Schori, Glory, Hallelujah?

I had to check the calendar to make sure that I wasn't being conned and even when I was certain it was May (not April the first) I had to check many sources* to see if I was being had, but (sadly) apparently not!

It appears that the doyen of all that is liberal, revisionist (and Episcopalian - which appears to mean one and the same for many these days), Katharine Jefferts Schori, had launched a bit of a diatribe against the Apostle Paul (who many seem to think might just have penned most of the New Testament).

The focus of her attack is Paul's dealings with a demonically influenced slave girl (Acts 16. 16-34) who follows Paul and the others around, for days, shouting, ‘These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.’

Now eventually Paul gets a bit cheesed of and so he casts out the demons. Of course the people who manage her, for she is a slave who is hired out to predict stuff, get a bit naffed off and drag Paul and Silas before the authorities for a bit of revenge. Nothing like losing a good income stream to tick people off now, is there?

I have to admit that I would have thought that a bit of free publicity was always helpful, but obviously there are limits and so Paul draws the line - even though of course a house divided and all that - and sends the dark bits packing - after all, they're not on the same side as us (or are they? Some might take from her words the idea that Schori thinks they might be and that would explain so very much more than just the sermon now, wouldn't it?).

Still, that's my 'off the wall' take on it I guess.

But what of the Schori-teller herself, what does she make of this episode? Well, apparently it demonstrates that Paul is, 'mean-spirited and bigoted.'

Not only that but (apparently) she condemns those who disagree with her and labels them as 'enemies of the Holy Spirit'.

Schori explains that Paul didn't set the girl free, he merely 'deprived her of her gift of spiritual awareness'. His frustration at her proclamations led him to rid her of something he considers as wrong and because he sees it as such he denies that it can be beautiful or holy. I guess Schori would, using the same logic, believe the fact that people who deny homosexuality are acting in the same manner and assign the same dynamics to their actions also.

She speaks of progress and how 'different is not the same as wrong' and how it can be difficult to see God at work in the world, especially if God is doing something unexpected - and homosexuality and the demoniac slave girl appear to be one and same in that respect.

Of course, to make it work there has to be the good old ad hominem - Paul the mysoginist is now Paul the arrogant, the oppresser, the slighted who lashes out and takes away something beautiful - the gift of demon oppression - And this is what others do now with homosexuality when they oppose it too I guess. Bigots and homophobes each and every one!

There's so much 'other information' that Schori draws on - the earthquake and the fact that Paul 'repents of casting out the spirit of divination' and acts with compassion towards the frightened, and about to take his own life, jailer.  Schori continues, 'It makes me wonder what would have happened to that slave girl if Paul had seen the spirit of God in her.'

Well I have to think he'd have praised God for His gift in her had it been God's gift, but it wasn't God's gift - it was the work of the enemy - and so what could he do but oppose it?

If we bless what the devil does; if we bless those acts which deny that which Scripture, tradition and reason has known, taught and lived in for so many years; if we support, and especially encourage, divination then surely we fall foul of the Biblical commandments and deny God. But, according to Schori (if the reports are true) we are not justified by our faith but by our respect for diversity. Odd that, I thought justification came by God's grace - something she most definitely doesn't have a scooby about it seems.

Move over Paul, it's time for a rewrite and some rehabilitation!

Mind you - I do have to agree with Schori when she says:

'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.'

Hallelujah lady - you've got one right at last. Of course, once we've come to Jesus the adventure continues by Him (Jesus) calling us to be obedient and live according to God's commandments and lifestyle guides, so you've fallen just short of the mark (but that won't be a new experience now, will it?)!

Now that bit won't be as popular with her or her followers methinks ;-)

*To read the transcript of the sermon click here

Guenter Grass

Once again we find Israel acting like a petulant five year old! This time the focus of the fingers in the ears and shout antics is German writer, Guenter Grass, who has been declared "persona non grata" as part of yet another spisode of petulant foot-stamping! The reason for the action against Grass is that he's written a poem that is critical of Israel as a nuclear power, Germany as provider (or as Grass puts it,'sub-contractor') of weaponry and even has a pop at the leader of Iran as being a 'loudmouth'.

The majority of the world knows, and acknowledges, that Israel takes to criticism as someone with a nut allergy takes to snickers bars and so I guess that this means that the majority of the world
will not be at all surprised by Interior minister, Eli Yishai's banning of Grass entering the country. The sadness is that I still come across people whop will point to the shoah, the 'fact' that all around Israel are nations conspiring to destroy it 'at any minute' and who would consider pre-emptive strikes, missile attacks and many other, what I would call 'excesses' to be legitimate.

I struggle with the middle East conflicts as there is much posturing, many broken promises and too many awful acts carried out by both sides and the position taken by supporters has, apparently, little to do with right or wrong and morality and truth are but shifting attitudes. I struggle with a nation who, despite many resolutions and findings against them, of the international law sort, continues to build, turn off power, blockade and kill innocents (and no, I'm not ignoring the Palestinians and those within their borders who fire rockets and cause death!) and genrally act in a totally ungodly way. If these are the people of God (meaning here He who is depicted by the tetragrammaton) then I would be very afraid if I were them, for I see little or nothing of Him in this secular (and therefore Israel in name only) state.

Have heard bits of the poem read today but not read the whole but surely stir up, challenge and reflect is part of the process of being a poet. It is their job to reflect and challenge (isn't it?).

And for those who will engage in the fine art of the ad hominem, denying any credibility for Grass' words because he was once a member of the SS (a bit of an oversight but one to which he suitably, and adequately, responded in 2006). In fact, the act of forgetting to tell people of his SS connections when he was the focus of germany's conscience was perhaps understandable and might even makes his earlier days of being the 'voice of conscience' all the more powerful.

But when German (or any one else) speaks out against Israel they are not being anti-semitic any more than someone who speaks out against green or animal rights issues or homosexuality are destroying the earth, murderers or homophobes. There are just, all too, convenient ways of denying the right to speak out and belittling those who might have differences of opinion with them.

Just as Israel is doing with Grass today.

Pax

When Rights Clash - Part the Third

The sine wave approach

One of the interesting things that strikes me about life when rights clash is the way that some people assume that you can deal with the issues around rights as though they were sine waves.

"All we need," they think to themselves, "Is to introduce something that is 'anti-phase' (that is 180° out of sync') with the prejudice and that will solve it all." So that's what they do, they look at a situation and try to introduce something that will result in a flat line where prejudice is concerned. Where one class were perhaps oppressed they are now favoured and those who were favoured (or perhaps merely just dominant) are now oppressed such that their views count for nothing. Not only that but we take them, their attitudes and the society they stand/stood for and mock them, labelling them whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself as 'dinosaurs' and generally engaging in the art of the ad hominem to press home our point (so we redress the balance, reward the previously oppressed and 'teach the bigots' a lesson too!).

Of course this isn't the reality when it comes to prejudice because we can't inject a pure anti-phase component. In fact what we do inject when we try to cancel out the prejudice in this quasi-scientific manner is what we call in science/engineering (and maths too) is 'harmonics' and these result in lots of incoherent noise such that the initial issues are not resolved and no one can hear anything the others are saying.

Seems that the world (and the Church which in so many cases these days is not different) can learn from the wonderful world of science - see, you don't even need to reach for your Bibles (which is probably a blessing because when I engage in discussion with people and 'rights' it seems that (even when they claim to be 'Christian') this is the last place they'd be caught looking.

Pax

More Christianity, less religion!

So often I come to the conclusion that former CGS (Chief of General Staff, ie. the head of the Army) Lord Dannatt's view of Northern Ireland as a young officer serving there applies also to the Church of England in particular and Church in general.

The observation is that there was, "A great deal of religion but not much Christianity!"

Speaking of the fact that I don't consider homosexuality to be 'the' one defining issue I was made aware that that wasn't enough and that the whole point had to be pushed until the issue was not just accepted but approved of as the 'norm'. Not only that but the ground had to be taken such that those who opposed the practice of homosexuality as a Christian lifestyle were removed rather than merely 'pushed back'. The (proclaimed) goal is 'tolerance' but the objective is (in reality) conquest and the tactics appear to be the very same as employed in 1935 by a nation not that far from these shores!

First you mock them, adding a little dehumanisation and a sprinkling of ad hominem such that the general populace ridicule and speak out against them. Continue by spreading lies and misrepresentations so that passions and opinions (especially in these days of natural justice, PR and equality) are stirred up. Then remove the culprits (for we all know who they are, they just don't were 'jude' badges these days) and make the world a better place.

It works for 'homophobes', i.e. those for whom there is no 'fear' only a feeling that being actively homosexual crosses the line in terms of Bible, tradition and reason (AKA 'orthodox').

It works for 'misogynists', i.e. Those who don't 'hate women' but feel that there is a difference between male and female and perhaps (in some cases) are being faithful to the Church view that they joined with.

The problem is that we cannot merely speak of being enlightened and point to our being 'more intelligent' than the early Church (isn't that what we perhaps do with anabaptism?) or more understanding of the texts (surely those who wrote them were aware of the power and import of their words?).

I am aware that there are those who seek to justify their contraventions of Biblical entreaties and commands by reinvention, revision or merely discarding of that which opposes their chosen actions and behaviours (note. You can be made anything you like, that isn't a choice - but how you live it out is, always, a choice.). I do care about the fact that we all make ourselves right so we may do what is wrong before God and thus condemn ourselves, and those who follow us and this skewed and wrong teachings, to exist outside of that which God demands.

Alas for you lawyers and Pharisees, you hypocrites.
Taking and making your converts twice as fit for hell as you are!
But blessed are those who hear God's commandments and keep them.
But if you deny God and teach error,
How do you think you will escape the time of trial?
How do you think cursing speaks of a God of love?
Or lies bear witness to a God of truth?
Religion is man's ultimate rebellion against God (or so Marx said),
Christianity is God's ultimate rebellion against sin!
I'd rather face the anger of sinners than have to explain why I was silent before them,
How I failed to speak against their sinful actions to God on the final day.
How about you?

Pax