Anglican Mainstream

Beloved in Christ,

This week, new aspects of Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori's visit to Southwark Cathedral continue to surface. As I noted last week, the issue was going to center on whether she would follow the directive of Lambeth Palace, under the Overseas Clergy Measure, and function in the capacity requested, i.e. as a priest, or whether she would defy the Archbishop of Canterbury and wear a mitre, the symbol of a bishop.

The photo says it all. She didn't wear her mitre, which would directly defy the Archbishop of Canterbury, but nonetheless she carried it with her as a symbol of her office. If you look closely, you also see a red-purple bishop's shirt under the overvestment. What you are seeing is a bishop who, in a calculated act of defiance, has pretended to honor the protocol set down by Rowan Williams, but in fact has jammed the entire issue back in his face. We see in all clarity not a woman who would be queen, but the woman who believes she IS the queen, at least of the Anglican Church. Why did she carry the mitre, when she didn't need it for any part of the service? Why wear the purple shirt? It was all about making a statement regarding her relationship with Archbishop Williams, and we hope that Dr. Williams took due note.

Lambeth Palace has apparently known for many months that the invitation to Southwark had been made, and according to verified reports, Jefferts Schori was required to provide evidence of her ordinations, which is not seen as unusual by anyone except her supporters. Some are claiming that this was an anti-women act by Lambeth, but the reality is that there is currently no provision for women bishops in the Church of England (CofE), and this is a contentious issue which may indeed fracture the CofE, so asking her to function in the order which is permitted in the CofE was a matter of not importing further politicization of their process. But did it also involve more than that? Perhaps.

Reports are now circulating that Archbishop Williams, either through letter or via courier, asked Jefferts Schori to step down from her elected position on the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. First, could this be true? Read the articles attached and decide for yourself. If it is true, can the ABC actually tell people to step down? No, not in that forceful of a way, but the British have a gentlemen's code: one doesn't intrude where one isn't welcome. How gentlemen's rules will change when there are…gentlewomen involved remains to be seen. Reports indicate that she declined to accept the request. It did, apparently, annoy her, for she showed up thereafter at Southwark with her mitre under her arm. If she declines to follow the Archbishop's request, he could always have the Standing Committee meet in Lambeth Palace, where the walls and gate are formidable. When you knock on the small door that is part of the very large wooden gate, a guard opens it and you explain your business – who you are to meet and when. He then goes to check your name with the approved list that he has in his small guard room, and perhaps even rings the Palace if there is any doubt. Then he comes back to the gate. If you are in luck, the door is opened to you and you enter. But if your name isn't on the list (much like the final day) no admittance is granted. So, Dr. Williams could just have the meeting in the Palace and leave two names off of the list… how simple it could be. Mrs. Jefferts Schori might be left standing at the gate with her mitre in her hand, but then, the gardens really are beautiful, and perhaps she would enjoy spending some time there.

Jefferts Schori has been on a whirlwind trip to visit other provinces in the Anglican Communion. If Dr. Williams isn't careful, he will wake up and discover very soon that she has out-organized him, and that many of the provinces and even some of his own dioceses have a primary loyalty to her and not to him.

Could it be that there has been a change in direction of the Archbishop of Canterbury? Could it be that finally he has been pushed to the brink, and is going to recognize the disingenuous behavior of TEC leaders? An additional case in point is that of The Rt. Rev. Ian Douglas, who as a priest was a clergy member of the TEC Executive Council and also a clergy member of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. His support of same-sex marriage should have precluded his viability for ordination as an Anglican bishop, but no, that was not nearly serious enough. He did, however, after his consecration as a bishop, resign from the TEC Executive Council, since he was now filling an episcopal role rather than a presbyterial role. But with the same facts in play, he has refused to resign from his clergy position on the Anglican Communion Standing Committee. What is the difference in his status on the TEC Executive Council vs. the Anglican Communion Standing Committee? If the logic holds for one, why not for the other? Well, he doesn't want to give up the more powerful position that a seat on the Standing Committee gives him, and this promises to be a point of friction, if not conflict, at the next AC Standing Committee meeting, where efforts to unseat him will undoubtedly be made. All of this begs the question, are not bishops also clergy? Well, yes and no. Where seats are being allocated, they are typically divided into lay, clergy (deacons and priests) and bishops, otherwise the bishops might well fill the clergy seats as well as their own, and an unfair situation could be created.

We have pulled together a number of very interesting articles pertaining to Jefferts Schori, Kenneth Kearon, Lambeth Palace, and even the Primate of South Africa. The latter is interesting because the most liberal Primate in Africa took an opportunity, in public and to her face, to criticize Jefferts Schori and TEC for their cavalier attitude toward the listening process, making it a one-way listening, and causing all of Africa great pain. Considering who is saying this, it is interesting reading.

Now once again, to move from serious things to clergy housekeeping issues. If you read my comments last week, you remember my alerting you to a possible crisis in the clergy collar department. Those of my readers who wear clergy collars may wish to hear some good news about the continued availability of the acetate round white collars many of us prefer. Although the major factory that made the collars in the USA has closed down, there are similar collars available from a UK provider. Both Morehouse at http://www.churchpublishing.org/products/index.cfm?fuseaction=productCategory&categoryID=390 and Wippell at http://www.wippell.co.uk/s-102-clerical-collars-and-studs.aspx

are providing an acetate white collar that is similar to the old Pontiff collars. The equivalent to the old Pontiff 3 collar seems to be a 1.25" height. If you are in the USA, Wippell's order line is 877-947-7355. My trial use of a starched linen collar revealed that they are fairly warm, and I shall wait until winter in Atlanta to resume wearing one. Thanks to those who responded with ideas and suggestions.

Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.

President and CEO, American Anglican Council