Comments: PB investiture

The PB's investiture was wonderful ! So moving. What a fine Church it is. What a wonderful deeply encouraging message she gave and the liturgy gave. --and her lovely, vibrant smile. All the folks hugging her at the end and some asking her to bless them. Somehow, it seemed to move me even more than Gene Robinson's consecration, and I think as a woman, perhaps she represents something special and new in the Church, as Primate, --and as a straight woman

her acceptance of us all, and rainbow chasuble and Spanish Blessing and all the wonderful young (and ole) dancersm singers and praises did feel, does feel like foretaste of heaven......

I think Michael Ramsey,Monica furlong, and Florence Lee Tim Oi & Trevor Huddleston and Harry Williams, &

Posted by laurence at Saturday, 4 November 2006 at 6:14pm GMT

It was a wonderful service. I earnestly hope and pray she can bring hope and reconciliation to those parts of our church who are hurt and divided.

Posted by Allen at Sunday, 5 November 2006 at 12:18am GMT


Thanks be to God the challenge "ALL are WELCOMED to the NOT YETNESS of mankind"* is no longer daunting and wishful thinking.

*Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Primate

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Sunday, 5 November 2006 at 1:28am GMT

I was blessed to be there. I was also there nine years ago for ++Frank's service. There was joy and enthusiasm. There was a lot of applause.

Today there was something electric. There was applause - and also whistling and stomping! It was joyful and Spirit filled.

++Katharine has that elusive quality = gravitas.


Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Sunday, 5 November 2006 at 2:23am GMT

Her investure sermon was beautiful, so beautiful that I am archiving a hyperlink for future reference. A church that can embrace this vision is a church to be proud of. May God's glory shine throughout all its parishioners. May they bring honour to God's name, which attempting this vision would surely do.

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Sunday, 5 November 2006 at 3:34am GMT

The image of ++Katharine banging on the cathedral door was worth the price of admission! (Imago-Dei-made-female comin' atcha Ol' Boys---get out of the way! ;-p)

A splendid, splendid day. Praise Christ! :-D

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Sunday, 5 November 2006 at 3:35am GMT

A quite historic event.

The Archbishop sends warms greetings.

"With My Love and blessing, Rowan"

Posted by The Admiral of Morality at Sunday, 5 November 2006 at 1:23pm GMT

So THAT's where our diocesan was. (Makes a change from him jumping out of aircraft and flying with the Red Arrows....)

Only caught part of the liturgy, but I'm glad the diocese of Lincoln was there in the person of +John. Gives me a peculiar sense of hope in all the recent nonsense.

Posted by David Rowett (=mynsterpreost) at Sunday, 5 November 2006 at 5:35pm GMT

Simon, many thanks for the coverage you provide for the Anglican world. I would like to point out, however, that Saturday's liturgy was the "Investiture" and Sunday's liturgy was the "Installation". This is a minor point in a much more important story, but to this American it is strangely like the oft repeated misuse of the term "appointment" for the "election" of bishops in The Episcopal Church.

Posted by episcopal chauvinist at Sunday, 5 November 2006 at 9:41pm GMT

Dear chauvinist:
I am sorry that my adding of an *Update* legend has caused confusion. This article was written on Saturday, refers to Saturday's events and makes no mention of the following day's events. I will amend the wording to avoid confusion.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Sunday, 5 November 2006 at 10:23pm GMT

Bp. Schori’s investiture sermon makes no mention of the cross, nor of Jesus’ death, nor of His rising again. The sermon does not use the word “Gospel” (or the phrase “good news”), and does not include the word “faith” or “belief” or “trust.” There is nothing of the miraculous or the supernatural in the sermon. It does not mention “Father,” “Son,” or “Holy Spirit.” (The word “spirit” does appear twice.) Jesus is not called “Lord” (and the only use of the word “Lord” is in a quotation of Augustine).

Of course, the sermon makes no mention of “hell” (or “judgment,” “damnation,” “perishing,” or the like), and makes no mention of “sin.” The sermon uses the word “salvation” only once, where it is equated with “our [the Episcopal Church’s] health as a body”–-and this usage is typical of the entire sermon: It employs some conventional Christian vocabulary, but does so to address this-worldly concerns that the Church could share with a secular social welfare agency. A believing Christian could take that vocabulary as an occasion to import Christian beliefs into the sermon, but the sermon does not itself prompt that approach. It is, instead, devoted to a description of temporal goals, as to which there is no Christian distinctive.

For example, a theme of the sermon is “home,” but the sermon does not (as a Christian might) describe a future heavenly home (nor use the word “eternal” or “eternity”). Rather, the sermon aspires to a here-and-now “home that does not depend on place, but on community gathered in the conscious presence of God.” It speaks of a God-given “dream” of a feast at which all are "filled with God’s abundance”--which the orthodox Christian might take to mean the heavenly wedding feast of the Lamb–-but it says instead, “We live in a day where there is a concrete possibility of making that dream reality.” The closest the sermon gets to a resurrection hope is an oblique reference: it says that we have a “hope that will not cease until that dream [of the feast?] ... has swallowed up death forever.” If Bishop Schori intends that Christians will understand this to refer to an eschatological victory over death, she does not inform her hearers that Jesus Christ achieved this victory, and that it can be ours by grace through faith. Rather, the hearer could only infer that this victory is one of the hoped-for results of the Church’s ongoing project of healing the sick and feeding the hungry.

What is Bishop Schori's religion?

Posted by DGus at Monday, 6 November 2006 at 12:31am GMT

DGus asked
What is Bishop Schori's religion?

Mainstream Christian, with a clear grounding in John's Gospel and the Parables from the look of your comments.

Sorry that she didn't play the right tune for you to dance to, but I do get depressed by those who think that banging a particular type of Gospel drum is the only way to evangelise. Remember that if she was talking to Christians, the eschatological/gospel/divine is assumed, and your post does rather come across as a grumpy bit of nit-picking.

We were talking over port & blue cheese last night with a couple of our parishioners who asked why it is that a particular type of Christian assumes they must be the standard by which all others are judged (poor extempore prayer is defined as 'better' than planned stuff which is automatically condemned as 'not from the heart', you know the sort of thing.) Isn't it about time that sort of Christian got hold of a bit of humility? Isn't it about time those on the receiving end of such arrogance started to query their assumptions?

Posted by David Rowett (=mynsterpreost) at Monday, 6 November 2006 at 9:15am GMT

Katherine's message reduced --- no, f i l l e d me with tears and joy.

And the whole Saturday worship gave me hope and nourishment it reminded of me of a Catholic Charismatic prayer group to which I once belonged crossed with Cathedral Liturgy --pontifical without the swagger, but with the bridge !.... for me her were are a bridge...... I was so glad to be spared the tired ole cliches beloved of my Gospel Hall as a youth and so empty of powerand also the tired ole anglo-catholic cliches and posing, also stony in my mouth, rather than bready--or even crusty !

For me, she is saying something fresh, unsliced and not wrapped in plastic wrappers............

Posted by laurence at Monday, 6 November 2006 at 12:11pm GMT

Mr Rowett - you talk about "a particular type of Gospel"

I am not sure what you mean - there is only one gospel and faithful men like St Paul were pretty hard on those who invented new ones to appeal to their cultures, as you know

DGus is right - the speech (rather than sermon) could have been given by Mahatma Ghandi - but then this lady thinks his way was an equally valid alternative route up the mountain....ironically, that is part of the teaching the Mahatma followed even if it is not in line with John 14:6 or Acts 4:12 or John 3:36 or......

Posted by NP at Monday, 6 November 2006 at 3:14pm GMT

And David, if she is "Mainstream Christian" - about 70m Anglicans are therefore not?

Posted by NP at Monday, 6 November 2006 at 4:18pm GMT

DGus and NP,
For the love of God! We really are in two different religions! I read her sermon, it is full of the hope of God's transformative love, of all Creation made new in the Incarnation: ie the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. It is full of the Kingdom of God which is all around us if we can but see it, the Kingdom of which we are all citizens by our baptism, and which it is the Church's call to make real in this world. It is Creation groaning for perfection in Christ. This is traditional Catholic Incarnation centred faith. You criticize it because it fails to preach about a life that is really a test so that God will know how to judge us when we die, the place where we prove ourselves worthy of heaven or deserving of Hell. Christ's death, in this view, has no redeeming value for all Creation, it is merely the ticket we must grasp tightly so we don't get sent to the other place. And it doesn't work either, because unless I behave myself, I'll still get sent to the place of punishment, the Resurrection notwithstanding. What a stark, and frankly innovative, vision of the Christian faith! It denies the value of Creation, denies the Cosmic importance of Christ's saving acts, and expresses a juridical understanding of the love of God that comes to us from the most dour Reformation innovators. Is that your religion? While I doubt the Fathers would agree with a lot of +AbP Schorri's politics, they certainly wouldn't recognize this warped and cold understanding of Christianity. I wonder what you'd make of St. John Chrysostom's Easter sermon. There's no condemnation there either. I don't understand a lot of theology, and don't know much, but the more I read, the more I realize that, whatever the mistakes of the so-called "liberals" they at least try to follow the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, taught by the Apostles and preserved and passed on by the Fathers. This Reformation style goodness test is a new, and frankly, repulsive understanding of the Kingdom

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 6 November 2006 at 8:06pm GMT

Since Paul's been dragged into the discussion, didn't he use different guises for the one Gospel, becoming a Greek to Greeks and a Jew to Jews?

Sometimes I do think that the ConsEv gospel is a bit like the music capabilities of a ZX Spectrum: monophonic and monaural. But, of course, that is so easy to dress up as 'The True Gospel, no? Let others rejoice in surround sound, even if you're hooked on beeps and burps.

Posted by mynsterpreost at Monday, 6 November 2006 at 8:07pm GMT


It seems the usual suspects REFUSE to come to the wedding banquet, even though they were emphatically invited.

If ++KJS would then throw open to the doors to all who *would* come, well, she's only following Our Lord! :-D

[I shudder to think of the *Pharisaism* that defines its religion (NOT faith) by what "this lady" "didn't mention" in her "speech". Lord have mercy!]

Praise Christ for his faithful servant ++Katharine! God bless TEC! :-D

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Monday, 6 November 2006 at 8:07pm GMT

Surely each can only search her or his heart.
Making our own 'prilgrimage' if you like, making our own precious discoveries for ourselves.

We all turn out different, dont we ? Not as statistics, surely, or norms.....

Posted by laurence at Monday, 6 November 2006 at 10:08pm GMT

I do think some people have gone rather overboard about the sermon the new +Katherine preached - intersting thoguh it was. Most reactions seem to confirm previously held hopes/positions. I wonder how DGus thinks her words compare to the likes of S. Catherine of Siena, or St. Teresa of Avila? What heroines of the faith they were, and in a different league (to the women AND men of today)!!

Posted by Neil at Tuesday, 7 November 2006 at 12:26am GMT

Ford - are you joking?
You say, "the more I read, the more I realize that, whatever the mistakes of the so-called "liberals" they at least try to follow the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, taught by the Apostles and preserved and passed on by the Fathers"

Sadly, you are talking about a group which includes some who do not even believe the creeds, others who believe the creeds but do not accept the discpiline on our lives which is given in the Bible (by God, entirely for our own good!) and others (like KJS) that will take John 14:6 / John 3:36 and say they do not mean what they clearly say....this ain't faithfulness to the Bible or tradition or the Spirit

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 7 November 2006 at 7:16am GMT

I quite like John 14:2 & 10:16. Then Mark 9:39-40 is quite inspiring "“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us."

Posted by Cheryl Clough at Tuesday, 7 November 2006 at 9:55am GMT

Cheryl - that argument does not work at all if you take the passages in context. The whole bible is consistent in showing the holiness of God and his total rejection of sin. He never says it is ok to sin.

Just see Romans 6 to see how grace cannot be cheapened to allow sinning.

Sure, we all still sin (Rom 7) - the point is not to justify it but to struggle against it.

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 7 November 2006 at 11:15am GMT

I realize that, among the "liberals", there are those whose beliefs I find, frankly, odd. I don't understand, for instance, how someone can claim to be a Christian priest, and still deny the Resurrection, and that's only the tip of it. But such people are also, as far as I can see, a small, and odd, minority. Most of the "liberals" I have talked to are very concerned that they know patristic teaching, that they know the Tradition, and beliefs like the Virgin Birth, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Resurrection, are important to them. My point was that, while the Fathers might not agree on the "gay issue" or the ordination of women, or a good number of other issues, they would recognize the same attitude to Tradition, authority, the nature of the Kingdom, the meaning of redemption. How these things are understood by "orthodox" Evanglelicals would be far more alien to Christians of 1500 years ago with regards to core points of doctrine. Sorry, but Evangelicalism is at most 500 years old, and represents far more than just a cleaning up of the corruption of the medieval Church. It was, in its day, a major innovation in the way Christianity was understood and practiced. The Fathers would have reacted with just as much horror to Evangelicalism as they would to gay marriage. I wonder what any of them would do if they saw the Blood of Christ being drunk out of individual cups which were then thrown away without even being cleaned out, yet this is what happens in a lot of churches. Throwing drops of the Blood of Christ in the garbage! That's as appalling to me as John Spong, and believe me, I find him appalling.

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 7 November 2006 at 5:42pm GMT

DGus sent me back to one of my favorite descriptions of a sermon - perhaps more to his liking. It occurs in a dream that Lockwood has:

...we were journeying to hear the famous Jabez Branderham preach, from the text -- Seventy Times Seven; and either Joseph, the preacher, or I had committed the "First of the Seventy-First," and were to be publicly exposed and excommunicated. We came to the chapel where Jabez had a full and attentive congregation; and he preached -- good God! what a sermon; divided into FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY parts, each fully equal to an ordinary address from the pulpit, and each discussing a separate sin! Where he searched for them, I cannot tell. He had his private manner of interpreting the phrase, and it seemed necessary the brother should sin different sins on every occasion. They were of the most curious character: odd transgressions that I never imagined previously...

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Tuesday, 7 November 2006 at 6:17pm GMT

I meant to identify the source of the terrifying sermon description. It is of course from "Wuthering Heights." In "Moby Dick" I remember a striking sermon that was not, as here, a dream.

Posted by Cynthia Gilliatt at Tuesday, 7 November 2006 at 9:47pm GMT

What amuses me about the whole discussion is that it proves that in some instances conservative evangelicals -- and yes, catholics -- are just too polemical for their own good.
And yet, given that some practitioners of other faiths are not too keen on listening to us Christians, any "no salvation outside Christ" statement may sound more reasonable these days than some PC statement about how all religions are the same. Not that I am saying that Schori's statements fall into that category. I've read worse.

Posted by Ren Aguila at Tuesday, 7 November 2006 at 10:44pm GMT

Ford - sorry but evangelicalism is closer to 2000 yrs old - we are just seeking to keep to the intended meaning of the words of God as handed down to us

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 8 November 2006 at 6:57am GMT

Please, read some church history. Read Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church for an eastern perspective. It makes a good start. Read Karen Armstrong's A History of God, though I wouldn't recommend it for you as an Evangelical till you've had your eyes opened a bit. As to "seeking to keep to the intended meaning of the words of God handed down to us", that is insulting and shows exactly what I have been saying is the meaning of the word 'orthodox'. "We're right because we live by the rules, and if you don't agree with how we say the rules are, well you're wrong, and not Christian, and 'preaching another Gospel'." It's also self delusory. I have no doubt, as I said, that the fathers would find much to be angry with in modern "liberalism", but they'd at least argue within the same framework. And liberals DO make theological arguments, you know. Frankly, I see a lot more confidence in the power of God in a lot of what they say. Their entire worldview is centred on the Eucharist, the Incarnation, and all the things you claim they don't believe in. You seem to think that obedience to the Law is necessary for salvation. You're worthy of the Blood of Jesus because God says you are, not because you follow the rules. You do that out of love for the God who counts you worthy, not in order to make Him love you. You've gotten led away by the very small number of oddballs who cease to believe in the core doctrines of the faith but don't have the guts to give up their pensions and declare themselves no longer Christians. There aren't a lot of them, they're just noisy. In my experience, most ordinary "liberals" are trying to follow the teachings handed down to us, they just understand them differently than you do. I have my difficulties with "liberalism" but not so much as I do with the self delusory judgemental legalism that I find in Evangelicalism.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 8 November 2006 at 4:51pm GMT

Ford - you completely misunderstand me - I believe in salvation by faith in Christ, through grace - it ain't about rules but as Romans 6 teaches so clearly, we have no license to allow sin......
my problem is with ordained people who teach something very different - just read the KJS Time interview and you will see what I mean.

Posted by NP at Thursday, 9 November 2006 at 7:15am GMT

NP, again I refer you to the article Jefferts Schori and theology.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Thursday, 9 November 2006 at 11:37am GMT

Thanks Simon - but I don't think that article can convince me that KJS does not hold pluralist views and I am afraid I think those views are perfectly consistent with hinduism but not with the words of Jesus

Posted by NP at Thursday, 9 November 2006 at 3:46pm GMT

I can't seem to find that interview online. Can you point me to it?

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 9 November 2006 at 5:17pm GMT

Sorry Ford - I just saw the magazine. KJS is on record in lots of places being very liberal.... I honestly don't understand how someone like you can think we ought to have unity with people who believe such very different things to you - since you have said you say the creeds with full belief in them.

the weakness in the Anglican church is that it thinks there is value is saying both black and white are the same colour and so, it convinces very few that it knows what it is talking about

Posted by NP at Friday, 10 November 2006 at 2:56pm GMT

KJS doesn't believe the Creeds? Just because she's liberal doesn't mean she doesn't believe the Creeds. Where does she refute any of the points of the Creed? As to having unity with those who don't believe as I do, I'm willing to have unity with you, am I not?

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 10 November 2006 at 5:22pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.