Conflicting opinions on ordaining homosexuals or blessing same-sex unions hinge largely on one’s view of Scripture, Bishop Jefferts Schori said.
“I don’t think anybody takes everything [in the Bible] completely literally,” she said. “The tension is more around which parts are more important. I think Anglicanism — the Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican tradition — Anglicanism at its best has said that the wisdom of community is important in interpreting Scripture. One’s rational capacity, reason, is important in interpreting Scripture. We can’t just read it and understand what it means. For one thing, most of us don’t read in the original languages. And meanings of words have changed over the centuries,” she said.
As an example, she said, in Shakespeare’s time, the word “nice” meant “stupid,” from the root for “to not know,” unlike today’s definition of “agreeable” or “pleasant.”
Her remarks now lead me to think her quite nice, actually.
So language, written and oral, is incapable of communication. Ok. Same old nonsense.
KJS: “Anglicanism at its best has said that the wisdom of community is important in interpreting Scripture.”
Lambeth I.10: “…in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage…while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture…”
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
She reminds me of essays I used to mark when I was teaching.
William Shakespeare was a writer.
There are two kinds of trains, big trains and little trains.
Oh, words change meanings….Like in the KJV era “ghost” meant spirit, “spirit” meant ghost…There the intelligence on that matter ENDS. We all know you need a glossary to follow Shakespeare, knew it in the 10th grade. What irresponsible drivel.
She is either incredibly stupid or incrediblt deciteful. Either way she leads souls to Hell.
They became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools…….
Romans 1:21-22
So there are three problems with statements in the Bible:
1. Not everyone takes everything literally
2. Not all statements are of equal importance (i.e., there is a hierarchy of importance and “the tension is around which are more important”)
3. Words change meanings so you can never be sure what they mean anyway.
But which argument is she making? It’s the old defense against a charge that my dog bit you: “I don’t have a dog, my dog doesn’t bite, and anyway you provoked him.”
Is the issue with statements about homosexuality in the Bible that they are not to be taken literally (they are somehow allegories or metaphors??) or that they are mistranslations or that they are neither metaphors nor mistranslations but not very “important” in some grand weighting scheme??
In any event, the third arguement is just plain dumb. We are talking about ancient languages. Scholars who translate the Bible are scholars of ancient languages, not modern ones. You don’t pull some Israeli off the streets of Tel Aviv and ask him what some ancient Aramic word means and he gives you the wrong meaning because it used to mean “forbidden” in 1st century Aramaic but has now become Israeli slang for “cool.” Scholars of ancient languages, by definition, know what a word meant in the past regardless of whether or not the word has a particular meaning in the present.
Revisionism explained.
Yes, #1, very nice indeed.
I think she represents a different church, a different faith from the one that has always drawn me. I am just excited that such actions and such statements seem to be helping to give rise to a true Orthodox Anglican Church. If so, I am very thankful.
A quote of hers cited in the article …
“Clearly, some people hold their positions as firmly as they ever have, but I think most everyone is recognizing that these aren’t life or death issues for most people,”
Well, it may somehow affect their immortal souls.
Every time I read of Mrs Schori saying [i]anything,[/i] I thank God that her actions helped give impetus to the birth of renewed orthodox Anglican Christianity via the ACNA…..imperfect though we may be at present…..and that we are doing the work that Christ commanded us to do.
[blockquote] “We can’t just read it [scripture] and understand what it means.” [/blockquote]
Well, certainly not when it contradicts Katherine Schori. Scripture means what KJS says it means – glad we got that clarified!
“Clearly, some people hold their positions as firmly as they ever have, but I think most everyone is recognizing that these aren’t life or death issues for most people.” Spiritual life and death is more serious than physical life and death. What if Jesus had said, “repentance…heh…that’s not a life and death issue…so I’m just gonna focus on healing the sick.”?? Where would we be?
Only the meaning of certain kinds of texts is inherently unclear and unknowable. Scripture, especially in those areas that confront the Episcopal Church’s current understanding of its mission? Indecipherable!
The Dennis Canon, on the other hand, and the meaning of terms like “hierarchical church” or “this diocese”? Clear as a bell. And if you have any questions, KJS (with some help from David Booth Beers & Co.) will be glad to provide you (and your church or diocese) with a lesson in hermeneutics.
Let the reader understand!
Mark Twain once said that he was not worried by the parts of the bible that he did not understand. He was worried by the parts he did understand. Of course if words nos have opposite meaning and any opinion is as good as any other, what is there to worry about?
We live in an Orwellian age where people are changing the meaning of words to suit their own passions.
This is all religious doublespeak, obviously. And yet, consider how good at it she has become. Her argument has a sup[erficial reasonableness about it, and it fits what so many people think, that each person can read and translate the Bible for himself, so that each interpretation is as probable as the next. If this is true, then her interpretation is a valid as anyone’s, nor can she be faulted by anyone. This is precisely what makes solipsism so attractive: no one can disprove your position, and you may hold your position is all justice. Accordingly, when solipsistic positions are congruent, there is a level of truth established which I call a subjective universal, that is, consensus is reached tally, not by communication. Such a consensus, reached by large enough numbers develops the force of a universal truth without any means of refutation, since argumentation cannot penetrate the shield that solipsism raises to protect its owner. ,Little by little Schori is isolating herself. This should dissipate her authority
and yet, the reverse seems to be true. Her tallies are increasing though her arguments are without compelling force.
This should give us a strong measure of how dangerous she can be, for she can create truth out of additive tallies and without regard for evidence or debate. How each person feels in his own little world is like going into a voting booth. Counting the votes determines truth. We had better grasp this approach to determining truth and find a counter to it because she and her ilk are winning most of the battles. Larry
The Protestant world is full of little popes.
I’m impressed that with each utterance, she gets deeper and deeper.
[blockquote]This should give us a strong measure of how dangerous she can be…[/blockquote]
We are quick to dismiss or disregard her, but this is exactly the point that need to be made. It is tragic that people are attibuting her Siren call as the authentic voice of Christianity.
Sir Lawrence Olivier was once told by a bishop that he could make fiction sound like truth. Sir Lawrence replied the the bishop had the greater gift in that he could make truth sound like fiction. True for this bishop, too.