From the time Anglican pilgrims arrived in Jamestown, it’s as if America and the Episcopal Church have been soul mates ”“ for better or for worse.
Now come the country’s culture wars over sexuality, conservative versus liberal, change versus tradition. And the 2.4-million-member denomination that has given us more U.S. presidents than any other, along with its first-ever woman leader, is not being spared.
Nearly five years after a gay priest was elected bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, the fallout continues. One diocese has seceded from the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Dozens of congregations, including nine of the 50 churches in the San Diego diocese, also have broken apart.
“I think we live in an increasingly polarized society and these particular actions in the church echo that,” said Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who in 2006 was elected the presiding bishop ”“ chief spiritual leader ”“ of the U.S. church.
“Chief Spiritual leader”? She is only the “bishop” who presides over the House of Bishops. She has no real authority. For a church that does not want a covenant because they fear “Popery”, who made her Pope?
““I think we live in an increasingly polarized society and these particular actions in the church echo that,â€
+Schori has not the slightest clue how far from Christianity she is leading ECUSA. The type and failure of responses (or determined membership in NICE at Belbury) that she gave to the questioning during her visit recent visit to South Carolina demonstrate who is initiating the polarizing.
“Beloved Presiding Bishop?” Is +Robinson SERIOUS? The damage resulting from her election is incalculable, and anyone disputing that doesn’t have both oars in the water.
“Battles??” How about “fosters?”
This is an excellent interview, showing Schori at her very best, with the hand of a sympathetic writer to let her show her best profile. For the casual reader, Schori appears to be in control and in the right. The “dissidents ” are clearly reactionaries of a literal minded sort, fundamentalists is the word she wouldn’t use but makes clear in her context. And these are all snarl worlds in America.
This is of course all spin, but she is a good spin doctor because she is not moved by real principles, as her actions have showed, but by expediency. Still, this is good spin, the real article, and you have to give her high marks for her performance. Larry
#5 Larry:
I would have to agree. Here we have Dr. Schori portrayed as doing battle for enlightenment against the benighted and ignorant who are against inclusion. I would recommend listening to the interview with Archbishop Jensen that Canon Harmon has posted as a good counterpoint to this spin.
Islandbear+
[blockquote]“You don’t all have to profess exactly the same understandings of the central tenets of the faith,†she added. “What’s important is to worship together.†[/blockquote]
This statement, being one of the central tenets of her faith, is self-refuting.
“Voting to leave is the denial of the ability to live in tension with people who don’t agree with you about everything,†she said.
“You don’t all have to profess exactly the same understandings of the central tenets of the faith,†she added. “What’s important is to worship together.â€
She does NOT have a clue !!!!!!
I like the way she uses “conversation here:
[blockquote]“The issues around homosexuality are a conversation this church has been having for 40 years,†she said. “I would hope that we’re some distance farther down the road eight years from now than we are today. Do I think the conversation’s going to be finished? I doubt it.â€[/blockquote]
It’s exactly what Greg Griffith says — they use conversation to mean convincing people. Until people are convinced and agree with them, the conversation is never over.
There is always tension between the perpetrator and the victim. I left the farm rather than be spirtually debased by this woman. As was said before……she hasn’t a clue!
America and the Episcopal Church can hardly be said to have been soulmates since the landing in 1607, since neither existed until more than 170 years later, and neither had even been imagined much before the 1770s, either. While Non-conformists and congregationalists landed at Plymouth in 1620 and began building their promised land, the Church of England and Anglo-colonists (they were hardly pilgrims!) of the New World were still contesting with Dutch-, German-, even Spanish-speaking colonizers and continental-based Protestant and Catholic church bodies well into the following century on the eastern seaboard including tidewater Virginia.
But a phony and misleading historical introduction is helpful for underpinning a phony and misleading story from the interviewee here.
It’s worth the 3 minutes to read this concise analysis of the diocese of SJ, which crisis could be one factor behind this interview in the SD paper, I imagine:
http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/san-joaquin-now-has-three-dioceses-cen-40408-p-7/
April 4, 11:38 pm |
This is a prime example of why the “listening process” has outlived its usefulness. I think it’s fair to say that the conservatives have listened to the progressives and understand what they mean, but disagree. The progressives, as exemplified by Jefferts Schori here, show little sign of understanding what the conservatives are saying. She seems to think that her opponents are scriptural literalists just like the strictest American independent fundamentalists. But then she hops from Genesis to a denial of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, which is a denial of the entire New Testament message.
“Jefferts Schori said these secessions go against historical Anglicanism.”
No offense to my Anglican brethren but isn’t sessesion a legacy from historical Anglicanism? I can’t even begin to wrap my mind around half the things she says in this article, very unsettling. Makes me sympathize with grandpa Simpson who said, “I use to be with it…but then they changed what it was.”
[i]deleted, off topic[/i]
“You don’t all have to profess exactly the same understandings of the central tenets of the faith,†she added. “What’s important is to worship together.â€
Attention GC 2009 Delegates: If you follow this lie YOU will become responsible for the total disintegration of TEC. The courts are already ruling against the spin of TEC. Foist a revisionist Prayer Book on this Church and it’s all over. Choose wisely.
I was going to comment on her remark about the central tenets of the faith. That seems well covered above. There are of course central tenets and they are not up for discussion in the sense that without them we do not have apostolic Christianity. I was drawn to a later comment of hers that precisely illustrates why these central tenets are not up for discussion.
[blockquote]Seeing Jesus as the only way to redemption also “puts God in a very small box,†she said.
“Most Christians believe that Jesus died for the whole world. If you believe that, then to say that some people are beyond redemption would appear to deny that,†she said.
Either way, she adds, “I think it is up to God, not for us, to judge.†[/blockquote]
Her half statement about redemption is misleading to the point of heretical. Of course all agree on the sacrifice on the cross for the sin of the whole world. It is quite another to press for a vapid universalism in the face of the scriptures call to repentance and turning to Christ.
Perhaps we dissenters are a minority. Perhaps that is because there is a woeful ignorance of Biblical and Apostolic Christianity in ECUSA – certainly as I have known it since 1973. That does not make us wrong. In fact – as I say to my congregation – at the end of the day my job is to please the Lord – not some bishop who is likely to be in error.
And another newspaper article on her open meeting yesterday here.
“Seeing Jesus as the only way to redemption also “puts God in a very small box,†she said.
God the Father, GOD THE SON, God The Holy Spirit… Jesus is God. How does belief His redeeming power affect Him, in any form?
“You don’t all have to profess exactly the same understandings of the central tenets of the faith,†she added. “What’s important is to worship together.â€
Why on earth would people worship together if they don’t agree on the central tents of the faith? Especially if they take their faith at all seriously.
“The fight is between those who say you always have to go to Scripture first on any question and those who say you go to Scripture for salvation, but God also reveals things to us in nature and human reason.â€
This is simply not the case. The Rev. Russsel is badly mistaken. The sort of Fundamentalism he’s talking about here is a dead issue in TEC — even among conservatives — and has been for a long, long time. Indeed, “those who say you always have to go to Scripture first on any question” aren’t that easy to find even in conservative denominations like the LCMS or PCA.
The fight in TEC is between cutting edge liberals and “conservatives” whose views would have been considered liberal only a few decades ago. (And are still considered liberal in, say, the SBC, for that matter.) His opponents have more in common with him than he’s willing to admit. But that’s a demoralizing admission to make if your campaign of reconciliation relies upon marginalization and studied misunderstanding.