One bishop spoke deliberately, professorially, with flashes of droll humor and poetic phrasing. The other told stories from his long ministerial career, rounding them off with insights into Christian faith and practice.
But what had been billed as a debate between the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, and the Rev. William Frey, retired Episcopal bishop of Colorado, yielded much common ground and no outright conflict on the identity and meaning of Jesus.
“I heard a great deal of convergence,” Frey said afterward.
Golly gosh, it sounds like all the fuss these last few years has just been one big misunderstanding.
One would have though that by now the few (and, in this case, senior) “orthodox” bishops left in the Episcopal Church would have learned a thing or two. And yet, they still dance (and hug) on que with the architects of their own (and orthodoxy’s) demise.
Which begs the question of how deep the orthodoxy goes…any true orthodox believer in a mitre would have stood with +Iker et al. All that can now remain are surely cowards and conmen. This might sound harsh- but what use your orthodoxy if you cannot stand up for Christ and stand up to those who mock him
Very troubling.
It’s not surprising that Bob Dannals would offer a forum for a false teacher and heretic like Schori and offer recognition of her as a respected Christian believer.
But it is surprising that Bishop Stanton would allow it in his diocese — a woman to come in who in no way believes the Christian gospel to pour her heretical doctrines into the minds of young people and other laypeople.
Sad.
There were plenty of options to allow Schori to visit that would have included appropriate encounters and that also would not have given her an environment of respect or recognition as a fellow Christian believer.
The example of the Diocese of South Carolina’s handling a visit was excellent. No Eucharist — as sharing such with a known false teacher would be wrong. Morning Prayer. Southern courtesy and hospitality. No teaching opportunity with the laity. A q&a forum with the clergy, who revealed quite nicely the holes and flaws in her particular philosophy.
Isn’t calling Jesus Christ the “green savior” idolatrous? Isn’t this co-opting Jesus for a cause, even if it’s a good cause? The way Schori continually does this is dismaying. So, if you object to this use of Jesus, somehow you’re anti-environment. What Schori does isn’t any different then what Bruce Barton and others have done in making Jesus into the “Great Salesman”, etc.
[Comment deleted by Elf – please address the thread]
phil (#4), it isn’t only idolatrous, it’s also heretical; viz., a subspecies of Arianism.
Environmentalism (or the “green god”) is made [i]the[/i] god, or the divine principle, and Jesus is its manifestation. The same can be said for the notion of Jesus as the “inclusive savior”, because “inclusion” is made the divine principle of which Jesus is simply an example or a manifestation – even if the highest and most perfect example and manifestation.
From the posted account (which may have been superficial and incomplete) I cannot tell that there was any great gulf between the positions of Schori, Frey, or, for that matter, Stanton. I find it hard to understand why this article would lead someone to describe Schori as someone “who in no way believes the Christian Gospel.” At worst it seems that she believes it some ways, but not in all the ways in which it is believed by some commenters. The “heretic” label seems also to get thrown around a bit loosely these days. At some point Gresham’s law kicks in with semantics and we get so we don’t know a true heretic when we encounter one. I saw something on another site recently describing the newly elected candidate for Bishop in Upper South Carolina described unflinchingly as a “heretic.” With all these bishop heretics, one begins to suspect that everybody is a heretic.
Sarah, I didn’t agree with all the PB said during her visit to St. Michael, but I did not hear one who “in no way believes the Gospel.” There’s certainly room to argue with her on various things she said, and clearly she comes from the “justice” wing of the church, but as Bishop Frey pointed out, there were lots of areas of overlap. The sermon she delivered on Sunday could have been delivered by just about any orthodox clergy out there.
RE: “I find it hard to understand why this article would lead someone to describe Schori as someone “who in no way believes the Christian Gospel.â€
Right — agreed. That’s why one would have to be actually familiar with her specifically stated words in writing over the past three years. Which I am. And which, in fact, you are as well.
RE: “With all these bishop heretics, one begins to suspect that everybody is a heretic.”
Well a good 70% of the bishops, NOVA, in TEC — that’s an awful lot. That’s why our church is auguring into the ground so quickly. One can’t lead a Christian church to health and vitality without actually believing and promoting the gospel.
But then . . . maybe you’ve missed the thesis all these years of traditional Episcopalians. We’re covered in heretics.
You hadn’t noticed that we’ve been saying that for the past umpteen years?
I think the noise is preventing me from hearing your clearly, Sarah. I know what you’ve been saying. Mrs. Schori is not my beau (or perhaps belle) ideal of the perfect Presiding Bishop for the historical moment, but by making her out to be some sort of heathen, I lose touch with important theological issues that merit scholarly attention in our age.
A 70% heretic rate among bishops would have made for a lot of good kindling in another time. I use the term more sparingly.