Anglican Bishop: Diversity, Not Jesus, Saves

Anglican Bishop: Diversity, Not Jesus, Saves

Diversity, not Jesus, saves says Presiding Bishop

MAY 20, 2013 – 2:52PM | BY GEORGE CONGER

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has denounced the Apostle Paul as mean-spirited and bigoted for having released a slave girl from demonic bondage as reported in Acts 16:16-34 .

In her sermon delivered at All Saints Church in Curaçao in the diocese of Venezuela, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori condemned those who did not share her views as enemies of the Holy Spirit.

The presiding bishop opened her remarks with an observation on the Dutch slave past. “The history of this place tells some tragic stories about the inability of some to see the beauty in other skin colors or the treasure of cultures they didn’t value or understand,” she said.

She continued stating: “Human beings have a long history of discounting and devaluing difference, finding it offensive or even evil.  That kind of blindness is what leads to oppression, slavery, and often, war.  Yet there remains a holier impulse in human life toward freedom, dignity, and the full flourishing of those who have been kept apart or on the margins of human communities.”

Just as the forces of historical inevitability led to the ending of industrial slavery, so too would the march of progress lead to a change in attitude towards homosexuality, she argued.

“We live with the continuing tension between holier impulses that encourage us to see the image of God in all human beings and the reality that some of us choose not to see that glimpse of the divine, and instead use other people as means to an end.  We’re seeing something similar right now in the changing attitudes and laws about same-sex relationships, as many people come to recognize that different is not the same thing as wrong.  For many people, it can be difficult to see God at work in the world around us, particularly if God is doing something unexpected.”

To illustrate her point presiding bishop turned to the book of Acts, noting “There are some remarkable examples of that kind of blindness in the readings we heard this morning, and slavery is wrapped up in a lot of it.  Paul is annoyed at the slave girl who keeps pursuing him, telling the world that he and his companions are slaves of God.  She is quite right.  She’s telling the same truth Paul and others claim for themselves,” Bishop Jefferts Schori said, referencing the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.

“But Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness.  Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it.  It gets him thrown in prison.  That’s pretty much where he’s put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she, too, shares in God’s nature, just as much as he does – maybe more so!,” the presiding bishop said.

The New Testament passage goes on to say that Paul and Silas were imprisoned for freeing the girl of her demonic possession. Presiding Bishop noted “an earthquake opens the doors and sets them free, and now Paul and his friends most definitely discern the presence of God.  The jailer doesn’t – he thinks his end is at hand.”

However, Paul now repents of his mistake in casting out the spirit of divination, she argues.  “This time, Paul remembers who he is and that all his neighbors are reflections of God, and he reaches out to his frightened captor.  This time Paul acts with compassion rather than annoyance, and as a result the company of Jesus’ friends expands to include a whole new household.  It makes me wonder what would have happened to that slave girl if Paul had seen the spirit of God in her.”

In support her argument for radical inclusion and diversity over doctrine Bishop Jefferts Schori adds that the day’s reading “from Revelation pushes us in the same direction, outward and away from our own self-righteousness, inviting us to look harder for God’s gift and presence all around us.  Jesus says he’s looking for everybody, anyone who’s looking for good news, anybody who is thirsty.  There are no obstacles or barriers – just come.  God is at work everywhere, even if we can’t or won’t see it immediately.”

She concluded her sermon by stating that we are not justified by our faith but by our respect for diversity.

“Looking for the reflection of God’s glory all around us means changing our lenses, or letting the scales on our eyes fall away.  That kind of change isn’t easy for anyone, but it’s the only road to the kingdom of God.”

Salvation comes not from being cleansed of our sins by the atoning sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, but through the divinization of humanity through the work of the human will. “We are here, among all the other creatures of God’s creation, to be transformed into the glory intended from the beginning.  The next time we feel the pain of that change, perhaps instead of annoyance or angry resentment we might pray for a new pair of glasses.  When resentment about difference or change builds up within us, it’s really an invitation to look inward for the wound that cries out for a healing dose of glory.  We will find it in the strangeness of our neighbor.  Celebrate that difference – for it’s necessary for the healing of this world – and know that the wholeness we so crave lies in recognizing the glory of God’s creative invitation.  God among us in human form is the most glorious act we know.”

Responses posted on the Episcopal Church’s website to the Presiding Bishop’s sermon have been uniformly harsh, noting her interpretation was at odds with traditional Christian teaching, grammar, and logic. “This is quite possibly some if the most delusional exegesis I’ve ever read in my life,” one critic charged. “I’m sorry, but this sermon is not a Christian sermon.”

The reception by bloggers has been equally unkind. The Rev Timothy Fountain observed the presiding bishop had up ended the plain meaning of the text. “Instead of liberation” in freeing the slave girl from exploitation, presiding bishop finds “confinement.  Instead of Christ’s glory, there’s just squalor.”

The Rev. Bryan Owen argued “What’s happening here is the exploitation of a biblical text in service to a theopolitical agenda.  Given what she says in the first paragraph I’ve quoted from her sermon, the Presiding Bishop suggests that anyone who doesn’t buy into that agenda – anyone who holds to the traditional, orthodox understanding of such matters – is likewise afflicted with the same narrow-minded bigotry as Paul, and thus in need of enlightenment.”

Anglican Ink is a North American based News Service providing coverage to all 39 Provinces of the Anglican Communion.

Anglican Ink is a media ministry of AnglicanTV Ministries.  Officially launching January 1st, 2012, Anglican Ink is designed to be a complete Anglican News Source for news hungry readers around the entire Anglican Communion.  Over time this news service will grow to encompass original content and links to most Anglican news storys, articles and blogs around the world.

Footnote 7 – Menand, The Marketplace of Ideas

Footnote 7 – Louis Menand, The Marketplace of Ideas: Reform and Resistance in the American University  (New York: W.W. Norton, 2010), pp. 132-136, 154-155.

“The claim by conservatives that the academy is under the control of a left-wing professoriate is an old one, and studies since the fifties had tended to confirm the general suspicion that professors, as a group, are more liberal than the general public. In 1952, for example, social science professors voted for Adlai Stevenson over Dwight Eisenhower in the presidential election by a margin of 58 percent to 30 percent, even though Eisenhower (who, when he ran for office, was the president of Columbia University) won the election by almost 11 percentage points….

“In 2007, two sociologists working at Harvard and George Mason, Neil Gross and Solon Simons, conducted a national survey of the political views of the professoriate that observed all the protocols of scientific research and that has a good claim to being an accurate statistical picture of the 630,000 full-time professors, at every level of institution, from research universities to community colleges, in the United States at the time….The results of the survey are quite stunning.

“Gross and Simmons found that younger professors today tend to be more moderate in their political views than older professors, supporting the theory that the generation that entered the professoriate in the sixties was a spike on the chart ideologically. They also found, however, that the younger professors are more liberal in their social views. But the most important finding of the survey, they say, is that a large plurality of professors holds a center-left politics….

“What is striking about these results is not the finding that professors tend to be mainstream liberals.  It is the finding that they tend to be so overwhelmingly mainstream liberals. These are the data: [Table] … 44.1 percent of professors are liberal and 9.2 percent are conservative.  By contrast, in the public opinion poll closest to the time of the survey, the American public as a whole reported itself to be 23.3 percent liberal and 31.9 percent conservative.

“….It is unlikely that the opinions of the professoriate will ever be a true reflection of the opinions of the public; and, in any case, that would be in itself an unworthy goal.  Fostering a greater diversity of views within the professoriate is a worthy goal, however.  Professors tend increasingly to think alike because the profession is increasingly self-selected.  The university may not explicitly require conformity on more than scholarly matters, but the existing system implicitly demands and constructs it.”

Louis Menand is Ann T. and Robert M. Bass Professor English at Harvard University.  His book, The Metaphysical Club, wone the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for History. He has been a staff writer for The New Yorker since 2001.   As with many of the quotations selected for inclusion (and sometimes commentary) on this blog, one should understand that there is often more nuanced discussion of the point at hand in the text preceding and following what is quoted here.  These are designed to steer interested readers to those discussions – that is all!

Footnote 3 – Explanatory Footnote

Footnote 3 – Explanatory Footnote

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary to create yet another weblog and thus add to the verbiage already cluttering the blogosphere, exercising the verbal and mental abilities which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God have bestowed upon us, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that one should declare the causes which impel him to do such a thing (shamelessly paraphrased from someone much smarter than me).

This personal blog is something I have pondered doing for several years, and finally, “impelled” by wife, daughter and others, have taken the plunge. Will anyone read it? I hope so – but that’s not really the point of this blog.  It’s for me as much as anyone else – my interests, my thoughts and words (and the thoughts and words of others), and my interactions with the thoughts and words of others.

It’s “eclectic” – from the Greek ἐκλεκτικός, which can be defined as “deriving ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources (adjective); or, a person who derives ideas, style, or taste from a broad and diverse range of sources (noun); selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines, methods, or styles; or, composed of elements drawn from a variety of sources, systems, or styles.”

Because I spent the last seven years co-editing a new hymnal – Psalms, Hymns, and Spiritual Songs – much of my consciousness is still oriented in that direction.  I will continue posting my “Hymn For Today” feature which has been a regular aspect of my Facebook page since last June.

But my interests are broader and more diverse (eclectic) than hymnology, extending to history, religion, language, broadcast media, sports, and more: much of the broad range of human endeavor and achievement. I taught history in a state university for a number of years (history of religion, journalism, science and technology, the history and impact of “significant events,” e.g., World War II or the American Civil War, as well as the obligatory “survey” courses) before “declaring victory” and retiring from the field.  History is arguably the broadest of the liberal arts, since one can, after all, write a history of nearly anything.  Additionally, in a brief spurt of insanity during my long and checkered past, I did some news broadcasting (NPR and CBS affiliates).

Partly my “eclecticism” is due to my more-or-less typical baby-boomer career path of eight different jobs in three different “careers.” Some people have said that I just haven’t decided what I want to be when I grow up.  My retort is: “Why grow up? No future in that!”

But the one common interest which binds all these eclectic disciplines together is, for me, religion – and the quest to understand the meaning of it all.  Much of my adult life has been spent working as a minister – sometimes “bi-vocational,” supporting my family by working in the “secular” marketplace; often fully supported by churches.  Much of my work has been with small-to-medium-sized, independent congregations whose stated intent is to be “Christians only” and attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus and his first disciples – those He sent out as apostles to spread and share the gospel of God’s grace.  Thus, this blog has a decidedly Christian orientation.

Some individual blogs will celebrate the joys and hazards of living in suburban Chicago and the diverse (eclectic) advantages of a truly global city – as well as the agonies and ecstasies of following daBears, Bulls, Blackhawks and, of course, the Cubbies (World Champions, 1908).

The format of some of the blog , a series of “Footnotes,” is a nod to my former academic career.  I cite a source in more-or-less standard academic format, and then reproduce a quotation or segment from some eclectic source. Sometimes I may feel a need to comment; sometimes not.   Some of them may be “explanatory” footnotes, like this one.  I stole this format shamelessly a few decades ago from one of my academic mentors who long ago abandoned the practice.  Perhaps I will re-cycle portions of a series of “Footnote” articles I wrote several years ago in the “popular” (non-academic) press.  At this stage it’s probably too late to come up with something else which is new and clever.

Help yourself.