[Katharine] Jefferts Schori seems to delight in drawing such unexpected connections between her scientific background and her religious duties. She compares Episcopal bishops to humpback whales because they gather for a few days each year, learn to sing a new song together, then head home to teach the song to others. She says “gravity” is an apt translation of “kabod,” the Hebrew word for God’s glory, because it suggests something pervasive, substantial, and inescapable. And while God shouted down Job’s doubts by pointing to His awesomely fashioned hippopotamus, Jefferts Schori urges Episcopalians to consider the anableps (left). These four-eyed fish can see above and below water simultaneously””a good example for Christians conflicted about whether to salvage this world or just wait for the next one. The point of such examples, Jefferts Schori says, is to encourage the church to see itself with new eyes, stop bickering about finer points of doctrine, and get about the business of healing the sick, clothing the naked, and relieving the impoverished.
Ultimately, religion and science speak the same language, and impart the same lesson, she says. Each teaches that the world is made of connections and that actions in one place have consequences, often unforeseen, in other places and times. And nowhere are the effects of our deeds as grave as in how we care for the environment, a dear subject for the nature-loving presiding bishop who once trolled the seas. Numerous times, she has passionately urged believers, politicians, and all people of good will to make care of God’s creation their topmost priority. As she explained in testimony before the U.S. Senate in 2007, “As a priest, trained as a scientist, I take as a sacred obligation the faith community’s responsibility to stand on the side of truth””the truth of science as well as the truth of God’s unquenchable love for the world and all its inhabitants.” In the beginning, Katharine saw the world, and saw that it was good; in the end, she is trying to save it.
Indeed. Hmmmm. Ah yes.
I suppose a large part of the problem is “she” is trying to “save” the world. I’d rather put my faith in the real savior … who is someone we need because though the world was created to be good, it has fallen. But then I suppose that’s simply something which lies outside the perspective of the scientific approach.
[blockquote] But for the most part Jefferts Schori says science, rather than church politics, guides her thinking on the issue. Scientific studies strongly suggest that homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, is determined before birth, she says. In other words, being gay is God-given, rather than chosen. “What I frequently say is that the church’s job is to help people live holy lives however they’ve been created, and sexuality is part of our creation.†Jefferts Schori says a scientific perspective also pervades the way she reads Scripture, including the biblical passages that condemn homosexuality. “I don’t take pieces of out context. I want to understand the whole system. And the breadth of Scripture, over the long haul, is toward a broader and more inclusive community.â€[/blockquote]
There is far more evidence that alcoholism, or more precisely, has a genetic disposition. By her silly argument then, substance abuse is “God-given” and we should bless it.
Hey, we can start a new syncretism! Reggaepalianism. “Pass the gonja, mon.”
What idiocy.
There is far more evidence that alcoholism, or more precisely substance abuse…
“But for the most part Jefferts Schori says science, rather than church politics, guides her thinking on the issue. Scientific studies strongly suggest that homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, is determined before birth, she says.”
Two thoughts. First, Christians, or denominational organizations, should determine their moral (and doctrinal?) stance and teachings by what science “suggests?” What a hope for the world! Second, what constitutes “science” as opposed to “superstition” or “speculation” is to a large extent a social construct. That said, in the Graeco-Roman world of 2 millennia ago “science” (meaning “credible up-to-date thinking” or perhaps “intellectual attutudes embraced by the elite”) might be summarized under the word “gnostic.” What the Gnostics, in general and in variable sectarian ways, did was to fit the data of Christian revelation on the procrustean bed of “contemporary thinking” and cut it down to fit the requirements of the bed, using the “spare parts” to fill in empty spaces on the bed. It seems that Dr. J-S is adopting precisely the same “gnostic methodology” here. The implications for how to characterize the “ecological niche” that her denomination has come to occupy in the contemporary American religious I leave to readers of these comments.
Science requires precision and understanding of microcosms and how they fit to each other in the whole. You know, an appreciation for the individual; no wholesale generalizations. No sweeping statements that degrade the unique contributions of each part.
No “them and us” talk. Can it be that this fact has escaped the PB in her appreciation of humanity and her current policies of dissection in her Church?
Not exactly an unbiased report… (And don’t you love how conservatives are always “upset,” “angry,” or “outraged”? Why can’t reporters say that we disagree strenuously and are taking action to oppose needless innovation?)
“rarely stooping to preachiness or sentimentality.” I will grant that Bp Schori is seldom sentimental – but she is ALWAYS preachy.
She governs the organization and saves the world as effectively as she wrote grants and ran the seminary and does lawsuits. In fact, her mode of salvation seems to involve lawsuits, for all her disavowal of penal substitution and assertion of luv. A closer perusal of Isaiah by her would seem in order…….
Obviously Jefferts Schorri sees the role of the church as a social institution rather than a spiritual institution. Healing the sick, feeding the hungry and clothing the poor are very important functions of the church, but to make this the prime objective, makes the church little more than such estimable social institutions as a Rotary Club or Lions Club who do great work in taking care of material needs. But, the real role of the church is spiritual development – feeding the soul of the individual – with taking care of material needs second.
“Sexuality is part of our creation.” Do we create it? Does God create it? I thought she believed in evolution. Notice that in much TEC thinking everthing evolves but areas of special concern are part of God’s creation.
#8:
[blockquote]But, the real role of the church is spiritual development – feeding the soul of the individual – with taking care of material needs second. [/blockquote]
That sounds awfully gnostic. The two are the flip sides of the same coin. One is not more important than the other.
“From the Depths” – Seems to sum her up entirely. Nothing to ad.
Yes, that headline is a shocker. Is there a hidden (Gnostic) meaning there? Sort of like John 6:66 : ‘From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.’
[blockquote]Ultimately, religion and science speak the same language, and impart the same lesson[/blockquote]
Perhaps this is the heart of +KJS’s problems. Science answers questions of “what” and “how” rather well. It describes facts.
Religion, on the other hand, answers “who” and “why.” It describes truth.
So, on the issue of homosexuality, science (for now) says that it is inborn. While I dispute that homosexuality is always predetermined in birth or early in life, let’s assume for the sake of argument that this is a fact. That “fact” does not address who or why this occurs. Existence does not equate with divine approval.
The Truth, on the otherhand, describes the meaning behind the facts. For what reason does God allow men or women find attraction to the same sex. What does it say about God or creation that this exists.
By equating facts (what happens) with truth (why is occurs and what does it say about God), +KJS is actually making science her god, not the Holy Trinity. If scientific fact can trump religious truth (or be eqauted with religious truth) then science has become superior to religion.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Sharkey (KJS, with apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien) is a symptom, not a cause. She’s not the only one who needs to understand that science is about probabilities, not “truth”. At the end of the day, we’ve been given a magnificent planet to take care of and enjoy, but it’s also a dangerous one that we need to be on our guard against at times. I would suggest that Sharkey has rejected the message of T. H. Huxley’s Romaines Lecture (1893) that
“…the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.” (quoted from http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE9/E-E.html )
Sharkey also seems to have bought into the idea of the perfectibility of man, or at least of this world. There are those who don’t think this is possible. Huxley again:
“But if we may permit ourselves a larger hope of abatement of the essential evil of the world than was possible to those who, in the infancy of exact knowledge, faced the problem of existence more than a score of centuries ago, I deem it an essential condition of the realization of that hope that we should cast aside the notion that the escape from pain and sorrow is the proper object of life.”
Sharkey’s worldview is clearly different…
#2 i am afraid i am going to have to object on behalf of stoners AND rastas. no amount of pot could lead to ssb’s or lawsuits (quite the opposite for the latter) and rastas are by far more christian than anything to come out of tec of late. not that that says much.
“These four-eyed fish can see above and below water simultaneously—a good example for Christians conflicted about whether to salvage this world or just wait for the next one. The point of such examples, Jefferts Schori says, is to encourage the church to see itself with new eyes, stop bickering about finer points of doctrine, and get about the business of healing the sick, clothing the naked, and relieving the impoverished.”
Following this admonition to the maximum, we should seek to see with hundreds of eyes – Oh!, Wait!, that would make us…flies.
[blockquote] Scientific studies strongly suggest that homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, is determined before birth, she says. [/blockquote] Yet another outright falsehood from the woman.
Early in life? Reasonably frequently!
Prior to birth? Not only ‘Not Proven’ but quite clearly unlikely at best.
She seems to have become habituated to the telling of untruths in order to support her position.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
You know, it’s been 12 hours since I posted a comment to this thread. It wasn’t ranting; it didn’t concern WO; it was relevant to the thread; it was innocuous. If you’re going to ban me for no reason, do so, but it is obnoxious and offensive to have my comments disappear into limbo for no apparent reason, when others get posted within minutes.
It’s a pity that the glorious leader has not kept up with current research:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”
From a newly re-issued pamphlet of the American Psychological Association regarding causes of homosexuality – quote currently posted in an article on Anglican Mainstream website.