A follow up question by another priest asked the Bishop what she does with the Great Commission. The priest asking said she felt the Great Commission had been watered down.
Bishop Jefferts-Shori responded that it was to be lived out by “teaching and forming and baptizing and nurturing and continuing to prod people to grow up into the full stature of Christ.” Absent from this answer was any value of evangelism. There seemed almost a reticence or bashfulness about spreading the Gospel to those who have not yet heard it.
No one took the initiative to ask how praying for those communities and wishing them the best squared with the lawsuits pending against them. But then, the good Bishop may have only been trying out a new slogan for the Episcopal Church: “We’ll keep the light on for you.” After listening to her speak, though, it was clear that whatever light would be kept burning in the Episcopal church, it could not possibly be the light of Christ.
Commentary: What gets clearer is that in looking at faith you have to look at both the content of what is believed and the way in which someone believes. The content of her conversations is advanced, but the process of her faith is much less developed. This is what seems so confusing.
She appears to have a faith that encourages deep ambiguities and mysteries, when in fact that’s the content of her faith, not her practice. That’s what she says, not how she acts. No wonder so many of us feel marginalized by a person who says she is so concerned with people on the margins.
When she said, “I have no clear answers so it comes down to pastoral skill” I finally saw the light. The PB is all about pastoral skill. That’s the highest value in her life, and no doubt why she has been lauded and raised to the highest levels in the church. She comes across as pastoral. Part of that skill comes through in her monotone and slow speech, the perfected skill of non-anxious presence. Part of her skill comes through in the content of her beliefs. But the how of her beliefs shows there is not space for others who hold contrary beliefs. Her value on conversation/relationship as the highest ideal points away from a the more highly developed faith that she seems to express in her words.
• What matters most is pastoral skill, and an outward impression of compassion. She will always act to protect this impression.
• When listening to the PB we need to look past the content and watch for the actions … but then we knew that already.
• To question her or stand against her ideas one has to do so without giving her any passion to work with, for she will very quickly discount any alternative answers as a “rush to judgment” or “people acting out of fear”. It is simply not possible for the PB, given her process for thought/faith, to imagine that any smart/compassionate person could disagree with her conclusions. She may allow for them to do so, but she can’t understand how it could happen.
The reporter is a member of the clergy of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.
For someone who “claims” to have left the Episcopal Church you sure do spend an awful lot of time obsessed with it!!! My guess is that many of the Presiding Bishop’s comments, quite simply, were beyond your intelligence to understand. That’s unfortunate. Prayers for knowledge to you!
My understanding is that the post was written by a member of the clergy of the Episcopal Church. I am a parishioner and a vestry member of an Episcopal parish that has not left the corporation and is extremely unlikely to do so. I for one appreciate this account of our PB’s meeting. Many of the remarks of the PB were beyond the ability of my intelligence to understand as well. But then, it is also beyond my ability of my intelligence to understand how the PB of our denomination could tell the primates in Tanzania that she supports their proposal and return to this country and deny that she supports it. It is beyond the ability of my intelligence to understand how she can say at this meeting, <>For those who have come now to the faithful conclusion that they can no longer be part of this body I think our task is to bless their journey and reassure people if they want to return the door’s open and we’ll keep the light on. We pray for the best for all communities …<> while still involved in litigation against those same individuals, litigation that Christians ought to regard as scandalous. That does not sound to me like the good shepherd. It sounds as if the sheep don’t know her voice. This sheep certainly does not.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we really shouldn’t encourage the progressive tin-foil hat brigade as they sprinkle their “carefully considered thoughts” in their vain hope of raising those of us of orthodox persuasion up to something approaching their level. To do so does nothing more than encourage them to continue to babble their foolishness. Stop spreading pearls before swine and just offer prayer that they will stop being so foolish, repent and approach Christ as a little child.
Today is the 22nd anniversary of my ordination to the priesthood. Back then I could never have imagined the church in the position it is in today. Today it’s hard to understand why we don’t understand more … why are so many of the answers so unclear?I sat and listened to the PB on Friday. She talked about ambiguity. I wondered where in scripture I could find that concept (as in, “You shall know the ambiguity and the ambiguity shall set you free.”) When she said the communion had once defined itself in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral I wanted to ask a couple of questions:(1) Has no one heard of the other statements and documents adopted by the Anglican Church? We are told the big lie over and over that Anglicanism “always” has been broad and comprehensive. But not so much that it is indistinct from other faiths. Bishop Gore once wrote (in a letter to the clergy) “We church people have of recent years shown ourselves unmistakably anxious to avoid questions of principle. We have let ourselves drift, and have been even disposed to rely upon the alleged habit of the Church of England to avoid plain expressions of principle, and to “tumble along,” trusting that somehow it will emerge intact from the chapter of accidents. I think, however, that this has not always been the habit of our Church … I believe that the zealous love of principles characterizes every period of real spiritual progress and power in the Church. And if it be true that of late years we have shrunk from the labour of examining and expounding principles, and if to shrink from this task is even characteristic of Englishmen and English Churchmen, we do well to remind ourselves that churches and states alike have been known to fail in human history simply through an excessive yielding to their characteristic weaknesses. I believe that no human organization, and especially no religious organization, can maintain itself unless it understands and lets other people understand what principles it stands for … the Church of England has claimed comprehensiveness as its glory. It has given the utmost scope for liberty of opinion. But a comprehensive body means a body which can tolerate much difference of opinion and practice among its members because it is at the basis bound strongly together by principles held in common. Otherwise it is not a comprehensive body at all, but a mere consensus of jarring atoms, held together by some external bond. It is these common principles which are now imperilled amongst us …”Why do we ignore very well written, officially adopted documents like the 1922 Report of the Commission on Christian Doctrine, or the later report by the same commission published in 1987 under the title “We believe in God.” The 1922 one is certainly worth the time to find and read.(2) Why do some, like the PB, accept the C-Lambeth Quad as authoritative but then deny that Lambeth 1998 has authority? Or that subsequent decisions by Primates and Comissions can not poossibly have authority among us Americans who describe ourselves as autonomous? Is it that we are at a doctinal buffet where we can pick and choose which Lambeth statements we will accept and which we will not … but on what logical basis do we do that? One wonders. Or is that wanders?
Maybe they just should have left the building and walked away. Then they could get on with their lives and the ministries which they say they could not do (and still don’t seem to be able to do).BTW, there are still many conservative parishes in the TEC who have no intention of following this right wing separatist nonsense. Is Schori “out there” in left field? Sure, but the pendulum will swing back the other way in nine more years.
Schori is a sophisticated banner waver. Her banners carry catch words like tolerance, mystery, equality, conversation, ambiguity, etc. The real message is the lives of those who wave the banners.Be long-suffering and patient saints. God will reveal the truth concerning her in time.
BB,I’m not Episcopalian – I just want to tell you-I’ve downloaded several sermoms by Martyn Minns and they are scriptural, uplifting, wonderful. They make me happy. You are on the right path. Please don’t let anyone wear you down.I’ve listened to Spong talk several times – it just depresses me. Good luck.
Can someone point me to those portions of Scripture that talk about “conversation” or “apophatic” and “cataphatic” faith? Can’t seem to find them in my Bible. In fact, her statements about salvation for some reason sound entirely heretical and in direct repudiation of the Thirty-Nine Articles. I believe she is espousing what used to be known as “Universalism.”But then what do I know? I probably am not intelligent enough to understand true Christianity.
Oh, you poor, suffering martyrs, getting dragged into court like that! Why, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer had it easy next to you!Here’s a thought: if Martyn’s Minions had not run down to the courthouse ASAP to transfer Episcopal Church property to the Church of Nigeria, there would be no lawsuits. But, being a bunch of political apparatchiki, they knew that such an action would force the diocese to respond, at which point they could run to the media crying about persecution and martyrdom.It’s so cheap and transparent, but when your church’s one foundation is hatred of queers and uppity chicks, you have to work with what you got.
“Apophatic” is a term used in the Eastern Church, especially among ascetics and mystics who are appalled by TEC’s actions. The term is used to negatively define the Holy. Here are two examples. Both involve negative space to indicate profound holiness. Example 1: The mercy seat between the wings of the cherubim on the altar of Israel. Example 2: The empty space between the two halves of the broken consecrated loaf. In both cases, negative space is of God’s creating in order that He might make room for repentant sinners. TEC is unrepentant, so you may draw your own conclusion as to its response to God’s invitation to holiness.
As I said before, the true message is found in the lives, attitudes and lack of charity of those who wave TEC’s banners.I have repented of that and many other mis-deeds and attitudes. Repentance is a daily way of life with me. And you?
Play nicely!Personal attacks with no grounds on those whom you disagree does not a valid argument make.
Abigail Ann Young,I trust you will read Evelyn Underhill on MYSTICISM before getting too excited by the PB’s use of the words. I am not sure that the PB has a grasp of the real meaning of the words as she has apparent difficulty with the concepts of “let your ‘yes’ be yes, and your ‘no’, no.” Ms. Underhill is a much more reliable guide to such mysticism and its appropriate uses than the current PB, in my humble opinion. Try Amazon.com for used copies.That said mysticism is classically defined as staring in mist, centering in I, and ending in schism. Rather unfortunate that that is the usual progression in the Western Church. The Eastern Church has a longer pronounced understanding of the mystical progress and there are, of course, western mystics like St John of the Cross and the author of the Cloud of Unkwowing and the work of Brother Lawrence.
To Anon, and in support of Art+’s reply. It is important to know your adversary. More battles are lost by those who underestimate their opponents.