Meanwhile, some Episcopal churches and one diocese have voted to leave the denomination and align with foreign provinces — despite longstanding tradition in which bishops respect each others’ boundaries — and are now fighting in court over the use of their property. New parishes in Elizabethtown and Louisville have formed under the leadership of the bishop of Bolivia but are not involved in property disputes.
Jefferts Schori maintained that the denomination has a “fiduciary as well as moral responsibility” to make sure church property is used for the purposes that donors intended. “We don’t have a right to give it away to a group that says they don’t want to be part of the Episcopal Church,” she said.
When a questioner pressed her on the issue, she said that ideally the church should find a way to settle rather than go through messy, expensive litigation, “but we haven’t found it yet.”
One questioner at the St. Matthew’s Episcopal gathering asked about her own conversion experience and whether she shared the traditional Christian doctrine that Jesus was the only way to salvation.
She said her own conversion culminated a period of spiritual searching following the tragic death of a longtime friend as well as her readings of scientists who spoke of the mystery of the universe.
That prompted her conversion and eventual career switch from oceanographer to priest, a path that led to her 2006 election as presiding bishop of the denomination.
She said she feels called to “share the good news I know in Jesus,” while being cautious not to judge others. “I look around me and see evidence that God is at work in traditions that don’t call themselves Christian,” she said.
[blockquote]”We don’t have a right to give it away to a group that says they don’t want to be part of the Episcopal Church,” [/blockquote]
I have to have some issue with this statement. Whether or not I agree with giving church property away to breakaway dissidents aside, I believe Jesus gave Christians that mandate when he said, “If someone asks for your coat, give them your cloak also.”
Of course there is evidence of God at work in traditions other than Christian ones, Kate. “He has not left Himself without a witness so that none can fault Him for their unbelief.” The problem is the unbelief of those who have received the fullness of revelation in the Person of Jesus and God’s completed work in Jesus the Messiah. But, you say “vehicle” and I say “Saviour”. We shall learn one day which is apropos.
[blockquote]She said she feels called to “share the good news I know in Jesus,” while being cautious not to judge others. “I look around me and see evidence that God is at work in traditions that don’t call themselves Christian,” she said.[/blockquote]
[url=http://www.vulcanhammer.org/?p=631]Shades of Jeremiah Wright![/url]
[blockquote] Jefferts Schori maintained that the denomination has a “fiduciary as well as moral responsibility” to make sure church property is used for the purposes that donors intended. “We don’t have a right to give it away to a group that says they don’t want to be part of the Episcopal Church,” she said.[/blockquote]
She misses the point that people gave to God through the Church and she doesn’t have the right to take God’s property and use to for another agenda.
RE:”Jefferts Schori maintained that the denomination has a “fiduciary as well as moral responsibility” to make sure church property is used for the purposes that donors intended.”
A discussion of the purposes donors intended would be an interesting one…
#3 Vulcanhammer: Or perhaps shades of St. Paul in Acts 17, shades of Job and his friends, shades of Melchizedek, shades of Reuel, etc. We have no need to be opposed to the idea that God is at work in other traditions. As St.Paul put it to the Athenians, “I see that you are very religious in every way,” and they even knew that they didn’t know all that could be known about God. As R.F. Capon put it, missionaries don’t bring Christ to the nations; Christ is already there ahead of us. (After all, he made the nations.) But missionaries bring the name and the news of Christ to the nations.
In other words, our PB may often be wrong, but there’s no need to assume she’s always wrong. Very likely, even the wrong things she says will have some basis in truth. Isn’t that how it always is with false beliefs?
[blockquote] Jefferts Schori maintained that the denomination has a “fiduciary as well as moral responsibility” to make sure church property is used for the purposes that donors intended. “We don’t have a right to give it away to a group that says they don’t want to be part of the Episcopal Church,” she said. [/blockquote]
This is maddening on so many levels.
First – donors gave to a Christian church – not a homosexual association which has jettisoned the clear teaching of the Scriptures.
Second – ECUSA has clearly rejected the Church catholic and the Anglican Communion – which warned if it followed its unilateral course it would tear the Communion at the deepest level. None of us has any doubts that the overwhelming majority of donors would much rather these resources — even in the now apostate parishes — be used in the course chosen by the “dissenters” who are choosing to remain with the Christian branch of the tear.
Third, the commission appointed by Peter Lee showed us all a way to resolve these issues without resorting to litigation and KJS ordered him to ignore it. She is the person most responsible for choosing this horrible course of litigation and destruction instead of healing.
Despite my strident comments, I must say that I have long pondered the point made by #1, above (and so many of the other Scriptural teachings on point). I mostly think that maybe we were wrong and should’ve chosen total abandonment of property. I have a long maintained at the very least the dissidents (Peter Lee’s term – my term is the faithful or confessing churches) should have chosen the “poisoned pill” approach (mortgage the properties fully – withdrawing all the funds they could from the property and giving it all to the building of 3rd world churches and missions. Then the assets would be empty and either ECUSA or the confessing churches would have to buy them back.) At the same time, I would say that perhaps the ECUSA leadership should be following the “cloak” principle as well. Which brings us back, again to the wise solution devised by the Lee committee.
Finally, I must say that ECUSA did well when they chose KJS to be their leader. While she is totally lacking in any pastoral skills, this wasn’t what they wanted. She is using the skills of a Nathan Bedford Forrest or a William Tecumseh Sherman – overwhelming and unrelenting total war on her enemies. ECUSA seeks the complete destruction of the Confessing Church in America and they are using every means possible to achieve this.
KJS said, “I look around me and see evidence that God is at work in traditions that don’t call themselves Christian.”
Of course she does and well she should. But as St Cyprian of Carthage said, ‘Extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ (Outside the Church there is no salvation). This lends more than a little bit of urgency to the Great Commission.
Let me think: My family has given somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000 to the Episcopal Church in my life time. We gave it to the Christian community in each place, not to continue a name but to continue a mission in Christ. It is my repsonsibilty to fight for the property for the Christian community in the Anglican tradition of Catholic reform. My ancestors didn’t give to what William, #7, described clearly: “a homosexual association which has jettisoned the clear teaching of the Scriptures.” I might add, “And all of their libertine, universialist, unitarian friends.”
“Jefferts Schori maintained that the denomination has a ‘fiduciary as well as moral responsibility’ to make sure church property is used for the purposes that donors intended”
Then she should repent or resign—and let ECUSA return to orthodox Christian faith.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“We don’t have a right to give it away to a group that says they don’t want to be part of the Episcopal Church” —KJS
This is a BIG LIE.
ECUSA makes gifts to non-Episcopal groups, including the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches.
Even for-profit business corporations can make gifts to charitable organizations. Corporations can also compromise and settle claims. How much more should ECUSA be willing to end its wasteful, disgraceful, and self-defeating litigation program.
Surely ECUSA has authority to relinquish whatever claim it may have to the property of departing dioceses and congregations.
KJS declares, “my fiduciiary duty makes me do it.” That is false, false, false. Given what the applicable law really is, she might as well be saying, “I’m sorry, but the devil makes me do it.” She has a choice. She is responsible. We should not let her get away of this threadbare version of “_____ makes me do it.”
#6
True, Paul did say that in Acts 17, but he went on to say “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead (Acts 17:30-31).”
The point being that God may be at work (in some limited ways), but in the end “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12)” If salvation is possible apart from the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, why would the Father send the Son to endure it all?
Bishops Ted and Stacy must be so thrilled to have their fearless leader among them. But for most Kentuckians, KJS is so unimportant as to be non-existent.
12. Indeed, with Schori’s charted course, the fate of ecusa is to die “not with a bang, but with a whimper”.
It is unfortunate that Bishop Katharine does not seem to sense a fiduciary responsiblity for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
As for God’s working in other religions and the proposition that there is no salvation outside the church, I prefer what C.S. Lewis said, t hat God has not told us how He intends to bring non-christians to salvation.
And I always wondered how God could be quite so careless as not to make us a party of ALL His plans. The trouble is tht when Schori is right, she is right for the wrong reasons. Larry
#11 drfnw
I have no argument against what you say. The scriptures are clear. As #15 Larry Morse has said so well, if God has salvific plans for people outside the church, by some other means than through Jesus Christ, we the church are not at liberty to say what those plans are. Faithfulness demands that we continue to preach the Gospel as we have received it. So my point is not to preach relativism nor universalism. My point only concerns how we speak about the PB and others we disagree with. She has my pity, and my prayers, not my unmitigated enmity.
It’s certainly wrong to deny that God has salvific plans for those of other faiths. But it is right to assert that ALL are saved because Christ redeemed all of creation. I hope that KJS does understand the nuance of this.
“I hope that KJS understands…..” ha ha ha ha GOOD LUCK! L
Rob K #17. Right on.
Larry Morse #18. I’m tempted to share your cynicism but am currently trying my best to nurture naive optimism. I keep writing to the PB in the faint hope that she is, despite appearances, still able to learn new things. Who knows? Maybe she could even change her mind, or even repent. I have to have hope in this possibility for everyone – however slim that hope may be.
LAC,
Don’t forget one who was deemed beyond the reach of God as well — St. Paul. Perhaps KJS will have a ‘Damascus Road experience’, too. I for one am praying for that!