"Let me in! Do you know who I am?"
MRS. JEFFERTS SCHORI AND THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION
News Analysis
By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
11/25/2007
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is learning the lesson that what goes around comes around.
Mrs. Jefferts Schori is learning she cannot escape the consequences of her actions or words over the way in which she is running the Episcopal Church.
She is doing major league harm to the institution. She thinks she is getting away with it, but ultimately she will pay the price for her bad behavior. Her iron fist in the velvet glove approach is not working. In fact, it is back-firing.
Mrs. Jefferts Schori has threatened three orthodox bishops demonstrating that behind the façade of sweet-talking "reconciling" language there lurks a fist of conformity, veneered over with a facile spirituality. She is fast becoming the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland."
The most recent target of her wrath - the Rt. Rev Jack Iker - received a not so veiled threat that if he tried to pull his diocese out of the Episcopal Church, all legal and ecclesiastical hell would rein down on him. It was the same threat she aimed at Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan - it is starting to look like a form letter that only requires someone to change the addressee and hit the "send" button to every recalcitrant bishop who dares to raise his head over the Episcopal Church ramparts and declare their independence.
Undeterred, the conservative bishop of Ft. Worth accused the presiding bishop of misusing her office and engaging in "aggressive, dictatorial posturing," forgetting all the nice words about reconciliation, dialogue and mediation she utters so frequently. Frank Griswold, her predecessor had us all going to a "deeper place", but no one knew where the hell it was, or to Sufi Rumi on a plain beyond good and evil, but no one could find that either. (Charles Bennison is still looking for it, but it might be too late for him.) Schori warned Iker in a letter that he could face church discipline if he continued to back proposals that lead his diocese away from the national church.
If Schori thought she could personally bully this Anglo-Catholic bishop, she clearly badly misjudged the bishop. He wasn't playing nice either. He roared right back saying, "[your letter] appears designed to intimidate our delegates and me. It grieves me that as the Presiding Bishop you would misuse your office in an attempt to intimidate and manipulate this diocese."
Iker turned the screws a little tighter accusing Schori of "intimidation" and making attempts to deter the diocese from taking any action in opposition to the direction she is leading the Church. "It is highly inappropriate for you to attempt to interfere in the internal life of this diocese," he blasted back at her.
Them's fightin' words.
He closed with these words, "While your threats deeply sadden us, they do not frighten us. We will continue to stand firm for the unchanging truth of the Holy Scriptures and the redeeming Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, whatever the costs."
Late last year, Schori attempted to intimidate another bishop, John-David Schofield of San Joaquin by accusing him of "spiritual violence" due to an attempt by him to disassociate his diocese from The Episcopal Church. This brought a riposte from one priest saying that such an accusation, delivered from the public face of the Episcopal Church, is not only "reckless but also offensive, especially to those of us resident in the Diocese of San Joaquin. Is this the 'shalom' that you so fervently preached about at the National Cathedral earlier this month?" Indeed not.
This also begs the question "Just who is doing the spiritual violence?" For orthodox Episcopalians and orthodox Anglicans watching from the sidelines it is Jefferts Schori, not Duncan, Iker or Schofield who are doing "spiritual violence" to the Episcopal Church. She has replaced the faith of the church with Millennium Development Goals. The Great Commission has become the Great Omission.
This past week saw yet another side to the Iron Lady of Episcopalianism. It appears that Mrs Jefferts Schori likes to manipulate even her band of not so merry liberal bishops, who apparently live in mortal fear of her tongue and her legal Rottweiler, David Booth Beers who practically lives at her elbow for $510.00 an hour.
It was revealed in testimony before a Virginia court, where some 11 parishes want to leave the Episcopal Church, that she ordered Virginia Bishop Peter Lee to break a verbal agreement, which would have allowed the parishes to withdraw from the Episcopal Church, and directed the Diocese of Virginia to sue the clergy and lay leaders of the 11 congregations.
The Dominatrix of 815 has wielded her whip against one of her own kind, reducing the theologically soft-headed bishop, Peter James Lee, to a quivering mass of compliance. Earlier he was ready to cut a deal with the departing parishes which was almost on the table, according to testimony from the Rev. John Yates, but then it all fell apart.
No one knew at the time what caused him to change his mind, but at the Fairfax County Circuit Court it all came out in the open when Jefferts Schori admitted that she did it to prevent "incursions by foreign bishops."
She revealed, that shortly after her installation as Presiding Bishop in November, Schori met with Bishop Lee, telling him she "could not support negotiations for sale if the congregations intended to set up as other parts of the Anglican Communion."
Is there a law in American statutes that says to whom you can and cannot sell property? Does Schori have the right to tell a parish priest or bishop to whom he may sell a building?
Jefferts Schori tried very carefully to parse her words, but that didn't fly with the court. She was directed by the court to answer the question more explicitly.
The moral of this story is that she can say whatever she wants in pulpits to gullible Episcopalians, but the courts brook no such prevarication and pluriform talk. You either say what you mean, and mean what you say, or be directed by the courts to be more explicit.
Jefferts Schori has demonstrated that she can play hardball, and that is going down like a lead balloon. One wonders if she successfully intimidated Dr. Rowan Williams in New Orleans when the House of Bishops met. On the surface, all appeared sweetness and light between the two, but there were indications at a press conference that she was in charge and she would not tolerate any opposition or interference in the affairs of the Episcopal Church, even by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
She made it clear in New Orleans that there would be no reversal of the church's forward movement on pansexual behavior and that "consultation" means never having to say you're sorry or change your mind about the direction of The Episcopal Church. Schori made it clear that the Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons are sacrosanct, and that TEC will never abide by, accept or sanction a universal set of canons that the whole communion would write and live by because TEC could be disciplined by such a body. It would also set a legal precedent over property disputes in the TEC.
If Williams didn't get the message, he would have to be the dumbest archbishop to sit in Lambeth Palace. He can mull over The Episcopal Church's "baptismal covenant" till the Second Coming, but the political situation will demand more immediate attention.
Clearly Schori's ecclesiastical and legal strategy of iron-fisted conformity is not going down well. In fact it is not going over at all. She is more than a disappointment. She is a disaster.
As Charles Bennison, the inhibited Bishop of Pennsylvania learned the hard way recently, when you betray your own liberal constituency, you can find the tables turned against you. If Mrs. Jefferts Schori pushes too hard against her own kind, the same thing could happen to her.
In the world of ecclesiastical politics as in the world of Machiavellian realpolitik, the long knives of revenge are never far from the convention floor. Just ask Bishop Bennison.
