Decades before she was elected presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, when even the priesthood seemed an unlikely calling, a teenage Katharine Jefferts Schori wrestled with big questions through the night.
In the darkness of the Stanford University chapel, she pondered the usual puzzles of young adulthood: Where do I belong? Why am I here? But Jefferts Schori was also hunting bigger fish””how to reconcile her Christian faith with the science she was learning as a biology major.
“How to make sense of the wonders of creation and the scientific descriptions of how they came to be,” Jefferts Schori recalled in an interview in her office here, “I hadn’t had any conscious assistance in how to deal with that as a child.”
[blockquote] “She’s a model for how religion does not require a person’s background in another field to be hidden, left behind, or displaced, but rather can [b]enrich[/b] their faith,†Smith-Moran said. [/blockquote] Bovine manure can enrich farmland.
“The Rev. Barbara Smith-Moran, a 63-year-old astronomer and Episcopal priest in Everett, Mass., said Jefferts Schori brings a rich, new vocabulary to the church.”
Yes, yes she does and rich new ideas too. Unfortunately these innovations don’t square with Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
[KJS]“My way of looking at the world is shaped by my training as a scientist” Shouldn’t she view the world of science through the eyes of a Christian? She calls herself a scientist yet beyond her training, how many papers in refereed journals did she publish? Her curriculum Vitae is as thin as the soup made from the shadow of a starved pigeon. (Apologies to Mark Twain and Abe Lincoln).
Curses, foiled again. Every time I pick something like this up in hopes that, contrary to all the evidence adduced thus far, this woman will actually display some inkling of the theological depth she alludes to at the end of this article. Yet once again, we see no plumbing of theological depths, only some paddling around in the shallows and a kiddie game of running up the beach every time a wave comes in. I have no reason to think Mrs. Schori is a bad scientist. She is unquestionably a bad theologian. Indeed, she appears not to be one to speak of at all. I doubt it’s her fault, particularly – it’s more likely that she simply accepted the fraudulant pile of pseudo-intellectual poo they handed out at CDSP as the real thing and she simply doesn’t have the formation to recognize what a bill o’ goods she is holding.
It may also be that the author of this article left out all the interesting things she had to say, leaving us with some insipid gibberish about how the organic contributors to homosexuality somehow make it part of the created order. So are, inter alia, earthquakes, gall stones, bipolar disorder, man-eating sharks, planet-killing asterids, and loco weed. In light of the goodness-yet-fallenness of creation, it requires a smidge more than noting the lack of conscious human volition in crediting any particular phenomenon to God’s intention for His creation. There is mystery to be contemplated in the fact of God’s having made a world wherein it is possible for people to suffer from involuntary desires the fulfillment of which violate direct intention and command of God. No indication of such contemplation here.
Anyway, I guess we’ll have to take her word for it that she reconciles science and Christianity in some profound way (there is some hint of promise in the reference to the increasingly commonplace understanding the the dual nature of light, for instance, points to the both/and character of Divine Revelation). Maybe some day someone will elect to print some actual profundity coming from the woman. It is to be hoped.
Another ‘dog bites man’ story. I’m really getting bored with this old, tired, totally anticipatible events being passed off as something noteworthy. The woman is apostate. Of course, she is cool with all things Darwin. Duh!
Although I share the reservations of many about the Presiding Bishop’s understanding of theology, I can’t say I really found that much to object to in what she said in this interview.
I was struck, however, by the irony of her assertion: “I think it’s pretty clear from scientific studies that homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, has got a significant component that is determined before birth,†she said. “It is, at least from a theological perspective, part of the created order. … It’s the church’s job to help people live holy lives however they’ve been created, and sexuality is part of our creation.â€
So true! So why isn’t she trying to help them live holy lives?
#6. Robert A.
“So true! So why isn’t she trying to help them live holy lives?”
1. I don’t believe she sees homosexual behavior as unholy. She would say that it is blessed by God.
2. “male homosexuality, has got a significant component that is determined before birth”. That does not make it determinative post birth. It’s amazing how much revisionists want to be behaviorists unless it serves their purposes to use biological determinants of behavior.
This is the part that struck me:
[blockquote]“I hadn’t had any conscious assistance in how to deal with that as a child.†[/blockquote]
It reminds me how important it is for us to teach our children well. I worked as a campus minister with an evangelical organization for ten years or so and now I am a college professor. In both lines of work I have been dismayed by the fact that most of the Christian students who come to my campus have very little idea how to think as Christians. The two most popular strategies I see them deploy when faced with challenging material are (1) reject the challenging material and retreat into anti-intellectualism; and (2) reject their faith and upbringing, when they find the challenging material more substantive. Both of these are, I think, errors. Who knows? Maybe good Sunday school classes–in which the children were taught how to *think* as Christians–could have prevented a Schori. I don’t mean to excuse Schori for her poor thinking; but I do see her as a cautionary example.
Lacoon,
I was going to post the same quote:
[i]“How to make sense of the wonders of creation and the scientific descriptions of how they came to be,†Jefferts Schori recalled in an interview in her office here, “I hadn’t had any conscious assistance in how to deal with that as a child.â€[/i]
and say that our children STILL don’t get that guidance since ID and alternate theories of origins are not allowed in the schools. See the movie “Expelled” for examples.
Science is the new religion here. Not only is it with regard to creaton, but also with regard to fall, atonement, and restoraton. As previously pointed out, scripture, tradition and reason are out of the picture. This is an entirely new gospel and the article is shocking.
Dcn Dale: Thanks for your replies. My question was really rhetorical, since I assumed your #1 answer would be understood by anyone who appreciated the irony of her pronouncement. Regarding your second answer, personally my take on this is slightly different. I think an argument can be made that homosexuality post birth can, at least in some cases, be regarded as determinative, so I am not convinced it is the church’s job, necessarily, to try and change this in the individual. She should, however, educate church members as to what God considers to be holy, and assist them to lead such lives.
#8, 9, and 10: I do not consider the article to be shocking. She is commenting, as a scientist, on the contributions of another scientist on the 200th anniversary of his birth. It is unfortunate, that she did not take the opportunity, as the leader of a Christian Church, to offer a more theological view, but I doubt any sound bite she might have offered would have satisfied very many of the article’s readers. Whilst ID can be presented as a justifiable expression of both the theological and scientific views, the Creationists have co-opted it in such a sloppy fashion, it will be increasingly difficult to convince others of its worth.
#9 LibraryJim, I hear you, but on the other hand, I don’t really want the schools teaching my kids about religion anyway. I just wish we in the church did a better job of it.
#11 Robert A., I don’t find it shocking either; I find it representative of our age.
Quote “..the heart of man ( & woman ) is exceedly evil who can find it.” The Grace of God is sufficient for all but it must be accepted completely for the heart to be changed. We cannot do it ourselves!!
Laocoon: Agreed; although I think there is still some hope for the age. The PB, however, seems to need more than that. She needs our prayers.
We need a scientist leading a Christian organization just as much as a scientific research team needs to be led by a theologian. At least Einstein did not believe in a God who tossed dice. We could call this new theology Christian Science but another gnostic has already claimed it.
#11. Robert A.,
“She is commenting, as a scientist, on the contributions of another scientist on the 200th anniversary of his birth.”
She is only a scientist in the sense that she was trained in the scientific method. So are students in an introductory psychology course. She has not distinguished herself as someone trained in scientific inquiry even though she has an earned doctorate.
The Scientific Method is not harmonious, philosophically speaking, with theology, which is a branch of philosophy. Its basis does have relation to philosophy, insofar as the practice of inductive reasoning pertains. It would pertain to theology insofar as it would engender orderly thinking in general, which does not seem to be the case here. And, I doubt, PB Schori has little or no philosophical training at all. I shouldn’t say that that such training should be a prerequisite for Holy Orders, but that it is desirable. It’s the purportedness of deep thinking and the glassy-eyed acceptance of it by so many that doesn’t add up.
Robert A. #14: Amen. I’ll join you in offering prayers for her.
#19. Hopper,
“Is this really about Presiding Bishop Schori’s credentials? I think not.” This thread is titled “As Darwin turns 200, Jefferts Schori the scientist reflects. She is not a scientist because she was trained in the scientific method. She is not a theologian because she attended CDSP. She did not even reflect on Darwin. She has essentially no paper trail in Science or Theology. Additionally, she claims to have been Dean of a divinity school which turned out to be a Sunday school class. Is she the Presiding Bishop of TEC? Yes she is.
Hopper #22,
Here is the core of my problems with KJS if we grant that she is a scientist . “Jefferts Schori said science informs everything from how she interprets the Bible to her views on homosexuality—two subjects that now embroil her church and the larger Anglican Communion.” How does one view the mysteries of the Faith through the lens of science and not eliminate anything that is not observable and quantifiable? I was trained as a scientist also and always viewed my profession through the lens of my faith. I am in no way attempting to demean the field of science but science is self limiting and only one perspective. Now you can go on and on about this because it seems that you are more interested in being correct and to countering the “real issue with KJS” than being edified by others on this thread. I gave you the scientific answer you wanted. KJS is the Presiding Bishop of TEC. This is quantifiable and observable.