DROPPING THE MASK

Tuesday, January 10th, 2012 | Uncategorized

Any lingering idea that the Episcopal Organization is led by a Christian has been officially and finally been laid to rest.  Katharine Jefferts Schori recently gave an interview to a program called “Issues, Etc.” from Lutheran Public Radio.  David Virtue posted a transcript of the interview along with his own masterful beatdown so be sure to check that out.  I’ll just hit a few of the points that jumped out at me:

WILKEN: What do you mean by that phrase “Heartbeat of God”?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: That’s how I’ve talked about our understanding of God’s “mission” to heal the world and that when people-of-faith are engaged in that work they’re participating in the lively creativity of God.

Not sure exactly where Jesus fits in there but it’s still early.

WILKEN: On that issue of “people-of-faith” the subtitle of the book is “Finding the Sacred in the Middle of Everything.” so it might sound to some like pantheism. Do you believe that the “sacred”, as you define it, is found in all religions?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: Yes, I think it probably is. We’re not pantheists, many Episcopalians might be understood to as “panentheists”. The difference being that pantheists see everything as God and panentheists see God reflected in all of God’s creation. When we talk about human beings being made in the image of God that’s a piece of what we are talking about and we would extend that to all of creation.

Panentheism.  I do not think that word means what Mrs. Schori thinks it means.

WILKEN: But you contrast, or appear to contrast Jesus of Nazareth with the Christ of generations and millennia to come. Is there is difference of the “Jesus of Nazareth’ and “the Christ of generations and millennia to come”?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: Christians would understand both terms. Non-Christians would not necessarily. Jesus as a human figure is someone about Whom Muslims can speak and understand and certainly recognize and revere. And people of other faith traditions would as well. They’re not going to have access or interest in “the Christ of millennia to come” the way that Christians do.

I’m a Christian and I don’t have the slightest idea what the Presiding Bishop is talking about.  You know, what with having read Hebrews 13:8 and all.

WILKEN: You talk about hearing the “Voice of God”; I think you devote a whole chapter to it. Where is The Episcopal Church USA today hearing the Voice of God?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: OK, let me correct that. We are not The Episcopal Church in the USA. We’re The Episcopal Church in 16 different nations including the United States. So we’re certainly hearing the Voice of God and meeting God in Ecuador and Honduras and Venezuela and Taiwan and in Europe, as well as we are in the United States. There is an ancient understanding that God is met, perhaps most intensely in the poor and the marginalized. I know that St. Francis [of Assisi] called the poor “our treasure”; and that when we encounter the poor the marginalized, we’re more likely to meet Jesus, we’re more likely to see God present with us in the midst of suffering as well as joy.

Nice knowing you, Acts 10:34.

WILKEN: What then is The Episcopal Church hearing in that Voice of God?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: A call to attend to the people on the margins as well as creation that is being abused. Our work, as part of God’s mission, is to respond to the needs of the suffering – human beings as well as the rest of creation.

So God just made a down payment on a Nissan Leaf, did He?  Interesting choice.  And if you’re still wondering exactly where Jesus fits into Mrs. Schori’s spiritual weltanschauung, be patient.  She’s getting to it.

WILKEN: You also talk about climate change – manmade climate change I should say – and the Church’s obligation there. Do you regard it as sinful to deny manmade climate change or to not take part in combating man’s part in that change?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: Well, human beings have certainly been responsible for accelerating the pace of climate change. I only have to look at the carbon dioxide affluent that has been produced since the Industrial Revolution to see that. I think it is incredibly short sighted, in the sense of blind, to refuse to see evidence in the change of climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. There are clearly people who choose not to see that. I think that is not using all the gifts that God has given us.

Then I guess claiming that man is seriously damaging the environment and then turning around and flying the entire House of Bishops to Ecuador constitutes bearing false witness.  Glass houses and all that, Presiding Bishop. 

WILKEN: Short sighted, but is it sinful in your opinion?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: Sin, in our understanding, is separation from God. And if you cannot see the abuse that human beings have caused to creation, I think that you are in some sense separating yourself from God’s creation.

WILKEN: So, is that a yes?

JFFERTS SCHORI: That’s certainly a way in which I would understand it.

Learned what the word “videoconference” means yet, Presiding Bishop?  But someone help me out here.  Sin is separation from God.  Mrs. Schori understands separation from God’s creation as sin, implying that God and His creation are the same thing.  QED, despite her previous denial up top there, Katharine Jefferts Schori is a pantheist.  Or a really sloppy thinker; there’s always that possibility.

WILKEN: In 2003, I believe, you consented to the election of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop in The Episcopal Church, Now that’s been almost 10 years, I think. Do you have any regrets about that move?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: I knew at the time that it would be a very difficult decision for the wider church, both in The Episcopal Church and across the world. But, no, I believe that I, and others who voted to do that, understood that we were doing that out of a sense of great faithfulness to where we are in this church and to the Call of God in the midst of it. It’s not been easy, but at the same time I think that people across the [Anglican] Communion and within this [The Episcopal] Church – a number of them who disagreed with that decision have to realize that it is not a decision that has to divide a community, that we can continue to exist together in a community even if we don’t agree.

I want to marry my best friend’s smokin’ hot 22-year-old daughter.  My best friend believes that my marrying his smokin’ hot 22-year-old daughter is a horrible idea.  But that’s not a decision that has to divide us.  We can continue to be best friends even if we don’t agree.  Because I said so, that’s why.  SHUT UP!!

WILKEN: You said that the issue of whether or not to ordain active lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgendered persons should not be a “church dividing issue”. But, Bishop, as you know, many disagree entirely. Dioceses, parishes, many individuals have left The Episcopal Church for that and other reasons believing that they are “church dividing issues”.

JEFFERTS SCHORI: Some people have left some congregations and some people have left some dioceses over this issue, that’s correct. And, yes, they do believe that it is a “[church] dividing issue”. At the same time, many people who disagreed with the decision – most people who disagreed with the decision – have remained in The [Episcopal] Church and continue to make common cause with their fellow Episcopalians in the work of healing the world. They believe that our engagement in mission together is more important than disagreement about that [homosexual] issue.

“Most people who disagreed with the decision have remained” Episcopalian?  Running a little smack there, Presiding Bishop?  Because ever since 2003, every statistic I’ve seen, including from TEO, indicates that the Episcopal Organization is, as they say, trending downward.  Either that or conservative Episcopalians have decided to attend church disguised as empty pews.

WILKEN: Do you see a connection the early 70s ordination of women [the Philadelphia 11 on July 29, 2974] to the priesthood of The Episcopal Church and the early 2000′s ordination of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons to the priesthood?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: Yes, and I would certainly take it farther back. I think it is deeply connected with the ordinations of the first African-Americans [Absalom Jones in 1804] to this tradition and the first Native Americans [Enmegahbowh of the Ottawa Tribe in 1867] in this tradition and the first Asians [Wong Kong-chai in 1863] in this tradition. The challenge particularly in the United States, a part of our context has been expanding the understanding of what a normative human being is. And it is not just a “white man”. It includes people of other ethnic origins, includes people of the other gender, it includes people of other sexual orientations. One of the significant changes in our prayer book of the late 1970s was our admission of children to [Holy] Communion before they were confirmed. You use to have to wait until you were a teenager and had been confirmed before you could come to Communion. We said: “No, children as soon as they are baptized are full members of this community.” I don’t know what the next iteration of that journey will look like. But I think there will be one.

Sigh.  Here we go again.  Presiding Bishop?  It is not a sin to be a member of a particular ethnic group.  It is a sin to engage in the sort of activities Gene Robinson and Susan Russell do in their off-hours.  Look it up.

And what does our “understanding of what a normative human being is” have to do with anything at all?  Most Christians understand all they need to know about themselves and have understood it for a very long time.  We are sinners in desperate need of a Redeemer, something the leader of an allegedly-Christian church can’t seem to grasp.

WILKEN: What do you see the central message of Scripture is, Bishop?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: Love God and love your neighbor.

On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.  Anything else? 

WILKEN: I think that the central message is: of man’s sin …his fallen condition – alienation from God, thereby loss of the image of God, thereby… And it’s complete restoration in the Incarnation … the perfect life — sinless life … death and resurrection … the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And I think that is the central thread of Scripture. Am I wrong?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: I think that is a piece of it. But clearly God is at work communities and contexts beyond the Christian one. If you see that as the primary thrust of the Jewish Scripture I think that is a misreading. Certainly the Jews are understood as “Chosen People” in our Biblical texts. God is clearly at work in all of creation and part of our task as Christians is to discern and affirm at where we find God at work beyond our comfortable places.

Really?  So this way, truth, life stuff is passé then?   Pretty much.

WILKEN: The passage that I guess I go to repeatedly in taking that position is to Jesus, Himself, where He says: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes to the Father except through Me.” [John 14:6] Jesus is claiming to be the ONLY revelation of God; the ONLY revelation of the sacred in His Incarnation; and most certainly, the ONLY way to the True God. What are your thoughts there?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: He also says in another place [John 10:16] that He has flocks, that He is called to care for flocks – sheep that aren’t already in a particular fold, and that He has words of truth for them as well.

WILKEN: So what do you think He is referring to there, specifically?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: I think He is referring to people beyond our comfort zone.

WILKEN: Beyond Christianity?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: Could be…

WILKEN: Well, do you think it is beyond Christianity?

JEFFERTS SCHORI: I think the work of Jesus has changed reality for all human beings whether they acknowledge themselves Christians or not.

Actually, Presiding Bishop, John 10:16 reads as follows:

And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

Those other sheep are not people beyond our “comfort zone,” Presiding Bishop(and man is “comfort zone” a really stupid phrase).  Those people are you, me and everyone else.  Jesus must bring those other sheep into His fold, He will make them one flock and He will be the one shepherd.

ONE shepherd, Presiding Bishop.

Unless, of course, you believe that Jesus didn’t really utter those words, that He really wasn’t who He said He was, that He was just another “prophet” like Mohammed or the Buddha and that He was capped by the Romans because for reasons known only to them, the Romans regularly took out unknown religious leaders in really obscure parts of the Empire, in which case I have absolutely no idea why you do what you do for a living.

41 Comments to DROPPING THE MASK

Dale Matson
January 10, 2012

I wish the late Christopher Hitchens had interviewed her. I think she would have been out of her “comfort zone”.

AnglicanXn
January 10, 2012

Is is possible for Bp Schori to speak or write one sentence that makes sense in any logical, grammatical way? She makes my head swim. Her term will not end soon enough – but whom might ECUSA choose after her? Not much better….

FW Ken
January 10, 2012

I read that the interviewer ended by informing his listeners that he profoundly disagreed with the Presiding Bishop.

“Panentheism” is an interesting word, originated, if memory serves, by the heretical Anglican Bishop J.A.T. Robinson (allegedly the model for the episcopal ghost in The Great Divorce). From Wikipedia:

Panentheism (from Greek πᾶν (pân) “all”; ἐν (en) “in”; and θεός (theós) “God”; “all-in-God”) is a belief system which posits that God exists, interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. Panentheism is differentiated from pantheism, which holds that God is not a distinct being but is synonymous with the universe.[1]
Simply put, in pantheism, God is the whole; however, in panentheism, the whole is in God.

At best, this is an affirmation of the Incarnation, which is to say, that God is with us, that the Word has taken flesh and dwelt among us.

But that best doesn’t seem to obtain very often does it. Don’t forget that Schori is a disciple of Spong, who is a popularizer for Robinson. That pedigree makes me suspicious when I hear about panentheism. I’m not enough of a theologian to tease out the fault. Above all, we must affirm the Incarnation, but something is intrinsically wrong with panentheism. It’s not pantheism, but it might as well be.

Bill2
January 10, 2012

The problem, of course, is that about 90%+ of the clergy agree with this nonsense. KJS is entirely TEO mainstream.

bob
January 10, 2012

“You use to have to wait until you were a teenager and had been confirmed before you could come to Communion. We said: “No, children as soon as they are baptized are full members of this community.””

Wow. Behold the untrained clergyperson. Sigh. Does she actually have to be informed that “confirmation” is and always has been done before communion. That’s pretty old. the west decided to delay it after baptism, the Orthodox didn’t. Everyone was confirmed/chrismated, then a communicant. It has to do with the Holy Spirit. But then, why would a “church” which has the idea that the Trinity is “excess baggage” worry about that? As for communing children, the Orthodox have always baptized and chrismated infants. Babies take communion the day they that happens and thereafter.
Episcopalian kids of course have ignorant people like Schori to misunderstand what christians *have* understood for around 2000 years and to misinform them. What a zero. If she’d had the savvy to ask her mother about theology years ago she’d have avoided this gaffe.
Having a child receive communion before confirmation (next obvious question for her: why aren’t they confirmed as infants? And by the way, how many PECUSA parishes actually commune infants? Really??) makes as much sense as a couple living together, then deciding years later to get married…OH WAIT! They do that already don’t they!
This is what passes for “consistency” in the life of what once would have been called “sacraments” in something that once resembled a church. That went right past every Episcopalian, didn’t it? Why not, it went right past their chief bishop.

Danby
January 10, 2012

“They’re not going to have access or interest in “the Christ of millennia to come” the way that Christians do.”

–So much for evangelization. Once you’re a Muslim/Jew/Animist/Shaman/Wiccan/NeoPlatonist, you no longer have access to Christ the Everlasting Lord. Don’t bother talking about Christ to the Heathen, because events like the conversion of Mexico never happen.

And bob said “…”confirmation” is and always has been done before communion. That’s pretty old. the west decided to delay it after baptism, the Orthodox didn’t. Everyone was confirmed/chrismated, then a communicant.”

As a Catholic, I seem to recall my First Communion was a good 6 years before my Confirmation.

Fuinseoig
January 10, 2012

I see that you also picked up on the distinction between God and God’s creation, Christopher. That one leaped out at me.

Amongst the many jewels and wonders of that interview, too numerous to comment upon, I do have to just take a glance at this:

“You know the first great Church fight was about whether or not Gentiles could join the “Jesus Movement”.

So she’s comparing herself to St. Paul? What is that rumbling noise and darkening of the heavens I perceive? ;-)

And, as a Papist, I simply cannot let this one pass without bragging:

“One of the significant changes in our prayer book of the late 1970s was our admission of children to [Holy] Communion before they were confirmed. You use to have to wait until you were a teenager and had been confirmed before you could come to Communion. We said: “No, children as soon as they are baptized are full members of this community.”

Man, Katie girl, it took you cats all the time until the 70s to get hip to the groove regarding the little cats and kitties? My man Pius X was there before you in 1910 with Quaem Singulari. Anecdotally, “On one occasion the pope personally gave communion to a four year-old English child whom the Pope had gently asked if he knew who was being received in the Eucharist, and the child answered ‘Jesus’.”

The Pope – hipper than thou since 1910, Kate. :-)

Fuinseoig
January 10, 2012

Danby, bob is correct in what he says about the practice in the Eastern Churches and it used to be the same in the West up until the 13th century, as Pope Pius X explains in his encyclical reducing the age of discretion from 12 to 7 years (and so permitting children to receive Communion before Confirmation):

“The Catholic Church, bearing this in mind, took care even from the beginning to bring the little ones to Christ through Eucharistic Communion, which was administered even to nursing infants. This, as was prescribed in almost all ancient Ritual books, was done at Baptism until the thirteenth century, and this custom prevailed in some places even later. It is still found in the Greek and Oriental Churches. But to remove the danger that infants might eject the Consecrated Host, the custom obtained from the beginning of administering the Eucharist to them under the species of wine only.

…This practice later died out in the Latin Church, and children were not permitted to approach the Holy Table until they had come to the use of reason and had some knowledge of this august Sacrament. This new practice, already accepted by certain local councils, was solemnly confirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran, in 1215, which promulgated its celebrated Canon XXI, whereby sacramental Confession and Holy Communion were made obligatory on the faithful after they had attained the use of reason…However, in the precise determination of “the age of reason or discretion” not a few errors and deplorable abuses have crept in during the course of time. …As a consequence, owing to various local customs and opinions, the age determined for the reception of First Communion was placed at ten years or twelve, and in places fourteen years or even more were required; and until that age children and youth were prohibited from Eucharistic Communion.”

Of course, only being a common peasant, son of a postman and one of ten children, who lucked into the job and didn’t even have a pilot’s licence, Pius probably felt he had to give an overview of previous custom and appeal to Tradition to justify his change of practice in order to maintain a consisent teaching on the sacrament.

Jim the Puritan
January 11, 2012

As I said on another site, I can’t believe Schori knowingly let herself be interviewed by a real Christian on a Christian radio station. I’ll bet you at least one person in the Episcopal Communications Office got sacked over this one. Unfortunately they didn’t know the difference between an ELCA Lutheran (fellow travelers) and an LCMS Lutheran (real Christians).

Ad Orientem
January 11, 2012

ANATHEMA!

Athanasius Returns
January 11, 2012

Remember the This is your brain-this is your brain on drugs commercials? Somebody needs to do a commercial thusly:

This is a Christian. This is Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori…

Echoing Ad Orientem and all, and I mean the entirety, of Orthodox Christianity – to the Peeb: ANATHEMA!

midwestnorwegian
January 11, 2012

Behold: Satan weaving his web using small nuggets of perceived truth to spin a lie so big that those who are not VERY careful get swallowed.

Katherine
January 11, 2012

She thinks women were denied ordination because we weren’t viewed as “normative human beings.” I wonder what she thinks of the Virgin Mary (if she thinks Mary was a Virgin).

Chris’s link on panentheism was quite helpful, and he’s right, she probably doesn’t know what she’s talking about even with ideas she claims to accept.

In the light of today’s news that the Virginia colonial churches will now be turned over to TEC, this exposure of the fuzzy heresy of TEC’s leadership makes that legal ruling even more tragic.

Cris
January 11, 2012

Fuinseoig,

I’m not sure that a 4-yo getting the right answer indicates much. Most kids of that age, when asked at church, would give same answer when asked “What’s gray, has a bushy tail, and eats acorns?”

Katherine
January 11, 2012

This interviewer did a really good job. He led Jefferts-Schori to clearly articulate her separation from apostolic Christianity in the exchange about the central message of Scripture. Sin and forgiveness are central to the Jewish scriptures. When Christ “opened the scriptures” to the disciples he made their meaning clear. Calling the central message of the prophets and Christ himself as only “part of it” and a “misreading” is the most shocking thing she could have said to a Christian audience. She makes it clear that she does not share their faith.

unreconstructed rebel
January 11, 2012

It never ceases to amaze me the number of episcopalians who think that, while pantheism is skirting with heresy, penentheism is not. I am led to understand that misunderstanding can be laid at the feet of Bishop Hooker. Can anyone here shed any light on that?

Dale Matson
January 11, 2012

AnglicanXn,
“Is is possible for Bp Schori to speak or write one sentence that makes sense in any logical, grammatical way? She makes my head swim.” Actually, your comment best reflects my sentiment. Every time she speaks, it is like Obie Wan Kenobi using Jedi mind tricks.

Katherine
January 11, 2012

unreconstructed rebel, I cannot speak as a theologian on Hooker or anything else. Chris’s link to “panentheism” in the post is enlightening. It even talks of panentheism as taught by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox — but as they define it, and almost certainly not as Jefferts-Schori would understand the term, since they are Christian and she has fallen away.

unreconstructed rebel
January 11, 2012

Katherine, I just read your comment about the ruling against the departing churches in Northern Virginia. May I please have the link? (I was once involved & the news, while not surprising, is heartbreaking.)

Thanks

Katherine
January 11, 2012

At TitusOneNine, Kendall Harmon’s blog, you will find links to the actual court ruling, to press releases from the Episcopal and Anglican dioceses, and to the Anglican Curmudgeon’s analysis of the ruling. (He is not in agreement.)

The Little Myrmidon
January 11, 2012

I am recovering from the brain cramp induced by reading the PB’s incoherent statements. This one in particular stood out:

“I think it is incredibly short sighted, in the sense of blind…

Huh?

undergroundpewster
January 11, 2012

The more of KJS that I read or hear, the more confused I become. Episcobabble such as this is a perfect example of how not to expound on the Good News. Her words are another spear in the side.

FW Ken
January 11, 2012

I didn’t get a definition of panentheism, hence my bloviating on the subject. How embatrassing!

Kelso
January 11, 2012

The Book of Common Prayer (1979): worthy of a Thomas Kinkade painting!

Michael D
January 11, 2012

…continue to make common cause with their fellow Episcopalians in the work of healing the world.

Yup, she thinks that’s what our work is. To heal the world. I find other assignments in the Bible but not this one. Maybe she sees “heal the world” as the Great Omission?

Fuinseoig
January 11, 2012

Cris, two things:

(1) If she’s going to rope in under the heading of The New Thing and Prophetic Works of the Spirit and We’re So Progressive the fact that in the 1970s, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States (as it then was) lowered the age at which children could make their First Holy Communion, besides the fact which has been pointed out that it was the custom of the early Church and is retained in the Eastern Churches to communicate and confirm infants at baptism, in 1910 Pope Pius X got there first with giving and encouraging young children to receive the Eucharist – which leaves her looking like a fuddy-duddy by comparison, which is at least good for a laugh

(2) We are – unfortunately – not dealing with four year old children when we’re talking about progressive theologians. Ask Bishop Spong, for instance, who is received in communion and I somehow doubt he’ll answer “Jesus”. More something along the lines that this communal meal symbolises our own unity and we eat our commitment to ultimate humanness-become-divine-from-within when we eat the bread which represents the labour of Gaia as a totality, earth and humanity working in unison. Also, social justice.

:-)

Fuinseoig
January 11, 2012

Katherine, don’t forget children. It may be that you are too young to remember matters then, but as Bishop Jefferts Schori kindly recapitulates recent history for us, until the discovery by PECUSA/TEC in the late 1970s that children were indeed “normative human beings”, the general opinion held that children were a form of wild animal life, with some minority dissenting opinion that on the contrary, they were a form of vegetative growth, like mushrooms.

Stern conservatives pined for the good old days when children could be used as cheap and effective chimney brushes, but the bleeding-heart liberals still thought that if you wouldn’t send a dog up a chimney, you shouldn’t do it to a child. There were lively debates on the topic of mines: since pit ponies had been used up to the early 20th century, surely by analogy, children as admitted animals could continue to be sent down the pit as beasts of burden?

The ground-breaking researches of PECUSA changed all that, with their startling, audacious but ultimately irrefutable demonstration that children were – unlikely as it seemed – not only a form of human life, but “normative human beings”. The world has not been the same since.

Cris
January 11, 2012

Fuinseoig,

I’m glad you got ‘social justice’ in there. I was beginning to worry…

bob
January 11, 2012

Having heard herself trying to think on her feet, I wonder if she “confirms” older children or why she would in the first place? If it actually does something (a little like asking her if words in a eucharist “do something” to bread and wine, don’t confuse the dear lady) then why would you not do it at the same time as baptism? If not, why do it at all when they’re older? But that would deprive the Presiding Bishop of the smug announcement that *WE* give communion to the unconfirmed! How progressive. Now there are plenty of Episcopal places that commune unbaptized, too. Or ducks. Who presumably are neither?? That happened in DC at a convention, on the banks of the Patomac at a eucharist celebrated on an overturned canoe, for those who might have forgotten.

PNP, OP
January 11, 2012

What a ream of tedious flapdoodle. Are we sure she’s not a theology prof at some “university in the Jesuit tradition”?

Fr. Philip Neri, OP

Michael D
January 11, 2012

Fuinseoig, that’s very clever. Of course it is the liberals who have been, and remain, unsure whether (very young) children are a form of human life, or just some fetal tissue.

So when Schori says The challenge particularly in the United States, a part of our context has been expanding the understanding of what a normative human being is. she was forgetting her organization’s work to narrow the understanding of what a normative human being is.

Dale Matson
January 11, 2012

PNP,OP,
Are we sure she’s not a theology prof at some “university in the Jesuit tradition”? Actually in addition to CDSP she spent a couple of years studying under the Jesuits.

ann r
January 11, 2012

Reminds me of a non-Christian church secretary we once had, who responded on the phone to someone who wanted her daughter baptized, “Oh, she’s too old to be baptized, but she could be a godmother. We only baptize babies.”

FW Ken
January 11, 2012

Are we sure she’s not a theology prof at some “university in the Jesuit tradition”?

No, that’s her next career. I thinking Georgetown.

The Little Myrmidon
January 11, 2012

“Fuinseoig,

I’m glad you got ‘social justice’ in there. I was beginning to worry…”

Ahhh, but we need to toss in a reference to Anthropocentric Global Warming!!

Mike
January 11, 2012

You’re right on, MichaelD. No mainline denomination (sic) has done more than TEc to try to narrow the definition of human life. At a time when, thank God, more and more young people can truly see abortion for the abomination that it is, TEc is once again hip to the zeitgeist…of 40 years ago. Out of touch, out of step, out of adherents, and soon to be out of sight and out of mind.

CarolynP
January 12, 2012

ann r – too funny! :)

[...] Katharine Jefferts Schori Dropping the Mask – Christopher Johnson, The MCJ [...]

Allen Lewis
January 14, 2012

This one sentence just leapt out at me:

I only have to look at the carbon dioxide affluent that has been produced since the Industrial Revolution to see that.

I love it when people try to sound “educated” and just miss the mark. I did not know that any of the Rich People – aka the affluent were made out of carbon dioxide.

I do believe the PB meant to say “effluent”, but it is always possible that David Virtue typed it in inccrrectly.

But this is such a pompous way of talking in order to make oneself sound profound. Reminds me of the quote from MacBeth about being …full of sound and fury; signifying nothing”.

Yes, I agree with David Virtue and with our genteel host that Katharine Jefferts Schori is in no sense of the word a Christian. But fortunately, I don’t have to deal with that. That issue will be decided and handled by Jesus at the last day.

GillianC
January 16, 2012

The Issues, Etc. site has an archive of the interview with her, as well as a fine rebuttal by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery (not sure who he is, but I like what he has to say).
Here is the link:
http://issuesetc.org/2012/01/12/responding-to-katharine-jefferts-schori-dr-john-warwick-montgomery-1122012/

Dale Matson
January 16, 2012

Allen Lewis,
there is a certain irony in your statement.”I do believe the PB meant to say “effluent”, but it is always possible that David Virtue typed it in inccrrectly.”

Support The MCJ

Search

Links

Meta