Yes, I’m serious. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church herself taught my little REC Sunday School class. I guess 135 years away from the Episcopal Church is enough for her to let bygones be bygones.
During the week, I intended to teach on the Gospel lesson in which Jesus warns us to beware of false prophets in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15-21). I had a lesson prepared. And then I saw this:
Well, I had to change my lesson on the spot. Schori’s teaching is downright providential and taught the said Gospel lesson better than I could.
So I had my class watch the clip. Then, among other things, we noted the following:
1. How reasonable she sounds.
2. How she wears a collar and speaks in church just like a genuine Christian leader. The uninformed can be taken in by such things.
3. How she starts out with truth, i. e. Jesus did die for the whole world. God’s promises to the Jews indeed are not broken.
4. How she then uses that basis of truth on which Christians agree to veer in a completely different direction. Her departure is very subtle at first, but then accelerates.
5. If one is not very familiar with the basics of the faith, it is very easy to be taken in by such false teaching. Accordingly, the best way not to be taken in is to know the faith well. (I noted that those combating counterfeit money are trained by becoming familiar with real money.)
6. How her “fruit”, such as suing the faithful, is a good tip-off to her true colors.
Like I said, Presiding Bishop Schori taught my Sunday School class by illustrating the Gospel lesson very well.
And to think I once said that she shouldn’t even teach Sunday School. Mea culpa!
4 comments:
s/he said that people of other 'faiths' have direct access to the Father/Mother/Whatever.
promises not broken? well, no...but fulfilled in Christ.
schori should read Hebrews where Christ fulfills all the promises to Israel.
Schori's style, as you have accurately described it, is very similar to my ex-bishop's - Michael Ingham.
I find it useful when reading Ingham and Schori to start at the end and then read to the front. My hypothesis is that this is the way that they write: they decide first where they want to end up, and then search for an argument (any argument) that will get them there. No submission to scripture.
BRILLIANT approach, bro. You went yard.
I watched with utter amazement this clip and found abhorrent her method. It was nefarious. First, she says that God did not break his promises to the Jews in the death and resurrection of Christ. In fact he kept those promises in Christ, but she shifted the focus of Scripture away from its own positive message to point out gratuitously something God did not do, and entirely to serve her own agenda. Secondly, with no justification or explanation for doing so, she willy nilly transferred God's promises to Ishmael to Islam, making them his promises to Moslems. With this perversion in place she again focused on what God did not do in Christ with respect to those promises. What discloses her venomous antipathy to the Christian Faith is her determination to ignore all that God says he has accomplished in Christ with respect to his promises to his ancient people. The antidote for such contorted reasoning is 2 Corinthians 1:20.
Post a Comment