I suspect many conservative/orthodox Anglicans are grateful to God that Katharine Jefferts-Schori was elected Presiding Bishop.
The Chuch of England not only has voted to allow women bishops (that was a foregone conclusion) but much more significantly showed a complete lack of regard or accomodation for those who cannot for reasons of conscience and/or theology accept this. “We know you are going to do this. We do not want to leave the Church of England. But can you leave some room for us – as you had promised years ago?”
And now the Telegraph interviews Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori. Who said:
But Dr Jefferts Schori, the first woman to become a “primate” or leader of an Anglican province, claimed other reasons were often behind people’s opposition to women in the clergy.
She said: “I think there’s a whole range of reasons why people aren’t comfortable with the idea.
“It’s personal antipathy, and it’s a misunderstanding of leadership in the early church. The early church had women in leadership roles.”….
Did you get that? If you disagree with women bishops (or heck women priests) it is because (a) you do not like women and (b) you are ignorant (of church history). Ignorance or antipathy. Not principled disagreement.
Conservatives do it. So do liberals. Dismiss those they disagree with. (Although frankly the way Malcolm Yarnell does it is vastly better. His dismissal involves some logic.)
(This person is a bishop?!? Let alone a Christian?!?)
(I refrain from sharing another strong example from that Baptist discussion board. One fellow who keeps telling us “you need to read this… watch that… or else you have nothing to say about that matter”. I finally had had enough of this rubbish and stated the following.)
A dangerous rhetorical move I often see all across the theological/political spectrum is the assumption that people disagree with us because they must be ignorant. They must be. They know less. They are less intelligent. They have less information. They have read less. If they would only be more educated, more intelligent, get more information (the information we will provide) and read more (the articles and books we say they must read) then they would agree with us. Right?
Sometimes that might be the case. But how often is there someone that – if we are honest with them and with ourselves – is at least if not more informed, educated, intelligent, well read?
How do we know J has not read something? And if he has read it and still thinks the same… will we suddenly say “oh – well now I take your disdain seriously”? Why set conditions that when met frankly make no difference? (“Sign this statement or you can’t work for us”. And after they do? Are they safe? Thought not. “Agree with me on all these other issues or I will not listen to your anti-abortion views”. And if they do? Do they listen? Just asking.) And who can set conditions for you? And will you make as much effort to meet them as you expect others to meet yours?
This is a trap I sometimes fall into myself. I see liberals do it. Conservatives do it. Evolutionists do it. Creationists and Intelligent Design supporters do it. (Louisiana SB 733 comes to mind.) Earthlings do it. People from Alpha Centauri do it.
Such a mindset is by definition anti-rational. (If rationality – by definition – includes being open to all information and argumentation which may support or challenge.) Sometimes they disagree with us because they are ignorant (in some form). But it is dangerous a priori to assume this.
Several posts later… our friend went right back to it again.
