The Religious Left
By: Guy in General, Faith, The Far Left on November 22, 2006 - 9:19 am
Michael Medved, at Townhall, calls our attention to this interview of Bishop Jefferts Schori, the new Bishop of the American Episcopal Church.
Forgetting the fact that I have serious issues with whether it is appropriate (or scripturally based) for a woman to occupy a pulpit, it seems to me that Bishop Schori has some serious problems with her understanding of scripture and the Christian faith.
Q. Your critics see you as an unrepentant liberal who supports the ordination of gay bishops. Are you trying to bolster the religious left?
A. No. We’re not about being either left or right. We’re about being comprehensive.
‘Scuse me…what a great dodge. She completely ignores the question and more importantly, ignores scripture (Romans Chapter 1).
Q.How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?
A.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.
Hmmm….superior leftist elitism.
Q.Have you met Pope Benedict?
A.I have not. I think it would be really interesting.
Q.He became embroiled in controversy this fall after suggesting that Muslims have a history of violence.
A.So do Christians! They have a terrible history. Look at history in the Dark Ages. Charlemagne converted whole tribes by the sword. I think Muslims are poorly understood by the West, and it is easy to latch onto that which we do not understand and demonize it.
As Medved points out: notice the use of the word “they”
Why the failure to use the inclusive word, “we”?. Additionally, she fails to recognize that while the Christian church had it’s problems during Charlemagne’s reign, those problems have long since been resolved and have no relationship whatsoever to the church of today.
Q.What do you make of Ted Haggard, who just stepped down as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals, after he was accused of cavorting with a gay escort?
A.I think it’s very sad. We’re always surprised when we see people’s clay feet. Our culture seems to delight in exposing them. I think we have a prurient interest in other people’s failings.
Q.You can’t blame the Haggard case on the culture or the media. It isn’t a story about sex so much as the disturbing hypocrisy of a church leader.
A.But we’re all hypocrites. All of us.
There’s absolutely no excuse for her failure to condemn Haggard’s behavior. Nice dodge…
It’s truly discouraging to see that this is the kind of discussion that passes for reasoned discourse from a member of the clergy. I would submit that the decline in membership of the Episcopal church has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the membership is better educated or that they earn more money (as Schori is so quick to point out). My suspicion is that members are leaving the church in droves because of it’s leftward drift and because they have almost completely abandoned any pretense of adhering to biblical principles.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://geezervilleusa.com/2006/11/22/the-religious-left/trackback/
“My suspicion is that members are leaving the church in droves because of it’s leftward drift and because they have almost completely abandoned any pretense of adhering to biblical principles.”
Yeah, and since we’re adhering to biblical principles around here, when do we get to stone Haggard to death anyhow? Or is that what Dobson and friends are doing?
November 25, 2006 - 12:43 amFirst, your interpritation of the Bible and Homosexuality is, well, childish. To claim one translation of Paul in this context is to base an argument on a guess. the word Pal uses, does not clearly translate, and has multipule meanings, along with cultural context. The same childish understanding comes into play with the comment on women and ordination. Paul discusses women in power in the early church in other letters, why take only 1 Timmothy at face value? 1 Timmothy also cannot fit into the timeline of Pauls journey (along with 2 timmothy and titus). the language is not Paul’s and thus was not written by him. Please brush up on some theology and Biblical history before spouting off again.
April 4, 2007 - 12:32 amSean,
Thanks for your comment. I do not, and never have pretended to be a Biblical scholar. My remarks are based on the time honored interpretation of this passage. Most conservative Biblical scholars have interpreted this passage in the way it has been presented for years. In order to address Haggard’s behavior, please please refer to the footnotes in Zondervan’s NIV Study Bible concerning Roman’s 1:1-28.Also,to deny that the passage in 1 Timothy is from Paul, is to deny something that has been accepted fact for hundreds of years (see the notes at the beginning of 1 Timothy in Zondervan’s NIV Study Bible. Once again, I do not pretend to be a biblical scholar. I simply base my statements on accepted biblical interpretation.
April 4, 2007 - 6:03 am