The next installment of our interaction with Katharine Schori will (if anyone actually reads this) certainly upset a few, because of the climate surrounding the question asked of her, but none the less, we will forge ahead.
The question is as follows:
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?
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.
Can we say, “Avoiding the Question?”
The first question that pops into my mind is, “When the dioceses are faithful to what?” Are they being faithful to God’s Word? Are they being faithful to the qualifications as set up by the Anglican Church? Are they being faithful to the current atmosphere of political correctness in the U.S.?
To the first, “Are they being faithful to God’s Word?” We have already discussed how this is not important to Schori, and we will see this more and more, and this point further show this to be true. Scripture states clearly that homosexuality is a sin. Now, so that no one cries out that I am a homophobe etc…, we are talking about the church here and specifically the Anglican/Episcopal Church which states in their own doctrine, “We view the Old and New Testaments ‘as containing all things necessary for salvation’ and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.” While this is not a statement of verbal and plenary inspiration and inerrancy, it does give the Bible as the authority of the church, so it would seem that you would use it in every aspect of practice, this however, is not so. Schori’s avoidance of this question (or at least the avoidance of giving the authority of what determines the choice) makes it clear that she does not believe that God’s Word speaks to this issue, or she would have cited the places where God’s Word condemns homosexuality as sin (Romans 1:18-32). Obviously the Bible also condemns anything that goes against God’s will as sinful and no one who is living sinfully is fit for leadership in the church (Titus 1:5-9). Certainly all who are in leadership struggle with sin, but we are not talking about struggle here, we are talking about lifestyle, and just as one who is a drunkard is not fit for leadership in the church, neither is one who is captured by homosexuality. (This is not to mention Scriptures clear statement on women leading the church. [1 Timothy 2:9-13])
I believe the reason that Schori avoids the question is the last. She is remaining faithful and calling others in her denomination to be faithful to the culture, which disregards anything as authoritative, because words have a “self-inferred” meaning. According to deconstructionist theory, meanings intended by the author have no authority to the reader, so the Bible can be read to mean anything you want it to and you can leave portions out that do not sit well with you or your political correctness. Of course the parts where it says, “Do not judge (this being completely taken out of context)” sits very well, and “Do not kill (should be murder)” that’s a nice one, but anything that condemns a cultural allowance needs to be thrown out.
Well it’s obvious where I’m coming from, and please don’t feel free to interpret my words (or God’s for that matter) any way you please. They mean exactly what they (uncomfortably make you feel to) mean.
