Episcopal Church Bishop Salvo on Personal Salvation

[smithsb]

From USA TODAY, Faith and Reason Article: http://http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/07/68494086/1

The Episcopal Church's presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. Wednesday, she threw a grenade on personal salvation

... the great Western heresy -- that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It's caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

Well, is focus on saving your own butt for the hereafter selfish?
Is there going to be further schism within the Episcopal Church?

My thought is positive action with regard to others is the key to a good life (personally, I'm in the "afterlife is communing with worms" camp). Recovering Episcopalian here.

[Shodan]

From USA TODAY, Faith and Reason Article: fixed link (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/07/68494086/1)

The Episcopal Church's presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. Wednesday, she threw a grenade on personal salvation



Well, is focus on saving your own butt for the hereafter selfish?
Is there going to be further schism within the Episcopal Church?

My thought is positive action with regard to others is the key to a good life (personally, I'm in the "afterlife is communing with worms" camp). Recovering Episcopalian here.If we can't be saved as individuals, maybe we can do it in bunches.

I doubt there will be further schism. They have already gotten rid of the Episcopalians who actually believe in salvation, so I suspect they will simply trail off into irrelevance.

Regards,
Shodan

[Polycarp]

If we can't be saved as individuals, maybe we can do it in bunches.

I doubt there will be further schism. They have already gotten rid of the Episcopalians who actually believe in salvation, so I suspect they will simply trail off into irrelevance.

Regards,
Shodan

From what little I know of Bp. Jefferts Schori's theology, her point was likely not "no individual salvation" but rather the place of community -- the church community -- in leading people to Christ and nurturing spiritual growth.

But there is a concerted campaign by people who dislike her to slander her and quote her out of context in order to misrepresent what she actually said. (I'm not accusing the OP of that, simply noting that it exists and is seemingly well organized.)

[Shodan]

She claims that peacemaking (http://ecusa.anglican.org/78694_ENG_HTM.htm) is a priority ministry for her. How that fits into labeling those who disagree with her ideas on salvation as heretics and idolators is not clear.

Regards,
Shodan

[FriarTed]

From what little I know of Bp. Jefferts Schori's theology, her point was likely not "no individual salvation" but rather the place of community -- the church community -- in leading people to Christ and nurturing spiritual growth.

But there is a concerted campaign by people who dislike her to slander her and quote her out of context in order to misrepresent what she actually said. (I'm not accusing the OP of that, simply noting that it exists and is seemingly well organized.)


But she makes it so easy! Remember the TIME magazine mini-interview when her response to why the TEC was losing members was (loosely but not unfairly paraphrased) "We're smarter than everyone else and a lot of people are uncomfortable with that"?

When I read her speech, I kept hearing "like that ACNA bunch" in the back of my head everytime she mentioned individual-salvation-heresy.

Btw, I agree with what she says inasmuch as it's against the "lone rangers for Jesus" mentality some believers have, but it's not like she cares all that much about keeping in concert with the world Anglican Communion when her beliefs differ.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I may be reading it wrong but I gather she is saying just believing in Jesus and going through the motions (going to church on Sunday, reciting prayers) is not enough for salvation.

In the context of Christian theology (by which I mean assuming Jesus exists and salvation is through him and him alone) I have always had a problem with mere belief in Jesus opening the door to being saved.

I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

--John 14:6


I am the true grapevine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch of mine that doesn’t produce fruit, and he prunes the branches that do bear fruit so they will produce even more. You have already been pruned and purified by the message I have given you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. For a branch cannot produce fruit if it is severed from the vine, and you cannot be fruitful unless you remain in me.

Yes, I am the vine; you are the branches. Those who remain in me, and I in them, will produce much fruit. For apart from me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a useless branch and withers. Such branches are gathered into a pile to be burned. But if you remain in me and my words remain in you, you may ask for anything you want, and it will be granted! When you produce much fruit, you are my true disciples. This brings great glory to my Father.

--John 15:1-8


I read that to mean you need to do more than just believe in Jesus as the savior. You need to believe in his teachings and live them. In short, reciting a prayer is not sufficient, living the life Jesus teaches us to live is the route to salvation (good deeds, forgiveness, etc.).

[FriarTed]

Correction- it was NOT in Time Magazine. At least not in the Ten Questions section. I'm going to have to find it.

[FriarTed]

NYT Magazine- and I got the first part but I must have read the second part into it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/magazine/19WWLN_Q4.html?scp=1&sq=Jefferts%20Schori&st=cse

"How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?

About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.

Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?


No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion. "

[BrainGlutton]

Heresy?! I thought personal salvation -- for some and not for others -- was what Christianity was all about, and that all churches and denominations save the Universalists (long since merged with the Unitarians) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalist)* would agree. Certainly that's what Jesus seems to be saying in red-letter editions of the Gospels -- "Believe not and thou shalt be damned," etc.


*Before the merger it was said, "Unitarians believe they are too good to be damned and Universalists believe God is too good to damn them."

[DanBlather]

Damn those Unitarians and Episcopalians with their modern ideas, I have it on good authority that 3 of the first 14 presidents weren't either one.

[FriarTed]

Damn those Unitarians and Episcopalians with their modern ideas, I have it on good authority that 3 of the first 14 presidents weren't either one.

Both the Episcopal Church and the Unitarians have changed somewhat in the last 200 years.

[smiling bandit]

Both the Episcopal Church and the Unitarians have changed somewhat in the last 200 years.

In neither case, I think, for the better. Both are seemingly in the process of removing all actual content from their religion in favor a vague feel-good concept which goes nowhere. Although the Episcipalians are not nearly so far gone and are much divided over it. Unfortunately, Schori (whose priesthood and Bishophood I do not recognize) is the syptom and not the cause. Lacking any actual specific beliefs, people always either fall away or go for nonsense. I'd rather a good, honest atheist in the old-fashioned mold, when it had some guts to it.

[FriarTed]

In neither case, I think, for the better. Both are seemingly in the process of removing all actual content from their religion in favor a vague feel-good concept which goes nowhere. Although the Episcipalians are not nearly so far gone and are much divided over it. Unfortunately, Schori (whose priesthood and Bishophood I do not recognize) is the syptom and not the cause. Lacking any actual specific beliefs, people always either fall away or go for nonsense. I'd rather a good, honest atheist in the old-fashioned mold, when it had some guts to it.

Setting aside the issue of women's ordination (I don't mind it at all; my own church- the Assemblies of God is in theory very open on women as pastors, I'm not sure about the AoG stance on women as superintendants, our version of Bishops), I'm reminded of a passage I read (I thought it was in God In the Dock) by C.S. Lewis in which his response to "Is England becoming pagan?" was (paraphrased)- "If only! I'd rather have Parliament opening with prayers to Zeus or burning horsemeat to Wotan than the bland spiritual pablum we have nowadays."

[Polycarp]

In neither case, I think, for the better. Both are seemingly in the process of removing all actual content from their religion in favor a vague feel-good concept which goes nowhere. Although the Episcipalians are not nearly so far gone and are much divided over it. Unfortunately, Schori (whose priesthood and Bishophood I do not recognize) is the syptom and not the cause. Lacking any actual specific beliefs, people always either fall away or go for nonsense. I'd rather a good, honest atheist in the old-fashioned mold, when it had some guts to it.

This being Great Debates, Bandit, you will of course produce some proof of your scurrilous allegations here, or retract them with an apology to Episcopalians, right?

[Captain Carrot]

In neither case, I think, for the better. Both are seemingly in the process of removing all actual content from their religion in favor a vague feel-good concept which goes nowhere. Although the Episcipalians are not nearly so far gone and are much divided over it. Unfortunately, Schori (whose priesthood and Bishophood I do not recognize) is the syptom and not the cause. Lacking any actual specific beliefs, people always either fall away or go for nonsense. I'd rather a good, honest atheist in the old-fashioned mold, when it had some guts to it.
And those damn kids won't get off your lawn.

[furt]

This being Great Debates, Bandit, you will of course produce some proof of your scurrilous allegations here, or retract them with an apology to Episcopalians, right?Since when does one need "proof" for one's opinions? What exactly is he supposed to cite?

Perhaps more to the point, there are plenty of Episcopalian/Anglicans who agree with with the gist of smiling bandit's post. Globally, they might be in the majority. No apology needed.

[DanBlather]

Both the Episcopal Church and the Unitarians have changed somewhat in the last 200 years.What hasn't. What's important is that the founding fathers were some of the most enlightened people in their day. People like them would feel much more at home with the Unitarian and Episcopal churches then they would with today's evangelicals. Can you imagine Joe the Plumber and Jefferson having a conversation?

[lonestar88]

Well, as an Episcopalian this is what I get from the article, and that is it takes more than reciting some words in intese prayer for salvation. I can't go out and kill an abortion doctor, then repent and expect to be saved. If I lead a good life, then perhaps I will be saved, but being saved is not my decision. Leading a good life is my decision.

[Shodan]

Perhaps more to the point, there are plenty of Episcopalian/Anglicans who agree with with the gist of smiling bandit's post.Most of them have already split off and formed their own Anglican communion - you know, the ones who the good Bishop is calling heretics and idolators.

But really, I don't think any further evidence is needed than the Bishop labelling the doctrine of salvation solus Christi as "heresy".
Can you imagine Joe the Plumber and Jefferson having a conversation? Much more easily than I can one between Bishop Schori and Martin Luther. Or St. Paul, for that matter.

Regards,
Shodan

[mswas]

She claims that peacemaking (http://ecusa.anglican.org/78694_ENG_HTM.htm) is a priority ministry for her. How that fits into labeling those who disagree with her ideas on salvation as heretics and idolators is not clear.

Regards,
Shodan

And this shows a distinct lack of understanding of what she said based on your individualist mindset.

"Where two or three are gathered in my name, I shall be in their midst and bless them."

The idea that it's controversial to claim that people are saved as communities not as individuals is pretty new as far as I can tell and it's generally put forward by people who have relationships with secular institutions set higher in their personal ethic than those who have relationships with religious institutions set higher in their personal ethic than secular ones.

It's funny, your response says essentially that if she doesn't respect any old opinion then she cannot be a peacemaker.

[DanBlather]

Much more easily than I can one between Bishop Schori and Martin Luther. Or St. Paul, for that matter.

Regards,
ShodanI agree with that. Martin Luther was an Anti Semite and St Paul was a misogynist. Nasty people both.

[FriarTed]

I agree with that. Martin Luther was an Anti Semite and St Paul was a misogynist. Nasty people both.

People like to say that about Paul. I don't think they know what the word means.

As far as Martin Luther... *sigh*.... I gotta grant that one.

Of course, your boy Tommy J owned slaves & probably knocked up Sally Hemmings! :D

[DanBlather]

Of course, your boy Tommy J ... probably knocked up Sally Hemmings! :DThus starting a long tradition among politicans unfortunately. Sex exploits seems to be the one thing that Dems and Pubs agree on. :) Cheers.

[mswas]

Thus starting a long tradition among politicans unfortunately. Sex exploits seems to be the one thing that Dems and Pubs agree on. :) Cheers.

Wasn't his wife dead when he started banging Sally Hemmings?

Also, if the GOP is the party of Lincoln when did they start the tradition of banging slaves?

[DanBlather]

Also, if the GOP is the party of Lincoln when did they start the tradition of banging slaves?The party of Lincoln, like Elvis, has left the building. They are now the party of Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin.

[mswas]

The party of Lincoln, like Elvis, has left the building. They are now the party of Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin.

So since Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin they have started banging slaves?

[FriarTed]

So since Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin they have started banging slaves?

Well, I sure didn't get the memo.

TO DO LIST:
1. Get slave
2. Start banging.

[Shodan]

And this shows a distinct lack of understanding of what she said based on your individualist mindset.

"Where two or three are gathered in my name, I shall be in their midst and bless them."It's going to be a little difficult to gather in Christ's name if we start calling each other names.

Of course, if the Anglicans keep going the way they are, pretty soon two or three is all that will be available to gather.

It's funny, your response says essentially that if she doesn't respect any old opinion then she cannot be a peacemaker.
Not really. Just that if Bishop Schori wants to make peace with the Anglicans who have split off, labeling the quest for individual salvation as idolatry and heresy is not a real skippy way to begin. IMO.

Regards,
Shodan

[astorian]

I agree with that. Martin Luther was an Anti Semite and St Paul was a misogynist. Nasty people both.

Ahhhh.... well then, if Bishop Schori is rejecting St. Paul, she's in a bit of a bind.

See, JESUS never said Christians could abandon Mosaic law. St. Paul did.

So, if St. Paul is just a nasty old misogynist to be ignored, Bishop Schori has an obligation to follow Mosaic law. Starting now.

[DanBlather]

Ahhhh.... well then, if Bishop Schori is rejecting St. Paul, she's in a bit of a bind.

See, JESUS never said Christians could abandon Mosaic law. St. Paul did.

So, if St. Paul is just a nasty old misogynist to be ignored, Bishop Schori has an obligation to follow Mosaic law. Starting now.Jesus never said we should follow St Paul's laws either.

[astorian]

Jesus never said we should follow St Paul's laws either.

A theologian you are not. An historian you ALSO are not.

St. Paul never made any laws. Quite the opposite- he FREED Christians from the obligation to follow Old Testament laws

Jesus NEVER said his followers didn't have to keep kosher. He NEVER said his followers needn't circumcise their children. He NEVER preached to non-Jews. It was the evil misogynist Paul who did all that.

So, I repeat, any liberal Christian who wants to reject Paul is in a bind. If Paul is rejected, the liberal Christian HAS to follow Old Testament law, and HAS to convert to Judaism.










,

[Elendil's Heir]

Well, as an Episcopalian this is what I get from the article, and that is it takes more than reciting some words in intese prayer for salvation. I can't go out and kill an abortion doctor, then repent and expect to be saved. If I lead a good life, then perhaps I will be saved, but being saved is not my decision. Leading a good life is my decision.

I'm happy and proud (not to a sinful extent, I hope) to be an Episcopalian, and I agree with you. I would go further and suggest that the PB is saying that we ought to draw strength and spiritual nourishment from each other. There is no particular tradition of Episcopalian hermits. We may and should have a personal relationship with God, but we should not erect barriers to one another, or be content to be saved as individuals while all around us fall into damnation.

[mswas]

It's going to be a little difficult to gather in Christ's name if we start calling each other names.

Of course, if the Anglicans keep going the way they are, pretty soon two or three is all that will be available to gather.

Not really. Just that if Bishop Schori wants to make peace with the Anglicans who have split off, labeling the quest for individual salvation as idolatry and heresy is not a real skippy way to begin. IMO.

Except that individual salvation IS antithetical to Christianity and always has been. She's not saying anything controversial whatsoever.

[Polycarp]

Since when does one need "proof" for one's opinions? What exactly is he supposed to cite?

Perhaps more to the point, there are plenty of Episcopalian/Anglicans who agree with with the gist of smiling bandit's post. Globally, they might be in the majority. No apology needed.

You are of course correct that Smiling Bandit has a right to hold, and to express, opinions. And, since this is tje Great Debates board on the SDMB, if he expresses an opinion which has no basis in fact, he can expect to be called on it.

[Polycarp]

Except that individual salvation IS antithetical to Christianity and always has been. She's not saying anything controversial whatsoever.

I wouldn't say quite antithetical. But the idea of the church as the community of the faithful far predates the camp-meetin' Come-to-Jesus style of one-off individual salvation -- so your point is pretty solid. I only raise this to prevent the sort of hijack that would result from equating altar-call preaching with all of Christianity.

[DanBlather]

St. Paul never made any laws. Quite the opposite- he FREED Christians from the obligation to follow Old Testament laws

Jesus NEVER said his followers didn't have to keep kosher. He NEVER said his followers needn't circumcise their children. He NEVER preached to non-Jews. It was the evil misogynist Paul who did all that.So Paul took it upon himself to contradict both God and Jesus? What a dick!

[astorian]

So Paul took it upon himself to contradict both God and Jesus? What a dick!

I can't decide whether you're being willfully ignorant or just trying desperately to be funny.

Either way, you're dodging the issue. If Paul was such a prick, why do liberal Christians continue to follow his lead? If they really think Paul was an evil misogynist, why don't they reject all Paul said, and start following Mosaic law?

If Bishop Schori doesn't like what Paul stands for she has an obligation to reject him and go back to what Jesus himself taught. And contrary to what you may believe, Jesus was NOT a sweet, nonjudgmental hippie.

Jesus NEVER suggested that Mosaic law (including kashrut and circumcision) should be done away with. PAUL is the reason those things were done away with. You can't reject Paul as a contemptible ass unless you're prepared to follow Old Testament law to the letter.

You ready to do that, Dan? Is Bishop Schori?

[cerberus]

But the central conceit of Christianity is the idea of a personal relationship with God. Barring that, what's the point?

[DanBlather]

I can't decide whether you're being willfully ignorant or just trying desperately to be funny.

Either way, you're dodging the issue. If Paul was such a prick, why do liberal Christians continue to follow his lead? If they really think Paul was an evil misogynist, why don't they reject all Paul said, and start following Mosaic law?

If Bishop Schori doesn't like what Paul stands for she has an obligation to reject him and go back to what Jesus himself taught. And contrary to what you may believe, Jesus was NOT a sweet, nonjudgmental hippie.

Jesus NEVER suggested that Mosaic law (including kashrut and circumcision) should be done away with. PAUL is the reason those things were done away with. You can't reject Paul as a contemptible ass unless you're prepared to follow Old Testament law to the letter.

You ready to do that, Dan? Is Bishop Schori?I have long rejected any sort of religion. I do find it ironic however, that conservative Christians think they are the intellectual decendants of the founding fathers. As I said before, the FF were some of the most enlightened people of their day. They tended to be more deist than Jesus-oriented, and many rejected the idea of the trinity. They had very little in common with the bible thumping, judgemental folks who want to return to a past that never existed.

I am surprised however, to see the extent to which you credit Paul with the decision that Christians don't have to follow Mosaic Law (at least the inconvenient ones)., vs. the interpretation of Jesus' teachings that they no longer applied. Do you really mean to imply that Paul just made these things up out of whole cloth?

[furt]

You are of course correct that Smiling Bandit has a right to hold, and to express, opinions. And, since this is tje Great Debates board on the SDMB, if he expresses an opinion which has no basis in fact, he can expect to be called on it.And the "opinion which has no basis in fact" he expressed is what, exactly?

[The Second Stone]

I agree with that. Martin Luther was an Anti Semite and St Paul was a misogynist. Nasty people both.

Martin Luther was anti-Semitic and Paul was misogynistic. Both were severe character flaws that have made the world a worse place. But this was not the entirety of their contribution to humanity. They were flawed people, but their good contributions should not be disregarded because of their failings. If that is the standard, then we cannot learn from both our mistakes and our successes. People need to do both.

The evil men do lives after them
The good is oft interred with their bones.

[Skammer]

*raises hand*
I was at her sermon, in person, when she spoke the OP quote. My thought was "Oh, those poor desert fathers, the ones who left civilization to live alone with God... now they're heretics!"

[Thudlow Boink]

But the central conceit of Christianity is the idea of a personal relationship with God.Cite? :)

Being a Christian means both having a personal relationship with God/Christ and being a member of the "body of Christ" (i.e. the church, the fellowship of believers, the community of all who follow Jesus). Some Christian traditions emphasize the former (e.g. the evangelicals), others the latter (e.g. the Roman Catholics).

[FriarTed]

*raises hand*
I was at her sermon, in person, when she spoke the OP quote. My thought was "Oh, those poor desert fathers, the ones who left civilization to live alone with God... now they're heretics!"

So, were you there for the whole conference? Care to share?

I was hoping you were still around!

[smiling bandit]

And the "opinion which has no basis in fact" he expressed is what, exactly?

I'm more amused by the fact that the angry response has all the fire the Anglicans often lack. I'd have to agree with C. S. Lewis on that. The very fact that this thread came up is basically the issue.

The problem is that England (and to varying degrees most western nations) really lack any kind of faith or beliefe. I'm not even talking about belief in God: too many people seem to wallow in their own filth as a sort of profession. They accomplish nothing, instead steadily withdrawing inside themselves (in what can only be described as a new form of Hell on Earth, however pleasurable). See Oscar Van den Boogaard's comment about enjoying freedom - but not defending it.

This kind of malaise appears everywhere, and as far as I am concerned, the mess in the Episcopal church is one symptom. It retreats into a pablumic "community" where it can decay quietly, hiding behind insipid intellectual fashions (and intellectual fads are always the most insipid). The obsession, primarily of the modern urban left, for community, is the same nod vice grants to virtue in the form of hypocrisy. Sneering at honor, courage, and community, they now chant paeons to it and become High Priests (or in this case, preistesses)of its religion But they still don't actually have it.

[Shodan]

I wouldn't say quite antithetical. But the idea of the church as the community of the faithful far predates the camp-meetin' Come-to-Jesus style of one-off individual salvationMaybe there is a difference between a "camp meeting" and a community of the faithful, but I doubt if anyone but Bishop S. could describe it.I only raise this to prevent the sort of hijack that would result from equating altar-call preaching with all of Christianity.ISTM that Bishop Schori is saying that not only is altar-calling not all of Christianity, it isn't part of orthodox Christianity at all.

I thought the Anglicans had rejected the notion that "outside the Church there is no salvation", but apparently not.

Regards,
Shodan

[FriarTed]

Maybe there is a difference between a "camp meeting" and a community of the faithful, but I doubt if anyone but Bishop S. could describe it.ISTM that Bishop Schori is saying that not only is altar-calling not all of Christianity, it isn't part of orthodox Christianity at all.

I thought the Anglicans had rejected the notion that "outside the Church there is no salvation", but apparently not.

Regards,
Shodan


Interestingly, camp-meetings & altar calls all strike me as methods of some Anglican named... John Wesley.

Was George Whitefield an Anglican also?

I've been in the Evangelical circles for almost 40 years, watched tons of TV Evangelists, heard lots of Evangelical pastors & teachers & never once heard that a person can get saved & develop spiritually without church fellowship & doing good to others. I've heard many messages decrying the idea that one can be a Lone Ranger Christian who doesn't need the church & to be reaching out to others.