TEC Presiding Bishop to Visit Nashotah House

Posted by Kendall Harmon

The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, will visit Nashotah House Theological Seminary on May 1, 2014. The invitation was made by the Dean/President the Right Reverend Edward Salmon, Jr at the request of several Episcopal seminarians studying at the House in order that she might become better acquainted with the life, character, and programs of the seminary and its community. Given the untimely and tragic death of one of those students, the Reverend Deacon Terry Star, a second year student from the Diocese of North Dakota who suffered a fatal heart attack on March 4, she has been invited to offer the encomium homily honoring Deacon Star following Evensong.

Deacon Star had served with Bishop Jefferts Schori on the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church. Her visit and homily will give the community unique insights into his promising life of ministry cut short by this tragedy.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - EpiscopalEpiscopal Church (TEC)Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori* TheologySeminary / Theological Education

Posted March 13, 2014 at 9:59 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]

1. SC blu cat lady wrote:

Wel, well, well….. it seems the rumor mongers over at Stand Firm were a bit off in their information.  Just like I suspected they would, Nashotah house has released this information which gives more details of her visit.  May Nashotah House be a witness to her of their Christ-centered faith.

March 13, 11:33 am | [comment link]
2. Branford wrote:

SC blu cat lady, you do remember that the initial invitation was extended before Deacon Starr’s death, don’t you? Perhaps Bishop Salmon has taken this opportunity to try and rectify in part his decision, which many think was an unwise decision from the start, by changing the schedule. I don’t know, but I think it disingenuous to act as though Bishop Salmon had planned this from the beginning. That’s not what he said.

March 13, 12:03 pm | [comment link]
3. Dick Mitchell wrote:

Wasn’t it Bishop Iker who started this ball rolling?

March 13, 12:44 pm | [comment link]
4. Katherine wrote:

This sounds to me like what I have been hoping would happen has happened, that is, that the remaining Board members have exerted pressure behind the scenes to change the invitation from the announced preaching to a less controversial event outside of the Chapel.  This is an acceptable compromise to a situation which could have seriously damaged the seminary.

March 13, 4:17 pm | [comment link]
5. mannainthewilderness wrote:

She is giving the encomium homily honoring the life and witness of Deacon Starr, who seems to have been well loved and well respected by many in TEC and Nashota and his field base of St. John’s.  It’s not as if she is no longer preaching at the House.  It seems a very appropriate and pastoral response to what I am sure is a shock to many that will be in attendance.  I don’t know that there was exerted pressure behind the scenes other than the untimely death of a seminarian.  But if the seminary would have been damaged by her presence absent the death, one wonders about its foundations.  Those in our seminaries ought to be better armed and better equipped to confront any heresies in comparison to many in the pews of churches.  Bishop Salmon may have scandalized a number of people by issuing her the invitation to come and preach, but, given his track record, it was likely done confident in the student body’s ability to engage her and in his faith that their mission is not for the benefit of those already repentant.

March 13, 5:39 pm | [comment link]
6. Katherine wrote:

Bishops Iker and Wantland resigned in protest over the invitation for Jefferts Schori to preach in the Chapel at a celebration of the Holy Communion.  The visit as now described avoids the most objectionable features about the visit; she will now speak in Adams Hall, not in the Chapel, and will engage in conversations throughout the day.  This is a significant change from the previous announced schedule which triggered the resignations of two Board members.

The prayers and eulogy for the departed Deacon Star are unobjectionable; he appears to have been widely respected both at Nashotah and at St. John’s.

March 13, 6:17 pm | [comment link]
7. Nikolaus wrote:

I was a tad put off by this sentence in the statement:

Her visit and homily will give the community unique insights into his promising life of ministry cut short by this tragedy.

March 13, 8:04 pm | [comment link]
8. tjmcmahon wrote:

Let me point out that the one who told us that the PB had been invited to preach at Mass was Bishop Salmon.  This was confirmed by Bishop Martins.  In my own case, I confirmed it with a couple board members.  So, I think my rumor mongering was fairly justified.

We are assuming from the press release that the PB will speak in Adams Hall INSTEAD of preaching from the pulpit of St. Mary’s, but nothing in the press release actually says that.  Given the subterfuge involved in setting this up, and doing it KNOWING the price would be resignations from the board, while I am also assuming that the PB will not now be preaching at St. Mary’s, an actual statement would be nice. 

And again, some justification from Bishop Salmon for why he decided to bring in the person who is trying to destroy the church, and specifically the dioceses of several board members, Bishops Lawrence, Ackerman and Iker, is warranted, and implore Bishop Salmon to be forthcoming.  If Bishop Salmon continues to stonewall on this, I can only pray that the Board takes appropriate steps at its May meeting.

March 13, 9:02 pm | [comment link]
9. Henry wrote:

Thank you, TJmcmahon! I was beginning to think I had missed something, even after rereading the press release. It NEVER said anything about previous plans being cancelled or changed, it just mentioned new plans due to the sad & untimely death of the deacon. If previous plans have been abandoned, tell us so & I will be glad to offer praise & thanks. Otherwise, I will continue to object!

March 13, 11:04 pm | [comment link]
10. Capt. Father Warren wrote:

I can only pray that the Board takes appropriate steps at its May meeting

And we can wonder who those folks might be….......

March 14, 8:55 am | [comment link]
11. fishsticks wrote:

#1, SC blue cat lady: I’ve seen comments you’ve posted elsewhere, and I wanted to say that I’ve appreciated your thoughtful and temperate statements.

#5, mannainthewilderness: Well said. Thank you.

#6, Katherine: One board member resigned: Bp. Iker. Bp. Wantland remains a non-voting, hororary board member; he has not resigned that position, but said only that he would refrain from involving himself while Bp. Salmon remains dean.

#7, Nikolaus: Why were you put off by that sentence? KJS knew Terry Star in an entirely different capacity than did his professors and fellow students. It should not be surprising or controversial that she would have a different (i.e., unique) perspective on his life and his abilities.

#8, tjmcmahon: There’s been no subterfuge. Also, what leads you to assume the invitation was extended “KNOWING the price would be resignations from the board”? You say you would like “an actual statement” that KJS won’t be preaching in St. Mary’s Chapel. You also say you want “some justification from Bishop Salmon for why he decided to bring in” KJS, you “implore [him] to be forthcoming”, and you say he has been stonewalling. Is it safe to assume you’ve watched his video statement (http://goo.gl/W0eFId) and the interview he did with AnglicanTV (http://goo.gl/oe7HP6, beginning at 16:09, ending at 24:28)? More importantly, have you bothered to pick up a telephone and call him?? If not, perhaps you could drop the pejoratives. It seems to me that, before complaining that someone hasn’t provided satisfactory answers, one should at least demonstrate that one has taken the elementary step of speaking directly with that person, asking him whatever questions one may have, and listening to what he has to say in response.

#9, Henry: Have you contacted anyone at the House to ask?

My understanding is that KJS was never going to preach in St. Mary’s Chapel, which is very small, but rather in Adams Hall. (Adams Hall was specifically designed to provide a space which could be used for multiple purposes, including meetings, conferences, classes, and worship; it has a sort of chapel-esque feel to it, even when it is not set up to be used as such.)

March 14, 3:32 pm | [comment link]
12. tjmcmahon wrote:

Hmmm…. lets see
There are only 2 possibilities- Bishop Salmon discussed the idea of inviting the PB with Bishop Iker, knew of his strong objections and did it anyway, or Bishop Salmon did not discuss it with Bishop Iker, or the other members who were absent from the board meeting when the POSSIBILITY was discussed. 
That KJS was originally scheduled to preach in the chapel was in several reports, and discussed on Nashotah’s own blog.
It is irrational to me that any Dean of an institution would bring in a speaker who had deposed and was suing many of the institution’s Board, alumni and contributors, because of a request from 3 students.  At very least, he owes us an explanation for that as a moral decision.
I have watched his Anglican TV interviews.  So what?  No one put the questions to him, and he did not volunteer any information.  I did not see any reasonable explanation in the TV interviews.
I did not call, I did try to engage him and Nashotah generally on their blog, he and the rest of Nashotah chose not to respond.  They have had quite enough time to issue a press release correcting the statements that Bishops Salmon and Martins made, if the use of the word “preaching” was in error, or to correct reports (some their own) about concerns of her preaching from the pulpit of St. Mary’s. To date, no such statement has been issued.  I have contacted board members.  One board member has responded. 
Just so we are really clear, I have made contributions, not large ones, but enough to get my name on the donor list in some years.  My parents are buried there.  I have no personal animosity towards Bishop Salmon or Bishop Martins.  I would like nothing better than a reasonable explanation for the invitation.

March 14, 9:08 pm | [comment link]
13. tjmcmahon wrote:

My #12 is a bit in error.  When I said that no one from Nashotah responded to my blog entries, there was no “official” response. Several alumni and others did respond, either pro or con KJS appearance, but no official of Nashotah posted any clarifications or corrections.

March 14, 9:13 pm | [comment link]
14. tjmcmahon wrote:

Back to St. Mary’s Chapel- why did the several board members of Nashotah who are also on the board of FiFNA feel it necessary to issue the FiFNA statement specifically recommending that KJS sermon be moved out of St. Mary’s to an academic venue and revised to be an academic address, if it were not originally in St. Mary’s, as part of a liturgical service?  Just asking-
“The National Council of FIF/NA endorses and affirms the ACNA College of Bishops’ statement issued on Feb 25, 2014, regarding the invitation to Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori to preach at Nashotah House.

In the interest of restoring “the trust that this particular invitation has seriously shaken,” we request that the invitation either be rescinded or that the venue be changed to an academic lecture by Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori in a non-liturgical context, followed by a time for discussion and response.”

March 14, 9:34 pm | [comment link]
15. fishsticks wrote:

#12, tjmcmahon: I am absolutely astounded. “I did not call, I did try to engage him and Nashotah generally on their blog, he and the rest of Nashotah chose not to respond.” That’s it? You posted comments on the Nashotah House blog? First and foremost, the Nashotah House blog is the Nashotah House blog, not Bp. Salmon’s blog; Bp. Salmon neither runs it nor posts anything on it. As a matter of fact, Bp. Salmon doesn’t read blogs – any blogs – so you could post questions from now until doomsday and he’d never see them.

More generally: I hate to break this to you but, if you have questions about a situation and would like to receive answers, it is not the responsibility of the person from whom you would like to receive those answers to somehow intuit that you have questions, go online, seek out the blog on which you have chosen to post them (whether yours or someone else’s), read your questions, and then get in touch with you to provide answers. On the contrary, it is your responsibility to get in touch with whoever it may be to pose your questions.

I don’t recall ever seeing on the Nashotah House blog any statement along the lines of ‘hey, if you have any questions for the dean, post them here and he’ll answer!’; I do, however, recall seeing a Contact Us page, which includes contact info for the dean.

Incidentally, I’m sure there are 80-year-olds who blog, but I doubt many of them also work full-time while maintaining a travel schedule that would exhaust people less than half their age. Given that, I feel even more strongly that what I said above is correct: before complaining that someone hasn’t provided you with satisfactory answers, you should at least demonstrate that you have taken the elementary step of speaking directly with that person, asking him whatever questions you may have, and listening to what he has to say in response. Just to make it perfectly clear, I would also add that, as the person with the questions, it is incumbent upon you to get in touch with him, not the other way ‘round.

March 16, 7:20 pm | [comment link]
16. tjmcmahon wrote:

Well fishsticks, I am astounded in turn.  When I initially went to the Nashotah House page to find out what was going on, the page had a link for a “statement from Nashotah House” which they had posted to the Nashotah House Blog which invited me to comment on the Statement from Nashotah House, so I figured if they did not want me to comment there, they would not have posted the Statement from Nashotah House (which was the “official” statement, not the various interviews Bishop Salmon did on Anglican TV) along with an invitation to comment.  If they don’t read it, perhaps they should not link it from their home page.  But since whoever set it up undoubtedly reads it, perhaps they should make a point to let the Dean know what questions are being raised to the official statements they are inviting comment on.

March 17, 7:49 am | [comment link]
17. fishsticks wrote:

#16, tjmcmahon: I have very clearly explained how you could get answers to your questions: pick up a telephone and call Bp. Salmon. As long as you refuse to do that, I can only assume you don’t actually want answers. In that case, however, I do wish you’d be honest enough to stop saying you can’t get answers, that Bp. Salmon is stonewalling or not being forthcoming, etc.

March 17, 8:39 am | [comment link]
18. Katherine wrote:

The exhortation to “call Bishop Salmon” surely doesn’t apply, though, to concerned Anglicans who don’t know him and have no possible excuse to be calling him up.  This issue is public.  It became public when Bishop Iker, whose diocese is currently in court trying to keep its property from being taken by a lawsuit encouraged by and supported by TEC, resigned from the Nashotah Board in protest.  The ACNA Bishops have issued a protest.  There is now some confusion as to whether Jefferts Schori will still preach at a celebration of the Eucharist or whether she will merely attend discussions and give a eulogy at Evening Prayer.  A public clarification would be appropriate, even if friends and associates are able to speak to Bishop Salmon privately.

March 17, 8:59 am | [comment link]
19. fishsticks wrote:

#18, Katherine: On the contrary, the exhortation to call Bp. Salmon applies to anyone and everyone who is concerned by this situation. Aside from the fact that Bp. Salmon has expressly invited anyone to call him to discuss this issue, he has always been perfectly willing to speak with anyone; you don’t need to know him, either well or even slightly, before he will speak with you.

March 17, 9:39 am | [comment link]
20. fishsticks wrote:

#18, Katherine: I should perhaps have noted that people are also welcome to write or email him. In that case, however, it would save time and trouble for all involved if people include their phone number; he is at least as likely to respond with a telephone call as he is with a letter or email – and even more likely to call if he is on the road (which he will be for much of the time between now and Easter Day).

March 17, 10:39 am | [comment link]
21. Branford wrote:

fishsticks, of course anyone can contact Bishop Salmon. That is not the issue. Nashotah House publicly issued an invitation to the Presiding Bishop to preach. They issued public statements on their blog inviting comments and questions. This was not a private invitation offered by Bishop Salmon—it was done in the name of Nashotah House. It would be only good PR for Nashotah to respond to the questions that people have been asking. When a corporation has a PR problem, they don’t criticize those who ask questions in public—they try to provide answers. Bishop Salmon is not Nashotah House and Nashotah House is not Bishop Salmon. The seminary itself should be offering information to answer questions about where and when the Presiding Bishop might be speaking and/or preaching. It should not be the responsibility of the questioners or of Bishop Salmon to burden him with responding to the public.

March 17, 11:07 am | [comment link]
22. fishsticks wrote:

#21, Branford: A couple of things:
(1) To you and me, it is a matter of course that anyone may contact Bp. Salmon; to others, however — Katherine among them — that is apparently not clear.

(2) When and where did Nashotah House “criticize those who ask questions in public”? For that matter, when and where did Bp. Salmon do so?

(3) The invitation was extended on behalf of Nashotah House, but the decision to extend it was made by Bp. Salmon who, as dean, had sole responsibility for deciding whom to invite.

(4) Bp. Salmon does not consider it a burden to answer anyone’s questions. If people consider it too great a burden to ask their questions, then it seems to me the least they can do is refrain from complaining when their questions go unanswered. Besides which, writing an email is surely no more demanding than posting a comment on a blog.

Oh, and #18, Katherine: I don’t believe there’s any confusion about what she’ll be doing: after Evensong, she’ll deliver a eulogy in Adams Hall; during the day she will also meet with various people (Bp. Salmon, faculty, etc.), and visit the military academy where Deacon Star had been doing his practicum.

March 17, 11:44 am | [comment link]
23. Katherine wrote:

fishsticks, #22, as you present yourself as knowing Bishop Salmon quite well, and knowing his schedule, and knowing a good bit about his work at Nashotah House, perhaps we ought to take your word for it that, in fact, the previously announced invitation to preach at a celebration of the Eucharist at the House has been changed to an invitation to give a eulogy following Evensong.  Since it was the preaching at the Eucharist which created the firestorm, this seems to be a significant change.

With all due respect, and understanding that you are a friend wishing to defend Bishop Salmon personally, this is not about him.  It’s about the position of and policies of Nashotah House with reference to the body (TEC) and its leader towards the numerous alumni of the House who have been deposed (canonically and otherwise) and sued.  Suppose I, as you suggest, a complete stranger and ex-Episcopalian, were to call the Bishop, and he spoke to me about this?  Would that be off the record or on the record?  If there is an on the record answer about a public controversy, like the one I have suggested in my first paragraph, the best way to handle this would be to answer the questions, on the record, in a public statement (honored as I would be, of course, to receive a return call from a Bishop who never heard of me before and to whose church body I no longer belong).

Without such a public statement, this distress among faithful Episcopalians and Anglicans will continue until May 1, when people will watch to see what happens.  I don’t see how that delay will be constructive.

March 17, 8:57 pm | [comment link]
24. Henry wrote:

Thank you, Katherine…you said it much better than I could have. Why can’t Bp. Salmon, or someone from The House, simply issue a statement stating exactly what Schori will be doing while she is there, and if previous plans have been cancelled, say so!

March 17, 10:33 pm | [comment link]
25. fishsticks wrote:

#23, Katherine; #24, Henry: Nashotah House has issued a release stating exactly what Schori will be doing while she is there; the link to that statement is what we’ve all been commenting on here!

I am frankly befuddled by the confusion people continue to express over what appears to me to be perfectly clear. She was going to preach, but the sudden and shocking death of Terry Star led to a change of plans so that now she will deliver a eulogy for him; she was always going to meet with various people. (I have no idea whether she previously intended to visit the military academy, though I suspect she didn’t.) Why is this so difficult to understand and accept??

#23, Katherine: Surely you don’t imagine that Bp. Salmon imposes an Episcopalians-only requirement on all communications. (As a purely practical matter, he’d have an awfully hard time of it if he did; the board of the House includes former Episcopalians.)

As for whether a telephone conversation with him would be on or off the record, I can think of a very simple way of clearing that up (warning: this will probably sound familiar): Ask him.

I’m not sure how to take your parenthetical: “(honored as I would be, of course, to receive a return call from a Bishop who never heard of me before and to whose church body I no longer belong)”. I suppose I should assume it to be sarcasm.

I would like to think you’re right that the shift to a eulogy delivered in Adams Hall is a significant change. Unfortunately, I suspect the overwhelming majority of those who are upset will not agree with you. I saw many comments, posted in multiple places, expressing absolute fury over the notion of KJS preaching from the pulpit in historic St. Mary’s Chapel; I have yet to see even one of those commenters saying anything along the lines of oh, well, a eulogy in Adams Hall is not the same as the pulpit in St. Mary’s; that makes a huge difference; I’m not nearly as upset now. At this point, I strongly suspect that certain people are simply bound and determined to be angry, no matter what. The fact that some people resolutely refuse to ask their questions, while simultaneously complaining that they have not received answers, only serves to bolster that conviction.

I am honored to say that I do know Bp. Salmon fairly well, and have done for about 40 years now. He is, far and away, the best person I have ever known; I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say that he brought them to faith, or saved their marriage, or changed their lives. I have enormous respect and admiration for him. He has devoted his entire adult life to the service of God and his fellow man and, until last month, was fairly routinely praised for remaining in TEC and continuing to fight the good fight (resolutely, faithfully, patiently). Now, however, he has displeased the orthodox Anglicans and Episcopalians, and they have turned on him with a vengeance. (Incidentally, I think it’s worth noting that Bp. Salmon would never – and I do mean never – respond in kind; instead, he continues to display what to him is perfectly ordinary, but to me seems quite extraordinary, patience and forbearance. Having seen much of the vitriol that has been spewing forth online, I am quite clear on which approach I find more impressive.)

March 17, 11:23 pm | [comment link]
26. fishsticks wrote:

Oh, and don’t forget, Bp. Salmon has also been one of KJS’s targets: she tried (and failed) to depose him.

March 17, 11:27 pm | [comment link]
27. Capt. Father Warren wrote:

I am frankly befuddled by the confusion people continue to express over what appears to me to be perfectly clear

No need to be.  You are not seeing “confusion”, what you are seeing is watchful skepticism.  Anything which has looked to be “clear” in the PB’s reign has turned out not to be so.  I would say we are all collectively waiting for the “other shoe” to drop.

Oh, and don’t forget, Bp. Salmon has also been one of KJS’s targets

And so has Bp. Dan Martins [and 7 others].  Of course I believe they are not allowed to talk about any of that under fear of retribution and legal action.

It is interesting to watch you cast The House as the victim now; being victimized by all these skeptics who just won’t take things at face value.  Lest anyone forget, this all exploded into the public realm when Bp. Iker violated the veil of secrecy with his resignation letter.  When scores of concerned people asked how this all came about, we got the “three deacons” story in reply along with the idea that this invitation was solely from Bp. Salmon to the PB with the involvement of no one else at Nashotah.  Just because the Dean may have the authority to unilaterally issue such an invitation doesn’t mean everyone believes that is how it came about.  In fact, Bp. Iker’s action came about because there were apparently group discussions that he was not a part of, or not fully a part of.

No, there are still lots and lots of loose ends to this tale.  And the idea that it is our responsibility to ferret things out rather than the The House’s responsibility to clear thing up is certainly an interesting strategy in damage control, but I don’t think it is going to work.

March 18, 8:44 am | [comment link]
28. Katherine wrote:

Yes, I think “watchful skepticism” expresses how many people feel about this now, especially in consideration of the Presiding Bishop’s history of wrong actions against conservatives.

March 18, 9:56 am | [comment link]
29. tjmcmahon wrote:

A member of the Board issues an open letter

March 18, 6:24 pm | [comment link]
30. Capt. Father Warren wrote:

Just read it over at SF.  It’s not enough to potentially lose accreditation, but push forward with an invitation which the Board was obviously uncomfortable with; and then possibly use the unfortunate death of a student for political cover.

Much more to come, no doubt.

March 18, 6:29 pm | [comment link]
31. Branford wrote:

Well, it looks as though all attempts to talk directly with Bishop Salmon were rebutted here. So sad, but I appreciate Fr. Kaiser outlining his understanding of the situation.

March 18, 7:47 pm | [comment link]
32. fishsticks wrote:

#31, Branford: I must have missed something; perhaps you can tell me exactly where Fr. Kaiser said he tried to contact Bp. Salmon, and Bp. Salmon refused to speak with him?  He did write that a “response to the later questions [came] from the Chairman alone even though questions were specifically put to the Dean”. It appears that the questions and answers were in written a format (email?), but from the very sketchy information he provided, we have no idea whether Bp. Martins was relaying information for Bp. Salmon, speaking only for himself, or a bit of both. I know that Bp. Salmon does very little typing as a result of stiffness in his fingers – emails from him max out at a line or two – and he and Bp. Martins are colleagues and friends who are in regular contact, so it is hardly improbable that Bp. Martins might draft correspondence which included answers to their questions.

Incidentally, I understand that Fr. Kaiser has had multiple factual errors brought to his attention, and has given assurances that he will print a retraction. We shall see.

March 19, 1:08 am | [comment link]
33. tjmcmahon wrote:

I would not be surprised if Fr. Kaiser issues some corrections, I will be surprised if he issues a retraction.
Bishop Salmon has Fr. Kaiser’s phone number, and was perfectly capable of calling Fr. Kaiser to respond to Fr. Kaiser’s questions.  Apparently Bishop Salmon chose not to.  Bishop Martins did respond.
Since you are apparently being copied in on the personal correspondence between Bishop Salmon and Board members, how is it that you are continuing to respond to everyone here with intimidation and insinuation instead of dates, facts, and quotes.  If, as you claim, there are “multiple factual errors” in Fr. Kaiser’s letter, where is your documentation and correction of those errors?

March 19, 7:59 am | [comment link]
34. Katherine wrote:

Since so many people, fishsticks included, have testified as to Bp. Salmon’s character and Christian witness over the years, the conclusion I come to is that he and Bp. Martins, having previously been pressured into a “reconciliation” process with TEC management, are now being pressured again by the same force.

March 19, 8:08 am | [comment link]
35. Matt Kennedy wrote:

I’m sure if he’s made some factual errors that he will correct them…but the substance of his letter is correct. Bishop Salmon has decided to violate the New Testament instructions regarding how Christians deal with heretics. He is dead wrong and nothing he has done since has corrected his error. The idea that one must contact him personally before criticizing his public decision or his public words about his decision is a misuse and abuse of Matthew 18. Public sin on the part of leaders can and should be dealt with publicly. And it has. Thanks be to God.

March 19, 9:24 pm | [comment link]
36. Marcus Kaiser wrote:

My Dear Fishsticks,
I have offered to two individuals that, if they would show me factual errors in my statement, I would gladly issue a correction. I would offer the same to anyone else. I have had one email regarding how another person would characterize something in my letter, and I have asked if that person would help me understand how what I have said was untrue. I remain open to that. The other person simply disagreed with issuing a public statement, a position that I deeply care about and respect, but not an issue of factual content. I do not want to be wrong, and would gladly accept correction.
Yours in Christ,

March 20, 12:34 am | [comment link]
37. Branford wrote:

#34, Katherine:

Since so many people, fishsticks included, have testified as to Bp. Salmon’s character and Christian witness over the years, the conclusion I come to is that he and Bp. Martins, having previously been pressured into a “reconciliation” process with TEC management, are now being pressured again by the same force.

I agree. Somehow I can never get out of my mind Bishop Lee from Virginia, lo these many years ago, who had seemingly worked out a compromise with the churches wishing to leave the diocese, only to tell those churches at the last minute, “There’s a new sheriff in town.” I have always wondered what kind of pressure the presiding bishop could have brought to bear on the bishop then, since it should not have made any difference who the presiding bishop was in the negotiations Bishop Lee was having with his own parishes. I keep waiting for him to finally reveal what he was told, but I guess we’ll never know. If Bishop Salmon and Bishop Martins are being pressured, I do hope they resist.

March 20, 11:31 am | [comment link]
38. tjmcmahon wrote:

During the 80s, Nashotah turned out quite a number of very liberal priests (of course, also some very traditional priests, like +Keith Ackerman and +Jack Iker), some of whom are now very liberal bishops. Later, under Dr. Munday, there was more Evangelical influence than previously, but a return to a more generally traditional Scriptural interpretation.
As that 70s-80s era of liberal alumni come more to the fore in the leadership of TEC, the administration will no doubt come under increasing pressure to conform to a more liberal standard.  The question is, will the Board allow itself to be over taken by that element, or will it hold to Nashotah’s Anglo Catholic heritage?  The indication of its future direction will come soon, as Bishop Iker’s seat will need to be filled.  Will the Board select a traditional Anglo Catholic, or will it fill the seat with another TEC moderate in the Dan Martins mold, or will it go completely off the rails and seat someone like the TEC bishop of Milwaukee or Chicago?  Or will it go a more “Evangelical” direction with a non Anglo Catholic ACNA appointment?  I suppose we will see.

March 20, 12:06 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.

Next entry (above): Notable and Quotable—Too Many people “know so little about the past”

Previous entry (below): Derwin Gray’s testimony—Pro Football Was My God Until a half-naked man showed up at my locker

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)