Question: I would just simply respond to say that that’s true as I look to my brother next to me and say, you’re doing something wrong. But as a church, as a body, we’ve been given authority in Holy Scripture to say that these things are abhorent to God. And we’ve also been given a duty to share that because those that haven’t heard the Good News are truly perishing and without the Gospel of Christ they are perishing. And if we, out of fear of offense, fail to give them the Gospel, then we are accomplices in their death. We’ve been given an enormous responsibility and an enormous trust by our Lord, and I think we shirk it when we deny what’s written in Scripture.
Bishop Katharine: My understanding of the essential k_?___ , the central proclamation of Jesus, is that God loves you. Jesus came to show us that. Jesus gave his life to show us that, and we can argue about the details beyond that. I won’t disagree with you that proclaiming the Gospel is the centerpiece of what we do. I would continue to have conversation with you, I hope, about how we impose our particular understandings of aspects of that ? . And I think that’s been the struggle of the Christian journey from the beginning.
She equates love with permissiveness.
Memo to KJS: No is the most loving word in the English language. Everything that puts a smile on your face is not necessarily of God.
Inhibition, anyone?
Has Ms Schori ever read and ‘internalized’ the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah?
Does she realize that even though God “loved” his wayward people, that He (not she, by the way), after repeatedly warning them, punished them for their sins (yes, that terrible ‘s’-word again)?
Does she know that these sins included blatant and unrepentant sexual sin? These sins also included the worship of pagan gods, syncretism, etc.
These are not ‘new’ issues that ECUSA’s progressive-radical leadership is ‘playing around with,’ these are age-old issues of human defiance of God’s Word.
Having just read a posting on Albert Mohler’s blog (18th Jan 08), I was reminded of what he was saying by reading the presiding Bishop’s words here.
Mohler was discussing Darrel Bock & Daniel Wallace’s book [i] Dethroning Jesus. [/i] He points out how Bock and Wallace have spotted that there are two very different understandings of Jesus in the marketplace today – and they characterise one of them like this:
[blockquote] “Jesusanity” is a coined term for the alternative story about Jesus. Here the center of the story is still Jesus, but Jesus as either a prophet or a teacher of religious wisdom. In Jesusanity, Jesus remains very much Jesus of Nazareth. He points the way to God and leads people into a journey with God. His role is primarily one of teacher, guide, and example. Jesus’ special status involves his insight into the human condition and the enlightenment he brings to it. There is no enthronement of Jesus at God’s side, only the power of his teaching and example. In this story, the key is that Jesus inspires others, but there is no throne for him. He is one among many – the best, perhaps, and one worthy to learn from and follow. Bock & Wallace [i] Dethroning Jesus [/i].[/blockquote]
I notice that the Presiding Bishop always speaks of Jesus as showing us things, teaching, offering a way and so on. When pressed to speak about what Jesus [b] achieved [/b] she always falls back into responding about what he [b] demonstrates [/b] (and usually in the present tense as though the operative elements are the stories about him rather than the historical events of his existence).
She seems like a typical exponent of the ‘Jesusianity’ of which Bock & Wallace have written so clearly – and which is opposed in fundamentals to Christianity, even if the two often appear to talk about the same things.
Schori says that “Jesus came to show us” that God is love. To use a William Witticism, Schori sees the work of Jesus as “illustrative” rather then “constitutive” of salvation. It would seem to follow from this that once we learn the lesson then we can disgard the teacher.
BTW, certainly the Jews understood that God is love. Their whole history was a testament to God’s saving love. Jesus didn’t need to come to show the Jews that God is love.
I see the loving Jesus of the Bible, but I’m clueless to find the permissive Jesus.
KJS simply does not believe in the transformative nature of the Gospel because, quite frankly, in the circles in which she runs she’s never seen a bona fide example to inform her own, odd theology.
A “William Witticism.” Outstanding.
I see these two as “Jesus the Guru” and “Jesus the Lord.” Schori follows the first, and it is the Guru who makes the Hindu communion in Los Angeles possible. Jesus the Lord is the Jesus whom the Apostles preached and to whom the martyrs witness, even to this day.
The shocking thing is that this Marcionite is in a leadership position in a Christian church. She should resign and go teach in a seminary.
That Jesus is The way, The Truth and The Life is specifically avoided by these fashionable “christians.” That is SOOO exclusive and so not in tune with the “new gospel” inspired by the Humanist Manifesto.
During the Eucharist when the priest turns to the congregation and holds the Host and Chalice does the priest say ” behold budda or krishna or whoever that takes away the sins of the world ” ?
No, he says behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. I think in part that this should settle in part the small box garbage of Schori et al.
#4 William S:
I intend to take a look at the Boch and Wallace book, (i)Dethroning Jesus(/i), but at the same time I will be reading and rereading Pope Benedict’s new book, (i)Jesus of Nazareth(/i). I highly recommend the Pope’s latest offering. (published 2007)
I second Petra’s recommendation. Compare Benedict’s declarative sentences about Jesus with those of Mrs. Schori. As for her being a Marcionite, well, a Marcionite is the perfect leader for a Marcionite Church, don’t you think?
“She should resign and go teach in a seminary.” Thanks, Pb! You made me laugh!
I noticed that she casts doubt as to whether or not other dioceses might take the same action as we did in the Diocese of San Joaquin. I wonder what makes her sure that others won’t do the same? Does she believe her own propaganda?
“We remembered that babies could come to Communion if they’re received as God’s heirs through Christ, then they should be deserving of a full meal, even if they don’t understand what’s going on. I don’t think that I can say that I fully understand what goes on at Communion.â€
In the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic churches babies do indeed receive the sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist and Confirmation at the same time. They do not receive Holy Communion if they have not been baptized. Some Catholic dioceses are restoring the practice of having first holy communion and confirmation closer together.
As to the PB’s claim that a pastor can not know if a person is Baptized when they approach the communion rail I can accept that in some instances. But have to wonder about any priest who does not discern that a practicing Hindu just might not have been baptized.
And just why would Jesus leave us without the fullness of truth? My understanding is that He fullfilled all the laws and the prophets. That there will be no further public revelation until He comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead. That the place of the Church was not to proclaim new truths but to defend the eternal ones and come to a deeper understanding of them. But that there is no Jack In The Box Bible with truths and revelations and prophecies jumping out to surprise us.
I was pleased to read she understand Jesus to be God in the flesh. But would it have hurt her to say she knows this?
“But would it have hurt her to say she knows this?”
Yes, Paula, I believe that it would!
Theological Helium. Innert. Lightweight. Invisible. Gaseous.
This is the logical end of Existentialism.
The confession/acknowledgment that the PB is removed from Lambeth Palace and does not really know +RDW is helpful for perspective.
I am sure God loves us. But, I am also sure that He does not like us when we sin.
This is a big distinction, because if we continue to sin knowingly, we are taking advantage of God’s love for us. I would think He does not like being used like this—-taking advantage of Him for our benefit…some pleasure or selfishness.
But, they warned us of false teachers.
bl
One of the KJS devotees (Susan Russell) is quoting an article in the journal “Developmental Psychology” that purports that there’s nothing different about homosexuality. Science is great until it moves from observation to theorizing and claim-making. The grab for codification from developmental psychology is like asking just anybody what they think. It’s all pretty subjective and based on bias. The “new thingy”‘s canon.
Re; William S. (#4):
To note how pervasive this fake theology is, note a sermon from a parish that is the crown jewel of the Diocese of Southwestern Virginia. The interim rector attempts to describe Epiphany and meanders through all the proper revisionist topics, much like the PB.
What is notable is that “Epiphany” was never applied to the wise men who practiced astrology for their pathfinding through life. The Epiphany story is missed: that sorcerers were led by their typical path of divining – encountered the Christ – and went another way afterwards. Sounds too Gospel-like. It’s also an avoided subject for those like KJS and the interim who don’t really have epiphanies as much as they have arguments with their own doubts.
http://trinitystaunton.org/Sermons/2008/01-06-2008DMF.htm
BTW, the word marked “k_____?” would be “kerygma.”
not being quite the theological scholar of some, I had to look up the word “kerygma”. Per Websters it means “the apostolic proclamation of salvation through Jesus Christ”. Is it just me, or is that a little different from “God loves you”?
Can you believe we are supposed to follow the apostolic proclamation if we claim to be successors to the apostles? The Lutherans pointed this our a few years ago. Receiving the mere laying on of hands does not an apostle make.
Well, she did say that she understands “Jesus as God in the flesh,” but I’m still left wondering what she means by that.
#25. This is easy. It is God as she understands him to be.
I tried to read the entire transcript, but all I got out of it was a headache — and an upset stomache thinking that this person is the head of a supposedly CHRISTIAN denomination, and she hasn’t the least grasp of Christian theology. 🙁
my view is that if she is trying to inhibit +Duncan for the abandonment of the communion of this church, then J. Jon Bruno should also be inhibited for abandonment of the communion of this church for failing to conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.
Seminarian, the only thing she might say to +Bruno is “Now, Jon, we mustn’t give anyone the impression that we don’t conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church.”
Too late for that, I’m afraid.
I third Petra’s recommendation…I am about halfway through [b]Jesus of Nazareth[/b] and my admiration of Benedict increases with each page. A more lucid writer I have not read in a while. Every Christian should read it!
[blockquote]I have always been a member of the church…I think I grew up with the understanding of God as the old white guy in the big chair. (I’m quite serious about that.) …and was raised with an understanding, just an immense appreciation for creation. My understanding of God’s presence in my life continues to grow and evolve. I think that’s what it means to be on a faith journey…Does that help? I can’t point to a specific time in my life of radical conversion. It’s been a life-long process for me.[/blockquote]
Ok, I’m picking at nits and I’ve abreviated her answer, but somehow I would have expected better. Now, there are lots of people, lots of clergy, who don’t have Damascus Road experiences. But you would think that the leader of a denomination, especially one who gave up a career and chose ministry, would have a better answer.
Kerygma…..been there..done that…Kerygma studies are still available…. http://www.kerygma.com/courses/elective/greatthemes.htm
If you want a real eye opener check out the Orthodox church. My wife and I are considering the Greek or Antiochian church having been to an Antiochian church in Centreville, VA. The liturgy is fabulous; the doctrine is sound; the singing is wonderful; I’m not so crazy bout the incense! KJS talks about diversity but the Orthodox is totally diverse.
TEC has just become another universalist faith like Bahai!
Peace to all,
Barry
[blockquote]
Choir Stall writes:
Science is great until it moves from observation to theorizing and claim-making.
[/blockquote]
Uh, the way science *works* is to observe, make claims (hypotheses) to explain what was observed, and then test those claims. Hypotheses that stand up to tests are called theorems. Making claims and theorizing is what scientific method is *about*. I’d guess you’re not actually a scientist, are you, Choir Stall?
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
the greatest and most common sin is, in my opinion, pride. Tha habit of putting our face onto God. I think Schori loves Jesus passionately….it is just that Jesus and Schori mirror each other perfectly. He is her mini me…and thus there is no need for change within her.
To be fair she is far from alone. And we are all guilty of it at times. But then in her psoition she ought to know better. But then how can you ever demand orthodoxy and faithfulness from a female ordained…who is required to break orthodoxy and faithfulness to tradition to stand for office?
It seems that everyone in SF and here also, regretfully, refuse to acknowledge that in one instance the PB has clarified an important issue. Maybe she didn’t explain it well the first time, but in the Q&A;period in Birmingham she did emphasize that Jesus did die for the whole world. Even the person who hasn’t heard the Gospel who is saved is saved because Jesus redeemed the whole world. She is quite correct, from a Catholic standpoint at least, that that person may be saved. Those who comment here that believe that that person cannot be saved are expressing a heretical belief. But I think that people ought to acknowledge that, on this point, she is orthodox.
Jesus did die for the whole world, including those who have never had the experience of being saved.
Reply to Rob K (#35 and 36).
There are those who have knowledge of the Word as it has come to us through Jesus Christ and through the prophets. The Word points to Salvation through acceptance of Jesus Christ as our only Savior, the ONLY Savior. Salvation also requires behavior modification on the part of those who have understood the Word, it means turning away from what the Word defines as sinful behavior.
So, those who understand the Word must strive to live in accordance with the Word. To do less is to not do as God commands us to do.
Those who have not received and understood the Word fall into a different category and the Roman Church, over the centuries, has made some interesting comments on this category.
Those who understand the Word, but who twist it to meet human needs and desires are guilty of heresy. It would seem that eternal damnation is their lot.
“Even the person who hasn’t heard the Gospel who is saved is saved because Jesus redeemed the whole world.”
rob k…Could you please explain what this means? It appears to me somewhat Calvinist in an odd way but I could be mistaken.
I thought there are only people who would not (not could not) be saved because they refuse to accept the transforming power of Christ’s sacrifice. Are you saying that a person can be saved and yet remain unchanged?
RE:”Those who comment here that believe that that person cannot be saved are expressing a heretical belief.” #’s 35 and 36
I thought one had to accept the gift of salvation bought with the blood of the lamb, repent from sinful ways and tread the narrow path. But I may be wrong.
re; 33:
To observe in a scientific fashion is one thing. To purport to summarize a truth is another. Most scientists are afraid to make the leap from observation to promoting an infallible truth claim.
I believe that Rob is referring to the ideas expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially:
[blockquote]1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” [i]God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.[/i]
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This [i]Baptism of blood[/i], like the [i]desire for Baptism[/i], brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For [i]catechumens[/i] 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.
1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have [i]desired Baptism explicitly[/i] if they had known its necessity.
References
59 Cf. Jn 3:5.
60 Cf. Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum(1965) 1618; Lumen Gentium 14; Ad Gentes 5.
61 Cf. Mk 16:16.
62 Gaudium et Spes 22 # 5; cf. Lumen Gentium 16; Ad Gentes 7.[/blockquote]
Jesus said ..” I am the way, the truth,and the life No man ( I’m sure he meant woman too) cometh unto the father except by me. I’m sure those who have never heard of the atoning grace of our Lord will get their day at the throne of grace – I’m not sure what the way will be. In all cases as Christians saved by grace we must continue to witness that the means for those we see each day will know the way, the truth and the life to the throne of Redemption.
Reply to all – Thx. for getting back. No 37, I agree with you in general,the striving you meant is part of the process of sanctification following baptism. But that is not what I was addressing in my post. No. 38, Ed the Roman – No, I was not espousing a Calvinist belief. What I did do, I think, was to get entangled in my own syntax!. I agree totally with your last paragraph. Those who know of and reject Christ’s saving action are the ones most in danger (they wish not to have salvation). No 39 – John, then you believe those that have not heard or understand the Gospel cannot be saved?. No 41 – Steve – Thx. for rescuing me! No. 42 – Harvey – well put. Thx. to all.
s saving action