Total visitors right now: 94

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Live Podcast of the Presiding Bishop set to roll this morning at 10:00am

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 • 8:02 am


Watch it here


85 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Just out of curiosity . . . who on this blog is going to watch it?

I ask as a real question.

I will not be watching it.

Others who will be or won’t?

[1] Posted by Sarah on 02-28-2007 at 08:10 AM • top

Good morning, Sarah,
I would like to watch it and, if possible, ask a question.

[2] Posted by Maria Lytle on 02-28-2007 at 08:20 AM • top

Not going to watch…mainly because I will be celebrating at the altar and leading a Bible study this a.m.  Will read a transcript later.

[3] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 02-28-2007 at 08:22 AM • top

Don’t want to, but probably should - so, yes.

[4] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 02-28-2007 at 08:31 AM • top

I shall watch. And pray.

[5] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 02-28-2007 at 08:31 AM • top

Today I actually have work to do (yeah!!! [in a market slow down]), so truly, I have better things to do.

[6] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 02-28-2007 at 08:35 AM • top

I have a meeting but will catch up as best I can.  Sarah: why are you not watching?  Prior committment or Prior Committment?

[7] Posted by terebinth on 02-28-2007 at 09:19 AM • top

Sarah, I’ll be all over this.  How could you miss this?

[8] Posted by Widening Gyre on 02-28-2007 at 09:22 AM • top

I’m reasonably sure I can find something else to do.

[9] Posted by James Manley on 02-28-2007 at 09:35 AM • top

RE: “How could you miss this?”

1) I already know what she will say—just as most people already know what I will say—and I am bored by her worldview.  There are numerous occasions in my day and normal life when I hear people with her worldview speak, and she is merely one more person.

2) I focus on my strategy, my game, and not that of my Worthy Opponent.  What the Worthy Opponent does or says has nearly zero impact on what Roistering Episcopal Adventurers have to do or say.

I offer those two reasons not as an implication that people should or should not watch it.

I was just curious about who was going to watch and who not.

I think that probably those who won’t and those who will watch offer an interesting contrast, which is why I asked.

[10] Posted by Sarah on 02-28-2007 at 09:38 AM • top

I’ll give it a shot.  I’ve already emailed a question.

[11] Posted by Phil on 02-28-2007 at 09:40 AM • top

BTW, sorry to be a geek, but is it really a “podcast” if it’s streamed live?

[12] Posted by Phil on 02-28-2007 at 09:42 AM • top

I’ll hear about it later.  I have some sick people to minister to this morning.

[13] Posted by julia on 02-28-2007 at 09:42 AM • top

(listening now..)...(beating head on desk)...(coworkers looking on with curiosity)

[14] Posted by wooly on 02-28-2007 at 10:14 AM • top

Listening now.  Is anyone calling in or emailing questions?  I wouldn’t know where to start.

[15] Posted by Scott K on 02-28-2007 at 10:17 AM • top

she thinks it would be appropriate for TEC to give

...an unexpected or humorous response..

(screaming…)

[16] Posted by wooly on 02-28-2007 at 10:18 AM • top

I have seen part of it—the last few minutes: patronizing psychologizing and mishandling of Scripture texts.  So what else is new?

[17] Posted by AnglicanXn on 02-28-2007 at 10:20 AM • top

Scott, I emailed a question, but cannot connect to webcast.  Keep us posted!

[18] Posted by Maria Lytle on 02-28-2007 at 10:24 AM • top

Still running here. Her intial remarks seem to indicate a gradual ramping up of militancy, in at least tone if not substance. All the sound bites are out there and all the catchphrases loved by the LGBT agenda. We may be watching a hardening in preparation for the possible rejection of the Tanzania communique.

[19] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-28-2007 at 10:24 AM • top

I stopped watching 15 minutes into it when she was attempting to explain the need to change from older traditional views. She was quoting Matthew 17:5, but failed to give the the entire quote. She said, “...then a cloud came over them, and they heard God say, ‘This is my beloved.’ “

She sort of forgotten to mention ‘son.’  This is my beloved SON.

In light of TEC’s views that Jesus may or may not be God incarnate (but certainly “godly”), I understood her message clearly; Jesus is not part of the Triune God, and in fact, there’s no such thing as the Triune God.

Click! Video stopped.

My impression about her emotional state in the early minutes was that she was deeply stressed at the very least. Perhaps angry or furious. She spoke well and professionally, but her countenance belied an impatience that did not manifest itself in her voice. I guess that’s understandable, so kudos to her for managing to keep her composure.

[20] Posted by Antique on 02-28-2007 at 10:26 AM • top

(use windows and windows media…) Firefox doesn’t work
what’s up with using medical terminology in describing what people are experiencing…
neuralgic: Sharp, severe paroxysmal pain extending along a nerve or group of nerves.

[21] Posted by wooly on 02-28-2007 at 10:27 AM • top

I just emailed her asking if TEC will back off the Virginia lawsuits since she’s asking all to dial down the overraction.

Bets on it being asked ?

This thing is just like an NPR interview.  Why am I not surprised ?

[22] Posted by Tom Cain on 02-28-2007 at 10:28 AM • top

New label:
“dissident dioceses”

[23] Posted by wooly on 02-28-2007 at 10:28 AM • top

Well, there it is.  She does not believe Jesus is The Way.  We knew that, but she just locked it in.

[24] Posted by Tom Cain on 02-28-2007 at 10:37 AM • top

I’ve tried to watch but couldn’t connect.  I don’t expect to hear anything new but would just like to know what the PB is putting “out there” now—and in what manner.

[25] Posted by Paula on 02-28-2007 at 10:38 AM • top

It’s pretty impressive how she speaks to each question without really answering any of them (even the ones that are friendly to the TEC perspective).

[26] Posted by Scott K on 02-28-2007 at 10:41 AM • top

Hey! She took the question about the VA lawsuits.  “Dialing back would be premature at this time.”

[27] Posted by Scott K on 02-28-2007 at 10:43 AM • top

She’s not too well informed on the situation in post-Katrina New Orleans. A significant part of the equation is the disappearance (post-Katrina) of pre-Katrina clergy.

[28] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-28-2007 at 10:43 AM • top

Way to go, Tom Cain!

Not a surprising answer: full speed ahead with the lawsuits.

[29] Posted by Phil on 02-28-2007 at 10:43 AM • top

Well I’ll be darned.  They read my question and she basically said the lawsuits would continue.  Interesting that the assembled viewers chuckled.  I guess it’s funny to some.

[30] Posted by Tom Cain on 02-28-2007 at 10:45 AM • top

I can’t believe she said so explicitly that she doesn’t believe Jesus is the Way… incredible.

[31] Posted by allergic_to_fudge on 02-28-2007 at 10:46 AM • top

“Living with [properly redefined] Scripture”....

[32] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-28-2007 at 10:48 AM • top

I am not going to watch because I am on a dial up connection and can’t. Please help the Technology Impaired. Somebody post a written summary.

the SBBJ snarkster

[33] Posted by the snarkster on 02-28-2007 at 10:50 AM • top

“I believe the gift in all of this is greater clarity of who we are as Episcopalians.” - Katharine Jefferts Schori

Well I have to agree with her on that…

[34] Posted by allergic_to_fudge on 02-28-2007 at 10:50 AM • top

She was asked how the PB could lead the whole TEC in a greater focus on Bible Study. She said (approximately) “The [815 office] has been working on that for Decades—just Decades.” Then she said something about the study being properly guided; hence my above post.

[35] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-28-2007 at 10:54 AM • top

Neuralgic, definition: “You guys are a pain in the posterior.” (Slightly paraphrased by the Rabbit.

[36] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-28-2007 at 10:55 AM • top

“If they really choose to go elsewhere we have to bless their journey.”

Apparently she considers lawsuits a blessing.

[37] Posted by allergic_to_fudge on 02-28-2007 at 10:56 AM • top

Snarkster,

Here’s what I’m getting from her :  The reasons the orthodox don’t accept the reappraiser’s view are because we are not mature enough, not smart enough and fearful. Once we grow we’ll come to see their truth.

[38] Posted by Tom Cain on 02-28-2007 at 10:58 AM • top

...“what is the scripture basis for same sex…”
“..I’m not sure our church has made an adequate case for the other members…”

So, it’s not about Truth, it’s about spin.

[39] Posted by wooly on 02-28-2007 at 10:59 AM • top

She seems pretty resigned to the fact that not accomodating the primate’s requests = no invitation to Lambeth.  So at least she’s not in denial on that point.

[40] Posted by Scott K on 02-28-2007 at 11:01 AM • top

Asked to provide the biblical arguments to support the argument for same-sex relationships, she referred to the Bible only once, citing Genesis, with God creating man and woman and saying that was very good.

Excellent argument!

[41] Posted by albion on 02-28-2007 at 11:03 AM • top

“why is it important to be in the Anglican Communion?”
“...mission…effective distribution system..”.
(more beating head on desk)

[42] Posted by wooly on 02-28-2007 at 11:03 AM • top

Here are some highlights - really just the most interesting or jarring statements.

- The bulk of our ecumenical partners do not see these issues as central.
- Some primates are exceedingly exercised by ECUSA’s actions - see them as anti-scriptural; have entered congregations and dioceses here uninvited by local bishops; whatever you think about those actions, we, as Christians, should assume they acted in good faith
- Says “neuralgic” a lot.  Strange.
- This goes back to diagreements on prayer book and WO
- The majority in ECUSA is being asked to “pause on their journey” on blessing ss partnerships
- Pastoral Council will make sure overseas bishops withdraw
- Covenant deadline is a more reasonable timeframe which would permit GC to speak
- Our greatest challenge is the inability of many to live with the tension these changes represent; some in the AC unwilling or unable to live with this diversity; parts of our own church are in the same situation
- The traditional understanding has a lot to say about monogamy and fidelity, but relatively little to say about the gender of partners
- Referenced the Transfiguration and says the disciples built their structures “to allow them to stay where they are”

Selected Q&A
- What happens if no action is taken? A: We would be excluded in some way from the councils of the AC; sense is ABC will respect the majority of primates; we would lose our voice
- Isn’t the primatial vicar proposal a division of unity? A: We need to see the proposal as a gracious proposal to provide pastoral care for those in conflict
- I’m a Via Media person in a network diocese - my daughter is an out and partnered lesbian, is broken hearted by communique and is an aspirant for ordination; are the primates seeking to block ecusa from ordaining gays to any ordained ministry? A: No, that was not asked of us
- How will the PV minister to those Episcopalians that agree with ecusa but find themselves in conservative dioceses? A: Encourages us again to see the proposal in a gracious way; expectation is that interventions will cease once the structures are in place
- What message do you have for gay young people? A: “we are called to pause and not to go backards” - I see no desire to retreat from our position
- Did you say Jesus is only one way to God; why did you make such a statement as a bishop; it undermines the basic tenents of the Christian faith. A: We understand Jesus is our way to the Cross; to assume God will not act in other ways is to put God in a very small box; it is our understanding; our call is to be invited into conversation with people who have different understandings and to maybe get a bigger vision of God
- “I’m [female] here with my partner Joan” - communique feels like answers are already specified for us; doesn’t feel very gracious. A: I share some of that sentiment; it is a response “for a season, until the covenant process is completed”
- Dial down lawsuits in Virginia? A: It’s premature to do that until the church is clear on the process we will follow, all these pieces need to proceed at the same time
- What is the scriptural support for ss relationships? A: I’m not sure this church has made the case effectively enough; it begins in Genesis, where God created us in our diversity and said that it was very good; parts of our tradition have begun to ask questions about the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage

[43] Posted by Phil on 02-28-2007 at 11:03 AM • top

ONE Episcopalian
ERD
MDGs
“There’s no richer place to find the presence of God.”

That about says it.

[44] Posted by Scott K on 02-28-2007 at 11:04 AM • top

She actually said something intelligent about what Katrina victims could be doing - namely meeting in homes. 

I also note she either doesn’t know about people like Jerry Kramer or would rather ignore him and others like him.

[45] Posted by NancyNH on 02-28-2007 at 11:05 AM • top

John 14.6 came back to challenge her again, and again she declared her apostacy: she said we as Christians understand Jesus to be the Way, but that people who are not Christians do not understand him in that way. She argued for a conversation between us and them in which we might arrive, IIRC, at a “larger vision.”

[46] Posted by albion on 02-28-2007 at 11:07 AM • top

When asked about TEC’s understanding of scripture as it relates to homosexuality she framed her answer in terms of “This Age.”  “We understand marriage in this age to be about companionship and commitment not about having children.”  That is a paraphrase but it was the general idea of the answer she gave.

She is quite NARROW minded if she thinks the church is about “This Age.”  No wonder TEC is in the death spiral.  The fads and fashions of “This Age” always disappear. 

It is no bad thing to turn and run from evil.  TEC is more and more lead by the spirit alright…the spirit of this age.  Last I read that was never a good thing.

[47] Posted by Saint Dumb Ox on 02-28-2007 at 11:14 AM • top

Tom Cain wrote: “Here’s what I’m getting from her :  The reasons the orthodox don’t accept the reappraiser’s view are because we are not mature enough, not smart enough and fearful. Once we grow we’ll come to see their truth.”
I did not hear it that way at all.  I heard her talk about the need for all of us to mature in Christ and to let go of our fear.  I think this is connected to her emphasis on listening, by which she was not saying, ‘you need to listen to me.’  She is asking us to listen to each other.  I thought she was excellent.

[48] Posted by bwd on 02-28-2007 at 11:14 AM • top

hich she was not saying, ‘you need to listen to me.’ She is asking us to listen to each other

Don’t be fooled. Listening is a buzz word in the gay community for “feel our pain” ( Neuralgic )
Do a google search on ‘gay “hear our stories”’

Yes, it does sound so “nice” and “reasonable”. Listening always does sound like a way to resolve differences, except when you never have any intention of acting on what the other person is saying.

[49] Posted by wooly on 02-28-2007 at 11:27 AM • top

NancyNH - no, the PB doesn’t seem to know about Fr. Jerry and what his church has done in New Orleans post-Katrina.  I do, and it is truly a miracle!!  They have even planted a new church in in the devistated 9th Ward, (it was started in a garage).  I do think she would rather ignore what they have done - since Fr. Kramer seems very much of the orthodox mindset.

I heard all of the PB’s webcast, I must say I was disappointed.  The message seems to be:  “We’ll pause for a bit, but we are not changing course.”  I do not want to leave the Episcopal Church.  But I’m getting the sense that what I have to add to TEC’s “conversation” is less and less welcome anymore.

[50] Posted by cliffg on 02-28-2007 at 11:28 AM • top

What message do you have for gay young people? A: “we are called to pause and not to go backwards” - I see no desire to retreat from our position

That’s a bit like complying with the police officers’ request to turn down the music while intending to turn it back up as soon as they leave.

[51] Posted by Piedmont on 02-28-2007 at 11:38 AM • top

Another aspect of neuralgia is a stiff neck, and all Worthy Opponents seem to be increasingly bothered by stiff necks.  This spin along with the one on PBS yesterday is just so much, ‘I am woman, hear me roar.’

[52] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 02-28-2007 at 11:42 AM • top

From the other postings here, Mz Schori having confirmed her Spongian theology, and rejection of the communiqué, the stance of TEC seems obvious. Why waste any more time? Make the declaration of refusal to the Primates now and get it over with.

I would love to hear from the Global South and Southern Cone Primates on this. The ABC as well since they have given him a good slap in the face.

[53] Posted by Marlin on 02-28-2007 at 11:44 AM • top

Well Sarah, I missed it! Totally forgot about a 9:30 am meeting.  How about we make up a fictional version?

[54] Posted by Widening Gyre on 02-28-2007 at 11:45 AM • top

<blockquote> What is the scriptural support for same sex relationships? A: I’m not sure this church has made the case effectively enough; it begins in Genesis, where God created us in our diversity and said that it was very good; parts of our tradition have begun to ask questions about the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage</blockquote>
Apparently she skipped class the day that lesson was covered.  It’s <b> Adam & Eve NOT Adam & Steve!<b> <i> Pardon me for sounding a bit bromidic. <i>

[55] Posted by Piedmont on 02-28-2007 at 11:47 AM • top

Hey, good news, it is now on-demand!  We can watch it over and over again.  Oh happy day!

[56] Posted by Widening Gyre on 02-28-2007 at 11:48 AM • top

WG,

Shall we come to your house and share a fine bottle while you watch it again and again…perhaps it will become a redundancy classic like Groundhog Day.

[57] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 02-28-2007 at 11:50 AM • top

UGH!  My head clunked on the desk as well.  Good to know some live and unscripted questions were being answered. 

Interesting - General Convention repesents the majority for the US (except for us pesky dissidents who don’t count), and yet the primates who disagree don’t represent what is going on in their own countries, while primates who agree do.  The spin machine is in high gear, only they have the proper torch and anyone who disagrees is uneducated, backward, ignorant, impatient and afraid.  It would be interesting to know how the new 14 primates differ from the old ones.  It seems that +KJS/TEC are counting on turnover in the primates for victory as we’ve heard this count reiterated before.

It was torture to hear words like “Catholic” continue to be redefined and spun.  The defininition of obedience was intersting…“hear” with no mention of compliance…“different understandings”.

40+ years of listening to the twisting of Scripture and devaluing of anyone who disagrees with it and we’re “impatient”?  Sometimes the answer is just no.  Hearing it over and over again doesn’t improve it or give it any more credence.

We L2 didn’t feel that TEC was or will ever change its path. Recent statements and this podcast again show that they won’t.  If they were intersted in bridging the pain (or neuralgia, if you will—NPR voice emphasized) of the orthodox, the lawsuits would have been halted last week as a measure of good faith.  This is not the case.  Nor, in our opinion, will it ever be.  +KJS/TEC is committed to this path…repentance and turning around is not an option they are even willing to consider.  The communique is another way to stall and bide their time.

The point made about having services in homes and other locations for the New Orleans parish with no building was interesting - setting aside the implications of Katrina’s damage.  +KJS implies you don’t need a building to have services.  So why would you need the buildings of those who disagree with TEC?  Ah, yes, the property itself and to make it more cumbersome on those who disagree with TEC.

In our opinion, TEC won’t comply with any part of the communique.  The lawsuits will continue, any primatial vicar plans that would effectively help the orthodox will be blocked.  TEC doesn’t believe in the same rule book the orthodox adhere to.  A new way forward is needed.

[58] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 02-28-2007 at 11:58 AM • top

Forgot all about it… too busy settling back into US and errands, phone calls, etc.

Will watch the on demand version this evening, I expect.  Doesn’t sound like I missed much.

[59] Posted by Karen B. on 02-28-2007 at 12:05 PM • top

In sum: clarity is becoming Hi-Def.

[60] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-28-2007 at 12:08 PM • top

Chip,

Did you know that I can watch Groundhog Day all day long?  Wonderful.  Here, though, I find myself drawn to another late 20th Century classic, Real Genius, as I watch and listen to our PB.  Does Mitch know she’s totally copying his look and his voice?

[61] Posted by Widening Gyre on 02-28-2007 at 12:17 PM • top

Surely she wouldn’t copy anyone or anyhthing else!  I generally watch GD every Feb 2, I either rent it or get it from the library now that I don’t have access to the TBS broadcasts any more.  Real Genius is on my want list, the library has it, but they have moved and not put out the videotapes yet.

[62] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 02-28-2007 at 12:27 PM • top

Well, the one thing she has right is to connect the contemporary revisionism over homosexual activity with that of the ‘79 PB and WO. So it’s not just the Continuing church which has recognized the logical connection between the revisionism of Scripture, Tradition & rational orthodox theology represented by all three.

I remember a call-in radio show back when the Barbaras Harrisy was elected as first PECUSA female bishop, when the one “traditional” caller they allowed onto the show—a rude & angry ranter—suggested that the next step would be openly homosexual bishops. The female clergy on the call-in show laughed him away as clueless and needlessly inflammatory. I guess the revisionists no longer feel the need to deny the connection.

It’s interesting how, as things become more polarized, they also become clearer—as the revisionists no longer feel the need to dissemble as much… and as they are increasingly willing openly to admit their basic anti-Christian/Scripture/Tradition principles.

If nothing else, the Communique & Schedule are helping this process of clarification. And that’s useful.

pax,
LP

[63] Posted by LP on 02-28-2007 at 12:43 PM • top

BWD wrote: 

I heard her talk about the need for all of us to mature in Christ and to let go of our fear.  I think this is connected to her emphasis on listening, by which she was not saying, ‘you need to listen to me.’ She is asking us to listen to each other.  I thought she was excellent.

What +KJS and TEC are not saying “listen to each other” - just DO what TEC wants. 

There are consequences of sin.  That’s the way it is.  If anyone wants to say we orthodox fear something…it’s the consequences of the free will and sin of others which affects not only the life of the sinner, but the lives of those the sinner influences - by life, relationships, etc, whether the sin is homosexual/premarital/extramarrital sex, gluttony, stealing, coveting (wish I had that latest computer/ipod!), etc.

Maturing in Christ is also learning to accept “no” as an answer.  “No” has been said repeatedly and not heeded.  TEC’s refusal to accept “no” is a lack of repect for everyone including itself, those in this church who have disagreed over the years, of the AC in multiple conmuniques and reports, and of God Himself.  While +KJS/TEC’s continuing efforts may “wear down” many, it will not wear down everyone, especially God.

[64] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 02-28-2007 at 12:45 PM • top

Scott Gunn of Inclusive Church (who blogged from Tanzania) blogs his take on KJS’ webcast here:

http://inclusivechurch.blogspot.com/2007/02/kneejerk-reaction-to-pb-online.html

[65] Posted by Karen B. on 02-28-2007 at 01:04 PM • top

Well, what I got out of it is that Schori is really willing to give the framework of the communiqué time to work.  I thought she sounded and looked relaxed, confident even.  Of course, she doesn’t agree with us, but, for the time being, the open contempt has disappeared, which is consistent with the statement she put out to ECUSA last week.

The problem for her, if she is as sincere as she sounds, is that her base is way to the left of her and is even now taking up pitchforks and torches.

The problem for us is threefold:

- ECUSA is never going to back down in its project to jettison Christian moral standards.  Paraphrasing Iran’s Ahmadinejad, ECUSA might have a brake, but it has no reverse gear.
- Schori sees the communique’s arrangements as lasting only until such time as a covenant is approved, and, if the draft presented at Tanzania is the high-water mark for that effort, we already can suppose any covenant will be worthless.  So orthodox Anglicans have, at best, a few years before a very angry ECUSA will be waiting with a very big paddle, expecting to have its congregations returned to its tender mercies.
- Schori clearly thinks time is on her side and plans to wait the primates out.  She explicitly mentioned, in fact, that there were fourteen new primates and she expected several retirements soon.  One assumes she couples this with the high probability the CoE itself will disintegrate over morality, just as we have, within five years.

[66] Posted by Phil on 02-28-2007 at 01:06 PM • top

Antique is very perceptive: 

My impression about her emotional state in the early minutes was that she was deeply stressed at the very least. Perhaps angry or furious. She spoke well and professionally, but her countenance belied an impatience that did not manifest itself in her voice.

On the occasions I’ve watched her perform spontaneously, I had the same impression.  At a diocesan town-hall sort of presentation in Las Vegas several weeks after GC03, when questioned on the Scriptural basis of the GC’s affirmation of homosexual behavior, she gave the facile, canned answer “Well, some read Scripture one way, some another.”  When the questioning became more pointed, she simply repeated this mantra again and again in response, showing increasing signs of barely-controlled anger and confusion.

Prior to the famous Nevada Diocesan Convention of 2003, where SSBs were approved, Mrs. Schori spent quite a bit of time with the local Integrity coordinator, Susan Craw, working out the precise wording of the resolution and discussing tactics for assuring its passage.  At the convention itself, Mrs. Schori avoided conflict by simply ignoring or ruling out of order any proposals from orthodox representatives, exercising tight control from the chair.

At a parish meeting in 2004, she “facilitated” using techniques similar to those described by Harriet Baber:

The “dialogues” were manipulative therapy sessions. During our training, we were urged to encourage participants to ventilate their feelings using “I-statements” ...

Participants found the programme objectionable because it was patronising, and because the ... prescribed group-dynamics tricks ... made serious discussion impossible. Any objection to the format was construed as resistance to the views on sexuality that the programme was intended to inculcate.

Then, of course, there is the fact that she fired or drove away any diocesan leaders who disagreed with her in any way, or whom she regarded (for whatever reason and however incorrectly) as a potential threat to her power.

The overall impression I have is of insecurity driving a profound need for control, and a suppressed rage reaction when such control is unavailable or ineffective.  Although I seriously doubt that Mrs. Schori believes in any literal devil, it’s clear (to me, anyway) that she has a number of personal demons with which she continually struggles.

[67] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 02-28-2007 at 01:53 PM • top

KJS compared those of us who are opposed to the “new” understanding on sexuality to those who supported bigotry and slavery in former generations.  Oh well!

[68] Posted by David Wilson on 02-28-2007 at 02:04 PM • top

I watched it after it was filmed.  What struck me the most was the blackness/darkness of it all…..Not only in how it was filmed with a black background, but in what was said…..and how the questions were asked and answered…

She mentioned those wanting “clarity” were fearful and anxious.  Wrong, wrong, wrong….but I can see why she would want to spin it that way…..

[69] Posted by Liz Forman on 02-28-2007 at 02:17 PM • top

Phil, you a right.

The unspoken hope among many is that TEC will effectively withdraw from the AC in reaction to the demands of the Communique (or prior to that, Dromatine).  However, ++Schori’s endorsement virtually ensures that the HOB will do what is necessary to comply on the surface.  Ironcially, a “moderate” PB, such as +Parsley, would have had a much more difficult time getting liberal Bishops to go along. But for the same reason that Nixon could go to China, ++Schori can deliver compliance with the communique because her credentials as a revisionist are impeccable. Most of the comments so far from US Bishops reflect this reality.

Of course, this will be compliance in letter only; the HOB’s vote will be predicated on a fundamental disagrement with the premise for the resolution and is “for a season”.  ++Schori and others will continue to openly argue that the “full inclusion” is consistent with Holy Scripture, and she and others will continue their “all roads lead to Heaven (if Heaven exists)” teaching.  Meanwhile, the situation with the seminaries remain the same. Practicing gay Priests will continue to be ordained.  I would rather TEC reject the demands rather than an enter into a surface agreement that is contrary to its teaching.  In that regard, I find myself allied with Integrity.

++Schori may be right about the impact of the Primate turnover.  The press report that ++Akinola had a minority report iin his briefcase to use in the event that the last minute negotiations to revise the communique fell through was telling. Please note the term “minority”.  A majority of the Primates are clearly willing to press TEC to keep the largest GS Provinces in the AC, however, that is not the same thing as being willing to expell TEC.

[70] Posted by Going Home on 02-28-2007 at 02:33 PM • top

  “We live in an age where reproduction is not understood theologically, to be the primary intent of marriage.  But the primary intent of faithful life-long relationships is companionship and growth in Christian living.”
KJS


The Catholic church states: “By its very nature, the institution of married love is ordered to the procreation and education of offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”  The two principal characteristics of marriage are defined as “fidelity and fruitfulness” although the Church states that “spouses to whom God has not granted children can nonetheless have a marriage [which] radiates a fruitfulness of charity, hospitality, and sacrifice.”

Oh…but I forgot.  Episcopalians are “better educated” (as per KJS) than Catholics, so they have eliminated fruitfulness as a primary intent of marriage.  Like all those educated Europeans who can barely bring themselves to have one child, if any, and have eliminated the need for marriage altogether.  BTW, since fruitfulness is no longer a primary chacteristic of marriage, why should fidelity be either?  I mean…I would think that you can grow a lot by having a diversity of companions in your life.

[71] Posted by Catholic Mom on 02-28-2007 at 02:33 PM • top

Catholic Mom, I’d like to know where ECUSA gets off teaching us monogamy and fidelity.  Don’t those ideals come from the same Source that teaches us marriage is meant for one man and one woman?  But, ECUSA having already trashed that Source as unreliable, I don’t see why I need to follow any of it.  I mean, if the bigoted Christofascist hatred for gay people in the text was culturally determined, maybe the mongamy part was too, don’t you think?

The revisionists say they’re not arguing for “anything goes,” but I beg to differ.

[72] Posted by Phil on 02-28-2007 at 02:40 PM • top

Liz Forman:

You are right, the stage set was very dark and sparsly lit.  I think they were trying to go for the Charlie Rose, PBS intimate-conversation-round-a-table look.  But I agree, it did come across as rather somber and dim.

Even though I disagree with her on many (OK, most all) spiritual and theological issues, let’s do keep +Katherine in our prayers.  She needs them.  I do not think she has an easy road ahead of her - When she does decide to make a choice, (and she is right, no decision is still a decision - though a rather cowardly one) she will either loose the favour of her benefactors, or the favour of her Faith.  There are no easy options for her.  Or any of us.

[73] Posted by cliffg on 02-28-2007 at 03:09 PM • top

I keep hearing this kind of take on what the Primates meant and I can’t help but think that the Primates need to focus on English comprehension and Communication 101 BEFORE they start the Hermeneutics Project. I also see parallels with Genesis 3:
“Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” I keep hearing “what the Primates really meant was…” or “If you read it closely it doesn’t say that it says… “.

[74] Posted by Festivus on 02-28-2007 at 03:13 PM • top

Festivus, when Archbishop Nzimbi visited the States 1-2 months ago, he stated that he wanted to write the Communique in Swahili, as, every time the Primates write something in English, people try to subject it to many “interpretations” and somehow it just doesn’t mean what it says. 

Frankly, Swahili would have been great, based on the as-per-usual response of the revisionist crowd.  His Grace called that one, amongst many others, correctly. 

hmmm  DUH

J.

[75] Posted by Orthoducky on 02-28-2007 at 03:44 PM • top

“BTW, since fruitfulness is no longer a primary chacteristic of marriage, why should fidelity be either?  I mean…I would think that you can grow a lot by having a diversity of companions in your life”.

Catholic Mom, you have hit on a tenet of the “theology” of Marvin Ellison, who was the keynote speaker at a retreat for Province I of TEC some ~15 months ago.  In essence, any sort of fidelity is “oppressive” and “polyamorous justice” would produce a much more egalitarian, developed society. 

If anyone believes that this train wreck would stop with supposed “committed, monogamous, homosexual ‘blessings’ or ‘marriages’”, then boy, do I have news for you. 

I’ll also take this opportunity to state that I have no time whatsoever for Protestant snobbery, and have never had anything but respect for the Catholic Magisterium.  And with that, I’m taking my intellectually underdeveloped self and running off to deal with one of my grumpy, fussing progeny.

IC,

Jen

[76] Posted by Orthoducky on 02-28-2007 at 03:56 PM • top

1) Did she seem a little too happy with older primates retiring and bringing change?

2) The whole idea of Anglicans putting up with a wide idea of theological ideas: Yes, but I think the basic Christian idea that Jesus is the way the truth and the life…

3) Faithful listening? Is that to only ideas that 815 permits?

4) Someone might want to help her understand how Elizabeth did the settlement. The way she uses the example baffles me. Just like the questioner uses the Compromise in a very wrong way.

5) Jesus is our way to the Cross?

On the whole I agree with most of the other comments. Same song, 19th verse.. Though it sounds like the fat lady is warming up in the choir room.

T

[77] Posted by Thomistic on 02-28-2007 at 04:10 PM • top

I was uplifted by her comments and I proceed with greater faith and optimism for the future of the Episcopal Church.  God has blessed us with PB who will be able to lead us through this dark period.  I’m off to the building committee where we are planning a larger sanctuary and parish hall for our growing church.
Yours in Christ,
Righteousness

[78] Posted by Righteousness on 02-28-2007 at 04:13 PM • top

Widening Gyre asked: 

Well Sarah, I missed it! Totally forgot about a 9:30 am meeting.  How about we make up a fictional version?

Well actually, WG, it’s not like we could make up a version that would more clearly or succinctly highlight the differences between orthodoxy and revisionism.  My daddy always said truth is stranger than fiction.

[79] Posted by JackieB on 02-28-2007 at 05:14 PM • top

bwd wrote :

I did not hear it that way at all.  I heard her talk about the need for all of us to mature in Christ and to let go of our fear.  I think this is connected to her emphasis on listening, by which she was not saying, ‘you need to listen to me.’ She is asking us to listen to each other.  I thought she was excellent.

Well, we heard different things then.  I asked her if she was going to drop the lawsuits in Virginia and she basically said no.  I don’t think that’s a mature, fearless position.  She’ll listen, but through her lawyers in court.

[80] Posted by Tom Cain on 02-28-2007 at 06:00 PM • top

OK you all.  Here comes the spin re podcast.  FYI.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_82922_ENG_HTM.htm

[81] Posted by ama-anglican on 02-28-2007 at 07:43 PM • top

The AP story has a completely different take on it:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070228/ap_on_re_us/episcopalians_gays

[82] Posted by James Manley on 02-28-2007 at 08:03 PM • top

Well, I saw it and wasn’t nearly as disappointed as I thought I would be.  I agree with bwd insofar as I thought she did fine.  She never struck me as being angry or trying to control her emotions.  Sure, she said some things that I don’t agree with but I expected that.  And I didn’t expect her to say that she would roll back the lawsuits in VA.  As much as some of us would like that to happen and as much as some are saying that it would be a sign of good faith if it were to happen immediately, I think we have to remember that there is a lack of trust on both sides.  The officials at 815 probably have as much faith in ++Akinola as some of us have in ++Schori.  Thus there needs to be a comprehensive agreement or arrangement at the same time.  All in all, she did much better than ++Griswold could have done.  Hey…at least we could understand her! smile

[83] Posted by Vintner on 02-28-2007 at 08:38 PM • top

Did anyone else notice how patronizing Nunley was to KJS?  At times she was seeming to nod approval as if she felt that KJS needed encouragment, and sometimes she even added her two cents as if to signal taht KJS’s response hadn’t been quite complete.  We’re still not sure how much clout KJS will have in the HOB, but the webcast made it look like she’s got very little clout even inside the 815 offices.

[84] Posted by Nyssa on 02-28-2007 at 10:10 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.