THE MCJ

A BOOK BY ITS COVER

Dr. Mabuse on modern liturgical vestments:

So what now is the point of liturgical vestments, in a church that no longer has anything to say about God? Modernists like Schori are too proud to just take over what was there before – it requires humility to accept what the ages have given us, and submit ourselves to the same customs that have shaped those who came before. A true modernist will want to demonstrate that he is not just the new caretaker, but the undisputed master. So what is old is cast out, to make sure that there is no bridge back from the Brave New World. And maybe there’s also that dark pleasure in deforming what has been valued by others that I’ve sensed before. As Belloq said to Indiana Jones, “Dr. Jones. Again you see there is nothing you can possess that I cannot take away.”

Read the whole thing.

I think there's a direct correlation between these vestments, these vestments, this sermon and this sermon.  Anyone who wears the vestments pictured at those two links is not a theologically-serious person and Mrs. Schori's two sermons bear this out.  There is nothing there; Schori simply emotes at great length for several minutes.

Unfortunately, this sartorial trend seems to be the rule rather than the exception in the Anglican world.  And while I realize that this nonsense is not restricted to Anglicans, I think that vestments like these demonstrate as well as any sermon possibly could that much of western Anglicanism has become a church governed entirely by its emotions.

Consider.  People didn't much like being called "miserable offenders" and didn't care to hear that certain activities they enjoyed were wrong so the substantive theology of the prayer book was torn out and thrown away.  Later on it was discovered that if certain women had to sing too many male pronouns, their self-esteem would be shattered so we obviously had to eviscerate the hymnal to prevent that from happening.

Was a serious theological case for women's ordination laid out in front of the whole church?  There were plenty against it but nothing that I can remember in favor.  The idea's adherents apparently felt they didn't have to; to these, it was a self-evident issue of what they perceived to be "justice."  The theological case made for Gene Robinson was laughably inept.  But consecrating Robbie made everybody feel all warm and toasty so they hid behind the canons or tossed around phrases like "movement of the spirit."

Whose fault is it?  Women's ordination and all that caring, nurturing, emotional preaching they do?  No.  It would be a mistake to lump all ordained female Episcopalians in with lightweights like Mrs. Schori.  There are, for example, not many more formidable theological minds around than Alice C. Linsley.  But in the modern Episcopal Church, the Alice Linsleys go nowhere while the Katharine Jefferts Schoris rise to the very top.

And this is the heart of the problem.  As Dr. Mabuse rightly notes, the Episcopal Church, "no longer has anything to say about God."  Too many Episcopalians don't want to be challenged.  They want to be affirmed.  They don't want to hear that what they did last Saturday night is a sin and shouldn't be engaged in.  They want to hear that God wuvs dem DIS MUCH no matter what they do or who they do it to.

So the Katharine Jefferts Schoris of the church preach emotional sermons about God's unqualified love and acceptance of everybody and how Jesus never turned anyone away and let's all focus on the Millennium Development Goals because that's what the Gospel's really all about, isn't it?  They wear emotional clothing to demonstrate that they are not concerned about that boring theology stuff but are caring, in-touch, emotional people.  And they guarantee that western liberal Anglicanism will have a common experience hopefully very soon.

A really colorful funeral.

Posted on 11/10/2006 1:36:37 PM , 44 comments