WASHINGTON – The world is hungry for hope and the head of The Episcopal Church has challenged the media to take the less traveled road of feeding the public with more stories of encouragement than of scandal and controversy.
-
(Photo: The Christian Post)Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who leads The Episcopal Church, speaks at the National Press Club on Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2008.
"On two occasions in the last few days, leaders in my own church have said to me that the church only makes the front page if it’s about schism or sex – and in the current era, preferably both," said Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who leads The Episcopal Church – the U.S. arm of Anglicanism.
The Episcopal Church has made headlines over the last several years ever since it consecrated its first openly gay bishop in 2003. The move, which conservatives see as part of the national church's departure from Anglican tradition and Scripture, created deeper rifts within the global Anglican Communion and forced a number of congregations to break from the U.S. body.
Now The Episcopal Church is prominently back in the spotlight over a rival Anglican church that conservatives are forming in North America. Conservative groups, representing 100,000 Anglicans who severed ties with The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, have expressed a desire to live out their faith separate from the current existing North American bodies but aligned with the rest of the Anglican Communion.
"The steps taken to form the new Province are a necessary initiative," said five conservative Anglican archbishops from the Global South, as a "new Province will draw together in unity many of those who wish to remain faithful to the teaching of God’s word, and also create the highest level of fellowship possible with the wider Anglican Communion."
Commenting on the unprecedented situation of competing Anglican bodies in the same geographic area, Jefferts Schori called it an "oxymoron."
"We’ve said for hundreds of years that bishops are responsible for certain areas of geography and that the people in that area together with the bishop are evidence of the church. If there are some people in the same area that claim they’re of the same tradition (Anglicanism) but aren’t willing to be in relationship, that’s an oxymoron to us," she said Tuesday at the National Press Club.
"When there are two bodies in the same place that say they are not in communion with each other then functionally what you’ve got is two different religious traditions. It’s an ecumenical relationship rather than a communion relationship."
As controversy continues to loom in the Anglican Communion and the new North American Anglican province is expected to be up and running by the summer of 2009, Jefferts Schori said the church is still pondering questions about gays and lesbians.
Evading a direct response to whether the biblical institution of marriage applies to same-sex couples, she said, "Which biblical institutions for marriage? Solomon’s’ many many many wives? The concubines? The slaves who bore children for their male masters? There are some very odd images of family life in the Bible."
"When I look at the challenges that the gay and lesbian community and their supporters have brought to the church over the past several decades, I have heard a prophetic voice crying that has gathered a community of support and has asked that community of the whole church to look at its own tradition, to critique its present reality on the basis of that tradition," she continued. "Do we consider some members of the body more equal than others? Do we consider that some rights of the church are available to some and not to others? We’re at least asking hard questions, the church as a whole hasn’t reached a conclusion about this but we’re asking very challenging questions." Continue >>
RSS
Any organization with a lesbian dyke as its leader cannot be a Christian church. This is nothing but apostasy and a joke, not to mention sinful and totally against Christian teaching.
St. John: You better get back to reading your Bible and understand the comparisons you are trying to make fall short if you understood the WORD rightly.
Steiner, would you say that those who claim there is no sin in eating a ham and cheese sandwich or a lobster, or wearing a polyester and cotton shirt, to planting two crops in the same field have also died to the Spirit and returned to the enslavement of human depravity? Or how about those who support polygamy or slavery, or reject usury and democracy, are they too dead to the Spirit and returned to the enslavement of human depravity?
In Romans (1-8), Paul points out that the Old Testament Law had a purpose. Its purpose was to make known what is sin, and to pass judgment on the sinner.
In Leviticus 18.22 the law is clear that a man shall not have sexual intercourse with another man.
How does the New Testament deal with the law? Paul notes that because of Jesus we are dead to the demands/penalty of the law when one sins...which in this case is death.
Yet, Paul points out that we are saved from the demands/judgments of the law because Christ has met, by his death, those demands.
Paul clearly notes that those who live by his Spirit will not continue in this sin, but as they grow in His Spirit, they will die to the demands of human nature...
Romans 8.13 - For if you live according to your human nature, you are going to die; but if by the Spirit you put to death your sinful actions, you will live.
Yet, there are regulation that are not observed in Christianity any longer. These are regulations on dress, food, and treatment of animals... In these cases, there is still typical(presenting a type) uses for them.
Paul for example uses the regulation on the ox that is allowed to graze on the grain as it works...and uses this regulation to point out that Christian missionaries have just as much a right to ask of those in the field they are working in to help them financially or by other means.
Hence, the law of the OT is for Christians an indicator of where they are in Christ. If they are sinning sexually, then they are allowing their Spiritual union with Christ to be overcome by the demands of human depravity...and must seek Christs Spirit and turn away from their sin.
To claim that there is no sin in homosexuality is to have died to the Spirit and returned to the enslavement of human depravity.
I said; "from my readings." I never indicated that my readings were solely from the Bible. If anyone is interested in another view and clarification, I suggest they read; A Comprehensive Study of "The Bible, Christianity & Homosexuality" by Justin R. Cannon. Go to http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.html
jvwh3b...
"From my readings, there is absolutely no biblical basis against homosexuality"
and what version would that be?
It's unfortunate that certain churches and dioceses have chosen to align themselves with so-called "more traditional" dioceses and bishops. Did they ever stop to think that the African and South Asian bishops come from very patriarchal societies, and they are actually regressing rather than progressing in faith. It's not about gay people in the church or women priests/bishops, it's about control and taking orders (if you will) from people from Third World societies who have a basic antipathy for most things Western.
It disgusts me that the Archbishop of Canterbury has "punked out" on this whole schism thing and seems to be loathe to say anything, one way or another. A parallel province to the US Episcopal Church/Anglican Church of Canada is not valid and should be treated as the marginal up-start is really is. The churches who choose to leave the Episcopal Church should not be allowed to take any church property whatsoever, as all property should belong to the Episcopal Church and remain there.
As an African-American, Episcopalian and gay man it saddens and angers me that there is such carrying-on about a gay bishop, homosexuality and all of the other so-called "progressive issues." From my readings, there is absolutely no biblical basis against homosexuality and to allow homophobia to tear the Church apart is unseemly to me.
And to Bishop Schori; until the Church gets it act together, the press will continue with the negstive press and derision. By not being firm and by being a Casper Milquetoast, the Church continues to invite this type of negative scrutiny.
frjohnmorris,
Amen . . . well said.
discipledokie
Yep, you missed something, the whole fallout over the past 5 years in the Episcopal Church has been about homosexuality and she has been heading the church for half of those years.
OK - I'm going to quit trying to quote this person. But it amazes me that she is using the same argument that the Bishop of Cantebury is using with her and the Episcopal Church. She makes it up as she goes along and then expects the world to look away. Me thinks she protesteth too much.
Disciple,
Amen. All have sinned. But not all practice sin. There is a difference between sinning and practicing sin.
But an interesting observation: Romans 3:23 says "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"
Notice the phrase "have sinned". It doesn't say "For all will continue to sin."
Not that I'm saying that a person can become sinless, but it's certainly intriguing.
sorry I meant prophet.
Maybe I missed something, but I did not see where bishop Schori is indorsing homosexuality. She only stated that she would like for the media to put less importance on this issue and give a little more time to other church activity. She also stated that the episcopal church as a whole is looking into the issue to be sure they are assessing the issue correctly.
profit,
are you trying to say that the bride of christ is sinless? Only by the cleansing by the blood and the grace of our lord. I sinse you are educated in scripture and sincere in belief, but surely you understand that even since yesterday all have sinned, including you. If we could obey the law then there would be no need for Jesus and one could brag that he could do it when others can't. Is sin still sin? Of course it is. But since all sin, none can judge,least we bring judgement to ourselves. We live in faith and hope of redemption in christ, not in our own ability to overcome.
didymus,
I understand where you are comming from and you are right, yet that does not make it ok to sin. The law is the law of the perfect kingdom of god. Jesus shows us how to find the kingdom of god. They are two different things. If we bring sinners to Christ and then strangle them with the law before they learn anything then we are asking them to be perfect with no understanding when we ourselves can not stand up to such criticism. Christ teaches us truth that takes away the desire to sin. we do not give up sin, it is taken from us fullfilling the new covenant. 'In that day I will take my people and put my word in their minds and in their hearts and they will be my people and I will be their god'. God is doing a great work and who are we to correct his work.
There is something profoundly hypotricical about someone who appeals to Christian tradition to support the ancient principle of one bishop per city but rejects much more moral teachings of that same tradition. A bishop who embraces heresy, including moral heresy loses his authroity to lead the people of God. If one truly believes in the authority of Christian tradition they have no choice but to reject the authroity of a bishop who rejects Biblical teaching on moral issues.
Archpriest John W. Morris
St. George's Antiochian Orthodox Church
Vicksburg, Mississippi
This woman is unfit as a church leader. I do not recognize her authority as she is in no way a Bishop. Herself and everything she represents are the cause for this crisis.
didymus
"It is they who will be amazed someday, when they will be mercilessly measured by the merciless measure they use. Many of them will unfortunately be fried on that day, burnt to a crisp, toasted beyond toast. :^)"
Yes, there are people who have graced the doors of churches their whole life, who will not enter into the Kingdom. Jesus is coming back for a Bride without spot or wrinkle. And those who follow false doctrines will fall by the wayside, and be found lacking.
didymus,
First, you may want to reexamine this post and notice that you did not share those verses earlier. Second, Luke 13:3, 5: what is your point . . . what does this verse have to do with the content of this article? Repentance in general is required upon all . . . so, yes, I understand what repentance means . . . can you be a little bit more specific in what you are trying to say?
Next, Matthew 7:2: Judging . . . many enjoy quoting this verse without understanding its meaning. The context makes it clear that the thing here condemned is having a disposition of looking unfavorably on the character and actions of others, which leads invariably to the pronouncing of rash, unjust, and unlovely judgments upon them. However, recognizing those who openly set aside Gods words for a life of sin is not condemnation but an open rebuke . . . this of course must be done in love. Consider these passages regarding obedience to Gods Word and a call to repentance;
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).
Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins (Isaiah 58:1).
Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him (Luke 17:3).
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear (1Timothy 5:20).
Next, Matthew 12:3-8: I understand these verses in their context but how does the (condemning the innocent) apply to this article?
Online4Him,
I like standing on scriptures - I alluded to two scriptures in my last two comments and you don't seem to like them:
Luke 13:3, 5 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them - do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
Matthew 7:2 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
You asked, "repent from what?"
Matthew 12:3-8 He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread - which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."
What Schori considers scandal is good news for homosexuals and those who deem the cross 'offensive'.
When any church leader takes a stand against the Gospel it is both bad news and good news. For the secular press which I presume she is referring to in her criticism, I am sure they consider her positions as good news. They would really be impressed if she no longer called herself a Christian at all. It is Bible believers who take issue with her and it was she who created the schism in her church, so her appeal is meaningless.
didymus,
Come on now . . . so standing upon Scripture is hostility? Jesus constantly quoted Scripture and actually stated that the scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35); was he wrong for doing so . . . repent from what?
Online4Him, I'm just speak'n the truth here. You should repent, or you to will perish.
(Many of them will unfortunately be fried on that day, burnt to a crisp, toasted beyond toast)
Wow . . . who is demonstrating the real hostility here?
troyg,
I wouldn't be too amazed by the hostility that fundamentalist Christians have toward the diversity of views within the Christian faith. Merciless narrow-minded interpretations, which they hold to be more divine than God himself, are their forte.
It is they who will be amazed someday, when they will be mercilessly measured by the merciless measure they use. Many of them will unfortunately be fried on that day, burnt to a crisp, toasted beyond toast. :^)
correction: scripture
troyg,
How is disagreeing with Schoris view considered hostile? It seems to me that the real hostility is toward the orthodox view of Scripure . . .
sounds like to me no one here can say anything substantial to disagree with Jefferts Schori's statement on family value? Or is there anyone who dare to answer that?
I am amazed by the hostility of fundamentalist Christians to the diversity of views within the Christian faith.
troyg, and who would this Christian leader be?
I am always amazed by so called "spiritual leaders" who used strong armed tactics for years to cram a divisive agenda down member's throats and then once they've pulled off the mutiny they have the audacity to rebuke the other side for being divisive and call for unity. Please spare me!
She's bemoaning the fact that there are those who are Episcopalians that insist on following Biblical principles. She also seems to think the Bible approves of the relationships it describes and misses the rest of the story which is the grief brought upon otherwise faithful men by their refusal to follow God's plan for marriage - one man and one woman totally committed to one another for life.
Moral relativism is plaguing this denomination . . . but there seems to be a remnant that still believe in Gods Word and are willing to stand upon its principles . . .
The way I understand this women's statements is that we believers are supposed to ignore the blatant sinning of a few just to keep the "whole" happy.If the whole wants to go along with and endorse sin just because society is doing it are we to agree and shut our mouths- I think not! When we ignore sin we endorse it by omission, the truth of GOD'S HOLY WORD must be told. The whole community must be told of GOD'S love for us through the sacrifice of JESUS CHRIST shedding HIS blood for us on the cross,we must believe on the LORD and REPENT of our sin's and ask THE HOLY SPIRIT to fill us every day with power and strength to fight our sinful fallen nature. GOD'S word is clear on what we must do as christians to obey HIM and be an example to others.We are not to have fellowship with evil,I salute this breakaway group for having the courage,and wisdom to follow GOD'S word and I wish all of my true brother's and sister's IN CHRIST to be strong in the faith and earnestly contend for the faith in meekness and love. Praise to our LORD AND MASTER JESUS CHRIST.
You'll know without a doubt that she's in an indefensible position when she starts arguing about what the definition of "is" is. Her and Gene need our prayers more than anything so that God's voice is what she hears the loudest.
I hope all the Episcopalians who are traditionalists find their way back to the RCC.
Homosexuality is forbiden throughout the Bible, but what matters today to all Christians is what Christ and his apostels say in the New Testement about sex and marriage.
itsallaboutjesusnotme.blogspot.com
I have to agree with the Presiding Bishop here.