Friday, June 21, 2013

PB gives a sermon and tempest ensues

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori gave a sermon, which presented a rather different view point of a text, and conservatives are in an uproar.  Oh, dear.  From the NY Times:
Her text was Acts 16:16-34, which includes the story of a slave woman and fortuneteller whom Paul encounters in Philippi, Macedonia. 
As Luke, who Christians believe is the narrator, tells the story, the woman “had a spirit of divination and brought her owners a great deal of money by fortunetelling. While she followed Paul and us, she would cry out, ‘These men are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.’ ” After many days, “Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, ‘I order you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.’ And it came out that very hour.” 
This story has historically been read as a tale of exorcism, in which Paul delivers the woman from some sort of indwelling spirit — or, alternatively, strikes a blow for monotheism against local beliefs in plural gods. But as Bishop Jefferts Schori interpreted the passage, Paul was guilty of failing to value diversity, to see the slave girl’s beautiful “difference.” 
“Paul is annoyed at the slave girl,” Bishop Jefferts Schori preached. “She’s telling the same truth Paul and others claim for themselves. But Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness. Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it.” 
And,  conservatives are up in arms that she dare read this text differently.  The PB seems unfazed
But Bishop Jefferts Schori pointed out, in an interview Friday, that elsewhere in the Bible, Paul appears to condone slavery. Her sermon was thus part of a necessary, continuing tradition of interpretation. 
“If the church had never reinterpreted Scripture,” the bishop said, “we would still have slavery — legal slavery.” Scripture must be read “in our own time and our own context,” because prior generations had “a limited view,” she said. 
“They had to have a limited view, because none of us is God.”
What do you think?  Can a text take a re-interpretation, to give us meaning that perhaps even the author didn't consider?  this is not just about Biblical interpretation, of course, but is an on-going question in literary criticism.  If texts are static, unwelcome to interpretation, we'd never be able to set Shakespeare in anything other than period dress with white actors.



13 comments:

IT said...

Also, the author of the article wades into politics: He refers to TEC as a denomination that is "troubled", and "shrinking" and says,
Although a spokesman for the Episcopal Church said the exact number of members who have departed during Bishop Jefferts Schori’s tenure is not available, to take one example, the Anglican Church in North America, which was founded in 2009 and claims to have 1,000 congregations representing 100,000 worshipers, includes many ex-Episcopalians.


Do you think he was fair?

JCF said...

Not remotely fair. To take freaking *ACNA* as an authority on TEC?

I still need to read the sermon *on its own* before I form an opinion on it (which I will do shortly).

Adam Wood said...

There's something a bit different between the continual need for a reinterpretation of scripture and "making stuff up."

The PB here is simply making stuff up, and not treating the scripture (or us) with very much respect. This doesn't surprise me very much, sadly. I witnessed her public dismissal of my wife's deeply felt concerns regarding how we treat those who have separated from us with, "Well- the Bible says a lot of things."

I am very thankful for the fact that in this church a woman, or a gay person, or a married person can be ordained to Holy Orders, and be elevated to the office of Bishop. But the fact that something theologically remarkable and prophetic has happened through the life of KJS does not mean that her theological beliefs are beyond criticism.

Ann said...

Classic midrash IMO-- taking what is not said and filling in the spaces in the story. She provokes us to think about a story that sort of has one interpretation and examine our thinking.

Erp said...

Taking established stories and reinterpreting is human and a deeply valuable exercise.

Doing it with non-religious texts is less controversial (think of the different perceptions of Julius Caesar and Brutus). Doing it with religious texts can lead to sect splitting. Christianity reinterpreted many of the Hebrew scripture stories. Some atheists react differently to the religious stories they were raised with (e.g., Abraham should have argued with God when told to sacrifice another human).

JCF said...

But the fact that something theologically remarkable and prophetic has happened through the life of KJS does not mean that her theological beliefs are beyond criticism.

Well, obviously not. That's a given, regardless of this sermon.

I witnessed her public dismissal of my wife's deeply felt concerns regarding how we treat those who have separated from us with, "Well- the Bible says a lot of things."

Adam, that's the sort of story where I would have to hear from ALL the participants, to *begin* to form an opinion. One-sided---or even two---doesn't fly.

JCF said...

OK, I've read the sermon now. For the most part, I thought it was *beautiful*. The criticism seems to hinge solely on a sentence or two (what is it w/ conservatives to lock on to a Clobber Passage or 7, and hammer away on it to the exclusion of all else?).

Frankly, as w/ all sermons that depend upon "this historical incident happened this way", I'm left not at all sure the incident happened AT ALL, much less as the writers/editors/redactors/canonizers of the Biblical texts would have it.

Was Paul right or wrong? Was the slave girl right or wrong? Were her masters right or wrong (yes, they were obviously wrong, for enslaving her). Did it happen at all?

Not knowing the answers, I think it always best to look to the *principles* one can deduce from such stories, not historical evaluation of persons in the incident-in-question.

And to me, from this story and others, Paul WAS a religious chauvinist (i.e., "My way or the highway!" I can't tell you how much he pisses me off in the "To an Unknown God" story: how dare he say "I've got THE answer", when the Athenian altar is deliberately OPEN to pluralist interpretations???)

...but then again, I think that's what's set off the (often unpleasantly vituperative) commenters at the site w/ the sermon (and I'm sure around the Conservative "Anglican" blogosphere): ++KJS writes in the context of religious pluralism---as a CHRISTIAN, but with epistemological humility---and they Can't Stand That.

It's too much hard work, for them, to have to rely on FAITH, when you can instead beat all others over the head w/ certitude (as Paul sometimes did---in the stories we have of him).

Doubt (what they can't abide) isn't the end of Faith---it's the beginning of it. Lord Jesus, please give your church MORE such doubters! More such OPEN minds, as our Presiding Bishop's! Amen.

it's margaret said...

Well... what the "slave" was saying is this:

"she would cry out, “These men are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.”

So, in fact, from a Christian pov, she was certainly telling the truth... and why would that piss poor Paul off???? Somehow, poor baby, it got in his way --a woman, announcing them as messengers of the God. And he had no control over her, except to take her gift of prescience away.

As far as I can tell --the PB didn't go far enough. She was quite reserved.

just sayin'.

Ann said...

Margaret -- exactly

dr.primrose said...

I was at a service yesterday in which a bishop was preaching. The Gospel, as you probably remember, was about the man in the country of the Gerasenes who "had demons."

The demons "begged" Jesus to let them enter a heard of swine. "Then the demons came out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned."

Now this was good for the man who had demons. It perhaps worked out OK for the demons, who may have had sufficient supernatural powers to survive. For the swine -- not so much.

Is it OK in a sermon to point out that Jesus took action that had a very good result for someone but also had "collateral damage"? Does it make a difference where the demons went? OK for "unclean" animals like swine? How about "clean" animnals? How about other human beings?

I think one of the techniques that's helpful in Bible study is assuming the point of view of the various characters in the story. In this story, it's easy to identify with Jesus or the man who had demons. But then, how about the people who came out from the from the city to find out what had happened and were "seized with great fear"? How about the swineherds who lost their swine? How about the swine themselves?

I think the PB was doing something along these lines. This technique can be very disturbing because it makes us look at these stories from the Bible in new, different, and sometimes very upsetting ways.

JCF said...

"Now this was good for the man who had demons. It perhaps worked out OK for the demons, who may have had sufficient supernatural powers to survive. For the swine -- not so much."

I suppose this might bother me . . . if I assumed it factually happened. But I really don't (I'm sure I'm FAR more heterodox than the PB in that regard! ;-p)

[I hear this type of criticism from anti-theists All.The.Time., e.g., "Why did your Jeebus curse the fig tree?!" Oy vey. Can we not look to what these stories are TRYING to tell us, via principles, than get bogged down in the figurative details? Oy vey!]

Pidge said...

Were the pigs collateral damage? Look at the details, the man was driven by his demons into the wilderness, he was self harming, the demons feared 'the abyss.' If we met him today we might conclude that he was depressed and suicidal. The pigs did what he feared his demons would make him do and committed suicide. He saw his nightmare ended in the narrative of the pigs demise.

JCF said...

I think you make my point, Pidge. Jesus healed the man of a self-harming "demon" (w/ or w/o personification). That the pigs commit "suicide" in the story illustrates what the man was cured from. I think it perfectly acceptable to believe "No Porcine Lives were Harmed in the Creation of this Story"! ;-)