Chicago’s new Episcopal bishop and the church’s national leader sent a clear message Sunday about where they stand on gay clergy, a smoldering issue that threatens to tear apart the denomination.
Wrapping up a five-day tour in honor of Jeffrey Lee, the new Chicago bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori declared that the American church will not stand alone in its support of gay clergy during an international meeting in July in Lambeth, England.
“Many more [bishops] than you might expect are sympathetic,” Jefferts Schori, the presiding Episcopal bishop, told parishioners at St. Nicholas Church in Elk Grove Village. “They are not, however, the loudest voices.”
Later in Chicago, Lee was seated at St. James Cathedral and reminded audience members of their call to ministry by virtue of their baptism, not their liberal or conservative interpretations of Scripture.
“That’s one of the tragedies afflicting the church right now,” he said. “So many of us seem to think that salvation depends on our theological correctness.”
Would someone please ask the new Bp. of Chicago how we have come to embrace baptism as the sacrament of Christian initiation? Might it have something to do with Scripture? And where is it that we find the basis for the baptismal covenant? Might it have something to do with Scripture? Is not the baptismal covenant in the 79 BCP an interpretation itself, or is it divinely inspired?
“That’s one of the tragedies afflicting the church right now,” he said. “So many of us seem to think that salvation depends on our theological correctness.”
Of course, at GC 2006 one of the tragedies is that the bishops could not even agree that Jesus is the Saviour of the world. Just one of those pointless little theological arguments, right? Just so long as we get wet after mumbling vague oaths, all will be well. I’m still trying to “live into that”.
And re, Ms. Bishop Schori,
Apparently the Windsor Process only means playing a “wait them out” game while she withers the opposition with her philosophy. Just skip Lambeth and phone it in. This PB is not going to be satisfied until she has “purified” the Church out of the Communion, and “purified” us down to 800,000 members with a vacillating ASA of 400,000.
“That’s one of the tragedies afflicting the church right now,†he said. “So many of us seem to think that salvation depends on our theological correctness.â€
HUGE SIGH…..
Could we please stop all the lying about what the conflict of the last five years has been about? Many of the folks on the left side of the aisle are constantly implying that the theological voices (Ken Harmon, Fitz Alison, Paul Zahl, Bob Duncan, etc.) which were raised in opposition to the events of GC 2003 were claiming that salvation was denied to gay people. That is not true. I would REALLY like these people to stop saying that. It’s as ethical as me saying that the new bishop of Chicago favors hard core gay orgies: that would be (I hope) a smear and a total distortion of his actual position.
To repeat it one more time: Fitz, and KH and PZ and the many other leading voices never claimed that that a gay person was denied salvation. They were saying that the events of GC 2003 represented a fundamental change in church teaching (i.e. the new teaching that homosexuality is morally neutral), and furthermore a shift that occured through the back door without the appropriate period of deliberate and intentional corporate reflection. AGAIN: the issue is not that a gay person, or that a person who is afflicted with doubt about this or that article of the creeds, cannot be saved by Christ: the issue is the church abandoning its role as defender of classic church teaching. That’s what happened at GC 2003 and THAT is what the last five years has been about.
Later in Chicago, Lee was seated at St. James Cathedral and reminded audience members of their call to ministry by virtue of their baptism, not their liberal or conservative interpretations of Scripture.
“That’s one of the tragedies afflicting the church right now,” he said. “So many of us seem to think that salvation depends on our theological correctness.” And this guy is a Bishop? What ever happened to defending the faith against false teachers and strange doctrine? As I have said on other posts on other sites, these guys are NUTS.
Christ said the only way to the Father was through him. If I buck that, I am doomed according to the Christian Faith. What is TEC now?
And I, of course, found this report a breath of fresh air and VERY good news on a SUPER Monday (following a SUPER Bowl Sunday and preceding SUPER Shrove Tuesday!)
What is TEC now, you ask? Certainly not a defender of the faith that we’ve all known for the past 2000 years!
Itching ears are glad to once again be comforted by false tales by false teachers.
‘”Many more [bishops] than you might expect are sympathetic,” Jefferts Schori, the presiding Episcopal bishop, told parishioners at St. Nicholas Church in Elk Grove Village. “They are not, however, the loudest voices.”‘
Is what jumped out at me. Is this a bit like the “there are lots of gay bishops in the Church of England” line from several weeks ago? I do not disbelieve her. I think it likely. But (a) in America they most certainly are the loudest voices thank you very much and (b) how do you know this – are you going to out more bishops without any names or evidence?
I assume he means doctrinal correctness rather then legitimate theological differences. But what is my relationship to Jesus Christ if I believe for instance that he was merely human? It certainly wouldn’t be a complete(salvific) relationship. We can’t have fufilling relationships with other persons without some degree of beliefs(doctrine) about that person. That’s just our nature. So, Jesus Christ has given us through his Church the right doctrine(faith and morals) in order to be in a fulfilling(salvific) relationship with him. Additionally, the bishops have the task of teaching right doctrine.
Why are you glad, Susan?
What EXACTLY are the new bishop and the PB defending? What faith?
Since correctness doesn’t matter, I assume that correctness about *his* version of ECUSA canons doesn’t either? IE, he wouldn’t mind if churches withdrew with their real estate? Don’t believe it. When he was running for Diocese of Olympia, he was quite vocal about kicking out congregations who had broken off diocisan ties yet were still in their buildings. Authoritarian bishops are act in in one direction only. I heard this character about 4 years ago in a sermon laughingly explaining away the Transfiguration. The Chicagoans will enjoy young Jeff. Is it usual for the PB to lead a barnstorming expedition to sell recently minted bishops? Two amateurs. Playing with lots and lots of money.
#10… I agree with you here. It is of course possible for a person’s theological beliefs to have some bearing on his salvation! E.g. a baptized Satanist.
But I also agree with your last sentence: “Additionally, the bishops have the task of teaching right doctrine.” That was the issue that caused the gigantic rupture of 2003… the question of the responsibility of the bishops to safeguard the faith once delivered.
This was the key issue. GC 2003 was an ECCLESIAL event — an event of a group altering church doctrine. It is wrong to deflect that into the false claim that critics of GC 2003 are necessarily making claims about the salvation of individual persons. To be clear: all Christians die with some unrepented sin or even lifestyle on their heart. What bad news the Gospel would be if Christ couldn’t save a sinner like that! But just because Christ’s blood can cover even a bad man like me, that doesn’t mean I should be allowed to get the Church to declare that my sins are no longer sins. The two issues are completely distinct and it is this latter issue that caused the rupture that has been accelerating ever since 2003.
Stamper might be right that this is about a change in classic church teaching. To us it is the heightening of a conflict between two different church teachings: grace and sex.
Sometimes the church has been wrong. And it has to choose between contradictions.
#14… hi John. Can you explain what you mean a bit better? I am not following how the doctrine of grace (God’s unmerited love for sinners) is in conflict with traditional teachings for what constitutes sexual sin (e.g. homosexuality).
Also, can you clarify what you mean when you say “To us it is the heightening…”? I am guessing you mean “to us reappraissers” (or “to we who favor SSBs, the ordination of gay bishops, etc.”).
“That’s one of the tragedies afflicting the church right now,” he said. “So many of us seem to think that salvation depends on our theological correctness.”
That says it all.
Yep, SaintCyprian………it sure does!
This was posted here a week or so ago and fits this situation only too well.
“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without Church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without contrition.â€
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
It also reassured Rev. Alex Seabrook, 82, who was ordained in 1954 and attended the service at St. Nicholas to watch the presiding bishop baptize twins.
“I’ve seen the church of the past,” he said. “The whole service today was the church of the future.”
This warms my heart and makes my soul do handsprings, to it I add my own hopeful Amen and my last Alleliua till Easter. “Praise God from whom all blessings flow!”
So Rev. Alex Seabrook has seen the church of the past and the church of the future. Great! To Hell with continuity, orthodoxy, the moral teachings of the Bible is the mantra of those infatuated with and those who idol worship the so-called future (instead of having the courage and backbone to try to shape it).
Such a church is doomed to self-destruction sooner or later. Meanwhile in Rome the catchword of Benedict XVI is continuity. At least some Christian leaders have courage and a backbone (or does it have something to do with a ROCK foundation????)
[blockquote]I would REALLY like these people to stop saying that. It’s as ethical as me saying that the new bishop of Chicago favors hard core gay orgies: that would be (I hope) a smear and a total distortion of his actual position. [/blockquote]
Don’t be so sure. The “B” in “GLBT” is bisexual which, of course, means multiple partners of both sexes. The mantra today is all about “committed relationships” but that will go by the wayside as soon as the pansexualists get over this hump (no pun intended) and push the envelope again, just an inch at a time.
#21… You raise a good point, Jeffersonian. My experience, however, is that most straight fellow travelers in TEC’s LGBT movement are nice and well intentioned but also strikingly naive and frankly not terribly fast on the draw. They basically unthinkingly swallow whatever PC line they are fed by the “gay community.”
So I still stand by what I said: I bet this particular Chicago bishop really does have in his mind only clean hand-holding monogamous gays and lesbians — basically some kind of gay Norman Rockwell painting. Observing that in 20 years there will be TEC groups agitating for rites of blessing for 3-ways and 4-ways, Rites of Leather, and so on (God is love after all, so bring on the lovin!) is prescient of you, but this guy isn’t thinking of that and it would be wrong of me to attribute to him positions he doesn’t in fact take.
One interesting question for reappraisers is how exactly they would justify this insistence that church sanctioned gay relationships be characterized by a promise of monogamy and mating for life. Well, actually, the first thing to establish in such a conversation would be whether the reappraiser you are talking to does in fact think that. You’d need to point out that if he does think that then he has to be willing to use the S-word (sin); he’d have to say that a loving supportive committed 3-way relationship is sinful. My experience is that reappraisers are immensely uncomfortable with the concept of sexual sin, so you might not even get that far.
But suppose you did. Then I think there’s a fascinating question, which is Why? On what basis? The negative basis (e.g. we have 2000 years of Christian tradition speaking univocally against any relationship not characterized by monogamy and lifelong commitment) was thrown out when we disregarded the same voice of tradition regarding homosexuality. And the positive basis, the rhetoric of “loving” and “inclusion” and concern for the “marginalized” — how can you use it for homosexual relationships but say it doesn’t apply to 3-ways? On what basis do you demarginalize gay monogampous marriage but continue to marginalize a person who loves two people?
Jeffersonian (#21):
I believe bi-sexual refers to one’s sexual orientation, not one’s behavior.
Others: I found the it interesting that the majority of the article was about the Presiding Bishop, and not about our new bishop of Chicago. I for one, am hopeful.
Blessings,
Catharine Phillips
But Catherine homosexual behavior is justified on orientation grounds. So why not bi-sexual behavior?
Br. Michael,
I was merely pointing out that all of the letters in GLBT (some include Q for “questioning”) apply to orientation, and not behavior. Each of us chooses how we behave, and we are each held accountable for our choices.
Blessings,
Catharine
[blockquote] I believe bi-sexual refers to one’s sexual orientation, not one’s behavior. [/blockquote]
If the issue within the AC had been confined to mere orientation, the AC would not be on the brink of implosion right now and the debate would be a tiny sideshow too small to notice. The behavior will be excused as Gene Robinson’s is excused, nay, celebrated.
John Stamper, you might be right but if you are, the Bishop is a naif and a tool.
Well, my experience is that most straight fellow travelers are very naive. For example I know a lot of laypeople who believed what they were told about VGR — that he’d be just a good quiet bishop who stayed in NH and took care of his small flock there. He wouldn’t be trying to get on the news or otherwise grab the spotlight. And these good sweet dumb people favored his ordination based on that.
Well, since then he has gone to a number of states to appear in their Gay Pride marches and demonstrations, conducted media interview after media interview, and most recently announced that he plans to be a “June Bride” in a gay marriage ceremony. So much for keeping a low profile. He’s basically behaved since his consecration like a raging diva, which in fact was not a surprise to anyone with an iota of sense; the events of 2003 were all about having the spotlight on him even as it tore the Communion apart.
That said, I’m not sure I would call the new bishop of Chicago totally naive or a tool. He’s using the gay movement too. Look where his deeply felt social justice convictions have gotten him: he just got a bishopric! That’s a reward. Everybody uses everybody — save one Man 2000 years ago.
As for the true church of the future, I think I’ve seen it recently in the Chicago area. I’m visiting my two children in the western suburbs (and my two adorable grandsons), who both attend a thriving AMiA church in Wheaton. The Church of the Resurrection has an ASA of about 700 and is overflowing with young families and college students. They are kicking off a capital fund drive to raise over $3 million to buy a 21 acre plot on which they will build their first, repeat first, weekend worship complex (they lease a midweek worship site along with church offices and rent a local high school for Sunday services).
The future of TEC may be represented by +Jeffrey Lee and the floundering Diocese of Chicago. Alas, TEC will continue to wither, shrivel, and die (spiritually, if not institutionally). But the bright future of Anglicanism is marvelously represented by that flourishing AMiA congregation, “Rez.” At the annual Easter Vigil, they have to pass out tickets weeks in advance to guarrantee seating for the over 1,000 people who attend (and they have a waiting list!). Now that’s a church with a real future!
David Handy+