Bishop Jefferts Schori's sermon

Sometimes at Eucharist, no matter how many people are in the church, you get the feeling that the preacher is speaking directly to you. I had that feeling this morning. Bishop Jefferts Schroi spoke of believing something is so essential that it “takes the place of God.”

That thing, she said, can be a bank account, or a theological framework. For me, and perhaps for other participants in the Episcopal/Anglican debate, that thing is winning the argument, getting the best quote out there, having the last word.

The sin in this, she said is a failure to understand one’s self as “beloved of God.” It is only when we know ourselves as beloved of God, that we can “respond in less fearful ways” to others. Among those others she listed “a rhetorical opponent.”

“We children of Jesus can continue to squabble over our inheritance,” she said, or we can claim it, and live in a way that reflects our claim.

On one level, it is in the nature of my job to have rhetorical opponents. But there is a danger that I am particularly aware of this morning in living primarily—during General Convention, one might say exclusively—on that level. Developing and articulating strategy and executing tactics become the things that “take the place of God.” Trying to shape the future of the Church gets in the way of actually being a Christian.

Yesterday in the House of Bishops, Bishop Gene Robinson, reflecting on the dilemma our Church finds itself in—alienate others in the Communion or cause pain to our gay and lesbians brothers and sister—said “I don’t know what humility looks like in this context.”

I am not sure what it looks like either, but I think I have a better idea, after these 10 days, of what it sounds like. And I am in hopes of reproducing that sound in what I write and what I say as this struggle continues.

Comments (4)

I see no conflict between voting to acknowledge a vocation from God and one's community, and exhibiting humility by being kind and respectful to those who disagree with us.

I'm remembering my favorite movie, the original "A Man for All Seasons." Thomas More says to a friend who is trying to persuade him to sign Henry VIII's oath of loyalty, which More does not feel that he can sign. "Come on, Thomas," his friend says, "for fellowship." More responds, "And if you go to heaven for doing your conscience, and I go to hell for not doing mine, will you go with me? For fellowship?"

Yes to humility, yes to kindness, but also yes to voting one's conscience, and More paid with his mortal life, but not his immortal soul, for voting his. I remain on the side of keeping the doors open.

Correction in the second paragraph: "More is talking with a friend, who is trying to persuade him to sign Henry VIII's oath of loyalty..."

A lesson in humility for me: proofread more carefully.

EHC's comments just prove, Jim, that we all think you are a saint.

In a foot race to see which bishop can reach the microphone faster, who would win--Bishop Chane or Bishop Duncan?

Add your comments
Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Advertising Space