Midwest Conservative Journal

HARDBALL

On the eve of Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s investiture as the 26th Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, her chancellor, David Booth Beers, has written identical letters to the chancellors of two traditionalist dioceses demanding that they change language “that can be read as cutting against an ‘unqualified accession’ to the Constitution and Canons of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church.

“The timing of this letter is shocking,” Fort Worth Bishop Jack L. Iker told The Living Church. “Some of the changes he refers to go back as far as 1989. All this was done completely out in the open and news of it was distributed widely. We have kept the Presiding Bishop informed at every step.

Mr. Beers concludes his letter stating “should your diocese decline to take that step, the Presiding Bishop will have to consider what sort of action she must take in order to bring your diocese into compliance.”

And so much for Kate Schori's word.

Bishop Iker questioned whether this was possible given that in September, Bishop Jefferts Schori told him to his face at a special meeting in New York City called by the Archbishop of Canterbury that the Presiding Bishop has no jurisdiction or oversight of dioceses under Episcopal Church polity.

This isn't particularly surprising. Everyone knew that at some point, TEC would begin to play rough. But I suspect that these letters are probably a bluff on 815's part. With the Primates Meeting coming up in February, TEC will guarantee that Kate won't get an invitation to Dar Es Salaam if they push this too hard right now.

I think these letters are a shot across the bow, nothing more. However the Network needs to get ready for what will undoubtedly follow them.

UPDATE: After further review, perhaps this meeting wasn't anywhere near as cordial as TEC claimed it was. Perhaps Dr. Williams spelled things out for the new PrezBish.

UPDATE: According to Jack Iker, Mrs. Schori's conversation with Dr. Williams wasn't as frank as she said it was.

The Beers letter is dated Oct. 19th and came by regular mail to my chancellor’s law office. When a copy was faxed to me from his office on the 27th, I then faxed it to Lambeth Palace, so the Archbishop would know what was in the works. Alas, Katharine had been there for her visit with the ABC that very day but had already departed.

Posted on 10/30/2006 4:11:57 PM , 4 comments

Submitted by Philip G at 10/30/2006 5:54:24 PM

Christopher, you're probably right in your read on the reaction received by the PBess at Lambeth.

"Jefferts Schori stated her appreciation for the "frank conversation about challenges in the Communion," and for "the opportunity to meet together face to face and begin a relationship that we hope will be fruitful and collegial."

These words read to me, through the prism of diplospeak,(which closely resembles Episcobabble), as not a happy meeting full of warm fuzzies, but rather, a meeting where certain gnarly points, were made crystal clear to KJS.

Unless of course, the "Frank conversations" refer back to ++FTG speaking, my hunch is that they were not chatting about KJS's recommendation for a place to stay on the Vegas Strip.

Submitted by Bob at 10/30/2006 6:30:01 PM

Did someone expect the current tradionalists would be treated any better than her mother?

Submitted by Ken at 10/30/2006 6:42:18 PM

Cult leaders never tolerate dissent. Some are more subtle about it, some less.

Consider the first public pronouncements of this particular person (think: Mother Jesus); one might reasonably conclude that she is a true fanatic on a mission from her god. The talking days are over: get with the program or get out. It's a justice issue, you know.

Submitted by Clown Celebrant at 10/30/2006 7:21:07 PM

Can anyone be surprised by this? This is what is known as a pre-emptive strike. The Schorites know there are likely to be interesting developments upon the elevation of the bishopess to her new position. They are just letting everyone know they are not going to be patsies. But, I find the most interesting conjecture the notion that the Presiding Bishop has "no jurisdiction or oversight of dioceses under Episcopal Church polity." Is this really true? In that case, who cares what the bishopess says or does, or what her lawyers do? Naw. The New Pansy Left is selective in their exercise of power. If you're a rank heretic, you get a bye. If you're a devout believer, you get a threatening letter from a lawyer. This is called shepherding. But, it is a distraction from Kofi Annan's Millenium Development Goals, people. And please remember that I am only a clown--so what could I possibly know?

	Fr. J.
	From Bonnie: "Right now the how of coming to the truth is as important as getting to the truth. Right now, the way in which the Anglican Communion goes about the search for the elusive truth is as important as the truth itself." I went to seminary in Berkeley, CA, so I get this. Back in the 60's the cultural revolution, which started in Berkeley, phrased everything in terms of power. In part, this is because a young generation wanted to change everything though it did not have the status, titles, jobs to make those changes. To sidestep people who had such status, titles, etc. there was a shift in emphasis for them from WHO makes a decision to HOW a decision was made. This was expressed in a variety of ways. Remember the old catch phrase, "the medium is the message?" It became all about process. The process bug was all about manipulating those with authority through various processes until you get what you want. Feminists became the experts at process. Every thought and feeling of every person even tangentially involved must be expressed, recorded, reported, validated, affirmed and become part of the "data" upon which a decision is made. "OK now, let's break down in small groups and report back to the big group later. OK, every small group needs to have a facilitator of your process and a recorder/ reporter." etc. Catholic women religious were famous for this processing the process. These nuns became self appointed process cops in every organization they worked in. This spelt misery for every pastor who hired them. The process thing is pretty much over in the CC. The liberal sisters communities are retirement societies now and are irrelevant. The Catechism has abbreviated all conversations on Church teaching. Pelosi just learned that. Liturgy also is no longer endlessly processed except in L.A. But, TEC is the embodiment of the process illness. Masters of process know one single fact that every police investigator knows. If you force someone to talk long enough, you can get them to say what you want You can wear them down, break their resolve, and thereby achieve "concensus." By the 80's most CC parishes had parish TEAMS with weekly TEAM mettings. A Team mtg. is process lingo meaning everyone gets to comment and opine about everyone else's area. This mostly meant that those least competent in their own job would waste the most time opining about everyone else's area. I know a liberal pastor who was a famous master of process. In the first year his Team meetings went from 90 mins/wk to an entire day per week. This was because he never wanted to make a decision without concensus for he wasn't a "clerical priest." By his second year his meetings were back to 90 mins because the Team suddenly realized that he was willing to talk as long as it took to get everyone to see things his way. That is, the Team realized that they were really a staff. Where things were really bad was in parishes/ organizations when the boss wanted to work by concensus but wasn't the local master of concensus. Soon he found himself working 80 hours a week doing everything some part-time temporary receptionist who was a process master thought should be done. For some reason the local process master always seemed to be the one with the least responsibility, the least pay and who was only tangentially involved. There was a YouTube vid by Greg from SF about 2 years ago where Bonnie says angrily into the camera--"The only thing we ever threatened to do was stay!" As a process queen, just by staying, Bonnie wins and it would not even matter what he agenda was, LGBTQ or Mass Murder. So, this is what Ms. Bonnie Know-It-All means by "the HOW" of Truth being as important as "the WHAT" of Truth.
	8/28/2008 6:11:55 AM

	Katherine
	Fr. J., just a small quibble. Covenants before God which were binding were common in medieval times; they underlaid the feudal system. But of course the use of this language in the church, as if people make a deal with God when they are baptized, is new. And the '79 baptismal service, which I don't care for, is misused as you point out. Poor seminary training is undoubtedly a big part of the problem.
	8/28/2008 6:02:38 AM

	The Pilgrim
	Ken "Is it, however, accurate to say that Orthodox do share with Catholics (and Anglo-catholics) a sacramental view of baptism, which is to say that it actually has a saving effect?" Yes. It's in the Nicene Creed: "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin". Also, as Mark said, for infants and unbaptised catechumens, chrismation is subsumed into the baptism ceremony, and is not done at a later date. Also, ommunion is administered to the newly baptised at the next liturgy; infants as well as adults. Jurisdictions differ, but in the Antiochean church the baby is not baptized until after being "churched," which happens forty days after birth, unless death is imminent.
	8/28/2008 5:42:40 AM

	Fr. J.
	Wow, lots of questions here tonight. Yes, Catholic converts used to be baptized conditionally. Today there are a few "Christian" churches whose baptisms the CC does not recognize: Mormons, JW's, and some others. These are not conditionally baptized but simply baptized. Conditional baptism is done today only in cases where it is unknown whether one has been baptized before, as with folks whose parents have died and whose church did not keep records--which is a lot of churches! About Baptismal Covenant, it is pretty hokey. For Catholics and Orthodox there is one and only one new covenant in the blood of Christ and it is everlasting as is stated in the Eucharistic prayer's words of institution over the cup. "Cup of my blood, blood of the new and everlasting covenant." It is Calvin who gets us all messed up here. He wrote in his Institutes that a group of baptized Christians can gather and declare a covenant before God that is binding upon them. This is absolutely unknown in Catholic/Orthodox theology. It is how a Calvinistic church is founded. The group that declares covenant becomes the elders or vestry and they select a preacher. The preacher has no sacramental role and even the two ordinances, baptism and communion, are extensions of his role as preacher of the word. There is no sacramental ordination in Calvin. Of course denominations evolved with ordination and there is almost no pure Calvinist church. Anyway, it is Calvin who gives us this very non-Catholic concept of declaring a covenant. You will notice that it is only the evangelicals generally who speak of creating covenants. Even the use of the term covenant for the new Anglican Communion constitution is really improper from a Catholic point of view. I would prefer they use the term constitution or rule or just about anything else but covenant. So, where do baptism and Eucharist fit in? Baptism is the doorway into the covenant for a Christian. One enters into the one covenant of Christ by the dying and rising of baptism. The eternal sign of this covenant is him crucified (hence crucifixes in CC churches). In baptism we die with Christ to rise with him. The Eucharist is the renewal of Christ's covenant for all the baptized present who, being properly disposed through absolution as necessary, receive Him in the Body and the Blood. Note we only see Christ's body and blood in three places: The Cross, the Eucharist and the Circumcision. All three are covenantal. Circucision is the sign of the covenant of Abraham, the Cross is the sign of the new Covenant and the Eucharist is the only way to renew the new covenant--passover sacrifice being the way to renew the old covenant. So, to speak of a Baptismal covenant as something extra that TEC members commit themselves to that other Christians do not just simply makes no sense in Sacramental Theology. I have said again and again that TEC's theological problems begin with poor seminary training. There is not nearly enough systematic theology taught, so little pet ideas get blown up into whole new teachings without anybody to say "wait a minute, that's not right." Or TEC is perhaps just not a Catholic church. The ancient concept of Baptism cannot be added to or subtracted from without making it not baptism. So, either this baptismal covenant is a redundancy or it is alien. If it is a redundancy, then it is meaningless and harmless, though confusing. If it is alien to the Gospel, then it is an initiation into a new religion. I am opting for the first interpretation. While I do think that the Baptismal Covenant is rather ridiculous I do not think it alien. Though, if TEC is another religion, which there are some good arguments for, I would wonder if getting the theology of Baptism screwed up isn't at least in part to blame. Signs of this "new religion" aspect of the Baptismal Covenant are the way people make arguments based on it. Nothing in the Baptismal Covenant text says that all the baptized are absolutely equal and the same before God. Still, the Baptismal Covenant is used as the reason for WO, Gay Ordination, SSB, the House of Deputies and the coveted TEC polity. But, I dont see any of this in the text of the "BC." Look for yourself: Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers? Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord? Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ? Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being? I dont really see any justification for using the BC as a basis for any of these new errors. However, if the intention of the minister of baptism is to do something different from what the Church has always intended by baptism, that is, if the intention is to do something really new, then this clearly a false teaching from the point of view of the CC, if I may say so.
	8/28/2008 5:19:57 AM

THE MCJ

HARDBALL