Your Easter celebration undoubtedly has included lots of physical signs of new life — eggs, flowers, new green growth. As the Easter season continues, consider how your daily living can be an act of greater life for other creatures. How can you enact the new life we know in Jesus the Christ? In other words, how can you be the sacrament, the outward and visible sign, of the grace that you know in the resurrected Christ? How can your living let others live more abundantly?
The Judaeo-Christian tradition has been famously blamed for much of the current environmental crisis, particularly for our misreading of Genesis 1:28 as a charge to “fill the earth and subdue it.” Our forebears were so eager to distinguish their faith from the surrounding Canaanite religion and its concern for fertility that some of them worked overtime to separate us from an awareness of “the hand of God in the world about us,” especially in a reverence for creation. How can we love God if we do not love what God has made?
Some comments from elf girl before this comment thread gets started:
1) Yes, Kendall and we elves saw this when it was released. Kendall chose not to post it at the time given his concerns about comment tone at the time, believing this piece would merely inflame the situation. Hopefully the Holy Week comment hiatus has helped people get some perspective and get out of the reflexive sarcastic comment mode we seemed to be in for much of March.
Please comment SERIOUSLY on this article, which we know most of our readers will have already seen. Focus on the content, not on the PB herself.
2. No, unfortunately this is NOT an April Fools’ joke. This is for real. Please ignore the fact that Kendall posted this on April 1. Thank you. We recognize that this will be a sore temptation for many to avoid the obvious jokes one could make.
3. Some of the best commentary we elves saw on this piece was by Ralph [Chip] Webb of the IRD. Perhaps use his critique as a model to help you focus on the content of +KJS’ message. Here’s the link:
http://anglicanaction.blogspot.com/2008/03/where-is-easter-hope.html
While I find it sad that this “Easter” message is so tied to the things of this world and her worldview based on culture and what appear to be trendy causes, I do find it wonderful beyond words that Jesus died to set us free from everything that keeps us from God – even worldviews based on culture and trendy causes!
Alleluia! Christ is Risen!
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The claim that the OT obscures our awareness of the “hand of God in Creation” is risible. However, the claim that the OT attempted to distinguish reverence for the Creator from reverence for the creature is correct, but in a way I suspect was not intended by the speaker. One of the not minimal benefits of this distinction is Western science. I am surprised that a trained scientist would subscribe to the “reverence for the creature” bit. There’s a lesson in here about the relationship between faith and reason.
“In other words, how can you be the sacrament, the outward and visible sign, of the grace that you know in the resurrected Christ? How can your living let others live more abundantly?”
Thanks for posting this section of her “sermon.” IMHO, the asking of these rhetorical questions is what defines the entire message: works righteousness. To frame an Easter message around this errant understanding of the Gospel clearly demonstrates why TEC will not survive as a church. The “new thing” is now a “must do this new thing.”
Pelegius must be smiling from wherever he is … Perhaps the PB has spent too much time wandering around Celtic labyrinth circles so she’s merely channeling that 5th century Irish heretic. Sad. Very Sad.
Brian
What is there to comment upon seriously in this “easter” message? She doesn’t mention the Resurrection. She thinks God’s chosen people didn’t respect pagan fertility religions enough. And she thinks cow farts are a seriously threat to the world.
If this isn’t an April fools joke to post this now your desire to have a serious discussion of this must be the joke.
When I read this, I can’t help but believe that the PB has shown what the real problem is with TEC today. Where is any message of the salvation that is there because of our risen Lord? Where is any message of celebration that he is risen? It seems that the most important day in Christianity has been reduced to cow flatulance and bad similie.
The paucity of her theology is breathtaking. I tried to imagine how she would offer hope to a Christian family suffering from the loss of a loved one. This led me to consider a problem with current TEC practices. I believe TEC is quite the proponent of cremation. But cremation causes greenhouse gases to be emitted, thereby contributing to global warming and putting the MDGs further out of reach.
I know this has been said many times before, but I think the answer to drummie’s question in #6 above – where is the message of salvation because of the risen Lord? – is in fact that the Presiding Bishop truly doesn’t believe that the Resurrection is the key to salvation. She is so thoroughly Pelagian that she thinks of the Resurrection in terms of an inspiration or an example to us to realize our God-given potential – our inherent goodness. Since she does not believe in the fallen nature of humankind, she cannot think otherwise. I would never expect her to speak in terms of salvation, for from all I’ve heard, seen and read from her, she does not believe that humanity needs a Savior.
This, as far as I can tell, is what she means when she uses phrases like “Living into our baptismal covenant.” We don’t need salvation, but we do need to follow the example of Jesus in achieving the perfection of our nature. It’s all on us, and it’s all going to happen in this world. Like others have said, it’s thoroughly Pelagian and not at all congruent with the Creeds or, indeed, the Book of Common Prayer (Yes, even the 1979 BCP). That’s probably why she laments that they were written “too early.”
I trust she is riding a bicycle to work and planning to open all of the windows in 815 to save on air conditioning during the summer.
Does anybody know if the PB believes in a literal bodily resurrection of Jesus? Has she ever been asked that and given an answer not clothed in liberal-speak?
I remember an interview with John Spong back in the 80’s – he was charming and eloquent. When they opened the floor to questions, an older priest in the audience (it turned out to be Russ Turner) began asking him specific, theological questions. Fr. Russ quickly unmasked his theology – has this ever happened to +KJS?
As I see hear her words here and elsewhere, she sounds like a anyone weaned on 19th century liberal theology in seminary, but whose praxis is informed and energized by the postmodern, new age, neo pagan undercurrent of the west, and its newly emerging god, Gaia earth (perhaps I overstate the case somewhat).
Assuming I am even remotely in the ball park, what should we expect the content of the PB’s Easter message to be? Having said this, there is some truth here. Sinful man has not always thought of his or her present or future neighbor, as he has fulfilled his divine vocation to “fill and subdue” (which does actually appear in the Genesis text) the earth. So she is right to be concerned and to exhort her fellow Christians to be aware and to live in such a way as to honor God as we live in and put to use the gift of a good creation (although other topics, like Jesus and his resurrection, seem more appropriate for Easter, even to the lectionary).
But there is more in the creation texts than filling and subduing. Later, in Genesis 2:15, the vocational dictum is enhanced with the Hebrew idea of keeping watch, or guarding (often stretched in our day to mean earth-keeping). The idea here is made plain when the serpent shows up to challenge Adam’s trust and childlike faith as he (the serpent) casts doubt on and twists God’s word.
And this is I believe our call today as Anglicans in an what seems to be an increasingly intolerant and politically motivated church, namely to guard the faith, and sadly, perhaps, even from our own leadership’s serpentine incursions.
I remain confused by the use of arguments which refer to creation by someone who ridicules Inelligent Design as a remnant of fundamentalism. How can you have it both ways but obviously it is done.
It has been my habit most years to distribute to my congregation either the BP’s or the ABC’s Easter letter– or both, if I can get them in time. However far gone he was in gnostic ramblings most of the year, even +FTG had read enough of the right books (one bishop told me that in 20 years together in the HoB, he never could figure out what +FTG believed)– that he could at least fake it convincingly at Easter and Christmas. I never saw any harm in putting his letters in the congregation’s hands twice a year.
It was a good decision on the elves’ or Kendall’s part not to post the current PB’s letter at Easter time. It would have been an unwarranted distraction.
Pax, Chuck+
In case I wasn’t explicit enough in #13 above, my congregation didn’t get the PB’s Easter letter this year. C+
Pastor Chuckie,
I wouldn’t give the PB’s letter a “C+.” It would receive an “F-” if I were to grade it :).
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Ha ha! I almost thought Pastor Chuck+ was giving the PB’s message a C+, instead of signing off with his initial.
I think we all know what the “F” stands for, Phil. 😉
The message she saw fit to impart
Was bereft of the faith from the start
For this Easter week
She saw worthy to speak
Of the threat to the earth when cows fart
Given the other “missals” she’s sending out now, this was probably the most benign.
Law – 1
Gospel – 0
thanks elves for the commentary by Ralph Webb. i just cringe everytime i hear the other side talk about the environment…i am such an earth mama but greatly loathe it when they act like it is ‘their issue’. i also think it tends to stereotype those of us that care about this issue and groups us together with the heretics.
It seems as though Pope Benedict is answering +KJS and the like in his book “Jesus of Nazareth”. Of course appeals to social works and environmental protection sound good and reasonable (leaving aside the dubious science behind global warming for now), but they are not the central message of the Gospels. Man cannot create a perfect world here on earth, no matter how hard he tries. Allow me to quote Ratzinger, talking about the third temptation of Jesus, the offer of kingship over the world:
“The Christian empire attempted at an early stage to use the faith in order to cement political unity. The Kingdom of Christ was now expected to take the form of a political kingdom and its splendor. The powerlessness of faith, the earthly powerlessness of Jesus Christ, was to be given the helping hand of political and military might…
The Christian empire or the secular power of the papacy is no longer a temptation today, but the interpretation of Christianity as a recipe for progress and the proclamation of universal prosperity as the real goal of all religions, including Christianity – this is the modern form of the same temptation. It appears in the guise of a question: “What did Jesus bring, then, if he didn’t usher in a better world ? How can that not be the content of messianic hope ?” …
No kingdom of this world is the Kingdom of God, the total condition of mankind’s salvation… and anyone who claims to be able to establish the perfect world is the willing dupe of Satan…”
He goes on to explain that what Jesus brought was God himself, and faith, hope and love, and that only our hardness of heart makes us think this is not enough.
In a later chapter, he explains the various theories around the expression “Kingdom of God” , centered on different things
(in the pre-Vatican II period ecclesiocentrism was the dominant position: the Church was represented as the center of Christianity, then a shift to Christocentrism, then theocentrism):
“…it is claimed we must now move toward “regnocentrism”, that is, toward the centrality of the Kingdom. This at last, we are told, is the heart of Jesus’ message, and it is also the right formula for finally harnessing mankind’s positive energies and directing them toward the world’s future ([i] can’t you hear +KJS ? [/i]). “Kingdom” on this interpretation, is simply the name for a world governed by peace, justice, and the conservation of creation. It means no more than this. … This is supposedly the real task of religions: to work together for the coming of the “Kingdom”. … it seems like a way of finally enabling the whole world to appropriate Jesus’ message, but without requiring missionary evangelization of other religions. …
But the main thing that leaps out is that God has disappeared; man is the only actor left on the stage. .. Faith and religions are now directed toward political goals. Only the organization of the world counts. … This post-Christian vision of faith and religion is disturbingly close to Jesus’ third temptation.”
I think I’ve used up all my quotations before I have to start paying royalties… He then goes on to return to the real Gospel. Get the book. Somebody send it to +KJS.
It was interesting, if sad, to read that such a theory exists and in fact has many adherents. The stripping of the risen Lord out of Christianity simply leads to man trying to make the world better on his own, making His sacrifice moot and denying His very relevance, if not His existence. Who was it that said “Man’s attempts to create heaven on earth invariably lead to hell”?
“How can we love God if we do not love what God has made?”
What I find so very sad and scandalous is that the person elected as presiding bishop (or any bishop or ordained priest) will not use the masculine pronoun for God. God has revealed HIMSELF in the masculine, and that’s good and right. Not a single woman is dishonored by acknowledging God as FATHER and using a masculine pronoun for him. This stuff drives me crazy.
Signed by a woman who considers herself a FEMINIST.
Meg Houk
#10, you ask about whether folks have explicitly questioned +KJS re: her theology and belief in the resurrection. The two best examples of such questioning which I recall have been done by reporters.
There was Stephen Crittenden of the Australian Broadcasting Corp:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2006/1696173.htm
[blockquote]Stephen Crittenden: I have to ask you about your recent comment which raised hackles I’m sure you’re aware, all around the world, about Jesus as mother.
Katherine Jefferts Schori: Well anyone who knows the tradition knows that it’s a very popular image in mediaeval mysticism. A former Archbishop of Canterbury, 11th century Ansolm of Canterbury goes on at great length about ‘Jesus, our mother’. It’s a favourite image of Julian of Norwich and Bernard of Clarevaux, and countless others. It’s a metaphor, as all language about God is a metaphor, and I used it in that sermon in intentional ways because it fitted the text.
Stephen Crittenden: Some people saw it as a deliberate provocation, that particularly at this moment when events and ideas in the Anglican Church are so fraught.
Katherine Jefferts Schori: Well perhaps it’s a reminder of the breadth of our tradition, and I certainly didn’t intend it as provocation. I was simply preaching the gospel as I saw it that day.
Stephen Crittenden: I guess we should just dwell on it a little bit more because it’s not an idea we hear very often. What is it a metaphor for, Jesus as mother?
Katherine Jefferts Schori: It’s a metaphor for new creation. [b]When we insist that the Christ event in the death and resurrection of Jesus brings a new possibility of life, a new kind of life to humanity, it is certainly akin to rebirth. When Jesus says to Nicodemus You must be born again from above, what might he mean? I think it is a way of the gospel is saying that Jesus is a venue, an event, an experience, and an instance in which life is renewed, in which every human being as access to new life.[/b](emphasis mine)[/blockquote]
And Laura Lynn Brown of the Arizona Democrat Gazette:
http://www.biblebeltblogger.com/biblebelt/2007/01/presiding_bisho.html#more
[blockquote]ADG: I want to ask you about a couple of other things you’ve said in interviews. One of those was in the 10 questions in TIME magazine about the small box that people put God in. Could you elaborate a little bit on your take on “Jesus is the way, the truth and the life†[a paraphrase of John 14:16]?
KJS: I certainly don’t disagree with that statement that Jesus is the way and the truth and the life. But the way it’s used is as a truth serum, or a touchstone: If you cannot repeat this statement, then you’re not a faithful Christian or person of faith. I think Jesus as way – that’s certainly what it means to be on a spiritual journey. It means to be in search of relationship with God. We understand Jesus as truth in the sense of being the wholeness of human expression. What does it mean to be wholly and fully and completely a human being? Jesus as life, again, an example of abundant life. We understand him as bringer of abundant life but also as exemplar. What does it mean to be both fully human and fully divine? Here we have the evidence in human form. So I’m impatient with the narrow understanding, but certainly welcoming of the broader understanding.
ADG: What about the rest of that statement –
KJS: The small box?
ADG: Well, the rest of the verse, that no one comes to the Father except by the son.
KJS: Again in its narrow construction, it tends to eliminate other possibilities. In its broader construction, yes, human beings come to relationship with God largely through their experience of holiness in other human beings. Through seeing God at work in other people’s lives. In that sense, yes, I will affirm that statement. But not in the narrow sense, that people can only come to relationship with God through consciously believing in Jesus.
[…]
ADG: That reminds me of something else you said. This was a CNN interview when Kyra Phillips asked you what happens when we die. You had an interesting answer that got some Southern Baptists riled up.
KJS: OK. I didn’t hear their reaction.
ADG: Al Mohler – I don’t know whether you’re familiar with him –
KJS: I’m not.
ADG: He’s a seminary president [at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville] and has a blog and a radio show. [Mohler posted the exchange on his Web site]. It seemed to some people that you were saying there isn’t an afterlife.
KJS: I don’t think Jesus was focused on that. I think Jesus was focused on heaven in this life, primarily. The Judeo-Christian tradition has always said yes, there is resurrection. There is life after death. But I think Jesus was not so worried about that. I think he’s worried about what we’re doing to treat our fellow human beings as children of God. He says the kingdom of heaven is among you, and within you, and around you.
ADG: So does that mean that in your view there is no afterlife?
KJS: That’s not what I said. I said what I think Jesus is more concerned about is heavenly existence, eternal life, in this life.
ADG: So there again, that’s partly why the Millennium Development Goals are important to you? To improve people’s lives now?
KJS: Absolutely. The Anglican tradition of Christianity is world-affirming, it is focused on incarnation, and it insists that we’re not meant to shut ourselves off from the world in a pietistic sense or in a sectarian sense. That we’re meant to be in the world, and transforming the world into something that looks more like the reign of God.
ADG: Do you think there’s any part of us that lives on somewhere after we die?
KJS: Absolutely. But that’s not a question that concerns me day in and day out. I think I’m meant to use the gifts I have to transform the world in this life.[/blockquote]
Love the line about the ’79 BCP being written a little too early in regards to environmental concerns and specific questions in the baptismal covenant.
Easter is about resurrection and new life. The MDGs are great in that they express the need of the world and help us focus on practical everyday issues that we might miss. But, the central tenant of Christianity is that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, and that is the message of Easter.
I suppose it was too hard to begin the letter with, “Since we are celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his vanquishing of death, let us allow his resurrection to permeate all areas of our life as we live as Easter people.”
Phil+
#22 Pere Phil
Exactly! Her message could have come from any humanist – there is some Christian language thrown in, but the message is not based on the unique work of Christ.
How typically liberal. Lament the state of the earth and its creatures and proof-text an Easter passage to make the point. Yet, stay silent about the slaughter of thousands of unborn children – humans by any gene test – and call it freedom of self-determination.
How typical. How fraudulent. How fake. Look for resolutions at GC 2009 that navel gaze – again – about slavery, reparations, MDGs, and not one scrap to unwed mothers. Not one scrap to creating orphanages so that the “freedom to choose” can include embracing “life” – you know, that Easter message.
Did anyone hear KJS talk about saving the “unborn”? Really, if we can save anyone from the perils of this earthly life, surely saving the “unborn” from abortion would be the easiest and most profound of all!
Righto, Now Orthodox,
Apparently the “least of these” only means one who can complain loud about their treatment by a perceived majority. The “least of these” cannot possibly include actual victims. It clouds the liberal mantra.
Stewardship of God’s creation is certainly very important, and should be taken seriously by all Christians, as corollary to the central fact that God said his creation was good, and put mankind in charge of it. All very well, a necessary part of good Catholic belief. But it would be really great if, just for once, PB Jefferts-Schori would speak from the central creedal parts of the Faith, without trying to make them “relevant” to post-modern concerns, even if she doesn’t believe them.