Wednesday, October 17, 2007

An attempt at blogging the PB's webcast

Blogging the PB's Webcast

Now UPDATED on Friday, Oct. 19 ... scroll down.

10/17: Like the "product placement" of the "Trinity Wall Street" mug.

The bishops intentionally gathered in New Orleans (I guess that's different than if they had unintentionally gathered in New Orleans). Of course, there is the main issue that we want to hear about, but she wanted to talk about the bishops humanitarian efforts and slap themselves on the back. Nevermind that the Church is suffering it's own breaking of the levees.

She has a black background which is so foreboding. The Archbishop of Canterbury is marginalized by placing him in context of "Anglican visitors" which is really strange. It's like he was just part of the bus tour from Milwaukee. Why is she dissing him that way? The whole point was his visit, not those others - that was orchestrated by Kenneth Kearon and the gang. What spin!! She looks drawn, pained even, older, bespeckled. Pinched.

Oh - a slam against Bishop Duncan - you know I can't even listen to this anymore.


Feel free to listen. Perhaps you'll get further than I did. I've heard it all before. What a spinmeister. She shows no emotion, nothing, she's like a robot that someone has switched on back in the black backdrop. Is this really the best The Episcopal Church has to offer? This is it? I'm so done.

LATER: Here's how an Anglican Church in London does weekly videocasting. You can see their intro video here. Not a black backdrop in sight. No sense of having to have a controlled environment either. And their joy shines through. Where is my passport?

EVEN LATER - FRIDAY, OCT. 19th: Take Two. Trying again, from a different point of view. Watching from from here or here. Roll tape.

First off she is focusing only at "all of you in the Episcopal Church" and she emphasizes that it is an international church. That's a significant point.

Act of Solidarity - an interesting political view, which is a hint about what role the Presiding Bishop is playing. And what I'm going to do is pay particular attention to the role the PB is playing in this video. She seeks to put it in the context of "listening to stories" while patting Episcopalians on the back for their good job, she seeks to be reassuring. The tone though is amazing non-pastoral, it's very clinical which denotes her scientific background. The tone of her remarks is journalistic, not personal. She is commenting on actions, but does not talk about her own feelings. That is noteworthy. She is demonstrating that "all is well" and there's nothing to worry about. She's firmly in control. That is the role she is playing in this video, like Al Haig after Reagan got shot.

This is like a scientific report, which would make sense since that was what she started out to be - a scientist observing the natural world. Now her attention has turned to observing the episcopal world. She is taking the same tact as she would when she looked at the world under the sea.

She then continues to give her scientific overview of how she would like the House of Bishops meeting reported - it does not really matter --- (oops, there's that word - again a political word - incursion, but BabyBlue will remain scientifically removed as well and not talk about our own feelings about that word ... she's talking to Episcopalians and she must have data that tells her Episcopalians like that word, incursion. It gives Episcopalians the sense of victimization and that these nasty brutes are acting like terrorists in Iraq, isn't that the allusion, but nevermind). Breathe.

I think that's what is hard to understand, she takes a very scientific tone and not one that would sound like a bishop or a priest. She is making a speech as though she's running for office.

Is that what she is doing?

Is she running for office?

Perhaps this is her Role of Choice, this Detached Scientist - she is observing the world through her own glasses, but does not tell us her heart. It is uninspiring because she is not seeking to inspire - she is seeking to assure that everything is under control. All is well.

Again, it is strange that she takes the view that they had Episcopal Visitors when we all know that the point was the Archbishop of Canterbury's address to the Episcopal House of Bishops. Why is she downplaying him? It's like she doesn't even want to say his name? Will that upset Episcopalians, if they are reminded that the Archbishop of Canterbury had to get on a plane, fly all the way to America, and say some things in secret to the Episcopal House of Bishops?

Now the questions:

Again she reports on what she is observing, in her clinical detached sort of way. It's clear there was a decision to again project a sense of all is well, all is under control by talking about the PB's travel schedule and the MDGs and Global Warming. Episcopalians like to travel, want to feel like they've contributed to those poor Africans, and like Al Gore very much. Apparently.

Reconciliation: Again the questions are softball questions "Individuals leave the Episcopal Church and have throughout its history in small numbers" and then talks about the "duty of her office" which is something new, because dioceses were usually formed from the local churches up, not top down. And now she has "an office" which means she may be running for office after all. Is there a problem in River City?

Another softball question about her trip to the Hill - again reported in a clinical sort of way. So now they are showing the PB's role as Political Activist in DC, which must be done to assure Episcopalians. Nothing like testifying to a congressional committee to show who's in control.

Ah, now we're talking about minorities and the polarization of North and South (shades of That War?) - but she informs us that it more complex than that (since she's taking the role of Dr. Scientist PB then she takes a tone of authority, but her evidence is one bishop in a sea of millions). Once again, we're told that everything is so complex, so don't worry your wee little heads about such complex matters. She's in charge, that should be enough.

Institution of Marriage and Blessings of Same Sex Unions - couples of any sexual orientation - which is again an assumption and then goes on to say that marriage is all about property rights, inheritance rights, and
reproductive rights AHHHHH !!!! Please tell me she didn't say that. Please tell me she didn't say that. Middle Ages! Companionship - well, this is all about making the point that reproduction is not what marriage is about which means bless those same sex unions. This is so incredibly WRONG. Where is the biblical imagery, the ---AGENT OF THE STATE!!! AHHHH! Significant merit? Tell me she didn't say this ...

That's it.

I tried friends, I tried. Sorry Yoda.


Anonymous said...

Wow, those questions were so tough and came from such a varied sample of TEC. I don't know how she carried it off....

BB, I had just finished eating; you should have warned more strongly of the nausea factor.


RSchllnbrg said...

I sent in a question that did not get aired. I'm sure there were just too many people asking things for her to get to it. But there you go.

I had asked her Stephen Noll's question ... that is, since there has been a lot of different perspectives on the HOB statement from the JSC to Bishop Robinson could she simply state whether or not she affirms the moral teaching of Lambeth 1998 1:10.

Alas, there simply wasn't enough time for that sort of thing. Or I suppose we already had the answer in her statement ...

PB: "I don’t believe there is any wide willingness on the part of Episcopalians to go backward. I believe we understand that our vocation is to keep moving forward … In some parts of the world where people don’t want to think about embracing gay and lesbian people it’s going to be a challenge, in other parts of the world it’s going to be a challenge to think we are going to wait still longer for full sacramental inclusion."

Anonymous said...

For me it wasn't just what I heard, but what I saw. KJS's whole demeanor (body language, voice infection, facial expressions, movements of head) were very cocky, and condescending. I saw nothing but snobbery coming across in her demeanor. It spoke to me of an essence of "You better do what I say, or else?" I was very disturbed by that as well as by a lot of what she said. She's clearly not Christian. She clearly does not understand God's clear declaration in the Scriptures beginning right in Genesis that the reason for marriage is not only for "companionship" as she says, but to "be fruitful and fill the earth". His clear message is to produce more people. His clear message is to rejoin the flesh which he separated when he created Eve from Adam to then make them one flesh again.

When I listen to KJS speak and watch her body language I feel a sense of dark foreboding come over me. She uses very clearly the "confusing" language of Satan. And those who are drawn to her would have to be of Satan in order to accept the evil spell she casts.

Satan, go away!

Anonymous said...

Another Anonymous Person says:

That chill that Anon #2 that on the last webcast. Didn't want to watch. Have heard enough. Don't need to expose my soul or myself to her or this darkness any longer. If a "life boat" doesn't appear near me soon (and I don't mind being part of a plant)... my family will leave. Probably will end up in a non-denom, and more than likely a one-of-a-kind.

Teddy T. said...


If you can't find your passport, you can get one at most D.C. Post Offices: check here.

Sound like you need to get out of the country fast.

Mike L said...

"I don't believe there is any wide willingness on the part of Episcopalians to go backward. I believe we understand that our vocation is to keep moving forward..." - Katherine Schori

"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive." - C. S. Lewis

Now then, who do you think has it right?

Padre Wayne said...

anonymous 1: You might review your copy of Genesis. To wit., Gen 1:27: "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." NB Eve not created out of Adam, nothing about marriage at all. Yes, God blessed the man and woman, but God also blessed the animals ("And God saw that it was good"). I don't think you can use this passage (nor the one you used, from Genesis 2:7, 18, 21-24) as an argument; even in your citation, the original reason for God creating woman was that '“It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”' (Gen 2:18)

RSchllnbrg I'm so tired of Lambeth 1:10 being trotted out as doctrine on par with belief in the Holy Spirit. Remember that only two-thirds of the attending bishops voted for it; remember that Lambeth resolutions are just that -- they're not doctrine or dogma (cross the Tiber if you're looking for that sort of thing).

BabyBlue said...

Tonight I met a friend at Starbucks who has a real gift for reconciliation - it's like a calling on his life. He had some great insights on how to keep going, even when we get discouraged, as I was as I tried to listen to the PB's webcast. I'm not a separatist - I don't believe I can just march off into the sunset to the "perfect" church - they don't exist. Though a sunny vacation on the Rivera was sounding rather tempting last night.

But my friend said some great things that got me to a place of thinking - and better yet - praying creatively, honestly, and kindly. I remembered that it's Jesus' kindness that leads us to repentance, not smashing us over the head with a frying pan (or a passport).

I asked my friend to post here some of the thoughts that he shared with me - hope he has a moment to do it. I was very much encouraged. Though circumstances have not changed, I guess my heart has.


Padre Wayne said...

Wow, a gentler BB! Blessings! I'm glad you've found, at least for the moment, a place of at least semi-serenity. :-) Lord knows I need to pray for that often! And actually, amid the nastiness that can occur within the context of the current unpleasantness I must say that I often find your humor and goodwill can bring me back to a better place. Not always, mind you, but... often enough that I suspect we'd have a fine time at Starbucks.

Oh, and by the way, there's a LOTR marathon this Sunday at my local cinema! After church yet! (But...other commitments preclude attendance...)

RSchllnbrg said...

Silly, silly. Padre Wayne, I don't believe I trotted out Lambeth in any fashion at all. I merely wondered whether the PB could affirm the moral teaching in it, as per a question posed by Stephen Noll. Seems you're reading a bit much into my comments, old boy.

And you know, Lambeth 1:10 may not be doctrine or dogma to you ... but the Primates have said over and over that it is the standard of the church. Sorry you don't like to have it trotted out ... but according to the Primates it's not just a resolution.

As for doctrine and dogma it's not like the Anglican Church has done away with them. It's not like they were thrown out back in the 1500's. I don't have to go anywhere but back to what the Church has said in previous years. Got a bunch of documents from the Lambeth Commission on Doctrine (imagine such a thing if there was no doctrine or dogma in our church!)from over the last 100 years. Would that suffice for you?

One of those documents (Commission on Doctrine report 1922)reminds us that it is the doctrines of the church which provide a corrective measure to what it calls the "kaleidescopic inconsequences" of the new ideas in each age. You see, it could well be those silly old doctrines that could be helping us now ...

One of the great things about being a catholic (small c) is that we have a wealth of doctrines that keep us from just makin' stuff up and calling it the work of the Holy Spirit. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the Spirit. In fact I named the Church I planted Church of the Spirit.

But my gosh, the things that get blamed on the Spirit these days ...

Hiram said...

I watched the video, with some of the same feelings that I have had at an accident scene -- I know I should have turned away, but I just couldn't. It was eerily fascinating to see the incredible combination of arrogance and ignorance.

Bp Schori's attitude and beliefs do not portend a good future. She will tolerate the presence of conservatives, but only if they are willing to say that her beliefs are within the acceptable boundaries of the Christian faith, and only in order to convert them to her way of thinking (for clearly we are ignorant and stubborn).

Anonymous said...

Both KJS and Martyn Minns were asked towards the end of their interviews what keeps them awake at night. Their answers are quite different and revealing.

Hopefully, everyone will at least watch the Martyn Minns interview (posted above) to find out his answer. The contrast between the two interviews is like night and day...

Anonymous said...

Padre Wayne, I think I'm the one you responded to above, even though I was the 2nd anonymous to comment, not the first one.

To put it plainly, you are just "plain" wrong!! Genesis 2:21-22 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep. While the man slept, the Lord God took out one of the man's ribs and closed up the opening. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib and brought her to the man.

That says CLEARLY that God separated the flesh from the man and made a woman from it. In this process, he divided the flesh of the man in order to make the woman.

Gen 2:18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is JUST RIGHT for him." Emphasis mine. I emphasize those words for one reason. God didn't plan for a man to be joined with all the creatures outside of manhood, nor did he plan for a man to join with another man or with another woman. He made a WOMAN for the MAN. He makes that PART of his plan very clear here. Then proceed on to Gen 2:23 "At last" the man exclaimed.
This one is bone from my bone
and flesh from my flesh
she will be called 'woman'
because she was taken from 'man'"

(again reaffirming that the WOMAN was made from the MAN.)

Now go on to Gen 2:24 This explains why a man leaves his FATHER and MOTHER and is joined to his WIFE and the TWO ARE UNITED INTO ONE. Emphasis mine. Again, this explains quite clearly that God planned for a MAN to be joined with a WOMAN in marriage. This was the establishment of the first covenant of marriage that God set Himself. This is no "civil" action. In the latter part of verse 24 He's explaining how this joins back together the flesh which He separated initially to make the WOMAN from the MAN.

Padre Wayne you can try to twist the Scriptures any way you want. I won't buy it, and neither will any other "authentic" Christian. Instead you will only convince us even more just who you belong to. One of the most recognized ways that Satan used to gain his followers is to twist Scripture. That's masterful DECEPTION, not Truth.

So, like I said above, "satan, go away!" That is what Jesus told Satan to do when he kept trying to tempt him in the desert. Now, I'm saying it to you. I'm a follower of Jesus, NOT satan!

Dan said...

One way to try to view the PB with charity is to consider that she is playing a role right now, and the statements she is making are those she is supposed to say as the PB. It's not that she doesn't believe what she is saying, but the interview is not a conversation in which she is trying to explain, understand, etc. It is a performance in which the party line is set forth.

One big reality that affects all the players in this drama, not just the PB, is that it is being played out on a global stage and in a soundbite era. This leads to simplification of the message and attempts to position oneself so that anyone who doesn't agree is obviously wrong, corrupt, unChristian or worse. It would be great if life were that simple.

I am a member of a church that has left TEC, but I have friends in churches that have not. I believe that they love Jesus just as much as I do.

It seems to me that there are three key truths to hold onto: (1) Jesus calls everyone to himself, (2) When we come, we begin a process of transformation that will last our whole lives, and (3) He sends us out to be his people in the world.

All of us are at some stage of #2, which means that we each have some amount of disease, brokenness and pain that has yet to be healed. My prayer for the PB and all who have public roles in this dispute is that they do not become so defined by their roles that they are unable to continue the process of transformation. I think playing roles can lead to hardness of heart.

I'm not saying that we should all just get along. There are real and profound differences and the structural implications of those need to be worked out.

May the Lord have mercy on all of us, and help us to show that mercy to others, even as we struggle to find our ways forward in these difficult times.

Edward of Baltimore said...

Wow. Mr./Ms. Anonymous, you seem to have a particular gift at understanding the book of Genesis. Would you be so kind to explain a few verses which appear in chapter 3?

"8They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ "

My questions are: 1. since when can one hide from the presence of the Lord to the extent God cannot find one? 2. how does that jibe with Psalm 121:8 "The LORD shall watch over your going out and your coming in, from this time forth for evermore." and 3. what size sandal does God wear when walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze?

Edward of Baltimore said...

bb: " know I can't even listen to this anymore...Perhaps you'll get further than I did."

Why post your criticism on something you admit to not watching ? Oh, yeah, "I've heard it all before." That builds up the Body of Christ? That serves the Church? I fail to see it.

Comparing the PB interview with the Holy Trinity Brompton video is like comparing Inside the Actors Studio with a Miramax film trailer. Totally different. A better comparison would be with the Martin Minns interview, don't you think? What production values that has, eh? All those great camera angles, and the audio. Makes me feel blessed, you? That shelf crammed with books in the background sure adds an air of scholarship, too. And that "Anglican TV" logo superimposed over the whole thing? Wow. I wish Trinity Wall Street had thought of that.

RSchllnbrg said...

Thanks for doing your part in building up the body Ed.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ed that "A better comparison would be with the Martin Minns interview". But I watched them for what they had to say and not the camera angles, background, etc. Like I said above, I found the differences in what they had to say illuminating.

The mocking, dismissive attitude we (by that I mean BOTH sides) have towards one another is not edifying. (No pun intended, Ed!)

Watch them both to the end. Even you, BB!

inked said...

Du vill do it our vay und du vill like it! PB-KJS on behalf of ECUSA/TEC.

God has a better way and He revealed it in Scripture, Jesus, and the Church Universal under the express guidance of the Holy Spirit for these past 4000 years.
Hear ye Him!

Those who need passports are those who wish to pass out of the teaching of YHWH, Yeshua, and Ruach HaKodesh. They will get them. In the end, there are only two sorts of persons, those who say to God, "Thy will be done", and those to whom God says, "thy will be done".

Everybody's choice counts, eternally.

RSchllnbrg said...


You might not be as familiar with the undercurrent here, which is taken from a fellow named Freidman. In his writings (very much in vogue at places like Virginia Seminary) he talks about how the leader needs to be a non-anxious presence. You stay connected to everyone else in the conflict, but you show that you are in control by not becoming emotional, by staying calm ... When I heard the Presiding Bishop speak for two hours at VTS a few months back, she never modulated her voice, never seemed emotional. And one older priest in the audience got up and told her how wonderful she was at being a "non-anxious" leader. And the place all applauded.

I've written before that I think this is why she was elected PB. She extends this sense of calm in the midst of crisis. What's interesting though, is there is a disconnect between the public persona she gives us in this calm, observer, leadership role, and the actions that she oversees in terms of threatening letters, lawsuits, and all the rest. It took me a long time to wake up and see that the persona is a studied, controlled response. It would be very interesting sometime to see beneath the shell, because I'm sure after weighing both the words and the actions that they do not match up.

I think in the end we'll find out she has been hurting and filled with all kinds of feelings she never felt she could share. But her protest to "pay no attention to the bishop behind the curtain" will until then, keep our attention on the calm, in control, leader whom we see in these public performances.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous re: Genesis

I'm not questioning so much your use of Gen 2, but only pointing you toward Gen 1 -- two somewhat different creation stories, and in Gen 1 there's no reference at all regarding woman being created out of man.

So why do you insist that Gen 2 is the real story of creation?

Padre Wayne

Anonymous said...

BB -

Thanks for trying again! I always enjoy reading your commentary.

You probably did not make it to where she was asked what keeps her awake at night.

Her answer: "nothing"
Martyn Minns answer: "being faithful"