She spoke to The Dispatch after receiving an honorary doctorate in divinity from Bexley Hall Seminary, which shares a campus with Trinity Lutheran Seminary.
Jefferts Schori spoke of her grief about the Pittsburgh Diocese’s decision to leave because of disagreements with the church over biblical teachings about homosexuality and salvation.
“That’s just profoundly sad,” she said. “Arguing about fine details of theology isn’t the main reason for our existence.” The focus instead should be on service and evangelism, she said.
The 2.2 million-member Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The relationship between the two has been threatened since 2003, when an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, was elected in New Hampshire.
“Arguing about fine details of theology isn’t the main reason for our existence.” “Fine details”? I can’t believe that she honestly thinks these issues are just “fine details of theology.” Hopeless!
“fine details of theology . . .”
lol — fine details that she and her cronies are [i]willing for the church to divide over[/i].
What I find interesting is that she had minimized any problems – “really a tiny, noisy minority”, “less than 1% of churches”, etc. Now, apparently it was a [b]crisis[/b]! But the good news is that we got through it. Right?
#1…. yep, that was what struck me too. The PB’s public denial of the Atonement, of the sola Christus, of life after death — these are trivial details. Her endorsement of Jack Spong — that’s a trivial detail. The General Convention’s rejection of resolutions reaffirming basic creedal faith (and which were free of reference to human sexuality) — that’s a trivial detail. The subject of Christian marriage — that’s a trivial detail. Our relationship to the broader Anglican church — and whether we might have a responsibility to respect their wishes when they all beg us not to do a thing — another trivial detail.
All those things are like medieval Schoolmen hotly debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. So silly, so trivial.
Llittle things like Incarnation and Atonement.
Was that her doctoral dissertation?
KJS’s reassurrance that the crisis is almost over reminded me of TEC’s misinterpretation of the family systems’ use of the analogy of breaking thru the sound barrier. As the plane reaches the sound barrier it begins to shake uncontrollably and the typical human reaction is to pull back, but in order to break thru to the stability of the other side it is necessary to keep the petal to the metal. So, KJS is telling the faithful not to grow faint as things seem to be falling apart because there’s peace on the other side of the sound barrier and she intends to keep the petal to the metal.
Reasserters who think that they might reach some kind of accomodation with KJS within TEC don’t understand the woman. The only thing that can stop KJS is a series of property case loses in the various courts.
Ummmm… quick note regarding Journalism 101. The article states:
Did I get something wrong? Didn’t KJS become a bishop in 2001?
I loved this especially:
Our job is not to be vindictive. We’re just going to sue every last one of you: parishes, priests, vestrymen and seize everything you’ve spent the last few decades building up. In KJS-speak that’s being welcoming and keeping the porch light on.
TEC’s unstated, unintended, but sure goal:
Vomit growing in the throat of Christ.
Mmm . . .
“Fine points of theology,” apparently includes the answer to the question, “Who do you say that I am?”
Apparently, whether the answer is “the only begotten Son of God,” or just another “spirit person” (Marcus Borg), is a mere fine point of theology.
#6 I believe it was on squid. An marine a ten armed cephalopod. Engulfs its prey with its arms and drags it to its beak to devour them while still alive. When threatened by a larger carnivor it shots a ink to cover its retreat. I believe she has adopted several of the squids techniques in her approach to the office of presiding bishop (heretic).
Jon (#8),
The reporter erred. ++KJS was elected PRESIDING Bishop in 2006, there in Columbus.
As for other posts above,
I too had to laugh at some of the absurd statements made by the PB here. “Fine details” indeed. I suspect that for her, as is sadly true of many liberal TEC clergy I know, ALL matters of theology are secondary to “social justice” concerns. Theology is always trumped by politics.
And how do we know what true justice involves? Well, surely not, according to her, by an outdated book from ancient times that’s marred by all sorts of antiquated support for social oppression. No, we know what real justice is by following the leading of the Zeitgeist (i.e., “the spirit of the times,” which she appears to equate with the Heilege Geist or Holy Spirit).
This woman is totally deceived. It’s sad. It’s outrageous. But it’s also probably a blessing in disguise that she’s so very open about it. She’s remarkably straightforward and shameless in promoting the supposed “New Thing” that God is doing in our day. It’s all so out in the open. It makes it so blatantly obvious to anyone with the spiritual eyes to see it that “the Emperor has no clothes.”
But just think. We’ve been reminded that she was elected only two years ago in Columbus. Her term as PB lasts for nine, count them, 9 long years. Two down, seven more to go.
Now isn’t that a comforting thought??
David Handy+
Schori’s theology is internally consistent. Problem is that the assumptions on which her theology/world view are based are flawed. She comes from the perspective, “I’m OK, you’re OK, and Christianity is about God’s affirmation of our OK-ness.” Thus, it makes sense that she affirms same sex marriage, doesn’t “Box in” God, etc. The truth is, “I’m wretched, you’re wretched, and Jesus had to pay a very heavy price at Calvary to buy our salvation.” This difference in assumptions is where we should be engaging her, and should be the focus of our discussions with MSM. Some of this was touched upon in last week’s AP report, but certainly needs to be expanded.
Yep, I agree 100%, Physician! By the way, how are you using the abbreviation MSM? What does that mean?
I agree with you about Schori’s theology — such as it is. Here’s a question though. I can see why SHE can hold this theology and still go to church — because it’s a lifelong gravy train. I mean this particular “theology” has been great for her career. It’s taken her swiftly from postulant to priest to bishop to PB — all in a space of a very few years. So of course there’s a big payoff for her.
But what I don’t understand is what vision she and her allies have for what their new church will be — in short, in her imagined church of 20 years from now, why will people still come to church? I am assuming for a moment that she’s not a complete Tartuffe: solely interested in her own advancement without believing anything she says. Let’s assume for a moment that she actually believes this stuff. Has she spent time reflecting on why a person who isn’t being paid to wear purple clothes and funny hats would still want to come? Since the only “details” that matter are giving money for the MDGs — everything else is silly and trivial — why ultimately won’t people just send in a check to their favorite charity, join a march or two as time permits, sleep in on Sundays and wake up with coffee and the editorials of the New York Times? The old old reasons — the need to confess one’s utter wretchedness, to hear the word of Grace and Forgiveness in a sermon, to receive tangible experience of the same in the Holy Sacraments — her new order will have swept all those silly details away. When all she has left to give them is the Sunday Times, why won’t they just have that delivered and read it over coffee at 11 am?
The reason Schori cannot see the contradictions in herent in her remarks is, tht as far as she is concerned, there are no contrdictions. She is, as IU said earlier, a liberal fundamentalist, and her fundamentalism is rooted in the scripture of contemporary liberal fashion. she has read this text, she is absolutely certain it is True, and that therefore the positions she takes are in the name of Truth. The contradictions arise from those who disagree with her, those who do not have the Truth. for her, therefore, the issue is simple. She truly does believe that the dissent in TEC is tiny, she is truly saddened by it, she really does believe that when these dissenters see the Truth, they will return to TEC. The Truth is One, and she has a firm grasp on it. Because she is without imagination, she is unable to adumbrate any view other than her own. According, #14, nothing will engage her because she has no reason to engage with thoseoutside the Truth. I assure you, and all the evidence bears this out, NOTHING you can do or say will touch her. Shne is a liberal literalist and her position is, if I may use the word, impregnable.
Larry
Jon (#15),
“MSM” stands for “Main-Stream Media”, usually in regards to their “left-leaning” editorial stance that manages to influence the way they cover every news story of a religious or political slant.
It is very hard for conservative political or religious persons or events to get a fair-shake in the “MSM”.
Peace
Jim E. <><