Thursday, September 2, 2010

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Saturday Afternoon Press Conference with KJS: Creation is the Body of God

Saturday, July 26, 2008 • 9:11 am


Welcome one and all. I do not know if you are weary. I am weary as well and I am looking forward to rest tomorrow. We have a 2pm deadline today because of the bishops’ photo which is scheduled for that time.

Today our theme is Bishops and the Environment. It kicked off last night with Chris Rapley’s splendid talk.

Today we have Bishop George Browning, the Chair of the Anglican Communion Environment Network.

And we have Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. Her background is in science so she is well qualified to reflect on the challenge of climate change. She wrote a letter to the Senate in March about this topic and she has been active in the United States perusing this issue both in the church and the government.

We’ll start with Bishop Browning.

Bishop George: I am relieved to be at this point in the conference. This has been the agenda that has been my life since 1998. I am often asked why we are interested in saving the environment and not just saving souls. The care for the environment has always been part of the church’s call. It has been since creation. It is a biblical call and something that we have no option but to take up. This is inherent in our faith.

I am persuaded by the moral argument for environmentalism. If we are to make some progress it must come from moral persuasion, there is no other way to assure change. Laws will not do it. There must be a change of heart. The moral argument has to be persuasive. That is one role of the church. We must lend our weight to it.

I am also interested in the time scale. We have the opportunity now. There are choices we can make now that will not be available at another time and we will pay a price if we do not take advantage of the time we have. I am disappointed to hear some say that economic pressures on oil and other matters are limiting our commitment to climate change. We will pay a price for this later.

I come from Australia and the footprint there per capita is the highest in the world because we are a coal based economy. I think it is so important for us to change the basis of our economy and I work for that in Australia and encourage others to work for the same where they live.

So those are my words of introduction. Since last night and this morning a large number of bishops are pressing for a statement because we need to say something for our communion, we cannot come away without doing that.

KJS: I am the Presiding Bishop in the US, Taiwan, Micronesia, some south American dioceses (I missed her reference) Puerto Rico, Haiti, the Virgin Islands, and some churches in Europe. I say that for no other reason than to point out that we are all interconnected. My context reminds me of that daily. We spoke in our bible study this morning of Creation as the body of God. Creation reflects God and the tradition has a mixed history of affirming that understanding.

If we do not pay attention to the health of creation the other issues that beset the Communion will be of no importance.

Jesus walked the earth. He fed the hungry, healed the sick and announced good news to the poorest among us. Climate change effects all of this issues. It is the poorest who suffer most from climate changes. I can tell you stories of native Americans in Alaska who are losing their homes. I can tell you about the South Pacific where people are being moved because their homes are falling into the sea. We have heard stories of bishops from Sudan who experience desertification because of changes in rainfall patterns. Every part of this communion can tell you a story about this looming disaster that has already begun effects the poorest among us.

Salvation is about healing and wholeness and holiness, these words share a common root. If we do not pay attention to the reflections of the incarnation around us we have not engaged in our Christian duty and I am not just talking about human beings but the creation itself.

Q: With regard to the MDG’s it seems obvious that partnerships between government and industry will be key, how will you work collaboratively with primates from other provinces to advance these goal of climate change?

A: we all have responsibility for advocacy within our own governments. And I expect to see other bishops and primates doing this in their own contexts.

Q Given the need for moral leadership and your compelling words about the right use of creation is there any comments you can make on the uses of sexuality?

A: My sense is that issues of life and death are most significant for attendees of the Conference. Most come from places where people are dying and those issues override the smaller issues that divide the communion

Q: Bishop Browning. Would you say that part of the mission is to engage local communities informally through the use of electronic media?

A: The aim of the Network is to provide resources to do what you are talking about.

Q: There stories about the negative treatment of women at the conference in 1998. Can you comment on the experience of women here and now?

A: I was not there but the stories I heard about a decade ago were of overt name calling and avoidance and extreme Rudeness toward women. I have not heard that this time.

Q: We have the Archbishop of Utrecht here and the leaders of other Communions that are fully inclusive and we have been told that they are full participants in the larger conference. Given that they have had full inclusion without any trouble at all, what does it say that your church is singled out on this issue while two other churches are fully embraced?

A: Yours is an awareness that is not widely shared. The church of Sweden is also fully inclusive and they are here as well.

Q: We seem to be hearing that the church needs to be unified to do its job. Would you consider asking VGR to step down to preserve the unity of the church and for the sake of this mission?

A: That is not in my purview and that would be something between him and the Diocese of New Hampshire. It is not something I would do or something I would expect.

Q: How green is this conference?

Canon Feheley: In my indaba group we decide to ask whether we could have recycling bins brought on campus and we have taken other steps to do what we can to make these conferences as green as they can be.

Bishop Browning: the more pressure we can put on people in this respect the better

KJS: there are some bins on campus; I have heard complaints about paper. The fact that we are walking around a great deal is a good sign. There was a comment about the walk in London and whether something like that might be done locally and broadcast rather than spending the resources to get people there and back.

Q: Our group studies the lies and distortions of the religious right. We’ve noticed how successful the right has been about disinformation both about climate change and also how successful they have been in spreading disinformation about the Episcopal Church. How successful have you been in changing the impressions formed by this misinformation?

A: Personal contact is essential. We are an incarnate faith. Being present is the way to go. Jesus did not use the internet. He met people face to face and they went around and did the same thing. Just meeting people and having conversation can change minds and attitudes.

Integrity Q: I was struck by your words and the idea of Creation as the body of God. Is this concept of Creation and Incarnation playing out in the discussions of human sexuality that are going on.

A: Those are at an early stage and we have not focused on them specifically I think we may see some changes there. The conversations about interconnectability grow out of our Pauline theology of the body of Christ. When one person suffers the whole body suffers. When one person rejoices the whole body rejoices or rejoices. We are all interconnected through the Spirit to the Head who is Christ. Only when the body is working together can it reflect the body of God

Q: There is a press release about a new province in North America allied with GAFCON. Do you have any comments about that?

A: I have not seen the press release.

Q: What do you say those who are suffering the effects of climate change Australia?

I miss this part, the bishop says something about pitting pressure on the Australian government to change from a coal based enconomy.

Q: With the invasions of autonomy being discussed in documents like Windsor Continuation Group Reports, I wonder if you feel that TEC bishops are being heard?

A: It is a conversation. I think TEC bishops were heard as were those from across the communion

Q: What do you think of the commission being proposed dealing with the sexuality issue and the continuation group meetings that have gone on.

A: I have only heard rumors? Nothing concrete so I cannot comment.

end
59 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

Just beacuse you are a scientisr, doesn’t mean you are “well qualified”. Hasn’t seen the press release! I doubt that.

[1] Posted by martin5 on 07-26-2008 at 08:31 AM • top

Unless you’re a Platonist who believes in a world soul, or some kind of pantheist or panentheist, God has no body.  The Incarnate Word (Jesus Christ) has a crucified, risen and ascended body, which is the same body that was born of the Virgin Mary, ministered in Galilee, was crucified in Jerusalem, and rose from the tomb on the third day.  Jesus’ body is not identical with creation as a whole.  The eucharist and the church are the Body of this ascended Jesus Christ,insofar as through the Spirit, we are united to the risen Christ. Neither the church, nor the creation is the “body of God.”

An unfortunate move was made in nineteenth century Anglican theology when the specific concrete doctrine of the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ got turned into a general “incarnational” principle, which seems to translate: “God likes stuff.”  Over a hundred years later, we have “incarnationalism” with no incarnation, and the “stuff” is identified with God.

[2] Posted by William Witt on 07-26-2008 at 08:40 AM • top

Here’s what she “knows” about Jesus: “Jesus walked the earth. He fed the hungry, healed the sick and announced good news to the poorest among us.”

In addition to her use of the past tense, she seems to have left a few things out. Oh, wait. Her background is in science. Apparently not Holy Scripture. It would be interesting to hear how things are going in her Bible study group at Lambeth.

[3] Posted by Ralph on 07-26-2008 at 08:44 AM • top

I wish I has spell check. That should ‘because’ and ‘scientist’.

[4] Posted by martin5 on 07-26-2008 at 08:45 AM • top

Move along, folks, just more of the same air pollution from the usual suspects…

[5] Posted by bigjimintx on 07-26-2008 at 08:50 AM • top

This is a tough crowd!

[6] Posted by RoyIII on 07-26-2008 at 09:01 AM • top

I am willing to accept that we are in a period of global warming, although the data are not really conclusive, from what I have seen.  It is an easy proposition to accept, since the earth has experienced dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands of episodes of global warming.

What requires a heavy burden of proof, however, is that for the first time in the history of the universe, mankind is the cause of global warming.  But for men and women of faith, I guess this is not a major hurdle.

[7] Posted by Cousin Vinnie on 07-26-2008 at 09:10 AM • top

You will notice they do not respect creation the intent and will of God shown by His design in creation, but the opposite, by affirming homosex sexual acts and desires that are against God’s design as well as undesireable, unhealthy and unholy as shown by the evidence in Scripture, science and medicine.

Did anyone ask why?

[8] Posted by Theodora on 07-26-2008 at 09:15 AM • top

Laughable.  “How green is the conference?” and the reply has to do with getting recycling bins.  You have got to be kiddng me.  Gee, recycling bins are an afterthought, and considered a good one?  Green = bins?  A thoughtful answer, one by a person who was indeed green through and through, would have been to comment on the carbon footprint and to relate 2008 to 1998.  I am glad that I can proclaim that I am even more green than TEC - I already have a recycling bin.  Ridiculous.

“The lies of the religious right, . . .” So this question gets allowed as if, a priori, we all know about such lies?  Come on.  “Help, I am being oppressed, . . .”  Pansies.

Early in the transcript there is a thoughtful question about creation and sexuality.  That Q gets dodged with a lame “we ain’t talkin’ about that” answer.  Integrity [sic] reframes the question in a more “softball like manner” and KJS swings.

Laughable.  Ridiculous.

[9] Posted by Michael+ on 07-26-2008 at 09:28 AM • top

I think if one affirms the simplicity of God (which I take to be essential to the orthodox truth claims about God) then creation as the body of God may seem to be heretical depending on quite what it means. Obviously if one affirms that God is not immaterial, or is a Hegelian or Process theologian then it may be less problematic.

The PB is not a theologian and seems to have throw together images with something like abandon. So, one is never sure if she intends heresy or simply doesn’t really understand the implications of what she is saying. To my knowledge the two recent theologians who have proposed this metaphor - Grace Janzen and Sallie McFague - both see it as implying major revisions in theological language, including in one way the removal of “inadequate” or “outdated” metaphors of transcendence such as God as king, or Jesus ascending to heaven.

[10] Posted by driver8 on 07-26-2008 at 09:32 AM • top

“South Pacific where people are being moved because their homes are falling into the sea”

Beachfront property is fugitive land, the sea and the storms rob sand here and deposit sand there.  Beachfront houses of even the rich and famous fall into the sea all the time due to mudslides, storms, changing contours of the shoreline.

KJS has as usual alluded to ‘stories’, anecdotal evidence, not data over time…some scientist.

“Q: Our group studies the lies and distortions of the religious right. We’ve noticed how successful the right has been about disinformation both about climate change and also how successful they have been in spreading disinformation about the Episcopal Church. How successful have you been in changing the impressions formed by this misinformation?” 

Notice this question is slanted and loaded with distortions and lies of its own?  Wonder who or what group this one came from?

NOTICE also how quickly their REAL AGENDA - ‘homosexual behavior is good’ ‘inclusiveness is good’ - came up and was equated with righteousness, whereas the right, the conservatives were extremists, intolerant and evil.

[11] Posted by Theodora on 07-26-2008 at 09:32 AM • top

William Witt wrote:
—-
An unfortunate move was made in nineteenth century Anglican theology when the specific concrete doctrine of the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ got turned into a general “incarnational” principle, which seems to translate: “God likes stuff.” Over a hundred years later, we have “incarnationalism” with no incarnation, and the “stuff” is identified with God.
—-

That is a great observation.  Just as the person of Jesus Christ, in watered down progressive theology, turns into the abstract principle of a Christ figure in all of us, the modern spirit of this age (not to be confused with the H.S.) substitutes immanental pantheism for the unique incarnation of the God Son that occurred in time and space with one unique body.

In contrast with this tendency of liberal theology to spiritualize (in a sort of pantheistic amalgam) the historicity of Christianity, there is a curious earthly literalism when applied to the texts used to support “social justice.”

Schori’s remarks frequently seem to treat the poor as referring only to the economically poor, when the Gospel of Matthew would refer to the “poor in spirit.”  Feeding the poor, while a necessary part of the Christian ministry and witness in this world, is a sign and symbol for the eternal eschatological banquet in heaven (the eucharist as it finds fulfillment in the age to come but is experienced in part today in the sacrament of Holy Communion).

To take such texts and apply them purely to social work is not only Pelagian but carnal in the sense of someone like Nikodemus in the Gospel of John, who hears of being born again and thinks only of physical birth or the Samaritan woman at the well who hears of eternal living water and assumes (if it were true) that she would never have to bring a bucket to the town well again.  It takes the words of our Lord, which frequently have a deeper spiritual meaning behind the earthly words and imagery (as with Johannine irony), and reads them in the simplistic manner of those who thought Jesus literally intended to tear down the temple in Jerusalem and rebuild it in three days (when he spoke of his own death and the resurrection).

In short, the message “go out there and be good”, if bereft of the soteriological message of hope and eternal life through faith in the living Son of God, is reduced to dull and tiresome carping about the duty to be a “good” person (whatever that means). 

Most of us were nagged sufficiently about the duty to be good in school (“All I really needed to know I learned in Kindergarten”) and the role of a pastor is not simply to nag us again as adults.  We need our pastors to model Jesus Christ and His Apostles, not Oprah.  If I simply wanted to be good without being baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection, I would simply go to Rotary Club or participate in Habitat for Humanity.  Dollar for dollar, each of them does far more good in earthly and tangible terms than the economically wasteful TEC.

We need the transforming power of Jesus Christ at work in our lives, which comes only through God’s grace and our resulting faith in Jesus Christ as God the Son (not through our our merit or through nagging to fulfill the MDG’s).

—John

[12] Posted by John Clay on 07-26-2008 at 09:36 AM • top

KJS: I am the Presiding Bishop in the US, Taiwan, Micronesia, some south American dioceses (I missed her reference) Puerto Rico, Haiti, the Virgin Islands, and some churches in Europe. I say that for no other reason than to point out that we are all interconnected.

Interesting that she got the property in there and then gives a reason seemingly designed to distract. +Schori is brilliant. Once again she notes that she has a communion all her own, but not that she’s advertising.

[13] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 07-26-2008 at 09:37 AM • top

I was trained and have a background in theology, and that makes me well qualified to tell you all that KJS has wandered off of the Christian reservation; and no amount of respectful listening will cause her to return…. as ++Henry Orombi said, “I pray for her conversion.”

[14] Posted by Christoferos on 07-26-2008 at 09:41 AM • top

Wow.  It’s hard to know where to start.

George Browning:

If we do not pay attention to the health of creation the other issues that beset the Communion will be of no importance.

Let’s see how the Word of the Lord ranks the creation and these “other things” vs. the Creator.  Romans 1:25:

“…because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

Q Given the need for moral leadership and your compelling words about the right use of creation is there any comments you can make on the uses of sexuality?
 
KJS:

A: My sense is that issues of life and death are most significant for attendees of the Conference. Most come from places where people are dying and those issues override the smaller issues that divide the communion

Life and death are indeed the important issues.  Sin leads to eternal death.  Eternal life is the free gift of God through the death and resurrection of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ by the power of His Holy Spirit.  To obey is better than sacrifice.  Holy lives are the best evidence of this eternal life.  Choose life.  See John 3 and Ephesians 2.

Canon Feheley: In my indaba group we decide to ask whether we could have recycling bins brought on campus and we have taken other steps to do what we can to make these conferences as green as they can be.

Good call.  Right now the conference is as pink as it can be.

 

Integrity Q: I was struck by your words and the idea of Creation as the body of God. Is this concept of Creation and Incarnation playing out in the discussions of human sexuality that are going on.

A: Those are at an early stage and we have not focused on them specifically I think we may see some changes there. The conversations about interconnectability grow out of our Pauline theology of the body of Christ. When one person suffers the whole body suffers. When one person rejoices the whole body rejoices or rejoices. We are all interconnected through the Spirit to the Head who is Christ. Only when the body is working together can it reflect the body of God

So glad to see the interest in Pauline theology, Bishop.  Silly me.  I thought that the body was Christ’s Church, His Bride, or even His own Body as referenced in communion theology and sotieriology.  Let’s clear things up. How about an extensive quote, below, from the Holy Spirit inspired author of that Pauline Theology of which you apparently are so fond.  I offer these words in contrast to your words, above.

From Romans 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

The Word of the Lord….

[15] Posted by AngliCanDo on 07-26-2008 at 09:43 AM • top

Best, most appropriate question that did not get a real answer: “Q Given the need for moral leadership and your compelling words about the right use of creation is there any comments you can make on the uses of sexuality?”  (Whoever asked it deserves a gold star!) 

KJS is so wrong in her response.  The right use of creation fits right in with sexuality and encompasses those “life and death issues.”  AIDS and abortion come to mind.  And aren’t human beings part of God’s creation?  Aren’t there creatures suffering due to the sexual sins of others and themselves?  (Children and women being sold into slavery, prostitution, pornography, etc.)  Of course none of it has to do with “Mother Earth” and being “green.” Ack!

[16] Posted by Jill C. on 07-26-2008 at 09:45 AM • top

Oh yes - have you noted the recently oft repeated assertion that TEC is an “international church.” The phrase “the national church” (never true of course) is to be avoided not because of its evident hubris but because it is not grandiose enough. TEC is an international church.

Take that, you mere Provinces.

[17] Posted by driver8 on 07-26-2008 at 09:46 AM • top

From some of the comments here, one might think that we cannot be BOTH orthodox and “green”.  For me, respect for Scripture leads me to Nicene theology, traditional views on morality and the belief that we are stewards of the Earth, not its owners, and likewise that waste and overconsumption by a small percentage of the world’s population is injustice to others.

But as for “the body of God”, I’m with Bill Witt.  That sounds formally heretical to me.  (And actually, even Christian (Neo-)Platonists like Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine don’t view the world as the body of God.)  Though, as usual, she was very careful with her wording…she does not directly endorse the view but cites it as one “we spoke of this morning”.  A great pity she does not seem so careful to defend the basic principles of the faith.

[18] Posted by DoctorSteve on 07-26-2008 at 09:49 AM • top

God Bless you and thank you for your eloquent words, William Witt, John Clay, and others.  I was slogging through typing my post while yours were going up!

[19] Posted by AngliCanDo on 07-26-2008 at 09:55 AM • top

Jesus did not use the internet.

Translation:  If it wasn’t for that damned internet (which must be evil since Jesus didn’t use it), we wouldn’t have all these fundamentalists knowing what we’re doing.  And, we wouldn’t have that #$#%@# Greg Griffin poking into our business!

[20] Posted by hanks on 07-26-2008 at 09:56 AM • top

It’s hard for me to select my favorite lines from this.

It may be this one: “Her background is in science so she is well qualified to reflect on the challenge of climate change.”

Really?  A “background in science” makes one “well-qualified” on climate change?

RE: “The fact that we are walking around a great deal is a good sign.”

Heh.

RE: “Jesus did not use the internet.”

No.  He did not recycle either.  It all balances out, I suppose.  On the one hand, He did well by not using the Internet.  On the other hand, he didn’t recycle.

But this is the best one of all, for its careful political point, which was then explained away.

“I am the Presiding Bishop in the US, Taiwan, Micronesia, some south American dioceses (I missed her reference) Puerto Rico, Haiti, the Virgin Islands, and some churches in Europe. I say that for no other reason than to point out that we are all interconnected.”

Heh—of course, Bishop Jefferts Schori, of course.  That is the only reason why you mentioned your domain beyond the US.

[21] Posted by Sarah on 07-26-2008 at 09:57 AM • top

Regarding [#13], it is great to see that KJS understands that provincial boundaries can cross national borders and overlap with other Anglican dioceses and provinces. That’s going to come in handy.  Can’t wait to see more of it in the Americas.

[22] Posted by AngliCanDo on 07-26-2008 at 10:00 AM • top

I agree there is an important conversation to be had about being faithful stewards and tenders of God’s Creation. In other words for the church to teach about what it means to be made in the image of God. That would, of course, take us back to Scripture as it should - for example to Genesis 2 - 3 - and it will lead us to look to Christ as the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1).

Sadly it’s hard to begin the conversation when the PB persists in throwing around such left field theological speculation.

[23] Posted by driver8 on 07-26-2008 at 10:00 AM • top

P.S.  One side of my family consisted of farmers for several generations.  Anyone with rural roots nows that country people have a profound respect for the earth.  It doesn’t come from New Age pantheism but from a concept that flows of out Genesis—“stewardship” of the earth to which humanity was entrusted.  Stewardship, celebrated from an ecological standpoint on Rogation Sunday in Anglicanism, does not sound exciting and “prophetic.”  It is much harder to redress Marxism as prophetic Christian activism with a concept like stewardship with such an outdated biblical concept (carrying with it a sense of hierarchy and the oppressive connotations of a master/servant relationship).

True biblical stewardship, with the children of Adam and Eve granted authority over all the earth and entrusted with the mandate to be fruitful and multiply (gasp! in direct contradiction to the sterility of ecological population control programs), in fact leads us to treat animals, resources, other people, and even our own bodies with greater reverence.  Farmers like my grandfather (who also doubled as a preacher on Sundays) were disgusted by the idea of wasting food or trashing the land.  They knew that humans are not simply one animal among many (the message of secularism today) and that animals and plants are made to feed and clothe us.  But they also knew that we do not really “own” anything and are simply entrusted with God’s property. 

Taken to its extreme, the modern secular understanding leads to wasteful pollution at one extreme or fanatical conservationism (often valuing human life less than that of an animal) at the other.  A year or two ago, a young single mother in California with two small children was killed by a mountain lion and it made national news.  The donations poured in to save and protect the mountain lion, but very few thought of donating money for the orphaned children.  Conversely, latch-key children in the suburbs are detached enough to torture animals (a burgeoning sign of sociopathy) or to shoot classmates to death for fun, because the value of life (animal or human) can be meaningless without God as creator.

People who grow up on a farm do not believe that man is just one animal among many (as we are taught in the secular world today), or just a chain of atoms in motion in interaction with other meaningless chains of atoms, then why not simply the earth for whatever we wish?

In the city, and outside the ranks of tree hugging tofuphages (of whom the other side of my family consists), the people I know from the business community who go out hunting have greater paradoxically greater respect for nature and the need to preserve it than members of the business community who would shutter at the idea of gutting a deer in preparation for venison.  Typically, the people I know who hunt and fish are also active churchgoers with families.

Summary—true respect for God’s creation comes from submission to God’s will through faith in Jesus Christ.  That emphasis is much more uncomfortable in application than a slogan that fits on a banner—it has a higher personal cost in terms of ethical demands and affects how we conduct ourselves in the bedroom as well as the boardroom. 

But we truly need more focus on the mandate of Genesis (which prophetically points forward to the Son of Eve who will crush the head of the serpent under his heel), and less on U.N. millenium development goals.

Peace in Christ,
—John

[24] Posted by John Clay on 07-26-2008 at 10:06 AM • top

AnglicanCanDo, you’ve expressed a biblical response to the question concerning sexuality and the right use of creation so well! (I’m now embarassed by my comment just before it.)

And yes, we can be orthodox and green, DoctorSteve.  It’s just that it galls me how some put their concern for being “green” before all else, even salvation.  (Of course many of them don’t believe “humankind” needs saving.)  And they stop short of respect for human life.  The polar bears, dolphins, and rainforests are worth saving—but little boys and girls in the womb, the handicapped, mentally ill, elderly on life support?  Nah!  Pull the plug!

[25] Posted by Jill C. on 07-26-2008 at 10:11 AM • top

After extensive research, undercover work and several substantial bribes, I have discovered where KJS has planned her very own, uh, TEC’s very own communion’s annual global meeting and what the communion will be called.  Can you guess?

[26] Posted by Floridian on 07-26-2008 at 10:49 AM • top

I agree that we are called to be stewards of the earth, and I personally think that we political conservatives could improve on this issue.  But calling creation God’s body strikes me as a step toward nature worship. 
It is true that Jesus did not use the Internet, and his ministry involved personal relationships.  It is also true that Jesus healed the centurion’s servant and the Syro-Phoenican’s daughter from a distance. 
Technology, like news conferences, is neutral.  It can be used for good or for ill.  It’s not the technology that matters; it is the heart.

2 Chronicles 16:9a
For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him.

In all honesty, I have seen an ungodly use and a godly use of the Internet from both the revisionists and the reasserters.

[27] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 07-26-2008 at 10:53 AM • top

Wow, this is a rich story.  So much to talk about.  I so appreciate our theologans’ discussion of incarnation and all.  As I say often, I learn so much here at SF.

Question: What IS the deal with Sweden and other alleged “inclusive” provinces?

Observation:  I’ve been a hobby farmer for the past couple of years, though I’ve been interested in it for more like 20 years.  My interest has come from the way I see God using nature, his creation, to teach us about himself.  Not only does he use creation to provide food and shelter for us, but his ordaining the seasons, for instance, teaches us about time to reap and sow, and times to rest.  There are farmers of some notariety (Joel Salatin comes to mind) who teach how to work with God’s laws of nature for successful crops and livestock—healthy, sustainable agriculture.  They believe, as I do, that if we submit ourselves to the systems God has already put in place, we will have all we need materially to live.  And teaching those principles to people in ravaged lands (where those principles have been abused or ignored) is not only a gift for their material good, but it is also a lesson for them on how to listen to God and obey his commands.  Double whammy in how to please God and walk in his way.  I’m writing this before I’ve sufficiently organized my thoughts, so I hope I’m making sense.

Yes, SheepDog - you can be a Christian and be green.  It is good to buy local and eat food in its season.  It is good to use native plants as landscape and reduce water use.  It is good to avoid chemical fertilizers and harmful pesticides.  But we must be absolutely clear (as you are) about what is the creation, and Who is the Creator.  It is not about us being so damned smart and saving the world, but about submitting to the laws God put in place at the beginning of the world.

[28] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 07-26-2008 at 10:58 AM • top

OK - I’m on a roll now.

Jesus didn’t use the internet, but he did tell story after story after parable drawn from nature.  Because nature obeys God’s laws, always.  Just because we get our bread from Safeway, doesn’t mean the laws of nature aren’t still at work every minute, around us.

But saying something like “we must learn from the Earth” is like saying, upon leaving a university lecture, “the Blackboard has much to teach us.”  The blackboard is just a tool of the real Educator.  We have to distinguish the Teacher from the teaching tools.

Are we charged with taking care of the earth?  Absolutely.  But it was given to us for our good, and we should not be embarassed about using its resources, as long as we are not wasteful or abusive.  Of course, there’s the rub - there is disagreement about what constitutes waste and abuse.

And the thing is, if we learn to work WITH God’s laws of nature, nature herself is designed by God to be BOUNTIFUL and ABUNDANT!

I think I’ll go collect some fresh eggs now.

[29] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 07-26-2008 at 11:10 AM • top

Q Given the need for moral leadership and your compelling words about the right use of creation is there any comments you can make on the uses of sexuality?

A: My sense is that issues of life and death are most significant for attendees of the Conference. Most come from places where people are dying and those issues override the smaller issues that divide the communion.

What an idiotic statement, unless +KJS knows of some place on earth where mortal human beings are not dying!
Ms Schori, I know of a dear soul in our congregation who is dying, sometime this week, in fact, it her doctor’s prognosis holds.  She has been fighting leukemia-like disease for some time now, and her liver is failing rapidly.  She came home to die after a short hospice stay to prepare her and her home nurse for this last week.  She is not dying of global warming or climate change, starvation, pollution, crime, AIDS, or violence against gays or lesbians or women.  She is in her late 70s.  She is dying a death from the breakdown of the fallen, mortal human body, a result of the Fall so long ago, a death much like most of us will face one day.  If we feed the hungry until they are too stuffed to get up, if we clothe the poor in purple robes and fill their bank accounts to bursting, if we put the homeless up in castles, if we put such an end to war and violence that we are stiff with boredom, if we cleanse the environment to the pristine purity of Eden itself, each of us still one day must die and face the LORD GOD.

What would you, +Katherine Jefferts-Schori, have to say to her to give her death meaning?  (She doesn’t need your empty heresies or MDGs; she is a believing Christian who knows that she will see Jesus at death and one day rise to eternal life.)  What would you say to someone who, unlike my friend, is dying alone and unloved, or rich and bitter in spite of the riches, or addicted to substances or destructive behaviors, or in childhood from a congenital condition, or to the parents of such a child?

When you, +Katherine Jefferts-Schori, minus your rainbow robes and rainbow oven-mitt miter, simply as one human being to another, can give a meaningful, strenghtening answer based on the words of hope and life that Jesus gives us in the Gospels, I will listen to you.  Until then, please, for the love of God, sit down and shut up!!!

[30] Posted by Milton on 07-26-2008 at 11:26 AM • top

Milton, that is beautiful, and true.  The saddest thing I have gathered over KJS’s entire tenure is that her faith has no afterlife.  She is intent on making this temporal world a better place, because she’s just not sure there’s anything on the other side of death.  +Kohlini’s prayer for her conversion is not misplaced.

[31] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 07-26-2008 at 11:34 AM • top

Jefferts Schori said:

We spoke in our bible study this morning of Creation as the body of God.

The Church is the body of God, not creation.  Creation is very good, but it is distinct from God.

[32] Posted by Randy Muller on 07-26-2008 at 11:46 AM • top

“Chromataphore Cells Indicate Theological Climate”

I would say the statement “God’s body is creation” is pantheism.  Granted, Schori isn’t in any sense constrained by Christian theology in her reign in TEC but this nonsense does not serve God.  As far as negative linguistic programming, her suggestion that the only reason for her reference to her dominion being to stress interrelationship, hell boasts much but avails little.  As to whether her peculiar voyeurism regarding the mating habits of squid make her an expert in climate science, the less said the better.  Anecdotal evidence of stress on the cephalopods evidenced by the rainbow colors of their miters misses the chamelion-like purpose of camouflage.  Theology that changes with the tides serves only the Zeitgeist.

[33] Posted by monologistos on 07-26-2008 at 11:49 AM • top

Do we have the text of the Bible study that spoke about the creation as ‘the body of God’?  And do we know who put it together?  Answers to those questions would provide us with some important information we are lacking.

[34] Posted by Ross Gill on 07-26-2008 at 11:51 AM • top

monologistos, of course it’s pantheism. If creation is the body of God, and the Church is the body of Christ, and the Father and the Son are one, then we as the church are one with creation.

[35] Posted by texex on 07-26-2008 at 11:58 AM • top

I suppose we have much to learn from North Korea, along with the earth.  Inclusivist politics insists on equating creation and the Church as the very Body of God.  Of course it does ... because it is pantheistic in its assumptions but with an atheistic conclusion.  Of course Schori believes in life after death ... just not the individual.  In Christian theology, which has nothing to do with 815 politics, this creation/body of God talk indicates a foreshortened eschatology.  Wait for the Parousia to be complete ... for the Holy Spirit to transform everything that God takes as good into the Kingdom of Heaven and you will see all things through the eucharistic lens ... but even then, the Kingdom of Heaven isn’t God ... it is God’s reign (sovereignty), God’s presence, God’s power.  Sad to say, Schori isn’t a Christian but an unbeliever.  I pray for the conversion of child molesters but I don’t leave them in charge of the children.  Pray for Schori’s conversion to Christianity but depose her.  Are we to be persuaded of the rightness of the cause if the priests of Baal slash themselves with knives and otherwise act out their lunacy?  The lunatics are running the asylum in TEC.

[36] Posted by monologistos on 07-26-2008 at 12:04 PM • top

As Christians, we do not worship life or nature.  We do not worship this tragically flawed, mortal existence.  We worship Life Eternal.  The destination of the pilgrim church is not this world but the world to come.  The church does not exist to serve the world.  It exists to serve God.  Part of the kerygma of the Gospel is certainly serving God in others ... feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison.
As to Schori, Chane, Spong and all those who deny the Christian hope while pretending to Christian office, I must say, “I do not know you.”  It is advisable to repent before these words are heard from our Lord.  I say I am not in communion with heretics and apostates in this passing hour.  What God says is fiat.  This truth is sweet to the taste but bitter in the stomach.  God is the Lord.

[37] Posted by monologistos on 07-26-2008 at 12:23 PM • top

Article I of the Articles of Religion states:

“There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

Just one small observation:  the statement that God is “without body, parts, or passions” can seem offensive today to those who are not cognizant of the implications in patristic tradition.  But the point is quite applicable to pantheism and to Schori’s comments.

Although Jesus Christ, as one person, unites a human body human nature to his incorporeal divine nature as the Logos, the Godhead itself is incorporeal in that it is separate from, and not composed of, the universe.

To make the universe the body of God would be to give the transcendent God an immanental locality in all matter.  Then, if we wound the earth through pollution we do not simply show dishonor to God but actually wound and lacerate the impassible God.

Such an approach is not possible for one who subscribes to Article I.  The immutible and impassible God is able to experience suffering not through wounding “mother earth” but through the lacerations and piercing of Jesus Christ on the cross.  In that event, the Son’s body bore the wounds of creation in himself (or more properly, bore our sins and was pierced for our transgressions), and the suffering of the Son of God’s human nature was communicated to the Son of God’s divine nature and experienced in turn between all three persons of the Trinity.

The signficance of this (whether we wounded God through Christ’s afflications) or whether the world is God’s body that we can wound today is huge.  If the world itself is both material and define, then the world alone can unite God to nature by serving as the body of God.  There would, thus, be no need for a Son of God to unite the created to the creator through his dual nature.  Instead, we would simply need to show honor to God by revering and worshiping the earth as the incarnation of God (instead of worshiping Jesus Christ as the incarnation of God the Son).

With that kind of erroneous perspective (made possible only after first jettisoning Article I), a person would tend to view ministering to the world itself as the direct worship of God in all things, and there would be a tendency to omit pesky references to the historicity of Jesus Christ as God the Son.

—John

[38] Posted by John Clay on 07-26-2008 at 12:48 PM • top

“Creation as the body of God” 

Oh now that’s just rich!  Just one more heresy notch in her belt… 
Good Grief!

[39] Posted by Spencer on 07-26-2008 at 01:29 PM • top

Monologistos wrote…

Inclusivist politics insists on equating creation and the Church as the very Body of God.  Of course it does ... because it is pantheistic in its assumptions but with an atheistic conclusion.

An interesting point here.  I am reminded of the many times I’ve heard people use the phrase “children of God” as though it applies to us by dint of our human nature rather than by adoption, being grafted into the True Vine.  There is a dangerous slope here from the truths that we are created in the image and likeness of God (but fallen, with that image distorted), and that God receives us while we are sinners rather than insisting on us bootstrapping ourselves to goodness (the Pelagian error), to the error of thinking that if God receives us (indeed, died for us) as we are, we must be OK as we are, to the absolute blasphemy of thinking that we are ourselves divine by nature. 

I am, of course, all in favor of “inclusiveness” if this means recognizing that Christ died for everyone, that everyone who receives Christ is my sister or brother in Him, or that I must work against any tendencies in myself to exclude people because of how they look or talk, where they are from, who their ancestors were, etc.  (I am, after all, a Gentile Christian, and not a child of Abraham according to the flesh!)  But it seems a counterfeit of Christian inclusiveness to say that it means that if we are to be included, we must be OK as we are.  Indeed, if anything, I need to be grafted into Christ BECAUSE I am not OK as I am.  Grafting a sprig onto a vine changes its DNA, and I can only pray and hope that being grafted into Christ is resulting in my fallen humanity being transformed into His true image and likeness, beginning at baptism and either completed in the resurrection or, as Gregory of Nyssa would have it, never ending, ascending from glory unto glory.

If we lose sight of the doctrines of sin and sanctification, an “inclusive” church is tantamount to being the Jaycees or Elks with stained glass windows.

[40] Posted by DoctorSteve on 07-26-2008 at 02:55 PM • top

Dean Munday would have a word with PB Shori:

http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/

[41] Posted by Floridian on 07-26-2008 at 03:49 PM • top

Creation as the body of God would seem to be specific to the small group to which KJS was involved.  From Bishop John Howe’s letter over on T19 it wasn’t part of the questions to be discussed.

As for creation being the body of God, C.S. Lewis had something to say.  In the chapter called ‘The Grand Miracle’ on page 119 of Miracles (Fount Paperbacks edition) he writes: “Jahweh is neither the soul of Nature nor her enemy.  She is neither His body nor a declension and falling away from Him.  She is His creature.  He is not a nature-God, but the God of Nature-her inventor, maker, owner, and controller.’

[42] Posted by Ross Gill on 07-26-2008 at 06:41 PM • top

GA/FL, yes!  That is a very good post by Dr. Munday.  If my fellow StandFirm readers haven’t read it yet please go take a look.

[43] Posted by Jill C. on 07-26-2008 at 09:57 PM • top

Here’s the link to Dr. Munday’s essay:
http://toalltheworld.blogspot.com/

[44] Posted by Theodora on 07-26-2008 at 10:16 PM • top

Something tells me that the PB’s sacramental theology class missed a key point or two.

It seems she makes a leap from God using the mundane things of the world to declare His fame (thus oil, water, bread, wine, marriage, etc. all become means of God’s grace signifying a deeper reality of God’s presence with us), all the way to the edge of pantheism with the statement that Creation is the body of God (thus God inhabits everything through His Spirit and everything is now a sacrament).

This may help explain why she sees poverty as more important than sex.  People who have nothing, have no sacraments.  Sex on the other hand is sacramental by virtue of being part of God’s creation.  In the same way, being a woman (or a man) is sacramental by virtue of being created.

My apologies if others have already made these points (I didn’t read every comment yet) but I was struck by her statements on creation as well as issues of sexual integrity and gender identity.  I wonder if she has Scripture to back her position up?

[45] Posted by Rom 1:16 on 07-26-2008 at 10:30 PM • top

It may be that the qualifications from science being disavowed by the PB are in the same league as her theological training.  She was -after all- the Dean of a School of Theology which was a parish Sunday School class all dressed up for her resume.  The lack of application of science to the issues mirrors the lack of application of theology.  There is a pattern here, and we could propose a hypothesis based on these observations, but it would be tested by her application of non-existent canons to situations she has no canonical authority to be involved in and would seem to confirm our prior observations….........

[46] Posted by dwstroudmd on 07-27-2008 at 12:01 AM • top

#46,
I am reminded of Tozer (Pursuit of God, chapter 3) “Self is the opaque veil that hides the face of God from us. It can be removed only in spiritual experience, never by mere instruction.”

A right theology is imparted through conversion and consequently by ingesting the Word.  Truth is imparted, not taught.  It cannot be instruction, no seminary (or few of them) will lead someone to Christ or put the Holy Spirit in Him.  These are acts of God.

[47] Posted by Theodora on 07-27-2008 at 06:05 AM • top

Cindy, your metaphor about KJS’ worship of creation:  “is like saying, upon leaving a university lecture, “the Blackboard has much to teach us.”

Another GEM of a metaphor….always enjoy your posts!

[48] Posted by heart on 07-27-2008 at 06:46 AM • top

As a former (geological) oceanography professor with 19 years of post-doctoral experience in research and teaching in the field of paleoceanography, paleoclimatology and earth systems history, I can assure you that KJS is no more qualified to give any “expert” opinions on global climate change than I would be on the topic of meiofaunal feeding dynamics in pelagic oligotrophic environments.  IN OTHER WORDS, oceanography is a very broad field and having a degree in one specialty, does not make one an expert in others.  She was a benthic ecologist at an institution where even tenured faculty typically have 6 month appointments.  As a non tenure/tenure track research associate, her existence would pretty much be determined by how much external funding she could raise, which in all fairness, is very, very difficult.  So just be aware that her background only qualifies her to make statements on a small number of topics, of which geophysical fluid dynamics, air-sea interaction, global biogeochemical cycling (which IMO, is a REALLY cool Journal)and global change is NOT one.

With blessings to all the faithful,
Michael H., living proof that it is possible to be an oceanographer AND a Christian!

[49] Posted by MikeSWFL on 07-27-2008 at 08:59 PM • top

MikeSWFL makes a very important point in saying that academicians speak with professional expertise only on the narrow range of topics in their specialties.  Phrases like “scientists say…” are vague at best and at worst mean that a journalist doesn’t really understand which sources know what they are talking about.  I would say, however, that professional training in related fields sometimes can help us be a bit better than average in things like assessing whether claims are controversial, whether a particular individual’s claims are colored by an idiosyncratic perspective, and so on.

I add all this just as a general nota bene from another academician who has observed that others, and sometimes we ourselves, fall into the error that SOcrates attributed to craftsmen he interviewed, who really were experts in something, but went on to suppose that they were just as expert in everything else.

A further nota bene: by the same token, most of us are not experts in theology, church history, hermeneutics or canon law, though sometimes we speak in a tone that suggests that we think we are.  And even those who are learned in these things are usually only truly expert in a narrow area of the same.  A world authority on Barth’s Neo-Orthodoxy may know very little about Roman canon law or the Second Ecumenical Council.  S/he probably knows a bit more than the average banker or fishmonger does, but by that very token is in greater danger of misleading others if in error.  Non-academicians sometimes think we’re being evasive when we preface things with “I’m not really an expert in this…”, but it’s really a crucial qualification!

[50] Posted by DoctorSteve on 07-28-2008 at 04:18 AM • top

Climate change effects all of this issues. It is the poorest who suffer most from climate changes. I can tell you stories of native Americans in Alaska who are losing their homes. I can tell you about the South Pacific where people are being moved because their homes are falling into the sea. We have heard stories of bishops from Sudan who experience desertification because of changes in rainfall patterns. Every part of this communion can tell you a story about this looming disaster that has already begun effects the poorest among us.

Now I get it! By climate change, she actually means the non-Biblical revisionist policies of TEC. She’s absolutely right. We’re losing our church homes to the seas of the world and reaping a desert for spiritual nourishment. It truly is a disaster.

[51] Posted by Laytone on 07-28-2008 at 03:26 PM • top

Oh, that gets me riled up. Native Americans in Alaska are losing their homes, because they can’t find enough work to support themselves and their families. Many of them work three or more jobs, and still can barely keep their heads above water financially. They suffer as a majority of American citizens are suffering, from the outsourcing of our jobs, to illegal workers being insourced to displace them on the job, for increasingly lower wages. Including on the pipelines.

This is happening to Navajo’s in New Mexico, to Wampanoags in Massachusetts, to the native peoples all across the US, as it’s happening to American citizens of all races and ethnic origins.

This coming from the same KJS who said that the poor in America don’t suffer enough.

KJS doesn’t care about those Native Americans, any more than she cares about Africans, or Americans. We’re just a prop to hang her rainbow striped oven mitt mitre on.

[52] Posted by mari on 07-28-2008 at 03:36 PM • top

MikeSWFL makes a very important point in saying that academicians speak with professional expertise only on the narrow range of topics in their specialties.  Phrases like “scientists say…” are vague at best and at worst mean that a journalist doesn’t really understand which sources know what they are talking about.  I would say, however, that professional training in related fields sometimes can help us be a bit better than average in things like assessing whether claims are controversial, whether a particular individual’s claims are colored by an idiosyncratic perspective, and so on.

Very well-put DoctorSteve, as you are correct in recognizing the need to distinguish between someone who is a “true” expert and someone who may have some cursory knowledge of a subject that exceeds what the knowledge of the general population.  Yes, KJS would (or at least should), fall into the latter category on the topic of global climate change.  But again, we must understand that she does not speak as a recognized expert in that area. 
Oceanography is a graduate level discipline and students are expected to have completed an undergraduate degree in one or more of the natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, physics, geology) in preparation for study.  The overwhelming majority of first-year graduate students must complete core courses in each of the four oceanographic areas - (chemical, physical, geological and biological) before permssion is granted for further study, regardless of the area they choose to specialize in.  This is due to the fact that like most of the earth sciences, oceanography is very interdisciplinary and therefore, requires a wide breadth of scientific content and acumen.

BTW, Jacques Cousteau was NOT an oceanographer, but rather, a pioneering underwater explorer.  Most of us do not scuba dive and when I taught undergraduates, most of them would become very disappointed when they found out that the subject matter was nothing more than chemistry, math, physics, etc., as applied toward understanding oceanographic processes.  I even had students tell me that if they had known that there was science and math involved, they never would have enrolled.  Go figure!

Finally, as an academician, I never felt that I learned more about my field, as my research advanced. Instead, I felt that I only had a greater awareness of what I did NOT know, as the number of new questions always greatly exceeded the number of recent answers.

[53] Posted by MikeSWFL on 07-28-2008 at 04:18 PM • top

MikeSWFL wrote…

inally, as an academician, I never felt that I learned more about my field, as my research advanced. Instead, I felt that I only had a greater awareness of what I did NOT know, as the number of new questions always greatly exceeded the number of recent answers.

Amen to that.  I tend to think of the way of the scholar as a kind of hubris that leads to humility.  But then my discipline, philosophy, got its start with Socratic ignorance, even if some prominent philosophers forget to practice it.

This, incidentally, is closely connected to what I have found to sit well with me about Anglicanism: orthodoxy in core matters, but an unwillingness to define as doctrine much beyond the creeds or things clearly demonstrable from the plain sense of Scripture.  (I could give a long gloss on concerns even about the importation of the Aristotelian technical term homoousias at Nicea, as I have to do some mental gymnastics to confess it while not buying into the Greek metaphysics in whose terms it is cast.  But as I’m trying to rally as many Episcopalians as I can around Nicene orthodoxy, probably best not to get into technicalities that even most of those at Nicea probably did not understand.)  My misgivings about Rome and the confessional Protestant churches ultimately boil down to their choices to define doctrine on matters that the Bible does not speak so clearly on.  (E.g., predestination, transsubstantiation, Mary’s being conceived without sin and being assumed into heaven.)

[54] Posted by DoctorSteve on 07-28-2008 at 07:41 PM • top

Prof Mike for SWFl: Have you seen any of KJS’s papers? I have tried looking to no avail.

[55] Posted by robroy on 07-28-2008 at 07:47 PM • top
[56] Posted by oscewicee on 07-28-2008 at 07:57 PM • top

Yikes, apologies for the long link. Is it possible to fix it now that it’s posted?

[57] Posted by oscewicee on 07-28-2008 at 07:58 PM • top

#55 (though I realize you asked Prof Mike):  I daresay this may be her thesis -
Jefferts, K. 1983. Zoogeography and systematics of cephalopods of the northeastern Pacific Ocean. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

You could try keywords from it in Google for a publication reference or citation.

[58] Posted by TACit on 07-28-2008 at 08:05 PM • top

Doctoral dissertations are available for purchase to the general public.  I forget the sites that offer this but you get a looseleaf copy for something less than $40.  I’ve purchased a few and been happy with the process.

[59] Posted by monologistos on 07-29-2008 at 05:40 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.