsicopal Church is dangerously close to becoming Unitarian, which also started as Christian, but now is something quite different.
(Lev 18 + 20, Rom 1, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DannyEV
09:02 PM on 06/07/2010
it's absurd to say that the episcopal church is flirting with unitarianism because we believe gay people can witness to the Gospel in ordained ministry. You're showing a very poor understanding not just of the Gospel but of the scriptures as well. You may as well say that if celebrants of the eucharist wear cotton-poplyester blend albs under the chasuble they're watering down the faith.,

As to your specific point about homosexuality, I've said it many times here and I guess I have to say it again: We no longer use the bible as a biology, chemistry, physics, geology or cosmology reference. Why on earth would we use it as an authority in the behavioral sciences? As in the other sciences, the view of homosexual behavior (and it is ONLY a view of behavior that includes no evidence of understanding homosexuality as a psychosexual constitution) presented in the bible is thorughly discredited by scientific inquiry. You can have the same argument about it that poor Galileo had to endure with---and finally succumb to--the institutional church. But without question, time is on the side of science - NOT on the side of the antintellectualism implied by your posting.
12:59 AM on 06/08/2010
Has modern science proven the error of biblical teaching on homosexuality? I don't think so. Christian sexual ethics have always been very restrictive. Setting aside homosexuality for a moment, even if one is straight, the Church forbids all sex before marriage. This kind of view is nothing more than laughable to the majority of young people today. But the Christian tradition cannot be manipulated to honestly say any other thing. Additionally, Jesus was overwhelmingly harsh when it came to divorce.

So, we have a Church which must, of necessity, have a restrictive view about sexuality and marriage. It cannot possibly be in step with the times. And no amount of science can ever change that. The tradition speaks clearly about homosexuality, and a Church which openly rejects this teaching is departing from the teaching of Christ and His Church. It ain't a matter of anti-intellectualism, its a matter of honesty. Time may be on the side of science; it is certainly not on the side of the Anglican Communion, which is not long for this earth, in its present form.
09:33 AM on 06/08/2010
Real anti-intellectualism lies in making ad hominem and red-herring arguments so that you never have to question your own position. It is true that we do not use the Bible for science anymore, but the Bible was never a science text-book and we have good reason to believe it was never intended to be. However, it is an ethical text book for those seeking to answer ontological questions about their lives.

The main point of your argument is not that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, but that we simply shouldn't heed that teaching. When we start to cherry-pick which parts of the Bible because some are too hard or others make people feel bad, I see that as a very slippery slope. The Bible is and has always been THE authority on human behavior for the Church (see the principle of Sola Scriptura which states that it is "by scripture alone" that we have true understanding). When there are difficult verses, it is incubent on the reader to mold his or herself to the teaching - not attempt to mold the teaching to their personal feelings.

As for my understanding of the Gospel, I think you should just stick to attacking the argument and not the person making it. It makes for more profitable, pleasurable and intelligent debate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vern58
09:06 AM on 06/08/2010
You have no idea for what you are spilling. I urge you just once to go to an Episcopal Church service one Sunday and see just how close TEC and Unitarianism really is. They run on opposite sides of the Spectrum. The Theology of TEC is in total variance with Unitarian religious principles. It never will be.
Methinks you are grossly misinformed and grasping at that "Fundie" Christian straw......
03:31 PM on 06/08/2010
I have been to both many times. To say they run at oppostie sides of the spectrum seems incredibly false to me. Besides, I did not say they were the same. I said that the Episcopal Church is heading in that direction, which I believe is true no matter how uncivilized the debate becomes (e.g. You have no idea for what you are spilling)
07:17 PM on 06/07/2010
Hold on a second! The Church of England began because Henry VIII couldn't keep it in his pants and beheaded sevreal of his six wives into the bargain. So there are people in this religious group who have a problem with gays and lesbians? Go figure.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DannyEV
09:14 PM on 06/07/2010
your posting is absurd. Henry got all he wanted WITHOUT benefit of clergy, so to say, as the powerful always do. The excesses you mention had nothing to do with lust and everything to do with politics. Do you really think the king "went without" just because he was married to one woman or another? How little you understand history--and power.

Henry's actions, absurd as some may appear in retrospect, were, at least initially, about procuring a male heir for the throne, which he did not feel could securely be entrusted to a female. (What a fool history proved him to be--at least in that way!) Of course the politics around the issue are far more complext.

Your cavalier, ill-informed and broad-brushed painting of the membership of the Anglican communion is just as absurd. Try reading a book before you post here instead of replicating absurd popular fables.

The wikipedia entry on Henry is a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England
10:02 PM on 06/07/2010
Having read your other posts in this strand, including this one, you like to use the word "absurd" a great deal when referring to other people's observations that do not jibe with your obviously infallible positions. That says more about you than it does about what people are offering here, ya think?

Didn't mean to offend you. I am truly sorry and humbly repent...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vern58
09:28 AM on 06/08/2010
And the position of the Cof E as "milk cow" to the RCC was ancient also; rather like the role TEC plays to the mission of the Modern Anglican Communion.
The trouble stemming from today's conflict has more to do with the power of the ABC over the theological destinies of independent Anglican Provinces. It has to do with Polity of decision making. TAC in reality is loosely bound confederation- and that has been it's particular genius in the life of the Church Millitant. It is loosing this in favor of unitary control of one Heirarch (ABC) within it's life. This is an issue that needs to be carefully looked at by all Anglicans of European extraction(in England,US,Canada and Australia)on just what kind of pernicious influence African Primates are exerting on the rest of us.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vern58
09:28 AM on 06/08/2010
The Church of England-Anglicanism is an ancient tradition which has at all times and places run in a slightly different line from Roman Catholicism. With roots going back to Roman times i think you need to check your Ecclesiastical History texts.
Modern Anglicanism is the direct daughter more of St. Augustine of Canterbury and his mission(circa 598) than Henry VIII and his wranglings (although it did get the yoke of Rome off the back of the Church in England- for that Anglicans throughout the world are eternally thankful)
Anglicanism as a movement within Christianity is an ancient one- and cannot be glommed into the history of the Church Universal as just an aberrant form of Romanism. It was an independent voice within the Church in antiquity- and excessively listened to by the Papacy for that long.
05:29 PM on 06/07/2010
If there were more Episcopal leaders like Bishop Jefferts-Schori, I'd be tempted to go back to church!
06:14 PM on 06/07/2010
She's the reason I stay.
07:00 PM on 06/12/2010
I like her too, especially as she is helping so many find their way home to the Roman Catholic church!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DannyEV
10:06 PM on 06/07/2010
leadership in the Episcopal Church has come a long way since the early 1970s when I made the pilgrimage from Rome to Canterbury. We have a lot of pretty terrific people serving as bishops in our church--and many men and women creating exciting, innovative models of priestly ministry in places once noted for their stuffiness, drabness and--empty pews.

Remember--we ELECTED BISHOP KATHARINE.

Come back and have a look! I think you might just be in for a pleasant surprise.