Steenson As Bishop

A visitor sent me links to a series of pasts post at Virtue Online carrying reports of Jeffrey Steenson's actions as Episcopal Bishop of the Rio Grande. They indicate a generally center-right alignment, in which, as he said of himself below, he walked a tightrope. The biggest thing that jumps out to me is his repeated statements that he wants The Episcopal Church, in a potential state of crisis in its relationship with other Anglican Communion churches, to remain within the Communion.

A summary of his address to the October 2006 general convention of his diocese is an example:

The Bishop of the Diocese of the Rio Grande, the Rt. Rev. Jeffrey Steenson told delegates to the 54th Annual Convocation of the diocese that he will not be attending the investiture of Presiding Bishop elect Katharine Jefferts Schori on Nov. 4 at Washington National Cathedral.

Citing what he called "sound Biblical reasons," Steenson said a significant portion of his diocese was deeply concerned about her apparent views on some crucial points of doctrine, especially about the uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

"For the sake of these consciences, it seems to me the wiser course to be prayerfully absent," he said.

Steenson, a traditionalist bishop who does not believe in the ordination of women, and is opposed to the church's homosexual agenda, said there were serious questions as to her ability as Presiding Bishop to serve as an instrument of unity in the wider Anglican Communion.

The bishop also had his eye on what the Primates Meeting in February 2007 in Tanzania will do to The Episcopal Church and their promise of a new structure to take care of eight dioceses that are seeking alternative primatial oversight.

, , , Recognizing that he is walking a tightrope, Steenson told delegates, "I am not repudiating the Episcopal Church which I have served almost all of my ordained life in it, and I hold my ordination vows with the utmost seriousness. But my vow is to a church which is constitutionally pledged to be a constituent part of the Anglican Communion, in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury as our focus of unity. In this sense, I am an Anglican first and an Episcopalian second, not in the sense of either/or, nor of both/and, but of one because of the other."

In "The Causes For My Becoming Catholic", Steenson wrote,

I still have a sense of guilt about the whole ordeal of becoming a bishop in the Episcopal Church, because I was so conflicted about its direction. It was perfectly evident in 2004 where things were heading. My only defense is that I still hoped Anglicanism, at the eleventh hour, might yet reorder its life so as not to lose its original Catholic identity.

His actions as bishop indicate a willingness to work toward the end of maintaining communion. But oddly. the last-straw event that, by his account, pushed him into becoming Catholic had little to do with communion:

It is not necessary to rehearse all that was going on in the Episcopal Church at that time, except to say that the tumult reached a crescendo at the House of Bishops meeting on March 20, 2007. That was the day the bishops overwhelmingly rejected the valiant work that had been done to propose more effective instruments for the Anglican Communion, and they insisted that the polity of the Episcopal Church is independent, democratic, and connected to the rest of Anglicanism by voluntary association. By sunset I knew that I could not remain in the Episcopal Church under these circumstances. I still hoped that the Archbishop of Canterbury might exercise his discretion by whom he would invite to the Lambeth Conference (one of the few primatial prerogatives available to him), but two months later that hope was dashed.

What puzzles me here is that he looks to the Archbishop of Canterbury as the ecclesial authority that will ultimately determine communion, and the specific instrument by which he can do this is whether or not he invites a church to the Lambeth Conference. OK, fine, if that's how you see it. But then the Archbishop did in fact invite TEC to the Lambeth Conference. At that point, wasn't Steenson substituting his judgment for that of the Archbishop on who's a good Anglican?

For that matter, he was earlier warning the Presiding Bihop of TEC that she wasn't much of an Anglican herself. One question I'd have, if I were simply interviewing Steenson as a job applicant for human resources, would be why he wants to join a denomination that's based much more heavily on authority than Anglicanism when he's so determined to go against authority even as an Anglican.

At least, even if he's not formally a "continuer", he's in touch with his inner "continuer".