Sanam Doctrinam

The next installment of our interaction with Katharine Schori will (if anyone actually reads this) certainly upset a few, because of the climate surrounding the question asked of her, but none the less, we will forge ahead.

The question is as follows:

The issue of gay bishops has been so divisive. The diocese of Newark, N.J., has named a gay man as one of its candidates for bishop. Is now the time to elect another gay bishop?

Dioceses, when they are faithful, call the person who is best suited to lead them. I believe every diocese does the best job it’s capable of in discerning who it is calling to leadership.

Can we say, “Avoiding the Question?”

The first question that pops into my mind is, “When the dioceses are faithful to what?” Are they being faithful to God’s Word? Are they being faithful to the qualifications as set up by the Anglican Church? Are they being faithful to the current atmosphere of political correctness in the U.S.?

To the first, “Are they being faithful to God’s Word?” We have already discussed how this is not important to Schori, and we will see this more and more, and this point further show this to be true. Scripture states clearly that homosexuality is a sin. Now, so that no one cries out that I am a homophobe etc…, we are talking about the church here and specifically the Anglican/Episcopal Church which states in their own doctrine, “We view the Old and New Testaments ‘as containing all things necessary for salvation’ and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.” While this is not a statement of verbal and plenary inspiration and inerrancy, it does give the Bible as the authority of the church, so it would seem that you would use it in every aspect of practice, this however, is not so. Schori’s avoidance of this question (or at least the avoidance of giving the authority of what determines the choice) makes it clear that she does not believe that God’s Word speaks to this issue, or she would have cited the places where God’s Word condemns homosexuality as sin (Romans 1:18-32). Obviously the Bible also condemns anything that goes against God’s will as sinful and no one who is living sinfully is fit for leadership in the church (Titus 1:5-9). Certainly all who are in leadership struggle with sin, but we are not talking about struggle here, we are talking about lifestyle, and just as one who is a drunkard is not fit for leadership in the church, neither is one who is captured by homosexuality. (This is not to mention Scriptures clear statement on women leading the church. [1 Timothy 2:9-13])

Hope you all have (had) a Merry Christmas.  We have enjoyed time with family and friends.  We as a family read from Luke 2 to make sure we never lose the focus of what Christmas is really all about!  Hope you have a great time with your families and friends, and that you are able to reflect upon Christ and His sacrifice this season!

Yes, it’s true. This is my first ever entry in a Web log. I feel pretty out of it when I look at Jason’s robust entries. Maybe I will get better at this one day. I just don’t have that many big thoughts. I wouldn’t dare respond to what he wrote. The guy just thinks too fast. I would like to reflect on something I got to thinking about this week, however.

On Monday nights our church has a Bible study I lead on the Gospel of John. We were studying the shortest verse in our English Bibles, John 11:35. [As a sidebar, and a great Bible trivia question, the truly shortest verse in the Bible, both in letters and words, is 1 Thessalonians 5:16, in the Greek NT.] They way we conduct the study is I give the participants a list of questions a week before, and then we deal with them as a group each Monday. I asked a question about Jesus’ tears and from whence they came. Interestingly, the words translated "deeply moved in spirit" and "troubled" in 11:33 are words that suggest anger. Of course, this raises the question as to the origin of the anger that arose in the Savior’s heart.

I’d suggest He was angry over the devastation of sin, specifically evidenced at that point in Lazarus’ death, and its effect upon His loved ones.

I’m so thankful that Jesus wept. Apparently, he wept over the human suffering and hardship sin brought to our world. The fact that He wept means He understands. He truly hurts with us when we suffer. I believe we can find comfort in this.

What will be your focus as head of the U.S. church?

Our focus needs to be on feeding people who go to bed hungry, on providing primary education to girls and boys, on healing people with AIDS, on addressing tuberculosis and malaria, on sustainable development. That ought to be the primary focus.

Just to give a bit of background in case you don’t know, Katharine Schori was appointed the Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA).

First, I would like to state that doing the things that she says here are not without merit. Any of these activities promotes benevolence and good will. My problem is that she says this should be the focus of the ECUSA as a church. You might say, “Well Jason, you are independent, you are not Episcopal or Anglican, so why do you care?” I care because she uses the word “church” to describe her organization and in so doing expresses to all who hear and don’t know otherwise, what the church is about.

Again these things are good things, but they can only serve as a catalyst for the church’s true mission. This is according to Scripture what Jesus commanded us to do in Matthew 28:18-20 (NASB), “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. ‘Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’”

This is the true mission of the church, to make followers of Christ, but Schori would have trouble with this, in that she sees the Bible as neither authoritative, nor inerrant, and does not see Jesus as the only way to God (something we will see in the next few installments of our discussion.)

What I mean as them serving as a catalyst for the church’s true mission is that in doing these activities we demonstrate the love of Christ and the hope of the Gospel, but in so doing these are no an end in themselves. We must present all of God’s Word in regard to people’s needs and they are not just physical needs. In fact physical needs only point to the greater issue of Spiritual needs, that can only be met through Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. In serving people, in meeting their physical needs, we must give the true way to meet their spiritual needs as well. Romans 3:23 states, “All have missed the mark and fallen short of God’s glorious standard.” (Author’s Translation) Everyone has sinned, that is what it means to miss the mark, and we are by nature sinners. When Adam fell and brought us with him, all of creation fell, and along with the spiritual needs because of the fall, physical needs became an issue as well (Genesis 3:17-19).

So as we meet people’s physical short comings we let them know it is because of spiritual deadness that any of us experience those physical needs at all, and that Christ provides a way for us to be right with God  through His own blood that he shed, and not that all of our physical problems will go away, but in the meeting of our spiritual need, God can make sense of life. Even if we don’t understand what He is doing, we know it is He that is doing it and we can have confidence that our God is in control.

It is not enough for us to feed people and take care of them physically, without also meeting their spiritual need as well.