“She’s playing hardball, and that’s not going down very well, in this country or in the communion,” said the Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon, a leading church traditionalist from South Carolina who runs a popular Episcopal blog. “She’s apparently opted for a power strategy and a public legal strategy, and that’s a great disappointment.”
But Jefferts Schori explains her strategy in different terms.
In her Nov. 9 meeting with about 100 leaders of the El Camino Real Diocese, she said she believed strongly in reaching out and listening to Episcopalians frustrated by what they see as the church’s too-liberal direction.
“I think there are many in our church who feel beleaguered, and often they don’t hear from other parts of the church that they, too, are beloved,” the bishop said during the conversation with diocesan leaders in the sanctuary of St. Stephen’s in the Field Church. “If we can ratchet it down a little, we may find a way to live together even if we don’t agree.”
Moving easily up and down the church’s center aisle as she spoke, Jefferts Schori said she understood that individual Episcopalians might choose to leave the church, as others have before them. “I think we have to honor the idea that faithfulness may lead us in different directions,” she said.
Update: Get religion has some comments on this article here.
The only thing I can see “ratcheting down” in order “to live together” is the Faith once delivered. And we can’t (not [i]won’t[/i]: [b]can’t[/b]) do that and still be the Church.
I think that all we can expect from the PB is a continual reactionary ratcheting up.
She is unable to lead. What else can she do?
“I think there are many in our church who feel beleaguered, and often they don’t hear from other parts of the church that they, too, are beloved.”
No kidding? Then stop beleaguering us, Mrs. Schori.
I am trying to figure out how threats and intimidation will `ratchet down` anything.
[b]Perhaps, Jefferts Schori said, if all sides in the current debate over sexuality and Scripture could “hold their truths more lightly,” they might yet find a way forward — together.[/b]
What is a lightly held truth? What are yours? What are hers?
What horse feathers!
“A priest asked Jefferts Schori for advice: How, she asked, could she reconcile the religious traditionalists and gay religious groups and supporters within her own congregation?
Jefferts Schori nodded, with evident empathy. “I think the more we can all get invested in the needs of our neighbors, the less we need to focus on our own need to be right,” she responded”.
Frankly, I don’t think *I’M* right, I think Scripture is right.
Oh, and this is rich:
“I think there are many in our church who feel beleaguered, and often they don’t hear from other parts of the church that they, too, are beloved,” the bishop said during the conversation with diocesan leaders in the sanctuary of St. Stephen’s in the Field Church. “If we can ratchet it down a little, we may find a way to live together even if we don’t agree.”
Oh, I’m sure Bishops Duncan, Schofield, and Iker feel beloved. Would “ratcheting it down a little” include negotiating for fair property buyouts instead of filing lawsuits?
BTW, I felt the love, too, when a lesbian in my former parish told my spouse he was a “bigot” and should “go back to the South where he belongs”.
The only thing he said to her was that, Scripturally, he could not support a gay “wedding”. Never mind the fact, too, that her first wedding was to a man. Oops…gender confusion? Partner confusion? Or just plain old confusion? Idea for TEC Liturgy: A Blessing for a State of Confusion…
This woman’s first act towards reconciliation should be not committing perjury under oath. CANA ought to fly in, or depose(or both), a couple of primates to outline what was REALLY said at Dar. Then the judge would know exactly what he was dealing with…
Well , in the article she says to get out and help the poor. OK, then belief just doesn’t matter. Why doesn’t she say so, simply, directly, once and for all? Sell *all* the real estate. Give away the funds, be done with it.
#6 Geek in Dallas says:
Unfortunately, what that statement means — what it has to mean — is “I think my interpretation of Scripture is right.”
Which brings us back to the point made on the thread a day or two back: what we have here is two fundamentally different hermeneutics for reading Scripture.
It would be nice to get a reappraiser and a reasserter together and have each of them write up an argument for their respective hermeneutics. If I had enough spare time, I’d volunteer to do the reappraiser side if nobody with superior credentials was willing to do it… but between now and Christmas I have to write two class papers, a Christmas pageant with parts for 60+ kids, and spec out a bunch of features for work; so “spare time” is a bit of a mythical concept at the moment 🙂
Ok, Ross, let’s try this one:
I think Scripture is right, and that the interpretation of Scripture on the core doctrines (including sexuality) as held by the majority of Christians across denominational lines for the past 2000 years is also right.
Fair enough, libraryjim. Now define “core doctrines,” demonstrate that “the majority of Christians across denominations for the past 2000 years” have in fact agreed upon the interpretation of Scripture on those core doctrines, and explain the epistemological reasoning for thinking that their interpretation is right.
I’m not trying to be flippant here; I’m saying that there’s real work to be done in laying out the foundations for why we believe what we believe.
Her intimidation tactics won’t work with me. Last December, I voted FOR the resolution deleting the Accession Clause from our constitution here in the Diocese of San Joaquin, and I made a committment to do the same this December. I intend to keep that committment.
Ok, Ross,
for example, how about the dogma that Jesus is God incarnate, possessing both human and divine nature, inseperable in one person, and the only way to salvation (not a path to the divine among many)?
Or the doctrine that marriage is for one man and one woman? Can you point to ANY teacher or Church Father that taught differently?
Or that communion/eucharist is to be a sacrament shared among baptized believers?
That the Bible is the inspired Word of God — the chief written revelation by which all other teachings must be judged (even sola scriptura, which is NOT accepted by all denominations, does not contradict this teaching)
[i]and explain the epistemological reasoning for thinking that their interpretation is right. [/i]
Sorry, I don’t need to do that. The weight is on the reappraisers to prove that it isn’t! And so far, they haven’t done that.
What a very poor piece of reporting on the part of the L.A. Times. If I didn’t know better, I would have to conclude that it was formed around ENS talking points. Oh, but of course the L.A. Times, located in +Bruno’s neighborhood, would never stoop to such a thing, would it?
Oh, other core doctrines: Do I really need to cut and past the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian creeds here?
libraryjim:
Actually, you do need to explain the epistemological reasoning behind your position; at least, if we were taking this seriously. Otherwise you’re leaving your position at the level of “Because I said so, that’s why.”
Do you believe your interpretation of Scripture because the majority of Christians across denominations for 2,000 years have all believed the same thing? Or do you agree with them after reaching your conclusion on some other grounds? Is the fact that lots and lots of people have believed something for 2,000 years in itself sufficient evidence to prove that it’s true, or is something else required? And if the latter, what?
As for your “core doctrine” that “the Bible is the inspired Word of God—the chief written revelation by which all other teachings must be judged” — that’s precisely what we’d be trying to determine, isn’t it? It all comes down to what Scripture is. And while I continue to maintain that there is far too much work here to toss off in two-sentence blog-bites, here would be the nucleus of my argument: “Occam’s Razor says we should start by assuming the Bible is a book like any other. Now, why should I believe differently?”
“She speaks from a very deep place,” said Valerie Valle, a priest from Arroyo Grande.
A very deep place could be (could be) the Abyss of Milton’s Paradise Lost. If the teachings of the PB are way off from historic Christian faith (not being able to find a way to say Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life”), then it seems that she fits Jesus’s saying: “If you are not with me, you are against me.”
And then there is all her mantra about if we just worked the soup kitchen together and listened to each other. Katharine–wake up–it is so over.
Ross,
Do your own homework.
If you are sincere about wanting to know what Christian “core doctrines” are you can take the time to read the historical “Articles of Religion” in the Book of Common Prayer and also study the Bible. These doctrines can not be conveyed in a debate they need to be studied by people who are willing to take time to learn. I think it is significant that Jesus taught in Parables and that is one reason why so many Christians understand our core values.
If you enjoy debates, the Unitarian Church used to be considered a “debating society” but I don‘t think debates really help anyone understand Christianity.
“Occam’s Razor says we should start by assuming the Bible is a book like any other. Now, why should I believe differently?â€
Now why should I accept Occam’s Razor over the Church Fathers?
Like Betty Sue said, do your own homework (hey — what happened to your not having any spare time for this discussion?)
The core values of Christianity are well defined and have been for centuries. Again, it is up to the detractors to defend why they should be rejected and/or changed from what has been handed down.
The assumption in a CHRISTIAN SETTING, such as the Church, is that we start from the positive.
You want a scholarly argument? Read Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” or Lee Stroble’s “Case for” series. They make the argument much more eloquently than I could.
Good night!
Jim
Respectfully Ross, the discussion between you and libraryJim is less that of two people withing the same denomination and more that of an interfaith discussion. It is not unlike, say, a buddist and a Moslem exploring religion. The sooner TEC and the conservative Anglicans separate, the better. Both will then be able to start healing wounds and develop a vibrant faith that includes caring for others. But that will only starts once the suing stops.
Before you discuss your differences, I’d be interested Ross if you would tell us what you think you share in common with Jim? Inerrancy? It seems not. Sexuality and ethics of morality? No? Exclusive divinity of Christ?
I’m pretty sure that “holding truths lightly” led to all of these problems in the first place. In fact, had some pretty basic truths not been held to so ephemerally as they were, I’m pretty sure this whole, big, slow, horrible train wreck of a disaster that is TEC would never have happened in the first place. And I’m pretty sure that “holding truths lightly” isn’t going to fix anything. Kind of like trying to put out the forest fire with a blow torch, ya know?
I’m just sayin’.
#18 Betty See and #19 libraryjim:
It seems I’m not conveying very well the reason why I think this discussion should take place. Perhaps it’s futile to do so. “Do your own homework” is a dismissive response and I could just as easily turn it around on the two of you — I have read the Articles of Religion, and I continue to study the Bible; the question at hand is how to study the Bible. In any case, for such a discussion to be fruitful — if such a thing could be — it would take substantial work on both sides to prepare a sufficiently supported and reasoned essay on the subject, rather than a paragraph of blog commentary; and that I do not have time for. It was probably a mistake to respond to libraryjim without doing that work first.
#20 justinmartyr:
What do libraryjim and I have in common? I can only speculate, but… belief in God, I trust. Belief that there’s more to this world than cold matter. Belief that Christ is the Son of God. Belief in the Resurrection. That’s more than a little, it seems to me.
This kind of stuff just eats my lunch.
I made a decision years ago to hold on to Jesus, The Truth, with all my strength and all my might. Wormwood’s attempts to pry my fingers from my tight grip on the foot of the Cross make me hold on that much tighter. I have been brought up and educated in such a way that I see many sides on most issues. If I didn’t, life would be easier, simpler, more black & white. I understand the turmoil of the those on both sides of the sexuality issues dividing American churches of many denominations; division exists within my own family. But Jesus gave His life to save me, a sinner, and I refuse to compromise His Gift by betraying The Way, The Truth, and The Life in favor of trying to “get along” or make others “feel good” to the detriment of our immortal souls.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
“Unfortunately, what that statement means—what it has to mean—is “I think my interpretation of Scripture is right.—
No, that’s not what it means at all, and don’t put words in my mouth.
The Bible is very clear in speaking against sexual idolatry and porneia, and homosexuality is part of the latter’s definition. Robert Gagnon can give you a much better analysis of the Greek than me, the problem is that you revisionists, Ross, just don’t want to hear it.
Let’s review the responses I’ve already heard in various and sundry places–“The Bible doesn’t apply to contemporary society”. “It assumes a gender complimentarity that is culturally-conditioned”. “The authors didn’t understand orientation like we do”.(The jury is massively still confused, by the way, about the origins of orientation, even in 2007, not to mention that orientation/action are two different things). And then there’s your own “it’s just a book like any other”.
It is beyond me how any supposed Christian can devolve to a belief like that. That’s way more Unitarian or agnostic than it is Christian.
A very learned man, way more qualified to speak to these issues than me has already done an excellent job outlining “both sides”. I agree with you, as I do with Dr. Turner, that it’s a “theological chasm” that cannot be bridged. The Episcopal Church, though, is supposed to be a Christian one, not a Unitarian one(Christianity, by definition encompasses a belief in the Holy Trinity, something I’ve heard way too many TEC priests either deny or trash), and if so many of you have these Unitarian beliefs you should have joined another church instead of trying to hijack a Christian one.
It’s not hard to understand the two sides; Dr. Turner makes it very clear. I stand by it, and I agree with him, though, that TEC’s version truly is “one that the rest of the world largely no longer recognizes as Christian.”. And, what’s worse, is those are apples that so many revisionists just don’t seem to care about; they’re too busy being elitist and “prophetic”.
Count this Anglican Christian out…
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=206
Thanks, Ross. That makes both you and Jim Christians. That’s a lot.
It’s a pity TEC and the Reasserters can’t follow St Paul’s example and, where agreements are divisive, to part ways and follow a common goal. Unfortunately we suffer from a Roman view of oversight, one in which bishops must excommunicate and sue and beat each other down until they are either at the top of the pile or have been pureed into submission. Ross, can’t you see that the first step to an understanding is a negotiated and respectful settlement?
Schori says, “We may find a way to live together even if we don’t agree.” But that’s not the way it’s worked in the past few decades. Ask those who stayed in TEC although they did not accept the ordination of women. They’ve been marginalized, refused ordination, told that those holding their beliefs can never again be consecrated bishops, and their dioceses have been subjected to investigations and harassment. Those who stay while disagreeing on the basic Christian understanding of human nature and Scriptural teachings about it will be treated with the same lack of respect.
Ross, Jesus said regarding the little children, “unless you become like one of these, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” That, to me, means the kind of study you propose is counter-productive. What you have to do is take the words of Jesus and the apostles at face value, as a child would. You can debate, analyze, critic the previous 2000 years of understanding all you want, but it won’t get you anywhere. You can be a follower of Jesus, or not. Your choice. There are those who apply themselves to apologetics, and if you are a seeker, take your questions to them. It is so interesting that KJS and most liberals think that we can all get along and what you believe is not all that serious a matter. I consider my salvation is at stake and my trust in scripture is non-negotiable. I suspect that’s about where a lot of us stand. If you want a good argument, go to the experts. If you want merely to follow Jesus, then see what He says and follow Him.
“I believe we only know the fullness of God’s truth at the end of time,” she said. Oh, I guess we are wrong to assume the fullness of God’s truth has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
[blockquote]If you are sincere about wanting to know what Christian “core doctrines†are you can take the time to read the historical “Articles of Religion†in the Book of Common Prayer and also study the Bible.[/blockquote]
Unfortunately, it will not do to ask Ross to read anything (even your own words) because Ross can always respond as follows:
[blockquote]I have read the Articles of Religion, and I continue to study the Bible; the question at hand is how to study the Bible.[/blockquote]
Ross is a Cartesian. Given his epistemological premises, no text can ever have any inherent objectivity because it always comes back to my interpretation of said texts. The advantage of this tactical move is that I can make any text mean whatever I want it to mean. Unfortunately, the disadvantage is that once we start playing this game we always end up with solipsism. If we insist on reducing all language and communication to my interpretation of such communication, language no longer can serve its central function–which is to produce a shared exchange between two minds about an independent objective reality–and I can never get outside my own head.
William Abraham has stated the epistemological problem well:
Interpretation of a text, or of a spoken language, or of a divine revelation, is indeed a complex undertaking. However, if there are any acts of interpretation, there must be some basic acts of interpretation. There must, that is, be acts of interpretation that do not rely on some other acts of interpretation. It is relatively easy to see why this is so. If we cannot stop somewhere and trust our acts of interpretation, we are into an infinite regress of interpretation where one interpretation depends on another prior act of interpretation back forever in time. Crossing the Threshold of Divine Revelation (Eerdmans, 2006), 162.
When reappraisers bring up the problem of “interpretation,” they have already made clear that they are not interested in what the text actually says. They know what it says, and they don’t like it.
Ross: >
“Belief that Christ is the Son of God. Belief in the Resurrection. ”
Ross, if you believe that the Bible is a book like any other book, then your reasoning (using Occam’s Razor) has to conclude that the quote above from your comment that it is extremely unlikely that Christ is the Son of God (if indeed there is a God) and that the Resurrection actually occurred. The simplest and most ‘logical’ answer is that there is no God.
15. Ross said:
[blockquote]“Occam’s Razor says we should start by assuming the Bible is a book like any other. Now, why should I believe differently?â€[/blockquote]
I think that you should sign on to one of the Islamic blogs, being sure to give your name and address, and then lecture them with the following:
[blockquote]“Occam’s Razor says we should start by assuming the Koran is a book like any other. Now, why should I believe differently?†[/blockquote]
Somehow I have to think that you might a reservation or two with respect to doing such a thing. Why? I’m guessing that you might be reluctant about interfering with the Islamic religion and beliefs. Off hand, I can think of at least a dozen religions where the same can be said. Ah, but Christians and their Bible are such an easy target, hey?
I also find the PB “deep” and profound much like Peter Seller’s, autistic savant character, “Chauncy Gardner” (Chance the Gardener) in the 1979 classic “Being There”…wheras we can all admire Peter Sellers’ unparalleled acting; the PB’s sincerity is also amusing…
“She speaks from a deep place” – Yes she does. As deep as the Marianas Trench. Deep, dark, cold and nearly lifeless.
“Perhaps, Jefferts Schori said, if all sides in the current debate over sexuality and Scripture could “hold their truths more lightly,” they might yet find a way forward — together.â€
Perhaps if all sides were dilettantes who dabble in religion they might yet find a way forward — together.
“When reappraisers bring up the problem of “interpretation,†they have already made clear that they are not interested in what the text actually says. They know what it says, and they don’t like it”.
I’m in full agreement with Dr. Witt. I once asked my priest-spouse just what exactly was wrong, in revisionist eyes, with the Biblical words already printed on the page.
His response: “Because they don’t like what they read”.
[i]”When reappraisers bring up the problem of “interpretation,†they have already made clear that they are not interested in what the text actually says. They know what it says, and they don’t like itâ€.[/i]
Ah, reminds me of the way the Catholic Church in Vatican II redefined “There is no salvation outside of the Church” to mean exactly the opposite.
I hope that you people who are bashing Ross over the head for his post-modern reading of the Bible are not assuming double standards when it comes to our Roman brethren 🙂
The ship of the Roman Catholic Church is slowly finding it’s way again after almost running aground over the mis-interpretations of the Vatican II documents. Many had hoped JPII would have taken a firmer hand in that, but it looks like “Pope Ben” may be the one to do it.
Yes, Midwestnorwegian, she does speak “from a deep place”……her mind……wherever it might be. Apparently, her mind isn’t on the Bible and God’s Word.
[blockquote]Ah, reminds me of the way the Catholic Church in Vatican II redefined “There is no salvation outside of the Church†to mean exactly the opposite.[/blockquote]
We can’t help it if you think it meant something it never actually meant.
You’re right, Chris. “There is no salvation outside of the Church” is a very hard sentence to parse. It took some very profound, verbally flexible theologians to figure that one out for us. Who woulda thunk it meant the opposite to we expected. Thank goodness priests can not only transubstantiate bread and wine, but they can also conjugate nouns and verbs in ways we lay people wouldn’t understand.