“Love has saved you…”.
Um, nope. Jesus’ kind of sacrificial agape love has. Jesus has saved you (us). Why is the name of Jesus so hard for this woman to pronounce? She had me actually appreciating a great deal of her sermon until her unitarian, multi-religion, syncretistic tongue botched it up at the end.
This is so simple minded! Oh, I know, I shouldn’t rail at anything Schori says…what’s the point? If C.S,. Lewis is right – and I believe he is – that to love one’s neighbor as oneself means to wish him well as one wishes oneself well, the issue of have a pew companion who smells like a sink drain is not a lovethyneighbor matter. One may wish him well, but one is NOT required to give the kiss of peace to a pig pen. To tell this woman who has been sleeping among the homeless and who refuses to take a bath in order to get the REAL REALITY – people, this is exhibitionism, and that she should come to church smelling very bad indeed to inflict herself on her fellow congregants is arrogant, self righteous, and vain. Talk about chutzpah! She comes thus to judge the congregation in the very hopes that they will be found – like the call girls – wanton.
Some say so:
“But the differences between the stories show that our passage in Luke 7:36-50 is really a different incident from that found in Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:1-11; John 12:1-10. ” http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/7_36-50.htm
Might there have been some bad feelings between Luke and Lazarus (John) or (dare I say) even a cover-up to protect Mary, the Mother of our Lord, from further actions? There are no differences in the account of John that would make this a different incident.
She’s not “From” Nevada among the hookers and gamblers, she was briefly the bishop there. She is “From” a very respectable family, both parents PhD’s. Sermon rhetoric should never start out with personal information that isn’t true.
Ah, but Martin, you and I both know that a unitarian Jesus is no Jesus at all; just a teacher-type to get us to be nice and accepting of each other. My point is that Schori just cannot bring herself to say that “JESUS CHRIST saves you”; instead something called “love” does. It’s left to you to guess what that means.
Well, at least she didn’t go off on “the issue” and how it’s mainly the GLBTs who are “unwanted” in churches. Not a bad sermon, really, if you’re unaware of what her regime has perpetrated here in the States.
London isn’t short of preachers.
We know what Schori is doing on her Great World Tour (next stop: New Zealand): she is networking resistance against Rowan Williams.
Evangelical clergy in Southwark protested her presence in their diocese (while the see is vacant – the unlamented Tom Butler has retired).
So what has the Suffragan Bishop of the Diocese, the self-described evangelical Nick Bains, had to say about Schori in his diocese?
Nothing at all.
On the positive – I enjoyed her emphasis on the love of God for sinners and, in my terms, the way in which grace conforms us to Christ and draws us more deeply into His company.
I missed two emphases of the narrative:
1. That it is a story of repentance. Of course this coheres with Jesus summary of his mission earlier at Luke 5.32 as calling sinners to repentance.
2. The contrast being drawn is not simply between a social outcast who Jesus includes and an unhospitable self righteous Pharisee but between one who responds with trust (“faith”) and love to Jesus and one who does not. The story reaches its conclusion as it focuses on the identity of Christ “Who is this…?” and we see that Luke has narrated a story in which we can note how the woman has responded appropriately to Jesus – that is with repentance, faith and devotion, whilst the Pharisee has not. That is the Pharisee has stumbled precisely because he has rejected what God is doing in Christ (as in Luke 7.30).
This is of course 95% true, profoundly true. The real question is what lies between the lines, and why she delivers such a message … And what she omits.
For example, she cites 1 Jn 4 (as she does on a few occasions); but [i]whose[/i] judgment might we fear and why? Certainly not Simon’s. For Part Two of that Letter of John might indeed be abt “God is Love”, yet Part One, the initiator of the flow of John’s argument, states unequivocally that “God is Light”. And therefore, even 1 Jn 4:1-6 opens up with the crucial matter of [i]Christological discernment[/i], interlocking the Parts, being sandwiched between 3:11ff and 4:7ff. And Luke is really reaching after that question here in ch.7. I wonder if she’s ever preached on that! For, what, more specifically, does the matter of divine love consist of?! “hilasmos”/ “hilasterion” (2:2, 4:10) is probably somewhere else she does not wish to go too speedily … YET the “love” that does indeed save us and the whole world is of the “hilasmos” kind – none other!
All in all, as we try to discern matters, beware the half-truth and the exaggerated truth – notably of Gen 3 fame, back in the Garden!
Interestingly the other lections here are the Galatians piece Martin5 seems to call for and the splendid story of David being confronted by Nathan – I have heard some excellent sermons exploring the interplay of these three passages.
Milton, I have already started on the book, thanks.
Art, I am never comfortable critiquing other people’s sermons on the basis of what they didn’t say.
No Martin. You are somewhat lacking when you say: “We are also saved by our faith, not by love”. We are saved through the very specific dependent faith and trust in Jesus Christ; not “our” faith. We have to be very specific in an era of heretics bantying the name of Christ. Picky, I know, but then again so is Jesus.
#23 Thanks. I’ve thought a bit about how one might move between the OT and Gospel readings and have two thoughts:
1. Note the theme of repentance which unites both the story of David and the woman.
2. Note a contrast between appropriate and inappropriate love. That is, David sinned in desiring Bathsheba when she was married to another man. As a consequence of his desire he sent a man to his death. The woman, who is evidently wealthy, is lead by her trust in God to love the man (who is God) appropriately – namely Our Lord.
Finally there is perhaps something here about the right use of wealth – which is an important theme in Luke – so the sinful woman, as she repents, uses her wealth to show her devotion to the Lord. Likewise the as the tale moves on – we see that her devotion is paralleled by other women of means.
As a principle Martin (#20), I am sure you are right. My comment however thinks through the implications of what she DID say, with her using the reference to 1 Jn 4 – which appears to be something of a favourite of hers, and being so, was the real reason for my critique. Not least, as a key part of the narrative of Luke at this point concerns the identity of Jesus – which just happens to be a key feature also of 1 Jn. That’s all!
“Love has saved you…”.
Um, nope. Jesus’ kind of sacrificial agape love has. Jesus has saved you (us). Why is the name of Jesus so hard for this woman to pronounce? She had me actually appreciating a great deal of her sermon until her unitarian, multi-religion, syncretistic tongue botched it up at the end.
This is so simple minded! Oh, I know, I shouldn’t rail at anything Schori says…what’s the point? If C.S,. Lewis is right – and I believe he is – that to love one’s neighbor as oneself means to wish him well as one wishes oneself well, the issue of have a pew companion who smells like a sink drain is not a lovethyneighbor matter. One may wish him well, but one is NOT required to give the kiss of peace to a pig pen. To tell this woman who has been sleeping among the homeless and who refuses to take a bath in order to get the REAL REALITY – people, this is exhibitionism, and that she should come to church smelling very bad indeed to inflict herself on her fellow congregants is arrogant, self righteous, and vain. Talk about chutzpah! She comes thus to judge the congregation in the very hopes that they will be found – like the call girls – wanton.
I thought I counted several Jesuses.
Perhaps they were just not in the right place for you? ……………
That “woman of the street” that she errantly claims for use in her story is in fact Lazarus’ sister. John Chapter 11, verses one and two.
No, the readings today were -Luke 7:36-50
http://epistle.us/articles/immoralwoman.html
That’s the same woman, two different accounts, John, vs. Luke, and she was named in John.
Is it not possible that we have two accounts of two separate events?
Luke lays particular emphasis on the woman;s poor standing ……
Some say so:
“But the differences between the stories show that our passage in Luke 7:36-50 is really a different incident from that found in Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:1-11; John 12:1-10. ”
http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/7_36-50.htm
Might there have been some bad feelings between Luke and Lazarus (John) or (dare I say) even a cover-up to protect Mary, the Mother of our Lord, from further actions? There are no differences in the account of John that would make this a different incident.
Martin, Go to here and read some eonjoyable stuff. It really opened my eyes!
http://disciplewhomjesusloved.com/beloved-disciple-fourth-gospel-author/
She’s not “From” Nevada among the hookers and gamblers, she was briefly the bishop there. She is “From” a very respectable family, both parents PhD’s. Sermon rhetoric should never start out with personal information that isn’t true.
Ah, but Martin, you and I both know that a unitarian Jesus is no Jesus at all; just a teacher-type to get us to be nice and accepting of each other. My point is that Schori just cannot bring herself to say that “JESUS CHRIST saves you”; instead something called “love” does. It’s left to you to guess what that means.
Martin, my e-mail is
geohdeis@ymail.com
Enjoy and get back with me!
Well, at least she didn’t go off on “the issue” and how it’s mainly the GLBTs who are “unwanted” in churches. Not a bad sermon, really, if you’re unaware of what her regime has perpetrated here in the States.
London isn’t short of preachers.
We know what Schori is doing on her Great World Tour (next stop: New Zealand): she is networking resistance against Rowan Williams.
Evangelical clergy in Southwark protested her presence in their diocese (while the see is vacant – the unlamented Tom Butler has retired).
So what has the Suffragan Bishop of the Diocese, the self-described evangelical Nick Bains, had to say about Schori in his diocese?
Nothing at all.
Who here is not seeing the reality of which I speak…or who is not looking in the desire that anything may remain “not changed” in the long-run?
On the positive – I enjoyed her emphasis on the love of God for sinners and, in my terms, the way in which grace conforms us to Christ and draws us more deeply into His company.
I missed two emphases of the narrative:
1. That it is a story of repentance. Of course this coheres with Jesus summary of his mission earlier at Luke 5.32 as calling sinners to repentance.
2. The contrast being drawn is not simply between a social outcast who Jesus includes and an unhospitable self righteous Pharisee but between one who responds with trust (“faith”) and love to Jesus and one who does not. The story reaches its conclusion as it focuses on the identity of Christ “Who is this…?” and we see that Luke has narrated a story in which we can note how the woman has responded appropriately to Jesus – that is with repentance, faith and devotion, whilst the Pharisee has not. That is the Pharisee has stumbled precisely because he has rejected what God is doing in Christ (as in Luke 7.30).
We are also saved by our faith, not by love.
This is of course 95% true, profoundly true. The real question is what lies between the lines, and why she delivers such a message … And what she omits.
For example, she cites 1 Jn 4 (as she does on a few occasions); but [i]whose[/i] judgment might we fear and why? Certainly not Simon’s. For Part Two of that Letter of John might indeed be abt “God is Love”, yet Part One, the initiator of the flow of John’s argument, states unequivocally that “God is Light”. And therefore, even 1 Jn 4:1-6 opens up with the crucial matter of [i]Christological discernment[/i], interlocking the Parts, being sandwiched between 3:11ff and 4:7ff. And Luke is really reaching after that question here in ch.7. I wonder if she’s ever preached on that! For, what, more specifically, does the matter of divine love consist of?! “hilasmos”/ “hilasterion” (2:2, 4:10) is probably somewhere else she does not wish to go too speedily … YET the “love” that does indeed save us and the whole world is of the “hilasmos” kind – none other!
All in all, as we try to discern matters, beware the half-truth and the exaggerated truth – notably of Gen 3 fame, back in the Garden!
Interestingly the other lections here are the Galatians piece Martin5 seems to call for and the splendid story of David being confronted by Nathan – I have heard some excellent sermons exploring the interplay of these three passages.
Milton, I have already started on the book, thanks.
Art, I am never comfortable critiquing other people’s sermons on the basis of what they didn’t say.
It might be a more balanced and interesting sermon if it were to refer to the OT lessons (either Ahab and Jezebel, or David).
No Martin. You are somewhat lacking when you say: “We are also saved by our faith, not by love”. We are saved through the very specific dependent faith and trust in Jesus Christ; not “our” faith. We have to be very specific in an era of heretics bantying the name of Christ. Picky, I know, but then again so is Jesus.
Thanks to driver8 for his #17.
Right on, as usual.
David Handy+
#23 Thanks. I’ve thought a bit about how one might move between the OT and Gospel readings and have two thoughts:
1. Note the theme of repentance which unites both the story of David and the woman.
2. Note a contrast between appropriate and inappropriate love. That is, David sinned in desiring Bathsheba when she was married to another man. As a consequence of his desire he sent a man to his death. The woman, who is evidently wealthy, is lead by her trust in God to love the man (who is God) appropriately – namely Our Lord.
Finally there is perhaps something here about the right use of wealth – which is an important theme in Luke – so the sinful woman, as she repents, uses her wealth to show her devotion to the Lord. Likewise the as the tale moves on – we see that her devotion is paralleled by other women of means.
As a principle Martin (#20), I am sure you are right. My comment however thinks through the implications of what she DID say, with her using the reference to 1 Jn 4 – which appears to be something of a favourite of hers, and being so, was the real reason for my critique. Not least, as a key part of the narrative of Luke at this point concerns the identity of Jesus – which just happens to be a key feature also of 1 Jn. That’s all!