http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/05/02/bishop-predicts-gay-union-blessings-‘in-our-lifetimes’/

The PB is quoted as saying”

“‘Recognize that people come to different conclusions out of a deep sense of faith, and honor that,’ Jefferts Schori said. ‘I think a lot of our difficulty right now is because we’re assuming the worst of people who disagree with us. When we can recognize another person as a faithful Christian who’s simply come to a different conclusion, we start at a much better place than we do when we assume that person is our enemy. So pray blessings on people who disagree with you.’”

Reading these very words of the PB two minutes after posting what I just did is bizarre. To quote myself succinctly in response to the PB’s statement from above:

“The connotation, given the broader context of the PBs other messages is that ’speaking in tongues’ is really a way of saying that the Spirit leads some in the Body to vastly different inspirations, which others might not recognize”

and…

“However, to call them ‘enemy’ in return is tactically impossible, because it would simply end the Hegelian dialetical process. Without the continued ‘conversation’ there is no chance of winning.”

and finally…

“Liberals are not free to be publicly angry, which makes them very angry privately.”

Douglas

“We belong to God, whom we know in Jesus…”

The corollary would therefore be “others belong to God, whom they know in (fill in blank)”

The statement that we “belong to God” needs no qualification, but yet the PB is careful to define belonging as being dependent on the specifics of whom “we know”. In essence, she is saying that “Jesus is Lord for us”, and is asserting through a kind of doublespeak that Jesus is not really Lord of everything. He is just Lord of us Christians who believe in him. Christian knees will bow to him, but not “every knee”, as Paul suggests in Phil.

Another example

“…speaking in many tongues”

Surey, +Schori does not mean glossolalia in any sense of the historical meaning rooted in Acts. She does not mean either literal angelic languages or literal foreign languges. Instead, the PB spiritualizes the meaning of the word. The connotation, given the broader context of the PBs other messages is that “speaking in tongues” is really a way of saying that the Spirit leads some in the Body to vastly different inspirations, which others might not recognize. Tongues are leveraged to become the means of a Hegelian dialectic where all that matters is the conversation. She is convinced that conservatives don’t understand the inspiration of her motives and therefore we can’t “interpret” as Paul puts it, her “tongues.” Hence, she and those in agreement with her are doing the inspired “speaking in tongues” to unspiritual people who don’t yet get it. Conservatives are the enemy, and there is a feigned graciousness in attempting to “see the image of God” in those that reject this inspiration.

Notice the “challenge” to keep “searching” for “the image of God” in those who call TEC “enemy”. This is a gracious way of saying “We can’t see anything at all Godly in those that disagree with us.” It’s code-speak for “wow, those conservatives are dumb.” However, to call them “enemy” in return is tactically impossible, because it would simply end the Hegelian dialetical process. Without the continued “conversation” there is no chance of winning. Those engaged in the Hegelian dialectic model must at all costs keep the parties at the table. In this case, the “table” is simply public rhetoric, where the battle in the spiritual realm fought by words takes place. Conservatives are free to be publicly and privately angry. Liberals are not free to be publicly angry, which makes them very angry privately.

She leverages prophetic imagery in an abstract way that is convincing at first glance. But a deeper penetration of her words here, informed by a cursory assessment of the broader direction and actions of TEC, reveal that everything she states in this message has a double entendre. The words sound “christian”, but can only be understood correctly by those with the right revelation, or gnosis. This gnosis is defined by the PB and it’s liberal bishops. Membership in the gnosis club, at this point, is paid in “inclusiveness” dollars. The more you spend, the smarter you get!

There’s my 3 cents!

Douglas

I believe that the power of the Holy Spirit is capable of penetrating any human heart. Thanks be to God.

Canon G+