Livingston Thompson, Guest Columnist 
Livingston Thompson
THE ELECTION recently of Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, as the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States could be a mixed blessing for the Church, which seems headed for a major split.
This interesting development for the Anglican communion took place on June 20, during the church's 75th General Convention in Columbus Ohio, June 13-21. Although the female primate was elected by a small margin from a field of seven, six of whom were men, she is probably the best candidate for the job and who knows, maybe she has come to this primatial office for such a time as this.
In this election, the Anglican Church in the United States positions itself years ahead of provinces like those in the Caribbean, United Kingdom and Ireland, where the the election of a female primate will not happen for another 100 years. Such a period of time is also likely to elapse before provinces in Africa even begin to consider the idea of a female bishop much less to elect one.
The female ascent to primacy in the U.S. Episcopal Church comes as no real surprise but is in reality a logical development from the election of its first female bishop. In 1989, the Church created history when it elected Barbara Harris, a black social activist, as Bishop. One knew then that it would only be a matter of time, and for many a matter of justice and credible development, for the present scenario to come to pass. Since then, several other women have been elected to the office of bishop, Katherine herself being elected bishop of Nevada in 2001.
GREATER SIGNIFICANCE
It could be argued that from the point of view of the tradition of the Church, the election of the female as bishop is of greater significance than the election of a primate. Like the positions of cardinal or pope in the Roman Catholic Church, the position of primate is not an order of ministry, the orders being deacon, priest (or presbyter) and bishop.
The difference, of course, is that the primate in the Anglican communion does not have the kind of authority that we associate with the cardinal, which is the corresponding position in the Roman Catholic Church.
A major theological battle was won for women in 1989, then, when it was demonstrated in the election of Bishop Barbara, that none of the three orders of ministry are exclusive to men.
INTERPRETING TRADITION
The election of Bishop Katherine as primate reinforces the principle of the inclusion of women at all levels of decision-making in the Episcopal church but it could also accelerate the race towards a split because of the way in which Bishop Katherine seems to interpret tradition and development in the Church.
Her detractors have pointed to the fact that coming as she has from formation in the field of science, her election already represents a break with the tradition in which there was a long, slow rise through years of theological formation and experience to headship in the Church.
THREAT TO UNITY
The threat to unity that her election represents, though, is that she is one of those bishops who voted in favour of the election of the declared homosexual, Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire.
That decision by the American Episcopalians landed the whole Anglican communion into disarray because most of the other provinces of the communion cannot find the clear, unequivocal basis in the tradition of the church or scripture to justify allowing known homosexuals into the ordained ministry much less to ordain them as bishop.
It is here that the new primate will have her job cut out among her peers. She will have the task of demonstrating the credibility of this development in the life of the church.
However, even before she gets to the next Lambeth Conference, where bishops of the Anglican communion gather every four years, she will face the challenge of convincing a large section of her church in the U.S. to remain united and to accept her leadership not so much because of her sex, but moreso because of her position on homosexuality.
The problem that Bishop Katherine faces justifying the development, in which homosexuality is treated as normal, is one that is fundamental to how we understand the development of doctrine and practice in the Church. This is not a new problem.
A little over 100 years ago this very issue of how doctrine develops was engaging the Church and led Henry Newman, who converted to Catholicism from the Anglican church, to write the book, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, (1898). Newman's book made headlines in church circles about the same time that Darwin's did.
CORRUPTION
The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, was making the headlines all around. Newman's objective was to provide a basis on which to judge which doctrinal developments were credible and which were corruption.
That undertaking by Newman was occasioned by the critique that Protestants were making of practices in the Roman Catholic doctrines, for example the veneration of the Virgin Mary, for which the justification could not be found in scripture. Space does not allow us here to go into the details of Newman's seven bases (preservation of type, continuity of principles, assimilation, logical sequence, anticipation of its developments, conservative action, and chronic vigour).
However, what is clear is that the development that favours the growing acceptance of the practice of homosexuality is a radical departure from tradition and cannot be explained with reference to any of Newman's widely accepted bases. Bishop Katherine, then, may have to account for this development with reference to Darwin's theory of natural selection. It is probably the case that the secular, pagan, plural context of today's world is one in which a 'corrupted development' is best adapted to survive.
Dr. Livingstone Thompson is a Jamaican theologian working in Ireland. He may be reached at
livingstone.thompson@oceanfree.net.
