Is Katharine Jefferts Schori, recently invested in the position of Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (the Anglican Church in the US), up to dealing with such subtle theological questions facing her faithful such as irenicism?

Irenicism? Until I started this piece, I had never heard of the word. The worrisome thing is that I wonder whether Jefferts Schori has ever heard of the word either.

What are the boundaries of ecumenism?

For Episcopalians, their new Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, invested on November 4, seems to have taken a very broad view:

In John 14:6, Jesus -- in responding to a question posed by the disciple Thomas -- said: "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." But Jefferts-Schori says she disagrees with the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ. "It's this sense that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself, rather than understanding that truth is -- like God -- more than any one person can encompass," stated the soon-to-be ECUSA leader.

Jefferts-Schori says she views salvation as the healing of all Creation through holy living. "I understand salvation as being about the healing of the whole creation. Your part and my part in that is about holy living," she offered. "As Christians we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus, but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments."

For a lot of the faithful, statements like these are confusing. They understand that Christians must respect others and their faiths, but does that mean drawing some sort of equivalence between faiths in order to avoid having an opinion and coming to some sort of judgment? If all religions are the same, can they have any value, or claim to hold any Truths? From that position it is only a short hop to a Marxist view of religion as the opiate of the masses.

The Roman Catholic Church has a declaration in support of ecumenism from Vatican II, Nostra Aetate:

Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ, "the way the truth, and the life" (John 14, 6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself (4).

The Church therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions
The Second Vatican Council
Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI
October 28, 1965

When it comes to meetings with non-Catholics, no pope in modern times met with more than John Paul II. Here he speaks on the pitfalls of interreligious dialogue:

On the other hand, as far as the field of religious awareness is concerned, the eve of the Year 2000 will provide a great opportunity, especially in view of events of recent decades, for inter-religious dialogue, in accordance with the specific guidelines set down by the Second Vatican Council in its Declaration Nostra Aetate on the relationship of the Church to non-Christian religions. In this dialogue, the Jews and the Muslims ought to have a pre-eminent place. God grant that as a confirmation of these intentions it may be possible to hold joint meetings in places of significance for the great monotheistic religions. In this regard, attention is being given to finding ways of arranging historic meetings in places of exceptional symbolic importance like Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and Mount Sinai as a means to furthering dialogue with Jews and followers of Islam, and to arranging similar meetings elsewhere with the leaders of the great world religions. However, care will always be taken not to cause harmful misunderstandings, avoiding the risk of syncretism and of a facile and deceptive irenicism.

Irenicism is a new word for me. Irenics is the process of trying to overcome doctrinal differences. As John Paul II warns, in it lies the danger of ejecting doctrine altogether in an attempt to achieve the goal that inter-religious peace. Worse yet would be adopting foreign doctrines ("syncretism"). The Lutherans issued a similar warning in their Catechism:

4. Is there a danger in "irenics" as well as "polemics"?

Answer: Yes, indeed! In polemics, there is the danger of simply arguing to win, magnifying nonessential differences, and thus fostering separatism. In irenics there is the danger of compromising a Truth and of minimizing what God plainly says in His Word. Thus irenics may lead to doctrinal indifference, unionism, and syncretism. True polemics, however, should have no other aim than to bring about peace (irenics), and true irenics will find its aim accomplished only through controversy (polemics).

It sure sounds like Jefferts Schori is crossing the line into "facile" irenicism.

But what I find striking is that someone at such a senior post would not recognize that danger. When I started looking into her statements, I had no idea what "irenicism" was. I had never heard of the word before. But I'm not a theologian, much less the head of a major church.

I sometimes think the Episcopalians elected a theological lightweight to lead their church, probably for political reasons.

From Jefferts Schori's biography in Wikipedia:

Jefferts Schori was raised in the Roman Catholic Church until 1963, when at the age of eight her parents brought her into the Episcopal Church in conjunction with their own move out of Roman Catholicism. She attended school in New Jersey, then went on to earn a Bachelor of Science in biology from Stanford University in 1974, and a Master of Science in oceanography in 1977 and a Ph.D. in 1983, also in oceanography, from Oregon State University. She earned her M.Div. in 1994, and was ordained priest that year. She served as assistant rector at the Church of the Good Samaritan, Corvallis, Oregon, where she had special responsibility for pastoring the Hispanic community (she speaks Spanish fluently). In 2001, she was elected and consecrated Bishop of Nevada. She was awarded a D.D. (honoris causa) in 2001 from The Church Divinity School of the Pacific. (It is a common practice for a bishop in The Episcopal Church to be awarded an honorary doctorate from her or his alma mater seminary.) She is an instrument-rated pilot.

So she was ordained for all of 11 years before becoming Presiding Bishop, having spent 3 years are a bishop. And her theological degrees? An honourary doctorate issued on the basis of tradition of making sure all bishops in the Episcopal Church can say they have one.

Compare with John Paul II:

In 1942 he entered the underground seminary run by the Archbishop of Kraków, Cardinal Sapieha. Karol Wojtyla was ordained a priest on 1 October 1946, by the same bishop who confirmed him. Not long after, he was sent to study theology at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, commonly known as the Angelicum, where he earned a licentiate and later a doctorate in sacred theology. This doctorate, the first of two, was based on the Latin dissertation Doctrina de fide apud S. Ioannem a Cruce (The Doctrine of Faith According to Saint John of the Cross). Even though his doctoral work was unanimously approved in June of 1948, he was denied the degree because he could not afford to print the text of his dissertation (an Angelicum rule). In December of that year, a revised text of his dissertation was approved by the theological faculty of Jagiellonian University in Kraków, and Wojtyla was finally awarded the degree. He earned a second doctorate, based on an evaluation of the possibility of founding a Catholic ethic on the ethical system of phenomenologist Max Scheler (An Evaluation of the Possibility of Constructing a Christian Ethics on the Basis of the System of Max Scheler), in 1954. As was the case with the first degree, he was not granted the degree upon earning it. This time, the faculty at Jagiellonian University was forbidden by communist authorities from granting the degree. In conjunction with his habilitation at Catholic University of Lublin, Poland, he finally obtained the doctorate in philosophy in 1957 from that institution, where he had assumed the Chair of Ethics in 1956.

An ordained priest for 36 years before becoming Pope, with two (count' em, two) real doctorates, one of them on the analysis of a Latin dissertation.

The current pope, Benedict XVI? Ordained over 50 years ago, a doctorate, full professorship at the University of Bonn, reknowned theologian, and an expert on ecumenical dialogue.

One of the reasons the Roman Catholic Church appoints bishops and elects popes with this sort of intellectual heft is precisely because even straightforward questions, like the one posed to Jeffords Schori in an interview, hide a lot of subtlety and are strewn with theological land mines. Someone like John Paul II or Benedict XVI would have no problems handling a question like that quite deftly, and the answer would be consistent with Church teaching and mindful of the need to provide clarity to those listening.

Jefferts Schori's answer, in the other hand, has generated a lot of confusion, and I'm sure has raised questions in some, like this blogger, about just how prepared she really is to handle to job.

I wonder if, like me, she's ever heard of irenics. I shouldn't be asking that question -- in her position, the answer must surely be yes. But whereas with John Paul II or Benedict XVI, there would never be any doubt, with Jefferts Schori, it is all doubts.

Addendum: To all the readers coming here from various places of the Anglican blogosphere, welcome. I'm pleasantly surprised at just how much interest this piece has generated. To those who don't know me, I'm in fact Roman Catholic, not Anglican, but like many of my brothers and sisters in the Anglican communion, I'm concerned with the direction being taken by many in the Anglican leadership. As always, please be kind to each other as you debate this issues, or at least be polite. No need to for name-calling.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:21 AM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 1811 words, total size 12 kb.

1 They understand that Christians must respect others and their faiths, but does that mean drawing some sort of equivalence between faiths in order to avoid having an opinion and coming to some sort of judgment? If all religions are the same, can they have any value, or claim to hold any Truths? "Facile irenicism" is about dwelling on the superficial similarities between religions, while ignoring or denying ideological differences and religious diversity for fear of offending other faith groups. Genuine irenicism, by contrast, confronts these differences openly and respectfully, in order to gain an understanding of the Other, and perhaps to discern common values underlying each faith system. Monsignor Felix Machado: he Catholic Church exhorts her faithful to engage in dialogue with people of other religious traditions while at the same time obliging them to adhere uncompromisingly to the essential truths of Christian faith...The Catholic faithful do not consider themselves to be on a higher level or better than the believers of other religious traditions, such as Hindu Vaisnavas. I think hardly anyone in the Catholic Church today would really have this attitude of superiority. The text of Dominus Jesus, an important document from the Central Authority of the Catholic Church, clearly states: "Equality, which is a presupposition of interreligious dialogue, refers to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ--who is God himself made man--in relation to the founders of the other religions" (Dominus Jesus, n. 22)...Today the Catholic Church wants to approach other religious traditions with sensitivity to the spiritual and human values enshrined in them. Religions command respect because they bear witness to efforts to find answers to the profound mysteries of the human condition and give expression to the experience and longings of millions of their adherents. Other religions are not considered mere objects of Christian mission but partners in dialogue. [emphasis mine] Moreover, as Rev. Maurice Ryan--who knows a thing or two about bringing together disparate faith groups under trying conditions--notes, The interfaith experience reinforces the sense that the Divine transcends human thought and language, that our theologies are all ‘provisional’, ‘interim’ attempts to express the Inexpressible, and therefore no religion (and certainly no Church!) can claim a monopoly of truth. It is this that offers the ultimate basis for accepting others’ religious legitimacy, while seeking sincerely to maintain one’s own. This is, I believe, what Christianity must grasp in the exciting experience of encounter with people of faith worldwide. [emphasis mine] Viewed through this understanding of false vs. genuine irenicism, Jefferts Schori's words are uncontroversial. She clearly does not compromise the legitimacy or the "essential identity of the [Christian] Church’s faith", stating unequivocally that "As Christians, we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus..." At the same time, in keeping with the principles of sincere interreligious dialogue, she acknowledges that Episcopalians--and Christians more generally--cannot claim a monopoly on faith ("...but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments."). Her's is a nuanced and sensitive articulation of progressive interfaith communication. 3 additional quick comments: 1) For a lot of the faithful, statements like these are confusing. Unless you can cite support for your claims (e.g., that many are confused by Jeffert Schori's statements), be wary of speaking on behalf of "the faithful." 2) If all religions are the same, can they have any value, or claim to hold any Truths? From that position it is only a short hop to a Marxist view of religion as the opiate of the masses. The quotation of religion as "the opium of the people"--itself a misleading populist summation of Marx's actual views on religion--says nothing about moral equivalency between religions. One can believe that only a single True Religion is valid, and that all others are imposters, and yet still believe this True Religion to be "the opium of the people." You are conflating two unrelated theological issues here. 3) You should clarify that when you say, "The Lutherans issued a similar warning in their Catechism," that you actually mean the Concordia Lutheran Conference. The CLC, one of several N. American Lutheran church bodies (indeed, one of the smaller ones), does not speak for all Lutherans in the US, let alone all Lutherans globally.

Posted by: Z at November 12, 2006 01:01 PM (YK2nB)

2 The thing is: it's not about "Truth" any more in the mainstream protestant denomination. Truth? What's that? Whether Jesus died on the crosss? Whether he rose from the dead? Those are DETAILS! This is precisely why Christianity is going down the toilet in the West. You will find growth where churches affirm your basic Apostle's Creed aS FOR REAL. You will find decline and abandonment in churches that treat those things as optional or open to discussion. You cannot sustain a church on social justice policy. You can do social justice outside the church just fine. What people want is truth to know how to answer those existential questions, answers that you cannot find anywhere else, to give them hope and joy. I don't think the mainstream churches get that. Large segments of the Catholic clergy don't get that either, I might add.

Posted by: SUZANNE at November 12, 2006 01:03 PM (iZ6T2)

3 Jefferts Schori, and too many bishops like her, are the reason that although I am a cradle Anglican (Episcopalian), I will not be a cradle-to-grave Anglican (Episcopalian). I have crossed the Tiber for precisely the reason that Anglican bishops have been watering down the Christian faith for far too long. Biblical tenets now have no more meaning than what you want to invest in them. If you don't want to invest anything, hey, that's OK. What kind of religion/faith is THAT? In my twenties, after I had more or less left the church at the age of 14 (coinciding with my Confirmation), I struggled with the Scripture, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." At an adult Confirmation class I was attending, searching for the meaning of my faith, I asked the priest how Jesus could DARE say that. It made me angry. I then grappled with this Biblical Truth for months, much the way Jacob fought with the angel before his epiphany of understanding who God was in his life. I, too, had an epiphany, what some would call "a conversion experience," and from that day, I have understood the reality (what is sometimes called "the scandal of particularity") about Jesus' saying that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It's not something easily explained to others. It's in the living it out that one comes to understand the truth of it. So, I am eternally grateful to the Roman Catholic Church for its Magisterium, for the Pope and the RC Church's bishops for being true teachers and upholders of the Christian faith. Sure, they're taking it in the jugular by this secular humanist/socialist age, but they're not suffering any more than did their Lord. When the going gets really tough, I like to remember this passage from the Bible, "The servant is not greater than the master." I predict that the Anglican Church of Canada will not be around in 10 to 15 years. Once the over-60 group of parishioners have died (the ones who still give substantially to the Church), the anything goes, it's our own "holy living" that saves us, and an optional Jesus as Lord and Saviour, as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, is the "norm"--as it's fast becoming under the leadership (sic) of bishops like Katharine Jefferts Schori and her Canadian counterparts--what will be left of "the Church" as we have known it for over 2000 years? The idea that the Christian Church is "evolving" is a heresy. As our faith tells us, "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." He does not change. We might, but He does not. Given that the Church is "the Body of Christ" we would do well to stop trying to change it ourselves and then insist that it is a natural evolution. Thanks for this post, Steve. Most people/bloggers wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pole!!

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 12, 2006 03:42 PM (V4oQD)

4 All of which suggests maybe I was on to something with my own lighthearted take on the ascension of Bishop Katharine. http://doggerelparty.blogspot.com/2006/11/there-is-nothing-by-which-so-much.html

Posted by: Clive at November 12, 2006 03:44 PM (cz/lo)

5 All of which suggests maybe I was on to something with my own lighthearted take on the ascension of Bishop Katharine. http://doggerelparty.blogspot.com/2006/11/there-is-nothing-by-which-so-much.html

Posted by: Clive at November 12, 2006 03:44 PM (cz/lo)

6 It was explained to me by a Catholic priest not too long ago, that God is much too great for any of us to comprehend. The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men. God judges men's hearts, and is merciful, and may in his mercy accept some non-Christians into his presence. Salvation is not ours to give or withold. I suspect the Bishop is trying to say something along these lines. AFAIK, this is consistent with both Catholic and Anglican teaching. This is nothing radical or new, and it's only in the news because the Bishop is a woman. If the Anglican Church of Canada will not be around in 10 or 15 years, we will all be diminished. But the ACC are not the only Anglicans out there, even in Canada.

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2006 07:30 PM (m24lF)

7 One of the earlier leaders of the Apostolic Church was Iraneus, ... Iraneus believed in One God and supported the doctrine of the manhood of Jesus.Ergo "Irenics".

Posted by: Delshilo at November 12, 2006 07:33 PM (A4CRg)

8 Nutsackism.

Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at November 12, 2006 08:26 PM (Y1ykG)

9 Wow, I haven't seen a comment so successfully demolish a post in quite a while. Kudos, "Z". Just to reiterate one of Z's points: several times in your post, Steve, you cite the "considerable confusion" that Jefferts Schori has caused to "a lot of the faithful". Who, exactly, are these confused faithful? Can you actually point to any? Have you been reading lots of letters to the editors of Episcopalian Newsletters that the rest of us haven't seen?

Posted by: bob at November 13, 2006 08:27 AM (Lmg9H)

10 Dan, Like too many in the Christian world, you assert one Biblical truth while at the same time trying to counter another. The concept of the foolishness of God being greater than the wisdom of man comes directly from scripture (1 Corinthians 1:25). And Christ's words that He is the only path of salvation is scripture as well. How can you say the former is true and therefore dispute the latter? The Bible isn't a collection of quotes that one can use for any purpose. Context is important. And using a Biblical reference without the context of the rest of the Bible leads one into doctrinal self-indulgence. If you can declare one part of the Bible true and another part false, than you are simply constructing your own religion. Certainly, God is far beyond full human comprehension. But that is why he gave us the special revelation of His Word and His Son to reveal enough of Himself so that we might be reconciled to Him. Our very conception of God's nature and being come from those revelations. So it is far from unreasonable to discover His will (Romans 12:2), and a contemptable thing to suggest that His will can be anything than what He has clearly and expressly stated in scripture.

Posted by: Gabe at November 13, 2006 08:55 AM (bWB5j)

11 One wonders is Ms. Jefferts Schori is an example of what happens when 'affirmative action' enters the Church. We are called to be in the world, not of the world. Sadly, the Anglican communion has become overmuch friendly to this fallen world, to my eyes.

Posted by: Alex at November 13, 2006 09:46 AM (m/DtP)

12 Ah yes. The classic meme that the Catholic Church has never changed its doctrine, while all other Christian denominations have fallen prey to "affirmative action" and other forms of political correctness. Need I remind you, that the Reformation -- which contributed to the formation of the Episcopalian Church -- was a reaction against the perceived corruption of "true" Christian values by the Catholic Church? One might argue that "theological lightweights" are those who ignore the historical nature of their own beliefs, and thus fail to engage in discussions about their future directions. No matter how hard you try, it is simply not possible to force the history of any Christian denomination into a static, unchanging, "true" form. Such a form doesn't exist.

Posted by: timmy at November 13, 2006 11:09 AM (Lmg9H)

13 "Who, exactly, are these confused faithful?" asks bob. They're the ones that are leaving the Episcopalian/Anglican Churches in droves. Ironically, the reading from the Epistles this morning is from Titus 1: "For a Bishop as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable...but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled, HOLDING FAST TO THE TRUE MESSAGE AS TAUGHT SO THAT HE WILL BE ABLE BOTH TO EXHORT WITH SOUND DOCTRINE AND TO REFUTE OPPONENTS." The problem with Jefferts Schori, and so many Church leaders like her, is not that they're not well-meaning, it's just that they water down the tenets of Scripture to be more friendly to this "age" and do not uphold Biblical Truths. If we in the Church don't uphold these truths, who will? No one is forced to go to church and if you can't buy into the Christian Gospel and what it asks--no, demands--of us as Christians, that's fine. No one is making you. If, however, you do go to a Christian Church, the Christian Gospel is what you are asked, and helped and supported, to follow. Though Jefferts Schori and the rest may have the best of intentions--even hoping to draw people into the church to "replace" the hordes that are leaving--we all know what the road to H*ll is paved with. Don't we?

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 13, 2006 04:44 PM (+bg2a)

14 If you're looking for one of those nameless "confused faithful," I'll be happy to give one a name for you. The name's Michelle, and I'm an Anglican from New York. And Steve, if you sometimes wonder whether a theological lightweight has been elected as my presiding bishop...well, I wonder that every day. As it happens, my diocese is one of those that has been pleading for alternative oversight. Yes, the Episcopal Church is in grave disorder. I am saddened. I am not sure what will happen next.

Posted by: at November 13, 2006 06:47 PM (Oa2Py)

15 Whoops, my info for some reason disappeared. The above was me.

Posted by: Michelle at November 13, 2006 06:49 PM (Oa2Py)

16 been around the block I gather, then, that you also strive to uphold the "Biblical Truths" of slavery, stoning non-virgins to death, not wearing clothing made of two fibers, etc. Leviticus 19:19: "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material," Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. Exodus 21:20-21: A slave owner who beat either his male or female slave so severely that he lived a few days without dying would not be punished. Deuteronomy 22:13-21: A bride who had been presented as a virgin, and who could not be proven to be one, was to be stoned to death by the men of her village.

Posted by: bob at November 14, 2006 05:35 AM (Lmg9H)

17 Bob, maybe you could move on from the old to the new testament. Love to quote the old testament don't you? Holds with your leftie veiws and all you stand for. Throw the whole book out because it seems to be contradictory in your small mind. Have you ever read the whole scripture? I doubt it.

Posted by: eliza at November 14, 2006 09:12 AM (aGsN3)

18 Eliza, Sorry, I don't follow you. I'm not trying to throw out the Old Testament. On the contrary, it appears that it folks like "been around the block" who want to throw it out. Or at least conveniently ignore that particular set of "Biblical Truths" when arguing that Biblical Truths are by definition unchangable. I'm really just trying to figure out how people like "been around the block" can argue that we must hold "... FAST TO THE TRUE MESSAGE AS TAUGHT SO THAT HE WILL BE ABLE BOTH TO EXHORT WITH SOUND DOCTRINE AND TO REFUTE OPPONENTS" while simultaneously accepting that much of what was in the past accepted as Biblical Truths are no longer accepted as such. A little bit of humility in acknowledging the historical nature of current beliefs is all that I'm looking for. Thanks for your insightful comments, though. I sure appreciate your discussion style: don't address substantive issues and just use ad hominum attacks ("small mind", "lefty views", etc.) instead. Very effective.

Posted by: Bob at November 14, 2006 09:24 AM (Lmg9H)

19 Bob, What's your proof that any of those verses contain(ed) a "Biblical Truth" for Christians?

Posted by: PlaidShirt at November 14, 2006 12:07 PM (F47cQ)

20 One of the Biblical truths that people who've only half-read the Bible fail to grasp is the fact that the legal tenats laid out for Israel was for a specific people and a specific time. As I said before, there is a lot of context to the Bible that so many who try to quote it simply don't bother to learn and could care less about. That not only takes away from understanding it, but muddies the water even further allowing narrow quotes to be used for almost any purpose. It's fine if you have decided to reject the Bible as Truth. But I can't stand when people throw around scriptures while being so ignorant of them.

Posted by: Gabe at November 14, 2006 12:57 PM (bWB5j)

21 Does an opinion's acceptance determine it's validity as truth? If so, then common forms of peer pressure would result in adherence to truth, and that is clearly not true. My observation leads me to the opposite conclusion; that those who espouse a widely-accepted opinion often use intimidation to undermine the credibility of dissenters. Often, I see failure to persuade with cogent rationale lead not to careful consideration of the dissenting view, but rather to ad hominem attacks to win the public battle of political acceptability. History is replete with example's of this cowardly "bully" tactic; Socrate forced to recant or die, Christians forced to worship Caesar or die, Church tyranny about the flat earth, the Earth-centric universe, the inquisition, the character assassination of good men like Dan Quayle who dared to speak up for family values, Stockwell Day who dared to hold a creationist view. Of course the list is endless because throughout history, people with integrity and courage who stood for truth against the deluge of popular opinion, have been crushed like annoying insects, or excised like cancerous tumours. It is in this context that I assess the Irenicism of Bishop Jefferts Schori, and of several commentators above. I suspect the motivation is noble, to provide some leadership in the harmonizing of disparate religious creeds, and resolve, or at least de-fuse, the animous between the adherents thereof. However, the degree to which such efforts are successful, has nothing to do with truth. It is merely a function of how willing people are to compromise dearly-held beliefs amidst the peer pressure of a community that would scorn such compromise. The truth of the opinion doesn't appear to matter; only it's acceptability, or more to the point, the fear of reprisal for non-acceptance. As long as people continue to attempt this ecumenicism of faith by arguing that all "truth" is relative to individual circumstance, and thereby deny any absolute truth, then all progress is illusory, and will be lost when the next charismatic speaker rises to voice a divergent but appealing view. As somebody mentioned above, I also am generally impressed with the tenor of this discussion, and thank Steve for providing this forum. It is only through articulate and rational dialogue like this that people will be persuaded to change their minds and accept previously rejected opinions. Conversely, resorting to emotional attack will usually undermine an argument, and provoke the participants to polemicism, which, as the word implies, serves only to polarize the confrontation. In discussions like this one, it is proper to attempt to persuade people to your opinion, but if you are unsuccessful, then it is proper to agree to disagree, and part as fellow sojourners on this world. There may be another opportunity to discuss it later, after the tribulations of life give us new experiences, and alter our perspective on life, the universe, and everything. (h/t to Douglas Adams) Just remember; we all think we are right! But will you try to WIN someone to your point of view, or will you try to FORCE them to your point of view? The difference is profound. Good luck on your journey? Scott

Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 14, 2006 02:03 PM (h3dn9)

22 bob, bob, bob (5:35 a.m. I tried to post this @ 7:30 and couldn't get onto the blog): All of your passages are Old Testament. Though I reverence the Old Testament and the Jewish people, who John Paul II calls our “elder brothers and sisters in the faith,” none of the passages you have chosen from Scripture are from the New Testament, which heralds a new covenant with God through Jesus Christ. Katharine Jefferts Schori is a minister, presumably, of God's new covenant. She, presumably, is a Christian minister, a so-called Bishop of the Christian Church. What we’re actually talking about here is sin and mercy. So-called “Christian” Bishops who don’t believe in sin rob Christians of mercy: Why would we need God’s healing and mercy if there is no such thing as sin? We can live in peace and harmony at no cost when we deny that sin exists, and that our own “holy lives” redeem us. This is a do-it-yourself religion that Jefferts Schori seems to be advocating. With shepherds like these, we don’t need wolves. I rest my case.

Posted by: at November 14, 2006 06:47 PM (JWbD9)

23 The 6:47 post is mine!

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 14, 2006 06:48 PM (JWbD9)

24 Scott Merrithew writes: he degree to which such efforts are successful has nothing to do with truth. It is merely a function of how willing people are to compromise dearly-held beliefs amidst the peer pressure of a community that would scorn such compromise...As long as people continue to attempt this ecumenicism of faith by arguing that all "truth" is relative to individual circumstance, and thereby deny any absolute truth, then all progress is illusory, and will be lost when the next charismatic speaker rises to voice a divergent but appealing view. Those who engage in interreligious dialogue under good-faith conditions do not deny the existence of Absolute Truth, nor do they accept that all theologies are morally equivalent. There is no real attempt at "harmonizing...disparate religious creeds." Indeed, the opposite is true--Monsignor Machado (linked above), a member of the Vatican Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, has written cogently about accepting (as opposed to denying or ignoring) religious differences as a precondition for genuine understanding of others. His piece is essential reading. To repeat the words of Rev. Maurice Ryan, founder of the Northern Ireland Interfaith Forum, "[O]ur theologies are all ‘provisional’, ‘interim’ attempts to express the Inexpressible, and therefore no religion (and certainly no Church!) can claim a monopoly of truth." If we accept that this Absolute Truth is essentially unknowable--who among us is arrogant enough to claim otherwise?--then it seems to me that in order to acknowledge the equal legitimacy of another's theological beliefs, one must first possess an unshakeable faith system of one's own. Like the schoolyard bully who physically dominates other kids in order to hide his/her own insecurities, insisting that one's own theology is objectively superior to all others is in fact an admission of self-doubt and anxiety. In other words, only when you accept with absolute confidence that your beliefs are right for you that you can accept that another's beliefs are right for him/her. Note that this acceptance does not require neither capitulation nor even compromise of one's own faith; indeed, it strengthens it. This, in the end, is the purpose and the goal of interreligious dialogue.

Posted by: Q at November 14, 2006 06:52 PM (YK2nB)

25 BATB: This is a do-it-yourself religion that Jefferts Schori seems to be advocating. With shepherds like these, we donÂ’t need wolves. I rest my case. Read carefully again Jeffert Schori's words. Her statement that, "As Christians we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus, but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments" addresses two separate issues: 1) what Episcopalians (and Christians generally) should accept as part of their own faith ("[salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus", certainly not a D-I-Y religious claim, nor a compromise/rejection of the core Christian Truth), and 2) what Episcopalians (and Christians generally) should accept, in keeping with the virtues of humility and nonjudgment, about other religions ("that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments", 'other people' being understood here as non-Christians). The rest of her statements are in keeping with this view. She does not reject the central role of Jesus in the Christian faith, nor does she reject the idea of sin. What she appears to reject is the view that non-Christians--that is, all those for whom Jesus is not their central theological figure--are therefore incapable of salvation. What Jefferts Schori recognizes--as you apparently do not--is that for any human to claim that God will only allow salvation through Jesus is to impose a limitation on His ultimate sovereignty.

Posted by: X at November 14, 2006 07:32 PM (YK2nB)

26 Interreligious dialogue? Is this what we're talking about here? It thought the discussion was about a Christian Bishop watering down the tenets of the Christian faith--an issue quite different from "interreligious dialogue." When a Christian Bishop is unable or unwilling to assert Biblical Truths, which the Christian Church has held for over 2000 years and by which millions of Christians have lived for millennia, it seems to me not unreasonable that believing Christians, as opposed to, say, "Christmas and Easter Christians" or "Hatch, Match, and Dispatch Christians," would be alarmed. As I said in an earlier post, belief in Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life and the only Way to God is not, as so many like to suppose, evidence of insecurity--"like the schoolyard bully" of Q's post above--but rather, for the believing Christian, a humble certainty of Who the One, True God is. I don't assert this "scandal of particularity" in order to hit people over the head with it. I assert it as one who "once was lost but now am found" (John Newton, 1779), and in the hope that others might receive such amazing grace as well.

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 14, 2006 07:41 PM (JWbD9)

27 X: You say, "What Jefferts Schori recognizes--as you apparently do not--is that for any human to claim that God will only allow salvation through Jesus is to impose a limitation on His ultimate sovereignty." The human who first claimed "that God will only allow salvation through Jesus," as you choose to put it, was Jesus Himself, the Jesus Who is both man and God: That is the heart of the Christian faith. Take your argument up with God, not me. The first calling of a Christian Bishop is not to admonish his/her followers for believing what Jesus, Himself, claims for Himself--and therefore, for His Body here on earth, the Christian Church. It's not as though Christians are herding people into concentration camps, or whacking unbelievers, or beheading them, so why would Jefferts Schori feel that one of her first mandates is to wag her finger at Christians/Episcopalians and exhort them not to believe in the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ. "It's this sense that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself, rather than understanding that truth is -- like God -- more than any one person can encompass." Who is "this one person" she is talking about? Is it Jesus? Well, if it is, she seems to have missed the whole point of the Gospel and, I repeat, the heart and power of the Christian faith, which is that Jesus isn't just "one person," He is both man and God, in Whom "all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell" (Colossians 1:19) A Christian Bishop's mandate is to be a defender and a teacher of the Christian faith, and a shepherd of the Christian flock, often beset by wolves. A Bishop's primary mandate is not to admonish his/her flock to not offend people of other religious persuasians, or none. It is clear to me that God will save whomever God wants to save, but that doesn't mean that as a Christian I should not believe in what Jesus Himself has taught: "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." This statement is known as "the scandal of particularity," and as offensive as it might be to many, it is at the heart of the mystery of Christianity. If you don't like this, X, as I invited you to do before: Contend with God about it. It's His Word.

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 14, 2006 09:23 PM (JWbD9)

28 BATB: As I said in an earlier post, belief in Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Life and the only Way to God is..., for the believing Christian, a humble certainty of Who the One, True God is. You're absolutely right, though the key phrase here is "for the believing Christian." Jefferts Schori, I'm sure, believes this too--for herself, and her Episcopalian flock. But she also believes that non-Christians, who believe in something else entirely, are also worthy of salvation. The first calling of a Christian Bishop is not to admonish his/her followers for believing what Jesus, Himself, claims for Himself--and therefore, for His Body here on earth, the Christian Church. You're absolutely right again, through Jefferts Shori isn't abmonishing her followers for themselves believing what Jesus claims for Himself. She's gently noting that her followers shouldn't judge non-Christians for not believing what Jesus claims for Himself. ...why would Jefferts Schori feel that one of her first mandates is to wag her finger at Christians/Episcopalians and exhort them not to believe in the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ. She doesn't. To repeat yet again, she is exhorting Christians/Episcopalians i) to believe, as Christians/Episcopalians, that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ, but also ii) to not judge non-Christians for believing that salvation lies through other routes. It is clear to me that God will save whomever God wants to save, but that doesn't mean that as a Christian I should not believe in what Jesus Himself has taught: "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." This statement is known as "the scandal of particularity," and as offensive as it might be to many, it is at the heart of the mystery of Christianity. Nobody is offended that you, BATB, personally believe that Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life. However, people--especially non-Christians--would understandably be offended if you, BATB, were to then claim that those who do not believe the Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life are beyond salvation. The point is this, BATB: Believe whatever you want. Just don't make the mistake of confusing the sincerity and passion with which you hold your own beliefs with the inviolability and superiority of their truth, which by their very nature is always provisional. Is there really no room for such nuances in your thinking process? Can you not see the possibility that you can, on the one hand, believe with all your heart that your personal salvation lies through trust in Jesus Christ, and at the same time on the other hand, recognize that you might not have all the answers, and that it's equally valid for another person to believe with all their heart that their salvation lies elsewhere? And if in fact you can see this possibility, then why can't you accept that Jefferts Schori might be able to see it as well? Don't even answer. Just think about this possibility for a while. I mean, really think about it, for your own sake.

Posted by: Y at November 14, 2006 11:23 PM (YK2nB)

29 Interreligious dialogue? Is this what we're talking about here?" Um, yeah, at least originally. Reread Steve's post, especially the bits where he says "The Roman Catholic Church has a declaration in support of ecumenism from Vatican II, Nostra Aetate...", "When it comes to meetings with non-Catholics, no pope in modern times met with more than John Paul II. Here he speaks on the pitfalls of interreligious dialogue...", and "As John Paul II warns, in it lies the danger of ejecting doctrine altogether in an attempt to achieve the goal that inter-religious peace."

Posted by: K at November 14, 2006 11:29 PM (YK2nB)

30 Plaid Shirt asked: What's your proof that any of those verses contain(ed) a "Biblical Truth" for Christians? You mean other than the fact that the Old Testament is generally regarded as "The Word of God?" A better question might be, what is your proof that the Old Testament doesn't apply to Christians. Which brings me to Gabe. Gabe said: One of the Biblical truths that people who've only half-read the Bible fail to grasp is the fact that the legal tenats laid out for Israel was for a specific people and a specific time . . . It's fine if you have decided to reject the Bible as Truth. But I can't stand when people throw around scriptures while being so ignorant of them. I'm far from ignorant of scripture. Your argument that certain parts of the Bible are "legal tenats laid out for Israel was for a specific people and a specific time" and thus no longer applicable to contemporary Christians is an old one; but it is generally not accepted by theologians. It is common, for example, to interpret Old Testament Law by emphasizing the distinction between Moral, Civil and Ceremonial laws. Moral laws ("Love thy Neighbour as yourself") are seen as universal/timeless laws that are still applicable to contemporary Christians. Civil laws ("at the end of every seven years you must cancel debts") and Ceremonial Laws, dealing with sacrifices, festivals, etc. are seen as only applicable to the particular historical condition of Ancient Israel. Unfortunately, such a distinction is entirely arbitrary is is not found in the Old Testament, itself. Witness, for example, that "Love your neighbour as yourself (Lev. 19:1 is followed immediately by the law "do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material (Lev 19:19)" Why is verse 18 a binding Biblical Truth, but not verse 19? The Old Testament provides no basis on which to decide. In fact, in the context of Ancient Israel and the Old Testament, all laws were at once civil, moral, and ceremonial. The law against wearing two kinds of fibre at once isn't just a one-off -- it is part and parcel of God's Wish for us to maintain purity and sacredness in the face of profanity. What of the Sabbath? Moral, Civil, or Ceremonial? Most claim it is Moral, and thus applicable; and yet precious few obey it in the sense dictated by God in his Commandments to Moses. So, BOTB, it is insufficient to simply dismiss the Old Testament, and its inherent truths by saying that Christians follow a New Covenant as laid out in the New Testament. Indeed, to suggest that Christians have no need for the Old Testament and its Biblical Truths (including, not least of which the Ten Commandments), would be a radical departure for Christianity, indeed.

Posted by: Bob at November 15, 2006 04:57 AM (Lmg9H)

31 Y, thanks for being so concerned about me and my thought processes. Now, maybe you would like to grapple with Jefferts-Schori's actual statements within the posting: “In John 14:6, Jesus -- in responding to a question posed by the disciple Thomas -- said: ‘I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’ But Jefferts-Schori says she disagrees with the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ. ‘It's this sense that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself, rather than understanding that truth is -- like God -- more than any one person can encompass,’ stated the soon-to-be ECUSA leader.” There are two statements here that are breathtaking for a Christian Bishop to make: 1) Her disagreement with the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ: It is not at all apparent that this criticism is because it "excludes" non-believers. It seems to extend to the Christian faith itself and she is exhorting Christians, themselves, to be wary of accepting salvation "only through trusting in Jesus Christ." Give me evidence to the contrary, Y. 2) Her disagreement with the assertion "that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself." But this is exactly what Jesus, the Incarnate God, has asserted about Himself and is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Y, please answer these conundrums, rather than cherry picking quotes that you want to deal with, some taken entirely out of context. How can you say that Jefferts-Schori "is exhorting Christians/Episcopalians...to believe, as Christians/Episcopalians, that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ"? Where does she say that? She specifically states that she DOES NOT AGREE with trusting in one person for salvation and, further, says that she disagrees with "...this sense that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself, rather than understanding that truth is -- like God -- more than any one person can encompass." Please address these two points that I am forced to repeat. This "one person" she has difficulty believing has "the fullness of truth" dwelling in Him isn't actually one person. As a Christian Bishop she should know, defend, and teach the One God in Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity. In her statements, she has categorically denied the Divinity of Christ and the Trinitarian God--both of which are absolutely breathtaking in a Christian Bishop. My precise and considered thoughts on the matter, Y.

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 15, 2006 09:08 PM (FQ/Cs)

32 BATB: Here's the original article. Note that it was written by two reporters who are critical of Jefferts Schori. This consideration is important to my next point. 1) Her disagreement with the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ: It is not at all apparent that this criticism is because it "excludes" non-believers. It seems to extend to the Christian faith itself and she is exhorting Christians, themselves, to be wary of accepting salvation "only through trusting in Jesus Christ." Give me evidence to the contrary, Y. The phrase you quote twice ("Jefferts-Schori...disagrees with the idea that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ") are the reporters' commentary about the Associated Press interview. Jefferts Schori never actually says those words herself. So, when you write that "She is exhorting Christians, themselves, to be wary of accepting salvation 'only through trusting in Jesus Christ,'" you're putting the reporters' words into Jefferts Schori's mouth. 2) Her disagreement with the assertion "that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself." But this is exactly what Jesus, the Incarnate God, has asserted about Himself and is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Quite obviously, the "one person" she's referring to in this sentence is me or you or anyone else we know (i.e., other human beings). Not Jesus, not God, not the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, not the Trinity--just regular folks. Even the Agape Press reporters get this, which is why they write "him or herself" and not "Him or Herself." If they thought Jefferts Schori was referring to Jesus when she says "one person," they would have reproduced her quotation with proper capitalization. I note that when you refer to Jesus or God in your comments, you use 'Him' rather than 'him.' Same idea. Jefferts Schori's point here is that no regular human being can claim to fully grasp the totality of religious Truth (for example, by claiming that they absolutely, positively know for sure what the one path to salvation is), because that Truth is Inexpressible, and can only be fully grasped by God Himself (and by extension, Jesus). Are you God, BATB? No? Are you Jesus? No? Then you can't claim to know that the path to salvation that you've chosen is the only one (you can believe it; you just can't claim you know it). Of course, neither can I. Neither can Steve. Neither can Jefferts Schori. That's her point. You can believe, as she believes, and as any other Christian believes, that Jesus = salvation, but it would be sacrilege for you, or her, or any other Christian, to insist (arrogantly, without humility) that you know it to be true. To help you to realize this (and to avoid "cherry-picking quotes" "out of context"), maybe it would be useful to remove all the extra reporter commentary from the article and focus only on what Jefferts Schori herself said: "If we [as Christians] insist we know the one way to God, we've put God in a very small box. It's this sense that one person can have the fullness of truth in him or herself, rather than understanding that truth is--like God--more than any one person can encompass. I understand salvation as being about the healing of the whole creation. Your part and my part in that is about holy living. As Christians we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus, but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments." How can you say that Jefferts-Schori "is exhorting Christians/Episcopalians...to believe, as Christians/Episcopalians, that salvation comes only through trusting in Jesus Christ"? Where does she say that? Umm, because she actually uses the words, "As Christians we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus..." I don't know how much simpler you need it to be broken down. Christians. Salvation. Relationship with God. In Jesus. Christians understand salvation as a relationship with God in Jesus. Christians understand salvation as a relationship with God in Jesus. Christians understand salvation as a relationship with God in Jesus. The rest of that sentence ("...but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments") clearly refers to the idea that other people--i.e., non-Christians--may hold beliefs about their salvation that don't involve Jesus (or God), and that it's not the place of Christians to judge other people's beliefs. I think this is clear since she actually uses the words "other people," in contrast to "Christians." I can't emphasize this enough: other people. Other people. OTHER PEOPLE.

Posted by: C at November 15, 2006 10:21 PM (YK2nB)

33 X, Y, C, who all seem to be the same person--are you?--this is an argument that neither of us is going to "win." Your arguments do not convince me, nor mine, you. (I am, BTW, aware of which are Jefferts-Schori's words in the post above and which are the reporters', and it is not universal for writers to capitalize references to Jesus when using a pronoun to describe Him, though I have always done that.) I am deeply suspicious of a Bishop who says, "If we insist we know the one way to God, we've put God in a very small box." It is she, by saying this, who puts God in a very small box. I am deeply suspicious of a Bishop who after just saying "As Christians we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus,"--I'd like to know exactly what she means by this--then feels that she has to add, just in case we Christians aren't sufficiently aware of this--"but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments." Thanks, Bishop, I'll note that. I think it is scandalous that ECUSA has elected a Bishop with so little theological background and I distrust her Christology. I don't know what she means by "holy living." It's a term that's bandied about, often simply meaning that "I'm doing my best," with no reference to what the Bible and Jesus mean by "holy living." I'm glad she's not my Bishop, and I'm even more glad that now that I am no longer a member of the Episcopalian/Anglican Communion, what Jefferts-Schori has to say doesn't raise my blood pressure. It just confirms for me why I couldn't stay--and why so many, like me, are leaving.

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 16, 2006 12:28 AM (RfP8X)

34 Bob said: I'm far from ignorant of scripture. Your argument that certain parts of the Bible are "legal tenats laid out for Israel was for a specific people and a specific time" and thus no longer applicable to contemporary Christians is an old one; but it is generally not accepted by theologians. I think you're misintepretting what I meant. I didn't get into the moral/civil/ceremonial law distinction at all. If that is the view you think I'm advocating, than you are right that most theologians have moved passed that. I was discussing a contextual analysis of OT law, in that it is part of the Mosaic Covenant, which was superceded by the New Covenant established by Christ. The Mosaic Covenant and the Laws that proceeded from it are both culturally and geographically specific, concering only the Israelite people group, and their occupation of the Promised Land. The Mosaic Law is also stated repeatedly as a conditional covenant by which the Israelite people are either blessed or punished. It is both illogical and unscriptural to think one can apply such Laws onto redeemed Gentiles. Further, the New Testament is fairly clear on the limitations of the specific obediance demanded by the Mosaic Law. Paul argues many times about how the Mosaic Law is no longer a requirement, stating that only faith in Christ is necessary for salvation in Galations chapters 2 and 3 (and elsewhere). In fact, there was quite a bit of a theological fight going on between Paul and "the circumcision group" of Jewish Christians who believed that the Mosaic Law must be obeyed in addition to faith in Christ. Paul won that argument. Christ Himself spoke about Mosaic Law such that some were intensified, some abrogated and some modified. Most importantly, however, he stated that the righteous demands of the Law were fulfilled in Him. He also gave us the most general tenats of holiness that the Mosaic Law had been pointing towards, which is (to paraphrase) Love God with all your heart, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Bob also said: So, BOTB, it is insufficient to simply dismiss the Old Testament, and its inherent truths by saying that Christians follow a New Covenant as laid out in the New Testament. Indeed, to suggest that Christians have no need for the Old Testament and its Biblical Truths (including, not least of which the Ten Commandments), would be a radical departure for Christianity, indeed. And here's where we're getting tangled. I'm certainly not dismissing the Old Testament. I'm dismissing the implied notion of what was said earlier - that somehow the fact that Christians do not adhere to the specific demands of OT law shows the type of "pick-and-choose" theology that some of us are accusing Schori of subscribing to. Biblical familiarity does not mean the conclusions one draws from it aren't ignorant. Conflating Christian non-adherence to animal sacrifice (for instance) is not equivalent to denying the absolute authority of Christ to declare Himself the Way, Truth and Life as Schori apparently did here. And it IS ignorant to imply that it is. As for "religious dialogue" there is no reason noble enough to justify saying, "I understand salvation as being about the healing of the whole creation. Your part and my part in that is about holy living," which seems to deny that salvation comes only through faith in Christ. It is also silly to say "As Christians we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus, but that does not mean that we're expected to judge other people's own commitments," because that is precicely what we are called to do in preaching the Gospel. "Judgement" as the word appears in the Bible, is about doling out consequences, not discerning one thing as better than another, which we are most certainly called to do. I have no authority to punish. But I have auhority to exhort someone to follow God in the way He has provided for us in the Bible, through Jesus. It is disturbing that a major figure in a large Christian denomination appears to have a decidedly un-Biblical worldview.

Posted by: Gabe at November 16, 2006 10:12 AM (bWB5j)

35 Sorry Q, I do not agree that accepting things that you do not believe is a pre-condition to understanding them. Monsignor Machado was actually saying the opposite. It is not impossible, or even very difficult, to form an objective understanding of another persons beliefs, while not accepting the beliefs as truth. I accept at face-value the words of a Muslim who tells me that he believes that Mohammed was a prophet of God and that his teachings are true. I understand also his passionate commitment when he tells me that he would even forfeit his life to defend these teachings. I accept that he believes it, but I do not accept those statements as truth myself, and I believe he is misguided. I respect his right to believe what he wants, and will not force my opinion on him, as I expect he will not force his opinion on me. However, I will enter into dialogue with him and attempt to persuade him to my point of view, and I expect him to attempt to persuade me to his point of view. This is healthy debate and represents true Irenicism. This is in complete accord with Monsignor Machado who said, we "must deepen [our] mutual respect and friendship, not by ignoring the essential differences that exist between ... religious traditions, but rather by understanding, acknowledging, and accepting them, and thus mutually respecting them." He also said in the same article that, "Jesus Christ is the complete and final truth of God; He is the objective truth whom all people are obliged to seek and accept; all other truth claims become relative to this unique and objective truth, the mystery of Jesus Christ." That sounds quite exclusive to me. So we are not talking about accepting opposing views as our own; we are talking about simple respect for other people WHILE we think they are mistaken. True Irenicism is learning more about an opposing view so that it is possible to properly JUDGE for yourself the "truths" and the errors of the other opinion. Making judgements is different than being judgemental. It is not wrong to make thoughtful judgements of the views we see around us; that is a sign of wisdom. But being judgemental (legal jurisdiction aside) is just rude; that pushes your opinion on others when they are not necessarily ready to hear it. So, I restate the point of my first post; a healthy debate of passionately held opinions is a respectful attempt to learn what others believe, and to persuade them to your POV by drawing or attracting them through rational support of the argument. It only becomes unhealthy when some participants are belligerant and attempt to force their passionately held opinion on other people. That is simply disrespectful. Ecumenicism tends toward "Facile" Irenicism, though, because it places greater value on the goal of peace and harmony, than it does on the inherent values of each party. As Z pointed out in the Machado article, "[it dwells] on the superficial similarities between religions, while ignoring or denying ideological differences and religious diversity for fear of offending other faith groups." In other words, "Why can't we all just get along!" So the challenge faced by Bishop Jefferts Schori and all ecumenically minded leaders, is to walk the fine line of diplomacy; showing respect for multi-cultural views, while gently encouraging all parties to abandon the most inharmonious tenets of their faiths, so we can all join hands, smile, and sing we are the world. I know that it sounds very noble to focus on the things we have in common, and de-emphasize the contentious issues, but that is not a solution. It may unite some people who do not take their own faith very seriously, but it offends and repels those who do. It is folly to try to boil different faiths down to a lowest common denominator, and then happily present the resulting pablum as the solution to the strife in the world. That shows disrespect to all participants. You may think I'm overstating my case with respect to Bishop Jefferts Schori, because she isn't really doing the blender thing, but really it is just a question of degree. The distinctions between Christian denominations may be slight when compared to distinctions between Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Animist faiths, but she is the representative leader of a Christian denomination that has already sacrificed many inconvenient foundational tenets of the faith, so there is now very little left to sacrifice. So even though she has more in common with airline pilots and oceanographers than with theologians, it is no surprise that such a leader is well-suited to negotiate ecumenical peace and harmony between the cultures of the world, since doctrinal facility would serve only to focus on distinctions rather than equivalencies. Scott

Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 16, 2006 07:22 PM (GqO0P)

36 Scott Merrithew writes: Sorry Q, I do not agree that accepting things that you do not believe is a pre-condition to understanding them...I respect his right to believe what he wants, and will not force my opinion on him, as I expect he will not force his opinion on me. However, I will enter into dialogue with him and attempt to persuade him to my point of view, and I expect him to attempt to persuade me to his point of view. This is healthy debate and represents true Irenicism. Thanks for the intelligent and articulate response. I agree with most everything you said. To clarify, I didn't argue that "accepting things that you do not believe is a pre-condition to understanding them." Rather, I stated that [paraphrasing] "accepting (as opposed to denying or ignoring) religious differences is a precondition for genuine understanding of others." That it, accepting that differences exist between myself and yourself is necessary for me to understand you (though I need not accept as true your version of these differences). I suppose interreligious dialogue, in the end, is about creating a space to respectfully agree to disagree, a forum for interreligious diplomacy (but not integration or colonialism). No preaching, no attempts to convert the other. Just...dialogue. Truths, personally held with utter conviction, are nevertheless recognized on all sides as objectively provisional, their Absolute Truthfulness to be sorted out one way or another on the final days of judgment. Kind of like blog commentary.

Posted by: Q at November 17, 2006 10:17 AM (YK2nB)

37 Thank you Q for your clarification. Perhaps "acknowledge" would be a more accurate word than "accept". The context of our dialogue happens to be religious, but I intentionally phrased my comments to apply to any dialogue of opposing viewpoints, not just religious. They would be equally applicable to a debate about which is the better hockey team; the Toronto Maple Leafs or the Montreal Canadiens. Assuming there are some concrete criteria with which to make a comparison, this should be a respectful discussion. Unfortunately, religion, sports and politics seem to be the unholy trinity when it comes to provoking people beyond reason, into the realm of emotional territorialism. But that is scratching below the surface to the real issue; human pride. A topic for another time. By the way, I notice as I re-read my comments that I use the words dialogue and debate interchangeably. While technically not equivalent terms, they're close enough. Scott

Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 17, 2006 05:19 PM (GqO0P)

38 As for trying to "convert" someone; that is a term so loaded with baggage that it loses it's true meaning. If you strip away the chaff, the objective of any dialogue is to convert your "opponent" to your POV. My friend John wants to eat a slice of cheesecake that has been in the fridge for 3 weeks. I try to convert him to my point of view that it is too old and likely has gone bad over that time. I attempt to persuade him to change his mind and just throw it out. If I am sufficiently persuasive, then my argument has converted him. If he rejects my opinion, eats the dessert and no medical attention is required, then not only will he feel vindicated for not abandoning his POV, it supports his argument, and maybe I will be converted to his point of view. (not likely though; I don't like cheesecake) ;> So there is really no need to balk at the term "convert". We all think we are right, and the very act of defending our view is really an attempt to convert the opposer.

Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 17, 2006 05:41 PM (GqO0P)

39 It all comes down to this: Jefferts-Schori (like the Jehovah's Witness' and other cultists)does not believe Jesus is fully God. Jesus said "Unless you believe that I am [God} you will die in your sins". End of story.

Posted by: Enid SK at December 06, 2006 06:50 PM (bxOjK)

40 Wholesale Nike Jerseys: Enjoy Your Favorite In Great Discount

Posted by: Cheap Eagles jerseys at November 29, 2012 08:44 AM (eOBZU)

41 Lider Chat sitesine girmek icin mirc indir Paylasimlarda bulunmak icin forum sitemize sohbet etmeye buyurun

Posted by: brand at December 23, 2012 12:25 PM (nMp9u)

42 gaurcs svalue lehigh iiirangoli assistant proficiency ensa accelerate manipulated news

Posted by: brand at December 27, 2012 08:12 AM (HxnBM)

43 Amy Virgin

Posted by: Windows 7 Activation Key at February 07, 2013 07:50 PM (Q0F3m)

44 Im not a baseball fan, but this whole episode stinks to the high heavens. WHY in Gods name is congress (A group of liars if there ever was one) WASTING their valuable time on a baseball player who allegedly lied about taking drugs that may even kill him someday. The country is in the grip of a horrible mess caused by the inattention of politicians for the last 30 years. That boil is getting ready to burst,and here we have Congress trying to look busy. Its really disgusting. Its impossible for Congress to hold anyone in contempt, because that is the feeling that the entire country has -against THEM!.

Posted by: windows 8 key at February 08, 2013 11:14 AM (VG8XV)

45 Please excuse our English, I am in the study of schooling. I much like your blog very much, I think it is very interesting and I saved a bookmark of it in my web.

Posted by: Windows 7 Activation Key at February 08, 2013 11:14 AM (nDw8b)

Hide Comments | Add Comment