Matt Kennedy+ over at Stand Firm posted portions of a transcript from the press conference at which the new Presiding Bishop was introduced. I have questions relating to two of her responses in particular:
Chris Sugden: You have spoken eloquently for our churches concern for social justice. The average Anglican is indeed poor, female, black, young, and evangelical. How do you think the poor would hear both your concern for building the reign of God and your positions on sexuality
Schori: IF the average person is indeed the sort of person you describe I would think that issues of sexuality are far higher up on the hierarchy of needs than food and clothing.
George Conger: As PB, you will be chief conscecrator in future episcopal consecrations There will be those who will not want this. How will you deal with these objections and objectors?
Schori: I would want to deal with this pastorally. Theologically speaking I would associate that position with Donatism, that the character of the actor effects the sacrament. I would disagree.
Assuming this was transcribed correctly, I am confused.
As for the first response, that seems plainly foolish to me, though I suppose she could be attempting to make a point–it would have been nice if she had simply spelled out what point she was trying to make rather than responding with such an interesting answer without expanding on exactly how issues of sexuality can ever outweigh food and clothing in the priority of human needs?
the second response is troubling because the question gives no specifics as to why these people might not welcome her ministry and yet she associates all those who would have problems with her ministry as Dontatists… right after saying she would deal with their objections pastorally! My sense is that Bishop Schori was specifically thinking of those Dioceses within the Episcopal Church that do not as of yet ordain women… but what would her response be in, for example, Albany, if they decided they would rather she not be the chief consecrator of their next Bishop, David Loving, not because of her sex, but because of the theological positions she’s taken (consenting to the election of Gene Robinson, setting up a means for same sex blessings in her own diocese). One would not have to be a “donatist” or deny the validity of her sacramental acts in order to prefer not to participate with her in such acts unless and untill some change of heart and repentance has taken place. That’s not donatism, that’s one way of offering correction and admonition in a church body. I’m curious as to weather Schori+ would see any distinction between the two–my sense is she would not, but I could always be surprised.
Currently playing: Wrecking Ball from the album “Soul Journey” by Gillian Welch
Technorati Tags: Anglicanism, Christianity, ecclesiology, ecumenism, Society, theology
Recent Comments