Stand Firm

Traditional Anglicanism in America

Greg Griffith

Tea and Questions with the Presiding Bishop

Katharine Schori spent about 45 minutes answering questions in Birmingham on January 12, 2008, following the consecration of Alabama Bishop Suffragan Kee Sloan.

Thanks to Stand Firm operative Tom Cain for the video, who deserves combat pay for doing this.

UPDATE: thanks to reader GW, we now have this transcript. Note that there are some omissions of unimportant questions.

3:20
Question: Could you share your testimony about how Christ came into your life and your faith?

Bishop Katharine: I have always been a member of the church. I started life as a Roman Catholic. MY family brought me into the Episcopal Church before I was nine. I think grew up with the understanding of God as the old white guy in the big chair. (I'm quite serious about that.) ...and was raised with an understanding, just an immense appreciation for creation. My understanding of God's presence in my life continues to grow and evolve. I think that's what it means to be on a faith journey. I understand Jesus as God in the flesh, showing you and me what it is like to be in wholly intimate relationship with God and how this is lived out in relationship to our neighbors. Does that help? I can't point to a specific time in my life of radical conversion. It's been a life-long process for me.

4:50
Question: As a follow up to David, what do you see as Jesus having done on the cross?

Bishop Katharine: What do I see as Jesus having done on the cross? Many, many layers... I understand he was executed by the Romans because he's asking people and encouraging people to understand the relationship with God in a way that influences society. I understand Jesus as dying for the whole world. I understand Jesus as offering his life as servant. We're going to hear that wonderful reading again from Isaiah tomorrow, the suffering servant, who comes to deliver the world from darkness and blindness and prison. That's just a start.

5:49 (Edited)
Question: ...; how can we be salt of the earth dealing with racial divide?

Bishop Katharine: Surely there is no justice if some are treated unjustly. That's one reason why Jesus was such a "problem"--his insistence that the unobserved were welcome at the table.

8:10
Question: I understand that reconciliation has always been an important concept to you, and you've just mentioned it again. And as Christians, we are reconciled to God through Christ's sacrifice on the cross through grace. In light of that, I'm interested in knowing where your philosophy of reconciliation is for the church today...in this divided time. What is your concept of how to bring about a reconciliation in our church?

Bishop Katharine: We talked about this yesterday with the clergy as well. The Anglican tradition has, at its best, honored a diverse center, has affirmed the reality that we are a healthier community when we can include a diversity of opinion. That's the genius of the Elizabethian settlement, if you will,when we are a broad tent, or a comprehensive church. Part of our difficulty, right now in the Episcopal Church, is that there factions of the church who insist that they have the fullness of the truth individually. It's only when we can gather in that comprehensive community called the body of Christ that we can begin to think that we might have a piece of God's truth. The willingness to live in a community with a tentative or a lightness of holding our understanding of truth, a vulnerability to be converted by that conversation with others, and ability to say, yes, this is where we think God is calling us, but God may be calling us beyond where we ever thought imaginable. Willingness to hold our positions a little more lightly, I think, is a piece of where we need to be moving in the Episcopal church.

10:40
Question: Much of what you just said was in a letter to the Bishop of San Joaquin, and I'm wondering if you received a response and if so, are you allowed to share that with us today, and if not, can you tell us what may happen between now and March, dealing with the San Joaquin diocese? (I hate to bring it up.)

Bishop Katharine: I'm not sure which letter you're referring to.

Question: You've offered him the idea that we're a church of the centers and this coming together, left and right, middle of the road, and if you're not at the table for dialogue---where are we as the Episcopal church going to go if you're telling us, "No, we're going to leave, we're going to take our toys and go home." Am I quoting you accurately?

Bishop Katharine: I think you have the gist of it. The response that came back was he felt that he was right and it was inappropriate for him to remain with his diocese in the Episcopal church because of the direction of the Episcopal church. Where things stand with San Joaquin? Most of you probably know that I inhibited John David Schofield from acting as a bishop yesterday, because the review committee has certified that he has abandoned the communion of this church and three senior bishops agreed to that inhibition. The canons say that he has two months in which to recant, in which to retract his actions and say that he wishes to remain as a member of this church. If that doesn't happen, the House of Bishops will consider that charge of abandonment at its meeting in March. It's a tragic situation, just tragic. What will happen in the next couple of months? We will offer yet again to be in dialogue and conversation with John David Schofield. Whether or not he takes us up on that offer, I do not know.

Question: Do you have any reason to believe this will be an isolated incident, or will there be others that will follow?

Bishop Katharine: I think that the reality, that the situation in San Joaquin is being played out in public, may encourage others not to take that direction. I think we are all diminished when people leave the table, God's table, and the table of conversation. This church cannot be its comprehensive ideal if some choose to absent themselves. I understand that some people may decide for their own spiritual health, they need to be in a different place, and in that case, my job is to bless their journey and assure them that they will be welcomed if they ever decide to return.

23:15
Question: I wanted to go back to a comment that you made a few moments ago about, and please correct me if I misheard you, about holding tentatively to the idea of truth. Could you restate that, because I don't think I'm getting that exactly right.

Bishop Katharine: My point is that none of us as limited human beings can know the fullness of God's truth, and therefore we have to be careful in assuming or asserting that we do. What we can do is come together in a community, and hopefully a diverse community, and look at not only what the Bible seems to say, but at what our tradition has said through time, and what our reason is teaching us today in how we approach that particular issue that we're troubled about.
Question: I have a friend... (edited) ... who's working in a Muslim country. One of the men who is to be ordained was murdered for his faith in Jesus Christ who saved him. I'm concerned with the word "tentative". As they gave him a Christian burial, and put their own lives at risk for asserting his salvation in Christ and confronting their Muslim community with the Gospel in that way, I would say that their faith is anything but tentative, and I think that as part of the body that we share with them, that we can't be tentative either. We have to hold fast to the faith that was given to us and preach it with boldness, not with any sense of tentativeness.

Bishop Katharine: I would not disagree with you in that particular circumstance. I think it is when we are certain about some issues of morality, that we would impose on other people, that we need to be cautious in how we do that. When Jesus said be careful about the beam in your own eye, when you seek to take out the mote in your brother's eye, I think he was talking about being careful and cautious that one not impose one's understanding on another person, being cautious in judgement.

Question: I would just simply respond to say that that's true as I look to my brother next to me and say, you're doing something wrong. But as a church, as a body, we've been given authority in Holy Scripture to say that these things are abhorent to God. And we've also been given a duty to share that because those that haven't heard the Good News are truly perishing and without the Gospel of Christ they are perishing. And if we, out of fear of offense, fail to give them the Gospel, then we are accomplices in their death. We've been given an enormous responsibility and an enormous trust by our Lord, and I think we shirk it when we deny what's written in Scripture.

Bishop Katharine: My understanding of the essential k_?___ , the central proclamation of Jesus, is that God loves you. Jesus came to show us that. Jesus gave his life to show us that, and we can argue about the details beyond that. I won't disagree with you that proclaiming the Gospel is the centerpiece of what we do. I would continue to have conversation with you, I hope, about how we impose our particular understandings of aspects of that ? . And I think that's been the struggle of the Christian journey from the beginning.

28:00 (Edited)
Question: ...about MDG's...

Bishop Katharine: ... ... ... I think there's increasing desire to focus on how we love our neighbors across the world, Anglicans and not. Among the leaders of the Anglican Communion, I think that yes, there is still some conflict up at that level up there, but the reality is that the vast center of the Anglican Communion leadership seems to be tired of all that conflict up there. And at this point, they're saying there are far more important issues in my province where people are dying because there's no medical care or inadequate food, or children cannot go to school because there are not schools or teachers. I want to pay attention to that on behalf of my province of the Anglican Communion. So I think there is some movement away from the sexy issues of the day, if you will, from the headline issues toward life and death issues.

30:00
Question: How is your conversation with the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Bishop Katharine: I don't know him terribly well. I've met him only three times. I think there is a desire for greater relationship there, certainly there is on my part. Chuck Robinson, the Canon to the Presiding Bishop, is going to England on Monday to try to increase the level of conversation with the Archbishop's office and with the office of the General Secretary of the Anglican Communion. We're working at it. I think that the biggest difficulty is that the conflict in the Church of England is far greater than it is in this church. And the Archbishop of Canterbury is first and foremost, head of the Church of England. Everything that impacts the rest of the Communion is being played out even on a larger stage in his own church. He's in a very difficult position, very difficult, and I empathize with him, and I pray for him, and I hope that you do too.

31:45 (Edited)
Question: ...(I couldn't hear this question)... something about religious, moral, spiritual truth and how science influences the strictness of relativism... ?

Bishop Katharine: As a scientist, I was trained to see the interconnection of creation. You can't do oceanography without studying biology, chemistry, geology, physics and biology. You can't study a squid in isolation. You have to study a squid in its environment and the way the other species in that environment affect that particular individual or species. To me, that has informed in many ways the kind of languages that are used in the Bible. How do we show our love for God? We show it in loving our neighbors--not just our human neighbors, but creation, is a way of giving glory to God or potentially not giving glory to God. I used the image a littler earlier on how we interact as an image of the body of Christ when one part of creation suffers, all of it suffers.

33:33 (Edited)
Question: ...experiences of being a bishop and being a woman...

Bishop Katharine: ... ... ... I'll give you an example from the last Primates meeting. The last Primates meeting that Frank Griswold went to, there were 14 other archbishops that wouldn't go to Communion with him. When I went to the Primates meeting in Tanzania last year, there were only seven, so we're making progress.

35:08
Question: (Edited) ...how the church should minister to children and young people...

Bishop Katharine: I think congregations that take seriously the ministry of all members of the body retain children more effectively and draw in children and young people a little more effectively. I will give you an example. There's a small congregation on the Colombia River in southern Washington state that has done remarkable ministry over the years. It's a very small congregation, fewer than 20 people on Sunday morning. But they listened to the needs of their community fifteen years ago and started basically a day care center. That day care center has grown into something called the St. James family center, that provides pre-school, child care, after school care, teenage programs, manages the county domestic violence shelter, provides parenting programs, and is now the third largest employer in the county. That congregation is very clear; they say we do not let adults in this congregation do anything of which children are capable. They don't let adults take away ministry from children. There is an expectation that every baptized member of that community participates in the life of the community in the way in which the gifts of that person are appropriate. That's one example. We have to take seriously every member of the community.

38:00
Question: (Edited) ...about open Communion...open in the Methodist Church; limited in TEC...

Bishop Katharine: I don't think your understanding is correct. I think in the Methodist Church the requirement is the same. We are in the beginning stages of Communion conversations. We are in, what we are calling, interim Eucharistic sharing, with the Methodist church. Basically it says that we can celebrate Communion together under particular circumstances and we are encouraged to do that. One of the conversations around the Communion and around this church, that I think is much more interesting, and likely to be more challenging than the current one, is about who is welcome at the table. There are parts of the Episcopal church where the invitation is often said as ... it's not qualified that you have to be baptized in order to come to Communion. Jesus did not apparently baptize his disciples before he shared a meal with them, even though the tradition and the discipline of the church from very, very early has been that we expected people to be baptized before they come to Eucharist. That's the rationale in some places for saying that. It challenges many Episcopalians and Anglicans to even think about giving Communion to people who aren't baptized. Let me remind you of what it was like when I grew up in this church. You had to be confirmed before you could come to Communion. We remembered somewhere along the way that baptism was full initiation into the body of Christ. We remembered that babies could come to Communion if they're received as God's heirs through Christ, then they should be deserving of a full meal, even if they don't understand what's going on. I don't think that I can say that I fully understand what goes on at Communion. And I'm not sure if many of us can. That's an enormously challenging conversation for us right now, about whether we should allow people who are not baptized to come to Communion. I certainly learned in seminary that it's not pastorally appropriate to go down the rail, saying show me your Baptismal Certificate! To receive people at the rail, whoever came, and then if you had a question later on, then go and ask and have a pastoral conversation and encourage the person to prepare for baptism, if you discovered that he or she was not baptized. That's a conversation that's going to drive us crazier than the current one.

42:15
Question: If I were an outsider, a non-Anglican, and I came in today and I heard a lot about reconciliation and that's the glory of Christ, through reconciliation, when we reconcile with a family member or with an estranged anything, that's the love of Christ doing that. If I were an outsider, and I'm not, how would I ingest what you're saying that that's the glory of Christ, and how would I reconcile that with you actions yesterday with the diocese in California?

Bishop Katharine: Fair question. We are a tradition of ordered freedom. We have boundaries. We have expectations of behavior like being baptized before people coming to Communion. When those boundaries are transgressed, we have a discipline in this tradition. That's what the canons are about. That really is what our baptismal covenant is about, even though violations of the baptismal covenant for lay people usually don't have consequences. We cannot live in a community without some order. You know, we begin with the ten commandments, we begin with love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Even the permissive statements of Augustine's, "Love God and do what you please", or Martin Luther who said, "Sin boldly, and more boldly still, repent." We have to have some edges to our community or we lose our identity. And what happened yesterday was a response to behavior, that it seems to elected members of this church, to be a violation of those boundaries. And there are some clear opportunities for returning, for coming back into the orbit of this community, and that's were we are.

44:50
Question: (Edited) In speaking about boundaries, it seems like in your Time magazine article that you're trying to be reconciled with other faith communities. And like I think Bishop Robinson (in his book that's about to come out), that he believes that other people don't necessarily have to believe that Jesus is the only way to the father, and it seems like to me, in your Time magazine article that that would be putting God in too small a box, to think that Jesus is the only way. If he is not the only way, then he lied to us and that doesn't seem possible. When Jesus said, I must go to Jerusalem to die, it just does not seem like it's possible for other people in other faith communities to be able to get to the Father, except through Christ.

Bishop Katharine: Do we believe that Jesus died for the whole world? I do. I do. Then...

Question (interrupting): But no one comes to the Father except through Jesus.

Bishop Katharine: Yes, and Jesus died for the whole world, the whole world.

Question: That's why we're supposed to be going and telling everyone about Jesus, and not necessarily saying that the way they believe is the best way.

Bishop Katharine: I never said that. I would not say that. My understanding is that Jesus died for the whole world. You and I understand, having been formed and made our baptismal vows, that we are followers of Jesus in that particular way. We believe that we are saved by grace through faith. For us to insist that someone in South Asia who has never heard the Gospel may not enter the fullness of God's presence violates that in some way. We understand that Jesus died to save the whole world. For us to insist that such a person who has never heard the Gospel has to say, "I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior" in order to be saved, in order to be in the presence of God, requires a work of that person that's impossible. I believe that God is more gracious and generous that that --Jesus having already done that work. That person in this life or the next may not consciously enjoy the presence of God in the way that you or I might, but for me to say that that person cannot be in the presence of God is to deny that Jesus died for the whole world.

Question: Then why did Jesus have to die on the cross?

Bishop Katharine: Again, there is a list of layers, proximately the Romans executed him because they thought he was a revolutionary. He was a revolutionary. He turned the world upside down, in saying really to his fellow Jews that there are other ways to be in the presence of God than keeping all these items of the law.

Bishop Parsley: There's a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of the sea. The boundless love of Christ is what we believe and what we know, and we don't put boundaries on that, as Jesus did not put boundaries on that. Our job is to share that love and proclaim it, so that everybody knows it, in the fullness that Christ brought it to us.

Trackback from tea at 07:48 PM:

Bookmarked your post over at Blog Bookmarker.com!...
Comments:

What a joke...Kate talking about conversion, reconciliation...! LOL Her understanding of Jesus is uhhhh..... “interesting” also. Its downhill from there. Much different tone and posturing when not being deposed and is among like minded folks.... that is until she starts to be questioned about San Joaquin ;o)

Posted by Gordy on 01-21-2008 at 08:34 PM

I think Tom just wants a coffee mug or mouse pad!

Posted by more martha than mary on 01-21-2008 at 08:51 PM

"Tea and Questions with the Presiding Bishop”

Probably about as productive as the eponymous “Tea with Mussolini.”

Posted by Irenaeus on 01-21-2008 at 08:54 PM

I listened to if all. I don’t recognise her description of the CofE as being more divided than TEC. The answer to the last question - I really don’t know what to say other than prayer for her.

Posted by Pageantmaster on 01-21-2008 at 09:00 PM

It took me a while to get through this… I had to pause and keep coming back to it. Personally, the PB’s style of flat speech, monotone, odd pauses, and emotionless affect makes her hard to listen to. Now on content, I don’t drink the Episcopal beverage of choice (No, No, NOT the cool aid.... I mean scotch as I understand it...) BUT I may start after this tape.

Posted by DaveB in VT on 01-21-2008 at 09:03 PM

The folks from the Advent asked some great questions.

Posted by Jacob on 01-21-2008 at 09:07 PM

Thinking about it a bit more I was struck by the fact that she appears to have had very little contact with the ABC and little knowledge of or contact with the CofE. I was surprised, but then her ministry before last year may not have allowed her to travel abroad much.

Similarly her understanding of Jesus, although being raised as a Catholic, I would have thought that she would have had a greater understanding.

Just as feeling she needs to travel more and explore in all senses.

Posted by Pageantmaster on 01-21-2008 at 09:32 PM

I advise giving up listening to +Shori for Lent - and Easter - and Pentacost - and Advent - and Christmas - and Epiphany - and…

Seriously, “Whatever is good whatever is right whatever is noble… think on these things”

She simply doesn’t qualify.

Posted by Eclipse on 01-21-2008 at 10:23 PM

Watch this whole thing, painful as it is. The one term that keeps popping up in my head to describe Schori is… “sub-Christian.”

Posted by Greg Griffith on 01-21-2008 at 10:27 PM

This is such a common, low grade theology and she seems to feel so smug about it—as if she has greater insight than the other people in the room.
To me, the most interesting part was the last 10 minutes when she talks about enforcing boundaries and setting limits. Earlier in the hour, she was very clear she wouldn’t set and enforce boundaries in terms of personal morality we have received on God’s authority, but she is clear on setting and enforcing boundaries when it affects her own authority.

Posted by Deja Vu on 01-21-2008 at 10:34 PM

I advise giving up listening to +Shori for Lent - and Easter - and Pentacost - and Advent - and Christmas - and Epiphany - and…

Seriously, “Whatever is good whatever is right whatever is noble… think on these things”

She simply doesn’t qualify

Eclipse, I agree with you. I gave up listening to her (and her ilk) last Lent, and was able to continue that Lenten discipline.

Seriously, you’re quoting my “life verse” there—Philippians 4:8.

Posted by SheepDog on 01-21-2008 at 10:41 PM

Quick! Identify the missing word!

Question: What do you see as Jesus having done on the cross?

KJS: What do I see as Jesus having done on the cross? Many, many layers. I understand he’s executed by the Romans because he’s asking people, encouraging people to understand their relationship with God in a way that influences society. I understand Jesus is dying for the whole world. I understand Jesus as offering his life as servant. We’re going to hear that wonderful reading again from Isaiah tomorrow - the suffering servant who comes to deliver the world from darkness, and blindness, and prison. That’s just the start.

And a very bad start at that. How could anyone use 87 words to describe the work of Christ on the cross and not once mention the word “sin?” Which darkness, blindness, and prison is she referring to? Evidently it’s not the darkness, blindness, and prison of sin. It makes one want to question what she means by “dying for the whole world.”

And when exactly did Pilate decide to execute Jesus because he was “asking people, encouraging people to understand their relationship with God in a way that influences society?” I must have missed that part in the Gospels. Here I always thought it was because Pilate feared a riot.

carl

Posted by carl on 01-21-2008 at 11:19 PM

It is absolutely untrue that the CofE is as divided as TEC. Having belonged to both, TEC is exponentially more divided and more bitterly than any place in the CofE. (Even dioceses that are chock full of aggressive liberals and have been for decades - like Southwark - are nowhere near as politicized as even the tiniest dioceses in TEC).

I wonder where she is hearing this from, because it simply is not true.

Posted by driver8 on 01-22-2008 at 12:58 AM

Correct me if I heard this wrong but when the PB was asked why did Jesus have to die she said the Romans did it.
I guess we are naive if we believe that she will ever admit that he died for our sins.

Posted by Betty See on 01-22-2008 at 01:46 AM

I was at this event and asked the question toward the beginning about what she saw Jesus as having done on the Cross. Having previously heard a sound bite here and a sound bite there, I found the hour very useful as it gave me a good insight into the way she thinks. She basically sees Jesus as another prophet, whose mission was to reconcile humans on to another, this time beyond the bounds of the Israelite nation. He taught that we are to serve each other, even to the point of having to die to be of service to one’s neighbor (which He exemplified on the Cross). There is no concept whatsoever of Eschatology in her thinking, she is all about building a better world in the here and now. Thus there is no concept of sin and redemption. No one set of morals can be imposed on others. Our Diocesan Bishop nodded in agreement with her throughout the Q and A session. Herein lies the problem we are dealing with in ECUSA. The theology is not Christian, and all of the egregious things they do, like the recent hindu communion, logically follows from their non-Christian outlook. Our conversation with these folk needs to focus on Jesus’ mission as having come to pay the price for human sin. Until they get this straight (if they ever do), there is not much point in engaging them on anything else.

Posted by physician without health on 01-22-2008 at 08:37 AM

Listen at about the 24-27 minute point to the very pointed questions a woman asks about a Christian martyr and the certainty of his Christian faith and witness to the Muslim community where he died. The PBs answer is absolutely pathetic.

Posted by hanks on 01-22-2008 at 09:50 AM

more martha than mary -

You have me pegged, my dear friend.

Posted by Tom Cain on 01-22-2008 at 10:04 AM

And when exactly did Pilate decide to execute Jesus because he was “asking people, encouraging people to understand their relationship with God in a way that influences society?” I must have missed that part in the Gospels. Here I always thought it was because Pilate feared a riot.

A riot does influence society ...

Posted by Boring Bloke on 01-22-2008 at 10:25 AM

And how does one go about geting promoted from mere “minion” to a full “operative”?

Posted by Marty the Baptist on 01-22-2008 at 10:56 AM

Around 26 minutes in, there is an exchange about tentativeness and authority. I like that woman asking the questions.

KJS doesn’t seem to believe in absolute truth. does she?

Finally, I can’t put it any other way than I would expect to be blown away watching a leader of a church, by their faith, by their holiness, by their obvious closeness to God. I don’t feel any of that. Just someone talking, taking questions. No one special.

Posted by Paul B on 01-22-2008 at 01:11 PM

I wish someone would ask her what the Episcopal Church Book of Common Prayer, says about why Jesus died.
I am sorry to say this, but it seems to me that her explanation that Jesus died because the Romans killed Jesus is on a par with a Nazi saying the Jews killed Jesus, Jesus died because of OUR sins and if she will not affirm the Christian belief that Jesus sacrificed himself for the forgiveness of sin, she is teaching a dangerous philosophy which is very different from the Bible and from the Christian Religion.

Posted by Betty See on 01-22-2008 at 01:18 PM

...he’s asking people, encouraging people to understand their relationship with God in a way that influences society.

As opposed to announcing a year of favor from the Lord, fulfilling the Law, announcing that He is the way, and the truth, and the life, and that no man cometh to Father except through Him, and feeding Himself to His disciples with His own hand.

Posted by Ed the Roman on 01-22-2008 at 01:19 PM

A riot does influence society ...

[#18] Boring Bloke,

The crowd did not riot in response to Jesus “asking people, encouraging people to understand their relationship with God in a way that influences society.” They simply wanted Jesus dead. Pilate found no fault in Him. But the crowd found fault, and so Pilate appeased the crowd. The Romans could not have cared less about Jesus’ Ministry - a fact confirmed by Pilate’s statements during Pilate’s interrogation of Jesus. The Romans did not view Him as a threat. So KJS’s assertion is historical and biblical nonsense. But it does fit well with her agenda. And that is why she said it. It’s the new more acceptable meta-narrative.

carl

Posted by carl on 01-22-2008 at 01:23 PM

Similarly her understanding of Jesus, although being raised as a Catholic, I would have thought that she would have had a greater understanding

Why does everybody keep saying this? She says she was brought into the Episcopal church when she was “less than 9 years old.” As far as I know she didn’t make her First Communion in the Catholic Church or undergo any other cathechesis. (I will stand corrected if anybody knows better.) She went to a school run by nuns. So do a lot of people including Protestants, Jews (at my sister’s school) and atheists. Her parents, by her own recollection, were unhappy with the Catholic Church, so you have to ask how closely she was associated with it in the few years she attended. Wherever she got her ideas (or, in most cases, lack of ideas—i.e., ignorance) it wasn’t the Catholic Church.

Posted by Catholic Mom on 01-22-2008 at 01:28 PM

Carl; I didn’t intend that my comment should be taken seriously. I’m just obviously not very good at telling jokes. I quite agree with everything you have said on this thread.

Posted by Boring Bloke on 01-22-2008 at 01:29 PM

I will agree with her on one important point: she really does not understand what happens at Holy Communion. I am glad she clearly announced her Unitarian “beliefs” there at the end to put an end to all speculation.

Posted by talithajd on 01-22-2008 at 01:29 PM

Boring Bloke,
So I feel sorta dumb right now. My apologies.
carl

Posted by carl on 01-22-2008 at 01:33 PM

Thanks to Carl for printing out some of what the PB said (if something is only available through a TV or sound bite on-line, I don’t listen or watch--takes too long, too hard to make it out, you don’t have something to refer to later,etc.). I heard this same theology from a well-known Episcopal bishop--and some amateur theologians-- at a workshop last year: that Jesus was killed because he ministered to outcasts. When I asked about the passages in the New Testament which clearly say Jewish leaders thought he was committing blasphemy (saying he could do what God did, was the Son of man, etc.), and were therefore willing to turn him over to the Romans, I was told those passages were not part of the original text; that is, they were among passages that the early church added to prove the theology it was developing. The PB isn’t the only one with the attitude that Jesus was killed not because he claimed to do what God did (forgive sins, and so on), and for all of us as sinners, but because his social outreach was an embarrassment to the powers of the day. It’s very common (as I’m sure everyone reading this knows).

Posted by celindascott on 01-22-2008 at 01:34 PM

Can’t answer a simple question about Christ’s death on the cross - - hope she slept at a Holiday Inn Express the night before .... would be her only qualification as she certainly didn’t go to seminary.

Posted by Rich on 01-22-2008 at 01:43 PM

I haven’t yet watched this, since I ought not to do it while at work, but if it is as bad as everybody here is saying can somebody please ensure that ++Akinola, ++Venables etc. and in particular ++Rowan Williams, ++Sentamu, +Wright, +Nazir-Ali etc. are made aware of this (although I admit that they almost certainly already are aware of the underlying problem in her theology). I just want to make sure that the primates don’t have any possible excuse of ignorance about how wrong KJS’s grasp of theology is. And maybe, we might get a primates communique which isn’t just about the events of 2003 but considers the wider picture.

Posted by Boring Bloke on 01-22-2008 at 01:52 PM

Please note that the beliefs the PB expressed are not hers alone.
Since her seminary study was fairly recent, it’s likely she learned the concepts there. The well-known bishop I cited in my previous post is presently a teacher in a seminary. It isn’t enough to rail against the PB or even a small group of individuals. Well-publicized scholarship by theologians and biblical scholars like N.T. Wright is one way to go about counteracting the faulty scholarship today which, unfortunately, seems to prevail.

Posted by celindascott on 01-22-2008 at 02:02 PM

Can someone please print out a transcript of this? Many Episcopalians are not aware of anything the Presiding Bishop has said, except that reported by the news media..
Many Episcopalians do not realize that she is teaching things contrary to Scripture and the Book of Common Prayer, so a transcript of questions and answers made directly to Episcopal Church members could be very enlightening.

Posted by Betty See on 01-22-2008 at 02:28 PM

Marty the Baptist,

And how does one go about geting promoted from mere “minion” to a full “operative”?

From what I observed, all you have to do is wear a smart sportcoat, carry a video camera with tripod, and act like you know what you’re doing!

Posted by more martha than mary on 01-22-2008 at 02:31 PM

"More Martha than Mary” makes a good point. These teachings are contrary to the Book of Common Prayer, and as such go against the constitution of the Episcopal Church. They are likely to affect the next revision of the BCP, which is due to start in 2009, I think. If the next revision reflects the teachings, it will go against the constitution; constitutional change will have to come first, unless the changes are “sneaked” in because the average parishioner isn’t aware of what is going on.

Posted by celindascott on 01-22-2008 at 02:35 PM

Sorry, Betty See, you are the person I should have cited in my last post.

Posted by celindascott on 01-22-2008 at 02:37 PM

Marty the Baptist,

more martha than mary pretty much nailed it. Of course, it helps to have assistant operatives who hold a space for you near the front.

Tom Cain

Posted by Tom Cain on 01-22-2008 at 02:39 PM

Can someone flesh out the line drawn about the CoE? I doubt there is more conflict within it than in ECUSA; but is there a note of ECUSA going it alone since the AC is foremost concerned about CoE? Any implications for that office as an instrument of unity? Any need for ECUSA to look to the Absp for unity if that office wouldn’t be concerned about ECUSA? Is this pushing the trump of national churches?

Posted by southernvirginia1 on 01-22-2008 at 02:43 PM

Tom Cain,
Can someone who has just newly been proclaimed an operative (you), get to name their assistant operatives, or does Greg only get to do the promoting? I hope you haven’t stepped on GG’s toes! You might be demoted back to minion status!

Posted by more martha than mary on 01-22-2008 at 02:58 PM

These teachings are contrary to the Book of Common Prayer, and as such go against the constitution of the Episcopal Church.

Can we use this to charge her with “Abandoning the Communion?”

Posted by Marie at Rez on 01-22-2008 at 03:00 PM

more martha than mary,

Busted. I shall now return to my corner :0)

Tom

Posted by Tom Cain on 01-22-2008 at 03:01 PM

MMTM,

Since I need plausible deniability whenever possible, operatives are given a free reign to choose and communicate with their assistant operatives. Operatives, though, are encouraged to keep assistants on a “need-to-know” basis at all times.

Posted by Greg Griffith on 01-22-2008 at 03:01 PM

I’m just trying to figure out if I’m an assistant operative or not. And if I am one, does that mean I’m always one, or am I just a minion until a case comes along, where I could be used as an assistant operative, or not.

Also, what’s the promotion track?

Posted by more martha than mary on 01-22-2008 at 03:11 PM

Thanks for posting this video… very informative. I kinda felt like she felt like she was talking to Sunday School kids, “dumbing it down”, kwim?

I’d like to see see a transcript too if one is available. Let us know! Kthx

Posted by Pegg76 on 01-22-2008 at 03:30 PM

These teachings are contrary to the Book of Common Prayer, and as such go against the constitution of the Episcopal Church. So let me see.....going against the teachings of the prayer book is more egregous than going against the teachings of God In His Holy Bible?

And since when did a prayer book become something we teach from? I thought it was the Bible that we were supposed to teach from?

Silly uninformed me!

Posted by One Day Closer on 01-22-2008 at 03:45 PM

Must fix my fux pas!

These teachings are contrary to the Book of Common Prayer, and as such go against the constitution of the Episcopal Church.

So let me see.....going against the teachings of the prayer book is more egregous than going against the teachings of God In His Holy Bible?

And since when did a prayer book become something we teach from? I thought it was the Bible that we were supposed to teach from?

Silly uninformed me!

Posted by One Day Closer on 01-22-2008 at 03:46 PM

Another target rich environment…

Questioner: I wanted to go back to a comment that you made a few moments ago about - and please correct me if I have misheard you - about holding “tentatively” to the idea of the Truth. Could you restate that becuase I don’t think I am getting it exactly right.

KJS: My point is ...

Questioner: I just ... The phrase, I just have a question about that.

KJS: My point is that none of us as limited human beings can know the fullness of God’s Truth. And therefore we have to be careful about assuming or asserting that we do. What we can do is come together in a community and hopefully a diverse community and look at not only what the Bible seems to say but about what our tradition has said through time, and what our reason is teaching us today, and how we approach that particular issue that we are troubled about.

Questioner: I have a friend who is leaving later this month to go to [portion redacted] several men that he has been working with in house churches in a Muslim country. And we just found out this week that one of the men who was to be ordained this week was murdered for his faith in Jesus Christ who saved him. I’m concerned with the word ‘tentative.’ As they gave him a Christian burial, and put their own lives at risk for asserting his salvation in Christ, and confronting their community - their Muslim community - with the Gospel in that way, I would say that their faith is anything but tentative. And I think as part of the body that we share with them, that we can’t be tentative either. That we have to hold fast to the faith that was given to us and preach it with boldness, and not with any sense of tentativeness.

KJS: I would not disagree with you in that particular circumstance. I think it is when we are certain about the ... about some issues of morality that we would impose on other people. That we need to be cautious in how we do that. When Jesus said “Be careful about the beam in your own eye when you seek to take out the mote in your brother’s eye.” I think he was talking about being careful and cautious that one not impose one’s understanding on another person; being cautious in judgment.

Questioner: I would just simply respond to say that that’s true as I look to my brother next to me and say “This is .. you’re doing something wrong.” But as a church - as a body - we’ve been given authority in Holy Scripture to say that these things are abhorrent to God. And we have also been given a duty to share that because those who haven’t heard the good news are truly perishing. And without the Gospel of Christ they are perishing. And if we out of fear of offense fail to give them the Gospel, then we are accomplices in their death. And we’ve been given an enormous responsibility, and enormous trust by our Lord, and I think that we shirk it when we deny what’s written in Holy Scripture.

KJS: My understanding of the central Kerygma - the central proclamation - of Jesus is that God loves you, and Jesus came to show us that, Jesus gave his life to show us that, and we can argue about the details beyond that. I won’t disagree with you that proclaiming the Gospel is the centerpiece of what we do. I would continue to have conversation with you I hope about how we impose our particular understandings of aspects of that concept. And I think that has been the struggle of the Christian journey from the very beginning.

In case you didn’t know it, the Atonement is a ‘detail.’

carl

Posted by carl on 01-22-2008 at 04:00 PM

Aha! These are the words I was searching for in my last post…

Suddenly another voice spoke, low and melodious, its very sound an enchantment. Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. For some the spell lasted ony while the voice spoke to them, and when it spoke to another they smiled, as men do who see through a juggler’s trick while others gape at it. For many the sound of the voice alone was enough to hold them enthralled; but for those whom it conquered the spell endured when they were far away, and ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them. But none were unmoved; none rejected its pleas and its commands without an effort of mind and will, so long as its master had control of it.

...then Gandalf laughed. The fantasy vanished like a puff of smoke.”
--JRR Tolkien, “The Two Towers”

Posted by Pegg76 on 01-22-2008 at 04:06 PM

Going back to “One Day Closer”: no, of course it’s not more egregious and Holy Scripture is also mentioned in our constitution. But we do teach from the Book of Common Prayer as well, and our beliefs are summarized in it. It will be a “big deal” if it is revised to reflect some of the “new” understandings of Christology that our PB evidently picked up in seminary or elsewhere. Such a revision was proposed back in 1785, but fortunately it was not accepted.

Posted by celindascott on 01-22-2008 at 04:13 PM

celindascott,
I think you and I are on the same page. You obviously didn’t get my sarcasism...my bad...should have posted it as such for those who cannot see it for what it was!

Posted by One Day Closer on 01-22-2008 at 04:15 PM

welcome back, one day closer.

Posted by southernvirginia1 on 01-22-2008 at 04:27 PM

Madam Schori seems to have little a clue about anything. There is no philosophy, eccelsiology, anything here. She certainly can’t articulate who Jesus is and why he had to die. The church in whihc I worship has fortunately been able to find a leader sho can answer such taxing questions…

http://www.ignatius.com/ViewProduct.aspx?SID=1&Product_ID=2556&AFID=12&

Posted by gmlhawkins on 01-22-2008 at 04:54 PM

more martha than mary,

I can’t speak for Greg, but in my heart you are a full-fledged assistant operative who is on the fast track to full operativenessship.

Now, if it were up to me . . . .

Tom

Posted by Tom Cain on 01-22-2008 at 05:42 PM

Re #42

Also, what’s the promotion track?

Greg can certainly correct me if I’m wrong, but I would suppose that one has to start out as an entry-level Toadie. Once one has earned sufficient merit, one can move up through the ranks to Toadie (First Class), Assistant Associate Lackey, Full Lackey with Codpiece, Minion, Supervisory Minion, Assistant Operative, Full Operative with Camcorder, and Pointy-Haired Boss.

Posted by David Fischler on 01-22-2008 at 05:42 PM

Let’s hope More Martha than Mary didn’t have to go through the “Full Lackey with Codpiece” phase.

Posted by Deja Vu on 01-22-2008 at 05:51 PM

[#37]
Can someone flesh out the line drawn about the CoE?

Question: May I just ask how is your conversation with the Bishop of Canterbury?

KJS: How is my conversation with the Archbishop of Canterbury? Right. I don’t know him terribly well. (laughter) I’ve met him only three times. I think there is a desire for greater relationship there. Certainly there is on my part. Charles Robertson - Chuck Robertson, the Canon to the Presiding Bishop who was here until this afternoon - is going to England on Monday to try and increase the level of conversation with the Archbishop’s Office and the office of the Anglican Communion; the General Secretary of the Anglican Communion. We’re working at it. I think the biggest difficulty is the conflict in the Church of England is far greater than it is in this church. And the Archbishop of Canterbury is first and foremost head of the Church of England. Everything that impacts the rest of the communion is being played out even on a larger stage in his own church. He’s in a very difficult position. Very difficult. I empathize with him. And I pray for him and I hope you do too.

Gee, I wonder why the AoC is in a difficult position. What ever could have transpired to place him in such straits?

carl

Posted by carl on 01-22-2008 at 06:34 PM

#55 C...it was just bizarre. It was as if +Canterbury, what’s that? why would it matter? And oh, I know who you mean. He’s got much worse problems in his own realm, what’s it to me? I’ve sent someone over to deal with it. We’re fine over here…

I just don’t see that there is an idea of +Canterbury being an instrument of unity. Who needs unity? What is unity? It just goes on and on…

Posted by southernvirginia1 on 01-22-2008 at 06:59 PM

Post 45: Maybe you are unfamiliar with The Book of Common Prayer but I think you should understand that it affirms Scripture, the Rites of the Church (included in the Book of Common Prayer are based on Scripture, they ALWAYS include readings from the Bible, including the Gospel, and these readings are supposed to inspire the Sermon. the Articles of Religion (included in the Book of Common Prayer) affirm the Authority of Scripture.
I came to the Episcopal Church because the Book of Common Prayer presented the Church as a Scripture based religion and I wanted to recapture the faith I had lost. I don’t intend to lose it again because of false profits who wish to lead us astray.
PB Schori does not present the religion represented in the Book of Common Prayer or that of Scripture and it seems to me that she is trying to perform a bait & switch with the prayer book.

Posted by Betty See on 01-22-2008 at 06:59 PM

I am very familiar with the BCP and I think it is a very wonderful assitant that is based on scripture to assist with prayers, and is used as our liturgy, etc...I however feel that contrary teachings from the Bible, the Inspired Word of God wold be a much worse thing since that is God’s word. The Bible is where we as Christians are supposed to be taught from. That is all I am saying!

Posted by One Day Closer on 01-22-2008 at 07:08 PM

One last transcript.

Questioner: Bishop Katherine, in speaking about boundaries I want to ask ... It seems like in your Time Magazine article, and we’re trying to be I guess reconciling with other faith communities. I think like Bishop Robinson was commenting or its about to come out in his book that he doesn’t believe that Jesus is necessarily .. he believes [it’s not necessary] that other people need to believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father. And it seems like to me in your Time Magazine Article that you said that that would be putting God into too small of a box to think that Jesus is the only way. If he’s not the only way, then he lied to us, and that doesn’t seem possible. When he said that - when Jesus said that “I must go to Jerusalem to die” it just does not seem like it is possible for other people in other faith communitites to be able to get to the Father except through Christ.

KJS: Do we believe the Jesus died for the whole world? I do. I do. Then ...

Questioner: But no one comes to ther Father except through Jesus.

KJS: Yes, and Jesus died for the whole world. For the whole world.

Questioner: And that’s why we’re supposed to be going out and telling everyone about Jesus, and not necessarily saying that the way they believe is the best way.

KJS: I never said that. I would not say that. My understanding is that Jesus died for the whole world. You and I understand having been formed and having made our baptismal vows that we are followers of Jesus in that particular way. We believe that we are saved by grace through faith. For us to insist that someone in South Asia who has never heard the Gospel may not enter the fullness of God’s presence violates that in some way if we’ve understood that Jesus died to save the whole world. For us to insist that such a person who has have heard the Gospel has to say “I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior” in order to be ... saved?...in order to be in the presence of God requires a work of that person that’s impossible. I believe that God is more gracious and generous then that - Jesus already having done that work. That person in this life or in the next may not consciously enjoy the presence of God in a way that you and I might. But for me to say that that person cannot be in the presence of God is to deny that Jesus died for the whole world.

Questioner: Why did Jesus have to die on the cross?

KJS: Again, I think there are a whole list of layers of reasons for that. Proximately, the Romans executed him because they thought he was a revolutionary. He was a revolutionary. He turned the world upside down in saying really to his fellow Jews that there are other ways to be in the presence of God then keeping all of these items of the Law.

carl

Posted by carl on 01-22-2008 at 07:44 PM

Thanks to all who have provided partial transcripts. Please see the updated main post. Reader GW just got promoted to Full Lackey with Codpiece for transcribing the pertinent sections of the video.

Posted by Greg Griffith on 01-22-2008 at 08:03 PM

On January 12, 2008 PB Schori clearly stated here that the canons are for enforcing boundaries, using the example of ensuring people are baptized before taking Communion:
Bishop Katharine: Fair question. We are a tradition of ordered freedom. We have boundaries. We have expectations of behavior like being baptized before people coming to Communion. When those boundaries are transgressed, we have a discipline in this tradition. That’s what the canons are about.

So, will she enforce boundaries and use the canons regarding the event in Los Angeles on Saturday?

Posted by Deja Vu on 01-22-2008 at 08:27 PM

Post 58, It seems to me that PB Schori’s teaching is contrary to 1. Scripture and 2. The Book of Common Prayer.
I specifically mentioned the Book of Common Prayer because PB Schori is supposed to represent the Episcopal Church. I thought it was necessary point out that PB Schori is misrepresenting many Episcopalians in that their (and presumably her) own Book of Common prayer is faithful to Scripture and that the rites of the church do acknowledge that Jesus died for our sins even if she is reluctant to acknowledge the same.

Posted by Betty See on 01-22-2008 at 08:41 PM

A big thank you to all who provided transcriptions!

Posted by Pegg76 on 01-22-2008 at 09:40 PM

Re #61

Good catch. I think that means that the lack of action that will be directed at Bruno & Co. will ring the bell on the hypocrisy meter.

Posted by David Fischler on 01-22-2008 at 10:02 PM

How does one accept the leadership and authority of a PB that clearly has abandoned the doctrine and teaching of TEC as expressed in the BCP?

This is a serious question that every deacon, clergy, vicar, rector and bishop should consider.

Posted by texex on 01-23-2008 at 01:56 AM

I must admit, for all the problems, this was the only part that made me physically splutter while listening to it. Saying that open communion might be OK was bad enough, but then we came to this:

Let me remind you of what it was like when I grew up in this church. You had to be confirmed before you could come to Communion. We remembered somewhere along the way that baptism was full initiation into the body of Christ. We remembered that babies could come to Communion if they’re received as God’s heirs through Christ, then they should be deserving of a full meal, even if they don’t understand what’s going on.

Jesus said that that both belief and baptism are needed for life. St Paul said that those who take communion unworthily eat and drink damnation to yourself. I can understand a view of believers baptism; I can understand infant baptism followed by confirmation: both, if applied properly, are consistent with scripture. But infant baptism and no confirmation? What is the use of that? And it is already practised, and she is praising that? And I’m meant to be in communion with this lady?

But I did find myself nodding in agreement with the next line.

I don’t think that I can say that I fully understand what goes on at Communion.

As to her statement of the Church of England, in some senses her statement is true, in other senses it is not. If is false because the level of rancour and poison seen in the Church of England is far smaller than in the North American churches. I don’t see the hate-filled tirades I read about on this site, from either side. On the other hand, it is more divided. In the US, I would guess that you have about 5% of churches faithful, whether leaving, left, or committed to stay and fight, 5% themselves orthodox but unwilling or unable to stand for their values (Wimberly and the like), and 20% willing to accept the liberal agenda and maybe 70% fully following it. So 90% of the church is not causing problems. (But then, you guys can probably give a better estimate of the numbers than me). In the Church of England, it is probably 10% Anglo-Catholic, 10% Conservative Evangelical firmly opposed to the agenda, 30% Open Evangelical uneasy about the liberal agenda, opposed to some of it, open to other parts (yes, I’m against WO), 30% Moderate who essentially don’t care, and 20% hard core liberals. So in that sense the church is split 50/50, and the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot move either way without losing one of the hardcore 20%s. So in that sense, the presiding bishop is right, and the division is greater in England than in North America. Only the 20% on each side are causing a fuss; and the overwhelming majority of the pew sitters don’t understand what the fuss is about and don’t want to learn the basic theology so that they can understand. Essentially the C of E is in the position TEC was 20 years ago, only with a stronger Evangelical party, the liberals aiming for what they see today in TEC, and a surrounding culture that is considerably more hostile to the gospel.

Of course, I have just made up all the numbers, but I think that the general picture of the Church of England is accurate. The important thing is that for the Church of England, alone among the Western churches (possibly except Australia) is not yet lost to our worthy opponents; nor is it won for the roistering adventurers; and we haven’t had more than a few opening skirmishes. That’s why I’m praying that the primates come to Lambeth, and come up with a powerful covenant. It could tip the balance in the Church of England. On the other hand, if the global South pulls away from Canterbury, the Church of England is finished.

Posted by Boring Bloke on 01-23-2008 at 04:33 AM

...and we don’t put boundaries on that, as Jesus did not put boundaries on that.

They always leave out the critical information. No boundaries for God’s forgiveness, in those instances where God has graciously granted repentance (I do not believe that repentance would be granted in the case of the Unpardonable Sin).

In order for God to forgive, there must be some way which we have all sinned against Him, and Him only.

Without forgiveness, there can be no reconciliation. Without sin, there can be no need for forgiveness. Schori’s use of words like ‘reconcilation,’ and ‘boundaries,’ are whited seplecures.

Finally, I think they do a disservice to the witness of Scripture’s emphasis on the character of God; expressed (e.g.,) in the existence of Heaven and Hell.

It’s also expressed, btw, in the existence of heretics.

Posted by Moot on 01-23-2008 at 05:32 AM

Well, in some sense the situation is hard to see clearly. Those who have left ECUSA no longer count as ECUSAns. One can’t assess a what-would-be scenario. So ECUSA becomes more purely adverse to the historic, orthodox faith and more unified onto itself. And the now, out-groups, are not exactly unified. Attempts have been made for unification, but the try isn’t as effective as the thing itself.

And for any who are tied to being in communion with the ancient see, well, that would be CoE and not these protestant step-offs, no matter how catholic in practice and faith they may be. In the sense of being tied to an ancient see, one understands the move of the TAD(?) group towards Rome, for example.

It seems disingenuous to pretend from the PB to kinda ‘harumph’ +Canterbury.

Posted by southernvirginia1 on 01-23-2008 at 07:44 AM

"We remembered that babies could come to Communion if they’re received as God’s heirs through Christ, then they should be deserving of a full meal, even if they don’t understand what’s going on. I don’t think that I can say that I fully understand what goes on at Communion.”

In the Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic churches babies do indeed receive the sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist and Confirmation at the same time. They do not receive Holy Communion if they have not been baptized. Some Catholic dioceses are restoring the practice of having first holy communion and confirmation closer together. The ideal being at the same time.

As to the PB’s claim that a pastor can not know if a person is Baptized when they approach the communion rail I can accept that in some instances. But have to wonder about any priest who does not discern that a practicing Hindu just might not have been baptized.

And just why would Jesus leave us without the fullness of truth? My understanding is that He fullfilled all the laws and the prophets. That there will be no further public revelation until He comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead. That the place of the Church was not to proclaim new truths but to defend the eternal ones and come to a deeper understanding of them. But that there is no Jack In The Box Bible with truths and revelations and prophecies jumping out to surprise us.

I was pleased to read she understand Jesus to be God in the flesh. But would it have hurt her to say she knows this?

Posted by Paula Loughlin on 01-23-2008 at 10:44 AM

Let me see now, in my right hand I have “same-sex EVERYTHING” (blessings, etc.) as well as “open communion” and “services with other faiths,” and “the part that Jesus dying plays in our lives”. I’m going to hold these loosely.

In my left hand I have “boundary crossings,” “dioceses leaving (but not leaving because you can’t)”, etc. I’m going to hold these very tightly. Good thing no one notices that they are different.

Ha! Ha!

Posted by Already left on 01-23-2008 at 06:09 PM

Matthew 16:15-16

Posted by Pageantmaster on 01-24-2008 at 07:03 AM

That’s it, exactly Pageantmaster.

And also, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM shall not perish but have eternal life.

I don’t know how the PB gets around THAT one!

Posted by more martha than mary on 01-24-2008 at 07:19 AM

Posted January 21, 2008 at 5:57 pm
The URL for this article is http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/9394/

©2008 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.