Jefferts Schori fielded questions from about 350 people who stayed after the service to discuss their church’s future. While some have come to terms with the growing role of gay men and lesbians in the diocese, a few said their fellow parishioners wonder whether the presiding bishop sees Jesus Christ as the sole way to salvation.
Jefferts Schori replied that like most Christians, she believes Jesus died for “the whole world.” But his life and resurrection did not sever the promise God made to Jews and to Muslims, she added, and those groups still have access to salvation.
“I see evidence of holiness in people who are not Christians. I have to assume in some way God is present and important in those people who may not consciously know Jesus. And it’s really God’s problem to figure out how to deal with that,” she said, to surprised laughter and applause. “My problem is to be the best Christian I can be and to share what I know of the power of Jesus in my own life.”
Threads on the Presiding Bishop recently have had occasional veering off into overly personal remarks about the Presiding Bishop herself which have been disrepectful of her office. Please note this caution at the outset of this discussion which at the moment I am choosing to leave open.
[blockquote] Jefferts Schori replied that like most Christians, she believes Jesus died for “the whole world.” But his life and resurrection did not sever the promise God made to Jews and to Muslims, she added, and those groups still have access to salvation. [/blockquote]
So why be Christian? Why for that matter even be Jew or Muslim. In fact if all are save, regardles, why even be good? And why care about justice, because this effectively guts it. What ever this is (Unitarian?) it’s not Christianity.
The Great Commission is clear. The problem with the approach advocated by the Presiding Bishop is that she is systematically denying the opportunity to hear the Gospel to folk who do not happen top be bron into Christian homes. She is right though that God is in control, and He will find others to present the Gospel to the lost.
Br. Michael; I disagree with the Presiding Bishop as much as you do; I also disagree with your response; We are Christians because we were chosen to be. It is not because we went shopping at Walmart and decided Christianity was a better buy than Judaism.
The view of election is what is lacking in the Presiding Bishops response. It is lacking because she does not see the need to be saved; her anthropology is high, and her Christology is correspondingly low.
[blockquote]”It’s exceedingly tragic to have people depart our church, but we bless them on their journey and wish them all the best,” Jefferts Schori said.[/blockquote]
Does the blessing come before or after the lawsuit?
The whole “it’s really God’s problem” statement reminds me of some of the vague statements sometimes used by the reappraiser wing of the Episcopal Church, ostensibly to lure people into the fold, about being a place to discuss questions but not having any answers.
[blockquote]We are Christians because we were chosen to be. It is not because we went shopping at Walmart and decided Christianity was a better buy than Judaism.[/blockquote]
Actually most of us are Christians because we were brought up that way.
But to say that we are Christians because we are elected simply kicks the can down the road for me. Are those not chosen also not saved? But if they are saved regardless what is the big deal about being Christian whether one choses it or is chosen?
Personaly my working theology is that there are two things going on at the same time with which better and smarter theologians than me have wrestled with and gone round and round with. Luther-Erasmus, Calvin etc. Briefly, God extends salvation, through Jesus, as an act of his sovereign will. We don’t and never can earn it. It is an act of pure grace. But we must respond. A human response on our part is required. We can reject the gift. Thus while salvation in Christ is available to all, not all will respond to it and they will chose to remain in their sins.
Scripture, to me, is clear on this. The story of Exodus is one example. God’s saves Israel from Egypt through no merit of their own, yet they rebel and many reject God’s salvation, and God lets them! Not all enter the promise. Now we can dance around the head of the theological pin all day, but at the end of the day the story shows that God saves by sovereign grace and yet He allows human acceptance or non-acceptance to play a part.
So in this way it is a little like Wal-mart.
“All of us know non-Christians whose outward conduct appears to be closer to the demands of Scripture than that of some Christians. But without the inward commitment of the heart [this is a heart transformed by faith in Jesus], such obedience is, in biblical terms, no obedience at all.” Douglas Moo Romans NIV Commentary
I never may be able to face anyone here again, but Shori has to be right on this matter. We do NOT know how God plans to bring non-christians to Jesus and we should not pretend we do. CS Lewis himself agreed and said so explicitly. It is a massive piece of arrogance to suppose God is obliged to tell us EVERYTHING he is planning for mankind. For some reason, I suppose God has ways and means at His disposal I don’t actually know about. Mercy, sakes alive. Maybe it has something to do with God being outside time, outside cause and effect, so that, for Him, none of these limitations mean anything.
But why be a Christian at all? Because no one can come to Christ if Christ was not, and those of us who do know Christ, have laid upon us a responsibility that comes with such knowing and a specific opportunity that has not been granted to others. I can find my way home from the wilderness without a compass – I have done so often enough, but I tell you, it is scary -, but nevertheless I still say, give me a compass every time, and in the meantime, I shall lecture of the benefits of compass-owning.
Having said that, I also must say the Schori is here right for the wrong reasons, as is her custom. She would like to show that the Bible is not The Compass, only one more vague directive to follow for those who chose. Indeed, since men wrote the Bible and can rewrite the Bible, she ALSO does not think highly of the compass she has – called, for those who remember the story, a Tates compass.
Larry
“Presiding Bishop says exodus ‘tragic’”
Yes, some of the property got away.
Larry,
For what it’s worth, I don’t often agree with you wholeheartedly, but on this occasion I do.
Jeremy
Larry morse:
why yes.
“He (she) who has a Tates, is lost.â€
What was the promise made to Muslims that compares with Christianity? Also it is not about being as good as you can be because we are sinners.
Off-topic, this just in: “Sacha Baron Cohen crashes LA rally as Bruno”
“But his life and resurrection did not sever the promise God made to Jews and to Muslims, she added, and those groups still have access to salvation.” [But, isn’t repentance a necessary? She never seems to get around to that part.]
“I see evidence of holiness in people who are not Christians.
[I wonder what she means by “evidence of holiness.” Does she mean kindness, decency, thoughtfulness…?]
The doctrine of the incarnation in particular is something that Muslims and Jews will not swallow. The ideas that God made himself into a man, that he became born of a woman in the usual and messy way, that in his great love he humbled himself and became a helpless infant in order to redeem us, these ideas are at best distasteful to Jews and Muslims and at worst they are blasphemous to them. God may have a plan for bringing any, most, or all non-believers to Christian faith– we can’t know his plans. But the incarnation as a fact is something that separates believing Christians from Jews and Muslims, and the incarnation as a fact is the means God uses to save those he has chosen to save.
The incarnation is also grace– it is a gift, not something that mankind or any one of us earned or ever could earn. Jews and Muslims teach salvation by works. Salvation by grace and salvation by works are mutually exclusive. Muslims and Jews may be saved by God at some point, but as a free gift from God and not because their beliefs are equally valid with Christian belief.
One wonders whether our PB believes in the doctrine of the incarnation, or indeed if she even understands its implications. Let us hold her up in prayer as we approach Advent and the feast of Christmas, the time that Christians set apart to celebrate the incarnation.
So now TEC is reduced to Motel 6 Christianity, “we’ll leave the light on for you.” For a national church leader, the lack of theological depth and vigor this woman shows is breathtaking. I can only believe that God has let TEC have the leader they deserve instead of the one they need.
Article XVII
Of Predestination and Election
Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour.
Question for Brother Michael; why is it ok for you to decide for yourself that Article 17 is not the teaching of the Church; but it is not ok for the Presiding Bishop to decide the issue in a way that makes sense for her?
Semi-Pelagianism is the banana peel on the way to universalism.
The “loss” of a muscular and vibrant Christianity in TEC is the inevitable result of the suppression of muscular and vibrant Christianity by TEC and its hierarchy and “scholars”.
17, have it your way. But the 39 articles are not scripture. But if human response to God is not required then you are ripping a whole lot of scripture out of the book.
And I might all that Adam was right when he said: Genesis 3:12 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Adam accuses God of orchestrating the fall. Apparently he was right.
The Bible says “choose.” Yes, we are already chosen by God but we have to choose: to repent, to love others, to ask Jesus into our hearts, to try to walk the way of Christ. The picture of Christ standing at the door ready to come in doesn’t have a door knob on His side. It is only on our side.
If He wants to ask others into His kingdom another way, that’s His business, not ours. We are to love everyone as He loves us.
[blockquote] “It’s exceedingly tragic to have people depart our church …†[/blockquote]
Just a matter of semantics: what is “our church� Does she mean [i][b] the Church[/b][/i]? I would bet that most of the [b] saints [/b] of the universal Church would disagree with her label. Does she mean [i][b] our denomination[/b][/i]? That depends on whether she means Anglican or not. The majority of the Pittsburgh Diocese did not leave either group. What she really means is they left [i][b] our organization[/b][/i]. Of course in order to remain in communion with the first two groups, realignment has been necessary.
Muslims deny the divinity of Christ, His virgin birth, His death and resurrection. What’s more, there was no such thing as a “muslim” when Christ walked the earth, so there was no way to “sever” God’s ties to them. Either Islam is true, or Christianity is true. You cannot have it both ways.
Larry’s #8 is correct. At a minimum Romans (esp. 11:25-26) makes it clear that God’s plan includes salvation of Israel/the Jews. Equally clearly, none of us knows the full scope and impact of God’s plan of salvation. But there is no ambiguity as to Christ’s centrality to the plan, however the details work out.
As not to risk getting put in [i]Time Out[/i] by the Elves, I am simply subscribing and shaking my head in yet more disbelief of her words!
That the Blood shed on the Cross is efficacious for the forgiveness of some sinners’ sins but not requisite for all…what is that but a trampling on the Blood by this woman who simulaneously pleads Christ and also calls him unnecessary for others. Truly amazing!
Episcopalians, this is your “primate” and the coming face of your new religion. Does that concern you?
So many folks here seem to be agreeing with Jefferts-Schori. What happened to Acts 4:12: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” ??
A vibrant and muscular Christology goes glove in hand with a muscular and vibrant ecclesiology.
First, I want to know what promises God made to the Muslims that are recognized as coming from God by the Church. I am not aware of any promises to Muslims that are part of Holy Scriptures. There are many promises to the Jews, but not to Muslims.
Does this mean that I believe Muslims are damned? Not necessarily. I believe that anyone who is honestly searching for the Truth will find the object of that search in Jesus Christ and will be given one last chance to repent when faced with Jesus as he Judges the world.
The whole of this, however, turns on what is “honest searching.” Salvation is God’s job, not mine. I know and trust (=faith) what God has revealed in Holy Scriptures and I place my hope of salvation in Jesus Christ.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
oops! hand in glove
Do the Unitarian Universalists have a P.B.?
#31 Yes
Jimmy, if it helps we may be arguing salvation vs. santification. God saves and we respond which is expressed by our obedience. That is our sanctification. And that sanctification requires the active participation by the Holy Spirit.
Ditto’s to Jeffersonian. So Mrs. Schori believes that Christ came to save “the whole world” then what? God did not think Christ did the job so he sent Mohammed?
I have two questions for the Presiding bishop.
1. What is the exact evidence on which you decide one is exhibiting “holiness”?
2. What promise has God given to the Muslims that He has not extended to the whole world and do not those promises have a condition attached?
We were taken aback at the silliness of the islamopalian priestess. Thank the Lord for the orthodoxy of +Geralyn Wolfe. But in Ms Schori’s church islamopalian is apparently just dandy.
The lawsuits look bad, and it will get worse. I think that 815 is realizing this and the reconciliation talk and the “we’ll leave the lights on” business is an acknowledgement of this bad PR really is.
Larry, I must agree with you that God can save someone outside of Christianity. But the agent of that salvation can only and always be Jesus Christ alone. C. S. Lewis makes the point well, I take it you refer to The Last Battle. Romans chapter 2 makes it even better, and I imagine Lewis had that in mind when he wrote.
Both are true – that the power and first action in salvation come from God, and that salvation does not become effective for an individual until he responds to God’s action, such response also being the gracious and merciful action of the Saviour in us. “God is always previous.”
#11 Har, har, har!!!
Muslims have a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the Holy Trinity, as do many reappraiser Christians.
They believe that Jews and Christians received genuine revelations from God, but that the teachings became corrupted by redaction and inaccurate interpretations. (Hmmmm, where have I heard that before?)
Muslims acknowledge that Jesus was (is) God’s Anointed One (“Messiah”), but consider that he was only a great prophet, and no more. Jesus was the Son of Mary, but not the Son of God. (This is more than some reappraisers might be willing to say.)
The Koran implies that Jesus did not actually die on the cross. (That’s right in line with some of the reappraisers.)
So, some of the reappaisers do seem to have a lot in common with the tenets of Islam.
If the PB would like to understand more about the true nature of Islam, perhaps she might arrange to spend a month or two living and studying in Saudi Arabia. That would indeed be illuminating.
Ralph,
she might go to live in Saudi Arabia, but it’s questionable if she would be allowed to study in S.A. When my parents were there, my mom couldn’t even DRIVE off the American Compound. She had to have either my dad, or a male driver take her anywhere, and that was even restricted without her husband (my dad).
I am more troubled by Mrs. Schori’s lumping together Jews (who worship the same God we do) with Muslims (who do not). It is extremely sloppy to equate the clear biblical relation of God to His chosen people and the claims (preposterous from a Christian point of view) of a completely different revelation via Muhammed (yes, I know that there are claimed similarities, but the complete rewrite of the Hebrew scriptures entailed in the latter serves only to butress the point). The latter is of a completely different sort: divine dictation vice an incarnational union of free human author with divine inspirer, as in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. The god claimed to provide the Muslim revelation is not the same at all as the God who gave us Holy Scripture, chose the Jews, and established His Church. The implications of these different understandings of the nature of divine revelation are such as clearly demonstrate the error of fuzzing the two. Of course, given her many other errors, not the least of which being an apparently strong disagreement with 2000 years’ worth of saints, sages, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs over the nature of the Christian revelation, I suppose it is not surprising that she misses this difference as well. It is a sadness.
This same visit was covered a little more in depth by another Pittsburgh periodical. In Pittsburgh Post-Gazette the Presiding Bishop is quoted and not paraphrased;
[blockquote] She said she believes Jesus “is the vehicle of salvation for all those living and dead and those to come after us.”
But the Bible also recorded promises to Jews and others, she said.
“Those promises were not broken by Jesus’ life, death and resurrection,” she said. “Therefore, Jews have access to salvation without consciously saying ‘Jesus is my Lord and savior.’ I didn’t do that; God did it. I also see that God made promises to Hagar and Ishmael, who Muslims claim as their ancestor. I don’t think God broke those promises when Jesus came among us.” [/blockquote]
emphasis mine.
It is the PB who defames her office, not those who critique her false teachings…in fact if you are ordained you have promised to point out such misbehavoir as her own and to stand against it to remove it from the church…
I believe that closing comments is for the most part an act of either timidity or ennui. However, in this case, the convener of this blog has so succinctly stated the issue that I find little to add.Several other posts do nicely expand on his basic observation and reinforce the frequent observations and suspicions about the PB’s basic theology.
#37. I do in fact agree with you. My earlier may not have been clear.
(I see you TOO know the old story of the Tate’s Compass Company.)
But why send Mohammed if Christ has been sent. Isn’t one Christ enough? Or one Buddha since a Christ is coming? Since Christianity and Islam disagree with one another in core doctrine, can both be right? Isn’t that impossible?
Logically, it is impossible, but the language of the spirit is not the language of logic, not the language of ratiocination and discursive argument. Some of Paul’s sharpest insights are in early Corinthians when he takes up this issue directly. The language of the spirit is indeed a language , we ARE spoken to, and it results in a state of knowledge, only it is not a verbal state, not a state of discrete concepts.
Mohammed follows Christ in time as we see it, but God surely does not see Time’s Arrow. He invented it but he is not subject to it. Surely, to Him, Christ and Mohammed and Buddha and the earliest Neaderthal who felt some mysterious essence of the spirit so that he buried his dead with charms and symbols – all are present tense. He has what we cannot ever have, a real present tense. Can a Neanderthal come to Christ? If he can hear the language of the spirit, be it only the smallest whisper, God may let him find his way out of the darkness to Christ if he can but follow the sound of his voice. We think of this whisper across vast reaches of time; how can this be, 100,000 years apart? But apparently this “distance” is meaningless to God. The issue is your ear, not the eons.
Well then, why Christ at all? Why bother with this whole painful business? If my Neanderthal ancestor ( my wife says I have one) cannot hear, he dies in the wilderness, and like the creatures of the wilderness, is no more. If he can hear, he will follow or not; it he follows, his chances of getting lost are very great, but he cannot hear the language of the spirit better than this. If he fails, he is not doomed to hell, but to non-existence.
What the Jews did, is sharpen the inner ear, the spiritual ear – this is their great achievement – until we were ready to hear Christ.
Now that our ears are open, now that we can hear and hear clearly
(if we choose to listen) we cannot simply cease to exist as my Neanderthal might. We know too much. That way is closed to us forever. We must understand that. For a Christian it is closed forever. This is the price we for having a compass that always points North accurately.
This is about the ear, not about time and space. Let him hear who will. I am well aware that this is speculative, incomplete and unclear.
For me, I can no longer escape into non-being. Nor can a Muslim, for the language of the spirit is in his ear as well. But surely, the practices are incompatible, contradictory, are they not? The practices are surely so, but the language of the spirit is universal, and it is Christ’s voice we hear. If we pursue antithetical practices -well, this is man’s way, is it not? God did not invent them; He allows us to make a tower of Babel if we choose. But now – and evolution has surely done this because it effects our survival – we hear intuitively, instinctively. My poor Neanderthal had to choose to hear. We, damn fools that we are, have to choose NOT to hear.
And thereby hangs a tale.
I can only hope that this lengthy piece is not too tedious. I suspect it is the truth, but all that counts in this matter, for the language of the spirit, is beyond proof that words may make perfect. L
Hi, libraryjim. It’s a bit off-topic, as well as not edifying, and I won’t take offense if it gets deleted…BUT, I revel in a fantasy of the PB and the Bishop of New Hampshire walking into a Starbucks over there, and sitting down together for a cup of coffee to discuss church politics, and to develop liaisons with Saudi LGBT activists. That’s why I think she would learn so much from her visit there. A lot. Rather quickly.
In any case, Jesus = Yeshua = Salvation = God. John teaches that Jesus is God. If so, it would follow that Jesus came to Moses, David and the other OT crowd by the name “Salvation”, YHVH, Wisdom, or other names.
For example, take a look at Genesis 49:18 in the Hebrew, “For your Yeshua have I waited, YHVH.” This is only the first of many, many examples in which Salvation (Yeshua = Jesus) and Wisdom can be personified (or deified).
Jesus says (John 10:16), “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”
For me (Ralph) to assert that God (Jesus) has not in some way come to the Muslims would be for me to put God into an awfully small box. But, it is THEY who say that Jesus is not God. For a Christian to deny (even for a moment) that Jesus is God is similar to Caiaphas telling Pilate that the Jews have no king but Caesar, knowing the “kingship” psalms and other “kingship” texts by heart. (No, I am not drawing a parallel between the PB and Caiaphas.)
With that card on the table, there’s simply no possibility of productive “interfaith” “dialogue” between Muslims and Christians. Though, I do think we should be a bit more polite to each other.
[i]Hi, libraryjim. It’s a bit off-topic, as well as not edifying, and I won’t take offense if it gets deleted…BUT, I revel in a fantasy of the PB and the Bishop of New Hampshire walking into a Starbucks over there, and sitting down together for a cup of coffee to discuss church politics, and to develop liaisons with Saudi LGBT activists. That’s why I think she would learn so much from her visit there. A lot. Rather quickly. [/i]
LOL I now see your point. 🙂
Jimmy et al.- If Article XVII really means that God pre-selects some to salvation and others to damnation, in His secret counsels, then, to the extent that it stands as an authoritative statement of Anglicanism, Anglicanism is in material heresy. Do you really believe what the article seems to say. Maybe you yourself have been eternally damned. Maybe I have. Who knows? As to Schori’s statement, she was right at the beginning – Christ did die for everyone. But then she wandered off into ambiguity.