(ENS) In the past one and a-half years, members of four dioceses have voted to leave the church over theological differences and loyalists in the dioceses are reorganizing. The presenting issue was the election of a gay bishop, New Hampshire’s Gene Robinson, and more-liberal attitudes toward gay church members. Why has this issue caused the deepest split? “I’m not sure [this issue] has caused the deepest split. Certainly Episcopalians and other members of mainline denominations have left their churches in the past — when [racial] integration began in the churches, when women began to be ordained. Change is difficult for all of us. Even talking about issues of human sexuality has been a challenge in this church,” she said.
“Fifty years ago, we didn’t talk about such things in public. We’ve come a long way, to have largely productive conversations about what it means to be a faithful Christian, however one’s orientation might be. I often say the church’s job is to help people live holy lives … the challenges there are different opinions about what it means to live a holy life as a gay or lesbian Christian … I think we do begin to live out the Gospel in a more creative way,” she said.
Is there hope for reconciliation with disaffected Episcopalians or former Episcopalians? “When we’re clearer about our identity, there is abundant room for reconciliation. The challenging part of the environment is that some have said they can no longer be Episcopalians because the Episcopal Church believes ‘X.’ The Episcopal Church has always had a wide range of belief. The challenge comes when some find that range too wide for their own comfort. There have always been times in the church when some have decided to follow their spiritual journey in another faith community. We are embracing, we are a wide tent. If you are reasonably comfortable with that diversity, you are more then welcome,” she commented.
“There have always been those who perverted the gospel to their worldly understandings – the little known gnostics – among whome the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC aspires to be.” Succeeding too with remarkable alacrity, a la the PB.
No mention of Jesus.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Six telling references to “Gospel” (in paragraphs 10, 16, 18, 20, and 23):
1. “Incarnate communication is what we are about … when we gather for worship, we become the body of Christ drawn together in a particular place,” and from there “we are sent out into the world to do [i]the work of the Gospel[/i],” she said.
2. “[The Diocese of Haiti is] clearly a major force for social and humanitarian good in that nation. [i]The gospel is there to stay[/i].”
3. “We’re going to bring aboard another person [i.e., in addition to Fr. Jake] who will help to teach the rest of us and challenge the rest of us to think about emergent church models—how the church can as a whole be more effective in [i]presenting the gospel in language and images and idioms that can be more readily understood by new generations[/i].”
4. “I often say the church’s job is to help people live holy lives … the challenges there are different opinions about what it means to live a holy life as a gay or lesbian Christian … I think [i]we do begin to live out the Gospel in a more creative way[/i].”
5. She also addressed the feeling among some church members that seeking redress in the courts goes against the Gospel.
6. “I hope [ACNA leaders] will be more comfortable and pursue their understanding of the Gospel in an environment they find more conducive to that.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A special Doozy Award goes to KJS’ observation that “Change is difficult for all of us.” That from someone monumentally intent on imposing her own will.
Condescending, clueless, and at the same time strategic. As always, everything is detached from any concrete reference to Biblical texts themselves — everything amorphous and floating above them and yet we know quite clearly where the winds are intent to blow.
I agree with all of the above comments. Two points that really needled me were:
[blockquote] She also addressed the feeling among some church members that seeking redress in the courts goes against the Gospel. “The challenge is that some believe they have the right to take away from the church that which was given to the church. A gift is given theologically as well as legally with no strings attached. It is a gift. When one attempts to take that gift back … it is not the privilege of leaders to release it for the purposes for which it wasn’t given,” she said.[/blockquote]
I’ve said this before and I’ll probably say it again…if you were to ask the average Joe in the pew where he believed his pledge, or tithe, were going, he would say his parish. If you were to ask your parents and/or grandparents this same question you would get the same answer. I come from the Pittsburgh area and can point to several churches were generations of a family have put their heart and soul into maintaining God’s house. These people do not look at the building as belonging to TEC (or ECUSA) they look at it as belonging to their congregation. This idea that it all belongs, ultimately, to TEC is like asking them to swallow a watermelon whole. It gets stuck in their craw.
Point 2:
[blockquote] She noted that the proposed Anglican covenant — a statement of a shared set of beliefs — is now in its third draft and pointed out that some Anglican provinces are resisting the idea that the covenant spells out what sort of penalties there might be for churches that are found to contravene it. “If a covenant is devised that talks about our shared beliefs, shared heritage, I think there is going to be less objection than if it talks of enforcement and membership. That’s what is driving the resistance.” [/blockquote]
From what I have read regarding reactions to this proposed covenant, many within the communion have been in favor of it. It is only the liberal western members, such as TEC, that have put up a resistence. I believe it is for the very reason she noted. They would be held responsible and punished for their actions and they do not like that scenario.
#1 wrote: “There have always been those who perverted the gospel to their worldly understandings – the little known gnostics – among whome the ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC aspires to be.†What is the source of this quotation, please?
Irenaeus, she spoke for 45 minutes at the National Press Club on religion in America. Not one mention of Jesus. Not single Bible verse. I am just a guy in the pew, no claims to be a religious leader. But I can’t talk for five minutes about my religion without both.
The deluded ramblings of Ms Schori makes me really happy that the revisionists have chosen her as their leader. It does kind of surprise me that there has been rumblings of discontent about this vapid woman. I think it shows how worried they are about the tenuousness of their situation. They know that any grumblings might bring the house of cards down any moment.
–“When we’re clearer about our identity, there is abundant room for reconciliation. The challenging part of the environment is that some have said they can no longer be Episcopalians because the Episcopal Church believes ‘X.’ The Episcopal Church has always had a wide range of belief. The challenge comes when some find that range too wide for their own comfort. There have always been times in the church when some have decided to follow their spiritual journey in another faith community. We are embracing, we are a wide tent. If you are reasonably comfortable with that diversity, you are more then welcome,” she commented.–
Oh, yes, she’s QUITE clear about the perceived “identity.” And this isn’t even a well-veiled invitation to traditional believers to go find another church if you’re not on board. The practical part of me says maybe I should go away but it continues to war at the stubborn part of me that says, “this is my church, too!”
“The Episcopal Church has always had a wide range of belief.”
Hooey! The Episcopal Church may have given wide latitude in matters of practice, but there was never before such wide divergence in theology. The Prayer Book set the standard – in complete harmony with the Holy Scriptures and Catholic Tradition – and there was no question about what that standard was.
“Wide range of belief” is a new phenomenon – not “always.”
The funniest and most ironic bit is when she refers to people who agree with her farcical rantings as ‘loyalists;!! Not to Christianity they aint
5 – it is a summary quotation of the PB’s position as revealed in the article. The scare quotes should have given it away.
#2
Jesus IS the Gospel.
[blockquote]”I’m not sure [this issue] has caused the deepest split. Certainly Episcopalians and other members of mainline denominations have left their churches in the past — when [racial] integration began in the churches, when women began to be ordained.[/blockquote]
Perhaps my recall memory (as opposed to recognition memory) of Church history is flawed, but I don’t recall entire dioceses leaving over the ordination of women or racial integration. And, since the Anglican Covenant is something that’s currently being drafted, I think it’s safe to say that it’s didn’t exist before. So, how, again, does she justify saying that this hasn’t caused “the deepest split?”
Schori, Robinson, et al represent the way most people (uncritically) think in America. They will win the war of words because many are willing to be led by the nose. And now we have a President who will put a shine on this secular worldview. The new religion doesn’t require Jesus or quoting Scripture. Robinson already explained that to dumb us… he’s won’t quote the Bible in his Inagural remarks. The divide widens between those who buy the brain washing (often because of ignorance) and those who see through it. You might find this interesting: http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2009/01/obamas-inaguration-unity-or-division.html
KJS says:
[i]The Episcopal Church has always had a wide range of belief. The challenge comes when some find that range too wide for their own comfort. There have always been times in the church when some have decided to follow their spiritual journey in another faith community. We are embracing, we are a wide tent. If you are reasonably comfortable with that diversity, you are more then welcome.[/i]
However, that is NOT true of Anglicanism in regards to heresy. From the earliest there was a standard of ‘right belief’, as Thomas Cramner put forth:
[blockquote]We are desirous of setting forth in our churches the true doctrine of God, and have no wish to adapt it to all tastes, or to deal in ambiguities; but, laying aside all carnal considerations, to
transmit to posterity a true and explicit form of doctrine agreeable to the rule of the sacred writings; so that there may not only be set forth among all nations an illustrious testimony respecting our doctrine, delivered by the grave authority of learned and godly men, but that all posterity may have a pattern to imitate.
(from a letter to John a Lasco, 4 July 1548, quoted in “Seed and Harvest” January-February 2009 [i]Ancient Wisdom – Anglican Futures: An emerging conversation from Trinity[/i] by Phil Harrold, page 8, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry)[/blockquote]
A Wide Tent does not include non-Christian belief or behavior, but rather:
[blockquote]Our special character [as Anglicans] and, as we believe, our peculiar contribution to the Universal Church, arises from the fact that, owing to historical circumstances, we have been enabled to combine in one fellowship the traditional faith and order of the catholic church with the immediacy of approach to God through Christ to which the evangelical churches especially bear witness, and freedom of intellectual inquiry, whereby the correlation
of the Christian revelation and advancing knowledge is constantly effected.
William Temple, quoted in the same article of “Seed and Harvest”[/blockquote]
Methinks KJS needs to take a few more courses in theology and church history.
Peace
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
11. archangelica wrote: #2 Jesus IS the Gospel.
Archangelica, I entirely agree with you. That said, I doubt the PB would have a clue about what you have said. I think she is into the Postchristian, social gospel.
There is something kindergartenish about this…she is the teacher and we are the class. Also the lack of warmth somehow runs through her comments. I wonder just what or who she would be without her issues…they always sound like they are the core of her life when she speaks.
1. “I’ve said I don’t think it’s helpful to revisit B033. It is far more helpful for us to say something significant about where we are in 2009. Conventions have passed resolutions in the past and they have rarely been revisited. New resolutions have been passed that state where the church is at that point,” said Jefferts Schori.
Heads up folks! B033 will not be revisited. It will be [b]replaced[/b].
2. “Incarnate communication is what we are about”
Really? What is that?
Dr Schori, you say TEC’s a “big tent,” and all are welcome. Fine…..OK, but what about us reasserters who have complained for years about the direction your Church has taken…….without a thought for the opinions and desires of those who openly disagree with its direction? What about your comments about the divinity of Christ? Why do you not give us what we want?
She really is the perfect leader of TEC. Perfect to lead the Church with this as a Theology:
KTF!!!…mrb
[i] Incarnate communication is what we are about [/i] —KJS
[i] Really? What is that? [/i] —Deacon Dale [#17]
Simple: KJS and her radical allies are the brains, the Head. We are the feet and other, more humble parts. She tells us what to do and where to go.