Comments on: The Bishop’s Gambit: 2006 strangely resembles 1986 http://www.theottery.com/2006/06/the-bishops-gambit-2006-strangely-resembles-1986/ "If an otter can't have fun doing something, it just simply won't do it." Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:54:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: theotter http://www.theottery.com/2006/06/the-bishops-gambit-2006-strangely-resembles-1986/#comment-85 theotter Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:36:03 +0000 http://www.theottery.com/2006/06/the-bishops-gambit-2006-strangely-resembles-1986/#comment-85 I'm delighted that I'm seeing all sorts of articles with the phrase "woman primate." I mean, "primate" in the Anglican context is funny enough on its own, but when you assign a gender to it (which apparently no one feels the need to do with male primates), it becomes even that more ridiculous. Seriously, though, I don't know what opinion to have yet, because I know next to nothing about Schori. I'm obviously in favor of women's ordination and consecration and whatever, but I think that, like somebody said in the NYT article, her theology should be the primary issue. I think at this stage we're seeing far too much attention--both positive and negative--to her gender. Her theology? No one seems to be reporting much on that. All we know is how she voted on Robinson's consecration, which is hardly the only spiritual matter Episcopalians have to think about, despite the media's impression to the contrary. The issues are so much more complex than the news articles betray. For example, here's a quote from an Anglican blog regarding Schori's election: "In addition, mixed feelings flow from the tears of joy shed by the many woman priests on the floor of convention. As one evangelical female priest told me, “As tears of joy streamed down my face, I marked my ballot ‘no’." That's definitely the most interesting moment I've seen captured in print so far. I’m delighted that I’m seeing all sorts of articles with the phrase “woman primate.” I mean, “primate” in the Anglican context is funny enough on its own, but when you assign a gender to it (which apparently no one feels the need to do with male primates), it becomes even that more ridiculous.

Seriously, though, I don’t know what opinion to have yet, because I know next to nothing about Schori. I’m obviously in favor of women’s ordination and consecration and whatever, but I think that, like somebody said in the NYT article, her theology should be the primary issue. I think at this stage we’re seeing far too much attention–both positive and negative–to her gender.

Her theology? No one seems to be reporting much on that. All we know is how she voted on Robinson’s consecration, which is hardly the only spiritual matter Episcopalians have to think about, despite the media’s impression to the contrary.

The issues are so much more complex than the news articles betray. For example, here’s a quote from an Anglican blog regarding Schori’s election: “In addition, mixed feelings flow from the tears of joy shed by the many woman priests on the floor of convention. As one evangelical female priest told me, “As tears of joy streamed down my face, I marked my ballot ‘no’.”

That’s definitely the most interesting moment I’ve seen captured in print so far.

]]> By: K http://www.theottery.com/2006/06/the-bishops-gambit-2006-strangely-resembles-1986/#comment-84 K Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:02:57 +0000 http://www.theottery.com/2006/06/the-bishops-gambit-2006-strangely-resembles-1986/#comment-84 So, Otter, what think you of Bishop Katharine Schori? Since I don't keep up with the Episcopal happenings, I'm slightly out of the loop here. The NYTimes article by Neela Banerjee today seemed a little wishy-washy either way. (i'd offer you a nifty hyperlink but i'm too ignorant to figure out how to manipulate HTML). So, Otter, what think you of Bishop Katharine Schori? Since I don’t keep up with the Episcopal happenings, I’m slightly out of the loop here. The NYTimes article by Neela Banerjee today seemed a little wishy-washy either way. (i’d offer you a nifty hyperlink but i’m too ignorant to figure out how to manipulate HTML).

]]>