The rector and most of the members of the former St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Parish in the Town of Tonawanda, once the diocese’s largest congregation, broke from the diocese in 2008 and now refer to themselves as St. Bartholomew’s Anglican Church.
But Jefferts Schori insisted the Episcopal Church isn’t about numbers but about being a prophetic voice.
“The Episcopal Church has never been large in this country. It’s always been a leader; it’s always included a number of leaders in the wider community,” she said. “Part of that has been our willingness to engage the human condition. We think that’s very important. We’re going to stay engaged in the community, even when it’s messy.”
Does this woman ever realize how arrogant she sounds?
Does Ms. Schori have any comprehension of the significance of the prophetic statements of the prophets, such as Jeremiah, and the apostles, such as Paul, regarding false prophets?
Is she ready to suffer the Scripturally described fate of the false prophets? Does she even have a spritual comprehension/belief of the dangers of false prophecy or of the spreading of false beliefs?
Does she understand that the Creator and His Messiah, Jesus, can be deeply offended by clergy who claim prophesy and who lead others astray?
I, personally, would want to be totally sure of being guided by the Holy Spirit before claiming a personal voice of prophesy or that some other person(s) is/are speaking prophetically.
But she rejects the authority of sacred Scripture, and the veracity of much of it, in the first place. So why should she fear what it prescribes for false prophets if she doesn’t even believe what it says? This is the thing that we Anglicans haven’t quite got our minds around, i.e. that many of our leaders have rejected so much of the divine self-revelation that doesn’t suit their designs.
2, and by our own catechism, the Holy Spirit does not contradict Scripture.
“…broader goal of addressing mission priorities, including global and domestic poverty, climate change and preaching a nuanced understanding of the gospel, she said”.
And herein lies the problem. The “broader goal” for CHRISTIANS is bringing others to the Gospel of the Risen Christ.
What exactly is a “nuanced understanding of the gospel”? Does that mean you can ignore the parts you don’t like? Take or leave the whole thing? Skip the uncomfortable stuff? What?
She doesn’t sound arrogant, she sounds secular and deconstructionist. DUH
Right now, the Episcopal Church is the leader in [b]apostasy.[/b]
Her remarks will silly to many or at the least dishonest and self serving.
But they are consistent with what I have come to understand as her character. First pf all, she has that intelligent simple mindedness that some scientists show, a peculiar inability to handle contradictory propositions – even though the sciences are supposed to be populated by people who are highly tolerant of contradictory hypotheses. She wants Truth, as Dawkins wants Truth,and they are much alike: he is the atheistic equivalent of Schori.
This simple mindedness makes her dogmatic, and belief in her vision of the truth forces her, because she is logical, to extend this unqualified vision to goals and ends to which they actually unrelated.
In a sense, she is blind as Dawkins is blind. We are put off by her bland tone and flat speaking voice (as we are not with Dawklins) because she does not sound like a fanatic. But her tenacity in the face of contrary evidence, her persistence in placing her “vision” over all scriptural values, marks her as a fanatic, a True Believer, a person
quite incapable of change, and so her intransigence is understandable. Its lucky for us all that she is not a sucessfull politician. Larry
Does the PB come off in this report as arrogant (#1)? Well, I guess that depends on your worldview, but my answer would be, “Oh, yeah.” Check.
Does this report make her look silly, dishonest, and self-serving (#7)? Again, check, check, check; guilty as charged.
I’d add, she also comes off as incredibly shallow and plain illogical. On the one hand, she wants to claim that because TEC is so gloriously tolerant and diverse, differences over the homosexual issue can be taken in strike without being divisive since they aren’t “essential.” But OTOH, she inconsistently also asserts that such social justice issues are part of the “core mission” of TEC. She is oblivious to the fact that she can’t have it both ways.
A truly “nuanced” understanding of the gospel would be one thing, as reflected in moderate, centrist biblical scholarship. But the complete betrayal of the authentic gospel by the PB as a blatant universalist and moral antinomian is another matter entirely. Such a false teacher is to be publicly denounced and shunned as the charlatan and preacher of a false gospel that she is (ala Gal. 1:6-9).
The PB assures everyone that all the bitter divisiveness is diminishing and “all is well” in TEC. Just as the false prophets in Jeremiah’s day assured the people there would be “[i]Peace, peace, when there is no peace (Jer. 6:13-15)[/i].”
++KJS can’t seem to open her mouth without sticking her foot in it. As in Jer. 6, she seems to have lost the ability to blush at the nonsense coming out of her mouth.
David Handy+
Oops, I meant “taken in stride.”
DH+
Honestly, why doesn’t she just form a committee to unify with the UCC and the Unitarians and call it “good”. Get it over with!