Saturday, July 15, 2006

The Mother Jesus Sermon

SERMON OF RT. REV. KATHARINE SCHORI
Presiding Bishop-ELECT.
June 21, 2006

Last Sunday morning, I woke very early but it was still dark. I must have been thinking about something. I wanted to go for a run, but had to wait for enough light to see. Ran by back of Hyatt. The men working by the dumpster were startled.

I saw a man from convention center and we said a quiet good morning. Then I found a quiet green park in the middle of this city. There was a man standing there, in an orange reflective vest standing by orange cones. I said good morning; he responded in kind. Then there was the bleary-eyed fellow with several bags. Said good morning to him, too but when past him on street, not the sidewalk.

A rabbit was hopping along the sidewalk. It looked at me and we shared a moment of greeting. A woman delivering Sunday papers, getting out of the car and delivering the paper to doorsteps. She didn’t get out of the car until I was well past her.

On the other side of the freeway, I found two guys, just going to work. They, too, looked weary.

There was some degree of weariness in all of them. Trying to greet each other, but the sense of relationship, whether out of fear, or caution, meant that we had a long way to go.

Can we dream of a world where all creatures, human and not, can greet each other without fear? Christ said his kingdom was “not of this world.” His willingness to go to the cross is so radical that fear has no import. The love that he invites us to imitate has no possibility of reactive or violent response. His followers didn’t fight back.

He calls us friends not agents of fear.

If we are going to grow to full statute of Christ, our growing will need to be rooted in a soil of internal peace, confidant and planted in the overwhelming love of God. Given so abundant, so profligate, that we are caught in similar abandonment. The full measure of God, cast down and overflowing, drives out our , self-interest. That is what fear is. A reaction; an unconscious response. As if we are saying, “that’s mine and I can’t go on living without it.”

Whether its my bank account or my sense of control. Unless we can make sense of the blood of the cross, we will live in fear. That bloody cross brings new life into the world. That sweaty, bloody, tear-stained cross bears life. Our mother Jesus gives new birth to a new creation and we are his children.

We have to give up fear. What did the godly messengers say when they turned up to the shepherds: fear not. You are God’s beloved and he is well pleased with you. When we know ourselves beloved of God, we can respond in less fearful ways. When we realize this, we can response to the homeless man; seek and reach beyond the defenses of others.

Our job as we go out from this convention is to go out without fear and lay down our sword and shield; fill the hungry and set the prisoners free. Lay down our self-control and serve God’s image of the beloved in the weakest, poorest and least included. Not to squabble over our heritage.

But to share that name of the beloved with the whole world. AMEN

I did not hear this sermon when it was delivered, and I came to it now hoping I missed out on some contextual point that might make the reference to 'mother Jesus' palatable. Seeing the context now, I must admit to confusion. That paragraph has some superficially strong cross language -- but the more I contemplate it, the more it looks like a deliberate connection of the cross with childbirth -- bloody, sweaty, tear-stained, etc. She's bypassing the redemptive virtue in Christ's blood and calling it creative instead?

So the next question to be asked, regardless of the orthodoxy of her reinterpretation, is, Why would +Jefferts Schori say this, particularly at this moment to this audience (Gen. Convention the day after her election)? Why would she only mention Jesus once, and that in the context of a radically feminist re-interpretation of the merit of the crucifixion? I can only surmise that she put it here because she's honest, and this is her own theology which she wanted to share with everyone, letting them know who she is and what she believes. +Jefferts Schori has shown herself to be not un-mindful of political dynamics in the church -- is she speaking here directly to the orthodox (who, incedentally, were mostly attending the alternative mass down the street), saying we should not fear her or the future -- if so, why throw in this obviously challenging re-imaging? Was she speaking to the progressives, telling them they need not fear -- what, winning? ostricization by the Communion? Maybe the collective wisdom of Whitehall's readers can unravel this mystery.

9 comments:

gwb said...

Fr. Thorpus and Jody,

I agree with both of you. To be perfectly honest, I kind of liked the connection she drew between our Lord's passion and childbirth. I don't think its particularly heterodox -- unless of course it is making the Holy Cross purely creative RATHER THAN redepmtive -- i.e. as opposed to Creative (and re-creative) and redemptive all at once, etc. A denial of his very real masculinity and filiation, rather than an ascription of maternity or something. Its a favorite tactic of liberals to apply feminine predicates to God in order to tear down patriarchy, and when met with protest, then to cite John of the Cross, Teresa of Avilla, et alia, as a kind of "orthodox" trump card. The difference is: when the saints (and even Scripture occasionally) use feminine talk for God, they do it constructively. Feminists nowadays more often than not do the same thing but deconstructively. They seek to oppose and tear apart what they see as systemic oppression. That wasn't on the agenda of the mystics, as far as I know.

The real question is, as you both point out, why one earth would Ms. Schori say something like that? It could only have been in order to be provocative, I think. Either she knew it would bother and offend many of the orthodox, or she didn't. If she didn't, she's an idiot. If she did, then she was callously and maliciously rubbing salt in an already painful wound -- she was, in other words, engaging in the tearing-down process, in deconstructing.


I don't think she's an idiot.

But so much for the outgoing PB's perpetually trumpeted "reconciling love."

gwb said...

SK,

You know an awful lot about theories of atonement! But I don't think I missrepresented Schori's sermon. I didn't even represent it. I even said I liked the part everyone got so upset about.

Look, to rehash more formally, a disjunctive syllogism expressing my critique of Ms. Schori -- a critique which, you will notice, has nothing to do with theology:

Either she knew calling our Lord "Mother Jesus" would offend convervatives or she didn't.

If she didn't know, then she's an idiot.

She's not an idiot.

Therefore she knew it would offend conservatives.

Its a sound argument. With all the turmoil and hooplah, with half the Anglican world furious at ECUSA for all of its monkeying around with gender and sexuality, why in the world did she have to go and say something that could only make matters worse? What could she have meant by it? It certainly wasn't NECESSARY to call our Lord "Mother Jesus". If she just HAD to feminize Jesus, she could have used a simile -- "Jesus is LIKE a mother in the following respects..." etc. That alone would have ameliorated the offense enough to bleed off much opposition. But she didn't. She blazed right ahead. WHY? There can only be one answer. She was aiming to offend, to cause a stink.

Furthermore, its just not nice. Its bad politics. Its not the least conciliatory. Etc. Etc. Its certainly not what ECUSA (liberal or conservative) needs right now. And I don't think its what ECUSA needs in a Presiding Bishop.

Unknown said...

I think there are other options to characterize Bp. Jefferts-Schori's approach here. Check out her interview with Time magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211587,00.html

She could actually be an idiot -- no, I don't really mean that, but rather a version of that hypothesis -- she could actually think there's a 'consensus' opinion in TEC that favors feminist theology, especially if (and someone from her diocese would need to confirm this) there just aren't many outspoken conservatives in her diocese. She could be sheltered and think that the conservative faction out there consists of David Virtue and the CT-6, for a grand total of 7. That's hyperbole, of course, but the point is she COULD think that whatever conservatives there are out there who would be offended at this are just a few rabble-rousing radicals who are on their way out anyway, such that the vast bulk of TEC supports her brand of feminist liberation theology and really wanted to hear that image. I think she believes that this is just where our church is, that what we really, really need right now is a hardcore feminist/liberation theologian to lead us charging into the gospel of social activism, and that helping people is surely something people from all walks of Anglican theology can rally around until we forget those silly little doctrinal issues and get on with mission.

Unknown said...

Sorry that URL didn't materialize. Just google "Time Jefferts Schori" and you'll get it.

Unknown said...

Thanks for the conversation about the orthodoxy of the metaphor. My problem with it is right along WB's lines -- technically, it's acceptable, even valuable, but in the context of radical heterodoxy from the feminist movement (which is not to suggest that all feminists are radically heterodox), it rankles.

Was the Via Dolorosa masculine to start with? is there something inherently masculine about the crucifixion, such that women just can't understand it without thinking of childbirth? If she hadn't said, "mother Jesus", she would have maintained maximum communication potential -- those who find thinking of the cross in the usual way helpful would have done so and those who would like to explore the childbirth metaphor could have done so; plus it wouldn't have overtly offended so many people. That begs the question of motive, as we've discussed.

There's also a good point that C.S. Lewis brought up in his essay on Priestesses in the Church
(http://www.acahome.org/ , link to "Important Documents"), which is essentially that God's own use of masculine imagery in His self-revelation is significant and even formative for the Church. To have a church, or a sermon, that gives priority to images of God not divinely revealed (regardless of the images' gender preference) risks looking "not near so much like the Church". It's a good read.

gwb said...

SK,

What are you saying? That it would have been totally unreasonable to expect her not to use stridently feminist theological language in first sermon as PB elect? Horse hockey.

I don't grant that "her words are bound to be misconstrued no matter what she says." That simply isn't true. She could easily have gotten across her point that our Lord's passion is akin in some ways to childbirth, in ways more palatable to those of us who are wary of feminist theologies or theologies exclusively cognizant of social activism.

I think you're being captious, SK. The fact is, there is a significant minority within ECUSA that thinks ECUSA has been hijacked by feminists and social activists. And judging from the resolutions General Convetion passed and DIDN'T pass, I'd say their fears are justifid.

Its not the PB-elect's "words," per se, that are the problem. I stand by my point: she didn't have to put it the way she put it. Feminine talk about God may be LICIT, and it may sometimes be helpful, but its certainly never an imperative, and it certainly was not helpful in the context of Gen Con 2006. There are a thousand and one things she could have talked about, and a thousand and one alternative ways of talking about what she DID talk about.

Anonymous said...

As disingenuous as I believe SK is in this debate, I do think he makes one valid point. I really believe that she represents the opinion of most Episcopalians--as she was "democratically" elected by your processes.

Come Home To Rome!!

gwb said...

SK,

First, I can't believe you think David Virtue is a credible reporter.

Second, conservatives don't need to look for opportunities to paint ECUSA in a bad light. Liberals do it for them. Cf. Schori's sermon.

Third, calling the excommunication (or something -- what do you mean exactly?) of ECUSA "eliminating the body" is a bit odd. Do you mean that TEC is THE Body of Christ? I would think it more akin to the amputation of a grangrenous toe. Or maybe a more Biblical image for the expulsion of ECUSA would be of THE Body vomiting. It is, after all, positively FILLED with the neither hot nor cold.

Fourth, you say

"The fact that she is a feminist and a social activist is no secret. Does anyone conservative or otherwise believe that either of those positions is inherently heretical?"

Good Lord, SK. For one who goes on and on about misconstruing what people are saying, you sure are good at it. The problem, as I have said, isn't being a feminist / social activist. The problem is being MERELY a feminist and social activist.

Fifth, I suppose if Christ died to atone for our fear, then this sermon is spot on, 100%, rock-solid orthodox. But all this time I was thinking that he atoned for sins...?

gwb said...

I withdraw my criticism. Ms. Schori, and her sermon, are paragons of orthodox catholicity. Its a relief finally to realize that she and St. Paul teach the same faith.