Bishop Roskam raises several important issues, to be sure. That so few women are being elected to the episcopate is a sign of a serious problem in how many clergy and lay leaders across the Episcopal Church view the office of bishop. And for some, it may well be the case that the desire for a change to the office of the Presiding Bishop is related. But with all due respect to Bishop Roskam I do not believe that is universally true.

I studied at EDS and was blessed to have had three of the Philadelphia 11 priests as my professors. My mentors in ministry, both before and after ordination, have been women priests (many also educated at EDS by pioneers like Carter Heyward and Sue Hiatt). I was ordained to the priesthood by Bishop Gayle Harris. I am fully devoted to the transformation of the Episcopal Church through the ministries of women.

And yet, I also think that there should be a rethinking of the office of the Presiding Bishop. I have been concerned for some time by the centralization of power and authority happening in the Episcopal Church today. This, it seems to me, has been the source of the tension between Bishop Jefferts Schori and President Anderson and by extension between the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies. In fact, I often think of the late Sue Hiatt, chief organizer of the Philadelphia 11 ordinations, who taught me Episcopal Church polity and the importance of the division of powers in our church historically. This division is being blurred today, not only by the current presiding bishop but also by those in the US and abroad who would like the PB to be an archbishop when she is not. In fact, it is by design that the Presiding Bishop is not an archbishop.

The presiding bishop is elected by the House of Bishops to preside over that body, just as the president of the House of Deputies presides over that body. And, the presiding bishop chairs the Executive Council and serves as the chief ecumenical officer and as primate (a title not added until the 1980s during the difficult tenure of John Allin) represents the Episcopal Church at the Primates Meetings. Over the years more and more responsibilities and powers have been added to the PB's portfolio as the church became less federal and more centralized. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Thus, I believe that as part of the church's restructuring conversation the office of the Presiding Bishop should be included. So far as I am aware, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are the only churches of the Communion that have full-time primates, so clearly there are other models that we can consider. And, because any change would be canonical and would require two successive GC votes, the only way to open the door for this while restructuring conversations are on-going is to approve it at this GC so that in three years when a new PB is elected it can be voted on again. Deputies and bishops alike have said that everything needs to be placed on the table and there should be no "sacred cows." That must include the office of the Presiding Bishop. What's more, nothing in the current proposal requires that the PB be a part-time position, it simply gives it as an option. And, it would have no impact on the current presiding bishop anyway since it could only go into effect with her successor. Interestingly, the chief proposer of this change is Bishop Ian Douglas (also one of my EDS professors) who has strong potential to be a candidate for PB himself in three years.

Finally, to return to my pioneering EDS professors, I would argue that shared leadership with less centralized authority is more in keeping with the principles of feminist theology and praxis, not to mention the ekklesia established by Jesus.

"Some bishops – who have since left the church – thought electing a woman to lead our church was a masterstroke in their battle against the ordination of women, homosexuals, and anyone who disagreed with them. They thought leaders of other Anglican churches would break off their relationship with our church because our Presiding Bishop was a woman. "
Can any one cite the evidence for this. Yes I think conservative bishops did vote for Bishop Jefferts Schori but because she would pursue the progressive agenda more vigorously (and upset anglican communion conservatives). I am not sure that her gender played a big role in this. I think they would have voted for the most progressive candidate regardless.

John Sandeman

Thanks, Matthew, for that. I'd like to add that we should seriously consider going back to the days when the presiding bishop was the most senior diocesan bishop in the House of Bishops.

Charles Everson

Whenever I hear or read the phrase "speaking truth to" I assume that I'm about to get treated to some empowered liberal pretending to be otherwise, and Jackson does not fail to meet my expectations. I also expect to be served up some sort of wild theory about the liberal opposition, and again the article does not disappoint.

The truth, as I recall it, was that even back in Griswold's day, if not earlier, there were those who had come to rue the creation of the monarchic archbishopric in this church; and at any rate, if KJS's gender figures in this, it is because there seems to have developed a trope of women who become rector or bishop and then move on to embrace the stereotype of power exercise which liberals like Roskam and Jackson like to ascribe to the conservatives, not to mention their predilection for questionable theology. I have always wondered whether the presiding bishop's sex led people to overlook her faults in favor of making history, but at any rate she didn't waste much time in making those faults plain, to my eye.

As for the allegations as to how and why various troglodytes voted, until she can give names and citations, I would assume that the bishop (or Mr. Jackson, it being hard to tell who is responsible for the statement) is engaging in political rumor-mongering.

If Katharine Jefferts Schori were a man, Bishop Roskham argued, the bishops wouldn’t be debating a measure to make the job of being Presiding Bishop into a part time post.

Well, I might. I'm quite concerned about the apparent aggregation of power to the office of the Presiding Bishop, and it has nothing to do with the fact that the PB is a woman. I like the idea of the PB also having a position as - for instance - a diocesan bishop or the dean of a cathedral.

It's quite true that women have a long way to go before reaching a position of equality in the episcopacy, but that's another matter entirely and has nothing to do with the fact that the present PB is a woman, whom I favored from the beginning as the best candidate of the lot for the position.

Most certainly, I would be against any restructuring legislation that would diminish the role of the House of Deputies in the governance of the church.

June Butler

I guess I'm the only one who has noticed in the last few elections for bishop that there is a token woman candidate or two but the election almost inevitably goes to a male.

I think our culture is still phenomenally uncomfortable with/resistant to the idea of women in positions of power and influence in politics, business, and the Church.

It's true that we as a church and as a society are still a long way from recognizing the full equality of women, but Bishop Roskam's argument isn't helpful. She's effectively posited that it would be impossible to re-think the position of Presiding Bishop because we're caught up in gender issues. Should we next block the call to restructure the whole church's infrastructure because there aren't enough women represented?