From here:

March 2010

My dear brothers in Christ:

I write you because of developments in The Episcopal Church, about which you will soon hear and read. As you all know, the Diocese of Los Angeles elected two suffragan bishops in December, and the consent process for those bishops has been ongoing since then. One of those bishops-elect is a woman in a partnered same-sex relationship.

At this point, she has received consent from a majority of the bishops with jurisdiction, and a majority of the standing committees of this Church. According to our canons, I must now take order for her consecration. I will do so, and anticipate that both bishops-elect will be consecrated at the same service on 15 May. It has been my practice, since I took office, to preside at the consecration of new bishops, and I intend to do so in this case as well.

I realize that this development will cause hurt and pain to some of you. I am deeply aware of the range of opinion and position about this. I would note that our Communion also has a very broad range of opinion and position about the suitable characteristics of bishops in general — some provinces do not believe women can or should be consecrated as bishops; some do not believe divorced and remarried persons can or should be consecrated; some provinces do not believe persons without advanced theological degrees should be consecrated. I know that many of you do not see these as equivalent issues, yet our diversity remains.

It may help you to know that our House of Bishops will continue to discuss these issues at our meeting later this month. The papers we discuss will be available publicly following that meeting, and we will endeavor to see that you receive copies. I would encourage you to engage in conversation any bishops whom you know in this Church, particularly those you came to know at Lambeth, whether in Bible study or Indaba groups.

Know that this is not the decision of one person, or a small group of people. It represents the mind of a majority of elected leaders in The Episcopal Church, lay, clergy, and bishops, who have carefully considered the opinions and feelings of other members of the Anglican Communion as well as the decades-long conversations within this Church. It represents a prayerful and thoughtful decision, made in good faith that this Church is ‘working out its salvation in fear and trembling, believing that God is at work in us’ (Philippians 2:12-13).

I ask your prayers for this Church, for the Diocese of Los Angeles, and for the members of the Anglican Communion. This part of the Body of Christ has abundant work to do, and God’s mission needs us all.

If you have questions about this decision or process, I would encourage you to contact me. I would be glad to talk with you.

I pray that your ministry may continue to be a transformative blessing to many. I remain

Your servant in Christ,

Katharine Jefferts Schori

View the original post

Know that this is not the decision of one person, or a small group of people. It represents the mind of a majority of elected leaders in The Episcopal Church, lay, clergy, and bishops…

And, much like Congress, they don’t represent the views of those who elected them.

In an age of instant communication institutions which once seemed democratic can be anything but representative. Our General Convention is peopled by those who can afford to attend, in terms of getting time off from work, having the means to enjoy the opportunities offered by expensive hotels in expensive cities (even if dioceses are able to foot the bill for rooms, travel etc) and who themselves attend diocesan conventions with enough regularity to be electable. A significant group are old hands, savvy in the arcane ways of Convention rules, known to each other and to the administration. It all sounds rather like Congress.

Unlike secular government, there are no opinion polls to assess the views of parishioners. Deputies are not known to travel around dioceses hearing the views of parishioners. There is no culture of parishioners contacting deputies, no “town hall meetings”, and little fear of losing one’s seat. 

Thus the checks and balances of a democratic system are unknown. One house of Convention is peopled by purple personages elected by diocesan conventions but thereafter enjoying tenure without fear of recall!  There is something at best optimistic and at worst disingenuous about claims that the policies adopted by GC or the Executive Committee or the PB represent grass roots opinion.

At least some of the Primates evaluate the PB’s letter with these facts in mind. They are the more irksome when overseas Provinces are criticised for their alleged lack of democracy.

I have attended meetings of the English General Synod. My visit to York a few years ago was very instructed. Bishops and delegates were housed at York University, ate meals together, mingled, and met as one House for all business. Members of Synod are elected by their peers and by parishioners in discreet constituencies. Direct election of members of synod is the general practice around the Communion. Synodical government is the established practice everywhere and by all. 

I would go as far as to suggest that our form of governance is more of the type to be found in those provinces which grant a disproportionate authority to primates or bishops, although of a different genre of limited democracy.

TEC could easily adopt a system more representative of the people in the pew, by the simple devise of sending important legislation to deaneries, diocesan conventions and the provinces before final deliberation by General Convention. However reform is unlikely because the present system works for those in power.

It is the same system that has worked for each group “in power” down through the years.  Since it is no longer a predominantly white male conservative east coast elite that has power suddenly people want to complain it is not representative.  With more voices heard there gas been an incredible change in atmosphere and representation.

But we elect deputies who are elected to exercise their conscience, not take polls.  And in fact out congressional reps are exactly the same.  We do not have direct democracy.  If deputies are unresponsive elect someone else.  What Tony reveals in his comments is that those Dioceses of which he has been a part has either: 1)had a high trust in its deputies; 2) sent delegates to Diocesan Convention who are ill informed of their duties; or 3) simply been irresponsible.  None of that is about the system, only about those who populate it.  Nor is it a critique of how the system is formed.  In San Diego we listen before convention and after convention.

What’s more the present system is conservative in nature. In essence there are two votes; one for the HoB and one for the HoD.  They must agree for something to be passed.  However in the HoD there are two votes as well, one for clergy and one for laity.  If they do not agree the HoD vote is No.  To suggest that somehow this is a flagrantly easy body through which to send legislation is simply wrong.
The PB and President of the HoD cannot make things happen.  In a Post B033 era, where people were pressured to vote as the new PB asked, I can assure you that the luminaries have used up that particular bank of capital.  A good sign of that was in the budget cutting.  When people suggested restoring the assistants to the PHoD or not cutting the Secretary of GC’s staff, they were essentially ignored.  So no little fiefdoms were kept in the midst of those changes.

It is ludicrous to suggest that GC has somehow been hijacked, since every party int he church has the same opportunity to elect people.  Once more it is the failure of the dissident conservatives to frame their positions in a “recognizably” Christian or Anglican manner than has led to their loss of influence, Diocese by Diocese these last 30 years.  This nearly decade and a half of doing an end run around GC by playing the WWAC angle was a disingenuous way to get past their failure.  As was illegally “transferring” assets and people to other venues. Now that state by state the “transferring” is being rectified, I expect in due time that a significant segment of the rest of the communion will tire of the dissident conservatives and I expect that to begin at the GS4 meeting which will no doubt modify the Covenant document and then try to jam it down people’s throats in the same way they did the Jerusalem Declaration. 

Hardly a vast improvement in polity.

Michael: It is the same system that has worked for each group “in power” down through the years.  Since it is no longer a predominantly white male conservative east coast elite that has power suddenly people want to complain it is not representative.  With more voices heard there gas been an incredible change in atmosphere and representation.

Yes, it is about power, not the gospel, not the will of God, not the mind of the communion.  We can praise the honesty of this statement.

This statement by the Presiding Bishop is disingenuous,because she only has presided at consecrations of bishops to which she is invited. She did not, for example, preside at the consecration of the present Bishop of Tennessee for that very reason. In Los Angeles she could quite readily step aside to reduce the pain to the Communion.

I was present in one form or another at all but one General Convention of the Episcopal Church between 1985 and 2003, and at a time when my ministry had me traveling far and wide throughout the United States, visiting a majority of dioceses all over the country. At that time I got to know a lot of the people who made things happen in the Episcopal Church, be it theological education, evangelism, world mission, or whatever. I probably attended more diocesan conventions than was healthy, as well as visiting hundreds of parishes! I have to say that by and large the cast of characters that you saw at General Conventions did not seem to represent the cast of characters who made things work in parishes and in dioceses around the country.

The GC crowd tended to be those who recognized that this was a primary place to shape the structures, strategies, and direction of the church, and so during those years they were working hard to get themselves elected, and were succeeding. One of the reasons they succeeded was because the orthodox, biblical, and mainstream, whatever you want to call them, Episcopalians were busy with the business of ministry and mission at the grassroots… and didn’t want to get involved in the rough and tumble of church politics, neither did they have the time nor the energy. Those of us who represent the residue of the Anglican mainstream in the Episcopal Church are now paying the price for that omission. It has been made worse by those who have decided, in conscience, that they can no longer belong to the Episcopal Church leaving us as a tattered, but faithful, remnant. I am sympathetic with the consciences of those who separated, but believe that strategy will eventually prove to have been entirely wrong.

I do not believe that the majority of elected leaders have, as the Presiding Bishop puts it, have considered the opinions and feelings of others in the Anglican Communion because I have at first hand over the years, and in many places, watched them driving their agenda forward. We should congratulate them on their intelligent use of power, but as we look at the increasingly parlous state of the Episcopal Church we might find ourselves wondering whether in the end (and church history is a long-term not a short-term endeavor) it might be a Pyrrhic victory.

I find very odd the notion that the PB, by absenting herself from the LA consecration, could somehow make critics of TEC any less critical. Her past decisions to have someone else serve as chief consecrator have been, it seems to me, largely out of consideration for the feelings of the bishops-elect and the dioceses. Applying that pastoral consideration to the LA consecrations, I conclude that it makles sense for her to be the chief consecrator.

I would tend to agree with Daniel here, and would even suggest that it would be disingenuous for the PB to absent herself from the Glasspool consecration.  It would be disingenuous because it would be dishonest and a thing done for Potemkin-like reasons only.  Everyone knows full well that the PB fully supports the Glasspool consecration, and that her party in TEC pushed for this result.  To then suggest that any church unity could be maintained by such a sleight-of-hand as the PB absenting herself from the consecration seems rather absurd.  To me it would be like something trying to claim the moral high ground by hiring a contract killer instead of pulling the trigger yourself.  Far better at this point for full honesty by all parties, and letting the chips fall where they may.