Monday, April 07, 2008

The PB Strikes Again

Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has been on a public relations tour of San Diego and had this to say:
Asked about the literal story of Easter and the Resurrection, Jefferts Schori said, "I think Easter is most profoundly about meaning, not mechanism."
Every so often we need to remember why the Episcopal Church has fallen into such great distress and division, breaking the hearts of thousands and thousands of Episcopalians and Anglicans around the world. This most recent quote from the Presiding Bishop is another fine example of why we are now in such a theological and structural mess.

What she might as well be saying is that it's all about the gas - not the car or the plane, but the gas. It's all about the gas.

Yet, what is the point of gas without a mechanism? Is it not the point of the gas to fuel a car or a plane? Is it not the container, the mechanism, that gives the gas it's meaning?

For what happens when there is no container, no mechanism to contain the gas?

It explodes.


Rolin said...

"meaning, not mechanism"
Gas? More like flatulence.
Br_er Rabbit

Unknown said...

But BB, KJS is VERY concerned about gas. Her "Easter message" proves it. She took great pains on our holiest day of the year to remind us about the danger of exploding gas -- methane gas!

RMBruton said...

Open mouth, insert hoof.

Anonymous said...

Saith the presiding denizen of 815: "Biblical, traditional, historical, moral, metaphysical, ethical, actual theology? We don't need no steenkin' biblical, traditional, historical, moral, metaphysical, ethical, actual theology! We've got what I and my fellow Docetists (you may safely insert practically any other heresy here, we're equal opportunity offenders) say we've got, whenever, wherever, and to whomever we say it! Got that? Good. OK, applaud me. NOW."

Anonymous said...

Once again, context is everything and this selective lifting of text from ++KJS's sermon proves you miss the point: she is speaking of "religion" and "science" -- religion being concerned with matters of meaning and science with matters of mechanism.

To suggest any new or radical theology is found here is simply rediculous. Might you also contend that the earth IS flat and that the planets circle the earth as well?

Please, stop the PB-bash-fest --- this astonishing woman is more on the mark than most (understated here) in our church --- perhaps this is the reason for the rants against her. She is in good company.


Anonymous said...

Ha! Great analogy! Good work.


Anonymous said...

Dear anonymous - in this case no context in not everything - it is irrelevant. These ideas and statements are mere rehashes of old ideas from the 60s and earlier on and rely on the ignorance of the average person where both science and religion are concerned. Sadly it is neither good theology nor good science. And so she is most definitely not "on the mark more than most". In fact credentialed persons in both fields should feel greatly insulted by her continuing obfustication. You are too correct that any "new" or "radical" theology is to be found here. It is old, and was declared bad theology many times over the last decades. And yet she keeps trying to convince us that it is a "new thing", a "new leading of the Spirit" a radical inclusiveness never before attempted (and don't try this at home, after all we ARE professionals).

Anonymous said...

But if Christ rose not from the dead we are yet dead in our sins, no scratch that ... if He rose not from the dead, at least the concept of atonement still has meaning, and that's what's important. Whether the actual "mechanism" was ever implemented is unimportant. Um, yeah.

Hey Anon, here's an example even a reappraiser should be able to understand: Jas 2, 14-16:
14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

Are you saying only the intention or emotion or concept is important, and not the actual reality (mechanism) itself? If not, what on earth *are* you saying? Maybe Schori really has taken the James passage to heart, which explains the discrepancy between how much is preached on MDGs and how much is spent on them.

Anonymous said...

"I think Easter is most profoundly about meaning, not mechanism."

If the Resurrection did not happen, then it can mean what ever we want.

That is what I get out of her message.

Dangerous stuff, that.

This Anonymous Catholic is disturbed by this, and by the folks who try to make her words mean something other that what was said.

If you don’t believe and have faith that Christ did Rise up, then you cannot be a Christian. And to say otherwise is a shameful lie. No wonder it is no big deal to ordain as a Bishop a man having relations with another man. I mean, why not? Only the meaning matters, not the under-laying truth. But you are only kidding yourself.