She’s a corker, our Kate is!

Of course, what’s left undefined is what it means to be saved. She’s said things elsewhere that would leave one to believe she’s a universalist so the whole discussion above is irrelevant.

If she believes is true, then I am saved. If what I believe is true, I am still saved.

A present-day Athanasius fights against “the great Western heresy!” How prophetic! Odd – I thought it was Arianism. Anyway, Her Bishopess has hit upon something. Christ spoke the language of an obscure, nomadic, non-shellfish-eating middle-eastern tribe, so the translations of His words have been off for 2,000 years – until Katie came along. No problem, folks. Just go through your New Testaments and whenever you see the words “him” or “her,” cross them out and write in “them.” And whenever you find Christ saying the word “you,” just put a line through it and write in “y’all.” The Scriptures need updating anyway. I mean, with all the “unnatural lust” homophobe stuff that fellow Paul wrote.

I’d like her to explain how to get saved. It’s still unclear to me. Don’s understanding seems too complex. Surely there are some things I should do, specifically, to get saved. I mean, like doctors help people, and there’s obvious evidence for their care for others – are they now saved? What about a prisoner on death row, locked up in a cell? He has no opportunity to help his neighbour. Can he be saved?

There is zero soteriology in the presiding bishop’s “theology”. No cross. No saving.

In light of Katharine Jefferts Schori’s incessant gnostic blatherations, it’d be advisable to keep in mind Richard Niebuhr’s 1930′s assessment of mainline Christian liberalism, “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” In fact, one could make a sort of handy bookmark of the statement, keeping it nearby so as to pull it out anytime one comes across practically everything Jefferts Schori says. Would help keep things in focus.

This is beyond even the most egregious Lutheran parody of Catholic salvation theology. It’s straight-up Pelagianism. Period. “Be nice” as the whole of the law and the prophets.

This is what happens when you toss out the idea of sin.

Sorry to bust your bubble Katiekins but I never thought of salvation as “getting right with God”. For one thing, I know that without His grace I cannot be right with God. The whole idea smacks of some other heresy you may have heard about. No salvation is about being “made right with God and continuing by His grace to stay right with Him.” I am incapable of using my own efforts to do so and must rely on Him totally.

It’s no wonder she trips over herself. It’s as if she really wants to say, ‘faith without works is dead. Come to think of it, let’s just drop the faith part altogether’, but can’t quite bring herself to say it.

She doesn’t really seem interested in exhorting people to love their neighbors more in order to correct some sort of imbalance on the part of Christians in this regard. She wants to omit the ‘love the Lord your God’ part, so she tries to set the two at odds.

The standard technique of changing theology by omission or false dichotomies. The standard template: ‘Why do you spend ALL your time worrying about [fill in what you wish to discard] when you SHOULD be spending time on [fill in what they were already doing, ironically much more than TEC does with its %.7 MDG budget]?’

I am no fan of KJS but I gotta say the reactions here are way over the top. I don’t find anything unorthodox in what’s quoted here.

Her talk here is very much in line with the Epistle of James. It is not the whole of the gospel, any more than James is, but it is not heresy any more than James is.

Ms. Schori-Jefferts must be into “religion” for the sake of destroying it + the money!!! [This is especially given her lack of brains and talent for science (her papers are so mediocre as to end up finally rejected...), business, the arts (look at her taste in vestments - it's as ugly as ugly can be!!!) or anything else...]

On that basis, she’s quite happy perhaps to drive all right-thinking people out while forcing them to leave all their stuff behind – so she can end up having “clear title” to it all!! [That and/or her beliefs à la Spong - which means that she's worshipping HERSELF!!! - have to account for it all...]

No wonder she loves to sue everybody she can – so as to stop them from taking away properties that otherwise SHE can sell to her (and that of her fellow anti-bishops and anti-bishopesses!!) advantage!! No matter how anti-Christian it all is – as with Messrs. Bennison, Robinson, Chane, Spong et al: it’s all about ME, ME, ME, ME ad nauseam)!!!!!

Hate to admit it, but Kate has a point… Faith without works is dead, and loving your neighbor is certainly the best way to demonstrate your love of God…

So now let’s get down to cases. Does this mean that Kate will take a path of loving reconciliation with departing parishes and diocese? negotiating with them rather than sueing them? Fat chance.

She’s going to continue to “love” us all the way to the courthouse, because when her ego is at stake all bets are off.

Can you say “hypocrite”? Sure you can.
I have been baptized.

Mark, the Epistle of James was written as a corrective to erroneous interpretations of those written by Paul whereby they would justify not doing anything for charity, helping others, etc. on account of “predestination” and “God’s Grace”. Most surely it was NEVER meant to be to discredit the rest of the Bible!!! That was never His Intention!!!!

[Of course, it’s not for nothing that some of the Paulists (the erroneous ones particularly) reacted to it with hostility and lack of understanding. The numbers thereof include St. Jerome (his bishop had to order him to include it in the Latin Vulgate translation) and Martin Luther.

So how exactly do you arrive at that point, Mark? Do you intrinsically know it because some Episcopal minister sprinkled water on you back when you were too young to know or care?

That you, individually have to, at some point, agree to all this stuff, in whatever form that agreement takes, seems to me like it would be a given. Of course, I’m operating under the constraint of logic here.

Sorry to be so loquacious, ladies & gentlemen: however, given this dichotomy of faith vs. works, perhaps this poor analogy to epoxy glue might serve some purpose. [This certainly does not apply so much to genuine deathbed conversions of the last minute, e.g., the "good" thief.]

With epoxy glue, one has two components: the resin and the hardener. They have to be mixed together in equal proportions to get maximum power; anything else is likely to lead to inferior results. Similarly one needs both faith AND works in order to optimally prove to both God and Man (in so far as one can prove ANYTHING whatsoever to Him Who Created us, remembering that without faith nothing we do can ever help our inevitably-monstrous sin-accounts!!!) that we’re really genuine about our beliefs…

Again, sorry for the length and many words thereupon; however, yours truly has ruminated upon this subject for a long time; and this analogy perhaps has as much validity as anything else. If anybody can see where and how I am wrong, please let him point it out to me. Thanks in advance!!

Kate is confused. What she means clearly by her actions is “you’ll know we are Episcopalians by our lawsuits”. How could she possibly have forgotten to mention that the lawsuit is THE supreme form of salvation for the perpetrator and the defendant? Golly, Miss Kate, those shure are sum big lawsuit dollars ya got there! Didja tet ‘em from them ‘ere MDG savings?

Sasha: “Mark, the Epistle of James was written as a corrective to erroneous interpretations of those written by Paul whereby they would justify not doing anything for charity, helping others, etc. on account of “predestination” and “God’s Grace”.”

Um, right, and that appears to be more or less what KJS is trying to do here too. Nothing wrong with that.

“Most surely it was NEVER meant to be to discredit the rest of the Bible!!! ”

Sure, and again, I don’t see what in the passages quoted from KJS here amounts to “an attempt to discredit the Bible.”

Let me be clear again: I do believe KJS to be a heretic based on other things she’s written and said. But this material here could have been from any perfectly orthodox, or even Orthodox, preacher.

Christopher Johnson: “So how exactly do you arrive at that point, Mark? Do you intrinsically know it…”

What “point”? What’s “it”? I don’t follow you at all.

Mark: Mr. Christopher Johnson was referring to your likely being baptised as a child, and in which case it being likely in an “Episcopalian church”.

Otherwise, Ms. Schori-Jefferts is denying the whole concept of INDIVIDUAL salvation!!! In any case, let’s not forget that even Satan can appear as an angel of light, using perfectly-normal and worthy Biblical material as part of his arguments (remember how he tempted Our Lord, please!). Similarly so, one can find good things even in evil people (e.g., Stáljin or Hitler) which however don’t mitigate their fundamental evil one iota!!!

Of course, Mr. Christopher Johnson will have much to add here and I could be at least partly wrong…

Mark,

How do you arrive at the point where you know that you’re supposed to love your neighbor as you love yourself? How do you know exactly when you’re supposed to do everything Kate describes here in order to be saved? And does the Cross figure in at all? If so, how? And if it does, why didn’t Kate bring it up?

Mark: “Nothing unorthodox??” PUH…LEEEZE! Calling personal salvation “the great Western heresy” is in line with the teachings of Christ and His Church? We are created individually, we are baptized individually, the sacraments are administered to indivduals, we die individually and we are judged individually. To acknowledge these facts is heresy? James’ admonitions about looking out for others is itself addressed to indivduals performing individual “works.” “No ONE comes to the Father except through Me,” said Christ. Guess He was caught up in “the great Western heresy,” too, huh?

My apologies, Mr. Christopher Johnson!! Truly I was wrong in what yours truly said to Mark… Your explanation makes so much more sense!!

Two great correctives to Kate’s blathering: Philippians 2 and Matthew 7:24-27. We each have responsibilities to others and harm others each time we fail to live up to them, but I don’t damn others by my own sins (which, if she believed in damnation, would be the logical conclusion of what she bleated).

BTW, Philippians 2:5-12 and Romans 1:21-32 depend on each other, not just in parallel structure, but to bring a complete picture of sin and grace.

The love God and love neighbor is the Law. The Law is NOT our salvation! The Cross is our salvation. Where did she go to seminary?

During seminary, I had with several people, conversations on topics similar to what is being discussed. Short summary is that salvation is for the most part, a first person singular activity. It is not first person singular in that you must learn about Jesus from someone else, even if that learning is “book learned.” Now on the other hand, worship and living the Christian life should not be first person singular. That is why God gave us the Church Catholic.

I wish I could mold the PeeBee’s words into this understanding, but I cannot. Her view is wrong in the opposite direction from those whose idea of a personal relationship with Christ is, “Me and my good buddy Jesus.”

Warning: off topic and cold-hearted.

I wonder if the Peeb dislikes “In the Garden” as much as I do?

Yes, pretty tune, loving, warm, but come ON: “no other has ever known”? This is the “Jesus is my girlfriend” hymn of the nineteen-teens.

There is a theorem in mathematical logic which says that if you claim and assertion and its negation to both be true, you can prove anything to be true.

Thus Schori on the one hand claims “right relationship depends on loving neighbors” and then claims “Salvation is a gift from God, not something we can earn by our works.”

If she can get her audience to buy this whole package the nshe has it made – she can prove anything she wants to using this as the starting point.

Chris, when you say “our judgment depends on whether or not we’ve dealt with our sins, not simply on whether we’ve been extra-special, super-duper nice to people.” I suspect you mean “our judgment depends on whether or not we have placed ourselves under the Lordship of Jesus, who dealt with our sins on the cross.”

She’s preaching from the Ingham school of rhetoric (TM) here. She begins by suggesting that “those guys” believe that salvation can be “achieved” by insincere recitation of a statement of faith “Jesus is Lord” (something that her opponents do not believe). She then refutes this falsehood (the one she made up – it’s called a “strawman”) by implying that it is the statement of faith that is at fault (rather than the shallow insincerity). The next step is to completely reject the statement of faith (which actually resides at the root of our relationship with God), and suggest instead that the fruits of faithfulness (good works) are the true roots of our faith (thus replacing Jesus’s grapevine metaphor with a peanut metaphor). Not satisfied with making “Jesus is Lord” an irrelevant phrase, her final goal is to convince us that it is an evil phrase, by suggesting that people use it as a form of “magic salvation.”

Oh the arrogance. Does she think that we don’t read our Bibles?

To be honest I don’t understand KJS. She says that salvation isn’t individual, that it relies on how we are as a community. But surely how we act as community derives from our individual adherence to the Will of God. The good thief was saved, not because of his relationship to community but because of his personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Obviously, had the thief been saved from his execution he would have loved his neighbour simply because that would have been the result of his _personal_ conversion. Works can not save us, we could never do enough works to warrant our Salvation. Our salvation comes from the grace of God alone. But with that grace comes changes in us, and we perform good works because we are filled with the grace of God.

Obviously someone who fails in good works just shows that their obedience to God’s Will is lacking. Anyone can claim that Christ is their Lord, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Likewise, someone could do good works all their lives, yet not have truely known Christ.

Atheists reject Christ, they can still feed the hungry and clothe the naked, but what of their souls? If they consciously and knowingly reject God, then they also reject eternal life.

As I said, I don’t understand what KJS is saying. I mean, is she saying that you can’t be saved if you put yourselves first, isn’t that obvious? Surely, the mark of holiness is being a servant to others? Jesus placed everyone else first and submitted to the Cross. He called us to carry our Cross as well. Isn’t salvation about us loving Jesus and thus trying to imitate his life. The greatest shall be the least.

But doesn’t all this proceed from a personal, not communal, realtionship with Christ?

HEY! That’s MY name! Don’t Wear it out. I’ll be by that fine establishment of yours to pick up my royalty check.

When I heard Kati’s original speech to her Winkies – uh, I mean delegates – my reaction was What the f… Hence my choice to change my nom de plume. So your choice of title on this attempt to clarify her first speech is very appropriate for me.

There’s a straighforward solution:

Bishop Schori: We are confused, as you can tell from the above discussion. If you are reading this, please log on and explain what you really mean. Inquiring minds want to know (and yes you will be well-treated, Chris will make sure of that). We can reduce it to the following simple yes-or-no question:

Do you personally agree with the statement “Jesus Christ is Lord.” ??

Mark -
For me, this is the key to misunderstanding that our lady Katharine has done:

… and we give evidence of our relationship with God in how we treat our neighbors, nearby and far away.

This is quite true. It is similar to what Jesus said about the fruit which the tree bears being an indicator of the tree’s condition.

The problem is that +KJS confuses the “evidence” with the substance. For Kate, good works are a sign of your saved-ness. But, as Chris and others have pointed out, even atheists can do charitable works. It may be that a so-called atheist who does charitable works because he loves his fellow men is much better off (soteriologically speaking) than someone who does good works to prove he has a relationship with the Lord.

Just because there are “good works” does not a relationship make. That is her chief error.

There are a couple of things intertwined here, which I’m not sure if she intended, or if the meaning which is being taken up is the meaning she intended, or what.

As regards the charitable role of the Church and its members, I’ll refer you to our guy’s last encyclical, “Deus Caritas Est”, for the heavy lifting on that.

Katherine certainly didn’t help herself with her little jokes (“The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly the ones in Mississippi, they’re all related.” Oh, what a kneeslapper! Let’s all chortle about the inbred and even incestuous redneck hicks who handle snakes and talk about Jeeeesus, shall we, since we’re ever so much more sophisticated?) but she may actually be trying to articulate some kind of theological understanding here.

Yeah, I know, falling over in shock at the very notion, but it’s possible.

Now, she is or we are or somebody seems to be mixing up what she said as somehow pitting ‘sola fide’ versus ‘works righteousness’ (which is an argument for another day), but I don’t think that is what she was trying to get at; at least, not at the start.

I take it we can all agree that she was trying to refer to the necessity of all being in one body rather than splitting off into separate little groups? And that this is to do with The Current Unplesantness, and is just one more way of her going on about border-crossing and the Council of Nicea and how you can’t quit, you can only be fired from TEC?

On the other hand, she does have a point about the community of believers: “And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you.” Yes, for each of us, our own salvation depends on our relationship with God, but on the other hand, it is not a matter simply of saying a version of The Sinner’s Prayer and that’s it, I’m sorted, nothing more need be done. There is a legitimate question here, if we’re talking about the ‘name it and claim it, God wants you to be rich, your best life now’ style of preaching that happens in some contexts.

There’s a good post on this topic over at a Southern Baptist blog, the Internet Monk:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/riffs-051309-scot-mcknight-on-the-individualized-gospel#more-3182

I think the trouble here is that none of us believe that she is actually trying to teach, but is using veiled meanings regarding The Current Unpleasantness and trying to defend TEC as being part of the Anglican Communion regardless of what it does plus the emphasis on social justice over doctrine.

“Dear Michael D. Thank you so much for your invitation to post here. As to your question, I would have to say that it depends on whether or not you are making an isolated comment and, of course, upon the context. I hope I have answered you. Peace be upon you. KJS, All-High Bishopess and Prophetess of TEO.”

Since we are speaking about WO….or sorry I was channeling TUAD…
Intercessor

NOOOOOooooooo, Intercessor!!!! Don’t wake up the Great Shouter of Institutional Enablers! Be healed!

Seriously, I would love for this woman to explain how this letter jibes with all the depositions, lawsuits, alleged renunciation of orders.

I rather agree with Mark on this matter. Christopher seems (rightly, IMO) concerned with personal faith, what evangelicals and, if memory serves, the Pope of Rome, have referred to as a “personal relationship with Christ”. Dr. Schori seems to be speaking of a private relationship with Christ, which, according to scripture, tradition, and reason, is truly heretical. A solitary Christian is a contradiction in terms and it is a heresy prevalent in the west.

While Dr. Schori has never demonstrated theological sophitication of a level that we might suppose she could make a distinction between “personal” and “private”, that is no excuse for the rest of us.

Yes, Ed, “I come to the Garden” is dreck of the sort one hears sung in too many Catholic parishes these last 40 years. In fact, it is so generic, I heard it sung once at a Unity Church funeral.

Yes, In The Garden” is the sort of treacly, over-sentimentalized song (I refuse to call it a hymn) that older people down South just love. When my wife and I had a music ministry in the local area nursing homes, that was one of the most requested numbers that we did.

Yes, it does smack of “Me and my buddy Jeeeesus got us a good thing goin’!” philosophy. I always liked The Old Rugged Cross much better, but it was a lot harder to sing.

What is this “garden” of which you speak?

- Puzzled Catholic Sometimes Organist

Hermits anyone!!!

Atheists reject Christ, they can still feed the hungry and clothe the naked, but what of their souls? If they consciously and knowingly reject God, then they also reject eternal life.A better description of Schori I have never read anywhere.

that we eat our own destruction if we take Communion without having regard for the rest of the communityCouldn’t have put it better myself – and another reason of course why Shori is damned! But of course this cuts both ways: it shows that not long is Schori damned – but so is anyone else who remains within TEC and takes communion there – whatever theological justification they may attempt to spin themselves, or whatever “individual private” faith they may claim to hold.
Still in TEC? Mark Lawrence, Sarah Hey, Kendall Harman.

Damned all of you. Damned to hell with Schori. Whatever the correctness of your theology.
In this, at least, she is right.

Again, the Law does not save; only the Cross. Loving neighbor and loving God are the precepts for the particulars of the law. ONLY THE CROSS SAVES!

Allen, you got me to start a parody using the tune of Me and Mrs. Jones, but I decided I should not do that to the Name.

Popess Kate says this of “ubuntu”:

“…Often translated from its original African dialects as “I am because we are,” …

Original African Dialects? She still doesn’t know what language it’s in? And how patronizing is that “dialect”!

Let conservatives be wiser than liberals! “Ubuntu” is related to the word “Bantu” (root BNT), which term (analogously to “Indo-European”) indicates a family of languages. The Bantu tongues are spoken, more or less, by a large swath of humanity centered along the eastern half of Africa.

Swahili is a Bantu language.

The word “Bantu” means, roughly, “men” or “people-talking.” It’s the “human” root-word.

Likewise, many Native American names are derivations of the word “man” or “human.” So, the Delware call themselves “Lenni Lenape,” or “Original Regular Human People.” The Navajo call themselves “Dinetah,” “people.” The word “Comanche” means simply “human being.” So it is with “Bantu.” It means, basically, “people.”

The “man”-root in “Bantu” applies also to the word “Ubuntu.” Here, it does mean, sort of, humanness or common humanity. Folk-ness. Das Volk, if you choose!

But as best as I can tell, “ubuntu” is specifically a vocabulary word in the Zulu language.

I could be wrong—because there isn’t a Caucasian alive who seems to know for sure.

Zulu is a Bantu language.

I note that 815 was calling the word “Ubuntu” a “Bantu word,” which is a bit like calling the word “abortion” a “word in the Indo-European Language.”

Bishop Beckwith of the loathesome Newark Diocese refers to “ubuntu,” habitually, as “either Bantu or Zulu.” This is like saying “ugly beard” is “either English or Indo-European.”

Of course, it’s your right not to post this message, if you feel it’s unhelpful. I think that we should notice each and every little bit of mental dishonesty from TEC.

Finally, what does a Zulu word meaning “peopleness” have to do with Christian revelation?

Paul only preached two things:

1. Christ

2. Him crucified.

I have to say that much of this writing from KJS isn’t too bad — the middle part. She starts out rejecting individualism entirely; how that jibes with the insistence that what individuals feel they want to do with their private parts trumps scripture, tradition, and reason applied to scripture, is beyond me.

And then we reach the last two paragraphs, where she loses it entirely. I don’t think she means, as an orthodox believer might, that salvation history will be complete only at the last day, when the new heaven and the new earth are for the resurrected. No, “salvation is happening all the time, all around us.” It’s here and now, in good works, as defined in Episco-speak.

“If salvation is understood only as “getting right with God” without considering “getting right with (all) our neighbors,” then we’ve got a heresy (an unorthodox belief) on our hands.”

Does Schori believe in death-bed conversions? Would she require the dying person to crawl out of bed first and do something really nice for the neighbors??

So if salvation doesn’t have a personal component to it, then why exactly is the Apostle’s Creed, the Baptismal Symbol, written in the first person singular? Kate, inquiring minds would like to know.

st. anonymous, no, everything would be okay if the person lived long enough to sign a check to Planned Parenthood.

Ed the Roman – I apologize for being a cause for temptation to you.

Daniel Mullsd – In The Garden is a song (it’s been covered by Elvis Presly, Anne Murray, Alan Jackson, to name a few). The song consists of the person talking about the fellowship that he/she has with Jesus “in the garden.” Just Google ‘”In the Garden” + lyrics’ and click on the Alan Jackson version. There are three verses. To give you an idea of the philosophy, the chorus runs thusly:

And he walks with me
And he talks with me
And he tells me I am his own.
And the words we share
As we tarry there,
None other has ever known.

It is an over sentimentalized word picture of the personal fellowship that the singer has with Jesus. It is all singing birds and sweet-smelling flowers with no mention of the Cross. All this done to a 3/4 time tinkly tune. Like I said the seniors that we played for in our music ministry were very fond of it. Of course they liked The Old Rugged Cross also, so I will give them points for that.

My issue with the song is that it has no theological content and shows no awareness of the cost of discipleship – which, btw, is my objection to most “Christian” pop music today.

But to each his/her own musical taste in hymnody. I prefer hyms such as those written by Isaac Watts and Martin Luther. But that’s just me. I was raised on the 1940 hymnal and blessed to have been a member of a parish with a world-class organist who really understood the Anglican roots of the chants, plainsong and hymns that he played. He was also a first class jazz pianist. Whether that had anything to do with his love of good classical organ I do not know.

st. anonymous, no, everything would be okay if the person lived long enough to sign a check to Planned Parenthood.

Katherine gets my vote for the “Zinger of the Thread” award!!

Good one, Madame!

Allen Lewis, my mother and grandmother loved In the Garden, even though they were Christian Scientists. I love a few Christian Science hymns, even though they are theological nonsense. It has to do with certain songs (like certain smells) being intertwined with memories of loved ones and happy times. An old lady in a nursing home, hearing that song, is back in a pew with her husband and little children, or with her parents, just for a moment.

Fuinseog comes closest to my interpretation of this particular emission by the Madwoman of Second Avenue. “I take it we can all agree that she was trying to refer to the necessity of all being in one body rather than splitting off into separate little groups?” Yes, I think that was the essential motivation behind the whole discussion – it was entirely Episco-centric, with no particular interest in how other churches balance the “faith vs. works” demands.

“And that this is to do with The Current Unplesantness, and is just one more way of her going on about border-crossing and the Council of Nicea and how you can’t quit, you can only be fired from TEC?” I’d go further. I think she’s now abandoning the “you can’t quit, you can only be fired from TEC” line, and going for a hardcore “You can’t leave ever” approach. Why? Because 3 years ago, she thought her “church” could absorb the hit from voluntary departures, as long as she could make sure that they’d be turned naked out into the wilderness. She figured this would discourage all but the most fanatical conservatives, who’d at most account for a few troublesome parishes, and the rest would remain, cowed and submissive, in order to hang onto their stuff.

Now she’s finding out that the troublemakers are determined to exact weregild for every departure, and it’s costing her way more than she anticipated. But worse, TEO has turned out not to be a perpetual motion machine which runs automatically, tossing gold nuggets into her lap, as she had supposed. The departure of those ignorant nobodies has actually had an effect – the machine doesn’t run without people, and there are fewer and fewer people every year.

So this is a counsel of desperation: “You CAN’T leave! Salvation only comes to the group! If you go off without us, you’ll be damned!” Yes, it’s the hoary old “threaten them with hellfire” tactic, coming from the enlightened “church” that doesn’t make you check your brain at the door. Of course, she’s only trying it because she knows that the people abandoning her and her ecclesiastical squat really care about salvation and damnation; unfortunately for her, they don’t have to rely on her for the necessary information, which is why the reaction hasn’t been one of fearful submission, as she’d hoped, but of incredulity.

Since there was an intercessory request, I shall oblige with this comment of mine that I posted on CJ’s immediately preceding blog post titled “Hell”.

“Sadly and unfortunately, there were folks in Nazi Germany who professed to be Christians and who also aided and abetted and enabled the Holocaust to occur by being members in good standing with the institution called the Nazi Party. They were yoked, complicit, and morally culpable.

If these Institutionalist-Enablers stayed in as Nazi members by claiming that they are being called to be a “witness”, then let the record show that their witness was not a good one. And that claims of being “called” to stay are highly suspect.”

—–

If one were to compare the circumstances of professing Christians in the Nazi Party with the circumstances of the professing Christians in TEc, then it immediately leaps out at you that professing Christians in the Nazi Party and their families would probably suffer harm in a variety of ways if they were to leave the Nazi party. They probably felt physically coerced to stay.

In stark contrast, can a TEc stayer say the same thing?

Intercessor…is that you?

Sorry, TUAD…couldn’t resist.

Dr M.

I don’t think she’s trying to threaten people who are leaving, I think it’s more about propping up those individuals who are staying. She’s trying to say that those who stay are the good guys, the Saved. She sees that there is a competing claim for orthodoxy, so she is staking TEC’s claim to it. Hence her use of the term “great Western heresy”.

I also think there is a whole Millenium Development Goal vibe here too. A kind of “look at us, we care for the poor, we’re better Christians, nee nar nee nar.”

I still fail to grasp her theological points, but I think the political comes through fairly clear.

Miss Sippi -
That was the reason we played that song. My wife is a much more astute performer than I am. Of course she worked as an Activities Director in Florida nursing homes before we met. That was where she first started playing “Golden Oldies” to entertain the troops and get them to dance.

Our program consisted of songs and hymns which we felt our audience would relate to. We even played “Drop Kick Me Jesus”. That was another favorite on our circuit.

You know, I have just realized how ironic this is! Kathi actually represents the MOST individualistic religion there is. She and her LBGQT cabal worship at the altar of “I.” Good Queen Bess set things in motion when she declared that her subjects could believe whatever they wished as long as they used her prayer book in public.

I believe that Christ is fully present (Body, Blood & Divinity) in the Eucharist but it’s just a memorial meal to you? I’m down with that. My priest goes off to the woods to dance around a ‘sacred’ oak? Well, who am I to criticize what he does in his time off. Genpo thinks Buddha is tops? Well he’s so far away in the U.P. Mohammad is your savior? That’s nice dear.

Piskies are so g.d. fixated on the “Great Western Heresy” of individualism and Kathi is right there ate the head of the pack. What a twit!

There were two messages in the PB’s comments:

1. You right-wing fundamentalists who keep saying I’m a heretic and not a Christian — well it’s YOU who are heretics and not Christians. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

2. In order to be true Christians one must support the MDGs, use sporks and environmentally friendly light bulbs, support authoritarian regimes abroad, and so on. And you can do this by sending your money to us and get an income-tax deduction.

I have been thinking of writing a series of short articles on hymns, and “In The Garden”, a favourite in my church, would lead off. A quick review shows that hymnologists do not give it a 5-star rating. But it’s a lovely hymn, a a fine counterpoint to a pair of Watts and Wesley type hymns. As for not talking about the cost of discipleship, no hymn talks about all elements of the Christian experience.

It might top a list of good bad hymns.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot hit the nail on the head. The most individualatistic organization within the Anglican Communion is TEO. Who is afraid of the covenant?

And he walks with me
And he talks with me

I hate to admit it, but that does sound vaguely familiar after all.

We even played “Drop Kick Me Jesus”.

Oh! Oh! Oh! I learned about that one when I came to Dallas … from an Oklahoman, heh.
____________________________

Not all hymns are liturgical. Some religious songs are just for, you know, singing.

Muerknz: “I don’t think she’s trying to threaten people who are leaving, I think it’s more about propping up those individuals who are staying. She’s trying to say that those who stay are the good guys, the Saved.”

Well, there you go. May all the Institutionalist-Enablers of TEc’s soul-destroying heresy and apostasy feel encouraged and propped up by the PBess’s declaration that the Stayers are the good guys, the Saved.

These Stayers (otherwise known as Institutionalist-Enablers) are +Mark Lawrence, Kendall Harmon+, Sarah Hey, Jordan Hylden, Communion Partner Clergy, Deacon Phil Snyder, Rob Eaton+, et al.

P.S. These Institutionalist-Enablers would have stayed in TEc no matter what the PBess said or did. But now that she’s propped them up, it encourages them in their delusion that staying in TEc is the right thing for them to do.

Yay! the militant liberal revisionist PBess loves the Institutionalists!!

All is well.

Starting to gather wood so this witch can be burned at the stake. Or..would a dunking stool be easier?

I went to a Baptist/funeral home memorial service yesterday. The hymns were The Old Rugged Cross, I’ll Fly Away, and He Touched Me. I just knew I’d hear “I come to the Garden Alone”, and since I was a few minutes late (Sachse,Texas is a LONG way out there), I might have missed it. I’m not sure I’ve ever been in a funeral home where it wasn’t on the muzak.

Daniel Muller –

We are encouraged, both in the Psalms and by Paul the Apostle to praise god with the music of “hymns and spiritual songs” and with the music of “cymbals, lyres, harps, sackbuts,” etc.. We are to make a joyful noise unto the Lord.

My former ECUSA priest used to say that those who sing in the choir pray twice. I am sure that is a quote from somebody or other. But it sounds right. I have no objection to hymns that are fun or bring a smile to ones lips. After all, Christians should be joyful, not in a happy, clappy, sappy way but in a solemnly uplifting way. If happiness is derived from the singing of hymns, then well and good.

But I do object to those hymns which imply that we have an inside track with the Man just because we’ve been “saved.” I find such offensive. I think the songs and hymns that we sing should be as uplifting as they can possible be. What theology they contain should be correct and should avoid self-congratulatory rhetoric. I think you get my drift.

“In the Garden” makes my skin crawl. Shmaltzy tune, maudlin lyrics. I had no idea it was being sung in Catholic churches. It has never been sung in ours. Marty Haugen dreck, yes. “In the Garden,” thankfully, no. :p

FW Ken — you have my sympathy. (Although I must admit I don’t mind Alison Kraus (sp??) singing “I’ll Fly Away” — good stuff!)

For good old American Protestant hymnody at its finest, I recommend shape-note, which is making a big comeback (thanks in part to the movie Cold Mountain). It has a weird, haunting, almost eerie quality, and the lyrics are generally about death. What’s not to like?

See fasola.org for more info (if you’re not already familiar with this stuff).

Mr. Lewis – your priest was adapting from “he who sings,prays twice”. My priest usually uses it when he’s trying to recruit for the choir, though, so I guess it’s the same effect. Father David attributes it to St. Ambrose, but a quick google check says it’s usually attributed to St. Augustine. Father Z, however, says no:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2006/02/20/

diane – I haven’t heard “In the Garden” in a Catholic Church, but there is some garbage at our diocesan events about walking on a seashore that’s about as bad. I rather like “I’ll Fly Away”, myself, but it does lean toward the gnostic. Death, you see, is a wonderful thing because I – meaning my soul, which is the real me – will escape this evil flesh and rise to the divine.

I actually kind of like “In the Garden” but not in a high-church context. One of the things I really hated about the newest Episcopal hymnal was the inclusion of African hymns. If you’ve ever heard African choral music sung by Africans, you know that there are few more beautiful things in the world. Listen to Paul Simon’s Graceland if you want to hear why.

But have African hymns played on a pipe organ and have a bunch of white suburbanites sing them and you’ve got a serious problem. I guess my favorite hymn of all time is probably “When the Roll is Called Up Yonder.” And that’s because I stopped by a local Barnes & Noble one night and heard a bluegrass ensemble playing it. Absolutely dead solid perfect. But once again, play it on a pipe organ and have a bunch of suburbanites sing it and it would probably make my skin crawl.

[...] WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT? Leading the way to hell– ‘cuz all that “saved by Jesus” stuff takes the [...]