In your comments please focus on the content of what was said as far as possible. Thanks–KSH.
Audio Recordings of the Visit of the Presiding Bishop to the Diocese of South Carolina
Posted in Uncategorized
In your comments please focus on the content of what was said as far as possible. Thanks–KSH.
Thanks so much, St. A’s. Great job.
Is there a way to get these as iPod downloads or Podcasts?
cliffg –
They are .mp3 files, so after you download them, transfer them to your Digital Audio Player as you would with any other .mp3.
I give her credit for marshalling a lot of information, though she used many old sops, such as slavery, to make her points, that have been put away long ago by reasserters. I was struck, when she indicated so forcefully that TEC needed the boundaries of the canons, that no one asked her why TEC didn’t need the boundaries of faith, and what were the current TEC boundaries of faith. I would love to have heard her answer to that, and if she used the Nicene Creed as her boundaries, then a follow up question, then as to why she hasn’t inhibited Bp Spong for his heresies, since he clearly has passed the boundaries of the Nicene Creed, if it is our boundary of faith, and how his violation of these boundaries is different or so much less than the alleged violation of Bp Cox.
This *seems* to confirm what I have thought of Ms. Schori. In response to Dow’s question on Hermenuetics, she said she was puzzled and then stated the liberal mantra of how we read scripture. I don’t think she knows what orthodox understanding of hermeneutics, the faith, etc. are. She may have been hearing some things for the first time and she didn’t get it.
In terms of the canons of the church being our boundaries, I would have loved to hear someone ask her which canons allowed her to unrecognize the legitimate Standing Committee of San Joaquin who did not leave with their bishop to the Southern Cone.
I was struck by how the PB simply evaded Kendall’s four points where he accused the national leadership of grossly misrepresenting the facts. She never admitted the truth of any of those four accusations, and I regard all four as proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Kendall was very gracious in how he worded things, but the PB simply stonewalled. This is NOT genuine conversation. She never at any point showed that she really heard what he was saying.
Kendall is right. All the talk about “reconciliation” and “inclusivity” from the liberal side is just a sham. She didnn’t even ATTEMPT it during this visit. She was physically there, but there was no real engagement at all.
I regret to say that I have no respect for her at all. And if possible, I have even less respect for her than before after listening to this recording. I do not recognize her as a sister in Christ.
David Handy+
Was the presiding bishop offered the questions ahead of time?
It sounds like the crowd was well prepared, the quesions seemed predetermined.
I’m just wandering about process before I respond.
Kendall,
Thanks so much to you and the fine folks at St. Andrews for making the tape available. It is a true service to the whole Church.
John C. Wilson
#8, The Presiding Bishop received a letter from Mark Lawrence informing her of the format and the four main topics or areas which would be addressed. As you can tell from the audio, in each of the three segments after number one (which involved only Mark Lawrence and presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori), opportunity was given for other clergy to come and ask questions. There was a level of spontaneity and unpredictability there.
#8, does it matter whether +KJS had the questions ahead of time? She is the visible leader of TEC, should she not be able to give reasoned, well-supported answers to questions that, given the last 4 1/2 years of worldwide turmoil in the Anglican communion and TEC, could not have taken anyone by surprise and to which each side could write the other’s answers? For that matter, didn’t the apostle Peter write that we must always be ready to give an answer for the hope that lives within us? Unless, perhaps, one hopes in Christ in this life only. Hmmm, I think St. Paul had something to say about that, too…
The section on Jonathan and David is just sad to listen to.
Her suggestion that “Scripture is the root that propels us into the world” (Say what?) and that we view it using the “best of tradition and the best of reason based upon our experience” is staggering. Who decides what is “best” and does that imply that all of Scripture is relative? Sadly, in her world, yes. Thank God I’m out of TEC… this would have finished me off.
Wendy Pitha
#7 I completely agree with everything you say! Nothing has changed…..nor will it ever.
I’ll take advantage of the long meditative time in the PB’s opening to wonder about her assertion that we all hear the voice of God saying to us the same thing God said to Jesus–that God is “well pleased” with us. I can’t claim it in the way she is offering it.
Hurrah to Bishop Lawrence for taking on KJS in her call for sharing the experience of the meditative silence. He makes the necessary distinction that we are pleasing to God only as we are in Christ. That I can go with.
P.S. I’m bypassing her failure to quote the text right–leaving out “Son.” The purpose of the voice from heaven was to identify him as God’s Son, not first of all as someone who is beloved.
In her response to Kendall, a couple of time she mentions the creative work the Canadians are doing. I am presuming she means research to replace “To Set Our Hope”… Does anyone have any other info about that? It is curious that she would call such research/scholarly work “creative” … As an academic when I think of “creative” work I think of the wild but amusing guesses students put on essay exams when they have no clue what the correct answer might be.
And I find it frustrating – though perhaps it is symptomatic of the larger problem we face – that as she responded to Kendall’s four points, if I didn’t know better I’d say they were talking about completely different things. To respond to the comment that this elderly couple felt oppressed by speaking merely of canons and hierarchy seems like a profound disconnect, or maybe (sarcasm) she was just referring to a different incident with a different Bishop named Cox…
s.r.smith (#16),
I assume the PB is referring to the St. Michael’s Report that was used to justify the decision of the Canadian General Synod last summer to declare that blessing same sex unions was not contrary to any “core doctrine” of the Anglican Church of Canada. Hey, at least they did the study first, before the vote was taken.
But you are quite right, s.r.smith, when you get suspicious when a liberal leader speaks about people doing “creative” theological work. There are certain areas where creativity is not such a good thing, e.g., in arithmetic or spelling or redoing the Periodic Table of Elements in chemistry.
Now actually, there is room for legitimate creativity in theology. And I for one would say that +Tom Wright of Durham is a fine example of an orthodox biblical scholar and theologian who has done some very interesting and innovative work. That is not to say that I agree with all his ideas, I don’t. But his creativity doesn’t amount to inventing a whole new gospel at odds with the biblical one, as is true of all too many liberals.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of moderate and responsible biblical scholarship, along with the New Reformation
#13 wrote: [blockquote]Her suggestion that “Scripture is the root that propels us into the world†(Say what?) and that we view it using the “best of tradition and the best of reason based upon our experience†is staggering.[/blockquote]
The frightening thing in this is [i]based upon our experience [/i]. If we base things of our faith on our experience, we’re going to have truly warped understandings of God. If we even base our reason on our experience, we’re not going to end up w/ rational decisions.
St Paul describes our experience and its effect on our reason quite well in 1 Cor 13: though now we see through a glass darkly…. and our vision is murky, therefore our reason is murky.
Technical issue: Have tried several sound system changes on my PC to be able to hear the mp3s, so far to no avail. Other mp3s play OK in Windows Media Player. Any tech help? Thanks!
RE: #19. Fixed the problem. Elves, you may please kindly remove this post and #19. Many thanks!
Tell me again why Clement VII was so theologically horrible that he could not be borne.
As I listened to Bp Schori, it sounded to me as though she thought that the atonement 1) is an optional doctrine; 2) is sufficient for the salvation of the entire world, and 3) is inherently [b]effective[/b] for the entire world. #2 is something we reasserters agree with, but #1 is a dreadful idea, and #3 is neither inherently obvious, nor inherently the only position possible. She sounded peeved, as well, that we would not or could not see things her way.
Ever since I first heard her speak, it has seemed that she has a “tin ear” for the beliefs of reasserters. She does not know what we believe, she does not know why we believe it, and even when she is told what and why we believe, nothing seems to sink in. Her theology appears to be a number of positions, taken for she and God alone knows what reasons, on a broad range of topics — but with absolutely NO foundational principles that tie all the convictions together in a systematic way.
18, this is from the TEC web site:
[blockquote]Anglicans have a high regard for the Holy Scriptures, but we do not describe them as having ultimate authority in all matters, nor do we assert that everything found within them is binding on us. We are a biblical tradition, but we have no doctrine of biblical supremacy, literal inspiration, or verbal inerrancy. While not accepting the Scriptures as our sole authority or guide, we do believe they provide the Church with the primary criteria for its teaching and the chief source of guidance, in terms of principles and norms for its life.
………..
The Scriptures emerged from the experience of a community who believed that God had been and was mysteriously, but clearly, present and active in their midst. Beginning as an oral tradition, the Hebrew people and the Church gradually gathered and developed its sacred texts and established a final, unchanging canon to be a measuring rod or standard for the Christian life of faith. [b] These Scriptures, however, were intended to be interpreted and reinterpreted over and over again in the light of contemporary knowledge and experience within a believing and worshiping community open to the leading of God’s Spirit into new truth.[/b]
From Called to Teach and Learn: A Catechetical Guide for the Episcopal Church, 1994, pages 66-67.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/50534_50909_ENG_HTM.htm?menupage=50908%5B/blockquote%5D
Basically, TEC treats Scripture as infinitely plastic and something we can mold based on our experience. Of course our experience is always changing. The PB appears to reflect this method of biblical interpretation.
Once again we have seemingly the canons of the church exalted over the Canon of Scripture.We have the replacing of objective theological truths with a subjective experiencial theology. We exalt the cultural mandate over the clear teaching of Scripture focusing on whether it is offensive to mankind as opposed to whether it is offensive to God.
According to TEC, the almighty and most worshipful canons are their Holy Scriptures, while the real Holy Scriptures themselves are merely interesting commentaries.
The question I would like to hear KJS answer is:
Have you ever thought that you might be wrong about the direction and actions of TEC? Answer “yes” or “no”, please.
Billy, Scott,
Here’s what the PB said re: canons as boundaries. It’s in the last section of the recordings, about half-way through. Part of the response is in the context of actions taken against Bp Cox. San Joaquin would have been a nice rebuttal, but alas.
[blockquote]”What I was trying to say is that our pastoral theology has developed over time. It does not stay rigid. As has our polity, and our canonical structures.
Um…On the plane here I read through the first draft of theTitle IV revisions that are being proposed for the next General Convention. Our polity does not adequately address any of the situations in which we find ourselves today.
That said, we get the canons out when we have lost our ability to talk to each other.
They are the boundaries of our life together.
Uh..We have to have boundaries as a community. or we cease to be who we are.
All communities……that’s what the faithfulness vows of marriage are all about….have boundaries.
I fervently hope that the next GC will develop some more gracious ways of responding to some of the situations in which we find ourselves.
That said, I doubt that we are going to change the ancient tradition of the church that a diocese be the responsibility and jurisdiction of one diocesan bishop.
I think there are ways to…..there could be ways to recognize ministry in more than one place in a more gracious way than we do today.
But we don’t have the ability within those boundaries that we hold together.
I would welcome and embrace a more expansive way of looking at our canonical structure.”[/blockquote]
RGEaton
Br. Michael (#21),
I’m glad you’ve called attention once again to that awful semi-official TEC document, “Called to Teach and Learn: A Catechetical Guide…(1994). But I would have highlighted a different portion of it than you did. While I fully agree that the line you put in bold is highly symptomatic of the basic problem, the subordination of Scripture to our experience, I find the most telling admission of heterodoxy to be the following:
“We are a biblical tradition, but we have no tradition of biblical supremacy…”
This is patently false, historically and theologically. Of course, we Anglicans “have a tradition of biblical supremacy,” it’s just that TEC as a whole has spurned and rejected that venerable and essential tradition. For example, Articles VI and XX in the famous 39 Articles make it abundantly clear that while the Holy Scriptures are not our ONLY authority (no “sola Scriptura” in Anglicanism), they are indeed our SUPREME authority (under Christ the Incarnate Word of course).
This TEC document reveals the typical liberal mistake of confusing biblical supremacy with biblical inerrancy and “literalism” or “fundamentalism.” And in rightly shying away from the latter, it has erroneously also thrown out the baby along with the bathwater with regard to the former.
This is why I keep urging that the new proposed Anglican Covenant MUST clarify the authoritative status of the Bible along the lines of the 39 Articles, in order to reaffirm that essential tradition of biblical supremacy. Plainly, it’s not enough merely to repeat the language of the Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888, that describes the Holy Scriptures as “THE rule and ULTIMATE standard of faith and practice.” That is another and classical way of stating the doctrine of biblical primacy and supremacy, but obviously our heretical foes within TEC are able to ignore and dispense with that clear statement. And unlike the 39 Articles, the Quadrilateral is generally considered still binding by most Anglicans, even on the liberal side, hence its use as an organizing principle in the Covenant. But that part about the authority of Scripture is commonly overlooked or downplayed.
That notorious liberal and pro-gay advocate, retired Prof. William Countryman of our seminary in Berkeley, California, CDSP, even has had the gall to refer to the whole idea of biblical supremacy as “biblical tyranny.” I regard him as absolutely perverse and totally reprehensible. But he poisoned a whole generation of students at CDSP with his subChristian views. And this was not only tolerated, it was implicitly encouraged by the powers that be in TEC. That is indicative and illustrative of how we’ve ended up in this sorry mess.
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of moderate, responsible biblical scholarship (as practiced, e.g., by Christopher Seitz+ and +Tom Wright), and staunch defender of biblical supremacy as a non-negotiable “core doctrine” of Anglicanism
Fr. Handy, Actually the whole thing, and I omitted about three paragraphs in the middle, is a target rich environment. The part you mention is why I decided to add the first paragraph. I am glad that you pointed that part out. The point is that they have to make Holy Scripture just another book about God so they can cherry pick what they want too.
Br. Michael (#27),
I wholeheartedly agree with you. It’s worth pointing out the date of that revealing TEC document, 1994. Well before 2003. As many of us have been noting from time to time, this betrayal of biblical Christianity in TEC has been present and growing worse for a very long time. Like a very bad infection, it has been festering and spreading its poison throughout the body, and the dominant leadership in TEC has done nothing to try to stop it or treat it. On the contrary, it has been encouraged.
Thanks again for reminding us of just how bad it is when the TEC is completely unashamed to publish this sort of theological garbage.
David Handy+
“To Set Our Hope on Christ was, I think most people would recognize, not our best effort.” – KJS
Umm … yeah. I would say not.
Additional video can be found at:
http://www.stevewood.cc/culture/additional-video-from-the-pbs-visit/