Were these the product of a young theological student of mine, I would offer a grade of D+ and ask, “Why did you waste the precious time of your congregation? Your charge is ‘to feed the flock of God’.” It is the the Word which is the Bread of Life – not our clever elocutions.
What? What Gospel? What “good news”? “But she gets it, this woman who comes alone to the well in the heat of the day.” It doesn’t appear to me that PB Schori gets it in the same way I think the woman at the well got it; ie, salvation comes from the Jews, and Jesus is the Messiah.
#1 Dr. Henry – I don’t consider myself qualified to grade seminarians but I have to agree with you that these sermons are a pastiche of “clever elocutions.” There are some ideas and paragraphs worth developing – I don’t damn the whole content. But then…
[blockquote] Loosening the soil so that it might be fertile terrain has a great deal to do with softening our own hearts. When we’re certain that his person or that can’t possibly be a God-bearer, it is our own soil that fills with rocks, or grows massive thorns. It is a particularly religious, and Christian, challenge, for we search endlessly to be certain that we are doing “the God-thing†right. But when we get too certain about God and God’s judgment, our soil turned over by the surprising love of the gospel and the unexpected nature of divine economics. [/blockquote]
This is truly horrible, given that Jesus gives us the point-by-point interpretation of the parable. Here, the preacher evidences all the bad seed – the word about the interpretation was clearly snatched away from her; she warns against Christian certainty, meaning she has no deep roots; and she’s clearly caught up in acceptance on the world’s terms (and chasing after property and material wealth via lawsuits), which means she is choking on thorns.
She needs our prayers – as do the people being misled by this kind of sermon.
One of the things that leaves me confused is why even good liberal Episcopalians would be happy with this person as Presiding Bishop. Surely there are other liberal bishops with more experience, stronger educational and ministerial background, who are better theologians, stronger preachers than Jefferts-Schori. I would like to think even committed revisionists think, “Oh geez, couldn’t we have gotten a better spokesperson?!?” What were they smoking when this goober was elected?
(Sort of like how local Republicans – who are still loyal conservative Republicans – wish Woody Jenkins would stop running for Congress here.)
The first one is a perfect example of how the good news of salvation can be glossed over while emphasizing that Jesus went among those considered undesirables. What about the transformed life of the woman at the well?
This bit was my “favorite:”
[blockquote]Wars can only start when we decide that the enemy has no possible value in God’s economy. That limited view of appropriate seed-beds for God’s love knows no national bounds.[/blockquote]
I’m astonished that she would have the audacity to say this when she has made it very clear that those she sees as her “enemies” have “no possible value in God’s eyes” and, thus, they must be marginalized and quashed, but not before suing them for their property. She would rather see venerable, old churches become night clubs than to remain “seed beds” that beart fruit for the kingdom.
Schori said
“I bring you greetings from Taiwan, Micronesia, Guam, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands including the British Virgin Islands as well as the US, a convocation of churches in Europe, and the churches in the United States, all of the Episcopal Church.”
==========================================================
Is this woman trying to tell the world that ECUSA has created its own imperial American Episcopal Church with branches in foreign countries that are part of ECUSA?
T o be sure, this is a miasma of platitudes, a pale theological drizzle on a land that needs real rain. But the real problem is that she is speaking from an agenda: She has her conclusion before her, and she needs only to find the words that will justify it. And so the speech is banalities because its cause is banalties: Inclusiveness, multiculturalism, diversity, love-as-touchy-feely – well, you know them all. The absence of ideas is a precondition of such speeches, while lack of imagination guarantees that even what she believes will be delivered in bromides and unrooted abstractions.
I have to believe now, that she was chosen because she is so single-minded and her absence of affect means that she is unflappable and beyond fear of any challenge whatsoever. She is, in short, a hedgehog, -just as most of the writers on this blog are foxes. Larry
#10/Keith: I agree. It seems that [i]Anno Domini[/i] is considered old fashioned and not intellectual.
From her evensong sermon:
Jesus is vulnerable enough to ask a religious and racial enemy for the stuff of life, and the encounter becomes abundant life.
Jesus was vulnerable?
From her morning sermon:
The sower scatters seed without counting the cost. And that produces a real tension for many of us. It feels wasteful to throw away seed that has no chance of doing anything productive.
She seems to contradict her herself here. Scattering seed without counting the cost, yet determining that seed is being wasted and won’t grow. Which is it? How does she know if the seed will grow or not? It is not our job to worry about the condition of the soil.
At least let’s clear up the matter of C.E vs. A.D. C.E. stands for ‘Common Era’ and the term was coined and introduced by Jewish historians who wished to distinguish a perspective on history that they could ‘share’ with Christians. By telling Christian historians they are working in the Common Era (to Jews and Christians) rather than on a sequential timeline in Years of Our Lord labeled as ‘Anno Domini’, they intend to be inclusive – of themselves particularly.
From the website “Episcope” (the “About” page), where the (to borrow the preacher’s phrase) “supposedly Christian” sermons are posted:
[blockquote]What is the Episcopal Church About?
The Episcopal Church is made up of between [i]two and three million worshipers[/i] in about 7500 congregations across the United States and related dioceses outside the US. [/blockquote]
A thoroughly underwhelming display by a theological dilettante! Just as an aside for someone who has some extra time on their hands to research this – how much work did she ever get published as primary author in first tier, peer reviewed scientific journals?
#14/AnglicanFirst:
[blockquote]Is this woman trying to tell the world that ECUSA has created its own imperial American Episcopal Church with branches in foreign countries that are part of ECUSA?[/blockquote]
If this isn’t a rhetorical question: Clearly yes. Surely this was first openly proclaimed in the official name change from ECUSA to The Episcopal Church — it’s not just a church of United States jurisdiction any more. Being a worldwide church gives it the possibility to expand their form of mission and their ability to collect from the flock around the world *if* the Anglican Communion were to kick them out (which ain’t gonna happen now, I suppose). So, I guess I see this as a contingency plan which was created, but now almost certainly won’t have to be enacted.
The sermons offer further evidence of what William Witt has called Jesus as “moral exemplar” rather than Jesus as being “constitutive of salvation”. In the end it is a gospel for people who think well of themselves.
Say, on this observation — “According to the United Nations, nearly 1400 Palestinians have been killed around Nablus since 2005, Palestinians who are Muslim, Christian and Samaritan. More than 100 Israelis have also died.” I can’t find any confirmation of that 1400 number. Seems like i’d have heard quite a bit about all those deaths if the Israelis had caused them; are they mutual killings, which no doubt are blamed on “the desperation caused by the Zionist occupation,” or what’s up with that?
Nice of her to get a cheap shot against Israel while in England, anyhow, contributing to international understanding and all that, but if anyone can find a source, i’d love to see a link.
I’m in London at the moment. I had thought to go to Salisbury to see the cathedral yesterday before I learned she would be preaching. I stayed in London and went the All Saints’ Margaret Street instead, where the gospel was preached.
Is not the point of the parable [b]where[/b] the seed is planted? It is the seed that is planted in the good, rich, deep soil that flourishes. To my mind that is in the soil of the orthodox, catholic Christian Church, not the shifting sands of doctrine blown about with ever changing winds.
I did visit Salisbury this morning. Alas, she showed up. They were doing something with chicken wire in the trancept and the TV cameras were on hand. God only knows what! (Jesus our mother hen?)
The PB’s Evensong homily was/may be heard by the whole world (or, that is, all the world that has any positive reason whatever to care about the distinctively Anglican tradition of worship) via the BBC’s broadcast of Choral Evensong. You may hear it at
As sermons, your yardstick determines the grade. Deep theology? No. Well-written? Yes. Examination of what it means to sow seed in today’s world? No. Social agenda? Yes.
But the kicker for me was this gem: “Wars can only start when we decide that the enemy has no possible value in God’s economy.” No. Wars start when we decide, in human economy, that it would be better to start one than not.
Were these the product of a young theological student of mine, I would offer a grade of D+ and ask, “Why did you waste the precious time of your congregation? Your charge is ‘to feed the flock of God’.” It is the the Word which is the Bread of Life – not our clever elocutions.
Wow that was vacuous.
Episcopalians can say less longer than anybody. The fact that this woman heads an allegedly-Christian church ought to be an embarrassment.
It brings to mind Hannah Arendt’s characterization about the banality of evil.
What? What Gospel? What “good news”? “But she gets it, this woman who comes alone to the well in the heat of the day.” It doesn’t appear to me that PB Schori gets it in the same way I think the woman at the well got it; ie, salvation comes from the Jews, and Jesus is the Messiah.
#1 Dr. Henry – I don’t consider myself qualified to grade seminarians but I have to agree with you that these sermons are a pastiche of “clever elocutions.” There are some ideas and paragraphs worth developing – I don’t damn the whole content. But then…
[blockquote] Loosening the soil so that it might be fertile terrain has a great deal to do with softening our own hearts. When we’re certain that his person or that can’t possibly be a God-bearer, it is our own soil that fills with rocks, or grows massive thorns. It is a particularly religious, and Christian, challenge, for we search endlessly to be certain that we are doing “the God-thing†right. But when we get too certain about God and God’s judgment, our soil turned over by the surprising love of the gospel and the unexpected nature of divine economics. [/blockquote]
This is truly horrible, given that Jesus gives us the point-by-point interpretation of the parable. Here, the preacher evidences all the bad seed – the word about the interpretation was clearly snatched away from her; she warns against Christian certainty, meaning she has no deep roots; and she’s clearly caught up in acceptance on the world’s terms (and chasing after property and material wealth via lawsuits), which means she is choking on thorns.
She needs our prayers – as do the people being misled by this kind of sermon.
One of the things that leaves me confused is why even good liberal Episcopalians would be happy with this person as Presiding Bishop. Surely there are other liberal bishops with more experience, stronger educational and ministerial background, who are better theologians, stronger preachers than Jefferts-Schori. I would like to think even committed revisionists think, “Oh geez, couldn’t we have gotten a better spokesperson?!?” What were they smoking when this goober was elected?
(Sort of like how local Republicans – who are still loyal conservative Republicans – wish Woody Jenkins would stop running for Congress here.)
[blockquote]What were they smoking when this goober was elected? [/blockquote]
“She’ll unleash unholy Hell on those mossbacks.” That’s what they were thinking, and they were right on the money.
I’m so glad I heard a good sermon on the parable of the sower today. Was Kendall trying to demonstrate what a miserable sermon is like?
She can’t even say AD for anno domini but has to say CE for common era the way non-christians mark time. It’s amazing she can be a leader of a church.
It all just kinda fits, doesn’t it, Keith?
The first one is a perfect example of how the good news of salvation can be glossed over while emphasizing that Jesus went among those considered undesirables. What about the transformed life of the woman at the well?
This bit was my “favorite:”
[blockquote]Wars can only start when we decide that the enemy has no possible value in God’s economy. That limited view of appropriate seed-beds for God’s love knows no national bounds.[/blockquote]
I’m astonished that she would have the audacity to say this when she has made it very clear that those she sees as her “enemies” have “no possible value in God’s eyes” and, thus, they must be marginalized and quashed, but not before suing them for their property. She would rather see venerable, old churches become night clubs than to remain “seed beds” that beart fruit for the kingdom.
Schori said
“I bring you greetings from Taiwan, Micronesia, Guam, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Haiti, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands including the British Virgin Islands as well as the US, a convocation of churches in Europe, and the churches in the United States, all of the Episcopal Church.”
==========================================================
Is this woman trying to tell the world that ECUSA has created its own imperial American Episcopal Church with branches in foreign countries that are part of ECUSA?
T o be sure, this is a miasma of platitudes, a pale theological drizzle on a land that needs real rain. But the real problem is that she is speaking from an agenda: She has her conclusion before her, and she needs only to find the words that will justify it. And so the speech is banalities because its cause is banalties: Inclusiveness, multiculturalism, diversity, love-as-touchy-feely – well, you know them all. The absence of ideas is a precondition of such speeches, while lack of imagination guarantees that even what she believes will be delivered in bromides and unrooted abstractions.
I have to believe now, that she was chosen because she is so single-minded and her absence of affect means that she is unflappable and beyond fear of any challenge whatsoever. She is, in short, a hedgehog, -just as most of the writers on this blog are foxes. Larry
#10/Keith: I agree. It seems that [i]Anno Domini[/i] is considered old fashioned and not intellectual.
From her evensong sermon:
Jesus was vulnerable?
From her morning sermon:
She seems to contradict her herself here. Scattering seed without counting the cost, yet determining that seed is being wasted and won’t grow. Which is it? How does she know if the seed will grow or not? It is not our job to worry about the condition of the soil.
At least let’s clear up the matter of C.E vs. A.D. C.E. stands for ‘Common Era’ and the term was coined and introduced by Jewish historians who wished to distinguish a perspective on history that they could ‘share’ with Christians. By telling Christian historians they are working in the Common Era (to Jews and Christians) rather than on a sequential timeline in Years of Our Lord labeled as ‘Anno Domini’, they intend to be inclusive – of themselves particularly.
I didn’t have the heart to even try to read them. 🙁
Take comfort: given the attendance figures at most C of E churches and cathedrals, almost no one heard this.
From the website “Episcope” (the “About” page), where the (to borrow the preacher’s phrase) “supposedly Christian” sermons are posted:
[blockquote]What is the Episcopal Church About?
The Episcopal Church is made up of between [i]two and three million worshipers[/i] in about 7500 congregations across the United States and related dioceses outside the US. [/blockquote]
Where to begin.
[url=http://tinyurl.com/3fcdl8]The Shrinking Church of England[/url] from a Vicar’s blog. They really are following TEC’s lead!
A thoroughly underwhelming display by a theological dilettante! Just as an aside for someone who has some extra time on their hands to research this – how much work did she ever get published as primary author in first tier, peer reviewed scientific journals?
What – no sporks? No farts? Man…she’s really going downhill.
enjoyed both sermons. Plenty of insight and exactly the sort of music that the world needs to hear.
#14/AnglicanFirst:
[blockquote]Is this woman trying to tell the world that ECUSA has created its own imperial American Episcopal Church with branches in foreign countries that are part of ECUSA?[/blockquote]
If this isn’t a rhetorical question: Clearly yes. Surely this was first openly proclaimed in the official name change from ECUSA to The Episcopal Church — it’s not just a church of United States jurisdiction any more. Being a worldwide church gives it the possibility to expand their form of mission and their ability to collect from the flock around the world *if* the Anglican Communion were to kick them out (which ain’t gonna happen now, I suppose). So, I guess I see this as a contingency plan which was created, but now almost certainly won’t have to be enacted.
I would refer to it as “The Episcopal Communion.”
As a mat t er of suriosity, how many people WERE there to hear her? Does anyone know? Larry
The sermons offer further evidence of what William Witt has called Jesus as “moral exemplar” rather than Jesus as being “constitutive of salvation”. In the end it is a gospel for people who think well of themselves.
Say, on this observation — “According to the United Nations, nearly 1400 Palestinians have been killed around Nablus since 2005, Palestinians who are Muslim, Christian and Samaritan. More than 100 Israelis have also died.” I can’t find any confirmation of that 1400 number. Seems like i’d have heard quite a bit about all those deaths if the Israelis had caused them; are they mutual killings, which no doubt are blamed on “the desperation caused by the Zionist occupation,” or what’s up with that?
Nice of her to get a cheap shot against Israel while in England, anyhow, contributing to international understanding and all that, but if anyone can find a source, i’d love to see a link.
I’m in London at the moment. I had thought to go to Salisbury to see the cathedral yesterday before I learned she would be preaching. I stayed in London and went the All Saints’ Margaret Street instead, where the gospel was preached.
Is not the point of the parable [b]where[/b] the seed is planted? It is the seed that is planted in the good, rich, deep soil that flourishes. To my mind that is in the soil of the orthodox, catholic Christian Church, not the shifting sands of doctrine blown about with ever changing winds.
I did visit Salisbury this morning. Alas, she showed up. They were doing something with chicken wire in the trancept and the TV cameras were on hand. God only knows what! (Jesus our mother hen?)
The PB’s Evensong homily was/may be heard by the whole world (or, that is, all the world that has any positive reason whatever to care about the distinctively Anglican tradition of worship) via the BBC’s broadcast of Choral Evensong. You may hear it at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/choralevensong/pip/epc90/
alongside the canticles by Edmund Rubbra, Clucas’ responses, an anthem by Lennox Berkeley,etc…
deal with it.
I’ve just stumbled across this rather interesting blog post, to which the first comment is made by someone who did hear her at Salisbury apparently:
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/07/15/homosexual-honesty/
As sermons, your yardstick determines the grade. Deep theology? No. Well-written? Yes. Examination of what it means to sow seed in today’s world? No. Social agenda? Yes.
But the kicker for me was this gem: “Wars can only start when we decide that the enemy has no possible value in God’s economy.” No. Wars start when we decide, in human economy, that it would be better to start one than not.