On a Personal Note

Posted by Kendall Harmon

The active clergy of the diocese of South Carolina are meeting with the Presiding Bishop in Mount Pleasant this morning. Thank you for your prayers.

Filed under:

31 Comments
Posted February 25, 2008 at 10:54 am [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. 0hKay wrote:

I hope Kendall will share afterwards.

February 25, 12:16 pm | [comment link]
2. Choir Stall wrote:

I hope that KJS will listen afterwards.

February 25, 12:36 pm | [comment link]
3. sarahsnemisis wrote:

I think this speaks well of the Diocese of South Carolina. As one of our strongest diocese, and one of the more orthodox, to continue a model of differentiation and conversation by engagment. This shows a great deal of maturity and strenghth- something I think St. Paul would think highly of.  I hope that is not lost by other commenters on this site.

February 25, 12:39 pm | [comment link]
4. Phil wrote:

I agree with worldpeas.  I’m sure it’s safe for clergy formed by the mainstream leadership of DioSC to meet with Mrs. Schori.  And, as long as any parishioners are warned beforehand that her comments should be taken only as curiosities, and not in any way as reliable for their spiritual lives, it’s probably safe for them to meet with her, too.

February 25, 1:00 pm | [comment link]
5. nwlayman wrote:

Why?  Is there something that makes you think she’ll say something different than she has before, or that you’ll come around to her way of seeing things?  You got time to burn, I guess.

This elf has questions about the last sentence.

February 25, 1:16 pm | [comment link]
6. Phil wrote:

nwlayman, I’m sorry, I don’t follow your question.  The part about me having time to burn is what threw me off.

February 25, 1:18 pm | [comment link]
7. TomRightmyer wrote:

We all need to learn the difference between being heard and being obeyed.  I’m glad the clergy of SC are meeting with the PB and hope that the listening goes both ways.

February 25, 1:34 pm | [comment link]
8. Eugene wrote:

Phil
nwlatman probably means it seems like you do not have any other more important things to do.  I am sure he did not have any eschatological meaning in the word “burn”

February 25, 1:35 pm | [comment link]
9. The_Elves wrote:

The comments are creeping off topic. Please return to discussing Kendall’s post.

February 25, 1:44 pm | [comment link]
10. Phil wrote:

One more creeping, off topic, elves?  Just to say that I didn’t see any insulting or deeper meaning in “time to burn,” I just found it confusing.

The broader point I intended to make is that I consider her teaching to be misguided, and so it should be approached with caution.  Heck, if Origen or Tertullian were to come back to life and host a seminar some night, that would be fascinating, but we would have to be careful not to assume all their comments reflected the teaching of the Church.  Of course, Mrs. Schori usually makes it black and white enough that there isn’t any question.

February 25, 1:47 pm | [comment link]
11. Sarah1 wrote:

I also think it’s fine that they’re all talking.  It’ll be a good thing for those clergy who may not have read the media reports to hear it in person.  I expect that the PB will leave continuing to wonder how on earth so many Wascally Right-Wing Radical Fundamentalists got into the Episcopal Church, what with their primitive belief in the atoning death on the cross, the uniqueness of Christ, evangelization/proselytizing, and various other parts of the gospel, but you know . . . perhaps she could comfort herself with the thought that it’s only one diocese. 

How many other Episcopal dioceses would have that many Wascally Right-Wing Radical Fundamentalists????

February 25, 2:36 pm | [comment link]
12. Fr. Greg wrote:

I look forward to reading Fr. Kendall’s account of this meeting.

February 25, 3:30 pm | [comment link]
13. appletree wrote:

I hope Kendall includes in his report the tenor and tone of Sunday night’s meeting of the diocese’s NADS (nearest and dearest to those uninformed) with the presiding bishop.  Oh to be a moth in the wool carpet during that go ‘round.  Alas, one can only dream.

February 25, 4:04 pm | [comment link]
14. qharbour wrote:

What does “active clergy” mean?

February 25, 4:36 pm | [comment link]
15. sarahsnemisis wrote:

qharbor-

Usually that means clergy who are in a cure (parish) or on staff somewhere. It usually excludes retired clergy and clergy who are non-parachial (not assigned or on staff).

Or it might mean people who jog 2 miles a day and eat thier veggies, probably the first!

February 25, 4:53 pm | [comment link]
16. dcreinken wrote:

As one who grew up in Upper SC, I have great respect for how Dio SC has handled themselves since the first election and ultimate consecration.  I don’t agree with their position, but I do see a strong commitment to mutual respect of conscience - that always encourages me to be more willing to listen and less willing to rant.

#4, Phil - given human propensity for sin, I’m unaware of any person who should be listened to without some caution.  Isn’t that one of the points of the reformation, no individual by virtue of their personal identity or position has a corner on truth?  And also, that each person, with a consciences well formed, has the right to judge and weight the positions of others?

Dirk

February 25, 4:56 pm | [comment link]
17. Daniel wrote:

Why is it only active clergy?  Somebody afraid that Bishop Allison might attend and have some discomforting questions for her?

February 25, 4:56 pm | [comment link]
18. phil swain wrote:

Dirk, does “any person” include Jesus?  And can we totally trust those persons who chose which words of Jesus to include in Scripture?

February 25, 5:04 pm | [comment link]
19. phil swain wrote:

The question about “active” clergy reminds me of the inquiry made of Pope John XXIII as to how many people work in the Vatican.  His reply, “Very few.”

February 25, 5:09 pm | [comment link]
20. dcreinken wrote:

No, I’m referring to individuals who are of one nature only (fully human).  When it comes to Scripture, my vows are that it is the Word of God and contains all things necessary to salvation so that is what I will claim.  Obviously, appeals to Scripture are an important (and the ultimate) measure for the reliability of the human speaker; but serious and committed Christians can still reach disagreement when appealing to Scripture. 

Dirk

February 25, 5:12 pm | [comment link]
21. libraryjim wrote:

Yeah, my boss answered a similar question one day:

How many people work in the library?

“About half of them.”

My response to “Do you work here?” is:
It depends on if you ask me or my supervisor!

February 25, 5:13 pm | [comment link]
22. dcreinken wrote:

#18 Phil, just to augment more - I trust MMLJ far better than the Jesus Seminar as to the actual words of Jesus, but who should I trust more on the Lord’s Prayer?  Matthew or Luke?  On the beatitudes, Matthew or Luke?  On the length of Jesus’ earthly ministry, John or the Synoptics?  On the words of institution, Synoptics or Paul?

I trust Scripure as a whole, but I can still ponder and question how any particular verse fits into the whole, and why there may be blatant difference and contradictions.  Doesn’t change the fact that Jesus died for my sins, though.

February 25, 5:16 pm | [comment link]
23. Phil wrote:

Dirk #16 - sure, but it seems some people’s teachings require more caution than others.  Do you disagree?  If so, in what way?

Of course, how much caution depends on your perpective.  If you’re Roman Catholic, it should require little caution to read something written by the Pope, whereas, if you’re a certain flavor of Protestant, you might want to exercise a great deal.

February 25, 5:18 pm | [comment link]
24. Phil wrote:

#22, we cross-posted, but you’re talking about Scripture, and I’m talking about a person.  The individual instances you mention are interesting questions, but not (IMO) in the same category as whether Mrs. Schori is a trustworthy teacher of the Gospel.

February 25, 5:21 pm | [comment link]
25. dcreinken wrote:

#23 Phil - absolutely right.  Even reappraiser I take the PB’s words with a bit of caution and often wish she had phrased things differently and placed them in better context. Yet, when I have heard her whole presentations, I’m generally not offended.

Dirk

February 25, 5:22 pm | [comment link]
26. dcreinken wrote:

#24, Phil - apparently I misunderstood your question when you said “And can we totally trust those persons who chose which words of Jesus to include in Scripture?”  I just assumed you meant the Gospel writers - but obviously the early church leadership are the ones who shaped and closed the canon, thereby choosing which words of Jesus to include in scripture.  I give the Jesus seminar no credence whatsoever.  Eh, maybe I’m a reluctant reappraiser.  smile

Obviously, this thread isn’t about our discussion, so I’m happy to bow out.  I just didn’t want the suggestion out there that the Reasserters are always reliable to listen to and the Reappraisers never are.

February 25, 5:26 pm | [comment link]
27. nwlayman wrote:

By “time to burn” I suggest that anyone who has time to discuss religion with KJS has alot of time on their hands.  I seem to have been correct, by a look at the comment from Herself in a later post today.

February 25, 5:55 pm | [comment link]
28. David Wilson wrote:

The clergy of our district (10 if we all show up) are meeting with Bishop Duncan tomorrow morning for the daily office, for prayer, for support and for fellowship.  It’s not just “time to burn” we actually enjoy the gathering.

February 25, 7:29 pm | [comment link]
29. physician without health wrote:

I am coming late to this thread but agree with Tom #7.  I wish when she came to Alabama that I had some one on one time with her, to ask her questions, listen to what she had to say, and then to know where to engage her in conversation.  I think that I got a good idea of where she was coming from, about 180 degrees opposite of me.

February 25, 11:46 pm | [comment link]
30. Kendall Harmon wrote:

Active clergy means clergy serving is any active capacity in any parish in the diocese or on diocesan staff etc.  Bishop Hathaway was there, for example (he serves at Saint Helena’s, Beaufort).  No one was turned away.  It was limited by diocesan leadership to allow for a more congenial interchange as we have a lot of retired clergy from all over the place.

February 26, 12:25 am | [comment link]
31. Kendall Harmon wrote:

Bishop Allison would have been most welcome, btw.  He was spoken of very favorably and fondly by Bishop Lawrence in his opening remarks.

February 26, 12:26 am | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): A painful past sparks concern about Obama’s safety

Previous entry (below): The Feast of Saint Matthias

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)