Crisis is always a remarkable opportunity – that’s how Christians are meant to engage crisis. Crisis is about focusing on the most important and most essential things first. Pilots talk about crisis management in the shorthand of aviate, navigate, communicate – fly the airplane, figure out where you are, and then call for help – but keep on flying the plane
“The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy –that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use alone can be in right relationship with God.” from the Presiding Bishop’s opening address.
No. 5 and 6, that also raised my eyebrows as well. That is problematic on a number of theological levels, not the least of which is that she’s one to be waging fingers at heresies. Nothing like a little early morning Silver Spoon theological snobbery to further ecumenical dialogue with our more Protestant brethren.
I would also direct her to look again at the Baptismal rite in the BCP, particularly the Baptismal covenant and the Examination of Candidates. All responses from the person to be baptized begins with “I will…” not “We.” I would also direct her to reflect on the story of Abraham, the Father of our Faith. God spoke to Abraham as an individual, and Abraham responded as an individual.
To blame all these problems on a belief that “we can be saved as individuals” is nonsense. Individualism, yes, can cause a great many problems when run amok, but but we are also responsible for our own individual lives. Yes, we have a corporate faith, but we also have individual consciences.
Before this turns into a full blown rant, I will stop. Pardon this entry if it sounds snarky. I have not finished my cup of coffee.
After readfing Ms Schori’s opening address several descriptive words/phrases came to mind, such as “theologically shallow,” “New Age,” “divisive,” and “a controlled tantrum.”
When we recite the Nicene Creed are we putting our words in “place of God”? If you say yes to that question, as KJS appears to do do, then you’re left with relativizing truth. In other words, for KJS, to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord is to be using words that are historically and culturally conditioned and, therefore, not saying anything objectively about God. Surely, she’s right to be saying that faith without works is dead, but who in this debate is taking that position, it’s a strawman. No one I know of is contending that a loveless faith is saving. But to protect love KJS throws out truth. I realize that she didn’t want to personally meet Pope Benedict when he visited the USA, but perhaps after the convention she will have some time to carefully read his encyclical on love in truth.
I think it’s ironic to have the Presiding Property Litigator, whose followers mumble out, “you can leave, just don’t take the silver†like a slack-jawed mantra, say, “The problem is with their keepers, who see the pigs only as bacon and ham producing machines, rather than part of God’s good creation and therefore deserving of appropriate respect.†Physician, heal thyself.
In terms of the “great Western heresy,” I believe what she’s getting at is the idea that the relationship between God and humanity is entirely made up of six billion distinct relationships between God and individual people, and each person is saved or not based on nothing whatsoever but their own individual relationship with God. There is no “We and God,” there is only “I and God.”
The opposite heresy would be to assert that God has no relationship with individuals, only with humanity as a whole. But she doesn’t say that.
The truth, I would say, is in between: God certainly has relationships with each one of us as unique individuals. But God also has a corporate relationship with humanity as a whole, and indeed with Creation as a whole. Although we are individuals, we are not each set completely apart from the world and the people around us; we are part of a whole, and indeed a great deal of our identity comes from those “wholenesses.” I am Ross, but I would not be who Ross is if I were not part of my family, and my church, and my city, and my nation, and all of humanity. God cannot have a relationship with me without also relating to everything that I am part of, and I cannot have a relationship with God without building it from the foundation of everything that I am part of.
Some cultures need to guard against the corporate heresy, that I am nothing without other people. But in the Western world we mostly need to guard against the individualistic heresy, that I am everything without other people. That, I believe, is what she’s getting at.
#12: “God cannot have a relationship with me without also relating to everything that I am part of, and I cannot have a relationship with God without building it from the foundation of everything that I am part of.”
I do not agree with this statement at all. How does one limit God like that. And I do not have to depend on everything around me to have a relationship with God. I think because of my relationship with God I can have the right relationship with things and persons around me. That is the way I see the two Great Commandments interacting. But the first Great Commandment comes first.
The use of the term killing is very telling to me. It shows me that KJS calls the whole atonement for our sins by death on the Cross in question. As I believe it is a common argument of those against atonement theology that Christ did not willingly die but was killed for political reasons.
KJS is saying far more than we are in this together and we need to work together. Her comments about the great western heresy can be best understood in light of her definitions of “God’s reconciling mission”.
Before her comments on heresy, she said, “Our mission is to keep traveling, bearing the good news of Jesus and working to transform the world.” In the next paragraph, she said God’s reconciling mission is “sharing the good news, healing the world, and caring for all of God’s creation”.
After the comments on heresy, that mission simply becomes transforming the world. God’s mission “has most to do with loving our neighbors”. Jesus turned to Jerusalem: “Jesus’ passion was and is for God’s dream of a reconciled creation. We are meant to be partners in that reality.”
KJS presents a mission (in contrast to the heresy of personal salvation) of transforming the world and reconciling this creation. She leaves out the cross (well actually she portrays the cross as a violent waypoint on the path to Jerusalem), confession of sin, forgiveness and regeneration, a life lived in the transforming power of the Spirit of God, and a view of heaven.
If her goal was to say we need to work together, she has missed her mark. She has raised up a vision which apparently sees no need of personal faith, only corporate efforts to change the world. Her message is a presentation rooted in many of the teachings which w ere long ago identified by the Church as heresies. Such irony.
From the address:
“In the tradition that you and I have inherited, crisis response has a lot
to do with caring for the most vulnerable – who is sick or hungry or dying or grieving? In the kind of crisis called a disaster, it’s about ensuring that people have food, water, shelter, and medical care.”
From Caritas in veritas
“Openness to life is at the centre of true development. When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man’s true good. If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away[67]. The acceptance of life strengthens moral fibre and makes people capable of mutual help. By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, they can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead, they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and every individual.”
Something for the Presiding Bishop to ponder. How can an organization which endorses abortion as a solution to an economic crisis of the individual woman ever engage in true charity which has as its center the protection and elevation of the weakest of our brothers and sisters? A charity based on true genoristy grounded in the Gospel.
In true charity the problem is seen as too many being given too small a share in the abudance of creation. To this the solution is seen as giving more whether in the form of goods or intangible benefits such as better education. It does not chastize the poor for their state but sees them as brothers who should have a place at the table.
On the other hand there are those who see the problem as too many people demanding a share in ever decreasing resources. The solution is seen not in giving more but in rationing the abundance of creation by denying some the very right to life so that there are fewer people to distribute this abundance to. This is done by population control pressures exerted by aid agencies. The idea being that selfishness is not defined by my refusal to share but in your refusal to only have 2 children. It sees the poor as usurpers who have only themselves to blame for their condition. They can have a few crumbs tossed their way but the table is reserved for their betters.
True charity begins with respect for life and the desire for that life to be a vocation that glorifies God and His love for us.
#12: “God cannot have a relationship with me without also relating to everything that I am part of, and I cannot have a relationship with God without building it from the foundation of everything that I am part of.â€
I do not agree with this statement at all. How does one limit God like that. And I do not have to depend on everything around me to have a relationship with God. I think because of my relationship with God I can have the right relationship with things and persons around me. That is the way I see the two Great Commandments interacting. But the first Great Commandment comes first.
Maybe it will sound better if Donne says it:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
Hey, Archer: I almost spilled my coffee on my keyboard when I read her ridiculous Obfuscatory Episcobabble! I didn’t know whether to just shake my head in amazement or pull out what little hair I’ve got left!
Far be it from me to disagree with Donne, but I think, perhaps, as Billy has said, he is but speaking to half of the issue. It is true that for me to honor and obey my God, I must respect his creation, and thus Love my Neighbor as he has commanded, but to consider this to be the foundation of my relationship with Him is meaningless, if we are to accept Jesus for whom He claimed to be.
[i]“It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus.†[/i]
[b]Is it possible the PB is talking about the Creeds of the Church??? Is she saying that if you believe that one has to believe the Apostles and Nicene Creed in order to be a Christian than you are committing heresy???[/b]
What a jumble of babble. And how did the Mississippi Episcopalians figure into all that???????? Can someone explain?
So many words . . . so little said.
I watched…IMHO she said quite a bit. Basically she was giving the convention their marching orders….she knows she has the votes..her will be done…..
So spoke the Divine Wind.
Tora Tora Tora.
“The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy –that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use alone can be in right relationship with God.” from the Presiding Bishop’s opening address.
This is just an unbelievable statement.
#5…that is exactly the bit that caught my eye…I was wondering if someone more knowledgeable than I could explain her meaning.
Elaine
Interesting what she omits in terms of crises. Aging membership, dioceses leaving, lawsuits, rancor…the list can go on.
No. 5 and 6, that also raised my eyebrows as well. That is problematic on a number of theological levels, not the least of which is that she’s one to be waging fingers at heresies. Nothing like a little early morning Silver Spoon theological snobbery to further ecumenical dialogue with our more Protestant brethren.
I would also direct her to look again at the Baptismal rite in the BCP, particularly the Baptismal covenant and the Examination of Candidates. All responses from the person to be baptized begins with “I will…” not “We.” I would also direct her to reflect on the story of Abraham, the Father of our Faith. God spoke to Abraham as an individual, and Abraham responded as an individual.
To blame all these problems on a belief that “we can be saved as individuals” is nonsense. Individualism, yes, can cause a great many problems when run amok, but but we are also responsible for our own individual lives. Yes, we have a corporate faith, but we also have individual consciences.
Before this turns into a full blown rant, I will stop. Pardon this entry if it sounds snarky. I have not finished my cup of coffee.
After readfing Ms Schori’s opening address several descriptive words/phrases came to mind, such as “theologically shallow,” “New Age,” “divisive,” and “a controlled tantrum.”
When we recite the Nicene Creed are we putting our words in “place of God”? If you say yes to that question, as KJS appears to do do, then you’re left with relativizing truth. In other words, for KJS, to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord is to be using words that are historically and culturally conditioned and, therefore, not saying anything objectively about God. Surely, she’s right to be saying that faith without works is dead, but who in this debate is taking that position, it’s a strawman. No one I know of is contending that a loveless faith is saving. But to protect love KJS throws out truth. I realize that she didn’t want to personally meet Pope Benedict when he visited the USA, but perhaps after the convention she will have some time to carefully read his encyclical on love in truth.
I think it’s ironic to have the Presiding Property Litigator, whose followers mumble out, “you can leave, just don’t take the silver†like a slack-jawed mantra, say, “The problem is with their keepers, who see the pigs only as bacon and ham producing machines, rather than part of God’s good creation and therefore deserving of appropriate respect.†Physician, heal thyself.
In terms of the “great Western heresy,” I believe what she’s getting at is the idea that the relationship between God and humanity is entirely made up of six billion distinct relationships between God and individual people, and each person is saved or not based on nothing whatsoever but their own individual relationship with God. There is no “We and God,” there is only “I and God.”
The opposite heresy would be to assert that God has no relationship with individuals, only with humanity as a whole. But she doesn’t say that.
The truth, I would say, is in between: God certainly has relationships with each one of us as unique individuals. But God also has a corporate relationship with humanity as a whole, and indeed with Creation as a whole. Although we are individuals, we are not each set completely apart from the world and the people around us; we are part of a whole, and indeed a great deal of our identity comes from those “wholenesses.” I am Ross, but I would not be who Ross is if I were not part of my family, and my church, and my city, and my nation, and all of humanity. God cannot have a relationship with me without also relating to everything that I am part of, and I cannot have a relationship with God without building it from the foundation of everything that I am part of.
Some cultures need to guard against the corporate heresy, that I am nothing without other people. But in the Western world we mostly need to guard against the individualistic heresy, that I am everything without other people. That, I believe, is what she’s getting at.
#12 But why say it in the first place. This is a put down of fundamentalism and of many in the Body of Christ. And she knows it.
#12: “God cannot have a relationship with me without also relating to everything that I am part of, and I cannot have a relationship with God without building it from the foundation of everything that I am part of.”
I do not agree with this statement at all. How does one limit God like that. And I do not have to depend on everything around me to have a relationship with God. I think because of my relationship with God I can have the right relationship with things and persons around me. That is the way I see the two Great Commandments interacting. But the first Great Commandment comes first.
The use of the term killing is very telling to me. It shows me that KJS calls the whole atonement for our sins by death on the Cross in question. As I believe it is a common argument of those against atonement theology that Christ did not willingly die but was killed for political reasons.
KJS is saying far more than we are in this together and we need to work together. Her comments about the great western heresy can be best understood in light of her definitions of “God’s reconciling mission”.
Before her comments on heresy, she said, “Our mission is to keep traveling, bearing the good news of Jesus and working to transform the world.” In the next paragraph, she said God’s reconciling mission is “sharing the good news, healing the world, and caring for all of God’s creation”.
After the comments on heresy, that mission simply becomes transforming the world. God’s mission “has most to do with loving our neighbors”. Jesus turned to Jerusalem: “Jesus’ passion was and is for God’s dream of a reconciled creation. We are meant to be partners in that reality.”
KJS presents a mission (in contrast to the heresy of personal salvation) of transforming the world and reconciling this creation. She leaves out the cross (well actually she portrays the cross as a violent waypoint on the path to Jerusalem), confession of sin, forgiveness and regeneration, a life lived in the transforming power of the Spirit of God, and a view of heaven.
If her goal was to say we need to work together, she has missed her mark. She has raised up a vision which apparently sees no need of personal faith, only corporate efforts to change the world. Her message is a presentation rooted in many of the teachings which w ere long ago identified by the Church as heresies. Such irony.
From the address:
“In the tradition that you and I have inherited, crisis response has a lot
to do with caring for the most vulnerable – who is sick or hungry or dying or grieving? In the kind of crisis called a disaster, it’s about ensuring that people have food, water, shelter, and medical care.”
From Caritas in veritas
“Openness to life is at the centre of true development. When a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man’s true good. If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away[67]. The acceptance of life strengthens moral fibre and makes people capable of mutual help. By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, they can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead, they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and every individual.”
Something for the Presiding Bishop to ponder. How can an organization which endorses abortion as a solution to an economic crisis of the individual woman ever engage in true charity which has as its center the protection and elevation of the weakest of our brothers and sisters? A charity based on true genoristy grounded in the Gospel.
In true charity the problem is seen as too many being given too small a share in the abudance of creation. To this the solution is seen as giving more whether in the form of goods or intangible benefits such as better education. It does not chastize the poor for their state but sees them as brothers who should have a place at the table.
On the other hand there are those who see the problem as too many people demanding a share in ever decreasing resources. The solution is seen not in giving more but in rationing the abundance of creation by denying some the very right to life so that there are fewer people to distribute this abundance to. This is done by population control pressures exerted by aid agencies. The idea being that selfishness is not defined by my refusal to share but in your refusal to only have 2 children. It sees the poor as usurpers who have only themselves to blame for their condition. They can have a few crumbs tossed their way but the table is reserved for their betters.
True charity begins with respect for life and the desire for that life to be a vocation that glorifies God and His love for us.
#14 Billy says:
Maybe it will sound better if Donne says it:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
Hey, Archer: I almost spilled my coffee on my keyboard when I read her ridiculous Obfuscatory Episcobabble! I didn’t know whether to just shake my head in amazement or pull out what little hair I’ve got left!
Ross:
Far be it from me to disagree with Donne, but I think, perhaps, as Billy has said, he is but speaking to half of the issue. It is true that for me to honor and obey my God, I must respect his creation, and thus Love my Neighbor as he has commanded, but to consider this to be the foundation of my relationship with Him is meaningless, if we are to accept Jesus for whom He claimed to be.
[i]“It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus.†[/i]
[b]Is it possible the PB is talking about the Creeds of the Church??? Is she saying that if you believe that one has to believe the Apostles and Nicene Creed in order to be a Christian than you are committing heresy???[/b]