I loved everything that Bp. Mark and all those from the Dio. of S.C. had to say, but KJS didn’t say, clarify, or retouch on things brought up hardly at all. Was it because those from S.C. had more to say and her talk time was limited or is it just that she cannot or will not defend her actions, words, and deeds?
So, what I’d like to know is …Was anything accomplished in this time with KJS in getting her to see the wrongs she and her office have done and maybe get to her to realize the damage that has been caused by many in TEc and her office? What did this accomplish except for Bp. Mark and some in S.C. being able to put their thoughts and some questions forth to her?
This “conversation” looked and sounded a bit one sided in the fact that she hardly said anything or really answered anythingy.
ODC, that is her usual “modus operandi”.. I think she seldom directly answers a question, nor does she respond other than with “I understand that…………”.
I truly believe, the various clergy were absolutely bending over backwards to expose her to the Gospel, that is what they were trying to do..
Did they succeed, yes on ‘exposure”, no on convincing….
Gloria in SC
Bishop Katharine’s opening statements on the sacrament of baptism were wonderful. Her meditative almost monastic approach to reflection moved my own spirit to inwardly digest the lavish sacramental image she offered. What a great opportunity to reaffirm one’s baptismial promises. Bishop Mark seems to rip the atmosphere with a passive aggressive confrontation about who is beloved to God. The Presiding Bishop specifically framed and rooted the statement within the context of baptism. Still, Bishop Mark seems unhappy that she might believe people who are not baptized may be beloved too.
Thanks Grannie Gloria! One would think that being a priest/bishop, that KJS would have already been exposed to the Gospel before and during seminary and since that is what she was charged in spreading, teaching, and preaching during her ordination vows! I really have been asleep for many years now if one doesn’t have to know the gospel in order to be a priest or bishop. Geesh! How sad!
I tried to watch the KJS clip, honest I did but like Amy Welborn in a comparable situation I just gave it up, after about 20 seconds. I have no idea how anyone with sense could have stayed there on hearing her micro-lecture on the word ‘conversation’….OMG. Projecting such insufferable superiority….I believe she sees herself as the long-awaited Episcopal Messiah. Well thanks, I had waited a long time to view some of the footage but it was at least as bad as I feared.
Actually TACit, it got alot worse especially when she said that at our baptism we all become God’s Beloved just like Jesus Christ. But, I agree with Bp. Mark. God said those words over Christ not over the whole world. She is twisted! She probably does a mean Yoga mat though! 🙂
After this conversation it must be clear to anyone who knows and loves the Gospel that two religions are in play here. Schori does not hold to orthodox Christianity. So what is the ecclesiastical responce to such a situation? How does one integrate into one’s ecclesiastical relationship the fact that those who call themselves brthren in Christ cannot be such “in Christ” because they do not believe in the same Christ that Christians throughout the ages have believed?
There is an endgame here. One must either pretend that the facts are not the facts, that somehow heresy has not been manifestly declared by some “in the church” (and I would like to see, hear or read an argument to this effect, or one must argue, contra all Scriptural and historical evidence, that it is tolerable for Christian leaders to commune with known heretics, OR one must accept that separation is both inevitable and desireable.
Am I missing a third option?
This is not to argue how and when separation must occur. One could argue that the issue must be adjudicated at the highest level, which is most likely Lambeth (what else could it be?). I suspect that such an argument is what orthodox dioceses seeking to work with 815 et al will put forth.
But what if the process at the highest level is compromised and corrupt? What if there is no more real desire to discipline heresy there than there was in PECUSA when Pike was tried and acquited? Is there a plan for such eventualities? Are we to hear “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it”? It would be nice if the orthodox laity and clerrgy in those orthodox dioceses, and those outside who might look to these diocese for hope and guidance, could have a little hint as to what the thinking might be when such bridges draw near. Inscrutability isn’t much of a leadership style.
ODC, we are called to proclaim the Gospel, not to win over hearts. Winning over hearts is the work of the Holy Spirit. So, bravo to +Mark for proclaiming the Gospel. Doing that is never a waste of time, irrespective of its apparent effect.
Archangelica, people who are not baptized are certainly beloved. God waits by his front door every night, gazing up the road, hoping with all the hope in his heart that one day each one will return home. He is ready to welcome them with a robe and a ring, and kill a fatted calf, and throw the biggest party one could imagine. If only some would come walking up that road.
Rick O.P.
I never said a word about [i]”winning”[/i]. I said:
[blockquote]…she was charged in spreading, teaching, and preaching[/blockquote]
Which is IMHO the same as proclaiming when you preach it, teach it, and spread it. Didn’t Jesus tell the disciples to go and spread the Good News? Yes he did! My point is that she should have been exposed to the Gospel well before seminary and during seminary.
One small detail lodged in my mind: the PB again avoids refering to Jesus the Son. Matthew 3:17 becomes, “Behold my beloved in whom I am well pleased” or something to that effect.
Kudos to Kendall for exhibiting enormous charity while calling out the PB on lack of pastoral consideration and some flat-out deception.
ODC, you get no argument from me when you say that our seminaries should have been teaching everyone the Gospel, and that anyone who goes to seminary should have been thoroughly inculcated with the Good News before he/she arrived. I was simply responding to your questions, “Was anything accomplished?” and, “What was accomplished?” My point is that we are engaged in spiritual warfare. The most powerful weapons we have are prayer and proclaiming the Gospel with conviction. Against those the enemy has no defense. We need not worry about what we do or don’t accomplish so long as we are obedient to the call to spread the Good News. My strategy for dealing with this mess in our denomination is simply this: do what God calls me to do (pray, fast, pray, study, pray, contemplate, pray, spread the Gospel as I am able) and let God take care of the rest.
I think the most significant thing accomplished was that clergy in S.C. were able to see for themselves firsthand, that when it comes to differences in TEC leadership and themselves, it’s worse than they thought. The priest who spoke last summed it up pretty well. . . they are different religions and probably have no way forward together anymore.
When I served as part of a parish search committee, we asked each priest to describe his relationship with Jesus Christ, and when did it begin. It was AMAZING to me how many answered the second part with “I came to a realization of serving the Lord during Seminary” or “after ordination”. One said that he had never even opened a Bible until he got to seminary and was invited by a fellow student to attend a Bible study in the dorms.
Good heavens! What did they GO to seminary for, if they didn’t have a relationship with the Lord? Seminary is not the place to discover the Lord, that’s putting the cart in front of the horse. Seminary is to live out that relationship in the office of ordination.
I’m glad they came to a relationship, but it sounded accidental, a second-thought item.
Finally watched all of the clip showing Kendall’s presentation ‘Truth in Community’. It was helpful that the camera showed his back because that made it possible to listen to his words and watch her body language very intently. His words could hardly have been more sincere or accurate, or graciously delivered. The only time she indicated any connection to them was early on, when he mentioned that his use of ‘we’ did not mean to imply that everyone in the diocese thought the same way about these issues; she nodded approvingly. All her other movements occurred when he introduced a new thought or changed topics, and by the end I concluded that her motionless, passive expressions throughout almost the whole 9 minutes might mean she was contemplating how to get him to change his mind, because she’d like to have someone so articulate and thoughtful on her side.
I loved everything that Bp. Mark and all those from the Dio. of S.C. had to say, but KJS didn’t say, clarify, or retouch on things brought up hardly at all. Was it because those from S.C. had more to say and her talk time was limited or is it just that she cannot or will not defend her actions, words, and deeds?
So, what I’d like to know is …Was anything accomplished in this time with KJS in getting her to see the wrongs she and her office have done and maybe get to her to realize the damage that has been caused by many in TEc and her office? What did this accomplish except for Bp. Mark and some in S.C. being able to put their thoughts and some questions forth to her?
This “conversation” looked and sounded a bit one sided in the fact that she hardly said anything or really answered anythingy.
ODC, that is her usual “modus operandi”.. I think she seldom directly answers a question, nor does she respond other than with “I understand that…………”.
I truly believe, the various clergy were absolutely bending over backwards to expose her to the Gospel, that is what they were trying to do..
Did they succeed, yes on ‘exposure”, no on convincing….
Gloria in SC
Bishop Katharine’s opening statements on the sacrament of baptism were wonderful. Her meditative almost monastic approach to reflection moved my own spirit to inwardly digest the lavish sacramental image she offered. What a great opportunity to reaffirm one’s baptismial promises. Bishop Mark seems to rip the atmosphere with a passive aggressive confrontation about who is beloved to God. The Presiding Bishop specifically framed and rooted the statement within the context of baptism. Still, Bishop Mark seems unhappy that she might believe people who are not baptized may be beloved too.
Thanks Grannie Gloria! One would think that being a priest/bishop, that KJS would have already been exposed to the Gospel before and during seminary and since that is what she was charged in spreading, teaching, and preaching during her ordination vows! I really have been asleep for many years now if one doesn’t have to know the gospel in order to be a priest or bishop. Geesh! How sad!
I tried to watch the KJS clip, honest I did but like Amy Welborn in a comparable situation I just gave it up, after about 20 seconds. I have no idea how anyone with sense could have stayed there on hearing her micro-lecture on the word ‘conversation’….OMG. Projecting such insufferable superiority….I believe she sees herself as the long-awaited Episcopal Messiah. Well thanks, I had waited a long time to view some of the footage but it was at least as bad as I feared.
Actually TACit, it got alot worse especially when she said that at our baptism we all become God’s Beloved just like Jesus Christ. But, I agree with Bp. Mark. God said those words over Christ not over the whole world. She is twisted! She probably does a mean Yoga mat though! 🙂
After this conversation it must be clear to anyone who knows and loves the Gospel that two religions are in play here. Schori does not hold to orthodox Christianity. So what is the ecclesiastical responce to such a situation? How does one integrate into one’s ecclesiastical relationship the fact that those who call themselves brthren in Christ cannot be such “in Christ” because they do not believe in the same Christ that Christians throughout the ages have believed?
There is an endgame here. One must either pretend that the facts are not the facts, that somehow heresy has not been manifestly declared by some “in the church” (and I would like to see, hear or read an argument to this effect, or one must argue, contra all Scriptural and historical evidence, that it is tolerable for Christian leaders to commune with known heretics, OR one must accept that separation is both inevitable and desireable.
Am I missing a third option?
This is not to argue how and when separation must occur. One could argue that the issue must be adjudicated at the highest level, which is most likely Lambeth (what else could it be?). I suspect that such an argument is what orthodox dioceses seeking to work with 815 et al will put forth.
But what if the process at the highest level is compromised and corrupt? What if there is no more real desire to discipline heresy there than there was in PECUSA when Pike was tried and acquited? Is there a plan for such eventualities? Are we to hear “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it”? It would be nice if the orthodox laity and clerrgy in those orthodox dioceses, and those outside who might look to these diocese for hope and guidance, could have a little hint as to what the thinking might be when such bridges draw near. Inscrutability isn’t much of a leadership style.
ODC, we are called to proclaim the Gospel, not to win over hearts. Winning over hearts is the work of the Holy Spirit. So, bravo to +Mark for proclaiming the Gospel. Doing that is never a waste of time, irrespective of its apparent effect.
Archangelica, people who are not baptized are certainly beloved. God waits by his front door every night, gazing up the road, hoping with all the hope in his heart that one day each one will return home. He is ready to welcome them with a robe and a ring, and kill a fatted calf, and throw the biggest party one could imagine. If only some would come walking up that road.
Rick O.P.
I never said a word about [i]”winning”[/i]. I said:
[blockquote]…she was charged in spreading, teaching, and preaching[/blockquote]
Which is IMHO the same as proclaiming when you preach it, teach it, and spread it. Didn’t Jesus tell the disciples to go and spread the Good News? Yes he did! My point is that she should have been exposed to the Gospel well before seminary and during seminary.
One small detail lodged in my mind: the PB again avoids refering to Jesus the Son. Matthew 3:17 becomes, “Behold my beloved in whom I am well pleased” or something to that effect.
Kudos to Kendall for exhibiting enormous charity while calling out the PB on lack of pastoral consideration and some flat-out deception.
ODC, you get no argument from me when you say that our seminaries should have been teaching everyone the Gospel, and that anyone who goes to seminary should have been thoroughly inculcated with the Good News before he/she arrived. I was simply responding to your questions, “Was anything accomplished?” and, “What was accomplished?” My point is that we are engaged in spiritual warfare. The most powerful weapons we have are prayer and proclaiming the Gospel with conviction. Against those the enemy has no defense. We need not worry about what we do or don’t accomplish so long as we are obedient to the call to spread the Good News. My strategy for dealing with this mess in our denomination is simply this: do what God calls me to do (pray, fast, pray, study, pray, contemplate, pray, spread the Gospel as I am able) and let God take care of the rest.
I think the most significant thing accomplished was that clergy in S.C. were able to see for themselves firsthand, that when it comes to differences in TEC leadership and themselves, it’s worse than they thought. The priest who spoke last summed it up pretty well. . . they are different religions and probably have no way forward together anymore.
When I served as part of a parish search committee, we asked each priest to describe his relationship with Jesus Christ, and when did it begin. It was AMAZING to me how many answered the second part with “I came to a realization of serving the Lord during Seminary” or “after ordination”. One said that he had never even opened a Bible until he got to seminary and was invited by a fellow student to attend a Bible study in the dorms.
Good heavens! What did they GO to seminary for, if they didn’t have a relationship with the Lord? Seminary is not the place to discover the Lord, that’s putting the cart in front of the horse. Seminary is to live out that relationship in the office of ordination.
I’m glad they came to a relationship, but it sounded accidental, a second-thought item.
Finally watched all of the clip showing Kendall’s presentation ‘Truth in Community’. It was helpful that the camera showed his back because that made it possible to listen to his words and watch her body language very intently. His words could hardly have been more sincere or accurate, or graciously delivered. The only time she indicated any connection to them was early on, when he mentioned that his use of ‘we’ did not mean to imply that everyone in the diocese thought the same way about these issues; she nodded approvingly. All her other movements occurred when he introduced a new thought or changed topics, and by the end I concluded that her motionless, passive expressions throughout almost the whole 9 minutes might mean she was contemplating how to get him to change his mind, because she’d like to have someone so articulate and thoughtful on her side.