Pondering the Great Commission
Baptism not a goal, but a relationship with God
By Katharine Jefferts Schori, July 06, 2007
[Episcopal Life] I met recently with a group of appointed missionaries of the Episcopal Church. They gathered for 10 days in New York for orientation before leaving to do mission. It was an enormous privilege to meet them and see their energy and enthusiasm (which means “filled with God”) for this adventure.
We had an opportunity for conversation, and one young man shared his concern about how to understand the Great Commission, particularly the directive to baptize, especially in a multifaith environment. It was a wonderful question that engages us all at one level or another.
How do we engage in evangelism, and particularly in the specific directives of Matthew 28:19-20? Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
This passage marks the end of Matthew’s Gospel, and its explicitly Trinitarian language should make us aware that it probably reflects the practice of early Christian communities, some time after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yet the question remains: How do we respond to this sending of the disciples, in which we understand all Christians participate, into a multifaith world?
If we believe that Jesus’ saving work is for the whole world, that should relieve some of our immediate anxiety. He is pretty clear that he is not here to judge the world, but to love the world and invite all into relationship with Love itself (John 12:32 — And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself — and John 12:47 — I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world). Judgment comes at the end of time, and until then you and I repeatedly are urged not to judge others.
Yet the ancient question remains: Is baptism necessary for salvation? Theologians have wrestled with this in a number of ways and made some remarkably gracious and open-ended responses. Vatican II affirmed that salvation is possible outside the church, even though some statements by Roman Catholic authorities in years since have sought to retreat from that position.
Karl Rahner spoke about “anonymous Christians,” whose identity is known to God alone. John MacQuarrie recognized the presence of the Logos or Word in other traditions.
But the more interesting question has to do with baptism itself. Like all sacraments, we understand baptism as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace (Catechism, BCP, p. 857). It is an outward recognition of grace that is both given and already present through God’s action.
When we look at some of the lives of holy people who follow other religious traditions, what do we see? Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama both exemplify Christ-like lives. Would we assume that there is no grace present in lives like these? A conclusion of that sort seems to verge on the only unforgivable sin, against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:30-32).
If I believe that God is more than I can imagine, conceptualize or understand, then I must be willing to acknowledge that God may act in ways that are beyond my ken, including in people who do not follow the Judeo-Christian tradition. Note that I include our Jewish brothers and sisters, for Scripture is very clear that God made a covenant with Israel. That covenant was not abrogated in Jesus. Scripture also speaks of a covenant with Abraham that extends to his offspring, including Ishmael. Our Muslim brothers and sisters claim him as their ancestor. In some way, God continues to act in the tradition we call Islam.
Well, if God is already at work in other religious traditions, why would we bother to teach, make disciples or baptize? The focus of our evangelical work can never be imposing our own will (despite the wretched examples of forced conversion in the history of Christianity), but there is a real urgency to sharing the good news.
When we see the rightousness of men we should be reminded that to God it is as filthy rags, ALL we like sheep have gone astray, ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, and lastly but not in the least, Jesus commanded us to baptise, not to try to figure every thing out (Jesus said in second Hesatations “If this fits your theological understanding of my message and you sort of feel lead maybe you should consider doing it”). If Baptism were not important Jesus might have said something like,”Well if you get around to it maybe you should baptise a few folk, it sure is a neat service”
[blockquote] The focus of our evangelical work can never be imposing our own will (despite the wretched examples of forced conversion in the history of Christianity) [/blockquote]
These raggedy old college course 101 arguments are like moldly old church buildings. Guess they’ll be with us for awhile but their emptiness becomes apparent.
Our examples are historical – that is, we learned, repented and returned to doing things the Lord’s way. Christianity (not TEC country club stuff, but conversion to Christ) is spreading vibrantly, without force, in many parts of the world.
Meanwhile, this Islam she praises and extols asserts itself by force of law, terrorism and warfare.
I will observe the Christ-inspired standards of this site when commenting on the Presiding Bishop, but it is a real spiritual test to do so. Her ideas are manifestly false and the consequences of this for souls seeking God are disastrous.
#1 Dave
I sense your point, and would add to it below. But Schori here isn’t saying that baptism isn’t important, and in the last paragraphs goes on for some time as to why it is important. But she never closes with the
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
part of the Gospel.
Furthermore, when she says
“Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama both exemplify Christ-like lives.”
and then fails to define “Christ-like”, we are left to wonder if she meant that these men reflected Christian virtues or functionally were Messianic equivalents. I.e. could “Gandhi” or “Dalai Lama” be a replacement for “Word” in John 1? I see this as an example of either Schori’s theological laxity or possibly her ideological motivations.
Jefforts Schori never seems to give one any commanding reason to bother with Christianty. Instead, she seems to preach that the best of us are like the other religions who after all are doing the same things we are and thereby have earned membership in the Worldwide Good Fellows Union ( a wholly owned subsidiary of the United Nations).
#2 Tim F
I believe that Lewis once mentioned how easy it is to ask for someone else’s sins to be forgiven, while eliding over your own pressing issues.
Dear ++KJS: To your summer reading list I would recommend a thourough study of the book of Romans as well as the entire gospel of John, not just your favorite verses stopping just short of the ones you strain at like gnats while swallowing other camels.
Schori’s dissertation might have been better titled “Matthew 28:19-20 Revised.” While it is refreshing to hear the author actually refer to Jesus and baptism, I believe she has not yet gotten to John 14:6.
Tom, thank you, my main point is that we spend a lot of energy trying to figure out Christ and Christianity instead of practicing it, Whoo is saved, who can be saved why do this etc. We are told to spread the good news, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, and visit the imprisioned, I am not saying that good theology is not important.
Matthew 28:19 reads: Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen.
If we do things in the order in which this verse is written, we will
1. make disciples first, 2. baptize, and 3. continue teaching the baptized to observe all the things that Jesus has commanded us to do. ( which means we must also do these things )
The reaction of Christians to ++Schori’s statement should be a positive one. Here, she has made the following points.
1. We are not to judge others. Check.
2. Some others which we do not identify as belonging to the church can be used by God. Check.
3. We are charged with the great commission, which should never be carried out by force. Check.
4. Baptism may or may not be absolutely necessary for salvation, but is nevertheless an essential of the normative way-i.e., the way we have been instructed to carry out the great commission. Check.
5. The way we carry that out should be by sharing the good news. If we truly cherish it, we should want others to hear it. Check.
Is her message a little diluted by political-correctness? Sure. But aren’t you guys Episcopalians? 🙂 (Sorry, had to).
At any rate, may God guide ++Schori and all of us sinners who praise God with our lips and deny him with our deeds.
For a cogent and entertaining fisking of this article click on over to Midwest Conservative Journal and read Chris Johnston’s “Sawdust Trail”
http://mcj.bloghorn.com/
#9 — The structure of the Greek here sounds to me more explanatory than sequential: that is, the risen Lord says (in a lamely wooden translation), “Going, disciple-ize all nations/Gentiles, baptizing them. . . , teaching them. . . . ” In other words, I read this as Jesus commanding the eleven to make all (and we’ll set aside the heated exegetical debate over whether they’re addressing “all nations” or “all the Gentiles”) into disciples. They do this by baptizing them and instructing them to keep all that Jesus has commanded (in Matthew’s Gospel, that includes observing all the Law and complying with the Pharisees’ teaching).
That still leaves the somewhat perplexing question of how anyone can espouse both the “baptismal theology” of BCP 79 and at the same time treat baptism as a [i]problem[/i] relative to mission. One might think that if baptism were the definitive reference point of theology (which many Episcopal Church leaders suggest), one would want to invite all to share it; and if it’s OK for “Christ-like” unbaptized persons to persist in their reluctance to accept baptism, that consistency would require proponents of baptismal theology to acknowledge that baptism isn’t such a big deal after all.
Boy, those missionaries must have been inspired. What did she say to them…”go tell the world of muslims and hindu’s and buddhists “Hi, ya’ll from Jesus…keep up the good work!”
She has completely undermined the Bible.
The bottom line refutation of her is that if there was another way to salvation than Jesus suffering immeasurably and dying on a cross God, then Jesus never would have died in such a way.
There are so many scriptures refuting what she has just written that you can almost close your eyes and open the Bible to and point to one.
Jesus is the only way to salvation…for all people.
I have to confess that #10 may be right; this strikes me as another one of those pieces that, if I didn’t already know what KJS thought, wouldn’t strike me as too terribly off. Sure: it smells of universalism and rips from liberal catholic thought robbed of context (that quote from Vatican II is especially ridiculous), but aside from that, it’s not all bad. It’s her downplay of baptism that’s problematic, not her basic emphasis about evangelism (i.e., it’s not just go around and baptize as many people as you can, but actually tell them the good news).
Make disciples without any discipline? But then Jesus did not say this and it is only a practice of the early church which was concerned about growth.
#14. I don’t think the quote from Vatican II is ridiculous. It is just unexplained to the extent that heresy-watchers would prefer. Obviously Vatican II did not mean salvation apart from the saving grace of the Passion of Our Lord. But one does not have to understand or convey the complexities of salvation in order to have a hand in carrying it out. Remember, Our Lord thanked the Father for making truth evident to the uneducated instead of the learned. And is any bishop expected to give a full exposition of the entire catechism any time that bishop gives an exhortation? Surely that would not reduce confusion, but create it–along with a healthy dose of indifference. I see this not as a downplay of baptism, but a defense of infant baptism against those would say it is forced conversion and brainwashing, as well as an invitation to disciple-making and believer’s baptism. Remember, a bishop’s task is to shepherd the entire flock; I think ++Schori’s exhortation is directed towards the liberals in the church who may not believe that we are to evangelize–not to the T19 super-apologists. Read her statement again in that context.
#10 & #14
Although I agree with you that one can certainly find elements of truth in what Schori says, it is not those elements you have identified that are problematic, but the remainder. The whole thing seems filled with reluctance and anxiety about the Great Commission–the overall message seems to be that, of course, we’d rather not have anything to do with sharing about Christ, but since it seems to be an authentic practice of the early church (and therefore binding on us?!?!), we need to figure out some way to make it palatable to our delicate consciences. The thing that causes her great anxiety, apparently, and the backdrop for her whole discussion, is what to do about the evangelistic mandate given the fact that we are in “a multifaith environment”.
That is the first troublesome thing to me in her analysis: hasn’t the Church always proclaimed her message of Christ in a multi-faith environment? Certainly the early Church lived in a multi-faith environment.
The second thing that bothers me is this–she presents sharing about Christ, as one friend to another, as though this is some sort of new or revolutionary insight into how to do evangelism. Wasn’t Becky Pippert’s book on friendship evangelism published some 30-40 years ago? How is this news, or a new idea?
All of this would be acceptable, I think, if it were merely a layperson, with little experience in the Church, sharing his or her views. But isn’t Schori reputed to be some sort of leader in the Church? My question would be: in what way does this show any discernible leadership?
17. While I think my comment in 16 is sufficient to address your concerns, I have gone back and read her statement again. I definitely do not see a reluctance or hesitation about the Great Commission. Particularly after reading the following:
You are right in saying that early Christianity took place in a multi-faith world. What has changed, however, is the attitude of an abundance of modern Christians who see no reason to evangalize when it is easy to see the good inherent in the world’s major religions.
This is an exhortation to those who are reluctant and hesitant to share the good news in a multi-faith world to do so anyway because of what He has done for us.
[i]”If I believe that God is more than I can imagine, conceptualize or understand, then I must be willing to acknowledge that God may act in ways that are beyond my ken, including in people who do not follow the Judeo-Christian tradition.”[/i]
The PB is speculating, pure and simple. She reasons: there are things about God I don’t know, so maybe one of those things might involve some unknown grace extended to non-Christians.
Why not concentrate on what we do know, because it has been revealed to us by God? With respect to salvation, we can accept the certainty that God has revealed, or make a speculative bet on something no human being can know. (The problem, of course, is that the PB is not satisfied with what God has revealed, so she is searching for loopholes and “omitted cases.”)
19. By ignoring the rest of her statement in your comment, you are being intellectually dishonest. The rest of the statement clearly addresses what we do know and how to share it.
The what about the (fill in the blank) is one of the oldest and most overused objection to Christianity. It in no way invalidates Christianity even if some are uneasy with the gospel. John 21:22 speaks me on this issue. If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you. You follow me!
I agree that God is more than I can ever imagine. Therefore, I am constrained to what He has revealed about Himself and we believe that the authentic record of that revelation is in Holy Scripture and that the fullness of God’s revelation is in Jesus – the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity. Holy Scripture says that no one comes to the Father except through Jesus.
Does this mean that God is silent in other religions? I do not believe so. Other religions contain truth, but where that truth differs from Christianity, Christianity is closer to The Truth than any other religion. Will Muslims and Jews and Buddhists or even athiests be saved? I don’t know. All I do know that none of us can be saved apart from the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Do you know God through Islam? Great! Here is a fuller revelation of God for you! Do you know the Holy through Buddhism? Wonderful! Here is greater holiness given in and through Jesus Christ!
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
21. I think you’ve got the idea, but you haven’t followed it to its logical conclusion in light of the PB’s statement. In John 21:22 Jesus may have implying that John would never die or that Jesus could let John stay on earth until Jesus came again. Jesus is, in effect, saying, “Yes, I might have a plan that has exceptions for some people, but that is of no consequence to you. You are to do what I say.” If you read the PB’s statement again, that’s nearly exactly what she is saying. God can choose to act through other means, and in my opinion we can see evidence of that; nevertheless we have an urgency to share the gospel and baptize people.
[blockquote] Why not concentrate on what we do know, because it has been revealed to us by God? [/blockquote]
#19 Cousin Vinnie – I agree with you but want to put even more of a point on what you bring up.
For clergy, Gospel truths are not just a revelation, they are a [i] trust [/i].
[blockquote] I Corinthians 4:1So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. [/blockquote]
And in I Corinthians 9:16ff, Paul says “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel”, as well as telling how he blends into other traditions in order to “win them” to the Gospel!
Were Schori a lay person, she would be raising religious questions and we could discuss them. But as a leader (especially as a bishop) she is violating a sacred trust.
Baby Blue [url=http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/07/and-dont-forget-to-fold-your-napkin.html#links]hits it[/url]
#24 Timothy Fountain – It must be quite liberating for you to completely ignore what is written by the PB and assume that she is raising religious questions and advocating not preaching the gospel. The principles you bring up are true, but they are inapplicable to the PB’s statement here.
Then again, it is telling that you scrolled through the comments on this page and picked out one that you could agree with, ignoring or failing to address the rest.
#25. MJD_NV: Oh, after reading BabyBlue, I get it. Since what ++KJS said is not exactly what someone else would have said, or perhaps not masculine enough, that automatically makes it wrong. Perhaps she should just read the Bible verbatim very, very loudly and belch a few times instead of giving practical tips about sharing the gospel to a church that so obviously needs it.
#26 – sticks ‘n’ stones. It is telling that you shriek about what I didn’t discuss but ignore what I did.
I read her stuff. It is more of the same “gracious strand” idea – there is a religious nice-ness that is more gracious than the atoning death of Christ on the cross.
A widespread idea but totally inconsistent with Christian leadership.
That has to be the first time I’ve ever heard of belching as a positive mode of argument.
RE: “That has to be the first time I’ve ever heard of belching as a positive mode of argument.”
Now, now, Tom Roberts — that “progressive” argument. ; > )
I’ve been a missionary working in a muslim area of West Africa since 1991. I found this piece by the Presiding Bishop to be really insulting to me. She seems to set up multiple strawmen about most missionaries motives and methods and then tears those down about how we are not to convert people by force. What does she think I do? Go around forcing people to be baptized at gunpoint?
The whole tone of the article reeks of some kind of superior “We now know a better way” attitude. “We are so much more enlightened”
Blech. While there is stuff here I can affirm, the overall tone of it, and its seeming attempt to attack others who hold to a literal view that Jesus meant what He said in claiming to be THE Way and that no man comes to the Father except through Him, basically undermines the rest of her message. Truly sad reading.
#28 Timothy – quite the opposite; I ignored nothing you said. You’ll note that I responded by saying that the principles you’ve brought up are quite true. Clergy are entrusted with all of that. But you’ve mistaken the PB’s statement for a breach of that trust, when she is in fact defending the spreading of faith against those who would claim it improper to do so. She is preaching against the liberals, and you, paradoxically, are criticising her for it.
#31 Karen B: Praise God for what you do in West Africa. But please, please read the statement again and recognize that she is saying the exact opposite from what offended you. She is saying that what we are doing by baptising infants is NOT the same as converting people by force. She is DEFENDING what you are doing. There is no attack language in her statement.
Karen B. (31), I think you’re right to say the PB is setting up strawmen. Because, even among conservative, traditional Christians, the notion of going around and force-baptizing the masses is hardly acceptable; who exactly is she arguing against?
And MarkTXK, I appreciate your encouragement to read her statement as a defense for infant baptism, evangelism, etc. (contra liberal Christianity). I suspect that you are right. But what Timothy and others may be getting at is that as a bishop her job is to proclaim the teaching of the Church; so while it is admirable to set up this kind of conversation–and appropriate for a bishop–it is dangerous for a bishop to do so (especially in the context of sending out missionaries) without, in the end, saying, “Here is what the Church teaches.”
“Well, if God is already at work in other religious traditions, why would we bother to teach, make disciples or baptize?” She asks a good question: Why bother indeed. After reading this nonsence why would I want to be a Christian? And what is this “good news” that she keeps talking about?
#33 Sam Keyes. Agreed–the Bishop’s role should be to uphold the faith everywhere and at all times, especially when sending out missionaries. If ++KJS failed to do so at any point during this 10 day seminar, I would have some criticisms of my own, as well.
The answer given by ++KJS, however, was not intended to be such an all-encompassing doctrinal statement in and of itself. I would venture to say that the missionaries were not sent out solely armed with the above statement by ++KJS. Even a cursory reading of the first part of the document will illustrate that.
It is proper for us to recognize that this was a specific answer to a specific question from a specific person as to how to deal with the *command* from Christ to baptize whenever someone might not want to be baptized or might not *know* they want to be baptized *yet*. Hence the following sentence from ++KJS:
We cannot expect those whom we suspect of taking scripture out of context to respect our viewpoints if we take their statements out of context.
My favorite part is her comment on the Catholic Church changing it’s teaching at Vatican II. I had a Catholic theology class once and the professor said that this is a common misconception. What happens is people read one thing a council says and then stop reading. If you read the totality of Vatican II it does open up dialouge with non Catholics but by no means does it say we are equal to them. This seems to be the more radical liberal thought in the ECUSA though, read up until you see something you like but stop before you see something you don’t like.
I don’t think the quote from Vatican II is ridiculous. It is just unexplained to the extent that heresy-watchers would prefer.
It is ridiculous, but what’s really ridiculous is this person using Catholic texts to bolster her points. Let’s pass over her public ridicule of Catholics and ask whether she has seriously engaged the conciliar texts. Her tag comment (“even though some statements by Roman Catholic authorities in years since have sought to retreat from that position.”) would suggest an answer to that question I think. You have to wonder what she knows about the history of the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS) – Outside of the Church there is no salvation. Did she, in her M.Div program, ever read Unam Sanctum, or perhaps she settled for smirking commentaries on it? Does she know, for example, that before the Council, back in the bad dark days of Catholic Monarchialism, Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for preaching an extreme form of EENS? Does she know what the Catholic Church actually teaches, which is that all who are saved will be saved through the passion and resurrection of the Lord Jesus? Has she seriously engaged Dominus Iesus? Heck, has she read it? Does she understand the Church teaching that all the baptized are related, even if imperfectly and incompletely, to the Catholic Church and therein, from the Catholic POV, have a reasonable hope of salvation? Does she know about this teaching?
Like Karen B, I find a some things in Bp. Schori’s comments to affirm, but it’s so obvious she has no more theological training than any parish priest, and, sadly, lacks the tempering of that training which significant parish experience could have given her. Above all she needs to stay out of Catholic materials, where she is so obviously a fish out of water.
#32, I never claimed +KJS was specifically attacking the work I and others do. On many levels I’m glad she’s actually *trying* to promote missions and evangelism. However. Look at the various things she refutes in her article. Her refutations (always at an abstract level, never responding to something specific she has heard said or seen written) seem to imply that there are people who believe and promote these AWFUL things and they must be corrected!
[blockquote]When we look at some of the lives of holy people who follow other religious traditions, what do we see? Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama both exemplify Christ-like lives. Would we assume that there is no grace present in lives like these? [b]A conclusion of that sort seems to verge on the only unforgivable sin, against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:30-32).[/b][/blockquote]
Who is concluding that? Who is she attacking?
[blockquote]The focus of our evangelical work can never be imposing our own will (despite the wretched examples of forced conversion in the history of Christianity), but there is a real urgency to sharing the good news.[/blockquote]
Who is imposing their will on others? If she didn’t believe this is what most people think of missions and evangelism, she wouldn’t be arguing against it. It suggests she thinks this is many or most people’s experience of evangelism.
[blockquote]The evangelical question has to do with free will. Should we, shall we, impose that on those who do not fully desire it?[/blockquote]
There again is that word impose. She clearly believes some missionaries are imposing their belief on others.
[blockquote]Our evangelical work has more to do with the gracious recognition of God already at work in the world about us than it does with imposing our will on others. When Jesus says “make disciples,” that has a great deal to do with inviting others into relationship with the God we know, particularly as we know God in Christ. I do not believe it has anything to do with forcible or manipulative conversion.[/blockquote]
KJS attacks “imposing our will” yet again! (We’re up to 3 uses of that word in 3 paragraphs). Now she criticizes “forcible or manipulative conversion” Again: why or attack or refute it if she doesn’t believe this is what missionaries do/have done? She spends so much time talking about what she is AGAINST that whatever she is trying to claim to be FOR is getting totally lost in the jargon.
[blockquote]It has more to do with showing and telling, through word (Word) and deed, what it is like to know the gift of that relationship — to demonstrate the unutterable attractiveness of that relationship so that another can not imagine anything more desirable.[/blockquote]
Amen Amen & Hallelujah! If +KJS had focused her reflections about the Great Commission along these lines, I would be a very happy woman and would be praising this article highly. Yet, she follows up those lofty words with this sentence which follows immediately:
[blockquote]I do not believe it has anything to do with instilling or playing on human fear (which is, after all, one of the things we renounce in baptism).[/blockquote]
Who are the unnamed people who do this? Who is arguing for this? Why is she attacking it? If she cited specific examples, like maybe Jonathan Edwards “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” I could understand it. But she never names names or cites details. It’s as if she’s firing a broadside at all evangelical missionaries. It makes no sense to me. But it leaves me feeling targeted by her words. She seems to believe that this is what missions is or has been all about until this new enlightened understanding has dawned to her generation. I know she does not say that explicitly, but it is very much the sense her words convey as I read this. (I’m now on my 4th reading and my conviction of this has only strengthened.)
[blockquote]How might our evangelical work be different if we began with the disciple-making part (the befriending we know in Jesus) rather than counting coup in numbers of baptisms achieved? It is the latter that has given evangelism a bad name through the ages.[/blockquote]
Counting baptisms. Again, she is making a broad accusation. Is she only talking about the distant past, or is she talking about today. “bad name through the ages.” I feel she is trying to blame me for the Crusades. That anyone who has been involved in evangelism as it has been traditionally understood is being attacked by her words.
[blockquote]Our very lives can be baptism, living water, new life born out of death, to those around us, even though they may not yet consciously claim membership in the body of Christ.[/blockquote]
GOD FORBID!!!! There is NOTHING in my life that can save any of my Muslim friends that can bring them from death into life. May I never exalt or glorify myself, but always point people to Christ who alone can save them.
34. Br. Michael: You know and I know that the question “Well, if God is already at work in other religious traditions, why would we bother to teach, make disciples or baptize?†was rhetorical. She was reframing the question by the missionary in order to immediately answer it. She answered it in the next sentence.
Then she explains why it is urgent.
The question posed to ++KJS was not by an unbeliever asking “What must I do to be saved?” or “What is the good news?” It was a question by a missionary as to how to fulfill the directive to baptize in a culture that clings to its religion as much as we cling to ours.
#38 Karen B. – Karen, she is not attacking ANYONE by responding to the question from the missionary. She is saying:
1. You, Mr. Question-Asker, are indeed going to encounter people who are attached to their religion and will not be predisposed to giving it up.
2. You, Mr. Question-Asker, by asking the question in the first place, recognize that it is possible to see God at work through the people who espouse those other religions.
3. You, Mr. Question-Asker, are nonetheless tasked with baptizing people and making them disciples.
4. You will do this by sharing the good news and by being a living example of your own baptism until they DO desire it. In this way, it will not coflict with principles of personal autonomy.
The statements she made about forced conversion were not that anyone out there is currently doing that, but to say that because of the way we are going about missionary work, we are not doing that, and we don’t have to feel like we are.
Karen-
I was considering commenting at length on what you posted, but you pretty much gave a good summary from which we could extrapolate the general issues with Schori’s argument. Trying to figure out her precise problem in argument, I initially thought that Schori was merely “attacking a ‘strawman'”. But your post made me realize that the top level citation also exhibited several cases of “introducing ‘red herrings'” or even “ignoratio elenchi”. These are all logical fallacies which are closely related, but show the multiplicity of the issues which you brought up.
([url]http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm[/url] is a pretty good summary link for these, there is a “percent-sign-20” which this editor persistently deletes between ‘Logical’ and ‘Fallacies’ in the link)
The personal one regret that I have with Schori’s approach is that she failed to address Communion without Baptism, though at points she seemed close to engaging that current controversy.
———-
[i]Tom, fixed the link. Bulletin Board code works. See this post here for details: http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/4209/ [/i]
MarkTXK wrote:
[blockquote]Since what ++KJS said is not exactly what someone else would have said, or perhaps not masculine enough, that automatically makes it wrong. Perhaps she should just read the Bible verbatim very, very loudly and belch a few times instead of giving practical tips about sharing the gospel to a church that so obviously needs it.[/blockquote]
Ah, but you make our case, sir. [i]Belching the Gospel[/i] (which is indeed what we think KJS is inferring by her strawmen) is impolite and not minding one’s manners. One may be politely asked to depart when one starts belching at a tea party, it’s so unseemly, so gauche, so rude. They probably don’t even fold their napkins properly or drop their calling cards in the silver tray. [i]Belching the Gospel[/i] is so appallingly [i]common[/i] for those of us who are denominationally-blessed.
bb
42. BabyBlue – I’m not quite sure if you picked up on the hyperbolic nature of my description of belching after the gospel in order to make it fiery enough.
But in any event, you should at least be aware that Katherine does not have to refute every heresy every time she opens her mouth.
Sometimes she can answer a question about baptism without talking about closed vs. open communion, for example.
Sometimes she can explain to a missionary how to deal with people who are not explicitly ready to convert to Christianity without an in-depth exposition of the minutes of the Vatican II council.
Sometimes when you are talking to a certain person, you can assume that they already know certain things based upon who they are (in this case, a missionary) and the question they have asked you (a context-specific one dealing with the Great Commission).
Honestly, can we seriously say it would have been appropriate to answer the young man’s question by reciting On Heresies? Hardly. The missionary got an honest, open, and biblical answer to his question. One that I dare say most of us around here strive to live by.
Mark, sorry. I disagree.
If she had written what you said, I would have been happy. But she didn’t.
This is the CONSTANT problem so many of us have with her writings.
You can force it into an orthodox mold by rearranging or reinterpreting what she said, and making assumptions that this is what she meant.
But it is not what she explicitly said.
Her article was filled with attacks which seem totally unrelated to the question that was asked. And those attacks are there for a reason.
Her article comes off as an apology, as if she is actually ashamed to be promoting that nasty, primitive, confrontational practice of evangelism, and so has to redefine it in a way that will be acceptable to modern enlightened folks. Sorry. But I’m just not buying it.
Elves- first we’ll learn html, then BB code; what is next, C++ or Church Latin? ;->
Mark, in your #43 you talk about how we should read what +KJS wrote and remember she was speaking to a missionary. Well, yes, originally. But now, in this piece she is not. This is not published in a missions journal. It’s in Episcopal Life. Written for the whole church, presumably. In that context all of her words about forced conversion, imposition of one’s will on another, manipulation strongly suggest she thinks she needs to reeducate that great unwashed masses who don’t have a clue how to do evangelism properly.
Publishing something does not change the context in which it was composed. For example, the intent of Paul when he wrote to the Church at Corinth was not changed when scripture was canonized; nor was it changed at the invention of the printing press, when scripture began to be more widely circulated among the masses. Paul was still talking to the Church at Corinth, with all of its unique characteristics, shortcomings, and beliefs intact. Can we apply the letters of Corinthians to our lives? Absolutely. Must we? Without a doubt. But remember, they were not written TO us. All scripture is profitable, but only if examined correctly–i.e., in context.
But MarkTXK, how can she hope to refute heresy when she speaks heresy nearly every time she opens her mouth? 🙂
I will however, entertain the prospect, for the sake of argument, that this is a directive from the PB as to how each of us should handle the situation.
Undoubtedly, each of us has come into contact with someone of another religion, denomination, or sect that we feel compelled to reach for whatever reason. (I hope that is the case).
What if that person says “I am a practicing Hindu. My mother is a practicing Hindu. I achieve the utmost spirituality through my practice of Hinduism. Nothing you could ever say to me could ever change my mind.” You share the good news with him anyway. His answer stands.
Christ’s words stand, as well. He commands us to baptize and make disciples. Well, confound it if this Hindu does not want to convert. I guess I could give up on him, or maybe I could sneak up behind him and dunk him when he’s taking a bath!
Absurd, right? KJS recognizes that and offers a third way (No it is not a novel way, thank God). That third way is this: We can recognize that God is already at work in that person’s life by giving him a predisposition to seek the divine, and we can live out our baptism in front of him until he DESIRES it.
God may choose to turn him over to a reprobate mind, or may he choose someone else to come along and change his mind.
#49, There is another way, that I am sure Karen B understands on the front lines. In practice, not hypothetical situations, be a Christian, act like a Christian, offer love and support, and pray for his or her soul, maybe in private, but effective just the same. I have found in dealing with Muslims in particular, but also Buddhists, Taoists, and even communists, that love is the best approach. It takes a while, because the concept is too foreign, except for the Buddhists perhaps, but after time they at least accept that you are different and wonder why. That question may bring them closer to God than their Faiths teach. Leave it in the hands of the Lord! He will tell you what to do and help you do it!
I wish I could meet Karen B. to exchange experiences, since my son was a missionary in northern Zimbabwe when he was in medical school and we lived in North Africa and Southeast Asia,
I believe infant Baptism gives a young innocent child the protection of God, the Church, and his or her family against the world, until the child is old enough and protected long enough to be discerning.
I have lived and worked in two muslim countries and understand the force of Islam.
I lived on an island in the Philippines where Catholicism and Evangelism worked tirelessly to overcome the secular threat of communism.
Because of the emphasis on secular-humanism, I do not think many in this country understand the stridency of Islam or the failure of secular-humanism in many other countries. As a Christian in Muslim countries, I can assure the PB that Islam in general must act strongly against “non believers.†A sign of feeling like an arm around a strident muslim’s shoulder might well be met with a knife in your back or words of damnation because you do not follow Islam.
Re: the PB: She is preaching to the choir, so as to speak with just enough Christianity not to offend followers of secular-humanism, but with none of the vibrance and strength of Christianity. What we need to overcome “the flesh and the devil†is bold proclamations of faith as if we were in the jungles of Borneo or in Zimbabwe, where it is received better than in some TEC Church’s. America needs a strong, bold, believer to be the chief pastor and theologian of the TEC/ECUSA flock.
Why are the evangelicals making such inroads into her church? Simply put, they preach a strong Gospel of our Lord while she is almost apologetic for her beliefs. But the evangelicals and secular-humanists don’t have something that us Anglican/ Episcopalians traditionally have believed in since long before we left Rome, i.e. the sacraments–those Holy manifestations of God’s love for His believers.
I pray to Almighty God to lead her into a firm belief in Him with strong words and actions, not woofle sounding apologies for believing in Jesus Christ with all her heart, mind, body, and soul.
Just like her statements around Episcopalians being too educated to produce children, she is also now handing out a morning after pill for evangelism. She can build her little terrarium science fair project, but in the end…TEC is doomed…because it will never be able to grow.
#50 Oldman – I agree wholeheartily with every single word you’ve said. It’s just that when you say…
…I equate that with the PB saying
It is incredulous to me that we could listen to the PB say she is excited about the enthusiasm of the young missionaries going overseas to spread the gospel and then try to interpret her words as attacking the good intentions of missionaries or evangelism.
Oops, I’ve typed so much that I’ve gone and invented a word. I meant to say I agree *wholeheartedly* 🙂 God bless you, Oldman.
As Romans 10:13-17 states, the proclamation of the Gospel is essential for believing in Christ unto salvation – that is that Christ died, was buried, and rose again for our salvation (I Cor. 15:1-4). Since there is no salvation in anyone else (Acts 4:12), Christ is the only mediator between God and Man (I Tim. 2:5,6) and Christ has proclaimed himself to be truth incarnate (John 14:6), we must heed his commision by sharing this vital truth with the world. Remember Christ’s claim to being the only way to heaven was made in the pluralistic world of that day. Further the emphasis in evangelism is sharing the hope of salvation through Christ and allowing the Spirit to do the work of conviction and regeneration.
Phil # 22. Well said, God has chosen to reveal Himself through His Word, written and incarnate. Perhaps that does leave us with an imperfect understanding. I am trustful enough to believe that perfect understanding will be ours in heaven. Till then we work with what we have been given. Remembering that because our understanding is imperfect. Christ sent the Holy Spirit to guide and protect that understanding.
Truth does exist in other faiths. But the truth is there for one reason. So that persons may know the fullness of the Truth of Jesus Christ when it is given to them. As Christians we know Truth is not found in any system or in any man but in Christ, Jesus Lord and Savior. Jesus is the Truth which all truths are measured against. We can indeed be glad that what is good and true is not the exclusive property of the Church, but we must be gladder indeed to bring the good news to all nations. Too many souls are at too great a risk to ever cease the Great Commission.
Mark, perhaps I said too much based on her previous interviews and writings. I apologize! I did not belittle them, and maybe you didn’t include my post when you said something about attacking the good intentions of missionaries. Of all Episcopalians and other Christians, they show the best we have to offer to the world!
That is what worries me about our church today, especially concerning Africa where the new inclusiveness preached here at home is not what they expect in their churches faced with tribalism and Islam. Inclusiveness is too foreign a concept for those who don’t want to be pressured to accept what they have been previously taught is wrong by their Anglican and other Christian churches.
Mark thank you and God Bless you. Karen B, God Bless you for your work in Africa
“Just like her statements around Episcopalians being too educated to produce children, she is also now handing out a morning after pill for evangelism.”
Midwestnorwegian: My thanks to you for this 600-volt zinger!
Somewhere the Episcopal Church has its theology screwed up, if you believe the Bible, Jesus said that no one can come to the Father except through him. He did not say that you could go to the Father through any other religion. The god of the Muslims or the current Jews is not the same God of the Christians, this is why Christians should not have prayer services with any other religion. All people should be baptized.
No, no, I wasn’t accusing you of attacking the missionaries’ intentions. I was saying that none of us ought to say that KJS has bad intentions with this particular statement, i.e., that she wants missionaries or evangelism to fail, whenever she describes herself in the statement as being excited at the missionaries’ enthusiasm for spreading the gospel.
The rest of this is not necessarily directed at you, Oldman. 🙂
Is ++KJS a strong, unequivocating leader? The type Anglicanism needs as this point? Not if I were choosing. Is she correct about everything? No.
But are we to mock her openly, whether on the Internet or in front of our children? No. We are to edify one another, lifting each other up as Christ lifts us up.
Are we to reject immediately anything she has to say because it is framed in language we aren’t accustomed to? No. God has placed her in a position of authority over us, and we are to have respect that position.
What I am about to say may make some uncomfortable because it requires extreme humility on our part, but I feel compelled to say it anyway. I hope it is from the Holy Spirit.
It is precisely because she is not a strong leader that those who are faithful must take every opportunity to seize upon her words and cast them in a light that affirms the gospel. Not for her own sake, not that she may be glorified, but so that God may use her words to win souls.
Imagine if Aaron, disgusted at God’s choice of such an ineffective speaker in Moses, had abandoned Moses, refusing to be associated with him. What if instead of building up Moses, Aaron tore him down in front of the Israelites for being an ineffective servant of God? If we truly believe that we are correct in our interpretation of scripture, then we are Aaron–any failure by Moses rests upon us as well. Let us not forget that.
[i]It is precisely because she is not a strong leader that those who are faithful must take every opportunity to seize upon her words and cast them in a light that affirms the gospel. [/i]
Yet, Mark, can we pretend that she is speaking the Truth of the Gospels when she is not? Can we cast her statements that “Jesus is just one path among many to the divine” as a gospel statement? Or her refusal to affirm that when Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the Life” he meant it just that way and not metaphorically?
As Christians, as Paul and most of the New Testament writers point out, we have an obligation to proclaim the truth and expose falsehood. We cannot fulfill this obligation by covering up heretical statements.
Hey MarkTMark,
Have you commented before over here? I don’t recall seeing you before this particular post. IF so, forgive my question but there are lots of folks here.
That said, how aware are you of the “controversy” over prior KJS statements about the life and work of Christ? Are you aware of the context in which this particular opinion is received by the conservatives?
Peace.
As I read this, I conclude what some of the others have. Her argument that baptism cannot wisely be forced down non-christians throats is sound enough. There have been evangelizers who have more than a touch of the mafia in them: Baptize or kneecaps!
Taken on its face value, this position is without fault.
The trouble arises when it is taken within the context of everything else she has said – probably the wiser course when rendering a judgment – yes, I said judgment – of the significance of her words. We have watched her waffle, temporize, qualify vauguely, and we have heard her say things which strongly suggest that she favors the absence of standards, except of course those that substantiate TEC’s positions.Because of this, her position above simply seems weak rather than wise and patient.
Now, to be sure, I read Christ’s remark about those who come to the Father only doing so through HIm, in a different light than the rest of you do, but at least I can argue something mater ial to the case. Her position seems to be a matter of applyiing inclusivity to salvation; that is, she desires to make TEC’s agenda first and then seeks to make historical reference become congruent with it. This is not an argument; it is wishy-washy-ness, an inability or a fear to make a judgment – yes, judgment – that will hurt anyone’s feelings. My objections then run not so much to actual words, but to motives. Her motives are suspect, and she has given us ample cause to be suspicious. LM
But, don’t oyu see, #61, that “I am the truth…etc” may be taken literally but in a different context than ou are supposing. He may well be speaking, not to all mankind, but to the listers who are before Him, those who are within the sound of his words.
He may mean what he says quite literally, but his judgment may aimed specifically, for as i said elsewhere, he was always acutely aware of his audience, and he was always careful to speak to them in ways they could understand. So, I am within earshot of him, and cannot therefore claim ignorance; I am one of his audience, so he is speaking to me. But if I were in China, what then? Is my soul, my spiritual wellbeing of no consequence to God? So there’s my question to you.
If “I am the Way…etc” is a universal absolute, then my spiritual wellbeing, (as I trudge along there in China), is of no concern to God. Is that not so? (I don’t need a lecture, as I received earlier, however well meaning and kind, I need an argument.) LM
61. libraryjim
No. Those are situations where we need to tell her what we think, pray for her, exercise any forms of discipline which may be available (yes, yes I know…) and loudly proclaim the truth. But we are not to mock her publicly.
But contrast that to the statement issued today. One that may be considered ambiguous to some. We have an obligation to clarify statements such as those. Not to whitewash, but not to mock or cast out as immediately suspect, either.
To not act as such is to deny even the possibility that Christ can work through the woman known as Katherine Jefforts Schori. That I can never accept.
62. Widening Gyre: Nice to meet you! Thanks for asking. I am acutely aware of every single event that has happened since I attended an Episcopal Eucharist and subsequently began reading this website and Stand Firm over a year ago in consideration of becoming an Anglican. I have read every single report, article and argument from a reasserter/reappraiser perspective. I post only now to present my own comments from a mere Christian perspective.
And since you asked about me, I am not a cradle Episcopalian. I am not even an official member of an Episcopal church… yet. I say that only to say that the world watches us tear down one another. I know that because I am part of that world. I’m sort of a religious runt–baptized but never confirmed–growing up going to Catholic mass and Methodist revivals simultaneously.
There is a wonderful ACN parish in the Diocese of Dallas in the town where I am relocating (bet you can guess what town that is by my nickname). I do have plans on being confirmed as an Anglican in the near future, God willing. So I feel a personal connection to everything that is happening here, and I have a strong desire for unity, orthodoxy and orthopraxis in the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion and the church universal.
Perhaps a misspelling? Ponders should have been panders? As in panders to universalism while denying evangelism: GO, MAKE DISCIPLES (OF ME, JESUS), then BAPTIZE; TEACHING THE discipled TO OBSERVE (actually do) WHAT I, JESUS COMMANDED YOU.
PB KJS certainly seems to be pandering a politically correct assessment of what she thinks evangelism is. And it’s pretty clear it isn’t biblical. It’s also pretty clear her view of scripture is so 20th century. Should we take a collection to get her a copy of JESUS AND THE EYEWITNESSES so she can brush off the dust from her old seminary tomes and get into the 21st Century?
#64 Larry
Your last paragraph seems to confuse location based relevance with objective truth. The basis of the Gospel argument, or for that matter the thrust of both Testaments, is that there is a universal, objective Truth. For both Jews and Christians, that is summarized in:
“Hear O Israel! The Lord thy God is One!”
He’s a unity for you or me, wherever we might stand. Therefore, China doesn’t have much to do with matters.
Now, John’s gospel, with it’s 7 “I am…” assertions, describes how this unity is exercised through the person of the Christ. In these statements he does not caveat his assertions locationally or for only certain groups. In other places he certainly says to certain individuals that they, personally, will do certain things (e.g. telling Judas to do what he has to do in betraying Jesus to the Sanhedrin), but such specific assertions or prophesies are carefully qualified (i.e. Judas’s example is not expected to be universally followed by the rest of the disciples). So I don’t understand why you can state that acceptance of an objectively true deistic definition leads to the conclusion that God doesn’t care about your spiritual state, here, there, or anywhere at all. As the Psalmist says, He’s known you all of your days, since you were first conceived. Perhaps the question to answer would be whether any of us actually care about [i]Him.[/i]
Tom,
Larry was being sarcastic. At least, that’s how I read it. 😉
Mark,
I believe that people have brought these things to her attention, or at least she can’t be so blind as to not see how these quotes are being received by the public. Even when asked by interviewers to clarify, she just gives more of the same wishy-washy non-Christian answers. So we bring them here, before the Church in public:
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed{f} in heaven.
{f}Matthew 18:18 Or shall have been bound … shall have been loosed
Aye, accountability, process and discipline (Who holds the keys, again?) are important and are a must. Maybe in another 2000 years we will finally figure that out.
But hanging someone on a flagpole for people to spit on, painting a scarlet A on someone’s flesh, and yes, even engaging in public mockery and satire about tea parties and napkins is abhorrent to the concept of Christian charity and concern for another’s soul. Someone once said “Let he who is without fault…”
After much activity on our parts to correct her and those like her, we might have to eventually turn the prospect for the salvation of the Presiding Bishop’s soul and correction of her errors up to God. We may have to distance ourselves from her. But we are responsible for jeering about it, and I guarantee God takes it seriously.
After all, he loved Katherine enough to die for her. Perhaps, just maybe, we could die to our need for sarcasm, disdain and public scorn for those who harm us. And maybe, as my original posts suggest, we can thank God and agree with them whenever they do make valid points.
Mark-
Keep in mind that Christ didn’t die for Schori’s official position. The vast majority of the critique of the current and last PB is that their leadership didn’t meet the test of Titus 1:9. In short, they show[ed] little aptitude to oversee the church, defend the faith as delivered throughout history, and preach the Gospel in its entirety. Both Griswold and Schori pick and choose what they will follow, and this role of theirs as episcopal leaders is what is being critiqued, not jeered. I openly stated that I believed Griswold was apostate in his preaching of pluriform truths, as if right and wrong could be variant depending on who was considering the issue. But either of these cleric’s individual salvations are a matter between God and them alone. Within the Church, we are just called to pick up the mess that both of them seemed quite happy to create. But doing so does not mean that we have to call that “sow’s ear” a “silk purse”.
I agree with you over their failures. But I am also thankful that I have had people in my life who have picked me up after falling instead of kicked me while down. I do not agree that many people here are not jeering.
I also strongly disagree that the clerics’ salvation(s) are between God and them alone. God saves his Church, for we are his bride. To believe we play no part in their salvation is to err. The faith of parents and commitment to raising their children in a Christian manner is the justification for baptising our infants before they are old enough to have faith of their own.
As we say on Sundays, we live in a communion of saints. We can be channels of God’s grace to one another through acts of mercy. All I’m saying is that we should act like it; take a bit of responsibility.
Mark,
Schori, Spong and the others will not ALLOW us to pick them up and correct them in their false teaching. Instead they sue and inhibit and try to silence those who do so. They have blinded their eyes, deafened their ears and heardened their hearts to the Truth and to those who present it to them. And they are taking a once respected, once Chrisitan denomination down the road of apostacy and arrogance. That is the saddest part of all.
Mark-Griswold retired at the top of his profession, with a healthy pension and general support from the organization he led. Schori is going along the same route, after a somewhat meteoric rise from virtually nowhere in a second career. These people are not “down” as you imply. They are leaders whose personal styles include the ability to provoke considerable dissension within their pseudo democratically organized province of the Communion. Within that context, they should be criticized just as Paul was criticized or Barnabus was criticized within the early church (see Acts).
In this critical process, we should not turn a blind eye towards their roles as persons, but we must be considerably clearer than your #70 and #72 were, in that:
“we might have to eventually turn the prospect for the salvation of the Presiding Bishop’s soul and correction of her errors up to God.”
directly contradicts
” also strongly disagree that the clerics’ salvation(s) are between God and them alone. ”
How I treat another Christian reflects on me more than it does on them. But how God sees and saves another Christian is something that is much less clear to me. That is why I agreed with your #70 in saying that Salvation is not a collective matter.
Furthermore, how can God save his collective Church when it already is the Bride or Body of Christ? What is at issue is whether ecusa is in whole or in part a portion of that Church, or no.
No contradiction intended. Statement 1 referred to the possibility that their hearts may become hardened beyond the chance for anyone of us to be instrumental in the Holy Spirit’s conviction of their hearts and God may choose another way, or none at all. Much like libraryjim is saying has already happened.
Statement 2 referred to the fact that until that happens, we are all instruments of one another’s salvation, and should act as such.
Now I’m not sure if we can ever say that the situation described in statement 1 can ever be judged by us. We do not know mens’ hearts. We can judge their actions, but I don’t know if I would go about saying anyone is beyond our reach.
By the way, Mark, I do agree that we should not “mock” her or those following a false path. However, I have been posting here for quite a while, and have not seen much (some, but not much) mocking in the posts. Instead there is a great concern for those she is leading astray.
Let us return to the days of yesteryear, namely mine #64, and then 67 and 68.
68, no I was not being sarcastic – though I am not sure what you are specifically referring to. As far as I know, I have never been sarcastic.
#67: Tom, what you said about universal truth, I do not disagree with. I was probably unclear. Not, I believe, the first time this has happened./
My point was this, that Christ’s statement that one approaches the Father through him was not a universal in the sense that you mean it. If Christ’s remark is a universal, then it means that all men who know nothing of Christ because of time or physical separation have no means of approaching God, in the sense that Christ means it. Hence, if I am in China, then salvation in any sense is closed to me, and this is my tough bananas (This is a biblical expression, Paul’s letter to the Slangoracians, 3, 10-11)
I am therefore suggesting that this remark is aimed locally, at His particular audience for He commonly spoke to them in this fashion. Where He spoke universally – e.g., the Beatitudes – He made it clear what he was up to. When He spoke hard, complex truths, He spoke only to a selected audience,e.g., the apostles at the Last Supper. And I argued furthermore, that He Himself was utterly local. If we put our GPS (Paul to the Technicians, 3,4) on, say, Bethlehem and set a radius of 50 miles, he lived his entire life inside that little circumference. That’s local. Even Confucius traveled farther than that. Finally, He showed very little awareness of or interest in the world outside His world. He sent the apostles out into the world, but that’s about it.
So if His proposition is as universal s you say, all of mankind is condemned simply because He is outside, or after, or before, any possible awareness of Him. Is this God’s intention? If I am in China, am I toast? Tough bananas to me?
The standard Original Sin argument doesn’t hold water – that Adam and Eve have cursed mankind to damnation automatically and irrevocably until God’s grace saves them – – because Genesis never utters a word suggesting any such thing. Th version of OS is made ou of whole cloth, and shoddy stuff it is, too.
Hence my question: Do you really mean that Christ’s proposition leaves all who can not possibly know anything about him at the gates of Hell, or Newark, N.J, whichever is worse? Larry
Larry-
Especially in John, but throughout the NT, Christ’s role as a universal messiah is described functionally. When he says “I am the Way” he means that for everyone. So taking your question in that light, I would answer that just because someone in isolation never heard of Christ explicitly, they would functionally know of the issues involved in right and wrong and the two great commandments. They choose just as you and I choose. Their position is not so much different than the unchurched in Newark NJ either, for what is at issue is not whether God extends his Grace to us, but rather whether we repent of our sins and accept the demands that His Grace makes on us.
To be really clear here, I am not talking of Christ in a semantic sense. One might not know Christ by name, but know Him in their hearts. Baptism by desire, as the RCs formally put matters. Christ functionally touches all men’s lives. Our preaching cannot do anything more than witness to that reality. It can only show to those who misapprehend this functional relationship what reality actually is. But Christ, and God in the Trinitarian sense, is an invariant unity of Truth, just as John 1 explicitly states matters to be.
Your choice of idiom is strange. You say you are never sarcastic, but yet you yield to that mode of discourse. Perhaps you succumb to the temptations of the Cretan prophets in Titus 1:12, who boasted that the only true thing they said was that they always lie? But here I take your question seriously, for it is serious indeed.
Did that spring forth as you were typing or did you think about that a while? Because that is really, really good. Like one of those things where you read it, and say, man, that is from the Holy Spirit.
But doesn’t it sound a bit like what KJS was trying to say? 🙂
Please don’t shoot me.
Pax
Oh, and I just had this thought. Maybe it would help if each “side” of the universality issue of Christ’s statement in John could recognize the difference between Christ saying,
“No man comes to the Father but by Me”
and Christ saying,
“No man comes to the Father but by Me and by knowing he can only come to the Father but by Me.”
Maybe then the conversation could build upon that. I’m not meaning this comment to take a side, but as an attempt to frame the issue for further discussion. Not that taking any side changes Christ’s command to fulfill the Great Commission anyway. 🙂
Indeed, Mark, I do agree with much of Schori wrote and said so above.
The problem with a pot with a hole in it is not with what is there, but rather in what is not. Also, given a hole, it makes no sense to add water to the pot which will never serve to fix the hole.
#78. As to my never being sarcastic, I was being sarcastic. Larry
#78. You have given me real substance to think upon. I shall print out what you have written and then respond after I have absorbed what you have said. Larry
Larry- nobody could ask for more.
Ok, this is not the first time this week that I’ve seen the RC doctrine of “Baptism of Desire” misused in this way. It is not a substitute for Baptism, it is the applying of the effects of Baptism to those who convert and desire to join the Catholic church yet are unable to be Baptized:
From the [url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm]Catholic Encyclopedia[/url]:
[blockquote]Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.
This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof [i](in voto)[/i]. In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered [i]votum[/i] by “desire” for want of a better word. The council does not mean by [i]votum[/i] a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by [i]votum[/i] an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism. [/blockquote]
from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_desire]Wikipedia[/url]:
[blockquote]Baptism of desire (Latin Baptismus Flaminis) is a Roman Catholic teaching explaining that those who desire baptism, but are not baptized with water through the Christian ritual, because of death, nevertheless bring about the fruits of Baptism, if their grace of conversion included an internal act of perfect love and contrition which automatically cleanses the soul of all sin. Hence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church observes, “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament”(CCC 1259).
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that “baptism is necessary for salvation.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, ss. 1257) [1]. It moreover teaches that baptism confers the forgiveness of sins by virtue of the enactment of the sacrament itself: “(b)y Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.” (ss. 1263). For Roman Catholics, baptism is a unique, unrepeatable act; no one who has been baptized validly can receive the full pardon conferred by the sacrament a second time. (ss. 1272) Given these doctrines, it is a matter of serious concern for the Roman Catholic Church if a believing Christian does not receive a valid baptism.
[/blockquote]
So for Baptism of Desire to be invoked:
one must repent of their sins;
one has to have converted to Christianity, and announced an intention to join the Roman Catholic Church;
One has to have made an “act of charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation”;
one has to have announced their intention to BE baptized;
and finally, one has to have DIED before being baptized
It is NOT “those in another religion who lead good lives are considered ‘saved’.” (or as you put it: [i]”One might not know Christ by name, but know Him in their hearts” [/i].
No, the above conditions [i]have[/i] to have been met for there to be “Baptism of Desire” in the Roman Catholic teaching tradition.
libraryjim-
I reject your conclusion in 86, on the basis that my rather simple assertion can be interpreted to mean expansively that all the requirements you cited in 85 and 86 have been met. As Christ might note, a fellow Christian would recognise his brother by his fruits. You might formally reject that interpretation, but that is your opinion and not mine.
Further, note that I used the concept of “baptism by desire” in a simile (e.g. the use of “as” does not logically require an exact equation, but rather expresses a similar or analogous situation, and I certainly am no “formal RC”). So your precision in the matter of dogma is appreciated, but your characterization of my post as “misuse” portrays it as something precise when it in fact was a mere two paragraph summary on a concept which was only saliently concerned with dogma, dogma moreover of a sectarian nature not literally subscribed to by Anglicans of any sort.
Tom, you made reference to the Roman Catholic teaching of “Baptism of Desire”:
[i]To be really clear here, I am not talking of Christ in a semantic sense. One might not know Christ by name, but know Him in their hearts. Baptism by desire, as the RCs formally put matters.[/i]
I was merely correcting your use of the doctrine to include ‘universalism’, which it does not. Baptism By Desire, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches it, is a doctrine reserved for those who have converted to Christianity, expressed their intention to join the Catholic Church but died before being baptized into the Roman Catholic Church. period. There is no sense in the teaching that “those who do not know Christ by name” are included in this teaching.
In abeyance my understanding of what Tom wrote earlier – #88 forces the point: Is it the case that “those who do not know Christ by name” are irrevocably excluded from salvation? If it is the case, then the vast majority of mankind is, to put it kindly, roadkill, and always has been. For me, this is a matter of the utmost importance, and I therefore hope this discussion will continue. Larry
Karen,
I liked your commentary in 38. There is much to be commended in the PB’s address (such as the section to which you responded, “Amen, Hallelujah”). She ruined it with her introductory comments based on the notion of staying away from counting scalps for baptism. It’s hard for me to imagine that she was simply talking to the Appointed Missionaries, right?
But one thing that I found really shaking my head about was her use of the word “evangelical.” Now that she has an assistant who presumably will be filtering her addresses theologically, this was quite the gaff. There is quite the difference between the term “evangelistic” and the term “evangelical”, especially in the context of her sentences. I’m sure anyone self-identifying as an evangelical wants to be considered to be evangelistically minded. But I know quite a few Anglo-Catholics who would rankle at being considered as evangelical, but are primo evangelists, and are, indeed, evangelistically minded.
What is the problem here? It goes back to one of the original criticisms of her being considered as PB, her lack of time as lay and ordained member of this Church, and the lack of broadening of whole-Church perspective by not matriculating from TESM or even SouthWest or Virginia.
Given the immediate resources she has as PB in proofing and speech writing review, well, it is just baffling.
RGEaton