Dr Schori and Pelagianism

 

I wrote in a comment over at Stand Firm in Faith of taking only statements by Dr Schori made since the feign of her election to be PB of ECUSA and see if a case for heresy could be made. In the article I was commenting upon, Father Kennedy found evidence of Pelagianism, Marcionism, Pluralism, Universalism, and Gnosticism. The limit to use only thing said or written since her election has proven to be a challenge.

 

 

As an Anglo-Catholic I do not think of the woman elected as Presiding Bishop to be either Priest or Bishop. However, she does have an earned doctorate so I will use the title of Doctor. Please note that the degree is not in a theological field, but rather in the natural sciences.

 

Stephen Crittenden: The thing I wanted to ask you about is whether at the base of this issue, there isn’t a problem that goes to the heart of the gospel itself, about what it actually means to be holy, You know, whether Christ calls us to perfection and whether homosexuality is one of the many areas where people are less than perfect, I’m sure you’ll have a view on, but there is a holiness tradition in the church that keeps bumping up against real people in their real lives.

 

Katherine Jefferts Schori: Holiness and wholeness and health all come from the same root in English, and they’re related quite intimately to the word ’salvation’. Living a holy life, living a whole and full life, is one of our understandings of what salvation means, and when Jesus says ‘I came that you might have life and have it abundantly’, he certainly means in the fullness of our beings, and if we understand that some people are created, are born, in this world with affections ordered toward those of the same gender, then perhaps it means we need to pay attention to that.¹

 

 

Doctor Schori here is avoiding the question. The question appears unambiguously related to the biblical condemnation of homosexual acts and the lives of real people. It is an open invitation to talk about a restorative ministry to homosexual. This avoiding of the question sets the context for understanding her answer.

 

When she says that when Jesus says talks about having life abundantly, he means in the fullness of our beings. It says that she is reading into Holy Scripture that which is not there. This is especially true in that fullness of being she is refereeing to is a sinful life style. Her rational for this is in her next phrase.

 

In saying that we need to pay attention to those whose affections are toward those of same gender, and making the inference that his is part of the life abundantly she is inferring that homosexual attraction is good. By making the claim that people are born that way she is committing Pelagianism.

 

Pelagius began with a notion of justice that he inherited from his culture. He brought this notion to Scripture and it blinded him to several important biblical notions. Flowing from this error was another.² This is the same error that Doctor Schori is making in saying we need to listen to those with homosexual tendencies. She is making the substitution of the contemporary cultures idea of justice for the Christian ideas of sin and forgiveness.

 

She same much the same in a NPR interview³:

 

KJS: Well, as a scientist and as a person of faith, I- I understand that sexual orientation is a given, for almost all people; it’s not a matter of choice, and in that case, if this is how people are created, then our job as a community of faith is to assist people in finding holy ways of living in relationship, and, uh, that’s what we’re about.

 

This statement could be read to say that she wants to help homosexual people into a celibate lifestyle. However, from context of other remarks she has made this is clearly not her position. Even granting the position for sake of argument⁴, that sexual orientation is not within a person control, acting on such orientation is an act of free will.

 

In that same interview had just been said⁵:

 

RY: Now, well, when you were elected Primate, that is, head of the U.S. Episcopal Church, you were quoted as saying “We’re not here to argue about matters of sexuality, we’re here to build a holy community”.. but as you know, there are people arguing about sexuality- what are you going to do to heal that?

 

KJS: Well, we’re going to keep conversing, we’re going to continue to ask people to met gay and lesbian Christians, and to begin seeing some of the fruits of their ministry.. uh, we’re going to continue to wrestle with these issues- they are the issues of our day, and the issues of recent generations have been about the place women in the church, and the place of african-americans in the church, and the place of immigrants in the church, and I simply see this as our current growth into a larger.. communion.

 

As already said Pelagius began with a notion of justice which he inherited from his culture. Here she is making a civil rights argument. She see the homosexual issue as an extension of the civil rights movement. Her notion of justice trumps Holy Scripture and nearly two thousand years of the Holy Catholic Church teaching.

 

Also in the above writings she appears to hold the other misunderstanding in common with Pelagius. That is that a denial of original sin. In saying, that we must pay attention to those who are actively engaged in willful sin based upon an assumption that it is not their choice, she is saying that such actions are good. This is opposed to the idea that such attractions are not according to God’s will but are the result of the fall.

 

R. C. Sproul says, It has been said Pelagius recoiled in horror at the idea that a divine gift (grace) is necessary to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.⁶ While I would disagree with R. C. Sproul on many things, his summary of Pelagius here would seem to totally correct.

 

I would say that Doctor Schori is also making the same error. She wants to make the questionable science assertion that homosexual have no choice in their attractions to make homosexual acts not a sin. First I do not grant the assumption that she is making. People with homosexual attraction can live a celibate life. If you were to grant her the assumption that they do not have the natural ability to resist certain temptations you show the need for grace. But when she claims that lack of ability to resist makes something not sinful, she repeats the error of Pelagius.

 

Pleagius taught: Nature, which was created good, is not convertible, “because the things of nature persist from the beginning of existence (substance) to its end.” “Natural properties are not converted by accident.” Accordingly, there can be no “natural sins”; for they could only have arisen if nature had become evil.⁷

 

This seems to be what Doctor Schori is saying. She is saying that homosexual attraction is natural. God created the natural. Therefore homosexual attraction is good.

Footnotes
¹ The religion report 26 July 2006.

²Pelagianism by R. Scott Clark

³ Schori Interview: What are you: a Unitarian?

⁴ This is truly on for the sake of argument. The strongest position which can be stated being consistence with the data is that certain genetic makeup provides a proclivity for homosexual attraction. See a paper I have written
⁵ Schori Interview: What are you: a Unitarian?

⁶ Augustine and Pelagius By R. C. Sproul

⁷page 190 History of Dogma by Dr. Adolph Harnack Volume v