Ship of Fools: And she sleeps with an Episcopal Priest

Thread: And she sleeps with an Episcopal Priest Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026004

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Rev. Elizabeth Eaton, the Bishop of the Northeast Ohio Synod was elected the Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church on the fourth ballot of the ELCA Churchwide Assembly.

Here is some background information: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/elizabeth-eaton-first-female-bishop_n_3757665.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I wonder if the new Presiding Bishop will suffer the same misogynistic attacks that Katharine+ has received during her tenure.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wonder if the new Presiding Bishop will suffer the same misogynistic attacks that Katharine+ has received during her tenure.

Are you referring to attacks that have to do with her being a woman, or attacks that have to do with her being a hack (that are out-of-bounds because she's a woman?)

I've got no problem with a competent female bishop who doesn't try to re-shape the Gospel into some vapid Earth Day slogan.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wonder if the new Presiding Bishop will suffer the same misogynistic attacks that Katharine+ has received during her tenure.

I don't think that's as likely to happen with ++ elect Eaton as it is with ++KJS. For one thing the remaining conservatives in the ELCA supported her election because they saw her as the most moderate candidate. I'm sure that there will be some attacks on ++Eaton as a woman, but I think most of them will come from the LCMS.

Also, Eaton has been quoted on another forum as saying

quote:
My fear is that lately we've been sliding into being generic Protestant denomination. Our challenge is to regain our distinctive Lutheran voice.

One correspondent on Tumblr suggested that this meant that ++Eaton wanted to distance the ELCA from "the trajectory of TEC". I think that's very unlikely given that she is literally in bed with one of our priests. I personally think that she's speaking about worship here, and is saying that she's going to push to have congregations use the liturgy, and is also going to try to get Lutherans to read Luther and the other classic and modern Lutheran works, instead of the c*** that you find in "Christian bookstores".

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

So far just a few murmurings of disapproval ("They voted for her just because she's a woman!") on various ELCA Facebook pages -- and these seem to be less attacks on ++Eaton than a poorly articulated expression of disappointment about Mark Hanson not being elected to a third term.

I liked Mark Hanson, but I think that, especially after all the Sturm und Drang of the past few years within the ELCA, it was about time for us to move on, and a new Presiding Bishop can help us do that.

Not that it's high on every church member's radar. Even though ++Hanson recently visited our church, I doubt that half our congregation could even identify him (including the people present that Sunday!), or would know that we've just elected a new PB, or is even aware that we have a Presiding Bishop.

[ 15. August 2013, 01:25: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wonder if the new Presiding Bishop will suffer the same misogynistic attacks that Katharine+ has received during her tenure.
Are you referring to attacks that have to do with her being a woman, or attacks that have to do with her being a hack (that are out-of-bounds because she's a woman?)

I've got no problem with a competent female bishop who doesn't try to re-shape the Gospel into some vapid Earth Day slogan.

Indeed. She's an appalling leader. Should we wrap her up in cotton wool and not be critical of her leadership because she's a woman? Sounds rather condescending to me.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

@LutheranChik: How could your congregation forget Bishop Hanson's height? That is always what floors me, when seeing him in real life.

quote:
Try:
I don't think that's as likely to happen with ++ elect Eaton as it is with ++KJS.

I agree. In Lutheranism, it has always been fairly easy to leave a denom if one disagrees with something such as the ordination of women. There is very little opposition left, save a few people amongst the pews here and there. In TEC, it meant severing one's sentimental connections to Canterbury. In the case of Quincy, I think the election of ++KJS was the proverbial straw.

quote:
Try:
I personally think that she's speaking about worship here, and is saying that she's going to push to have congregations use the liturgy...

I certainly hope so. I am somebody who, like Bishop Eaton, probably hangs out in more Episcopal churches than the average Lutheran. One of the reasons I do so is because I know I'm going to get a certain minimum standard in a TEC church. In ELCA churches, anything goes. We have no legislation to guarantee anything in a worship service. The Gospel might not be read. The sacrament might not be administered, and even if it is, it might be "consecrated" by the soprano from the praise band, and in such a case would most definitely not follow the Great Thanksgiving. (Definitely do not take this as a norm, but I'm afraid there is more truth to this than I care to admit.) There should be a minimum standard, regardless of musical style. Our worship book sets forth such, but the worship book is not legislation, nor is it required. It is "commended for use."

In any event, Bishop Hanson served 12 years, and even though I am a Hanson supporter, 12 years is plenty for anybody. I would definitely favor a term limit rule.

[ 15. August 2013, 02:29: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Olaf: I agree with you about term limits.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wonder if the new Presiding Bishop will suffer the same misogynistic attacks that Katharine+ has received during her tenure.
Are you referring to attacks that have to do with her being a woman, or attacks that have to do with her being a hack (that are out-of-bounds because she's a woman?)

I've got no problem with a competent female bishop who doesn't try to re-shape the Gospel into some vapid Earth Day slogan.
Indeed. She's an appalling leader. Should we wrap her up in cotton wool and not be critical of her leadership because she's a woman? Sounds rather condescending to me.

Not to turn this into a thread about the PB of TEC but my reaction was the exact opposite. For my point of view, the attacks on Katharine+ by the Anglican Right would not have happened if Katharine+ was a man. I don't think any of her theology was original (That is my criticism of her), that hasn't been pontificated by other male bishops or male theologians. To me, the fact that she got the burn from David Virtue and his ilk suggests to me that there is a tone of misogyny in the criticism.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I wonder if the new Presiding Bishop will suffer the same misogynistic attacks that Katharine+ has received during her tenure.
Are you referring to attacks that have to do with her being a woman, or attacks that have to do with her being a hack (that are out-of-bounds because she's a woman?)

I've got no problem with a competent female bishop who doesn't try to re-shape the Gospel into some vapid Earth Day slogan.
Indeed. She's an appalling leader. Should we wrap her up in cotton wool and not be critical of her leadership because she's a woman? Sounds rather condescending to me.

I think she's a pretty great leader. See how lovely it is when we all get to have our own opinions?

Anyway, good luck to the new Bishop Elect. It's a tough job but someone's gotta do it (with God's help).

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I've got no problem with a competent female bishop who doesn't try to re-shape the Gospel into some vapid Earth Day slogan.

Addressing the very serious problems our planet faces is in no way contrary to the Gospel. Anything further I'd like to say about your totally off-base and mean-spirited comment would have to be in Hell.

To get back on-thread, congrats to the new PB -- prayers for a successful term! [Votive]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Thought I would bump this up with an interview that Bishop Elect Eaton gave on MSNBC this last Friday.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/vp/52883426#52883448

I believe she will be an excellent spokesman for our church at this time.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For my point of view, the attacks on Katharine+ by the Anglican Right would not have happened if Katharine+ was a man.

Yes, Frank Griswold was never attacked by traditionalists.

[ 02. September 2013, 16:40: Message edited by: CL ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

And Frank Griswold was more of a traditionalist with orthodox beliefs and an Anglo-Catholic spirituality. He's liberal on the divisive issues of the day but there is more to him than those issues. In Schori's defense, TEC has hundreds of straight, white, male priests who feed their congregations the same boilerplate diet as KJS feeds the larger church.

I just ignore her. Occasionally, in an attempt to be provocative, she ventures near the heretical and others tell me what she said. When that happens, I shake my head, role my eyes, and pray that her replacement won't be one of the aforementioned priests just like her.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Liturgically, Frank Griswold is nosebleed Anglo-Catholic, in Midwestern terms (i.e. Novus Ordo Catholic). As bishop of Chicago, whenever I saw him celebrate, he even wore a zuchetto. Frankly (pun intended), he was just about the best that high liturgists could have asked for, out of the possibilities at the time. It was the conservative doctrinaires who had more issue with him, but his traditional liturgics pacified many of them at the start.

quote:
Gramps49:
I believe she will be an excellent spokesman for our church at this time.

I'd love to hear her extol the virtues of Mainline Christendom a bit more, especially as these are probably her only realistic chances to be on TV, but hopefully that will come soon. Perhaps having a woman in leadership will help us move beyond the ethnic caricatures I keep reading about (and yet live on a daily basis!)

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by CL:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
For my point of view, the attacks on Katharine+ by the Anglican Right would not have happened if Katharine+ was a man.
Yes, Frank Griswold was never attacked by traditionalists.

Griswold was the one who consecrated Robinson. I don't think I heard one note of criticism against Griswold for the move.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Conservatives in both TEC and the rest of the Anglican Communion criticized Frank Griswold for consecrating Gene Robinson. One, Griswold voted to consent to his election. Two, conservatives thought that at minimum Griswold should have appointed another bishop to be the chief consecrator.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Griswold was the one who consecrated Robinson. I don't think I heard one note of criticism against Griswold for the move.

I certainly heard quite a bit, much of it from people in the Chicago diocese who actually knew (and were known by) him.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Griswold was the one who consecrated Robinson. I don't think I heard one note of criticism against Griswold for the move.
I certainly heard quite a bit, much of it from people in the Chicago diocese who actually knew (and were known by) him.

Perhaps anglican_brat intended to say "before the move"? He or she can speak for him or herself, of course, but I certainly recall very ferocious criticism of his decision to vote for and consecrate +Robinson. There were even people who criticized him for not halting the consecration after the emergency primates meeting, something which he could not do!

I also recall him being criticized by +Iker for calling himself an anglo-Catholic rather than a high churchman or affirming-Catholic because he supports the ordination of women.

But, on the other hand, the attacks on +KJS, from the moment she was elected, have had a nasty, personal edge. They've been constant, and practically everything that she's done has been criticized, even things that have nothing to do with theology or dead horse issues. I think that there are four reasons for this. The first is that she is a woman, and before +Katherine was elected as Presiding Bishop there was a small but vocal minority of Episcopalains who did not accept the validity of women's orders. So sexism is part of the issue- she had "stept out of her place" by teaching and having authority over men. However, the second reason is that her theology is much more radical than that of her predecessor. As others have pointed out +Frank came down on the progressive side of the dead horse issues, but he was a creedal Christian, and I think this meant that conservatives felt that they could attack his positions on the basis of common assumptions. Because conservatives feel that they have nothing in common with +Katherine they feel that the only way to deal with her is to attack her. +Spong gets attacked in much the same way, though at a much lower level of intensity. Finally,+Katherine has, I think, a more authoritarian leadership style than +Frank and that has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. IMHO, +KJS, who came from a Roman Catholic background, has an almost RC conception of the extent of her episcopal authority. She imposed a uniform strategy when dealing with parishes and dioceses that wanted to leave TEC, and that rubbed some people's feathers the wrong way. +Frank had left the dilemma of what to do in such situations to the diocesan bishops. In addition, +KJS was elected in the middle of a crisis, that had brewed up under +FG. So there wasn't ever really a chance for her to work constructively with conservatives on common goals; the relationship was always adversarial.

To bring things back to +Elizabeth Eaton, I think that she's only laboring under one of the disadvantages that +KJS is under. To take things in the same order:
1. There is no anti-OOW minority in the ELCA. The ALC and the LCA both began ordaining women in the 1970s, and of course the AELC split from the LCMS precisely because they were in favor of ordaining women. So any snarky comments about +Eaton's gender will come from the LCMS and Roman peanut gallery, not from people engaged in the debate within the ELCA.
2. +Eaton is a creedal Christian. In fact I know at least one conservative Lutheran who feels that she is the least liberal of all the serious candidates, including +Mark Hanson. I've been lurking on the ALPB forums, and the general feeling there is one of relief and a willingness to take +Eaton at her word.
3. +Eaton has the advantage of leading a denomination with a clear-cut process for congregations to leave. So she's not trying to formulate a strategy to deal with a situation that's officially not ever supposed to happen. Of course it's too soon to see if there's a dramatic difference between +Eaton's leadership style and +Mark Hanson's, but the specific rock that +KJS stumbled on is not present in the ELCA.
4. For whatever reason, the conservatives in the ELCA seem to be willing to believe that +Eaton is sincere about wanting them to stay. There's some skepticism about whether or not this is possible, but there doesn't seem to have been the sort of breakdown of trust that happened in TEC.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
4. For whatever reason, the conservatives in the ELCA seem to be willing to believe that +Eaton is sincere about wanting them to stay. There's some skepticism about whether or not this is possible, but there doesn't seem to have been the sort of breakdown of trust that happened in TEC.

To be honest, as long as one avoids synod and churchwide assemblies, one's congregation can live in complete ignorance and apathy toward the national organization. It is those conservative pastors and couple of church representatives who actually show up at synod assembly who find themselves flummoxed. They just guzzle the Pepto-Bismol, bear it for two days, and return to a 363-day period of isolationism. Congregationalism is alive and well in the ELCA.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
4. For whatever reason, the conservatives in the ELCA seem to be willing to believe that +Eaton is sincere about wanting them to stay. There's some skepticism about whether or not this is possible, but there doesn't seem to have been the sort of breakdown of trust that happened in TEC.
To be honest, as long as one avoids synod and churchwide assemblies, one's congregation can live in complete ignorance and apathy toward the national organization. It is those conservative pastors and couple of church representatives who actually show up at synod assembly who find themselves flummoxed. They just guzzle the Pepto-Bismol, bear it for two days, and return to a 363-day period of isolationism. Congregationalism is alive and well in the ELCA.

The same is also quite true of TEC, 95% of the time. The othe 5% consists of bishop's visitations and children's summer camps. And the latter issue is probably regional; going to your denomination's camp is a major part of being a Christian kid in the Midwest, but in Texas you went on mission trips or ski trips with your parish.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Personally, I think is the isolationism of some congregations that has caused the split in the ELCA. The sexuality statement had enough latitude in it that congregations across the spectrum could have lived in it; but the resolution allowing for same sex clergy in monogamous relationships was over the top for the congregations in my area who have left.

A common thread, though, is that these congregations did not take the opportunity to study the Human Sexuality Statement or the question of same sex clergy in monogamous relationships. A complaint I heard was, "Our pastor did not want to talk about it." or "We did not know this was happening."

Seems like the congregations that did study the issues have stayed within the fold.

One thing our area congregations are going to do to break through the self imposed isolation is to have area wide worship services and fellowship events. The first one event is on 15 September. Six congregations will come together for joint worship and a potluck picnic. This will be followed up in November with a Lutefisk dinner. The Norskies are all excited about this, the Swedes not so much. The Germans couldn;t care less, but it is what it is.

I do think Bishop Eaton will give the ELCA to take a breather from the progress that has been made. It sounds like she wants to have the ELCA reaffirm its Lutheranism.

My local bishop was also nominated and after the first ballot he came out among the top 20 candidates. He related how he did not feel called to the position so withdrew, but he said the succeeding ballots allowed for conversation about the state of the church and our place in a rapidly changing landscape.

My bishop writes, "Bishop Easton is very, very good on her feet: bright, irreverent, and funny. She is also competent and faithful." Alongside her, Bishop Hanson's responses looked tired." (Bishop Martin Wells, September 2013)

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

Hmm, when Mark Hanson visited my local university I went and heard him twice (even if I'm not a Christian), and, he seemed a compassionate and listening human. KJS didn't strike me as favorably when she came to speak though that might have been the topic.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Hmm, when Mark Hanson visited my local university I went and heard him twice (even if I'm not a Christian), and, he seemed a compassionate and listening human. KJS didn't strike me as favorably when she came to speak though that might have been the topic.

This will sound trite, but I'm going to state it anyway:

I wish all three of them would smile more.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I have never met Bishop Hanson directly, but I also have the impression that he is very compassionate. However he has aged a lot in the last six years. The split has taken its toll. He has served the ELCA well, but it is time for new leadership.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I have never met Bishop Hanson directly, but I also have the impression that he is very compassionate. However he has aged a lot in the last six years. The split has taken its toll. He has served the ELCA well, but it is time for new leadership.

Let us hope he can recover now he is no longer leader.

What does the ELCA (or the TEC) do with old leaders? In England they seem to make them (ABCs) heads of colleges/universities and throw them into the House of Lords in their own right (though in the old days they led until dead).

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Depends on how old they are upon retirement. Retired bishops receive a nice pension and the opportunity to become assisting bishops, do conferences/retreats, teach, or a combination of the above (including run for office if the idea of being something akin to a Lord Spiritual interests them). Lutheran bishops are different. One, ELCA really doesn't see their bishops as being bishops upon retirement. So, a retired Lutheran bishop is basically a retired Lutheran pastor. Don't know about retired Lutheran Presiding Bishop. Retired Lutherans don't get as generous a pension as Episcopal bishops.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

They usually retire to their home communities, worship in their home congregation, and take interim supply jobs as desired. Some younger bishops who leave synodical jobs go on to work for Churchwide HQ. Presiding bishops can expect speaking engagements here and there, and possibly a book deal with Augsburg Fortress. When serving as a pastor at a church, they tend to be called 'pastor,' but the same is often true even when they are bishop. In formal occasions, such as speaking at an assembly, they tend to be called 'bishop,' even after retirement. This is a relatively new development, but it seems to have taken root fairly quickly.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Well, for one thing, Bishop Hanson will be an adviser to the Presiding Bishop elect as she takes the office. He is big in the ecumenical movement and has strong ties with the Roman Catholic hierarchy so I expect he will continue to work in Roman Catholic/Lutheran Dialogues. I would expect he will be offered a position at a Lutheran Seminary, likely Luther Seminary in St Paul, MN.

I think he still has a lot to offer the ELCA, but in other capacities.

Posted by BCP Believer (# 17815) on :

Will this woman be a Lutheran leader like the wonderful Matthew Harrison?

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

Frank Griswold now makes quite a few appearances at St. Mary the Virgin, Times Square. I assume that he is an excellent fit theologically, liturgically, and dead horsally for that parish.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Frank Griswold now makes quite a few appearances at St. Mary the Virgin, Times Square. I assume that he is an excellent fit theologically, liturgically, and dead horsally for that parish.

He is certainly a good fit for SMV, but do remember that SMV is an open-minded place.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I've got no problem with a competent female bishop who doesn't try to re-shape the Gospel into some vapid Earth Day slogan.
Addressing the very serious problems our planet faces is in no way contrary to the Gospel. Anything further I'd like to say about your totally off-base and mean-spirited comment would have to be in Hell.

To get back on-thread, congrats to the new PB -- prayers for a successful term!

I looked for my Hell thread and was bitterly disappointed.

But indeed, I am happy for the new PB of the ELCA. I pray she has the wisdom and courage to lead the church through difficult times.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The differences between Matthew Harrison and Elizabeth Eaton are like night and day.

Matthew Harrison is committed to a narrow view of his Synod. He does not want LCMS pastors to interact with other Christians in any official capacity.

Eaton is committed to an inclusive view of her Synod. She is confessional, but she is also committed to wider ecumenicism.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0