|
First Response: Point/Counter Point with Katharine Jefferts Schori... |
|
|
|
|
Written by Editor
|
First Response: August 2006
Point – Counter Point with Presiding Bishop-elect, Katharine Jefferts Schori, of the Episcopal Church, USA
By Don Williams
The Episcopal Church, ripped with conflict to the point of schism, now has Katharine Jefferts Schori at the helm. Time Magazine, July 17, 2006, asked her 10 questions. We reprint her answers here and follow each with our own. Good reading!
Time: “What will be your focus as head of the U.S. church?”
Bishop Schori: “Our focus needs to be on feeding people who go to bed hungry, on providing primary education to girls and boys, on healing people with AIDS, on addressing tuberculosis and malaria, on sustainable development. That ought to be the primary focus.”
Kingdomrain: Clearly Bishop Schori cares about pressing social issues at home and abroad. Evangelicals too are getting the message of healing and justice. But the question is about “focus.” Even in her words, “Primary focus.” Her answer sounds like a politician’s agenda. Unfortunately she offers no Biblical basis for her concerns. But the deeper question is – in a denomination shattering because of the social agenda of gay clergy and in a denomination dramatically shrinking since the 1960’s, what should its leader’s primary focus be? Healing schism or promoting evangelism doesn’t seem to be on her radar. By calling for social action as the primary focus, perhaps she is intentionally deflecting attention from the very issues that are undermining her church and keeping it from effectively growing by impacting people with the gospel.
Time: “The issue of gay bishops has been so divisive. The diocese of Newark, N.J., has named a gay man as one of its candidates for bishop. Is now the time to elect another gay bishop?”
Bishop Schori: “Dioceses, when they are faithful, call the person who is best suited to lead them. I believe every diocese does the best job it’s capable of in discerning who it is calling to leadership.”
Kingdomrain: Bishop Schori completely avoids Time’s question which asks: Is this now the moment for another divisive turn by electing a gay bishop in Newark? Instead of saying “yes” or “no” or “maybe,” she simply hides behind a generalization that faithful dioceses get the best leaders. She never defines a “faithful Diocese.” If the Diocese was faithful to Scripture and tradition, it would never elect a gay bishop. If it cared about the unity of its denomination, it would not elect another gay bishop at this time. Moreover, Bishop Schori is either naïve or dodging when she says that “every diocese does the best job it’s capable of in discerning who it is calling to leadership.” In fact, every diocese is involved in political in-fighting and “good-old-boy (or girl)” networks and pay-offs. People are intimidated to vote against a gay bishop because they will be charged with homophobia, un-Christ like conduct, and the continuing oppression of gay people. But, apparently, you don’t get to be the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church by answering questions honestly and directly. She speaks like a politician running for office rather than the spiritual head of her church.
Time: “Many Anglicans in the developing world say such choices in the U.S. church have hurt their work.”
Bishop Schori: “That’s been important for the church here to hear. We’ve heard in ways we hadn’t heard before the problematic nature of our decisions. Especially in places where Christians are functioning in the face of Islamic culture and mores, evangelism is a real challenge. [But] these decisions were made because we believe that’s where the Gospel has been calling us. The Episcopal Church in the U.S. has come to a reasonable conclusion and consensus that gay and lesbian Christians are full members of this church and that our ministry to and with gay and lesbian Christians should be part of the fullness of our life.”
Kingdomrain: Bishop Schori knows full well that “the problematic nature of our decisions” has ripped the church for years. She sounds naïve when she appears to be just catching up to the gay controversy in the U.S. and abroad. For example, the United Presbyterian Church received the recommendation to ordain gay clergy in its General Assembly in 1978 (which it turned down at that time). That’s almost 30 years ago.
The Bishop then blames the rejection of gay clergy in the developing world on the influence of Islam (which is anti-gay). Honestly, she needs to get a clue. The rejection of gay clergy has nothing to do with Islam. It has everything to do with Biblical faithfulness. In fact, most of the Anglican (Episcopal) church in Africa and Asia is staunchly evangelical. Third World Christians read in their Bibles that homosexual practice is sinful and they believe it. Nevertheless, the Bishop believes that her church’s pro-gay decisions are made because “that’s where the Gospel has been calling us.” (Notice that she brings in the Gospel here for the first time.) But what could that possibly mean? Here is what Paul says, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, your were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ by the Spirit of our God.” (I Corinthians 6:9-11) Clearly the Gospel does not lead us to affirm homosexuality but to transform homosexuality and every other form of sexual dysfunction and sin.
Bishop Schori continues that the Episcopal Church has “come to a reasonable conclusion and consensus” that gay and lesbian Christians should be fully incorporated into all aspects of the church. So her position is based on reason rather than revelation. Moreover, she claims a “consensus” in her church which is a lie. Whole Dioceses are ready to jump ship over this issue. Individual congregations have already left and others now submit to evangelical overseas Bishops. Again, it seems that we are listening to a politician rather than a spiritual leader who dares to be honest and realistic with the press.
Time: “The Archbishop of Canterbury [Titular head of the church], who leads the Anglican Communion, wrote recently that a two-tier Communion may be a solution. What did you read in his message?”
Bishop Schori: “The pieces that I saw as most important had to do with the complexity of the situation and the length of time that this process will continue. He’s very clear that we’re not going to see an instant solution. He’s also clear about his role: it is to call people to conversation, not to intervene in diocesan or provincial life – which some people have been asking for.”
Kingdomrain: This translates into the naïve assumption that given enough time, the conservative churches will come around to the gay agenda. What we need is a lot of conversation without intervention. In fact, the Archbishop couldn’t intervene in the U.S. Church if he wanted to. Unlike the Pope, he has no legal rights over the national church. But the pro-gay assumption is that eventually conservatives will either leave the church (and its assets) or give in. This is naïve because it is the conservative churches that are growing and giving. The liberal church and its leadership (like gays) cannot reproduce itself. Time is not on their side.
Time: “There’s much debate about whether science and religion can comfortably coexist. You’re a scientist and a pastor. What do you think?”
Bishop Schori: “Oh, they absolutely can. In the Middle Ages, theology was called the queen of the sciences. It asks a set of questions about human existence, about why we’re here and how we should be in relationship with our neighbor and with the divine. And science, in this more traditional understanding, is about looking at creation and trying to understand how it functions.”
Kingdomrain: In other words, the Bishop accepts an absolute dualism. Theology asks questions about meaning. Science examines how creation functions. They are in two separate worlds. This is fine until we realize that we are not Gnostics, we cannot (in the words of Francis Schaeffer) place theology in an “upper story” unrelated to time, space, and history. Since God is the Creator, we must look for his hand in creation. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalm 19:1) The Bible opens with revelation about this created world. We cannot understand how it “functions” apart from knowing the God who makes it function. There is no “sacred” realm for theology and “secular” realm for science. In fact, there would be no modern science apart from our Christian world-view that makes it possible.
Time: “What is your view of intelligent design?”
Bishop Schori: “I firmly believe that evolution ought to be taught in the schools as the best witness of what modern science has taught us. To try to read the Bible literalistically about such issues disinvites us from using the best of recent scholarship.”
Kingdomrain: Once again the Bishop refuses to answer the question. She has nothing to say about “intelligent design.” She just believes in evolution and leaves it at that. Apparently she holds that the proponents of intelligent design read the Bible “literalistically.” In other words, they are six-day creationists, old fashioned Fundamentalists. This could not be further from the truth. The Bishop needs to do her homework and, as a scientist, honestly engage this highly informed and scholarly movement without simply raising red flags.
Time: “Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?”
Bishop Schori: “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.”
Kingdomrain: Apparently the Bishop’s Christology is that Jesus “is our vehicle to the divine.” What could this possibly mean? Is he a vehicle (like a car) to the divine or the divine (to use her words) incarnate. (See John 1:1-2) Do we start by going to God, or do we start by God coming to us? Is Jesus merely a vehicle or is he the Second Person of the Triune God? Before he becomes our Mediator he is “God of very God.” (Nicene Creed)
Of course God acts in “many ways,” but we are not talking about general revelation or providence. The question is whether Jesus is the “only way to get to heaven.” It seems that the Bishop (in her political-speak) believes that God acts in other ways to get us to heaven. If we maintain Biblical exclusivity (as did the Jews and early Christians), we put God “in an awfully small box.” But the issue isn’t where we have put God, the issue is where God has put himself. The New Testament is clear. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by him. (John 14:6)
[Time now asks the Bishop how she relaxes. She backpacks, hikes and flies a plane. We omit the text of this question and answer.]
Time: “Do you have a favorite Bible verse?”
Bishop Schori: “Chapter 61 of Isaiah is an icon for me of what Christian work should be about. That’s what Jesus reads in his first public act. In Luke, he walks into the synagogue and reads from Isaiah. It talks about a vision of the reign of God where those who are mourning are comforted, where the hungry are fed, where the poor hear good news.”
Kingdomrain: If Isaiah 61 is the icon [image] of “what Christian work should be about,” then we need to see Jesus read the opening of this chapter in the synagogue in Nazareth and proclaim that this Scripture is now fulfilled in himself. (See Luke 4:16-21) And what does it say? First, the prophecy of Isaiah is now being fulfilled in himself. His ministry is prophetically driven. Second, he is anointed (empowered) by the Spirit. His ministry is Spirit-filled. Third, he evangelizes the poor. He proclaims and ministers the kingdom to them. This is not a social agenda. This is the agenda of overcoming Satan’s kingdom and bringing in the kingdom of God, restoring his sovereignty over this fallen planet. Third, he releases to the captives. Literally, he casts out their demons. Fourth, he brings recovery of sight to the blind. Namely, he heals the sick. Fifth, he proclaims the year of the Lord’s favor, the Jubilee Year, the year of release. He breaks the demonic powers of injustice with their social and political agendas.
Unlike Bishop Schori’s summary, Jesus understanding of Isaiah 61 is far beyond comforting the mourning, feeding the hungry and bringing the poor good news (which she never defines). Jesus’ agenda for ministry is to bring the power of the kingdom against all the powers of this world. He comes to re-establish God’s rule over all this fallen creation – reversing the effects of the Fall by driving out demons, healing the sick, re-establishing divine justice and bringing the masses of the poor into his kingdom (far beyond the social elite of the Episcopal Church, US) through the anointing power of the Spirit. If you wonder whether Jesus meant this interpretation of the text, read Luke 7:18-23. The answer is there and it is plain as day. If asked, Jesus could never be the current Bishop of the Episcopal church. He would turn it upside down.
Time: “What is your prayer for the church today?”
Bishop Schori: “That we remember the centrality of our mission is to love one another. That means caring for our neighbors. And it does not mean bickering about fine points of doctrine.”
Kingdomrain: The centrality of Jesus’ mission, given to his church, is to go into the entire world, make disciples out of all the nations, baptize them and teach them to do all he has commanded. (Matthew 28:18-20) Love is not our central mission. Love is the means of our mission, the expression of our discipleship. Our mission is to bring the nations to Christ. (See John 13:35) Bishop Schori believes that the issues of gay ordination and same-sex marriages leave us “bickering about fine points of doctrine.” This shows her narrow-mindedness and how out of touch she is with the concerns and convictions of many American Episcopalians and millions of her fellow communicants around the world. How can she have her head in the sand, calling these concerns about Biblical authority, heterosexual marriage, human sexuality and two thousand years of unbroken Christian tradition “bickering about fine points of doctrine”? The Titanic has hit the ice-berg and the band plays on. This Bishop is simply a political person, denying the crisis that is already splitting her communion. Pray for the Bishop to see the real issues and respond in candor
|
|
|
First Response 
