Schori About That

Among the local news stories that were lost in the pre-election shuffle – but are still worth commenting on – was the whirlwind visit of Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to Pittsburgh to console the remnant of the Pittsburgh diocese that has opted to remain within the sheltering arms of the American church, rather than fly the coop to join the Southern Cone, i.e. the Episcopalians of southern South America. This breakup of American Episcopalians into stayers and leavers has been characterized by the hierarchy as a “schism”, which – as I've said before – I find just a bit ironic considering the history of the Episcopal, or Anglican, church. It's sort of like saying it was OK for the American colonies to separate themselves from England, but it wasn't OK for the South to separate itself from the North. In both cases we're presented with... what? Hypocrisy? A double standard? Or just somebody getting their ox gored... which is the most likely explanation. Episcopalians have been accused of many things, but “not being prosperous” isn't one of them. Some of the greatest piles of stone and stained glass in any American city are Episcopal churches... and think of the furnishings! And the vestments! And the needlework (for kneelers, which are seldom, if ever, used any longer)! If there is a generally-accepted church for American “royalty”, it is definitely the Episcopal; nothing else even comes close. In the old days, anyone who made a fortune was expected to leave the denomination of their birth and become Episcopalian; that was the law. (As I recall, the Rockefellers were one of the few families who bucked that trend. They remained Baptist. But hey, when you're the world's first billionaire you can get away with a lot of things that mere mortals can't.) But now we have dissension in the ranks, and church members, parishes, and even bishops are jumping ship (probably before lightning strikes from on high, and sends the whole affair to the bottom).

In the case of Pittsburgh, it was not a matter of a few isolated nut-case parishes deciding to drop out; it was 50 out of 74 plus the bishop. This was not the first diocese to have this experience, and others are considering it very seriously. Clearly, there is something afoot, and just mewping about “schism” and calling it “tragic” isn't gonna cut the mustard. Clearly, the Episcopal church has to do some serious soul-searching (rather than soul-selling, i.e. to the forces of secularism, which is what has been keeping them busy of late).

And make no mistake – I started out the serious part of my Christian journey as an Episcopalian, and still have a bit of a soft spot for the noble high liturgy and all of the traditional accoutrements. Of course, the ideal solution is for individual parishes – or even dioceses – to join the Catholic Church under the Anglican Rite; it has been done. But that may be a bit too much to ask of everyone who is dissatisfied with the “revolution within the form” the Episcopal Church has undergone over the past few decades. They are just trying to reclaim what they once had but was taken away from them... much as Latin Mass Catholics are reclaiming their rightful heritage after the New (but blessedly shorter) Dark Age of “post-Vatican II”. And I don't blame them. If one's church isn't the place where one expects one's heritage to be preserved lovingly and skillfully, where on earth is? We look about the American landscape and see, basically, nothing but ruins – first the cities, then the public schools, then the infrastructure, and now the economy. And don't even mention morality, and the media, and entertainment. And all the “agents of change” are on the wrong side of the River Styx. So it is good to see so many of the “frozen chosen” finally – after decades of suffering in silence -- standing up and asserting themselves, and voting with their feet.