« Got your new secretary of state.. | Main | Coming to Saginaw... »
June 22, 2006
Good-bye Columbus
Dave Hartline of the Catholic Report has a fascinating last report from the Episcopal General Convention. He intererviews Susan Russell of Integrity, the Episcopalian equivalent of Dignity, Bishop Gene Robinson and then some "reasserters" including Kendall Harmon. There's some really interesting stuff there.
And...if anyone would like to summarize the end result of this convention...please do. I've tried to figure it out, but my airplane-addled brain can't do it.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
The new presiding bishop's first prayer as presiding bishop began with "Mother Jesus." I think that says it all. The new presiding bishop is so progressive that her theology seems to be more unitarian than christian. She will take the ECUSA in directions that are far from traditional christianity. The ECUSA has sadly, in my opinion, pushed the self distruct button. Since I grew up in that church, was married in that church and have many family members ( 1 a priest)still in that church I feel a huge sense of loss and betrayal (although I have been Catholic for 10 years). The leaders of the ECUSA have led their sheep into the wolves den.
Posted by: helen young at Jun 22, 2006 10:14:52 AM
I'm waiting for the ECUSA church (Trinity Episcopal Church) down the street from me to change it's sign. It should read, any day now, "Trinity Unitarian Church."
And nobody who goes there will note the irony.
The day is coming.
Posted by: Chris S. at Jun 22, 2006 10:18:39 AM
Perhaps the new head of US Episcopal Bishops, Katherine Jefferts Shori, sent a message in her opening prayer by saying, “Mother Jesus.”
Perhaps!
Setting aside the temptation to indulge in schadenfreude or simply to say "I told you so," I find myself unable to muster a strong reaction to any of this. I sojourned for a while in the Episcopal Church back in the late '70s, and I thought it was pretty obvious then where things were going. To wit: control was in the hands of people who no longer believed in anything that could reasonably be considered of a piece with traditional Christianity, and in the absence of what seemed even then an unlikely shift of leadership and direction things would work out as they are in fact working out.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at Jun 22, 2006 10:19:49 AM
Of course, Julian of Norwich referred to Jesus as Mother too. There's a long tradition of this dating back to the High Middle Ages.
Posted by: anon at Jun 22, 2006 10:30:55 AM
An absolutely priceless quote from Susan Russell, head of "Integrity", the Episcopal "Dignity-like" lobbying group for GLBT causes.
Dave Hartline "Statisically the liberal or progressive wing of the Episcopal Church or the Catholic Church for that matter isn’t growing. Why?"
Rev. Susan Russell "It is growing. I am sure you have been told it is not but I can tell you it is. I am from Los Angeles and in West Hollywood and Pasadena our churches are doing very well."
West Hollywood is a virtualy all gay community. Pasadena may be the same.
Russell's myopic view based on her personal views reminds me of the Democrat in 1980 who was stunned when Reagan was elected president. "Nobody I know voted for him!" she cried.
Similarly, in 1936, in the depths of the Great Depression, Liberty Magazine did a poll of its subscribers who owned automobiles as to who would win the presidential election: Roosevelt or Landon. The result of the Poll: Landon, by a landslide.
Posted by: Ray from MN at Jun 22, 2006 10:34:55 AM
To summarize:
Going into the Convention, the question the Anglican world was posing was, 'What will ECUSA do about the Windsor Report?' That was the main thing.
The Convention Deputies sent a powerful signal by refusing to endorse a temporary moratorium on gay ordinands and gay blessing rites. The scramble to substitute a milder non-binding resolution asking dioceses to proceed carefully about electing bishops who pose problems for the rest of the world will not deflect attention from the General Convention's refusal to conform to the demands of the rest of the Communion regarding gay ordinations.
Add to this the election of a pro-gay bishop for the Diocese of California and the election for the Diocese of Northern California of a bishop who is in his third marriage, with two previous wives still living, and he (the bishop) is his wife's second husband. And the cherry on the sundae: the Deputies refused to even CONSIDER a resolution acknowledging the Lordship of Christ, the Way, the Truth, the Life.
All of these things are deeply controversial, and the Internet keeps third world Anglicans very up to snuff on the doings in their Communion. Add to this the election of a Presiding Bishop who is deeply committed to the whole gay agenda, openly contradicts traditional Christian morality and, as a woman, isn't even regarded as a bishop by the most sigificant ecumenical partners (us and the Eastern Orthodox) and many Anglican provinces...
And bear in mind that third world primates are already more than exasperated. A number of them have crossed provincial boundaries to oversee Episcopal parishes, and found a federation of new congregations operating under their oversight but outside ECUSA structures.
Everything looks grim if ECUSA wants to avoid further fragmentation and expensive litigation. The Archbishop of Canterbury is caught in a vise: if he allows the Americans to come to the Lambeth Conference in 2008 he might well provoke a schism in the Communion at large.
One caveat:
Some reports make one wonder if Bishop Katherine Jeffets Schori is really all bad news for conservatives. The Bishop of Los Angeles spent the year chairing an informal group of 20 bishops, spanning the spectrum from liberal to traditionalist, which met three times to discuss amicably parting ways, dividing up congregations and property etc. This came to naught when Presiding Bishop Griswold nixed the deal, reneging on an agreement and infuriating those bishops. Some watchers speculate that Los Angeles brokered Ms Schori's election with the understanding that she'd preside over a fair, amicable separation. If that is true, then a lot of heartache might be avoided, and conservatives might finally have a way to part from this increasingly radical organization. We will see.
Posted by: Father Wilson at Jun 22, 2006 10:35:00 AM
I can't contemplate schadenfreude. Many Anglicans believed they were part of a catholic fleet, with Rome as its lead vessel. Whatever truth there was to the metaphor, the Robinsons and +Shoris among them have steered U.S.S. Episcopalian straight for the rocks. We should certainly welcome any among them who cross the Tiber, but I'd rather they be swimming toward us than away from a shipwreck.
And American Catholics ought to consider a "time-out" from any further efforts at ecumenism and dialogue. The Episcopalians appear to be unwilling to sit still long enough to enter the conversation.
Anon. writes, Of course, Julian of Norwich referred to Jesus as Mother too. There's a long tradition of this dating back to the High Middle Ages.
I addressed this subject in a post that you might find interesting.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jun 22, 2006 10:42:50 AM
Short Aussie summary:
The liberal Episcopalian camp gave the church a finger and threatened to jump. With a little help from some conservatives who pushed them to the edge and said dare you.
Now everyone wants them to go jump.
J=U=M=P!!!
Posted by: saint at Jun 22, 2006 11:12:12 AM
Ray,
The famous quote to which you refer was made by Pauline Kael of the New Yorker in response to the 1972 election of Richard Nixon over George McGovern. McGovern only carried the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that year, making Ms. Kael's quote all the more telling.
I think the thrust of your comment is getting to the heart of the matter. An article in First Things a couple of years ago suggested that the American religion was Gnosticism not true Christianity. Certainly we see in the TEC this week and in pockets of all American Christian communities the tendency to think that if we just look at ourselves long enough, we will find God. Where Jesus said to remove the log from our eye before we condemn the splinter in our neighbor's eye, many Americans have replaced the log with a mirror and gaze at perfection in pure contentment and with no condemnation of any kind. In this regard, perhaps the TEC is only less circumspect, not less culpable.
Posted by: Sidney at Jun 22, 2006 11:37:51 AM
This is serious. A sombre Fr Neuhaus sounds close to tears on Vatican Radio, listen to Episcopalians Attempt a Compromise on Gay Bishops
Posted by: Clare Krishan at Jun 22, 2006 11:49:32 AM
Rich Leonardi & Maclin Horton:
Very interesting comments. I guess I take a harder line.
Schadenfreude? No way. I view the Catholic Church in America to be pretty much toast as it's so liberal; my take is the faster the U.S.S. Episcopalian sinks, the faster Jesus if showing mercy on its members.
Same goes for Catholics. We are so wealthy, so individualistic, so socially liberal, and so arrogant that I see little hope for repair - it must be uprooted and started fresh.
I believe all modern-day Western Christians will take the route of the U.S.S. Episcopalian. We are the richest people in all of history, and have presided over the greatest slaughter of infants the world has ever seen, along with embracing divorce and contraception. Yes, that includes us Catholics.
Note that our bishops are a reflection of the population. A Church cannot be simply bishops and popes dragging unwilling dupes to Christ. Take a good, fair look at Catholics today and ask yourself: can you see any difference between them and the broader population?
Schadenfreude? No. Yet it is Christian to finally rejoice as justice is served. Next up: Catholics. Can't come soon enough for this Catholic.
Posted by: M_David at Jun 22, 2006 11:50:51 AM
I finally got around to reading the interviews from his earlier report and learned that
The decline of the mainstream, liberal Protestant churches is the fault of... GEORGE BUSH! (But you knew that already, didn't you?)
Posted by: Jeannette at Jun 22, 2006 1:15:01 PM
To sum up GenCon, the "church" into which my mother had me baptized in 1956, which she loved almost as much as she loved her family and where I spent the first 48 years of my earthly existence has just declared itself to be a kind of high-church Rotary Club.
As long as you're not a racist, a sexist or a "homophobe," as long as you recycle and as long as you make the Anglican haj(a pilgrimage to the United Nations) at least once in your life, the Episcopal Church isn't going to concern itself with how you like to spend your off-hours or who you like to spend them with. ECUSA doesn't do...what's that word those stupid fundies always use? Oh yes. Sin.
Posted by: Christopher Johnson at Jun 22, 2006 1:19:33 PM
"Next up: Catholics. Can't come soon enough for this Catholic."
The Church is a genuine worldwide communion, unlike the Anglican one. The Church in America could more easily be infused with a new spirit from some other place that would be the Episcopalians. Heh, replace all those moronic US bishops with bishops from the global South....
Posted by: JonathanR. at Jun 22, 2006 1:39:40 PM
I'm so confused. How could any liberal really object to the final resolution? It doesn't mean they can't consecrate gay bishops which I thought was their objection. It simply means they'll promise to think about it and exercise "restraint". It's a token resolution, a bare fig leaf offered up to Lambeth. Isn't it? I mean, don't you always intend to exercise restraint when you consecrate a bishop for heaven's sake? (Well...)
But the real issue is not gay bishops, since the resolution would not block them. I finally got that. It's the refusal to be accountable to anyone but yourself. As one voting deputy (a pastor) wrote, "It’s tragic and appalling and absolutely heartbreaking. We are falling, headfirst, into the creation of a 'magisterium.' We have become subject to 'foreign rule.'"
Posted by: TSO at Jun 22, 2006 1:46:43 PM
Correction: Re-reading it I guess the liberals have less wiggle room than I'd thought upon a first read. Although they don't believe homosexual acts are sinful, they still must recognize that consecrating gay bishops puts a strain on the Anglican communion. So my comment was misleading.
Posted by: TSO at Jun 22, 2006 2:15:43 PM
The first comment here begins:
The new presiding bishop's first prayer as presiding bishop began with "Mother Jesus." I think that says it all.
Can anyone proide any evidence of this? Or is it a lie (even if unintentional) and a slander?
I have been commenting on this at Curt Jester since yesterday, and at Rich's place today.
Hey, if Good Catholics want to believe this woman "prayed to Mother Jesus," fine. I have not seen any evidence or reports of this. I will assume it is an ill-intentioned rumor spread by Good Catholics until someone produces evidence.
As I said on Rich's blog (and copied to Curt Jester) this morning:
Of course, Rich disagrees with me. Fine. Read his response at his blog.
I think it is dishonest to say that Bp. Jefferts Shori "invoked" "Mother Jesus."(1) No "invocation"
"Invoked" means to call upon "in-vocare" from Latin, and in this sense it would be in prayer. She was not praying, she did not say, "O Mother Jesus..." whatever. This was a homily on Colossians 1, about the work of the cross, the blood and suffering, through which Jesus brought forth the new creation.
(2) No "Mother Jesus"
Pay attention to your capitalization. "Mother" was not used by the bishop as a name, in apposition to "Jesus." You make it sound like this is an alternative to "Jesus Christ" (i.e., a compound appellative).
Read the text of her homily again. Here is the paragraph:
--
That bloody cross brings new life into this world. Colossians calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn from the dead. That sweaty, bloody, tear-stained labor of the cross bears new life. Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation -- and you and I are His children. If we're going to keep on growing into Christ-images for the world around us, we're going to have to give up fear.
--Notice that "mother" is lower case. It is not appellative, but attributive. It is describing an attribute of Jesus who brings for the new creation by his labor on the cross. It is not a name to be invoked, anymore than our "big-brother Jesus" or "our friend Jesus" or "our wisdom Jesus" or "our salvation Jesus."
Feel free to critique this woman and what she teaches, but do it fairly and honestly.
And, as I pointed out a copule of times on Curt Jester yesterday, Pope Benedict XVI has this on his webpage, www.vatican.va:
God is our Mother"It is a characteristic of God to overcome evil with good.
Jesus Christ therefore, who himself overcame evil with good, is our true Mother. We received our ‘Being’ from Him and this is where His Maternity starts And with it comes the gentle Protection and Guard of Love which will never ceases to surround us.
Just as God is our Father, so God is also our Mother. ....
Hey, if Good Catholics want to run around talking about how this Episcopalean bishop prayed to "Mother Jesus," and this is some great heresy, fine. Believe what you want.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Jun 22, 2006 2:21:26 PM
And here is my response to Old Zhou, re-posted here:
O.Z.,Here is Dictionary.com's definition of "invocation":
1. The act or an instance of invoking, especially an appeal to a higher power for assistance.
2. A prayer or other formula used in invoking, as at the opening of a religious service.
"Invoke" is defined thusly:
1. To call on (a higher power) for assistance, support, or inspiration: “Stretching out her hands she had the air of a Greek woman who invoked a deity” (Ford Madox Ford).
2. To appeal to or cite in support or justification.
3. To call for earnestly; solicit: invoked the help of a passing motorist.
4. To summon with incantations; conjure.
5. To resort to; use or apply: “Shamelessly, he invokes coincidence to achieve ironic effect” (Newsweek).
6. Computer Science. To activate or start (a program, for example).[You can also add Princeton's online dictionary defintion of "invoke," which includes raise, conjure, put forward, and call forth.]
My use of the word "invocation" is consistent with the way it's defined, especially 2. and 5. immediately above under "invoke."
If I referred to you as "our mother Old Zhou," regardless of whether I capitalized the "m," most people would take that to mean that I was addressing you as our mother.
Further, my post concerns why listeners and readers find addressing Jesus this way offensive. An honest critique would acknowledge that instead of getting into linguistic hair-splitting over capitalization, and a charitable man wouldn't be so quick to accuse someone else of breaking the 8th Commandment.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jun 22, 2006 2:32:23 PM
Old Zhou -
my comment was based on reading the link that Amy provided. I believe you are hair-splitting as Rich pointed out above.
This episcopal "bishop" is a raging liberal who so loosely defines God that God becomes whatever the individual wants to believe. She has asked Spong to come and speak to priests in her diocese - Spong is no Christian!
That the ECUSA has chosen this liberal woman to be presiding bishop sends a "screw you" message to the Anglican communion. That is what I was trying to say. Whether or not she "invoked" mother Jesus is really not the central point - her tendency to stretch the limits of traditional christianity is.
Posted by: helen young at Jun 22, 2006 3:05:41 PM
I think Zhou is basically right and repudiate the opening jibe of my comment above. In context, the use of "mother Jesus" is at least defensible and not the silliness (or worse) that it first appears to be.
However, in a yet larger context, I think what is known of Bp. Schori's theology and the drift of the Episcopal church in general justify the suspicion and render the leap to conclusion unsurprising.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at Jun 22, 2006 3:09:17 PM
Whatever the manner in which Bishop Shori, the new presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church used "Mother Jesus." It was interpeted as defiance towards the conservatives, not only by many Episcopal bloggers but by Times of London's Ruth Gledhill. She thought it important enough to mention in the second paragraph of yesterday's story from the convention. It certainly sent a buzz through those remaining in the Episcopal Orothdox camp. The new presiding bishop's working relationship with Bishop Spong was also noted. Many of you will probably remember that Bishop Spong doesn't believe in the Virgin Birth, Miracles of Jesus or His Resurrection. Whether the new presiding bishop invoked "Mother Jesus" or not, she certainly didn't wait long to fire a warning shot across the bow of the dwindling number of Episcopalians remaining aboard the "Good Ship Orthodox,"
Posted by: Dave Hartline at Jun 22, 2006 3:53:12 PM
So, in spite of what might be wrong with Bp. Shori or her teaching or her church,
nobody has been able to provide any documentation that she sent a message in her opening prayer by saying, “Mother Jesus” as Mr. Hartline reports, or so many bloggers, Catholic and Episcopal, have complained.
Because it did not happen.
You know, there are so, so many easy ways to properly rip this woman's flimsy, misguided and dangerous theology to shreds, it is really sad to see that so many "fighters for Truth" on the internet take aim their ire at a fantasy.
What a waste of time and energy!
Posted by: Old Zhou at Jun 22, 2006 4:02:57 PM
Of course, Julian of Norwich referred to Jesus as Mother too. There's a long tradition of this dating back to the High Middle Ages.
There is indeed. The difference is that when Julian did it, she added: "For though the revelation was one of goodness...I was not drawn thereby from any article of the Faith in which Holy Church teaches me to believe....God has shown the very great pleasure given Him by all those men and women who wholeheartedly, humbly and willingly, receive the preaching and teaching of Holy Church. For it is His Holy Church." (Chs. 33-34, Clifton Wolters' translation, her emphasis.)
If Bishop Schori could honestly say the same (even in terms of the Thirty-Nine Articles), there wouldn't be any reason to fear that by this formula she was trying to lay down new doctrine. She can't and won't: and therein lies the problem.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel at Jun 22, 2006 4:03:43 PM
Well "power of the blog" and Deo Gratias !
Mr. Hartline has edited his report. Thanks! You have my respect.
It now reads:
Perhaps the new head of US Episcopal Bishops, Katherine Jefferts Shori, sent a message in her first homily by saying, “Mother Jesus.”
It now reads "first homily" instead of "opening prayer."
I'll be quite now while the well deserved ripping of silly theology continues....
Thanks again!
(Now, if I could only get my local Catholic priests to stop praying to "God Our Mother and Father...." as they improvise and adapt the Mass.)
Posted by: Old Zhou at Jun 22, 2006 4:30:46 PM
Old Zhou & Everyone, my apologies for not getting back sooner but there's nothing like a midwest summertime thunderstorm to curtail a comment as you are about to hit the post button. Anyway, while I am sorting out whether the "Mother Jesus" quote was said in the prayer and homily or only in the homily, I thought it was only fair to change it to "homily." However, I have been getting e-mails pointing me to the Titusonenine site where an active thread is going on about the "Mother Jesus" quote. Please read it.
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=13811
I think the orthodox Episcopal (Anglican) folks are much harsher on the new bishop than anyone here has been. My words can only tell part of the story about the frustration felt by those at the Episcopal Convention who are orthodox.
Posted by: Dave Hartline at Jun 22, 2006 5:51:22 PM
