quote:

---

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!

---

She goes on to explain that this demon gave the girl the gift of spiritual discernment, which cannot possibly be a bad thing.

I think that even if you take this story as allegorical rather than historical, you have to take the story on its own terms and not interject your own beliefs into it, then condemn actors in the story for not living up to how they should have behaved, had the story been set up according to your retelling / recasting.

Shippies' thoughts?
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
The link is sparse on details aside from the usual outrage, which is a rather easy thing in these days when all are outraged and few are inraged. Was the sermon more about Paul?
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Bishop Schori is guilty of two things in that sermon. One, she had something she wanted to preach about and shoe-horned it into the scripture for the day, which is bad, but hardly an uncommon sin among clerics. Two, she has yet to figure out how sound-bites work in an age of petulant, dishonest internet outrage. Which is also bad, considering the dedicated smear campaign and shrill paranoia she is a victim of.

Bishop Schori is talking about spiritual gifts in that sermon. To take it to means she likes demon possession is silly.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
FWIW, the full sermon is here.
 

---

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
There's a thread running here in Keryg too MT
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Yeahbut, purgatory we can talk about things besides her exegesis. The comments section in MT's link shows the sort of shrill paranoia I was talking about.
 

---

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, the full sermon is here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Having said that, to take it to imply that she "approves of demon possession" is an astounding stretch of imagination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Would I Corinthians 12:3 be appropriate here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Bishop Schori is guilty of two things in that sermon. One, she had something she wanted to preach about and shoe-horned it into the scripture for the day, which is bad, but hardly an uncommon sin among clerics. Two, she has yet to figure out how sound-bites work in an age of petulant, dishonest internet outrage. Which is also bad, considering the dedicated smear campaign and shrill paranoia she is a victim of.

Bishop Schori is talking about spiritual gifts in that sermon. To take it to means she likes demon possession is silly.

---

quote:

---

It makes me wonder what would have happened to that slave girl if Paul had seen the spirit of God in her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Bishop Schori is guilty of two things in that sermon. One, she had something she wanted to preach about and shoe-horned it into the scripture for the day, which is bad, but hardly an uncommon sin among clerics. Two, she has yet to figure out how sound-bites work in an age of petulant, dishonest internet outrage. Which is also bad, considering the dedicated smear campaign and shrill paranoia she is a victim of.

Bishop Schori is talking about spiritual gifts in that sermon. To take it to means she likes demon possession is silly.

---

Well the scripture says that the girl was clairvoyant because she had a spirit of divination in her. Schorii on the other hand explicitly attributes the girl's occult ability to the Holy Spirit saying:

quote:

---

It makes me wonder what would have happened to that slave girl if Paul had seen the spirit of God in her.

---

This strikes as very, very close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well the scripture says that the girl was clairvoyant because she had a spirit of divination in her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well the scripture says that the girl was clairvoyant because she had a spirit of divination in her.

---

The scripture in question was written by Luke, in Acts, who was with Paul right? Who is telling the girl's side of the story? Nobody. We don't know much about what motivated her and why she shut-up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Well, you can take a naive, literalist view toward Scripture if you wish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Well, you can take a naive, literalist view toward Scripture if you wish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
That was directed to the former Mr Numpty, actually, MT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
She was delivered of an unclean spirit...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Well, you can take a naive, literalist view toward Scripture if you wish.

---

What, as opposed to a cynical and twisted view? Much better to engage with what it actually says, I think. That's not naive or literalistic (whatever that means), it's just the way any normal, honest person engages with a written text. Engage with what it says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Well, you can take a naive, literalist view toward Scripture if you wish.

---

What, as opposed to a cynical and twisted view? Much better to engage with what it actually says, I think. That's not naive or literalistic (whatever that means), it's just the way any normal, honest person engages with a written text. Engage with what it says.

---

Well, there are some problems with that when you are engaging with a pre-scientific world view, and one in which social institutions and many societal values were quite different than our world today

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Are registered sooth-sayers possessed of divining spirits? What do you suppose is the typical educational level, actual degree of credulity, and psychiatric status of their clients?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Having said that, to take it to imply that she "approves of demon possession" is an astounding stretch of imagination.

---

Does she call it a "beautiful thing" or does she not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
The book of Acts is canonical scripture and Paul is a holy apostle appointed by the risen and ascended Lord Jesus Jesus Christ.

The girl's side of the story is there in the scripture. She was delivered of an unclean spirit which had been the source of her exploitation and which was causing a disruption to the proclamation of the gospel. As the old saying goes, don't believe the devil even when he's saying something true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
proper reading

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
The scripture calls it an unclean spirit, sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
The scripture calls it an unclean spirit, sure.

---

No, it doesn't.¹

---

I accepted prior posts with inadequate discernment, of which the fault is all mine. I am no prophet.
 

---

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
There's a lot of special pleading going on in this thread.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Whack Job.
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
no prophet wrote:

quote:

---

We could continue the psychological analysis of Paul if we wanted. As a female slave are you generally (ab)used sexually in addition? Slave stories from the Atlantic trade in the 16-19th centuries suggests yes. So the girl is a slave with a sexual overlay, and we know how much Paul thought about sex, and what he expressed about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
She was delivered of an unclean spirit...

---

I know this isn't Kerygmania, but this is not correct. A spirit of divination was commanded out of her, not an unclean spirit. Upon reflection, one might talk about the various meanings of unclean spirit and divining spirit, but the text has one and not the other.

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't mind if any more general conclusions which the Bishop might have were made overt.

e.g

1. "I believe that a lot of the biblical material, coming from the time it does, displays attitudes which today we would describe as patriarchal and sexist. We can see that in (these texts)"

2. "I believe that the writings of the Apostle Paul display some of these attitudes. We can see that in (these texts).

3. "Therefore when we come to this story, I am wondering whether Luke, or Paul, or both, really read what happened in a way which is fair to the slave girl. Is it possible that ...."

That seems a reasonable way of looking critically at the material and then presenting a bit of speculation, a bit of eisegesis. But from the text of the sermon, the Bishop doesn't seem to have spoken that way. She doesn't present her version as a bit of speculation; she presents it as "what happened".

I don't think that can be justified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

Is there anyone here who's never at least entertained the possibility that Paul could sometimes be a jerk?

---

I wrote a study once entitled, "Paul was kind of a dick."

So, to answer your question, yes, I have. And there's a reason I'm extremely rarely asked to preach.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Spiffy--

I'd love to hear you preach.
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
The OP and title are misleading. Why is it that the very people who accuse this bishop of eisegesis insist on repeating the word "demon", which is not actually in the text? Irony much?

(The detractors are also remarkably silent about this line from the sermon: "The reading from Revelation pushes us in the same direction, outward and away from our own self-righteousness..." Wonder why.)

I agree with Zach82 that the bishop seemed to have a message that she wanted to deliver, and her interpretation of the text fit that message. But her interpretation isn't that far of the mark. The spirit of divination is not identified as demonic; the girl was speaking the truth; Paul's actions were fuelled by irritation (a rather suspect motive for doing anything); and, contrasting with Jesus' asking the man at Bethzatha if he wanted to be healed, Paul did this without the girl's consent.

It is an act of eisgesis to assume that the spirit must have been bad because Paul cast it out. FWIW, it's an eisegetical assumption I support, but ++KJS doesn't. At least she is willing to consider - against a stained-glass view of Paul - that maybe he was just being a dick and that this action was not to his credit. He seemed not to see the girl as a whole human being, but only interacted with her based on his feelings of annoyance. It's rather like praying AT someone rather than FOR them.

I go with the eisegetical assumption that ultimately, Paul was doing the girl a favour with a kind of involuntary rehab... but I don't blame ++KJS for not interpreting the text in that way. IMO her version is supportable.
 

---

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :
 
I just posted a longer drivel on the other thread, but then I realized one contrast here with most situations involving a spirit that needs exorcised is that, in this case, no one was asking Paul to deliver the girl; rather, they owned her as as slave and were capitalizing on her. In the society he was in, ISTM that what he did was akin to an outsider giving you child medical treatment against your will and without your consent. Though their motives certainly were not as noble as that of a parent, the would have had custodial "rights" as owners.

It seems he held off as long as he could, but whether out of compassion for the girl or irritation (or, like most of us, a mixture of the heavenly and oh-too-human motives), he delivered her, knowing it would cause problems.

[ 29. May 2013, 03:56: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
... [Paul] delivered her

---

quote:

---

knowing it would cause problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What is the difference between divination and discernment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well the scripture says that the girl was clairvoyant because she had a spirit of divination in her.

---

The scripture in question was written by Luke, in Acts, who was with Paul right? Who is telling the girl's side of the story? Nobody. We don't know much about what motivated her and why she shut-up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Fr. Weber, are you saying we shouldn't question? Or even think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Fr. Weber, are you saying we shouldn't question? Or even think?

---

It sounds to me like he's saying that there are illegitimate ways of questioning and thinking. Ways which, in this context, are exemplified in KJS's abuse of the scriptural text. It's perfectly acceptable to ask hard questions of the text; but it's not OK to impose heresy on the text.

---

What's the heresy of "accepting others' spiritual gifts" again?
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Fr. Weber, are you saying we shouldn't question? Or even think?

---

It sounds to me like he's saying that there are illegitimate ways of questioning and thinking. Ways which, in this context, are exemplified in KJS's abuse of the scriptural text. It's perfectly acceptable to ask hard questions of the text; but it's not OK to impose heresy on the text.

---

What's the heresy of "accepting others' spiritual gifts" again?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Fr. Weber, are you saying we shouldn't question? Or even think?

---

It sounds to me like he's saying that there are illegitimate ways of questioning and thinking. Ways which, in this context, are exemplified in KJS's abuse of the scriptural text. It's perfectly acceptable to ask hard questions of the text; but it's not OK to impose heresy on the text.

---

What's the heresy of "accepting others' spiritual gifts" again?

---

That rather depends upon which spirit it comes from, eh?

---

quote:

---

That rather depends upon which spirit it comes from, eh?

---

quote:

---

Heresy (Gk. αἱρέσεις), meaning divisive false teaching as in 2 Peter 2:1. This particular teaching is divisive on so many levels, slanderous (Gk. βλασφημέω) too, of both humans and of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Everyone who preaches occasionally preaches a truly terrible sermon (in this case, terrible because it twists the meaning of the story past the breaking point in order to make her point). I'd just chalk it up to that and not to any occult affinity for demons on her part.

---

A post like that makes it seem that you're a stranger here, even though I know better... If we let Christian charity rule in Purgatory, we'll soon be out of business.

--Tom Clune
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Has KJS responded to the criticism at all?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

That rather depends upon which spirit it comes from, eh?

---

In other words, it's Bishop Schori, so you're sure the heresy must be there somewhere.

quote:

---

Heresy (Gk. αἱρέσεις), meaning divisive false teaching as in 2 Peter 2:1. This particular teaching is divisive on so many levels, slanderous (Gk. βλασφημέω) too, of both humans and of God.

---

Who finds the teaching "We have to respect others' spiritual gifts" divisive and false, and on what basis?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Has KJS responded to the criticism at all?

---

I can't imagine priests doing much apologizing for some terrible eisegesis, and as we've seen on this thread, the criticisms of heresy and demonology (besides being baseless) come from people who will assume she's a heretic no matter what she says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Yeahbut, purgatory we can talk about things besides her exegesis. The comments section in MT's link shows the sort of shrill paranoia I was talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Yeahbut, purgatory we can talk about things besides her exegesis. The comments section in MT's link shows the sort of shrill paranoia I was talking about.

---

Any criticism of her loopy at best, theology , is sure to get the knee jerk defenders

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
She's very clearly not preaching about demon possession, daron. The passage may be about that, but that's not what she's preaching about.

---

quote:

---

So until you can show where she is actually preaching heresy, I'll just have to assume you're looking for what isn't there, and indeed don't give a crap what she preaches as long as it's heresy and you can pitch tantrums about it.

---

quote:

---

You can complain about terrible eisegesis all you like, because that's what's actually there. But terrible eisegesis is not the same order of offense as heresy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It's times like this I have to remember that every sect has a little cult of dedicated detractors waiting to condemn it for every evil under the sun, and for which there is really no point of trying to engage. We see these threads against the Roman Catholic Church all the time, and it's too much to expect that the Episcopal Churchh wouldn't have one too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It's times like this I have to remember that every sect has a little cult of dedicated detractors waiting to condemn it for every evil under the sun, and for which there is really no point of trying to engage. We see these threads against the Roman Catholic Church all the time, and it's too much to expect that the Episcopal Churchh wouldn't have one too.

---

Eh? Instead of throwing a wobbly how about addressing Daron's points?

---

I did. The Bishop wanted to talk about spiritual gifts, and despite the intent of the text she made the text about that. She is not talking about demons at all. Think about it, how can she be distorting the text to take out the demon possession and be encouraging demon possession at the same time?.


Her exegesis is atrocious, so how about criticizing her for what she is actually guilty of, and not what you WISH she was guilty of? Is that too much to ask?

I know it is.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
It's not an either/or, Zach, it can be a both/and. And in this case I think it is
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's not an either/or, Zach, it can be a both/and. And in this case I think it is

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Leaf: You don't think the text is a story of deliverance?

---

quote:

---

The story as it stands is pretty clear; the slave girl was being used as a source of commercial income. She earned a great deal of money for her owners (not for herself) (that's Act 16:16) out of her strange talent. Like all slaves, the people who were really abusing her were her owners.

---

quote:

---

And, as others have said, if it really was a gift from God, he wouldn't have been able to deliver her from it.

---

Interesting, but I disagree. First of all, and one more time, the word "deliver" is one that you have chosen to import to the text. The text does not say that. Paul ordered out the spirit and it came out. Secondly, and sadly, I think it is indeed possible for someone to remove a God-given gift from another: joy, confidence, playfulness, come to mind. Especially out of irritation, one may lash out at another and strip away something good.

(1) That is a defensible reading of the text.
(2) That is not my interpretation of the text.

If you focus on the slave girl, it is hard not to feel sorry for her that her one special ability - the spirit of divination - was removed from her without her consent. It's not hard to picture that this one special ability elevated her above the tasks that other little slave girls had to do, and offered her some protection, as she was valuable to her owners. Its removal meant that she was back to being an ordinary slave girl.

OTOH, since I too import to the text the idea that this was a deliverance of some kind, I believe that the spirit of divination was not entirely good to her or for her. Like an addiction, it offered her a few good things but was mostly destructive and better off gone. I imagine she may have been like one of those tragic addicted child celebrities. The thing that had made her special was removed; but its removal freed her to live a whole and balanced life.

Since this is a forum post and not a sermon, I can delineate more clearly what I import to the text and what I imagine about the text. ++KJS used both eisegesis and imagination in her homiletical effort, just a different brand and applied differently from the way her critics might. But they themselves would use eisegesis and imagination. They just didn't like hers.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It's times like this I have to remember that every sect has a little cult of dedicated detractors waiting to condemn it for every evil under the sun, and for which there is really no point of trying to engage. We see these threads against the Roman Catholic Church all the time, and it's too much to expect that the Episcopal Churchh wouldn't have one too.

---

Eh? Instead of throwing a wobbly how about addressing Daron's points?

---

I did. The Bishop wanted to talk about spiritual gifts, and despite the intent of the text she made the text about that. She is not talking about demons at all. Think about it, how can she be distorting the text to take out the demon possession and be encouraging demon possession at the same time?

---

quote:

---

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!.... It makes me wonder what would have happened to that slave girl if Paul had seen the spirit of God in her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It's times like this I have to remember that every sect has a little cult of dedicated detractors waiting to condemn it for every evil under the sun, and for which there is really no point of trying to engage. We see these threads against the Roman Catholic Church all the time, and it's too much to expect that the Episcopal Churchh wouldn't have one too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
It's not an either/or, Zach, it can be a both/and. And in this case I think it is

---

Of course you do, and the impossibility it being both in this case makes no difference.

---

quote:

---

So, you're seriously suggesting that appalling exegesis - which indeed this was - can't lead to heresy - which indeed this also was? Seriously?

---

No, I'm not. It is precisely her bad exegesis here that makes heresy improbable in this particular case. She is not talking about demon possession, she is talking about gifts of the Holy Spirit. She omits the demon-possession altogether in her version of it. And if you omitted her interpretation of the passage from the sermon, you would have a simple, non-heretical sermon about spiritual gifts. Doesn't the message of the sermon itself come into consideration, or is it just the sound bites that Daron decides to harp on?

Once again, that's terrible exegesis, but for the life of me I can't figure out what the rhetorical logic of that is supposed to be if it's some clever way of getting people to assent to demon possession. Daron seems to imagine that she is, in her mind, cackling evilly "Hee hee! I'll get them all to sell their souls to the devil by NOT talking about the devil!"

What?

[ 29. May 2013, 15:33: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
No, she seems to be conflating demon possession with spiritual gifts which, as Daron has rightly pointed out, is a dangerous place to go. If she's not doing that, then she needs to clarify that because, in all honesty, that's what it looks like prima facie/ at first blush.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
No, she seems to be conflating demon possession with spiritual gifts which, as Daron has rightly pointed out, is a dangerous place to go. If she's not doing that, then she needs to clarify that because, in all honesty, that's what it looks like prima facie/ at first blush.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
She doesn't go out of her way to deny this conflation because such a conflation never once occurred to her, and she gives absolutely no indication of it occurring to her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
She doesn't go out of her way to deny this conflation because such a conflation never once occurred to her, and she gives absolutely no indication of it occurring to her.

---

Which makes me wonder about her qualifications for exegesis at all.

It's really quite simple.

KJS: This was a beautiful spiritual gift.

Paul & Luke: This was some kind of bad juju spirit.

Denouement: Paul rebukes it in the name of Christ and it flees.

Enthymeme: A beautiful spiritual gift can't be revoked by the mention of the name of Christ.

Inescapable conclusion: KJS has mistaken an evil spirit for something beautiful and wholesome, and used it as a club to beat Paul with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The passage seems to be plainly talking about demon possession; therefore to make it out to be about spiritual gifts is sailing rather close to the 'twisting the Sciptures to destruction' wind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see how good "ultimate points" make up for heretical eisegesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The passage seems to be plainly talking about demon possession; therefore to make it out to be about spiritual gifts is sailing rather close to the 'twisting the Sciptures to destruction' wind.

---

All I see when I look at the ultimate point of the sermon is a syrupy call to respect others' spiritual gifts. Hardly perfidious heresy, that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The passage seems to be plainly talking about demon possession; therefore to make it out to be about spiritual gifts is sailing rather close to the 'twisting the Sciptures to destruction' wind.

---

All I see when I look at the ultimate point of the sermon is a syrupy call to respect others' spiritual gifts. Hardly perfidious heresy, that.

---

It is when those 'gifts' aren't charisms of the Holy Spirit but occult abilities directly attributed to demonic spirits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see how good "ultimate points" make up for heretical eisegesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
for the life of me I can't figure out what the rhetorical logic of that is supposed to be if it's some clever way of getting people to assent to demon possession. Daron seems to imagine that she is, in her mind, cackling evilly "Hee hee! I'll get them all to sell their souls to the devil by NOT talking about the devil!"

What?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
The passage seems to be plainly talking about demon possession; therefore to make it out to be about spiritual gifts is sailing rather close to the 'twisting the Sciptures to destruction' wind.

---

All I see when I look at the ultimate point of the sermon is a syrupy call to respect others' spiritual gifts. Hardly perfidious heresy, that.

---

It is when those 'gifts' aren't charisms of the Holy Spirit but occult abilities directly attributed to demonic spirits.

---

As I keep saying, she doesn't seem to have any awareness of the text being about demon-possession, and your argument demands just that.

---

quote:

---

Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness.

---

quote:

---

Human beings have a long history of discounting and devaluing difference, finding it offensive or even evil.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see how good "ultimate points" make up for heretical eisegesis.

---

It sure gives us an indication of why she is distorting the text, and that reason doesn't look terribly heretical to me. It is possible that she is just wrong, but not a heretic, you know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
The endless slash-and-run attacks are not doing God's work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see how good "ultimate points" make up for heretical eisegesis.

---

It sure gives us an indication of why she is distorting the text, and that reason doesn't look terribly heretical to me. It is possible that she is just wrong, but not a heretic, you know.

---

I do not say that she is a heretic. I say that what she has said is heretical. Ergo your (and Grammatica's) ad hominems against me fail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
She doesn't mention demon possession. The text does. She attributes that to a charism which is 'calling evil good' and rubbishes Paul's deliverance of the girl, which is 'calling good evil'.

How much more evidence do you need?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Instead, she's cooked up an entirely different text that has nothing whatsoever to do with demon-possession.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Instead, she's cooked up an entirely different text that has nothing whatsoever to do with demon-possession.

---

At which point I do start to wonder about her qualifications to perform her office. Bishops are supposed to "rightly divide the word of truth." How many other passages does she mangle, so as to make, even if accidentally, demons look like spirits of light? Or some other mangling of the text which could have negative spiritual consequences in her listeners?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Dan Martins would have those concerns. So would the regular posters on Stand Firm! and Virtue Online. It's all quite predictable. Comes around every few months.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Katharine+ to me, seems more sinned against, than anything else. Because she is the first woman Presiding Bishop, she becomes a target for disgruntled conservatives upset about women and gay rights in the Church who are looking for someone to dump on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I wasn't complaining about her themes. I was complaining about her inability to read scripture for what's there. And to a potential tendency to wrongly divide the Word of Truth, which in a Bishop is a Very Bad Thing.

In other words in this instance she has failed in her prime duty as a bishop. I am asking if this is an isolated instance or if this is a tendency, and suggesting that if it is a tendency, it speaks to her inadequacy for her office.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Do you much like it when Episcopalians wonder at Orthodox leaders' adequacy for office?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA) has come out in favor of demons. She declares that St. Paul's healing of the demon-possessed girl in Acts was wrong.

Shippies' thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
Dan Martins, the Bishop of Springfield, has many of the same concerns as MT; he lays them out here.

I largely agree with Martins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Katharine+ to me, seems more sinned against, than anything else. Because she is the first woman Presiding Bishop, she becomes a target for disgruntled conservatives upset about women and gay rights in the Church who are looking for someone to dump on.

---

This seems to want to put her beyond criticism because she's the first female PB. As soon as someone criticizes her, the roar comes up, "You're just saying that because you don't like female bishops!"

Grammatica seems incapable of imagining she could possibly ever do anything wrong or criticizeable. Which is scary. If you shut off even the possibility of listening to people you disagree with, then you become entrenched in your own opinions and incapable of learning the truth should those opinions in fact be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg
Typical hierarchy avoidance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:

---

Typical hierarchy avoidance.

---

She is Annunaki too. Only an alien could wear vestments that ugly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
And I refuse to engage with it. You should, too, Mousie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Do you much like it when Episcopalians wonder at Orthodox leaders' adequacy for office?

---

What does it matter what I like? And very often (as you would know if you read what I wrote with anything like an open mind) when criticism of Orthodox bishops comes up, I am right in there criticizing with the rest. It disturbs me when my bishops misrepresent my church on the world stage. Unlike some, I guess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Unlike some, I guess.

---

That last sentence isn't fair to me, and you know it. My own criticisms of the sermon on this thread are my proof, if you've read them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Unlike some, I guess.

---

That last sentence isn't fair to me, and you know it. My own criticisms of the sermon on this thread are my proof, if you've read them.

---

You're right. It wasn't really aimed so much at you; I should have made that clear. Will you respond to my central point, how YOU have misrepresented ME?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Here is just a small distinction that was pointed out to me on the thread in Kerygmania (a much more irenic place at the moment).

According to the text, it is the slave girl (paidiske) who had (echo, cf. Lk. 4:33) the spirit of divination (pneuma pythona), not the divining spirit who possessed (daimonizomai, cf. Matt. 4;24; 12:22) the slave girl.

Further, when daronmedway fumes that Jefferts Schori says, "It makes me wonder what would have happened to that slave girl if Paul had seen the spirit of God in her," he seems to deny the fact that the pnuema pythona is not the only spirit present in the girl. The trisagion prayers teach otherwise: O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, Who art everywhere present and fillest all things...

Yoke that to the supposition that the Presiding Bishop (as a marine scientist) perhaps doesn't even believe in demons and you have Jefferts Schori's concern that Paul has failed to recognize the spirit of truth in the slave girl.

It's appallingly bad exegesis, shows Jefferts Schori couldn't exegete her way around a Dick and Jane reading primer (I say more here), is depressingly prevalent, and frankly just is another example of Bishops Behaving Badly.

Film clip at Eleven.

It's hardly worth all this heaving and frothing.

---

 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
How do you feel I've misrepresented you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Do you honestly think the people in that church left thinking they ought to sell their souls to the devil? Then what is this really about?

You are getting into an acrimonious debate that existed before you, MT, between Episcopalians and schismatics who desperately need the Presiding Bishop to be a witch and a heretic to justify their actions. That is the subtext of some of these accusations you are getting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
She doesn't mention demon possession. The text does. She attributes that to a charism which is 'calling evil good' and rubbishes Paul's deliverance of the girl, which is 'calling good evil'.

How much more evidence do you need?

---

I think it's pretty clear that I think we should give her the benefit of the doubt until we see her actually make the connection you are saying. Instead, she's cooked up an entirely different text that has nothing whatsoever to do with demon-possession. She doesn't explicitly say that by any means, and in light of her fantasy version of the text it makes an implicit assertion of that probable.

Her misinterpretation is bad, but not in the way you are saying.

---

quote:

---

Human beings have a long history of discounting and devaluing difference, finding it offensive or even evil.

---

quote:

---

For many people, it can be difficult to see God at work in the world around us, particularly if God is doing something unexpected.

---

quote:

---

There are some remarkable examples of that kind of blindness in the readings we heard this morning...

---

quote:

---

[Paul] 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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
How do you feel I've misrepresented you?

---

By insinuating that I am thin-skinned about criticism of Orthodox bishops but willing to lay in about Episcopalian bishops. I am an equal-opportunity bishop-basher.

As for the internal politics of your church, I really couldn't care less. No, I don't think she believes people should sell their souls to the devil. Don't be absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:
As a Catholic I would just like to apologise to creedal and morally orthodox Episcopalians for having to suffer KJS. And Matt Fox and Alberto Cutie for good measure. We really do get your best and you our worst.

---

quote:

---

That. Is. Heresy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
She doesn't mention demon possession. The text does. She attributes that to a charism which is 'calling evil good' and rubbishes Paul's deliverance of the girl, which is 'calling good evil'.

How much more evidence do you need?

---

No, she's saying (IMHO) that Paul was mistaken about what was going on, partly because of his own prejudices. She's not calling evil good. She's trying to stop the interpretation that takes Paul's behavior at hagiographic face value.

This is beginning to sound like, "I saw Goody Jefferts-Schorri thinking for herself and talking about her ideas. Now, where did I put those matches..."


 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

That. Is. Heresy.

---

Get back to me when you can do more than repeat the same failed argument, Daron.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

That. Is. Heresy.

---

Get back to me when you can do more than repeat the same failed argument, Daron.

---

I think not, Zach. I have shown you from the text of the sermon itself that the Big Idea of Jefferts Schori's sermon is that Acts 16 is an example of how difference is wrongly vilified as evil by many Christians, whereas it should be embraced as good and holy.

The 'difference' in the text is the literal demonisation of a woman's psychic ability, which - if properly understood by Paul - would be celebrated as a holy, good and beautiful work of God. That is what the sermon is teaching, Zach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jefferts Schori is teaching that the psychic phenomena which the Lukan Paul considers evil (demons) should properly be understood as good (a unusual work of God).

In this respect, her personal demonology is largely irrelevant. What is important is that she is teaching something which is an overt and direct contradiction of what is presented in canonical scripture.

She is saying that what the Apostle Paul discerned as the work of an evil spirit was in fact God at work in an unexpected way, and therefore not in fact the work of anything evil. In other words, she is right and Paul is wrong. Or, to put it another way; what Paul thought was evil wasn't really and what conservative Christians think is evil isn't really.

---

quote:

---

...conservative...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

That. Is. Heresy.

---

Get back to me when you can do more than repeat the same failed argument, Daron.

---

I think not, Zach. I have shown you from the text of the sermon itself that the Big Idea of Jefferts Schori's sermon is that Acts 16 is an example of how difference is wrongly vilified as evil by many Christians, whereas it should be embraced as good and holy.

The 'difference' in the text is the literal demonisation of a woman's psychic ability, which - if properly understood by Paul - would be celebrated as a holy, good and beautiful work of God. That is what the sermon is teaching, Zach.

---

I think you have gotten the Big Idea of Bishop Schori's sermon pretty well, but then you impose on it your own idea of what the point of the reading was and assume that must also be her point. Now, I agree wit you about the point of the passage, but HER interpretation of the passage has nothing to do with demons. If she doesn't think the passage is about demons, she probably isn't making a point about demons. Even if that's what the passage is actually about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jefferts Schori is teaching that the psychic phenomena which the Lukan Paul considers evil (demons) should properly be understood as good (a unusual work of God).

In this respect, her personal demonology is largely irrelevant. What is important is that she is teaching something which is an overt and direct contradiction of what is presented in canonical scripture.

She is saying that what the Apostle Paul discerned as the work of an evil spirit was in fact God at work in an unexpected way, and therefore not in fact the work of anything evil. In other words, she is right and Paul is wrong. Or, to put it another way; what Paul thought was evil wasn't really and what conservative Christians think is evil isn't really.

---

She doesn't call it a demon possession, and she doesn't call it a "psychic phenomenon" or "evil" either. Those sorts of things are not even on the radar in her mind. Once again, that's your imposition on the sermon. That's a better exegesis of the passage, but terrible exegesis of the sermon.

quote:

---

...conservative...

---

Oopsy-daisy, there's your tell.

---

quote:

---

KJS is saying that what a New Testament text (Acts 16) presents as account of deliverance from evil was in actual fact an example of the Apostle Paul's shortsighted intolerance and bigotry in destroying spiritual difference. Can't you see how dangerous that type of teaching is? Really?

---

quote:

---

Nope. It's the purpose of the sermon.

---

I take it back- you don't have the vaguest idea of what the Big Idea of the sermon is. You just think she's attacking you.

[ 29. May 2013, 18:41: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

KJS is saying that what a New Testament text (Acts 16) presents as account of deliverance from evil was in actual fact an example of the Apostle Paul's shortsighted intolerance and bigotry in destroying spiritual difference. Can't you see how dangerous that type of teaching is? Really?

---

I've said how bad the exegesis is many times. As for how dangerous that is, danger of what exactly? People giving in to demon possession?

---

quote:

---

...you cannot fault KJS as an interpreter of Scripture...

---

 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No. The danger of leading people like you into the error of thinking that she has the authority to twist scripture that way. The danger of leading people like you into the error of thinking that what the bible calls evil is in fact good. The danger of leading people like you into defending her even though what she teaches is repugnant to the word of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
Mousethief, you have shifted to more stable ground by moving from KJS's interpretation of the sermon - which was perfectly legitimate as an interpretation of the text - to whether a bishop ought to preach this interpretation.

Myself, I like my bishops a little more small-"o"-orthodox when it comes to their teaching and preaching. She did not import a preferred conservative (thanks for saying it out loud, daronmedway!) eisegesis but I wouldn't have minded if she had.

Once more for clarity:

The text says, "Paul ordered the spirit of divination out of the girl because he was irritated."

The text DOES NOT say, "Paul ordered the demonic spirit out of the woman because it was the right thing to do."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
How do you feel I've misrepresented you?

---

By insinuating that I am thin-skinned about criticism of Orthodox bishops but willing to lay in about Episcopalian bishops. I am an equal-opportunity bishop-basher.

---

quote:

---

As for the internal politics of your church, I really couldn't care less. No, I don't think she believes people should sell their souls to the devil. Don't be absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
... KJS's interpretation of the sermon - which was perfectly legitimate as an interpretation of the text...<snip> ...you cannot fault KJS as an interpreter of Scripture...

---

Actually, it was not and Jefferts Schori sucks fœtid pond water as an exegete. See my post in Kerygmania.

I wish you'd stop banging on with proof-by-assertion about eisegesis and show up in Kerygmania and offer a proper argument.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I'm a liberal Anglo-Catholic and I agree with daronmedway.
 

---

Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No. The danger of leading people like you into the error of thinking that she has the authority to twist scripture that way. The danger of leading people like you into the error of thinking that what the bible calls evil is in fact good. The danger of leading people like you into defending her even though what she teaches is repugnant to the word of God.

---

People like me? Ask anyone around the ship, I have exactly the petty-fogging, unforgiving sort of mind that will find heresy if it's there and harangue about it until I'm hoarse. I am NOT giving her a pass on what she's actually done wrong here- shoe-horn her topic for the day into a passage that had little to do with it.

When I apply my mind to this sermon, whatever that's worth, I find I can choose between heresy or bad exegesis, and the evidence of the sermon clearly points to the latter. I see a glaring mistake, not heresy.

---

quote:

---

Actually, it was not and Jefferts Schori sucks fœtid pond water as an exegete.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No. The danger of leading people like you into the error of thinking that she has the authority to twist scripture that way. The danger of leading people like you into the error of thinking that what the bible calls evil is in fact good. The danger of leading people like you into defending her even though what she teaches is repugnant to the word of God.

---

People like me? Ask anyone around the ship, I have exactly the petty-fogging, unforgiving sort of mind that will find heresy if it's there and harangue about it until I'm hoarse. I am NOT giving her a pass on what she's actually done wrong here- shoe-horn her topic for the day into a passage that had little to do with it.

When I apply my mind to this sermon, whatever that's worth, I find I can choose between heresy or bad exegesis, and the evidence of the sermon clearly points to the latter. I see a glaring mistake, not heresy.

---

I suspect that most heretics are people who are too proud to admit their theological mistakes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No. I really do think that her sermon is an example of heretical eisegesis. It's not just poor teaching. It's false teaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
What!? Jade Constable, you want to light the pyre over a sermon?

Execrable exegesis. Not heresy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm perfectly aware of the view that what is ascribed to demonic influence in the NT texts should now be understood in terms of "psycho-biological processes". I don't agree with it but I wouldn't describe it as heresy.

If you want to know what I do think is heretical in the sermon in question you can read my previous posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
No. The danger of leading people like you into the error of thinking that she has the authority to twist scripture that way. The danger of leading people like you into the error of thinking that what the bible calls evil is in fact good. The danger of leading people like you into defending her even though what she teaches is repugnant to the word of God.

---

People like me? Ask anyone around the ship, I have exactly the petty-fogging, unforgiving sort of mind that will find heresy if it's there and harangue about it until I'm hoarse. I am NOT giving her a pass on what she's actually done wrong here- shoe-horn her topic for the day into a passage that had little to do with it.

When I apply my mind to this sermon, whatever that's worth, I find I can choose between heresy or bad exegesis, and the evidence of the sermon clearly points to the latter. I see a glaring mistake, not heresy.

---

I suspect that most heretics are people who are too proud to admit their theological mistakes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
The way I understand it, Daron's main complaint is that Mrs. Schori disagrees with Paul. I'm starting to like her more and more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Huh? Are you suggesting that heresies aren't glaring theological mistakes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Huh? Are you suggesting that heresies aren't glaring theological mistakes?

---

For cripe's sake. Think really, really hard, Daron. Why would I read that post of yours and think you were calling me a heretic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Huh? Are you suggesting that heresies aren't glaring theological mistakes?

---

For cripe's sake. Think really, really hard, Daron. Why would I read that post of yours and think you were calling me a heretic?

---

Because you can't read for comprehension, Zack? I don't know. What would you like me to say?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
You're right. I've had quite enough of explaining what I think about your Presiding Bishop's sermon on Acts 16. It's utter drivel. It's also heretical. Night night.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
The way I understand it, Daron's main complaint is that Mrs. Schori disagrees with Paul. I'm starting to like her more and more.

---

Thank you LeRoc.

In some ways this is the real crux of the biscuit: Is it okay to disagree with Paul? If so, in what circumstances.

I think I'll start a new thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Zach, do you think it was a wise sermon to preach, rather than say a bit of theological speculation to test first in private discussion - or by means of a note to an adviser? The higher the kite, the stronger the wind?

It's hard to believe she didn't know it was a high flying kite. She's a pioneer of sorts. Of course there is a teaching and a pastoral dimension, but there is also a wider Episcopalian and a wider ecumenical dimension to her ministry.

You've recognised that the exegetical basis is to say the least a bit wobbly. Personally, I don't think the homiletic was all that hot. How about the politics?

Bishops are expected to be aware of wider issues, various dimensions, in their communications. That's situation normal, really, for anyone with wider authority and responsibility.

So, with these things in mind, was this a wise sermon? What do you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Evidence here, concerning the Impious Ilia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Evidence here, concerning the Impious Ilia.

---

Um, no, sorry. I wasn't defending him, let alone attacking his attackers. I was holding out hope that he had spoken out against the people his rash (I believe the word I used was "shameful") words had goaded into action. Unfortunately it was an ungrounded/unfounded hope, and he did not. But if this is the best you have for me blindly defending an Orthodox bishop, as Zach imputes (but then subsequently fails to own), you need to let it drop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

He had no business meddling with that family's girl in the first place; no wonder he got in trouble.

Can you imagine, this preacher comes up to you, yanks your daughter into his presence and evicts the spirit of wisdom the girl had demonstrated? As her parents, you would have been furious, and she would have felt mind-raped, which she must have been.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
So I still wonder what your motivation is to leap from "bad exegesis" to "bad bishop."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I am asking if this is an isolated instance or if this is a tendency, and suggesting that if it is a tendency, it speaks to her inadequacy for her office.

---

quote:

---

No one is saying her sermon was great- just that she isn't a heretic or witch for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I do not say that she is a heretic. I say that what she has said is heretical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
No, I don't think she believes people should sell their souls to the devil. Don't be absurd.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
What's it to you anyway, MT? Do you much like it when Episcopalians wonder at Orthodox leaders' adequacy for office?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I mentioned Orthodox bishops because you might very well ask yourself what an Episcopalian questioning the credentials of an Orthodox bishop was getting at. What is it to you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Evidence here, concerning the Impious Ilia.

---

Um, no, sorry. I wasn't defending him...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Evidence here, concerning the Impious Ilia.

---

Um, no, sorry. I wasn't defending him...

---

Dear me mousethief, I am so sorry.

I thought my post was manifest evidence that you were not defending the Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia, but rather, that you are, as you put it, "an equal-opportunity bishop-basher," willing to criticize episcopal misfeasance when committed by whatever flavor of bishop.

The fact that Zach82 took it opposite to the way that I meant it tells me that I should take more care when I write on these high-tension threads.

Again, I apologize for not writing clearly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I thought my post was manifest evidence that you were not defending the Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia, but rather, that you are, as you put it, "an equal-opportunity bishop-basher," willing to criticize episcopal misfeasance when committed by whatever flavor of bishop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It's times like this I have to remember that every sect has a little cult of dedicated detractors waiting to condemn it for every evil under the sun, and for which there is really no point of trying to engage. We see these threads against the Roman Catholic Church all the time, and it's too much to expect that the Episcopal Churchh wouldn't have one too.

It gives me a lot of empathy with people like IngoB, Chesterbelloc, and Trisagion, who are willing to stand up for their Church against people like Seraphim and Daron again and again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I will freely admit that KJS is not in favor of demons or demon-possession. I was taking a bit of a Gamaliel piss.

---

Of all the Shipmates you could have channeled, you picked Gamaliel?
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{{{Anne}}}
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It's times like this I have to remember that every sect has a little cult of dedicated detractors waiting to condemn it for every evil under the sun, and for which there is really no point of trying to engage. We see these threads against the Roman Catholic Church all the time, and it's too much to expect that the Episcopal Churchh wouldn't have one too.

It gives me a lot of empathy with people like IngoB, Chesterbelloc, and Trisagion, who are willing to stand up for their Church against people like Seraphim and Daron again and again.

---

.

Zach. I'm sure there are many Episcopalians who wonder at KJS's theology too

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It's times like this I have to remember that every sect has a little cult of dedicated detractors waiting to condemn it for every evil under the sun, and for which there is really no point of trying to engage. We see these threads against the Roman Catholic Church all the time, and it's too much to expect that the Episcopal Churchh wouldn't have one too.

It gives me a lot of empathy with people like IngoB, Chesterbelloc, and Trisagion, who are willing to stand up for their Church against people like Seraphim and Daron again and again.

---

.

Zach. I'm sure there are many Episcopalians who wonder at KJS's theology too

---

I'm one of them, which is why your accusation of "knee-jerk defense" is so absurd. If you want me to be specific, I think her theology is incredibly lopsided towards progressive social issues. But, as I keep saying, that ain't heresy, that's just weak theology which merits little more than the occasional sigh or eye roll.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Fr. Weber, are you saying we shouldn't question? Or even think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
She doesn't mention demon possession. The text does. She attributes that to a charism which is 'calling evil good' and rubbishes Paul's deliverance of the girl, which is 'calling good evil'.

How much more evidence do you need?

---

No, she's saying (IMHO) that Paul was mistaken about what was going on, partly because of his own prejudices. She's not calling evil good. She's trying to stop the interpretation that takes Paul's behavior at hagiographic face value.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
daronmedway, is there any particular reason for your little excursus on heresy according to the RCC?

---

Yes. Zach's main complaint from our conversation yesterday was that KJS's sermon was exegetically poor, but not heretical. Having given it some thought and some further reading I realised that there is a difference between the simple biblical definition of heresy and the more strictly codified definition of the RC and, perhaps, other denominations. I was attempting to clarify my understanding of the word heresy as being less codified than the one he might have been working to and rather closer to the biblical usage of the word regarding teaching by the presbyterate of the local church.

[ 30. May 2013, 12:46: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
If occasional bad exegesis is the mark of heresy, then not only would I be astonished if there could be found 5 catholic bishops in the whole world, it would be beyond conception that there could be found 5 catholic Christians in the whole world.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Yup, Zach.

And you'd think that no one, ever, in the history of Christianity had ever disagreed about scripture, beliefs, and teachings. Or what books to put in the Bible. No, Christian history is such a peaceful place, with everyone happily believing the same thing, giving butter cookies to the poor, and skipping through meadows without a thought in their head.

OTOH, St. Nicholas (the real one) hit someone over the head with his staff at one of the ecumenical councils...

Never mind Christians persecuting other Christians; the Inquisition; the Crusades; Wycliffe and company fighting and dying for us to have actual access to actual Bibles...

Need I go on?

For those who are tossing around the H Word (heresy), how correct are YOUR beliefs?


 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
OTOH, St. Nicholas (the real one) hit someone over the head with his staff at one of the ecumenical councils...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
For those who are tossing around the H Word (heresy), how correct are YOUR beliefs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
Zach can use argument to moderation as a fallacious defence against a charge of heresy if he wishes, but it would better if he explained why what - by her own admission - KJS says is identified as evil in scripture should, in fact, be affirmed as good in actuality. Because that is what she's saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
There aren't many places in scripture which mention heresy, but a quick look at the places that do indicate that the highly rarified ecclesiastical definition, particularly in Roman Catholicism, is an unnecessary and ultimately unhelpful amplification of the original biblical concept.

In seems to me that it the Roman Catholic view of heresy, either intentionally or accidentally, takes the biblical concept of heresy out of the hands of the local church and places it in the hands of institutionalised Christianity, more specifically the hierarchy of Roman Catholicism.

As a result, heresy becomes a strictly codified way of categorising departures from the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, rather than being the wilful choice of local church leaders to teach against the faith which was one and for all entrusted to God's holy people (cf. Jude 1:3).

It is in this second - less rarified - sense, that I consider KJS to be teaching heresy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
You haven't engaged with the actual text or the homiletic of KJS's sermon at all, Zach. You said a few things about the Big Idea that I identified (ad hominem's aside) but you've not addressed any of the false teaching (heresy) that I and others have identified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
You haven't engaged with the actual text or the homiletic of KJS's sermon at all, Zach. You said a few things about the Big Idea that I identified (ad hominem's aside) but you've not addressed any of the false teaching (heresy) that I and others have identified.

---

I have, and the fact that you would say that only shows your low level of engagement with the issues. You one offering is "Witchcraft is bad, and any other reading of the passage is heresy because I say so."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
When does vigorous engagement and disagreement in Purgatory begin to demonstrate clear signs of a personality conflict at work? About now, I should say.

Consider taking it to Hell, Shipmates. You'll feel freer there. It's getting a bit too personal hereabouts.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The OP is provocatively absurd of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Schori, of course, cannot possibly believe in demon possession as she is still modern, poor thing. Like some here.

God isn't.

---

God is post-modern?
Well, maybe not, but I doubt that She is exclusively traditionalist either. I mean, She may well be unchanging - but that's for all time, so She must surely comprehend both.

Anyway, I take it you're suggesting that God believes in demon possession. I think that's a highly quesitonable assertion. Except, of course, that you didn't really assert it.
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Anyway, I take it you're suggesting that God believes in demon possession.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Anyway, I take it you're suggesting that God believes in demon possession.

---

I'm not sure, strictly speaking, that God believes anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Now whether in absolute truth that can only be known, if THEN, in the Resurrection that there is a realm of fallen angels, we cannot POSSIBLY know and therefore of COURSE I can't assert that God knows that there IS a Devil, any more ANY ONE can say that He could possibly know that it's going to rain tomorrow (which the acutely intelligent here MAY see as a straw man as it is in fact a category error that I'm sneakily trying to get past you).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
I don´t actually think KJS ... believes in God, except as a nice word to describe something abstract and keep her clergy job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
I don´t actually think KJS believes in demons or demonic possession. I don´t even think she actually believes in God, except as a nice word to describe something abstract and keep her clergy job. Why do you still expect something remotely christian to come from this type of theologian´s mouths?

---

quote:

---

gorpo posts:
I don´t even think she actually believes in God, except as a nice word to describe something abstract and keep her clergy job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
I don´t actually think KJS believes in demons or demonic possession. I don´t even think she actually believes in God, except as a nice word to describe something abstract and keep her clergy job. Why do you still expect something remotely christian to come from this type of theologian´s mouths?

---

Is that just being cynical or do you mean that? I would have expected a Presiding Bishop to believe the fundamentals of the Christian faith and to exhort others to do so. I wouldn't expect her fellow bishops or whoever appoints a Presiding Bishop to choose someone who doesn't.

I would also have thought it was very destructive to a person's inner equilibrium to have to exercise such a prominent role without that level of personal belief and commitment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I don't think it is a good idea to push people any further, tying them up to a chair, flashing a light in their eyes and asking "Do you REALLY believe in the co-equality of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
There aren't many places in scripture which mention heresy, but a quick look at the places that do indicate that the highly rarified ecclesiastical definition, particularly in Roman Catholicism, is an unnecessary and ultimately unhelpful amplification of the original biblical concept.

In seems to me that it the Roman Catholic view of heresy, either intentionally or accidentally, takes the biblical concept of heresy out of the hands of the local church and places it in the hands of institutionalised Christianity, more specifically the hierarchy of Roman Catholicism.

As a result, heresy becomes a strictly codified way of categorising departures from the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, rather than being the wilful choice of local church leaders to teach against the faith which was one and for all entrusted to God's holy people (cf. Jude 1:3).

It is in this second - less rarified - sense, that I consider KJS to be teaching heresy.

---

I disagree with your idiosyncratic understanding of what heresy may be, but it places your reasoning into a context I can understand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
I don´t actually think KJS believes in demons or demonic possession. I don´t even think she actually believes in God, except as a nice word to describe something abstract and keep her clergy job. Why do you still expect something remotely christian to come from this type of theologian´s mouths?

---

quote:

---

"Listen up. God has a better plan!"
- Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori, at Gen. Convention, 2012

"Praise God who brings light out of darkness, life out of death, and newness out of the stale and moribund. Alleluia! Christ is risen!"
-- The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA)
(from a message for Easter 2013)

---

quote:

---

Does each diocese in the ECUSA have to have an official and expert diocesan exorcist, and a requirement that clergy may not conduct exorcisms without permission, or is that exclusive to England?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The key problem for ++Schori's inept exegesis is simply this: 'But Paul was annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, "I charge you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And it came out that very hour.' (Acts 16:18) Rather obviously, the Holy Spirit would not be driven out of someone in the name of Jesus Christ, the Trinity is not divided against itself! The very success of Paul means that it needs must be a demon speaking, not the Holy Spirit. ++Schori is talking rubbish (at least as far as that piece of scripture is concerned).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:


Clergy in particular, are asked to affirm the Creeds in their ordination vows and uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Anglican faith. Again, if they affirm and sign on the bottom line, I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt, that they actually do believe in creedal Christianity.
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Clergy in particular, are asked to affirm the Creeds in their ordination vows and uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Anglican faith. Again, if they affirm and sign on the bottom line, I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt, that they actually do believe in creedal Christianity.

---

I agree we should give the benefit of doubt to clergy who have affirmed their belief in the creeds, but not after they have already openly dismissed credal christianity countless times.

I know that KJS has not explicitly denied her belief in God and it´s just my assumption (but that would be entirely coherent with her theology), but I would not be surprised if she did that at some point after she is retired.

Also, it means nothing if one subscribes the creeds but interpret them in a way like this: "Jesus ressurrected means that his memory and hope have re-appeared in the hearts of the disciples". That is pretty much making mockery out of christianity. And that is the type of wishy washy "christianity" that this woman preaches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
From the Book of Occasional Services, 2003, p. 174:

"[T]hose who find themselves in need of such a ministry should make the fact known to the bishop, through their parish priest, in order that the bishop may determine whether exorcism is needed, who is to perform the rite, and what prayers or other formularies are to be used."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beatmenace:
I found a link to an analysis of the Bishops statements so far which may be helpful to understanding if she is in contravention of the creeds.

http://anglicanecumenicalsociety.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/what-do-people-mean-when-they-say-that-presiding-bishop-schori-has- denied-the-resurrection-or-the-divinity-of-christ/

It seems to conclude she isn't, but has redefined some of the terminology to mean something different to the way they have been traditionally understood, and is being consistant with that understanding of them - so could be said to 'affirm' the creeds.

I think its a bit of semantic and philosophical sleight-of-hand - but explains why folk are a bit confused about if the Bishop is orthodox or not.

I'm not a Liberal Anglican by any stretch of the imagination so I cant really judge how far from the centre this approach actually is in those circles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingbird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The key problem for ++Schori's inept exegesis is simply this: 'But Paul was annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, "I charge you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And it came out that very hour.' (Acts 16:18) Rather obviously, the Holy Spirit would not be driven out of someone in the name of Jesus Christ, the Trinity is not divided against itself! The very success of Paul means that it needs must be a demon speaking, not the Holy Spirit. ++Schori is talking rubbish (at least as far as that piece of scripture is concerned).

---

Luke (so shall I refer to the author of Acts) clearly states that Paul spoke to the spirit because he "was annoyed." We may rationally (not necessarily correctly) infer from Luke's choice of words that what was in Paul's mind was "Paul's will be done", not "God's will be done"; that he spoke to the spirit only for his own convenience, without regard for any consequences his act might have for the girl; and that therefore he took our Lord's name in vain in this instance.

---

quote:

---

Our Presiding Bishop seems to be going a bit beyond this, though, in her statement that the spirit was a gift of God, which Paul suppressed in his "blindness" and impatience. This is clearly not the presupposition of the author. My preference is, when an exegete differs from the authorial presuppositions in such a way, then the exegete make an explicit acknowledgement that this is being done, and give reasons why such a departure may be justified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
From the Book of Occasional Services, 2003, p. 174:

"[T]hose who find themselves in need of such a ministry should make the fact known to the bishop, through their parish priest, in order that the bishop may determine whether exorcism is needed, who is to perform the rite, and what prayers or other formularies are to be used."

---

Thank you for that. Does it mean that if, say, I went to the Presiding Bishop and said, "my 12 year old daughter has a familiar spirit in the guise of a C19 shaman which enables her to tell fortunes", in stead of referring us to an exorcist, she would tell me this is a gift of God and I should not interfere in my daughter's alternative spirituality?

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by beatmenace:
I found a link to an analysis of the Bishops statements so far which may be helpful to understanding if she is in contravention of the creeds.

http://anglicanecumenicalsociety.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/what-do-people-mean-when-they-say-that-presiding-bishop-schori-has- denied-the-resurrection-or-the-divinity-of-christ/

It seems to conclude she isn't, but has redefined some of the terminology to mean something different to the way they have been traditionally understood, and is being consistant with that understanding of them - so could be said to 'affirm' the creeds.

I think its a bit of semantic and philosophical sleight-of-hand - but explains why folk are a bit confused about if the Bishop is orthodox or not.

I'm not a Liberal Anglican by any stretch of the imagination so I cant really judge how far from the centre this approach actually is in those circles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Zach82

What I see is another article that tries to make accusations of heresy stick, but fails. It basically concludes that she hasn't actually said anything heretical, but don't we all know heresy is there?

No, I don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daronmedway:
There's no rational reason to think that being annoyed is wrong in and of itself. Jesus got annoyed quite a lot, and his annoyance wasn't sinful. On the contrary, it was righteous indignation. So, why would anyone rationally conclude that Paul's annoyance at the work of an evil spirit be considered wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beatmenace:
What i was responding to was the The Silent Acolyte's suggestion of Baseless Accusations.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0