Salon on Schori

June 19, 2006 | It's always a bit of a shock when God shows up in church. There's not much in Scripture to suggest that God's particularly interested in church of any kind, and Jesus, with his deliberate flouting of religious laws, had a notable impatience with the enterprise.

And yet, as Christians, we hope and pray that it will happen. The election of the Right Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, bishop of Nevada, as the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States appears to be a hint that something's going on beyond the usual human bickering, self-congratulation, scapegoating and piety that abound whenever church people gather. The "kingdom of God" -- a phrase used by Jesus and often equated by Christians with the church -- is like a weed growing in the tidy garden of human culture. It grows as it will, unbidden and frequently unwanted; its growth is always to God's design specs, not those of tradition-bound churches.

Jefferts Schori, a former oceanographer, was considered a long shot for the position by most church experts: Although she's a fairly mainstream liberal, her gender made it unlikely that the church would choose to be stirred up at a moment when it seemed to require smoothing over and calming down.

The Episcopal Church -- the American branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion, with 77 million members -- had already outraged conservatives three years ago by electing the openly gay Right Rev. Gene Robinson to head the Diocese of New Hampshire. Conservative African Anglicans joined with reactionary American Episcopalians, threatening to pull out of the Communion entirely if the enfranchisement of gay Christians was not stopped. There were name-calling, backstabbing, breakaway parishes, fights over property and thundering sermons about "abomination" and deviance. "The battle is about the authority of Scripture," proclaimed conservative American Bishop Robert Duncan. "It's about the basics of Christian faith ... The issues have to do with sexuality and morality, but at the very heart of it is whether Scripture can be trusted."

The struggle isn't just about gayness, of course, but, rather, a more fundamental conflict between believers who crave certainty and those who embrace ambiguity; those who insist Scripture is inerrant and unchanging, delivered once and for all time, and those who believe the Bible is only part of God's ongoing revelation. The struggle is also about how to define a Christian: as one who seeks to keep religion "pure" or one who welcomes outcasts. It's hardly a conflict unique to Anglicanism or, for that matter, Christianity. As Chris Linzey, an English priest who edited a book on Anglicans and homosexuality, wrote, "The agenda of conservatives is a rolling one: today it is gays, but biblical inerrancy, interfaith worship, women bishops, remarriage after divorce will surely follow. The logic of all purity movements is to exclude."

So the very body of Jefferts Schori, whose election was hailed by shouts of "It's a girl!" is a direct challenge to the purity movements in the church. Three dioceses of the U.S. Episcopal Church do not believe that God has called any women to ordained ministry, and more than half of the 38 provinces in the Anglican Communion, including the Church of England, do not ordain women to the episcopate. The rector of an Episcopal church in Illinois that does not ordain women told the New York Times that the new bishop would not be welcome there. "Just like we can't use grape juice and saltines for Communion, because it isn't the right matter, we do not believe that the right matter is being offered here," he said, apparently referring to Bishop Jefferts Schori's female parts.

And yet God, according to the stories we know, tends to show up in the most unlikely places: in humiliated, unclean women, in helpless babies, speaking in ways that upset the established order and turn tradition on its head. As with Bishop Robinson, Jefferts Schori may provoke schism, and further dismembering of a denomination that has shakily held together despite differences in style, politics and theology. But she may also be a reminder that the institution of the church -- of any human religion -- is, finally, so much smaller than the promise it embodies.

In the Anglican Communion, that disturbing and longed-for promise is enshrined at the center of the Book of Common Prayer, in the service used to ordain a bishop. "Let the whole world see and know," it says, "that things which were cast down are being raised up, and things which had grown old are being made new."

Amen.

Comments

[Joshua Watson]

I just wanted to say that I love your site and especially this article. I enjoy it so much that I added it to my links page, which gets quite a few daily hits. I hope it helps. I also blog about Progressive Christianity on my site TheZealotInMyCloset.com, which is also where your link is located.

[tiber jumper]

This issue of the anglican communion splitting is yet another excellent proof in real life of why the church needs to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Without any final authority over issues of faith and morals and how to interpret the Bible, history will repeat itself again and again as the churches have been doing since 1517. It's Deja Vu all Over again

[Heidi]

What wonderful words. Thank you for this. It will be required reading for my son when he comes home from convention. He is a little overwhelmed right now with thoughts of all the adult bickering. I did make him laugh, though. I told him I had proof the Holy Spirit was there, Stand Firm lost its server for a few days....

[LivingDust]

As a Baptist watching from afar and reading the comments of numerous bloggers on this and other sites, I find the outright disobedience to Scripture by the leadership of the ECUS at Columbus to be perplexing.

God did not give us a "pick and choose" New Testament. He gave us a complete New Testament, every word a gift from Him.

How does the ECUS read 1 Timothy 2 and 3 and then move forward with the Schori decision?

What is the Scriptural support for this decision?

[John Wilkins]

Livingdust, you'll have to give me some scriptural reference to back up your method of interpretation. You confuse the culture of first century Judaism with The Word.

[LivingDust]

John,

Paul wasn't writing parables in the 1 Timothy. The words of the two chapters are clear, concise and simple to understand. If you want to avoid answering my question, I'll understand.

God is not an author of confusion.

[John Wilkins]

Living dust, I'm not confused. You are. God has called Schori as the chief pastor of the Episcopal Church. While you look through the scriptures, you do not find Him.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pick and choose." But I don't believe that scripture is inerrant. The readings you have selected merely reflect the understandings of the culture. Our work is to discern the Word from the culture.

I don't think scripture exhausts God's work. If God is omnipotent, he can choose to do wonderful things, also through women.

but you might want to review Romans 16, and learn a little bit about letter-writing in antiquity.

[LivingDust]

John,

Consider these Scriptures:

2 Tim 3:16 - All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Did you notice the word "all"?

Did you notice "profitable for doctrine" (even for the ECUSA)

Did you notice "throughly furnished"?

The New Testament is not just a book to share information about the culture of Paul's day and certainly our work is NOT to "discern the Word from the culture".

The Word of God was shared that we might KNOW the will of God - Try it.

[John Wilkins]

"Profitable," is surely correct, which is why I think you are not using scripture correctly to understand Schori's call.

"All" scripture was probably referring to the Old Testament.

Thorougly furnished is fine; which is why I think Schori is prefectly capable. If scripture is truly profitable, then God has made Schori bishop.

Yes, scripture helps us know the Word of God, Jesus. But it is not the only thing. How would an illiterate Christian know God?

Since you can't discern the culture from God's word [say, wht do we do with Lot's daughters? Or Genocide? Or Daniel?].

I suggest reading more of scripture rather than the ones convenient for you.

[LivingDust]

John,

Your response to my post makes my point. You seem to have an inability to honestly interpret clear, concise and simple Scripture.

The Word doesn't only say "profitable". It says "profitable for doctrine".

The Episcopal denomination is not using Scripture to define its doctrine. It's making up its own doctrine, false doctrines clearly influenced by the worldly culture of today, teachings not of the New Testament.

I agree with you - read more scriptures and take in the WHOLE counsel of God. I implore you as brothers and sisters in Christ to come back to an honest assessment of the New Testament Scriptures.

[John Wilkins]

Living Dust, I think that Timothy was adequate for its contemporary situation. I don't think it is relevant for us now, because the cultures are different in the place of women.

How do you interprete the levitical codes about the impurity of women?

[John Wilkins]

I would also add that this proscription contracits the ide of men and women both being clothed in Christ, in any practical sense.

[LivingDust]

John,

Am I truly reading you correctly?

In reference to 1st Timothy you said - "I don't think it is relevant for us now, because the cultures are different in the place of women."

Women are still women, right? Or has God changed?

[J. C. Fisher]

I suggest "LivingDust" and "Tiber Jumper" go find an island to duke it out ("My Magisterium can beat your Inerrant Plain-Reading!"---and don't forget the burning-stakes *g*) and leave us Episcopalians in peace...

*****

[Warning: tasteless joke---in the service of making a point---below!]

+Katharine Jefferts Schori is, as now most know, an oceanographer. Her particular specialty is squids and octopusses (or is that "octopi"? *g*)

In light of that:

"Just like we can't use grape juice and saltines for Communion, because it isn't the right matter, we do not believe that the right matter is being offered here," he said, apparently referring to Bishop Jefferts Schori's female parts.

"...and she SMELLS like one, too!" (thought the DioQuincy priest? ;-/)

If B033 gets +(+)KJS an invite to even one Primates Meeting, then I hope it will have been worth it. ("not right matter" amidst the hallowed halls of the Old Boys Club indeed! :-p)

[G. Macquire]

I am an Episcopalian and am probably going to leave my church and join the local Anglican church that is not affiliated with the ECUSA. It is tearing my heart out, but I am convinced that it is the only option I have.

It has nothing to do with having a woman Presiding Bishop. The last time I checked the Bible it was not a sin to be a woman. Her views about the Bible are very disturbing, essentially saying that parts of the Bible are not really true because things have change since the words were written. In fairness other priests and writers have had similar views. They were usually a tiny minority of the church. However these views appear to be the current views of many of her peers now in the majority which is tragic for the TEC.

It is not really that I am leaving the ECUSA (TEC)it has been leaving me for quite a while. The Episcopal church has always used the following three tests for making decisions. We ask is it Biblical, Traditional and Reasonable? The Bishops of the ECUSA in their last two conventions have basically thrown out the Bible, and torn up tradition. There is only one leg left (reason) and it is very unsteady.

Concerning the comment about conservative christians not being inclusive, I believe that statement is completely wrong. It is possible that some conservative psuedo-christians are non-inclusive, however I believe that an equal number of liberal psuedo-christians are non-inclusive as well. I call them psuedo-christians because true followers of Christ would not exclude any sinner from becoming a member of the church. Consider what is going on now in the ECUSA. If you are a conservative (Bible believing) Christian it appears that you are no longer welcome there. If you point out the Biblical conflicts with current decisions you are labeled a homophobic, female basher.

In my case at least, this is simply not true. I realize that we are all sinners and would never exclude anyone from coming to and being a member of the church.

Would I feel good about someone who openly, continously lives a life of un-repentent sin to be an ordained person in our church? The answer is no. How can someone who is cut off from God by un-repentent sin be able to discern God's will? It is impossible!

Can we simply pick a sin and proclaim that the sin is no longer a sin? By eliminating sins that are "troubling" we put the sinner in jeapardy of losing their eternal soul, because they would no longer have to repent of the sin. I can not be part of a church that is redefining the Bible's defination of sin so that it matches society's mores (ie. basically anything goes).

I pray that all sinners look to the Bible for guidence and our Lord Jesus Christ for forgiveness. These are the true gifts of God, freely given.

Peace be with you.