Mission: Unclear.

The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, The Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, gives some Episcopal missionaries a pep talk. Sort of:

“I met recently with a group of appointed missionaries of the Episcopal Church. They gathered for 10 days in New York for orientation before leaving to do mission. It was an enormous privilege to meet them and see their energy and enthusiasm (which means "filled with God") for this adventure.”

I think we have our new slogan: “The Episcopal Church: It’s not just a job – it’s an adventure!”

“We had an opportunity for conversation, and one young man shared his concern about how to understand the Great Commission, particularly the directive to baptize, especially in a multifaith environment. It was a wonderful question that engages us all at one level or another.”

The Presiding Bishop chooses “another.” And elaborates.

“How do we engage in evangelism, and particularly in the specific directives of Matthew 28:19-20? Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

How about by doing just that, Kate+? Seems pretty cut ant dry to me. (But then again, I’m not very bright - I’ve only read one book by Jacques Derrida.) Are we really sending out missionaries to witness to our Faith who have a “concern” about, well, being a witness to our Faith? Apparently so. But our Presiding Bishop whips out some “context” to deal with the matter.

“This passage marks the end of Matthew's Gospel, and its explicitly Trinitarian language should make us aware that it probably reflects the practice of early Christian communities, some time after the death and resurrection of Jesus.”

And we all know how superstitious, bigoted, anti-feminist and homophobic those early Christian communities could be. So this Baptism thing is not a big deal - it’s sooo yesterday. It’s easy to get around it if you rephrase the question, so Kate+ does just that:

“Yet the question remains: How do we respond to this sending of the disciples, in which we understand all Christians participate, into a multifaith world?”

Well, by letting them know what their mission is, for starters. I thought the Great Commission the very basis for mission work, but again, I must be showing my ignorance. Kate+ says we are a better church than all that pushy making / baptising / commanding stuff:

“If we believe that Jesus' saving work is for the whole world, that should relieve some of our immediate anxiety. He is pretty clear that he is not here to judge the world, but to love the world and invite all into relationship with Love itself (John 12:32 -- And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself -- and John 12:47 -- I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world). Judgment comes at the end of time, and until then you and I repeatedly are urged not to judge others.”

So the foundation of mission work is to not be judgmental, because judgments are bad. Unless someone is trying to “steal Church property”, then a judgment or two is pretty swell, huh Kate+? (Especially when affirmed by a higher court ruling in your favor. Yessiree.) The Great Commission does not judge, Kate+, so what’s with all the anxiety? It calls us to spread the Good News of Christ Jesus to draw the world to Him. That is why you are sending these missionaries, isn’t it, Kate+?

“Yet the ancient question remains: Is baptism necessary for salvation?”

Are you saying now that Baptism isn’t needed to be a Christian? If so, what’s the necessity of the uber-authoratative Baptismal Covenant? Can we ditch that now?

“Theologians have wrestled with this in a number of ways and made some remarkably gracious and open-ended responses. Vatican II affirmed that salvation is possible outside the church, even though some statements by Roman Catholic authorities in years since have sought to retreat from that position. Karl Rahner spoke about "anonymous Christians," whose identity is known to God alone. John MacQuarrie recognized the presence of the Logos or Word in other traditions.”

By “gracious and open-ended,” don’t you mean “saw it our way and were vague enough we could read into it what we wanted?” And since when did you start looking to those curia-loving Papists for inspiration? I thought you and the House of Bishops saw them as the ultimate threat. Vatican II did say some nice things about other faiths, but Rome had to clarify that after folks (like you) started seeing it as an “open-ended” response. Karl Rahner did, in his ‘Theological Investigations’, speak of "anonymous Christians.” But didn’t he use that term only with respect those who are practitioners of other faiths who were ignorant of the Gospel? Once the Gospel has been revealed to them, didn’t Rahner say they are no longer anonymous, - and their earlier faith was no longer valid? Rahner, it seems, saw Christianity as the exclusive avenue to God. Unlike you, Kate+.

“But the more interesting question has to do with baptism itself. Like all sacraments, we understand baptism as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace (Catechism, BCP, p. 857). It is an outward recognition of grace that is both given and already present through God's action.”

Yes, it is. On that we agree. Maybe that is why it is important.

“When we look at some of the lives of holy people who follow other religious traditions, what do we see? Mahatma Gandhi and the Dalai Lama both exemplify Christ-like lives. Would we assume that there is no grace present in lives like these? A conclusion of that sort seems to verge on the only unforgivable sin, against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:30-32).”

So to criticize Gandhi or the Dali Lama is now…….. blasphemy? I had no idea. Was that voted on at the last General Convention? Look, these two men do exemplify religious lives. And I respect them for it. But really, Kate+; aren’t we taking this moral relativism thing just a tad too far?

“If I believe that God is more than I can imagine, conceptualize or understand, then I must be willing to acknowledge that God may act in ways that are beyond my ken, including in people who do not follow the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Acts in ways that are beyond your “ken?” I bet He acts in ways that are beyond your "barbi", too.

“Note that I include our Jewish brothers and sisters, for Scripture is very clear that God made a covenant with Israel. That covenant was not abrogated in Jesus. Scripture also speaks of a covenant with Abraham that extends to his offspring, including Ishmael. Our Muslim brothers and sisters claim him as their ancestor. In some way, God continues to act in the tradition we call Islam.”

I think we finally got the Presiding Bishop’s take on that Episcopal priest who is also being a practicing Muslim. It’s OK; we’re all related, you know. GROUP HUG!

“Well, if God is already at work in other religious traditions, why would we bother to teach, make disciples or baptize?”

I think that Rahner fellow you quote had an answer for that. See above.

”The focus of our evangelical work can never be imposing our own will (despite the wretched examples of forced conversion in the history of Christianity), but there is a real urgency to sharing the good news.”

Yeah, us Christians today are so ruthless when it comes to getting converts. (I was actually press-ganged at fifteen.) And so unlike those warm, friendly chats Islamic missionaries have used over the centuries to spread their faith, or in their dealing with the other “religious traditions” out there.

“Can you imagine not saying to another, "Let me introduce you to my best friend. I think you would enjoy getting to know him"? We are certainly not loath to do that when it comes to the latest movie or book or restaurant we've enjoyed, and unless we are leery of sharing, we will not stay silent long.”

No, I love to share. So have you seen ‘The Passion of the Christ”, Kate+?

“But let's go back to baptism. What is the urgency? It might be helpful to reflect on what we claim happens in baptism. We are washed, (usually) anointed, forgiven, welcomed as members of Christ's body, receive the Holy Spirit, initiated into the mysteries (welcomed to communion) and begin to take up life as a saint.”

What is the urgency?? It’s a Sacrament of the Church, Kate+, that’s what. You even said so earlier. What about the Eucharist? Is there any urgency there, or can we ditch that if there are enough votes at General Convention?

”We act in all those ways toward infants who are as yet largely unaware of what is happening to them, and we do it in a sense of eschatological hope that the newly baptized will grow into an ability to claim those promises for him or herself. However, we only baptize adults who are willing and able to claim that hope for themselves.”

That is because the parents speak for the child until the child can decide on their own. Back in the Dark Ages (say, 1971) you had to be at least 12 to be confirmed and receive Communion. You had to understand what it was you were doing, and why.

”The evangelical question has to do with free will. Should we, shall we, impose that on those who do not fully desire it? Maybe it would be helpful to recognize that baptism is not the goal, but rather relationship with God (or discipleship). We understand that to be a relationship in God's Word, whom we call Christ.”

No one is trying to impose anything on anyone, Kate+. Please. Are you implying that the Sacrament of Baptism is an imposition on a person’s free will? No, Baptism is not a goal. Eternal life through the salvation offered by Christ Jesus – that is a goal. And one worth preaching, through mission, without any concerns.

”Our evangelical work has more to do with the gracious recognition of God already at work in the world about us than it does with imposing our will on others. When Jesus says "make disciples," that has a great deal to do with inviting others into relationship with the God we know, particularly as we know God in Christ. I do not believe it has anything to do with forcible or manipulative conversion.”

I don’t like forcible or manipulative religious conversion, either, Kate+. You win more friends with honey then you do with vinegar. Or beheadings. That is why I support confronting Al-queda and their radical fellow travelers the world over, because I do not want anyone’s will imposed on others - I want others free to figure it out for themselves in peace.

”It has more to do with showing and telling, through word (Word) and deed, what it is like to know the gift of that relationship -- to demonstrate the unutterable attractiveness of that relationship so that another can not imagine anything more desirable. I do not believe it has anything to do with instilling or playing on human fear (which is, after all, one of the things we renounce in baptism).”

”How might our evangelical work be different if we began with the disciple-making part (the befriending we know in Jesus) rather than counting coup in numbers of baptisms achieved? It is the latter that has given evangelism a bad name through the ages. My sense is that our evangelical work is likely to be more gracious if we focus on how our own lives exemplify the actions we claim in baptism -- washing, forgiving, welcoming, demonstrating Holy Spirit, entering into communion, living as a holy one of God.”

With you there, Kate+. Sort of. I agree that words mean nothing if the example of deeds is not present. But in order to bring the Good News, people need to have it put into context (I know you love that word) of what we believe happens to those who turn away from God and are not reconciled to Him through Christ Jesus. And Baptism is the first outward and visible sign of the inner transformation that Reconciliation brings. If Baptism isn’t important, then when do we declare our renunciation of things like fear or evil? Couldn't we just let folks phone it in?

”Our very lives can be baptism, living water, new life born out of death, to those around us, even though they may not yet consciously claim membership in the body of Christ. Our understanding of eschatological hope is that, in the end, God will make right what is wrong or broken in this world. We are meant to live as though it is already happening.”

No Kate+ - our lives can be AN EXAMPLE of the transforming power of Baptism, but not the act itself. If that were so, why would we need priests, or Bishops, or…… Presiding Bishops? Or Church property? Can our very lives be, say, Absolution, too? Or can our very lives be Communion? These word games are so much fun, don’t you think, Kate? Too bad words mean things out here in the ignorant, have-to-look-up-the-meaning-of-“eschatological” world that most of us live in.

And for the record Kate+, I have done Episcopal mission work outside of the US. It was a transforming experience for me, and showed me the Power of God at work in the world more concretely than any experience I had in the past. I had NO concern about sharing, through Word and deed, the Good News of Christ Jesus with others.