Tmatt has great post about Bp. Katharine Jefferts Schori. Apparently she’s smartened up since her New York Times Magazine and NPR interviews. If you remember, her assistant said that her responses had been cut short for the printing, and that the subjects were too sensitive to get a full understanding of what she said in just a few lines. So She did an interview recently and the full transcript has been posted at Bible Belt Blogger.
Here are some of my favorite bits:
There are clear connections between [reproductive] rates and educational level. It’s an inverse connection, as average education level goes up that group of people tends to reproduce at lower rates, and that’s certainly true in the Episcopal Church. It’s true of other mainline denominations as well. You don’t have a theological reason to reproduce at higher rates, unlike some other denominations and faith traditions. That’s the piece of complexity that got left out.
Except that it wasn’t left out
The church has certainly wrestled with the place of women in the life of society. We’re beginning to wrestle with the place of people whose sexual orientation is different from the average.
“Average”?
ADG: It seemed to some people that you were saying there isn’t an afterlife.
KJS: I don’t think Jesus was focused on that. I think Jesus was focused on heaven in this life, primarily. The Judeo-Christian tradition has always said yes, there is resurrection. There is life after death. But I think Jesus was not so worried about that. I think he’s worried about what we’re doing to treat our fellow human beings as children of God. He says the kingdom of heaven is among you, and within you, and around you.
ADG: So does that mean that in your view there is no afterlife?
KJS: That’s not what I said. I said what I think Jesus is more concerned about is heavenly existence, eternal life, in this life.
Brilliant non-answer. I give it a 10.5
ADG: Do you think there’s any part of us that lives on somewhere after we die?
KJS: Absolutely. But that’s not a question that concerns me day in and day out. I think I’m meant to use the gifts I have to transform the world in this life.
I actually agree with this. I just wish she’d be more assertive in acknowledging that Jesus spoke of everlasting life. He knew that most of his followers would be hated and live difficult lives on earth. His talk of abundant life wasn’t about comfort and happiness, it was about the joy of the Lord.
She’s smart, and has a way with words, but I think I’m on board with Andrew Cairns, she’s spreading heresy. There’s no two ways about it. I wonder if the Episcopal Church at large is ever going to stand up and take back the traditional faith that was handed down to them. I hope so.
Remember the part in Dumb and Dumber when Harry and Lloyd were going to Aspen? This reminds me of that.
Harold Meyerson expounds with amazing detail the situation involving the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. Yes, he notes that quite accurately that those churches left because the rest of the ECUSA is starting to treat gays as equals. He’s also dead on about the “ick-factor”(my term, not his) involved allowing a woman to preside over the church. Yuck.
Yes, memberships to God’s Country Club are hard to come by, and these people don’t cut the mustard.
Mr. Meyerson is just miles ahead of us, isn’t he?
There’s something systemic in the minds of liberals/progressives that propels them on these types of rants. Of course, there’s something similar going on in the conservative world. I wish I truly knew what it stemmed from, but I can’t quite figure it out.
The left is led by the self-appointed intellectual elite. They are the smartest, most forward thinking individuals in our society, and therefore the arbiters of social and political correctness/morality. To be the elite you must be decisive, which means there is no question about their stance on the issues. There is a right way to see things, and they’ve found it for us. In fact, it was so easy for them, they will find all of the correct views for us, because we aren’t quite smart enough or compassionate enough or peaceful enough to come up with them on our own, or even as a group.
Because this is true, when a person comes to a conclusion, they see that conclusion as indicative of the person’s character. For example, if I say that I believe homosexual activity is wrong, and explain why, then follow that explanation by discussing how the issue makes me feel, including the fact that I know homosexuals who are good and normal people, and that I’ve had a number of gay co-workers and acquaintances, what one of these types of liberals will hear is, “I believe homosexual activity is wrong, and blah blah blah blah blah”. They will then launch an attack, calling me a “homophobe” and implying that I am a bigot.
Two problems are exposed there, the first being that they seem to have no ability to perceive internal struggle on an issue. So they feel perfectly justified in saying you’re all of those things. They don’t even appreciate the finer points of the issue, which I’ll save for another time. The second is that they also feel justified in engaging in intellectual dishonesty to promote their “correct” viewpoints. This is also known as “lying.”
These guys (and gals) think they are so far ahead of the game that they haven’t noticed they’ve taken the Shaggin’ Wagon about 1000 miles in the wrong direction. They could be halfway to Aspen by now.
The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin hasn’t officially separated from the national church, but they’ve taken the first steps. I’m really impressed with the coverage in the Reuters article. The AP’s piece, however, left me underwhelmed.
The Fresno-based Diocese of San Joaquin voted Saturday to affirm its membership in the worldwide Anglican Communion, in what diocese leaders called a first step toward a formal break with the national church over the ordination of gays and women.
If only that were the truth of the matter. Reuters hits it dead on with this:
“Homosexuality is just one symptom of how the church has lowered its view,” said McCalister. “The key issue, however, is the ecclesiastical structure that recognizes the authority of the Bible, as it has for about two millennium. We’re not bringing in anything new.”
This is the heart of it. The upper echelons of Episcopal Church authority have begun to set the Bible’s “lesser teachings” aside in favor of a policy that goes something like, “Love your neighbor, even if that means ignoring some of Jesus other commands.” I don’t know what other issues will arise in the future, but right now we have a large number of Christians who believe everyone on earth is saved, regardless of their acceptance or rejection of the Gospel; many who believe that the idea of Jesus’ divinity was added in later. This break isn’t about ordination, it’s about theology and the position of the Bible in the church.
The Bishop Schori has a wonderfully deceptive response:
“Our task as the Episcopal Church is God’s mission of reconciling the world, and actions such as this distract and detract from that mission,” she said.
But who’s really “breaking away” here?
The Episcopal Church is a branch of the 77-million member Worldwide Anglican Communion, a loose federation of national churches around the world. Jefferts Schori leads 2.4 million followers in the United States.
At the San Joaquin diocese’s convention on Friday, Bishop John-David Schofield said, “The Episcopal Church walks apart from the Anglican Communion, but accuses us of leaving the church.”
The ECUSA is abandoning the centuries old view of the Bible as the infallible Word of God. As a Christian, that should be tantamount to apostasy.
I hate to use attendance statistics to suggest the health of a church, but if you check out the “growth” reports about the Episcopal Church from 1992-2004, you’ll see that only one diocese increased it’s membership relative to the population. Many actually lost members despite 10-20% population gains. That is not a good sign in a country that generally views Christianity as a good thing, with anecdotal evidence that points to a growth in overall church membership.
Like I said though, that’s not the way to determine whether a church is doing God’s will…just a fun fact. In the end what matters is this: The only tangible connection we have with Jesus’ teachings is the Bible. We have the Spirit and we have prayer, but those things are intangible. If we are to believe in him we have to trust the Bible to guide us to him.
Even Luther says in his Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ that when a dispute arises between our perception of the truth and the Bible’s declaration, the Bible’s language should prevail. The church fathers went to Scripture to guide practice. And Scripture testifies to itself, the Bereans searching the Scriptures to be sure the Apostles teaching was correct. I hope the leadership of the Episcopal Church remembers that, before the cookie falls apart in their hands.
Bob posted an interesting blog about an article in today’s LA Times. Find it here.
This speaks to a problem we have in society: the inability to separate a person from their past. If someone has sinned in a way that we find unsavory at any time in their past, we treat them as though they’re a threat to do it now. The subject of the article was convicted 13 years ago. He’s served his prison time, paid his debt to society, and now he’s just trying to get on with his life. But his neighbors won’t let it happen.
There’s no mention in the article to whether or not the neighbors are Christian, but judging by the demographics in the US, there are some there. Hopefully they’re the ones trying to be at peace with him.Jesus encountered a lot of sinful people in his life. Well, since everyone who has ever lived (with the exception of him) has been a sinner, then he only encountered sinful people. And he forgave. Tax collectors, zealots, prostitutes, adulteresses, blasphemers, liars…and he forgave every one of them who asked. He still does. In order to receive his grace, all we have to do is repent and confess, then ask for it.
Paul was a murderer of Christians before he became one. And Jesus sought him out to take the message to the Gentiles. If that man could be forgiven, why not this one? We have to do a much better job of separating the sin from the sinner, because with the measure we judge with, we will also be judged. If you hold someone’s past sins against them, yours may be held against you.
The Feminarian posted something similar, but she deals directly with the church. She discussed the views of Cyprian and Augustine in dealing with the lapsed (those who recanted during persecution, then came back to the church) and those in schism. The crux of her argument comes down to this:
The question of who is a schismatic is interesting for my denomination right now. By the standards of Cyprian, those who have defied their bishop’s authority and broken communion with the wider church are worse sinners than those living immorally. In our diocese, that means those who will not ordain gay and lesbian priests are worse than those who are inclusive, if they have broken relationship with our bishop (and a few have). [A note: Cyprian assumes the lapsed will repent, and the gay members of the Episcopal church are not considered sinners, which adds another layer of confusion to this question.] However, those in schism from the Episcopal Church are still in communion (theologically, at least) with the majority of Anglicans and other Christians worldwide. So in truth, it is probably the Episcopalians supporting gay priests who are the true schismatics and if living in gay relationship is sinful, then our priests and bishops have a double whammy of both schism and lapsing.
Yet despite all of this, Augustine would still affirm the effectiveness of their ministry, because God worked in their ordination, and God will continue to work through their sacramental ministry. And so even those of us under the authority of bishops like mine can take heart that we are not completely lost. I have personally witnessed the Spirit’s effectiveness in the lives and ministries of gay people. Even if they are sinning, Augustine must be right that God will still work through them!
I can’t say that I agree that this sort of division is worse than the sin in question, but it does weaken the Church in certain ways. I also agree that the condition of the minister will not affect the grace imparted on those he ministers to. But does that make it okay for said minister to live in sin? Scripture tells us that sexual immorality is one of the things that makes a person unclean(Mk. 7:21). It tells us to flee from it(1 Cor. 6:18), and to expel those who live in it (1 Cor. 5).
While the minister’s sin will not directly affect the salvation of his congregation, what does it say of the hearts of those who allow him to continue in it? Aren’t we supposed to work towards the purity of the church, as well as the unity? This doesn’t mean expelling a sinful brother or sister outright, but following Jesus teaching in Matt. 18, if they refuse to repent, they should be put out. Of course, he says to “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” I think that means you should put him out of the body, and re-evangelize him. Teach the basics, showing God’s offer of forgiveness and grace.
It would seem that Cyprian and Augustine wrote at a time when the laity had little say in the operations of the church. Once someone was put in charge of a parish, the congregation had no other options (”Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him…”). So this made sense then. But today, the people are in charge of the church hierarchy, so the outward condition of the clergy is a direct reflection of the laity (”Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’” Mark 7:15).
I think that since we live in an era of the church where we are in control of who leads us, we need to be very careful about the people we elevate.� We must even be careful of those who seem to be elevated by God.� Jesus said in Matthew 24 that “false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect�if that were possible.” If we aren’t diligent, those false prophets will deceive us, and though their sinfulness won’t affect our salvation, the fact that we chose them to lead us and allowed them to continue belies our internal condition.� The enemy waits to ensnare us, and he’ll use anything he can exploit, including love and tolerance, to reach his goal.
The Episcopal Church USA’s new presiding bishop is Katharine Jefferts Schori. She is the first woman to head any member of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Doctrinal questions of women in leadership aside, this could be the end of the Episcopal church as we know it…
Jefferts Schori has some not-so-well-received ideas about the church. The one that gets the most press is that she is pushing for the full acceptance of homosexuality in the church. She says that “she won’t impose her views on others” and that the US church will compromise to stay united with the worldwide Anglican Communion…”for a season.” But she says that when it comes to the other denominations theological qualms with women’s ordination, “they’ll have to ‘get over it’.” See the AP story here.
She wants to pursue peace and healing, and is even willing to compromise, but she will have her way. She’s like a spoiled 3 year-old making a power play. Is this the application of liberal tolerance? That she is moved to include everyone, as long as they agree with her?
That problem is bad enough. But the position that you won’t hear much in the mainstream press, is that she doesn’t think that Jesus is the only way to God.This isn’t a big deal in the world. Most people think there are other ways to God. But for the primate of a denomination of 2.4 million people, this is blasphemy.
That word doesn’t get tossed about very much, as well it shouldn’t. It’s a serious charge that in centuries past has resulted in charred bodies tied to stakes. But what else can you call it? Misguided? No, the idea that God will give you every selfish request is misguided. Deceptive? No, telling someone that you have no sin is deceptive. Mistaken? No, saying the Great Commission is in Malachi 28 is mistaken. This is what Paul called preaching another gospel. This is blasphemy.
“If we insist we know the one way to God,” she said, “we’ve put God in a very small box.”
“It’s this sense that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself, rather than understanding that truth is — like God — more than any one person can encompass.”
Those are her own words. She says this despite the fact that Colossians 2:9 says, “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,” and Jesus’ own declaration that “no one comes to the Father, except through [him].” She is unconcerned with what the Bible teaches, and decides for herself what is right and wrong. She has taken to leaning on her own understanding.
Some of you who are reading may not be Christians, and probably think it’s great that someone is coming in and going against the grain. You may not think it’s legitimate to hold to such old teachings, and that it’s good that someone is thinking outside of the text. The only problem is that the Bible and it’s teachings are what hold Christians together in this world. Belief in Christ, as the Scriptures tell him is what we are based on. Schori is free to believe that Jesus is only one of many ways to find God, but she shouldn’t have a leadership role in an organization that is based on the belief that he’s the only way.
This post from Get Religion tells the story well, including this incredible insight from an email:
A pastor is married for years, has children, runs a successful church, advances in his denomination/sector of Christianity, and then “finds himself” and abandons wife and children for a live-in situation with another man. His reward? Consecration as a bishop in the Protestant Episcopal Church of America and wide-ranging media praise. LATimes, I believe, had a nice kiss-up interview with Gene Robinson just this week.
Another pastor apparently is married for years, has children, builds and runs a a successful church, advances in his denomination/sector of Christianity, fights temptation and loses, stays with his family, and when the dam breaks, is crucified in the press as his reward.
If you’re unaware, V. Gene Robinson is the gay Episcopal bishop who was consecrated in 2003, with praise from the media. The second story is of Pastor Ted Haggard, of New Life Church in Colorado, who was fired on Saturday following his scandal. I don’t think this email is saying anything to the effect that Haggard should have been allowed to stay, only that the media swing is amazing.
As it says in this article, Jefferts Schori’s comments are in line with what she has said before and with ECUSA leadership. And this is only a symptom of the new forms of Bible interpretation that take the stance that the text contains God’s truth, but not explicitly. This stance holds that the entire Bible, every story, is a metaphor. With this idea of the Bible nothing is certain. There are no concrete facts or commands.
When you reduce the whole of the text to metaphor you can support anything. Despite there being no Biblical support for the idea that God sanctions monogamous homosexual relationships, and concrete evidence that we were intended for monogamous heterosexual relationships (Gen 1, 2; Mt 19, Mk 10, 1Cor 6, Eph 5), you can say things like, “God loves us, why would he create someone as a homosexual if it was a sin?” And no matter what I say, you can refute it, because you don’t believe the Bible is true word of God.
What these groups don’t realize, is that when Jesus argued, he argued from Scripture. A lot. He is constantly referencing the Old Testament. When Satan tempts him he responds by quoting scripture. When the Pharisees confront him about his disciples picking grain on the Sabbath, he uses Scripture. But if take their position, scripture comes second to reason.
I’ve gone through this before, in the posts On the Narrow, and On the Narrow (pt. 2).
What will become of the true Christian faith? How long will it be before the idea that Christ is all, that he was truly God in the flesh, is all but gone in our society? There’s a lot of talk about the growth of Christianity in the global south. Will it become the new center of Christendom when intellectuality takes over the church in America?
The advance of this mindset in America’s large denominations, particularly the PCUSA, ECUSA, and ELCA is frightening to me. We need to separate this “Christian Spirituality” or “Christian Universalism” from Christianity, and quickly.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
Matthew 7:13-23
Blogs4God
