tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post7964518619739363805..comments2024-03-27T08:46:54.369-04:00Comments on BabyBlueOnline: Katharine Jefferts Schori appointed to President Obama's Faith Advisory Council for one-year termAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-43326690328101555372011-02-13T09:43:34.377-05:002011-02-13T09:43:34.377-05:00above, 4th para, substitute "if +KJS at some ...above, 4th para, substitute "if +KJS at some point realized that" with "if +KJS at some point came to the conlusion that" - sorry for my mistake & unclear langauge here. I don't mean to insinuate that inhibiting Spong is the only way that TEC could have unity with the rest of Trinitarian Christianity - this could lead conversation down an unfruitful path so I won't hold out for the one side or the other here.Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-54160947681404733402011-02-13T09:38:27.343-05:002011-02-13T09:38:27.343-05:00(II/II)
I think you will also find within TEC rat...(II/II)<br /><br />I think you will also find within TEC rather prominent, in some circles this type of thinking: "If teaching the creeds are metaphors for other things doesn't hurt anyone, well then why forbid it? It's becoming quite Episcopalian anyways with Spong etc., and wasn't it quite popular with some in the 1960's? Wasn't this what MLK believed?"<br /><br />Mark Harris, on executive council, in a recent blog entry was citing one reason for rejecting the Covenant, that it would mean that TEC (and the Communion) would be forced to abandon Spong's position re. the creeds - and he found this would be a great pity.<br /><br />So no, I don't think you need attribute any mendacity to +KJS in this regard. I think that +KJS probably believes that the positions, as she's laying them out, offer a kind of reconciling and peace-making teaching which allows for both Spong and people who believe in the bodily resurrection to remain in the church without fighting. And that's simply, "the event of the resurrection (that which we disagree on) is unimportant; what's important is its meaning (and we agree that it has a meaning)." So there are some "good intentions" behind it. But good intentions do not always make for good teaching and good theology.<br /><br />I think that if +KJS at some point realized that unity with the rest of Trinitarian Christianity would require inhibiting Spong, issuing retractions for some of these statements she's made, and clearly emphasizing that the church teaches that the bodily resurrection of Christ is central to the faith and important ... she would probably decide this was the best thing to do, and do this. Not because of her own conviction, but simply because it's "the right thing to do." And doubtless many other bishops have acted in such a way before as well, who struggled with the belief, or personally even rejected it, but nonetheless wished, for whatever reason, to play an important role in the church.<br /><br />Of course, this is all speculation on my part, based on my assessment of her character & priorities in what I've read.<br /><br />You know, when you're back in the states, maybe you could give bb your contact info, some of the things we discuss might go faster / better verbally, like over skype. And we could also chew the fat about things that are fun and beautiful.<br /><br />Yes, beautiful day yesterday. Today has been very nice here as well, had lunch with some churchy people. They were ripping on Catholics some of the time. I decided to shut up this time, though, they already think I'm half Catholic. Protestants in Belgium tend to ... have issues with Catholicism. There are reasons. Still sad, though.<br /><br />Blessings to you,<br />WilfWilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-37430071844196266512011-02-13T09:37:36.550-05:002011-02-13T09:37:36.550-05:00Scout, (I/II)
Elizabeth I is said to have said th...Scout, (I/II)<br /><br />Elizabeth I is said to have said that as Anglicans, we do not presuppose to look into the window of the soul. I.e., we make judgments on the basis of words and deeds, and not so much regarding speculations about what people intend and feel.<br /><br />Actually, Episcopalians tend to have inherited a lot from the pietists, which goes quite contrary to this trend.<br /><br />I don't think we need to inquire to whatever intentions or motives +KJS has when saying the creed. Part of it could be the belief that seeing these things as metaphors is not as contorted as you or I may consider - perhaps partly due to having been genuinely misled by some who claim something like the following:<br /><br />"The notion of literalism is a modern invention. We should under no conditions assume that the writers of the New Testament wrote, assuming their readers would read their works with this modern framework of presuppositions. Instead, we should realize that they were engaging in the richly metaphorical practice of midrash" (or something akin to this - and if you have any questions about this type of argument, I'd be very happy to respond).<br /><br />There are places in the essay which do a bit of hypothesizing about the intentions of +KJS, which of course, is not helpful.<br /><br />The other day, I was thinking about the notion of forgiveness, and forgiving +KJS in particular. I think this is something that many "orthodox" will have to learn, and will need to deal with.<br /><br />My own thoughts are, +KJS probably doesn't really care all that much the one way or the other. It's obvious that what she's passionate about, are issues that have to do with people coming together: how do we treat the "odd man out?" how do we build community so that everyone is respected and heard? how do we maintain the environment so we can continue living in harmony? These are the things which lay closest to her heart, and occupy her mind the most. Things like: "Did Jesus rise from the dead or not?" don't. I do not think she is terribly passionate about the idea that the resurrection MUST be a metaphor for ethics, and only that, to the exclusion of the event itself - as is, e.g., John Shelby Spong (though this is complicated with him - he goes through a logical "twist" that includes what he calls the resurrection of a "spiritual body," but ends up leading to more or less the same conclusion - "Jesus" more or less being ethics and no more - the same old 18th and 19th century preoccupation).Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-85866432248620178012011-02-13T05:14:33.344-05:002011-02-13T05:14:33.344-05:00Wilf - Your position requires us to attribute to h...Wilf - Your position requires us to attribute to her a conscious mendacity when she recites the Creed. I have no basis on which I can do this. This is the context in which I have personally heard her embrace orthodox doctrine.<br /><br />Lovely day yesterday, yes?<br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-77561892151754533412011-02-13T04:20:20.137-05:002011-02-13T04:20:20.137-05:00Scout,
"Ms. Schori has just become some kind...Scout,<br /><br />"Ms. Schori has just become some kind of reflexive pinata for folks who like to think about these things on a superficial level."<br /><br />I have seen examples of people seeming willing to discredit TEC with just a sentence or two about +KJS, and can understand why you might find this "superficial." However, I think it's equally superficial to simply note, "she says the creed" or to assert that she has adequately affirmed the bodily resurrection of Christ, without providing evidence, while it has already been addressed how one may say the creed while believing that each of these words are mere metaphors for ethics.<br /><br />I'm also not trying to engage in "defining anyone's relation to the Episcopal Church." The questions I ask are more relevant for determining: what is the status of the Communion today, from a New Testament perspective? What would Jesus or the apostle Paul have said about us?<br /><br />This also isn't just a TEC issue, it's a Communion issue. We share the PB in her functions as a Primate, which defines the whole Communion.<br /><br />This means we all need to repent corporately of denying Christ within the church and bringing down upon ourselves "anathema" as Paul describes it, for bringing into the Church a different gospel.<br /><br />I hope you enjoy your time in England. It's a pity you and I can't grab a coffee somewhere. I'd really dig that. (and not for the purposes of speaking of all this horrid stuff - it would be nice if we could get to know one another outside of this loathesome context, but unfortunately, this is the context where we find ourselves)Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-64807380011276485372011-02-13T03:58:22.158-05:002011-02-13T03:58:22.158-05:00Scout,
You and Fr. Weir have gone "on the re...Scout,<br /><br />You and Fr. Weir have gone "on the record" saying you do not find the paper convincing, but then offering no real criticism of where it is wrong.<br /><br />I am pleased to hear that she has said something about her belief in the resurrection to you and to others present; however, if she is truly able to affirm the bodily resurrection of Christ, some statement where she does so should be posted on the net. If you can find such, please let me know. I do not want to be saying false things about this woman.<br /><br />See the point in the appendix, the rebuttal "she says the creed." We can continue the discussion from there if you have additional remarks. This type of answer also makes it seem as if you've never heard about Bishop Spong.<br /><br />I should also add - I've seen others who have told me "she affirms the resurrection" only to read that she's mentioned the word "resurrection" somewhere in a sermon. This isn't the same as what she would need to affirm for me to accept that she does indeed affirm the bodily resurrection; it's completely consistent with her continuing to use "resurrection" as a metaphor.<br /><br />One may believe that the resurrection is a metaphor, yes; this however doesn't "fit" in Trinitarian Christianity; such persons shouldn't be teaching their beliefs in churches.<br /><br />It is true, Scout, that there are still many Episcopalians who believe the creeds - perhaps even most of them.<br /><br />You are right about people of deficient faith "coming" and "going." One of the problem in TEC is the attitude - that it's not really a problem, or only a very small problem. This is what led to the progression from Pike to Spong to +KJS. No other Trinitarian church thinks of this as "no biggie," only TEC tends to think that Trinitarian Christianity plus a mix of a few other religions is best for the church. Everyone in TEC tries really, really hard to be very broad minded - that may be a bit of the problem as well - that there is too much of a focus on the appearance of broad mindedness, rather than the actual cultivation of it.<br /><br />The actual cultivation of a broad minded perspective brings one to looking outside of the church, as well as inside of it - in fostering an attitude of proper ecumenism with our Christian neighbours. It also involves properly evaluating the robust claims of scripture and tradition.<br /><br />If you want to contribute to this, Scout - you could find a place where +KJS plainly affirms the bodily resurrection of Christ. Or you could point out errors in the article. Or you could do some research on the "challenge" and find another top-level leader of a Trinitarian church in the last 1,500 years who has gone as far as +KJS in denying the resurrection or the divinity of Christ.<br /><br />Any of these things can help.Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-27962312210059418912011-02-12T05:51:32.790-05:002011-02-12T05:51:32.790-05:00Wilf - I've seen you go through this question ...Wilf - I've seen you go through this question drill before. I've explained my view that I don't consider her theological grasp to be particularly meaningful or the answers to your questions to be particularly useful in terms of defining anyone's relation to the Episcopal Church. Ms. Schori has just become some kind of reflexive pinata for folks who like to think about these things on a superficial level. My own preference (TEC doesn't, alas, allow me to pick its PB) would have been for someone with a much better theological foundation, but these people come and go. We are still creedal Christians and the occasional weak reed at the parish, diocesan or national level doesn't change that. In any event, because it's a matter of intense continuing interest to you, I have personally heard the current Presiding Bishop state her belief in the resurrection of Christ. She has done so many times, as have we all, when we recite the tenets of our faith, as countless others have done since the Fourth Century.<br /><br />As I am in England these days, I'll be doing so again five hours ahead of most of BB's readers, but possibly not Wilf, who is probably just down the road from me. <br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-15589283250048056122011-02-12T02:50:40.146-05:002011-02-12T02:50:40.146-05:00bookguybaltmd,
I'm thinking we probably won&#...bookguybaltmd,<br /><br />I'm thinking we probably won't see you again on this thread, as it's been a while since we've heard from you.<br /><br />Just in case you're still reading -<br /><br />I know I put a lot on your plate here. Some of the above about e.g. the ACC and TEC and money was not substantiated here - I'd need time to show you the evidence I've seen, and tell you why this is the case. But you also make some rather big assumptions here - you have your own view of how the Communion was formed, and what the function of the Communion is - in a way that TEC seems quite central to the Communion. Soit, we could discuss this as well I suppose.<br /><br />I'd suggest: there are perceptions about the state of the Communion which are so radically opposed to one another, they are far more opposed to one another than the typical differences of opinions on things amongst groups of people which tend to drive them to war. E.g., some believe TEC to actually be "the whore of Babylon" - others think that TEC is the only party capable of saving the Communion and bringing enlightenment to Christianity. What we are dealing with are indeed weighty issues.<br /><br />However - I think no matter how one looks at this question - one must also acknowledge that there are persons on both side of the fence who are innocent. One must honestly look at the presuppositions, the motivations, the information available - and not presuppose that the opposing party is evil, deceitful, or purposefully destructive.<br /><br />You have respect for bb, and I think you will come to get to know others here who I respect, and whose virtual company I enjoy and would love to share with you as well. And we can get to know you better, too. You have insights from which we can learn. They may not necessarily be the ones you're presenting in this thread, but you are smart and you obviously are passionate about issues; and I hope you aren't so dogmatic that you are willing to employ reason and think through things.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it is true that we often get "hot under the collar" and sometimes engage more in spewing, than in offering helpful approaches, or new ways of seeing things.<br /><br />But we often get beyond this as well.<br /><br />Blessings to you.Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-58379070241672877492011-02-10T14:58:04.059-05:002011-02-10T14:58:04.059-05:00I understand that there are different "flavor...I understand that there are different "flavors" of Anglicanism...but Reformed Anglicans, Evangelical Anglicans and Charismatic Anglicans can still agree on the 39 Articles, and the BCP. It is liberal, humanistic theology (episcopal unitarians like the PB etc...) that is NOT compatible with what Anglicanism IS. The Scriptural integrity of the BCP has been gutted by ecusa leadership for a more easy-going, easy to digest prayer book. Spong, Schori and their ilk do NOT represent Anglicanism, regardless of how you would prefer to spin it. BTW, the quotes above are directly from your PB...it isn't internet spin but your PB denying that Jesus is THE ONLY WAY. Denying the virgin birth. If you don't have the virgin birth...if that somehow was a lie...or an "experience" (same with the bodily resurrection of Christ being talked about more as an "experience" and not really happening by your church leaders)...not the supernatural God act...then you have nothing. The Bible is a lie. Jesus, from his creation, is a lie. Why even have a church or a creed? The whole thing fails when your leadership teaches you the things it does because they don't believe in the Bible as being the inspired, literal Word of God. Period.Josh H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10094470109875163890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-75010617454273176052011-02-10T14:00:49.569-05:002011-02-10T14:00:49.569-05:00baldguybaltmd,
You posted this:
"TEC does n...baldguybaltmd,<br /><br />You posted this:<br /><br />"TEC does not need to leave the Anglican communion because we are safely within the bounds of historic Anglican Theology. So is the PB."<br /><br />So you desire the brand name "Anglican" but you have a PB, and many churches, preaching that the God of the Bible isn't The only Way. People like you confuse me...you so cling to your "Anglican" name, yet you don't care to follow out the BCP, the 39 Article, and most importantly Scripture. It's like saying you want to be Catholic but you deny Papal Supremacy, Trent, and most Catholic Dogma. Sorry, but you aren't Catholic if you believe that. You'd be excommunicated in a heart beat for preaching something that flies in the face of Catholic dogma. So the PB can say whatever she wants theologically without fear of Church discipline. This is the problem with Anglicanism...it's become this free-for-all...a "choose your own adventure" group that allows it's churches to subscribe to one thing and deny another. The Bible, along with the 39 articles are clear on WHO Jesus IS, and that the ONLY means of Salvation is through Him...not "experience of the devine in others"...not "seeing God in Allah", and not "reason" or any other bit of theological nonsense yourPB decides to come up with when pressed.<br /><br />Until the Anglican communion decides that it is no longer permissible for such "theological" liberties...you will continue to have the chaos that we have now. You will continue to have liberal Anti-Reformation/Anti 39 Articles/Anti-BCP movements that still want the brand-name, but want little to do with what true Reformation Anglicanism is. I'm not calling for a Pope-like authority, but for me, an Anglican who is Reformed theologically, the idea that you can be "Anglican" and not subscribe to the 39 articles, or the creeds (and mean them), and the BCP...is a joke. It's bad theology, and it has more of a resemblance with a social club than with a Church...and in my opinion that is what ecusa is. It's a social club for theological waffling and promoting liberal causes.Josh H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10094470109875163890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-46204713243374465582011-02-10T05:22:48.711-05:002011-02-10T05:22:48.711-05:00Still waiting for your response to the 2 questions...Still waiting for your response to the 2 questions, bookmanbaltmd. Actually I am not sure myself what to make of the ACNA. You bring up some things here which I guess make a prima facie case, but given other issues, again become questionable. There are surely other outstanding problems there, as well. I do know of some within TEC who are profoundly troubled by +KJS's Christology who nonetheless would never consider joining ACNA. We could perhaps have a fruitful discussion of the problems of the ACNA. This is all though rather irrelevant to me as long as you continue to think I'm a liar, libelist, etc. etc..; the issues regarding ACNA are mere quibbles on minor issues compared to reform of Christology within TEC. One can remain a faithful Trinitarian Christian within TEC as long as one is willing to do one's part in raising a voice regarding the problems of its Christology, imho. As for the issue of apostasy and denying Christ - in a way, all Anglicans who are a part of the Communion are complicit in this, it's a problem we all share - I do not somehow magically "escape" this charge and the blame that is to be had.Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-22259903383590541082011-02-09T15:54:25.896-05:002011-02-09T15:54:25.896-05:00According to this we are all doomed- http://www.ca...According to this we are all doomed- http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp<br /><br />Even there, you will find discussion about heaven for the unbaptized. You will find subjects such as "innocent ignorance" and Baptism of Desire.<br />Who goes to heaven and who is condemned is beyond our pay grade. The Holy Spirit has no boundaries.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-75215827639442071032011-02-09T13:42:25.370-05:002011-02-09T13:42:25.370-05:00Thanks, Steven. bookguybaltmd, note how here the ...Thanks, Steven. bookguybaltmd, note how here the notion of the divinity of Christ is completely consistent with the quote Steven cited above, where +KJS equates coming to the father by way of Jesus as simply recognizing good deeds accomplished by people - i.e., ethical imperatives. This is the quote the article analyzes in its second part - it would help to read the second part of that article in analyzing the quote in its context.<br /><br />The first part of the article deals with material from here: http://episcopalchurch.org/78695_96294_ENG_HTM.htm<br /><br />I await responses to the two questions. You needn't feel compelled to interact with anything I've said, except those two questions.Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-29219517321929745362011-02-09T13:21:19.974-05:002011-02-09T13:21:19.974-05:00Wilf, thanks. I think the stepping stone is to ac...Wilf, thanks. I think the stepping stone is to accept that Christ is divine; the subsequent expressions in the creeds should flow from that. Not to pile on, but here is an excerpt from a 2007 interview of Schori (full interview <a href="http://www.parabola.org/a-wing-and-a-prayer" rel="nofollow">here</a>) where she pretty unambiguously throws cold water on the virgin birth as well as Christ's divinity:<br /><br /><i>P: What does someone do when they believe that Jesus is divine but that some things that are defined as creeds—that Mary was a virgin, for example--don’t seem right? Can one still be a faithful Christian?<br /><br />BK: I hope that’s an invitation to deeper encounter. One can begin to look at where those creeds came from and the traditions they drew on. Luke’s story about the virgin birth draws on a story in Isaiah that talks about a young woman who will conceive and bear a child and save Israel. Our post-Enlightenment insistence on utter definition detracts enormously from the mystery of faith. Again, those creeds are not about checking off a bunch of propositions. They are about giving our heart to a sense that Jesus shows us what it looks like to be a divine human being. <br /><br />I don’t think they’re talking about parthenogenesis [reproduction from an ovum without fertilization, a normal process in some invertebrates and lower plants] . <br /><br />If you begin to explore the literary context of the first century and the couple of hundred years on either side, the way that someone told a story about a great figure was to say ‘this one was born of the gods.’ That is what we’re saying. This carpenter from Nazareth or Bethlehem—and there are different stories about where he comes from--shows us what a godly human being looks like, shows us God come among us. We have affirmed ever since then in this tradition that each one of us is the image of God. We are all the sons and daughters of God. I think there is an invitation to look below a superficial minimization to what the story are really about. It makes some people very uncomfortable to do that, I recognize.</i>Steven in Falls Churchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-48772853896714473752011-02-09T11:48:08.648-05:002011-02-09T11:48:08.648-05:00Steven, I agree with you in the centrality of impo...Steven, I agree with you in the centrality of importance of the uniqueness of Christ. But for Episcopalians I usually assume that we'll first need more stepping stones, that they probably won't fully appreciate this doctrine, though they will realize that something's wrong if the resurrection or the divinity of Christ are being re-defined simply to mean the things the church tells us we have got to do.<br /><br />Your first quote, above, was very telling since +KJS there directly equates "Christ" with the experience of ethical goodness in people.<br /><br />bookguybaltmd, I'm still awaiting your answers to the 2 questions. With your rather luscious descriptions of me above, I think you can provide at least this, in defense of your position that I am a dangerous "un-Christian false witness." Though I can understand your passion here - this topic is a painful one. And I'm confident that if you look at it with open eyes, you will see the concern that the Communion is doing the one thing which no church must do. N.b., I do not blame +KJS for this - all Anglicans, including myself, are to blame.Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-34602617896767432322011-02-09T11:26:35.652-05:002011-02-09T11:26:35.652-05:00"Here are some links to the PB's sermons....<i>"Here are some links to the PB's sermons. Can you show me something non-trinitarian here?</i><br /><br />The problem is that I can't find anything unambiguously trinitarian either. We can examine cherry-picked sermons by Schori, but what is really insightful, as the saying goes, is what happens in the unscripted moments. In this respect I recall this real hum-dinger of an interview on NPR:<br /><br /><i>RY: TIME Magazine asked you an interesting question, we thought, "Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?" And your answer, equally interesting, you said "We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box." And I read that and I said "What are you: a Unitarian?!?" [laughs] What are you-- that is another concern for people, because, they say Scripture says that Jesus says he was The Light and The Way and the only way to God the Father.<br /><br />KJS: Christians understand that Jesus is the route to God. Umm-- that is not to say that Muslims, or Sikhs, or Jains, come to God in a radically different way. They come to God through... human experience... through human experience of the divine. Christians talk about that in terms of Jesus.<br /><br />RY: So you're saying there are other ways to God.<br /><br />KJS: Uhh... human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh..that doesn't mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn't experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.<br /><br />RY: It sounds like you're saying it's a parallel reality, but in another culture and language.<br /><br />KJS: I think that's accurate.. I think that's accurate.</i><br /><br />I don't see how you can read this and come away with the conclusion that Schori believes that Christ is the unique and universal means to salvation, a basic tenet of creedal faith. This can then mean one of two things. First, that Jesus really isn't the divine son of God, who was sacrificed on the cross for our salvation, but was just an exemplar of how we can manifest holiness in our own lives as a "route to God," and that there are other, equally valid "route[s] to God" out there. Or alternatively, that Jesus really is divine and was sacrificed for our salvation, but which sacrifice was superfluous because you can find salvation through other means, such as <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/299478/57505/Statue-of-the-Jain-god-Mahavira-located-at-a-Jain" rel="nofollow">this idol</a>. But the latter begs the question of why God would sacrifice his only son if that sacrifice is just one of several, equally fulfilling options at a buffet line.Steven in Falls Churchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-53311475040279378142011-02-09T09:40:48.796-05:002011-02-09T09:40:48.796-05:00Bookguybaltmd,
Now you are truly being evasive. T...Bookguybaltmd,<br />Now you are truly being evasive. The article contains quotes from the PB whose context is provided in sources which were taken directly from the official TEC website.<br /><br />You may have your own favorite sermons of hers, which I can understand; but these may not be the best for demonstrating, e.g., what she thinks of the bodily resurrection of Christ or His divinity.<br /><br />My two questions for you (I left you with only one question, now I leave you with only two):<br /><br />1) Why do you refuse to answer the question I asked, regarding +KJS's quotes (with context provided, from the TEC website itself)?<br /><br />2) Provide a single source in which she clearly affirms the bodily resurrection of Christ.<br /><br />Re. Borg: It is very clear that he denies the bodily Resurrection - he may have changed, now perhaps saying that "he doesn't believe one way or the other" - but it's clear he doesn't find it to be important. "Resurrection" for him means something else. He, like +KJS, when they say the creeds, simply make "rose again" refer to something else - I believe their referent is the moral doctrines of the church, from my analysis of their statements.<br /><br />We can talk about whether or not I misrepresent Borg later - I was simply trying to help you understand +KJS, as Borg seems to be the most important theological figure for her. Please, the two questions above, since you are unwilling to answer the first.Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-13721047232539325682011-02-09T09:13:32.390-05:002011-02-09T09:13:32.390-05:00Once again, you fail to demonstrate that the PB is...Once again, you fail to demonstrate that the PB is not trinitarian or that she is preaching anythingother than standard anglican theology.<br /><br />You make up a lot os stuff about Marcus Borg (a misrepresentation of Dr. Borg and completely irrelevant to the PB as far as I can see)and make a lot of wild, unsubstantiated accusations, using a bunch of terms you seem to only barely understand, and then you expect to have even the remotest credibility.<br /><br />No go. Try again? If you want to know what we in TEC, INCLUDING THE PB, believe, have a look at the Book of Common Prayer sometime. I think you will find it an eye-opening experience. THAT is what we believe and the PB affirms that every single day of her life.<br /><br />I have PERSONALLY heard the PBr say the creeds and CLEARLY she believes them. The creeds are CLEARLY trinitarian. Anyone who says she believes otherwise, needs to show me where SHE said otherwise herself. More of your trial by internet misdirection and false witness doesn't cut it with any reasonable person.<br /><br />TEC does not need to leave the Anglican communion because we are safely within the bounds of historic Anglican Theology. So is the PB. Not emphasising the trinity when preaching to the unchurched is not the same as denying it.<br /><br />On the other hand, you and your followers have clearly decided that you are leaving the Anglican church. Even though the leaders in the US claimed that <br /><br />As it happens, I do read a goodly bit of theology. I have learned to recognize a foolish and false argument such as yours when I see one. I am also, at the moment, studying Greek and reading the Testaments in that language.<br /><br />You need to come up with something that documents that this is the PB's actual belief and not just more of your "trial by internet" false witness. ONLY a primary source, the PB speaking for herself, can accomplish that. You have so far failed to do so. It is clear that there is absolutely and difinitively no evidence whatsoever to support your libels.<br /><br />I did answer your question, the PB has not deneyed trinitarian beliefs at all. You have failed to demonstrate that she has. ONLY a link to the PB HERSELF will satisfy the requirements for such a charge. A link to a deliberately libelous web site will not work<br /><br />Here are some links to the PB's sermons. Can you show me something non-trinitarian here?<br />http://www.episcopalchurch.org/presiding-bishop.htm#<br /><br />http://www.anglicansunited.com/?p=8000<br /><br />http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/79425_122868_ENG_HTM.htm<br /><br />http://cccdub.ie/index.php?/sermons/sermon-by-the-most-rev-katharine-jefferts-schori-sunday-30-january-2011.html<br /><br />http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_79214_ENG_HTM.htmBookguybaltmdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16857454037137059391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-90448700766223071122011-02-09T08:44:01.586-05:002011-02-09T08:44:01.586-05:00Bookguybaltmd, I hope you do not read what I write...Bookguybaltmd, I hope you do not read what I write as personal animus against you, and also see that when I say you "appear" to be deceiving, that I don't suspect you of such.<br /><br />You seem to me like one of the thousands of Episcopalians who devotedly goes to church and wants to worship the Risen Christ and realizes that the bodily resurrection of Christ is important - but probably isn't able to connect all the dots of interrelations between the teachings of the church ... and thus, alarm bells don't go off when +KJS says certain things; or you genuinely believe that her, e.g. studied avoidance of mentioning the bodily resurrection of Christ, even in Easter sermons, is some kind of concern with "evangelism," as you state. It's easy enough to come to these conclusions when one doesn't have a thorough grounding in theology - I'd guess that plenty of "orthodox" TEC priests don't even have this grounding - I know my last TEC priest didn't (a TEC priest in a Church of England parish - yes, I know, confusing). It was actually this priest who sparked my interest in what was happening in TEC - which I was a part of, 20 years ago when I lived in the U.S..Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-29561870487081148952011-02-09T08:21:56.517-05:002011-02-09T08:21:56.517-05:00Bookguybaltmd, I'm willing to address your oth...Bookguybaltmd, I'm willing to address your other concerns, but I think it's prudent to deal with issues one-by-one, so let's first deal with Christology in TEC and in particular with +KJS. After reading http://bit.ly/asdZPO (primary sources & full context linked from there, contrary to your first perception - and if +KJS ever responded to the critiques of the Primate of Nigeria to these quotes, I would have thought I would know about it - in that case, I will be very happy when you provide links). And then answer the question: <br /><br />Which top-level leader of a prominent Trinitarian church in the last 1,500 years has gone so far as +KJS in denying the resurrection or in denying the divinity of Christ?Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-5060322435052167462011-02-09T07:07:15.073-05:002011-02-09T07:07:15.073-05:00Bookguybaltmd,
The thing is - it's very impor...Bookguybaltmd,<br /><br />The thing is - it's very important for Trinitarian Christians not to "bring another gospel" into the church by having leaders teach non-Trinitarian things.<br /><br />E.g., it's very important that we avoid teaching that Jesus is a man who lived a long time ago and died, but the "resurrection" and his "life" can be powerful metaphors for the ethical imperatives which the church wishes us to follow.<br /><br />Marcus Borg's Christology is more or less like this last bit. He does at one point say that he doesn't want to reduce the resurrection to the idea that Jesus' teachings as a "meme" became better known - but all in all, it does look like all the sacred-sounding things he says about Jesus, are really terms that can be applied to his ethics - e.g., "eternal," "transcendent," etc. etc. There are a lot of vague "sacred-like" words which could more or less mean anything which he associates with Jesus - but the teaching which is actually useful, and can be rationally comprehended, is reductive; and Borg never compellingly tells us how it is that this dead Jesus is anything more than the church's moral injunctions, as he sees them.<br /><br />You may not read a lot of theology or maybe aren't capable of seeing what people are sometimes "doing" to theology with their words. But this is also generally what +KJS is doing.<br /><br />Now, some people believe they are Christians, and that this kind of teaching is wonderful - much better than Trinitarian Christology. But for Trinitarian Christians - such people shouldn't be teaching and leading in the church.<br /><br />It basically means that TEC will need to leave Trinitarian Christianity if it is to avoid terrible conflict - for while it remains a part of us, we are "anathema" in allowing another gospel into the church.<br /><br />The good news is you are safe in any other Trinitarian church - Presby, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Anabaptist, Catholic - only us Anglicans are bringing down this awful anathema on ourselves. Then you also won't have to deal with all this Anglican bickering.Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-77520514553611907912011-02-09T06:55:03.703-05:002011-02-09T06:55:03.703-05:00Bookguybaltmd,
Now you are looking like a false w...Bookguybaltmd,<br /><br />Now you are looking like a false witness.<br /><br />The article linked contains plenty of quotes from primary sources - from the site of The Episcopal Church itself.<br /><br />It is not a "libel site" any more than The Episcopal News Service is a "libel site" - I would say much, much less so - quotes are very carefully sourced from primary sources and analyzed - insinuation is avoided - alternative perspectives are considered.<br /><br />That said - I do not want to accuse you of deception, and I'll suppose that you simply had some misguided first impressions and got a little bit carried away.<br /><br />I had a very specific question to ask you above about +KJS. If you can't answer this question - then why are you still cheerleading for her?<br /><br />This is a very serious issue. The Anglican Communion may well be the most awful church in Trinitarian history, from a New Testament standard. We may be bringing "anathema" down upon ourselves. And you, Bookguybaltmd, as a part of TEC, are more in a position than most of us to do something by having a word in your church about this.Wilfnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-39037847338672077372011-02-09T05:18:42.432-05:002011-02-09T05:18:42.432-05:00As I read some of the comments above, I see some c...As I read some of the comments above, I see some citations of the libel sites discussing Schori, but I don't see a single situation of what she herself says. I see a note of an interview and some quotes from that interview (notably taken out of context), but I don't see a link to the actual interview and it's follow-up.<br /><br />Really, the "Anglican Ecumenical Site" (A libel organization of two people!)??? You can't be serious????<br /><br />Really, people, don't you even know what a PRIMARY SOURCE is? Really, can't you come up with EVEN ONE quote directly from the PB? No? Well, that's just pitiful.<br /><br />There is no more legitimate source on the PB than the PB herself. There are PLENTY of sources available too.<br /><br />I've read her books and I just don't see what all the libel can possibly be about. It seems like pretty standard preaching. It is abundantly clear that she recites and firmly believes the creeds every day. If you read what she actually writes and says, you would abundantly know that she regularly and strongly affirms the resurrection and divinity of Christ. Do you think she somehow has her fingers crossed behind her back when she says these things?<br /><br />Can you really be such dupes as to believe this stuff without even checking it out for yourself????<br /><br />@Steven in Falls Church - no. I didn't believe that you actually really do think Schori is a hindu. But my original questions stands: if you don't believe it (and, in fact, you clearly know it to be a libel), why did you say it????<br /><br />Now, if there are any others in the UK who believe as WILLF does, this is another urgent reason TEC needs to stay in the communion: so as not to abandon the British to the unchristian false-witness of the libelers and to continue to witness to the truth about TEC.<br /><br />BookguybaltmdBookguybaltmdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16857454037137059391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-39661203282573584772011-02-09T04:59:21.274-05:002011-02-09T04:59:21.274-05:00bookguy - I agree totally that TEC should not leav...bookguy - I agree totally that TEC should not leave the Communion....from its perspective....without the AC, there is no global platform for TEC to pretend to be a major church.... in the US, only 0.26% (and falling) of the population goes along on a Sunday (avg age over 50).... TEC is slowly heading to extinction ....TEC has to stay in the Communion because its revisionist message is so unattractive to Americans and the AC allows it to pretend to be much more important thant it is. You are right, TEC should not leave the AC. <br /><br />Whether the AC majority view that TEC should be kicked out (as it is out of line with 'the mind of the Communion') is implemented is another question.<br /><br />As for 'fruit' - if you read the passage which talks about knowing people by their fruit and the passages surrounding, you will find the one who used the image of fruit talks about lots of beliefs about him being required....not sure Katie agrees with him on all of those....not sure the one who spoke of fruit meant the MDGs without all the rest of the stuff he said!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-39727150001378767702011-02-08T19:05:30.567-05:002011-02-08T19:05:30.567-05:00great summary, bbgreat summary, bbWilfnoreply@blogger.com