Riffs: Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church Jefferts-Schori Stirs The Pot
July 9, 2009 by iMonk
We should always be ears up when The Episcopal Church speaks of heresy. Here’s the presiding bishop of the TEC coming out swinging at the recent general convention.
The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of all being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.
Not being a confessional church, this sort of thing isn’t quite as surprising as it would be if a Baptist said it, but it still underlines why the rifts in the Anglican Communion are about truly significant issues. I can spin these words to where they are better or worse, but what’s actually being said here? Let me suggest it’s something like: “Those of you forming the ACNA are no longer real Anglicans. You’ve become fundamentalist revivalists.”
You can read the whole address here.
My lowest of the low ecclesiology has the following essentials: 1) Keep the truth about Jesus safe, especially from smart Christians. 2) Constantly encourage me to be a Jesus follower in my sphere, not your church. 3) Assist me in those aspects of following Jesus that can’t be done alone, like baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 4) Know your place in God’s missional playbook and don’t act like you’re the whole show. 5) Don’t make stuff up to justify what you’re doing, then carp at me for not buying it.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Definitely an interesting statement. I agree to some extent that in the West, and especially in Evangelicalism, we overemphasize the individual to the detriment of a biblical ecclesiology. However, on what biblical basis do we deny the individual nature of salvation? What do we do with Romans 9:6 and the discourse that follows if we’re arguing for some notion of corporate salvation? It just seems to strain credibility.
If we view these comments as political posturing of a sort then I’ll just shrug and move along. But if these comments are meant to provoke a discussion about ecclesiology and the nature of salvation and the place of the individual in the mix then I think we need a bit more Bible…
So when Jesus asks: “Do you love me?” the proper response is: “Well, WE love you–you know, all of us folks standing around here–but I myself will not go into the center of existence and the ground of all being, a place i cannot occupy, to even suggest an answer. That would be idolatry! And no way I could have a right relationship with you anyways. It has to be through everyone in this room . . . or something.”
If she’s trying to say that the heresy is in thinking that Jesus and me is not the only thing God had in mind, I’ll grant her that. But to suggest that the belief in individual salvation is itself heretical . . . well, that’s just looney.
I agree with James Thompson that we have to much of an emphasis on an individual ecclesiology. What tends to get my back up however is when the Bishop throws out the word “heresy” to describe those who do have such a view.
I think I hit an intellectual blindspot, because I don’t know what the spit she’s talking about.
“Work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. Bizarre statement, though there is a corporate, covenantal aspect to salvation, for sure. I thought Episcopalians didn’t believe in heresy or orthodoxy or anything inconvenient like that.
Ironically, it sounds like something Henry VIII needed to hear. [That sound is the sound of Schori sawing off the branch on which she sits.]
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
And reading the whole address didn’t help any……Michael can you explain what she’s getting at? And use small words, please. Thx
Mark, I am with you. I am confused on what the gist of this statement is all about?
Reading the words of KJS often unsettles me and this is no different. She uses words I recognize and tied to truths I place value in like Jesus, gospel, reconciliation, sin, mission, and the like. But then she strings them together that I’m not comfortable with. Not a “feeling challenged” discomfort, but a “what is she really getting at?” discomfort. Why do she always give me the feel like what’s being said is not actually being said?
I mean, was that a backhanded slam on the atonement? I don’t know. I can never tell. Please, just speak plainly!
I’m not saying that the TEC needs a Presiding Bishop Dagny Taggart but I think that speech was by a Presiding Bishop Wesleyna Mouch calling us to greater collectivism.
umm, I find her comments strangely ironic when TEC itself has been heretically individualistic in the scheme of the worldwide Communion. In fact, her words “for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy” nicely describes the actions and attitude of TEC. The presiding bishop and the majority of the bishops in TEC simply live on a different planet.
I would be happier if our PB chose not to speak in public.
I’m looking at the chunk quoted in the article and reading some commentary around the web, and now it’s really got me bothered. At first blush I had only read it to be a valid (if greatly ironic) repudiation of our cultural narcissism because it would be crazy for it to be more than that, but yet I can’t help but wonder. Did she really just imply that every creed that begins with “I believe” (including basically every baptismal confession ever) is heresy? That can’t be what she meant, but yet, why does any such notion along those lines end up lingering around that paragraph?
*shudder*
I’m going back to my study of the Thirty-Nine Articles. We Anglicans may have still been indecisive, argumentative and cranky back then but at least we were plainly orthodox.
Why is Schism the ultimate sin in the Anglican universe? Seeing as how that church was born from schism(Henry VIII’s need for a divorce)these guys seem a bit sensitive about the subject.
A guilty conscience maybe?
Ryan Cordle:
“…strangely ironic when TEC itself has been heretically individualistic in the scheme of the worldwide Communion.”
Trying to muddy the waters/turn the tables may be partially her plan. Note that the declining #’s of the TEC is also an issue at their convention (the need for a study of that decline has been proposed).
Although they will not admit it, the heresy tag on the TEC has had to hurt.
Therefore, she (and her allies) may feel a need to strike back by playing with words and throwing out accusations in an attempt to save the ship.
[That sound is the sound of Schori sawing off the branch on which she sits.]
Oh, my yes…. and she’s making terrific headway, I think she’s already planning out the landing.
Greg R
PS: her main point seems to be some desperate version of “you need us, you need us, you need us..” We’ll see.
After reading the speech I no longer find Revelations to be confusing. The speech, that is another story.
I really do think she means this more as a veiled political statement regarding The Current Unpleasantness within TEC regarding all the parishes which left and the formation of ACNA, rather than a theological statement.
Of course, for certain quarters of TEC as currently constituted, it sometimes seems as if the political is the theological; you guys seem to have missed out on the Stations of the MDGs?
Yep, as a Lenten exercise, resources were provided so that them as wanted to could have a ‘way of the Millenium Development Goals’ to focuse on what was really important leading up to Easter:
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/1/24/relief-agency-promotes-stations-of-the-mdgs
“Materials created by Episcopal Relief and Development (ERD) to promote the inaugural “Episcopal Relief and Development Sunday” on the First Sunday in Lent include a “Stations of the Millennium Development Goals” liturgy that the organization suggests parishes can use instead of the Stations of the Cross.”
It is a sorry state of affairs regarding TEC. The Church of my baptism. Such a fine tradition with so much to offer.
I am not sure what she is getting at either. Kind of like the captain desperately trying to save the ship me thinks.
Although I don’t agree with her that there is no individual salvation. Coming from a traditional Church I understand as we are much more communal than say Baptist or American Evagelicals. So her saying “It’s all about me and Jesus” is idolatry I will agree with. The idolatry of the self. Traditonal Churches like the TEC are about what God is doing and has desided to do rather than what I am doing or desiding to do. However, having said that I think she needs to get a grip.
Personally, I think it is cool that Cedric used Dagny Taggart in his post. Who is John Galt?
Perhaps its just me, but her words struck me as a bit Universalistic. That is, I as an individual can’t be saved. But as a part of humanity itself, I can. But that may be due to the fact that I’m not too familiar with the Episcopalian church (though I do love to say “episcopalian”
) or the overall situation surrounding her comment.
Did she really go after Mississippi in the way I think she did?
Ouch.
“Don’t make stuff up to justify what you’re doing, then carp at me for not buying it.”
…while bundling us all up as one mind, and then dragging us through the mud to boot.
Brad
Chris,
Everyone picks on MS. It’s so low hanging fruit these days. ;o)
Brad
Yeah, sometimes it seems that TEC’s individualistic streak vs the rest of the Anglican Communion rings a “peeing in everyone’s cheerios” sort of vibe to me. E.g. if I remember my ecumenical history correctly, wasn’t it TEC’s inisistance on ordaining women to the priesthood the issue that caused the ENTIRE Anglican Communion to be booted out of talks between RC, EO, and AC coming back into communion with one another? Historically, TEC seems to often send the message to the rest of Anglicanism of “we’re gonna do what we want and we don’t care what it does to the rest of you.”
I love Anglicanism and I’ve overall had great experiences in individual Episcopal parishes. But on a national/political level, TEC tends to drive me nuts.
As an evangelical candidate for the Church of England ministry, this post saddens me beyond belief. Bishop Schori seems to be completely disregarding the 39 Articles that mark the Anglican Communion as a historically Reformed church, and most importantly, she seems to have no regard for the Scriptures.
We Brits complain about liberal C of E bishops, but at least we have a growing evangelical grassroots that I don’t hear of in the States. However even our grassroots is nothing compared to the African Anglican communion, or even Sydney Diocese. J.C. Ryle must be turning in his grave!!!
Obed,
Actually is was an Asian province who brought the issue up at Lambeth (I forget the year) as they were in need of additional ministers. It took a long process, but it was allowed as a matter of discernment in Provinces. Though, yes, TEC pushed it harder and faster than was comfortable for the Communion, and we of course elected the first female Presiding Bishop.
We like “making history” and leaving our siblings behind.
Though, Will, I would not discount genuine and true anglo-catholicism out of “historical Anglicanism”
She said almost nothing in 17 paragraphs, and much of that is destructive. Pray for her and for the Episcopal Church.
Headline on brianmclaren.net will read “Katharine Jefferts-Schori Gets it Right” in 5…4…3…2…
adhunt, whilst I have many friends and colleagues who are orthodox and indeed devout Anglo- Catholics who I am sure love the Lord, I always struggle to see how they can hold to quasi- Catholic theology when the Articles of the Church that they belong to are so explicitly Protestant. I have no real problem if they simply prefer a bit of “dressing up” and ceremony, but it’s the consequences of the Catholic theology that concerns me; salvation by works, priest in a sacerdotal role, baptismal regeneration etc.
Having said all that, I’ve a vast more sympathy for Anglo-Catholics than liberals; liberal theology has brought nothing but destruction for Christianity, and I’m sorry to say that to outsiders TEC does seem completely reckless and determined to rip apart the Communion. Personally, if they want to disregard Scripture, then be it on their own heads- just don’t associate them with the rest of us.
This address is seems is one part theology two parts politics and one part scolding. Yet its seems that her address is so broad as to become a right mess when she mixed it all together.
The theology has already been hashed here but what is interesting in the text of this address to me is the undercurrent of “et tu brutus” mixed with “there are so many more issues to deal with”
Her major point “Crisis” was meant to carry the whole speech but that in reality it seems she only as so much yeast to spread around.
She’s on one hand attempting to delegitimize the theological grounding of the ACNA by stating they are just another example of individualism while simultaneously imply She isn’t despite implicitly asserting such simply for having the position she has, ubuntu indeed.
Then while on the addressing a defunding of several organizations (Domestic and Foregin Missions=date palms?) due to implicit budget shortfalls, she’s laying at least some if not most of the blame in no small part to the sins of the few (eg the current economic crisis).
Then by banging on leadership(clergy too) via the stewards as pig pen keepers analogy she’s in fact asserting that she is not such a person because she will let the pigs mind their own business.
Also Fascinating to me is this more or less closing argument and fairly nuanced statement:
“This crisis is a decision point, one which may involve suffering, but it is our opportunity to choose which direction we’ll go and what we will build. [b]We will fail if we choose business as usual. There will be cross-shaped decisions in our work, but if we look faithfully, there will be resurrection as well.[/b]”
What is business as usual for TEC? I’m not normally a church watcher in the organizational sense but it seems that she’s trying to prepare for some serious streamlining in the church’s structure.
We have a saying here in Arkansas:
Thank God for Mississippi!
If it weren’t for MS, AR would be ranked 50th instead of 49th in all the good statistics, and 1st instead of 2nd in all the bad ones.
Brian,
Friends from Alabama say the same thing.
I agree with adhunt. She visited my diocese a few years ago, and I heard her speak for 45 minutes. And say absolutely nothing substantial. And this is our denominational leader. How very unfortunate.
I believe it’s only a matter of time before I must walk away from the denomination, but unfortunately, I feel deeply called to my local body of (more or less) orthodox Episcopalians. God’s clearly not done with me here yet.
Prayers welcome.
“Don’t make stuff up to justify what you’re doing, then carp at me for not buying it.”
Excellent! May I add, don’t do stuff and then hide behind a confession or catechism to defend it.
“But Calvary was a waypoint in the larger arc of God’s dream – it’s on the way to Jerusalem, it is not in Jerusalem. Jesus’ passion was and is for God’s dream of a reconciled creation.”
The distilled essence of a more liberal mainline Gospel. Does this fit with the Evangelical message? I
Our Presiding Bishop’s words ceased to have any value for me two Easters ago, when her pastoral letter consisted mainly of a PSA against the dangers of eating meat and the effects of cow flatulence on global climate change. I see she made time for another self-righteous dig at us poor, benighted carnivorous types in this speech, which figures. Be that as it may, this address only confirms my belief that KJS has nothing whatever of any substance to say on any subject of any importance. Best to just ignore her.
but hey, the hat looked good.
I am John Gault,
and you can too.
What a bunch of carpers.
“The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of use [sic] alone can be in right relationship with God.”
Very catholic understanding of the role of the church, actually. You may disagree and throw rocks, but the statement is hardly surprising from a church that sees itself as both Catholic and reformed. But I do see why people accustomed to hearing about their “personal Lord and Savior” would find this unnerving.
“It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus.”
Our words can indeed take the place of God and become idolatrous if we assume that God is and can be confined and reduced to a verbal formula or a right way of thinking. We are not called to “belief” but rather “faith”–two very different things–and substituting finite language for an infinite God has indeed been a recurring problem in the West. However, speaking to a church that sees itself centered on the creeds and a prayerbook (verbal expressions), I’d say this is an internal critique, not directed so much to conservative dissidents necessarily, but if the shoe fits I suppose….In short I think she’s saying that salvation depends on God, not the present state of my doxa, Very reformed here.
BTW, it’s not a “recent” convention–it just started.
Hmmph.
Taken in context, I don’t see how it’s a swipe at ACNA or anyone else at that matter… Just that we aren’t alone in this whole salvation thing.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t see it.
But to very quickly follow up, other commenters are right in noting TEC’s own ‘individualism’ when it comes to making decisions that affect wider communities.
She said exactly what Charlie Brown’s teacher always said !
“”Did she really just imply that every creed that begins with “I believe” (including basically every baptismal confession ever) is heresy? That can’t be what she meant, but yet, why does any such notion along those lines end up lingering around that paragraph?
*shudder*”"
Yes she did because these confessionals mean zero to liberals. I literally hate to use that term but it is the most expedient term available for this discussion.
Most of the “churches” have rejected any form of absolutes.
As far as insulting Mississippi, that is standard practice for the elitists in Washington and elsewhere. (State and national capitol). We get it on a regular basis in Texas.
We don’t care.
How can anything be true if truth is a shifting paradigm?
I certainly realize that culture often shapes absolutely wrong thinking about certain practices.
Slavery was accepted as normal and biblical.
I think think that our attitudes about same sex relationships are headed in the same direction as slavery.
However, is there not a basic Truth?
It is no wonder that the TEC and other mainline bodies are dying on the vine.
In an effort to be relevant they have lost the anchor for relevancy and ceded Truth to others.
Just as an aside.
I belong to no ecclesiastical body finding all to be shallow or useless up to this moment. Perhaps this will change.
Dave N. and others,
Regardless of what your religion may teach or what wrong ideas you have been brought up with we are individuals.
Every human is alone in her/his head.
We all are force to deal with the environment we find ourselves in as individuals.
Unless you or others have some kind of hive mentality or somehow are authentically telepathic (BS),then it’s just you and God, baby!
I know this flies in the face of our current love affair with collectivism but it is an undeniable truth.
BTW
I am just as opposed to SBC as the TEC and BBC and the UMC and the other fallacies of Christendom as any other.
I am and equal opportunity skeptic and religion cynic.
Rob: You’re about as far off topic as possible. I allowed these last two, but no more.
The statement is pure political posturing. Although some of the surface words may indeed point to some things that are true (we’ve been too individualistic since the enlightenment, simply reciting a creed or a “sinner’s prayer” doesn’t make you a Christian), the subtext — what she really means — is fiercely hostile to scripture and to orthodox, historical Christianity. God bless NT Wright and the ACNA.
Anglo-Saxons and others once prayed “From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord deliver us.” Now I pray, “From the pontifications of the Presiding Bishop, Good Lord deliver us.”
And by us, I mean all of us, individually and communally.