Just thought I’d ask the question. Nothing (much) to see here really, apart from an insignificant video.
Related
17 Comments on “Who are you worshiping this Christmas?”
Sorry to point out an error…
But in John 14:6
Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life….
Not “the light” as your vidcast says.
You might want to change it, as you don’t want be accused of not knowing a very famous passage of scripture!
Lord, have mercy on those that elected her and continue to turn our church (not our faith or belief) away from Jesus Christ and his redeeming sacrifice.
In the few moments that this comment will have before your inevitable censorship, could I ask please, for the benefit of myself and others who thought that the Christian way was about love tolerance and understanding, how you can possibly reconcile your position as a priest in the Church of England with your hateful personal attack on a Primate of the church?
Is this then to be the witness of your ordained ministry – to pour out disdain on others who try to follow the Way?
That isn’t a comment that I need to censor (unlike the chap who decided he’d call himself Goebbels. That one goes straight in the bin).
Let me be blunt Dawn – KJS doesn’t even vaguely believe in the Jesus who is the true Son of God. She believes in a Jesus who only carried the divine within him, not the man who was also (and still is) 100% God in a way that you and I and everybody else who has ever walked, or will ever walk, on earth can never ever be.
She will not affirm the uniqueness of Jesus as the way to the Father. She denies therefore that one needs to claim Jesus’ name to be saved. By doing her words reject God’s salvifiic plan in Jesus.
She will not unequivocally affirm the real physical resurrection from the tomb of the exact same body that died on the cross. In doing that she limits the spiritual power of the one who is the “first fruits of all who are raised”. If she cannot affirm that the 100% God and 100% Man person that died on the cross was exactly the same person who rose from the tomb then her faith is in vain – the Bible’s words not mine.
All three of these things are heresies. I am attacking the heresies and that can never be hateful. Jesus said “If you love me you will obey my commands”. That’s true love, to do what he told us and to declare the truth about him and to counter error.
Sorry, Peter, but that’s the worst sort of quoting out of context. It offers nothing to the debate apart from demonstrating a facility for propaganda. It might be that she is really an adoptionist, but that quotation doesn’t even come close to proving it – she’s clearly talking about the fact the Jesus was capable of dying. Hardly heretical. Then, as for whether God can work outside the Church, again that’s hardly earth-shattering in its insight. The Church has never proclaimed that God’s work is found only within its boundaries, nor that everything found outside itself is pure falsehood. Rather, other religions have partial or distorted pieces of the truth. Christ brings fulness of life and truth, but Creation itself declares the nature and glory of God, and all peoples share in that. The fact that she uses a different language to you doesn’t make her a heretic. Just as the fact that you use different language to Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin doesn’t make you a heretic. Be careful of trying to draw the fences around Christianity too narrowly.
I appreciate where you’re coming from, but if you look at the full spectrum of Schori’s writing and speeches you can see very clearly that she is a Pelagianist, a Marcionist, an Adoptionist and that she denies the uniqueness of Christ amongst other things. You can tell this not just from what she says but from what she will not say.
Yes, the Father’s glory is clearly seen through all of creation (Romans 1) but that’s not a soteriological statement. The key point is whether Schori believes that one can be with the Father for eternity without claiming the name of Jesus. She consistently will not affirm the uniqueness of Christ and also consistently will not deny that other faiths can save. That’s the issue at hand that places her outside the bounds of orthodoxy that has always recognised the “narrow way” of the exclusivity of Christ. The Fathers taught very clearly that there is no salvation outside of the Church, and one cannot be a member of the Church if you worship Ganesh or Vishna or Allah or no god at all.
Peter,
In the video KJS is accused of being an adoptionist – seems like she is more Nestorian in her heretical bent. (Hope I’m not nit picking) I was especially taken by the parallel between her expression “the tent of flesh” containing the divine and Nestorius’s “temple of the Deity”. Just goes to show there is no such thing as a new heresy just new heretics!
I’m a conservative Episcopalian who is apalled at what I’ve read of Schori’s views. I think they probably do amount to heresy.
But this video is unbelievably awful. It looks exactly like one of the attack commercials we have during political elections. It makes me want to jump to her defense and be hyper-critical of every statement you make in the video. You’re quoting her out of context. You don’t seem to know the difference between Adoptionism and Nestorianism. You have apalling taste in music. Your video editing skills are amaturish.
This is about the worst possible medium I can imagine for your message. This video can only hurt whatever cause you think it might be helping.
But seriously Michael. My intention wasn’t ever to personally attack Schori but rather to raise awareness of her theology. You’re not the first to highlight that her Christology is probably more Nestorian than Adoptionist.
As the Presiding Bishop of TEC her theology is under scrutiny and should be criticised if it is in error. That has nothing to do with appalling taste in music (which is a subjective thing, though I do like Cliff Richard’s “Saviour’s Day” so you may have a point). And perhaps my video editing skills are amateurish but if you’d like to buy me a full equipped studio then I could improve. I’ll let you know my account details if you’re willing.
The problem is not your video skillz. The problem is your choice of media.
The video political attack ad (the genre to which this unquestionably belongs) is wholly unsuited to the discussion, discernment, and debate that needs to be taking place among Anglicans right now.
I honestly view this sort of thing as on the same level as walking in to a vestry meeting and taking a crap to express your displeasure with the leadership. And I think it’s about equally effective in advancing your point of view.
I apologize for the strong language and for the personal attack. Your music/video skills ought to be irrelevant. But that’s exactly the sort of heat rather than light that your video encourages.
Picking up on the little interplay between Peter and Michael, might I add something?
In the business I work for, if I’m not doing my job properly or if I’m consistently compromising the professionalism of my colleagues or if I undermine what the company sets out to do or if I simply don’t stand for/believe in what the company is about I would be hauled in by my boss and properly lambasted. Being presented with a pile of steaming poo would be mild compared to what I would face. In fact, I’d probably be sacked.
This perhaps points to where the Church desperately needs to get with it and adopt some hard nosed commercial attitude. Schori should be sacked. In fact, hundreds, maybe even thousands of clergy, not only in TEC but in the CofE too, should be sacked. There’s no two ways about it. They’re dead wood. Useless. Rubbish. In Jesus’ words, goats! (It goes without saying that they are people who need to receive God’s grace and hear the truth of the gospel of Jesus).
There’s a right and appropriate place for “discussion, discernment and debate” but the current crisis is not it. There needs to be clarity. For all his poor editing skills (I’ve never even tried to make a video), bad taste in music (bless him, Peter remembers the 1980’s) and questionable use of heretical titles (Nesto-what; is that something to do with Nestle chocolate?) the point is clear and simple – the woman is a heretic. There is no place in any Church of God for heretics. In fact, the Bible makes it very clear that there is no way to be saved other than in and through Jesus. Anyone believing in anything other or less than is doomed to hell. Thankfully, I don’t have to make the final judgement, but I share with Peter a desperate concern that potentially millions are being preached a false gospel from the pulpits of our churches and that is an abomination.
Have you really never seen a TV political attack ad? Are you really unaware how universally despised these things are? Most people, when they see these things, immediately assume that they are full of lies, half-truths, misrepresentations, etc.
When you make a video like this, it’s like you’ve taken your (very important!) message and put it in an envelope that says “THIS MESSAGE IS MOSTLY SLANDEROUS LIES”.
Worse, I fear that videos like this have the effect of making people unaware of what’s going on in the Episcopal Church assume that it’s just another political battle between conservatives and liberals struggling for power over the denomination. You’re dragging the whole discussion down to the level of a political campaign and making it easier for the people you want to reach to dismiss what you’re saying.
Again, I’m sorry I crossed into personal attacks above. Merry Christmas to you and may God preserve and strengthen all that is good in the Anglican church, that the treasures she has been given may be available to us and to future generations.
Sorry to point out an error…
But in John 14:6
Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life….
Not “the light” as your vidcast says.
You might want to change it, as you don’t want be accused of not knowing a very famous passage of scripture!
Thanks Hannah – Fixed it now.
Lord, have mercy on those that elected her and continue to turn our church (not our faith or belief) away from Jesus Christ and his redeeming sacrifice.
Peter
In the few moments that this comment will have before your inevitable censorship, could I ask please, for the benefit of myself and others who thought that the Christian way was about love tolerance and understanding, how you can possibly reconcile your position as a priest in the Church of England with your hateful personal attack on a Primate of the church?
Is this then to be the witness of your ordained ministry – to pour out disdain on others who try to follow the Way?
Dawn,
That isn’t a comment that I need to censor (unlike the chap who decided he’d call himself Goebbels. That one goes straight in the bin).
Let me be blunt Dawn – KJS doesn’t even vaguely believe in the Jesus who is the true Son of God. She believes in a Jesus who only carried the divine within him, not the man who was also (and still is) 100% God in a way that you and I and everybody else who has ever walked, or will ever walk, on earth can never ever be.
She will not affirm the uniqueness of Jesus as the way to the Father. She denies therefore that one needs to claim Jesus’ name to be saved. By doing her words reject God’s salvifiic plan in Jesus.
She will not unequivocally affirm the real physical resurrection from the tomb of the exact same body that died on the cross. In doing that she limits the spiritual power of the one who is the “first fruits of all who are raised”. If she cannot affirm that the 100% God and 100% Man person that died on the cross was exactly the same person who rose from the tomb then her faith is in vain – the Bible’s words not mine.
All three of these things are heresies. I am attacking the heresies and that can never be hateful. Jesus said “If you love me you will obey my commands”. That’s true love, to do what he told us and to declare the truth about him and to counter error.
Sorry, Peter, but that’s the worst sort of quoting out of context. It offers nothing to the debate apart from demonstrating a facility for propaganda. It might be that she is really an adoptionist, but that quotation doesn’t even come close to proving it – she’s clearly talking about the fact the Jesus was capable of dying. Hardly heretical. Then, as for whether God can work outside the Church, again that’s hardly earth-shattering in its insight. The Church has never proclaimed that God’s work is found only within its boundaries, nor that everything found outside itself is pure falsehood. Rather, other religions have partial or distorted pieces of the truth. Christ brings fulness of life and truth, but Creation itself declares the nature and glory of God, and all peoples share in that. The fact that she uses a different language to you doesn’t make her a heretic. Just as the fact that you use different language to Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin doesn’t make you a heretic. Be careful of trying to draw the fences around Christianity too narrowly.
pax et bonum
John,
I appreciate where you’re coming from, but if you look at the full spectrum of Schori’s writing and speeches you can see very clearly that she is a Pelagianist, a Marcionist, an Adoptionist and that she denies the uniqueness of Christ amongst other things. You can tell this not just from what she says but from what she will not say.
Yes, the Father’s glory is clearly seen through all of creation (Romans 1) but that’s not a soteriological statement. The key point is whether Schori believes that one can be with the Father for eternity without claiming the name of Jesus. She consistently will not affirm the uniqueness of Christ and also consistently will not deny that other faiths can save. That’s the issue at hand that places her outside the bounds of orthodoxy that has always recognised the “narrow way” of the exclusivity of Christ. The Fathers taught very clearly that there is no salvation outside of the Church, and one cannot be a member of the Church if you worship Ganesh or Vishna or Allah or no god at all.
Peter,
In the video KJS is accused of being an adoptionist – seems like she is more Nestorian in her heretical bent. (Hope I’m not nit picking) I was especially taken by the parallel between her expression “the tent of flesh” containing the divine and Nestorius’s “temple of the Deity”. Just goes to show there is no such thing as a new heresy just new heretics!
Pax et Bonum
Steve
Adoptionist or Nestorian, either way she denies the Hypostatic Union. Therefore HERETIC.
I’m a conservative Episcopalian who is apalled at what I’ve read of Schori’s views. I think they probably do amount to heresy.
But this video is unbelievably awful. It looks exactly like one of the attack commercials we have during political elections. It makes me want to jump to her defense and be hyper-critical of every statement you make in the video. You’re quoting her out of context. You don’t seem to know the difference between Adoptionism and Nestorianism. You have apalling taste in music. Your video editing skills are amaturish.
This is about the worst possible medium I can imagine for your message. This video can only hurt whatever cause you think it might be helping.
Ouch. And my dress sense is terrible too.
Thanks Michael.
But seriously Michael. My intention wasn’t ever to personally attack Schori but rather to raise awareness of her theology. You’re not the first to highlight that her Christology is probably more Nestorian than Adoptionist.
As the Presiding Bishop of TEC her theology is under scrutiny and should be criticised if it is in error. That has nothing to do with appalling taste in music (which is a subjective thing, though I do like Cliff Richard’s “Saviour’s Day” so you may have a point). And perhaps my video editing skills are amateurish but if you’d like to buy me a full equipped studio then I could improve. I’ll let you know my account details if you’re willing.
Peter,
The problem is not your video skillz. The problem is your choice of media.
The video political attack ad (the genre to which this unquestionably belongs) is wholly unsuited to the discussion, discernment, and debate that needs to be taking place among Anglicans right now.
I honestly view this sort of thing as on the same level as walking in to a vestry meeting and taking a crap to express your displeasure with the leadership. And I think it’s about equally effective in advancing your point of view.
I apologize for the strong language and for the personal attack. Your music/video skills ought to be irrelevant. But that’s exactly the sort of heat rather than light that your video encourages.
Picking up on the little interplay between Peter and Michael, might I add something?
In the business I work for, if I’m not doing my job properly or if I’m consistently compromising the professionalism of my colleagues or if I undermine what the company sets out to do or if I simply don’t stand for/believe in what the company is about I would be hauled in by my boss and properly lambasted. Being presented with a pile of steaming poo would be mild compared to what I would face. In fact, I’d probably be sacked.
This perhaps points to where the Church desperately needs to get with it and adopt some hard nosed commercial attitude. Schori should be sacked. In fact, hundreds, maybe even thousands of clergy, not only in TEC but in the CofE too, should be sacked. There’s no two ways about it. They’re dead wood. Useless. Rubbish. In Jesus’ words, goats! (It goes without saying that they are people who need to receive God’s grace and hear the truth of the gospel of Jesus).
There’s a right and appropriate place for “discussion, discernment and debate” but the current crisis is not it. There needs to be clarity. For all his poor editing skills (I’ve never even tried to make a video), bad taste in music (bless him, Peter remembers the 1980’s) and questionable use of heretical titles (Nesto-what; is that something to do with Nestle chocolate?) the point is clear and simple – the woman is a heretic. There is no place in any Church of God for heretics. In fact, the Bible makes it very clear that there is no way to be saved other than in and through Jesus. Anyone believing in anything other or less than is doomed to hell. Thankfully, I don’t have to make the final judgement, but I share with Peter a desperate concern that potentially millions are being preached a false gospel from the pulpits of our churches and that is an abomination.
Peter – sound the warning and sound it loud.
But if the watchman cries out in the language corrupt politicians use to slander each other, who will listen?
What Michael, things like “You brood of vipers” and the like? That kind of language?
Peter,
Have you really never seen a TV political attack ad? Are you really unaware how universally despised these things are? Most people, when they see these things, immediately assume that they are full of lies, half-truths, misrepresentations, etc.
When you make a video like this, it’s like you’ve taken your (very important!) message and put it in an envelope that says “THIS MESSAGE IS MOSTLY SLANDEROUS LIES”.
Worse, I fear that videos like this have the effect of making people unaware of what’s going on in the Episcopal Church assume that it’s just another political battle between conservatives and liberals struggling for power over the denomination. You’re dragging the whole discussion down to the level of a political campaign and making it easier for the people you want to reach to dismiss what you’re saying.
Again, I’m sorry I crossed into personal attacks above. Merry Christmas to you and may God preserve and strengthen all that is good in the Anglican church, that the treasures she has been given may be available to us and to future generations.