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.
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.)
She claims that peacemaking 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.
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.
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 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.).
"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. "
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)* 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.”
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.”
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.
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?
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.
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”.
Much more easily than I can one between Bishop Schori and Martin Luther. Or St. Paul, for that matter.
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.