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

Without getting into the whole discussion of homosexual by nature, I know of several men who had previously engaged in homosexual acts who had exited the lifestyle. In these cases the entry into the homosexual lifestyle, was from social pressure. This is where the witness of the Church is most important. Had these men been grounded at the time in the teaching of the Church, my guess is they would have never entered the homosexual lifestyle in the first place.

It is people like these men discussed above which bother the activist homosexual community. They want to say that all there are there by nature. This is clearly false. There are at least some in that community who are there because of social pressure. In some case that social pressure is social escape, but social pressure all the same. It is a lie to say that there is no choice in being homosexual. For at least some there is a choice, and for many who made the choice there is repentance and the chance to lead lives according to the requirements of Holy Scripture.

The political and religious liberals, want to quiet the voice of the former homosexual. This is done by attacking the motives of the speaker. That one in the past engaged in some behavior does not silence their right to speak on the topic.

This whole idea that upholding the teaching of Holy Scripture is the repression of one’s natural inclination is totally bogus. It may be true sometimes, but it not universally applicable. It is not even universally applicable with those who have left the homosexual lifestyle.

I know that there are many liberals both political and religious who will always portray anyone who speaks against the homosexual acts as repressed homosexual. It is a cheap political trick but it does to a degree work. I wrote a blog piece Homosexuality and Reason. As I should have expected the claims of being a repressed homosexual were quickly made. I with this am doing my part to resist political hacks.

The parables of Christ are stories. Did the parable of the good Samaritans happen exactly as it got recorded in Holy Scripture and does it matter? I would contend that it matters nothing at all if the story of the good Samaritan happened exactly as recorded in Holy Scripture or not. Christ’s purpose was not to relate history.

With respect to the discussion about ECUSA, if the opening chapters of Holy Scripture are history or not are to me unimportant. Important moral and theological lessons are in those passages. It is important that God created. It is much less important, if important at all, how he created.

I have my problem with biblical literalism, especially with those who create pseudo-science to match a literal view of the creation story. There are several reasons for this, but for this discussion the important one is that they focus too much on the how and causes many people to miss the who.

We do not need to resolve if the creation story is history or lore, in order to understand that Holy Scripture says that homosexual acts are sin. I see the creation story as lore and should be read as such. If it is history or not is unimportant. The revisionists are using the discussion if the creation story is history or not to dismiss the clear condemnation of homosexual acts.

I like many was thinking the current problem in ECUSA was Gnostic until Father’s Matt’s piece on Pelagius and the Presiding Bishop. In reading that I started to think that there was also an element of Marcion.

The surface comparison that Schori and Marcion pick and choose scripture to match what they think God should be, is very valid. The “zinger question” on my canonical exam was to in effect, compare and contrast Marcion and Dispensationalism. If I had the time, such a paper on Schori would be interesting. Father Matt at Stand Firm has made a good start on the topic, anyone want to or think I should finish the paper?

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:02:07 -0700
To: KJeffets@aol.com
Madam;

I write this in response to a website request concerning your meeting to be held in New York at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This meeting could well be the indicator of the commitments of the Episcopal Church in the USA. Is the Episcopal Church loyal to God as revealed in Holy Scripture, or to certain groups who want the sins for which they have proclivities to no longer be considered sin?

I think it fair to paraphrase Jesus as saying, come as you are and be changed. I think that the Episcopal Church is saying come as you are and we will change the gospel so you need not change. Many are saying that the only sin left in the Episcopal Church is to accept the biblical understanding of sin and sinning. This may be a bit over the top, but given the apparent path being taken, it soon may not be over the top.

This may be a blunt way of stating a position, but action like those of certain Bishops in California against another Bishop of the same state, strongly suggest the time for token pleasantries be long past. If you seriously want to be viewed as having concern for justice over the political position, you need to disavow the action in California.

Yours in Christ
Scott+
Arizona

( http://www.wakeuptec.org/action.shtml is the website in question. I thank them for the address but not the suggested content of my letter.)

Nevertheless, there are good and shall I say secular reasons that homosexuality is a social problem. I here present a short summary of my thinking on how homosexuality defeats comradeship. I with this suggest that comradeship be a very necessary social function.  This is one reason the homosexuality is not good for the social structure, there are others.

There are sometimes when the sexes are to be separated. To me this is proper when comradeship is a required element. I know of nothing that can hurt a unit’s view of its common purpose than sexual attraction. The most clear examples are things like combat units in the armed forces.

As I am using the term, comradeship is a close personal attachment without sexual desires. This can be with an individual or a group.  While I am not saying that comradeship with a person of the opposite sex cannot occur, I am saying that sexual attraction destroys comradeship. Large group comradeship of mixed sexes is very difficult if not impossible.

Homosexual attraction also destroys comradeship. If I am part of a group of all men, I feel more open to comradeship, and I think that this is true of most men. This is where a even homosexual proclivity becomes a problem I need to be sure that my comradeship is not viewed as sexual attraction or a sexual advance. When I go on a men’s retreat, I do so in large part for comradeship. Homosexual attraction being part of the group destroys comradeship. This idea can be generalized and should be.

If I am part of a larger group of comrades, I want to think that the decisions of all in the group are made devoid of sexual attraction. It is not my original idea, but I contend that in any group of people where leaders or members of the group are required to make decision which effect the group in less than two seconds, need comradeship and must not have sexual attraction. This is why mixed sexes and homosexuals should not be in things like combat units.

I close with the reminder that homosexual acts are sin.  Holy Scripture tells us this, so the above is additive.   Even if the reader feels the logic of this posting is wrong, it does not change the sinful nature of homosexual acts.

I write this post because the topic has come up on the email group I am a member as well as posting by Brad Drell on his blog.

The idea that the government could not establish a Church is not saying that religion has no place in government. It is a job for religion to maintain moral order, and in that respect it overlaps with the role of government. Let us all be honest, government is all about morals. Morals are what make laws acceptable to people. There is no such thing as a government that does not have morals. They may be what I would call bad morals, but they have their moral none the less.

What we have in today’s separation of Church and State movement is a set of morals that are based upon Secular Humanism. While not necessarily having a notion of a god, secular humanism is basically a religion. In the same respect as most atheists are religious.

In the case of the San Diego Cross we have a few people whom the cross offends and want it removed. The cross is not only the symbol of our risen Savior but is also a symbol of our common heritage. In the case of the San Diego Cross it is also a piece of what should be considered public artwork. In many respects that cross is no different from the artwork that is part of many of public works in the United States. I do not like some of that artwork, but I am not about to go to court to have it removed.

Now we have a number of judges in the United States who want to substitute their own morals for the common morals of the people. In most case the morals they want to impose are the morals of secular humanist. They often frame it in the idea of the separation of Church and State, as if this were something which was without religion. Separation of Church and State is an idea which goes back to the early day of the United States, but it is not part of the Constitution. Nevertheless, today it is acceptable for judges to use one religion, Secular Humanism, to suppress the cultural expression of another group of people, who are Christian.

Why this discussion on an Anglican Christian’s blog. There is a most discouraging post by the Dean of the Cathedral of the Diocese of San Diego (ECUSA). In that piece he suggests that the cross be removed and put on a Christian College campus. This is victory for those who hate Christianity.

Crosses like those in San Diego are a reflection of culture. San Diego like much of the southwestern United States can be viewed as a Roman Catholic town. There is no question that the Roman Catholic Church is very much as part of the history and culture of San Diego. Why should people have to suppress their culture just because that culture is based in the Christian religion? Why would a leader of ECUSA want to run up a white flag and surrender to the forces of a small group of people whose goal is to stop the expression of Christianity and Christian culture in the marketplace of idea? Dean you have some explaining to do in my mind.