I finally got the chance to look over PB Schori’s all-too-interesting interviews in NYT Magazine and on NPR. The woman amazes me. My favorite part is when she says that Episcopalians are smarter and more responsible than their breeding-obsessed Catholic and Mormon (as well as all conservative denominations, I presume) brethren:
How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?
About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.
Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?
No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.
Is she saying that you’ll have fewer kids if your smart? Is she implying that only undereducated people have many children? It certainly seems that way. She’s telling us that if we want to have a big family, we’re being poor stewards…essentially that we’re going against God’s will. And what do “portions” have to do with this topic anyway? Apparently each couple is allotted a certain amount of the worlds resources, and should breed accordingly. If you have more than two kids you’re stealing someone else’s food…and air. She’s saying that the leaders of the Episcopal church are better Christians and better teachers than those of Catholics, Mormons, and “some other denominations” (i.e. Baptists and Pentecostals). I don’t even know why Mormons are included, since they don’t believe that Jesus was God. I will stop referring to them.
Her arrogance is incredible! As is the arrogance of her PR staff, but I’ll get to that later. Bp. Schori is incredibly skilled at manipulating language, using loaded terms, and making action that she wants to take seem like inaction, thereby convincing her opponents that they are fussing over nothing. This is evident in her NPR interview.
RY: Now, well, when you were elected Primate, that is, head of the U.S. Episcopal Church, you were quoted as saying “We’re not here to argue about matters of sexuality, we’re here to build a holy community”.. but as you know, there are people arguing about sexuality…what are you going to do to heal that?
KJS: Well, we’re going to keep conversing, we’re going to continue to ask people to met gay and lesbian Christians, and to begin seeing some of the fruits of their ministry.. uh, we’re going to continue to wrestle with these issues’they are the issues of our day, and the issues of recent generations have been about the place of women in the church, and the place of african-americans in the church, and the place of immigrants in the church, and I simply see this as our current ..uh.. our current growth into a larger.. communion.
See what she does? She slyly acuses the other side of “arguing” while saying she wants to “converse”. Well, a conversation between people who disagree is basically an argument. And at the same time she’s saying basically that we want to show people “the fruits of their (gay and lesbian Christians) ministry.” She is basically making the case that this is the way it already is, and if you disagree, you’re the one proposing the change, not her.
She also compares GLBT Christians to the Gentiles, when disagreement arose about whether they had to become Jews to be Christians. But the two issues are fundamentally different. We aren’t dealing with circumcision and food laws. When the controversy was settled, it was obvious based on Jesus teachings about the food laws (”It is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean…”) and evangelism (”make disciples from all nations, baptizing them…”) that the Gentiles did not need to become Jews.
And the New Testament is also very clear about homosexuality. When it comes to civil rights, there isn’t much question. In a pluralistic society like ours, we have little argument for preventing homosexuals from receiving the same benefits as heterosexuals. But the church is another story. Here we have little argument for disagreeing with the text when it comes to issues of sexuality.
An easy way to say it is this: sin is the misuse of God’s perfect creation. I think everyone can agree with that. It is clear, biologically speaking, that God intended sexuality to be between a man and a woman. But if that isn’t enough evidence for you, then look into Genesis. Man is to leave his father’s home and be joined to his wife. If homosexuality were a proper use of God’s creation, there would be more evidence than the orientation/preference of 4% of the population.
Anyway, I should make it clear that God loves and welcomes all people. He’s calling so that everyone will hear. That means gays and lesbians, too. I think that homosexuals should be fully included in the communion, in the congregation, and in fellowship. But the church needs to hold on to its teachings. God’s plan for sexuality is clear, and misuse of it is sin.
Related: On the Narrow, On the Narrow (Pt. 2), Across the Board, You Call That Protection?, GetReligion: Honest Weblog Headline of the Day
More of Schori’s quotes:
“We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.”
We’re not saying he can’t, we’re just saying he doesn’t. How do we know? He said so (this argument is intended for Christians, it is not meant to convince those who don’t believe the Bible).
Uhh…human communities have always searched for relationship that which is beyond them.. with the ultimate.. with the divine. For Christians, we say that our route to God is through Jesus. Uhh.. uh..that doesn’t mean that a Hindu.. uh.. doesn’t experience God except through Jesus. It-it-it says that Hindus and people of other faith traditions approach God through their.. own cultural contexts; they relate to God, they experience God in human relationships, as well as ones that transcend human relationships; and Christians would say those are our experiences of Jesus; of God through the experience of Jesus.
This is the wordsmithing I was talking about. She manipulates the language. This is just a long yes. Why didn’t she just say “yes”, instead of pretending it’s too nuanced and compicated for such a simple answer? What she’s saying is that people get to God through whatever “faith tradition” (PC for “religion”) they like most. The problem with that is, it makes God a liar, or Christianity, and everything it stands on, wrong.
Christianity stands on the fact that the man Yeshua of Nazareth was God. If what Schori says is true, then this man who was God lied to us. That’s the crux of the matter. There’s some nuance and a few details, but that’s the gist. I will never understand how someone who claims Christianity can so clearly reject its teachings.
I’ll also never understand how Christians can treat the Bible as just another piece of literature. They pick through it like Kierkegaard or Socrates. That’s fine if you don’t believe in Jesus, but if you’re a Christian, your faith teaches that all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching. Not just the ones that talk about love and make you feel all warm and fuzzy. Also the ones that talk about righteousness, and holiness, and God’s judgment. It’s a package deal.
Technorati Tags: Church, Theology
Blogs4God
[...] Tmatt has great post about Bp. Katharine Jefferts Schori. Apparently she’s smartened up since her New York Times Magazine and NPR interviews. If you remember, her assistant said that her responses had been cut short for the printing, and that the subjects were too sensitive to get a full understanding of what she said in just a few lines. So She did an interview recently and the full transcript has been posted at Bible Belt Blogger. [...]