The Diocesan Dialogue
Current Issue
March 2007

Bishop's Reflections

As I write, the meeting of the Anglican Communion primates is just a week off. We will all know its outcome by the time this issue of the Dialogue arrives, but I write about it now for three reasons:

• To note the factor of the Archbishop of Canterbury's discourtesy that long precedes this meeting
• To name the dynamic of misogyny at the core of our failing relationships
• To invite your presence for a special 'Affirmations' presentation and conversation on March 31, as noted in the box below.

'Courtesy' may seem a light word to use in the context of religious conflict, but in fact it is as essential a factor in good relationships as morality and communication.

Recently, Paul Marshall, the Bishop of Bethlehem (Pennsylvania) wrote a letter chiding the Archbishop of Canterbury for his failure to connect or communicate directly with the Anglican provinces of North America, the United States and Canada, while giving plenty of his time and attention to conservative breakaway bishops and churches.

This is, at best, a poor model of courtesy. If our bonds are those of 'affection,' they are not evident this side of the Atlantic. To say that we don't need or deserve his attention because we are more wealthy or powerful doesn't hold up as an excuse.

In terms of visits, he has sent emissaries to us, who, in the style of colonial overseers, tell us what we need to do. And, as you know, he pressured our former and present presiding bishops (primates) to present the final resolution at the 2006 General Convention, that committed our church to 'exercise restraint in the election and consecration of persons whose manner of life would present a challenge to the wider community.”

Its passage did no good and has left more resentment in our church than is helpful to anyone.

'Misogyny' may seem a heavy word to use in our present context; isn't it all about homosexuality? No. Homophobia grows best in the soil of misogyny.

The word misogyny means a hatred of women and of things feminine, but at some level it is a fear of women—particularly as they threaten the power base of the male hegemony. Interestingly it is found among women as well as men.

As a woman who is a Bishop, I have been treated well in Utah and in the larger church, but I say this not to distance myself from the pervasive effects of misogyny, or those who have suffered it more directly. I name it here because it is so blatantly evident in the rhetoric leading up to the primates' meeting.

Current emails indicate that nearly half of the primates say they will not even sit at the table with our Presiding Bishop, Katharine, still less share communion with her. They challenge the Archbishop's right to invite her at all. The explanation given is her vote to confirm Gene Robinson at the 2003 General Convention, but who are they kidding?

Her vote was our church's vote. This is the way we make decisions in our church, as Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies, has made very clear in her letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is obviously Katharine Jefferts Schori's gender, not her vote, that is problematic to them.

With this assault, in all its ugliness and, yes, immorality—I bristle. Did not God create us male and female in his image? Does the invitation to communion come from Christ, or from a handful of fearful and angry men? And does our history as active members of the Anglican Communion mean we are to be held hostage to the opinions of other members?

Like so many of you, I am very proud of our church. I believe we have demonstrated courage and wisdom in our inclusion of all people, and more importantly we have been blessed by the gifts that "all sorts and conditions" bring to our church. I am also confident that the Episcopal Church USA will continue to be a blessing to us and to other churches in the coming years.

Faithfully,
The Rt. Rev. Carolyn Tanner Irish

Return to current issue Table of Contents
or Dialogue main page »