on Tuesday, 27 March 2007 at 7.47 am by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as ECUSA
Episcopal News Service has a 15 minute video interview with the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. Go here to watch it.
I feel very heartened and encouraged by the interview with the PB. She exudes a quiet confidence.
The key phrase I take with me : these differences fade in sigficance before the needs of the world.
(Her closing words, as I remember them now).
Great stuff – this lady will lead the new, independent global TEC
Liberals – pls join her
So pleased we are getting clear answers from TEC so the ABC knows what he is dealing with and can stop wasting time trying to hold together very different beliefs which in the end cannot be reconciled without people pretending to be united…..we have wasted enough years sweeping dirt under the carpet and this dishonesty has done nobody any favours.
The word gracious was used to say, with understatement, hear this very clearly.
“sweeping dirt under the carpet with dishonesty” NP
Dirt? Would you be refering to your LGBT sister and brother Christians/Anglicans and Muslims/other worldwide?
Quite a lot of “dirt” for you to sweep under your cheap flimsy carpet that was so carefully handwoven with loathing, fear and hate!
Dose your bitterness and snide nastyness know no end?
relax, chaps, I did not refer to people…
dirt = teaching and practice against scripture, reason and tradition (yes, reason too!) – not accepted teaching but not challenged either;
dirt = “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies i.e. no integrity required in leaders;
these are not good things…..are they??
Expect that many conservatives posting on all the usual blogs will find ways to make fun of the PB, both how she looks, and what she says, in this video. In response to NP, all I can manage at the moment is to remind us all that TEC is simply leaving its doors open and its lights on while it keeps on keeping on in the face of calls from extremely conservative entities, leaders, and people to suddenly betray its own best conscience, big tent version. I might also remind myself that even if the split much desired by conservatives… Read more »
I still don’t get *it* when KJS suggests we “move on” from OUR differences and only focus on other *mission* work while ignoring un-holy political *items* such as the pending anti-human rights legislation in Akinolan Nigeria…speaking of demoralization and preventable death! Quite possibly, KJS and the ABC are viewing and stewing about one of the most IMPORTANT Christian movements in our lifetime and OUR Church HISTORY…the OPEN/HONEST welcoming, loving, and embracing of ALL of OUR fellow LGBT human beings/family members at ALL LEVELS of Churchlife at the BODY OF CHRIST is about facing TRUTH in a emotionally and spiritually healthier… Read more »
Well said drdanfee – But let’s also keep the analogy on the affect on our lives. There are many here who have seen the path of shunning worked out in our own families and the families of our friends. It is thus heartbreaking to watch as a portion of our church seeks to reinforce that path. Cutting off the parent from the child is tragic for the parent as well the child. Life is so short. There is only a little time that we can be together with our families in the first place, God willing. Then to watch parents… Read more »
NP, who is next to be hounded out of your brave new and pure church? Cohabiting couples, perhaps? Including all those who support them in their love? Thank God for TEC and all those others who stand up for true Christian values.
The calm, patient dignity of KJS was most encouraging, and I like how she describes the whole atmosphere of the HoB meeting.
NP – of course you are right that the don’t ask don’t tell strategy of the last 70 years (?) is riddled with a hypocrisy that is now coming home to roost and haunt everybody. However, where you are wrong, in this increasingly open world, is in your reading of the bible and people’s experience. In this new context of transparency you are the very people to whom we must take the argument about the right and wrong way to treat/welcome lbgt people vigorously. And I have every confidence that the negativity you passionately represent will be defeated in God’s… Read more »
Yes C. B. the sundering of the family beyond recognition is surely appalling, so sad; but so was/is Jesus’ death which we remember in this church life season. Easter is waiting, for all of us. God has the final say aobut all of us, no matter whom we have mistakenly decided to cast out, into whatever outer darkness we have decided to define and cherish for them.
Neil says “And I have every confidence that the negativity you passionately represent will be defeated in God’s good time.”
Remember, my position is His stated position.
So, you think He is going to contradict himself in order to agree with you?
NP there’s been a misunderstanding. You aren’t God — you only think you are….
Phew — close shave for the rest of us I reckon ! …
As Athos reminded us so kindly this week, you can use the bible to prove anything you want.
And wasn’t it fascinating to see during the slavery debate how able conservatives suddenly were to interpret the bible and to recognise that our way of understanding it changes over time.
To think that anyone is in posession of God’s absolute final truth is either wilfull arrogance or utter blindness.
No, Erika – this is where TEC is going wrong – you cannot interpret it to mean whatever you want – it has an intended meaning…..JC, Paul and all the apostles were not postmodern, “anything goes as long as your are nice” people if we look at what they said and did!
So, the weak arguments about slavery etc carry no weight – so what if some twisted the word to justify doing what they wanted to do as slaveowners? That was their sin. This sin does not discredit the word but those who perverted it for their own ends.
NP “Remember, my position is His stated position.”
Good grief, what a bunch of sanctimonious foppish nonesense. You really believe that YOUR understanding of scripture is THE way, and ONLY way. Between the “changeling” liberals that have trashed anything dear and extreme fundamentalist people like you that have these cookbook remedies that have gotten the church to where she is today.
It’s not that the slave owners twisted the word to do what they wanted, but that the church supported them, basing their support on supposed biblical evidence.
Doesn’t it strike you that in the slavery debate the whole church initially, later the conservatives only used the bible to support their stance? Regardless of the fact that we wouldn’t do that any longer, to the extent that you even think my argument is weak?
If I were a betting girl I’d bet that you would have been on the conservative side then too.
Erica. When Athos so rightly described the Word of God as “a plastic nose that can be twisted either one way or the other”, you may be pretty-well certain that his personal approach to Biblical interpretation was not what he had in mind. Regarding NP’s statement that “the weak arguments about slavery etc carry no weight” [why won’t bloggers punctuate?], I refer you to the March 10th T.A. posting “Williams and Malango meet Kunonga”, where he and I exchanged thoughts on this one: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002283.html The slavery argument is NOT a weak one (my 7:45 p.m. March 14th posting clearly states… Read more »
Choirboy – do you think that the writers of the OT and NT meant passages to have various meanings at various times? Do you tihnk (seriously) they had no intended meaning for readers? Hi Erika No I would not have been on the slaveowners’ side- I would probably have been a slave, actually I do not disagree that the official line of a church can be wrong and corrupt. I think the Zim church is wrong not to throw out the man in Harare. I think TEC is wrong on VGR. Churches and bishops can certainly be completely wrong and… Read more »
Sorry to hear that you would have been a slave – but I suppose you would have been following scriptures and served your masters with respect and fear and with sincerety of heart…. serving wholeheartedly (Eph 6:5-6).
And although you now tell me that slavery was a sin, you would have “served them even better because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them.” (Tim 6:1-2).
This is not the church occasionally getting it wrong, this is what happens when you follow scripture unthinkingly.
NP: I think that the many writers of scripture certainly had a set meaning when they wrote it. It altogether another thing that we understand what they meant through the numerous translations and years between us and them.
But I’m sure your Greek and Hebrew are better than mine.
I’m amazed at the weak showing by the liberals here. The only argument seems to be the conversatives in the past used Scripture to defend slavery. Ergo current conservatives are doing the same thing wrt sexual sin (since all conservatives are the same…) Therefore, liberals’ view must be correct. Anyone want to prosper a test for whiches? That would be about as sound as this argument. As for can we know Truth – didn’t someone say we’re no longer servants but friends because we know what’s going on and friends get clued in? NP – thanks for invoking Wilberforce. The… Read more »
lapinbizarre – sorry, I’m a child of the spell-check age. Still, fairly embarrassing.
Any comment on the substance of the post?
Oh gee Chris, Erika and I are just having fun letting the “conversatives” dig a bigger hole for themselves to bury themselves in. All in good fun, at least for some of us.
And Evensong was lovely tonight. T. Tertus Noble in b minor.
Please dear Chris, you cannot adequately summarize the entire body of alternative hermeneutical work on all the non-conservative readings of all the scriptures that could possibly be involved, in a single blog post on TA. If you really want the range of serious answers to your question, don’t look to a post here, but engage in serious study of critical scholarship and hermeneutics. The incredible range of interesting and viable frames and lenses through which to productively read and understand scripture is so very, very large. No single scholar encompasses all of hermeneutics, and the implication that any view could… Read more »
Erika – what happens when people and churches which reject scripture “unthinkingly” or which pick and choose what they want to accept?
(actually, the evangelical position has a lot of scholarship behind it – and has never been convincingly demolished by any liberal scholar – not even Dr Rowan Williams)
So – you would have told slaves to ignore what the Bible teaches them is a godly way to live in that situation?
(remember, it teaches that behaviour to slaves for a purpose – do you know what purpose is?)
Chris Comment on the substance of the post: The point is that throughout this debate the conservatives have told us we haven’t got a leg to stand on, because however nice sounding our arguments are, they clearly go against scripture and therefore have to be discounted. The slavery issue is a perfect example to show the conservatives that even they have once overturned a literalist reading of scripture. If we can get this core point straight – that it is possible to come to different understandings of the meaning of scripture over time – then we migh actually have the… Read more »
NP, You assume that liberals are “ditching scripture unthinkingly”. That is laughable and I point you to drdanfee’s post just above my last one. What would I have said to the slaves? At the time – probably nothing. I expect I would have been caught up in the culture of my time just as all the other Christians. Looked at it from where we stand now, I would want them to be free because it is clear that the writers of scripture were caught up in their culture and could not see that the immensity of Christ’s message applied to… Read more »
Again, Erika – you do not seem to know what the bible actually says on slavery – it does not say it is good to own slaves – it says things which were revolutionary 2000 yrs ago eg “there is no slave nor free” and see how Paul pleaded for Onesimus. There was no justification for the slave trade from scriptures – that is why the evangelical Wilberforce and others fought it. No, I don’t think “liberals” ditch scripture “unthinkingly” – some “liberals” seem very keen on scripture when they want to talk about poverty or against capitalism. However, when… Read more »
Chris. Sorry I was crabby yesterday – I was on a bit of a “grammar police” tear. Biblical hardliners – not you – who won’t even bother to capitalize “Bible”, irritate after a while. Many years ago it was hammered into me that there is strong correlation between the ability to express ones-self clearly on the page, and the ability to think clearly. What is certain is that the more care you take to express your opinion clearly, the more easily the reader will understand precisely what your intend to say. Erika’s reply to your “substance” question pretty well covers… Read more »
NP suggested that “the evangelical position has a lot of scholarship behind it “ I’m uncomfortable with blanket statements like this and wonder whether it is affirming evangelical scholars or evangelical scholarship. To be an evangelical scholar is to have certain religious beliefs which inform one’s scholarship, but which one is prepared to expose to the full investigation of the wider academic comunity. It is ‘an honourable estate’. Names from the past include Guthrie and FF Bruce. ‘Evangelical scholarship’ is an oxymoron in my book, for it implies the production of scholarly material for a ghetto and the editing of… Read more »
Lapinbizarre said: “Many years ago it was hammered into me that there is strong correlation between the ability to express ones-self clearly on the page, and the ability to think clearly. What is certain is that the more care you take to express your opinion clearly, the more easily the reader will understand precisely what your intend to say. “ Completely agree and wish more people taught and understood this concept – especially here in the US. As a professional I take great care in what and how I communicate in written media. Occasionally, in less formal settings such as… Read more »
Chris. Last post from me on this one. Israelites might only be held in what a later age termed “indentured servitude”. This condition was not permanent, and the family and children of the individual were not necessarily or normally similarly enslaved. Non-Israelites, by contrast, were subject to “hereditary” slavery. Your slaves, their children and their descendants were the property of you, your children and of succeeding ages of your descendants. Occasionally, on less staid blogs than “Thinking Anglicans”, you will see the quotation “your male and female slaves whom you may have from the nations that are around you” followed… Read more »