“Jefferts Schori said the community benefits from having members that speak different languages, have skin of different colors, have different ethnic background, and who represent a different social classes and ages.”

Just don’t be TOO different, or she’ll take you to court.

yes, nothing about different ideologies in there - das ist verboten!

“The question is whether a full-stipend priest is really needed or appropriate in a town of 400 when the congregation is 12,” she said.  “There’s not enough for a priest to do there.”

Um, evangelism comes to mind.

Maybe I overlooked it, but I saw nothing about her emphasizing the importance of preaching and teaching the Gospel of Christ here.

Diversity - claiming ‘it’ as a blessing, is not only non-Biblical, but seems to me to be more code-words for acceptance of SSU, and oddly similar to the name of a certain advocacy organization.

I would think the points of discussion on this thread would be how do you be the Episcopal Church in rural Kansas at this time. I don’t see it in the comments above. I just see bashing a fellow human being.

Please—Your animosity is off the scale. Look at what the article says:

“But with this visit, the presiding bishop actually came to spend time with the people of this diocese where we are, instead of at a gathering someplace,” Gilhousen said. “It gives us a genuine sense of being cared for and cared about.”

Jefferts Schori suggested the diocese could care for additional members, including non-English speakers.

“They may not look like many of you, but that is the field that is ripe for harvest out there,” she said.
...
“When most of our members are senior citizens, we tend to focus less on the needs of those less represented in the congregation,” she said. “My sense is that the young people are less well-represented than the other end of the spectrum. One reason is that Episcopalians do not do evangelization by reproduction. We also don’t do a terribly good job at retaining the offspring we do produce.”

And then think about the realities of rural Kansas up against labor-saving farming technologies. Kids are leaving the farm as a result.

KJS knows all these realities, and she isn’t dodging them, she’s confronting them.

I’m sorry you can only see negatives. I’m sorry she’s not the PB you would wish to have.

Did she mention the Great Commission?
Did she utter the name of Jesus?
Did she urge the parish members to unite in prayer for the salvation of the souls in the community?
The only issue is being stipendiary?
This is more in line with the action of a CEO of a widely distributed organization than a Bishop of the Church of Christ.

Profoundly disappointing.

RE: “I would think the points of discussion on this thread would be how do you be the Episcopal Church in rural Kansas at this time. I don’t see it in the comments above.”

The points of discussion *are* about how on earth a rural church can be the Episcopal church in a time of immense heresy and corruption of that denomination at the national level.

I’m sorry that our opinions about the Episcopal church’s national leadership is not what you would wish us to have.

“My sense is that the young people are less well-represented than the other end of the spectrum. One reason is that Episcopalians do not do evangelization by reproduction. We also don’t do a terribly good job at retaining the offspring we do produce.”

Is “Episcopalians do not do evangelization by reproduction” a round about way of admitting that because Episcopalians do not honor marraige as a procreative partnership and do encourage abortion and same sex erotic behavior, they therefore do not tend to produce many children?

Mathman,

We don’t really know do we? Why? because this is only a small part of what she said and it is an article written by someone else!

The writer did mention that she talked about the bible. Perhaps the author didn’t think it was necessary to use the news of the day as an opportunity for evangelism. You can’t blame the Presiding Bishop when she didn’t write the article.

Was her speech to ?Congress? about global warming sufficient to offset her carbon footprint to Kansas and gadding about on a whirlwind tour?  Inquiring minds…..

Did she use gasahol?

Did she follow the “Roman Road” rules for traffic in automobiles and update for airplanes if she flew?

Does she know the other “Romans” road to eternal life?

I think going to Kansas by Schori is a good idea. But it pales in “goodness” compared to doing the rest of her job, like restraining Beers and actually talking to her fellow primates (i.e. “representing the Episcopal Church”), which so far she has failed miserably to do.

In a quieter day, the PB visiting Kansas would be fine. In interesting times, the PB has more demanding matters to attend to. In the case of this PB, those more demanding matters are at least partially of her own creation.

“The church doesn’t have to continue to look like it did 50 years ago.”

It doesn’t?  Wasn’t it Schori that was last heard ranting about “ancient practices?”

Jefferts Schori suggested the diocese could care for additional members, including non-English speakers.

“They may not look like many of you, but that is the field that is ripe for harvest out there,” she said.

What does a muddled, incoherent institution dominated by aging white Baby Boomers have to offer them?  Religious-minded Hispanics are Catholic or Evangelical.  Or they convert to Islam.

The only positive comment I have ever read from KJS is: ““They may not look like many of you, but that is the field that is ripe for harvest out there,” she said.”.  At least she is open to some form of evangelism other than ‘reproductive’.  And yet, it was a racist remark, “They may not look like…”, so it still is a narrow confined view of the ‘masses’.
Ah, well.

“Jefferts Schori said the community benefits from having members that speak different languages, have skin of different colors, have different ethnic background, and who represent a different social classes and ages” Then why is TEC mainly white, english speaking, middle to upper middle class ?

Dear Tom (#13), I am sorry that you do not think that visiting the people of Western Kansas was that important. It goes to show that the larger Church has little regard for this Diocese and has shown it by ignoring us most of the time. Might it be , that if the PB took this time in all dioceses she might have a little better grip on what the actual Church is saying and concerned with and be able to better relate that to the world instead of only speaking with Bishops, Executive Councils and others about their interpretations of who and what their dioceses represent and think? I, for one probably, would prefer that she talk to the people in the pew, which she has done for the past three days.

Many people know that I have theological differences with the present Presiding Bishop, but she was gracious and giving of herself to this Diocese. Would I prefer her to speak out in a more othodox understanding of Christianity? Without a doubt. But having someone spend time with the people is the only way to get the message of the faithful to those who try and lead the whole. Who knows, something that happened in these three days might make a difference. I pray it so and I know that God can use anyone, at any time, to communicate His truth. Who knows?

And no, I did not follow her around the Diocese, checking out what happened. People had the chance to ask anything and voice their opinion without their Diocesan hanging around. With God we truly can leave it in His hands. +James, Bishop of Western Kansas

#18 James
Make your points without misciting mine. My first sentence clearly contradicts your first sentence’s assumptions.
The rest of your post clearly cites Kansas’s need for pastoral care, but given the problems confronting ecusa, how is Schori dealing with the problems of the larger church? How does Kansas fit into this overall pattern? My understanding of what she did in Kansas is virtually nil, asides from your witness. But, did she in fact show a Sign for the larger church? If so, say it clearly. If someone showed her a Sign, I’d like to know of it as well.  If not, my assertion that Schori has other callings largely of her own making at the national and Communion level stands.
One final observation: we are not called to acts of graciousness, in the sense of ettiquette. We are called to acts of righteousness reflecting God’s graciousness. It is this difference in approach to what the PB’s, or any other Christian’s, calling represents that troubles me most about Schori. My diocesan voted for her due to here apparent personal graciousness and I could see his point at that time. Now, times call for a clear concept of righteousness, or at least an attempt at discernment of what path righteousness lies on. Ask yourself if the Paul’s former fellow Pharisees found Paul to be gracious after Paul was called to the path of righteousness through grace.

#19, Tom
“I think going to Kansas by Schori is a good idea. But it pales in “goodness” compared to doing the rest of her job,” is not a misciting, but a restatement that going to Western Kansas was not as important as what the PB might have been doing. But, what I tried to say was, maybe, just maybe, that listening to the people directly may be more important than anything else. None of us can know the effects of what is done, immediately. What did she learn? What did she impart? The effect may well be seen in some other way, at some other time. And how do you know the graciousness that was given or exhibited? This was not just a walk about. It may never make a difference in the great scheme of things but graciousness is shown in truth and I can assure you that the truth of the Gospel was communicated. I’ve also seen the other side, and its nasty. Grace is given to all but received by those who believe.
Blessings and stand firm. +James

I am probably wrong on this, but I can’t shake the sense that Bp Schori was telling Kansas, “The white folk obviously aren’t buying this bowl of tepid mush that passes for Episcopal theology, but the Hispanics will eat it up.  And, besides, it will make your congregation look better on that glossy brochure.”

#20 James
Indeed, her visit might have been absolutely good on the whole, but it does need to be seen in light of her overall calling.  I suppose your “how do you know the graciousness that was given or exhibited?” is a rhetorical given that I already conceded that point in #19. But it leads to the issue of what the PB’s job is and how its components are relatively important. Right now the Communion province she leads is being torn asunder while under her leadership. What she does here or there is part of that history. Listening, at this point, is no substitute for action, given that her executive subordinates and the rest of the Executive Council in New York City are most definitely acting themselves. If listening is a prerequisite for action, you might have some point, but what I don’t see in anything at the top level or in your two posts is anything but listening as an substitute for clarity in position or policy on her official part. Given that the PB’s job includes the critical role of speaking for the whole province within the Communion and to the rest of the world, this persistent lack of clarity in position makes simply listening less than helpful when the pattern of much of recent history is that peripatetic listenings by national church officers is followed by a deletarious unilateral actions on the part of the national church. Perhaps the most famous of this type of pattern were the events that led up to the consecration of Gene Robinson.
Again, the house is on fire, and it might be more appropriate to put out some of the flames rather than to “listen” or “communicate”. Once the fire is out, or at least under control, rational or even gracious discourse might again be feasible and most appropriate. Arguably it also might be asserted that communication is needed for fire fighting. But the object of such communications can only be seen with relation to their relevance to the fire being fought. This top level and thread shows me little of any of such relevance to the current crisis. Such a visit might have pastoral benefits to Western Kansas, but what is its significance (or, how is it a Sign) for the rest of the church?

Diocese had a 15 percent loss in baptized members from 1995 to 2005 and a 19 percent loss in real (adjusted for inflation) Plate & Pledge. And still Bishop Adams has the PB speak at the cathedral. This is strong evidence that Bishop Adams has a flat learning curve.

You are right. All of you. We have lost members. We have not grown. And my learning curve may be as flat as a pancake, but I think we have achieved clarity. Crystal clear clarity already. There are no more discussions, true discussions, of the points of Scripture, Theology and Doctrine that have not been decided on both sides of all the issues from the absolute breaking of Canon Law (Communion to the baptism for instance) to the watering down of Jesus’ Saving Grace by saying that it is true because we have faith. There are no questions left. And after the American Church says we are autonomous and really do not need the rest of the Communion, which just waits on a date in September, it will be each soul who will have to ask themselves, “Where may my faith be fed and grow.”

I do not set agendas for the PB, but I can act as I believe Christ intends His people to act, even in the presence of those who wholly disagree. Hospitality will prove out to be more effective than anger and rejection. He never said, kick the dust in their face. Conviction is shown in keeping the values and love which Christ brings us in the face of all that is dividing us. And, by the way Statmann, the PB answered questions at a parish in my Diocese. So? Nothing should be feared in Jesus, and especially when we rely upon God to guide and direct us.

Just maybe, some of you, may be asked by God to do this ministry, in this Diocese or one similar in TEC or where ever you choose to go. I pray you do better in making decisions and have a better OJT learning curve. Because believe me, you will need it. Blessings, +James

Bp Schori was telling Kansas, “The white folk obviously aren’t buying this bowl of tepid mush that passes for Episcopal theology, but the Hispanics will eat it up.  And, besides, it will make your congregation look better on that glossy brochure.”

Actually, it’s the other way around.  Stupid white people lap it up like vanilla creme.  Hard people from hard places reject it for the tepid spew that it is.