Pentheus. Pharaoh. Oven Mitt. Balrog.
These are some of the unflattering and not terribly respectful comparisons and epithets I have used to describe Katharine Jefferts-Schori the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. (Okay – not balrog. I love Tolkien too much to compare her to a balrog.) I have written some harsh criticisms of her, what she says, and mainly of what she does.
But she is not entirely wrong about everything.
If liberal religion (and politics) drive me crazy still I am at times uncomfortable with the excesses of conservative religion (and politics). I tend to read conservative blogs. But sometimes conservatives define too strictly and defend too zealously what is “correct”. And sometimes appear unwilling to consider that their opponents can sometimes be right.
Some of the attacks on (the theology of) the Presiding Bishop are a case in point. Do I think she is a disaster? Yup. A heretic? Maybe. Orthodox in her theology? No way. But that does not mean we should reject everything she say, thinks, writes.
Two recent examples come to mind.
The first is her interview with Terry Gross of NPR’s “Fresh Air”. Much of what the Presiding Bishop said (especially about conservative Anglicans and why they have a problem with her and with the prevailing ethos of the Episcopal Church) was just rubbish.
But I happened to agree more or less with her statement about creation and science. Including this:
I simply find it a rejection of the goodness of God’s gifts to say that all of this evidence is to be refused because it does not seem to accord with a literal reading of one of the stories in Genesis. Making any kind of faith decision is based on accumulating the best evidence one can find — what one’s senses and reason indicate, what the rest of the community has believed over time, and what the community judges most accurate today.
That is not to say that the tradition or community understanding is always correct, as we might note in the aftermath of Galileo’s discoveries. When the various sources of authority seem to be in tension, we must use all our rational and spiritual faculties to discern the direction in which a preponderance of the evidence points. To do otherwise is to repudiate the very gifts God has given us.
I am aware that very fine brothers and sisters in Christ will disagree strongly with me on this point. Fair enough and I do understand where they are coming from. I personally believe (1) all truth is God’s truth (and that includes scientific truth which yes is contingent and the understanding or articulation of which can change over time) and (2) even God works in the real world.
One commenter at Stand Firm objected to the idea of a “continuing creation” and wrote:
I think she’s desperately wrong about the continuation of creation. Creation does not continue and we do not participate in it. Creation was the work of the logos in the beginning. The incarnation addressed the distortion of that creation–of the image of God in the human person and of the physical creation–by sending the agent of creation to redeem it. There may be recreation but that is about returning to an original state, in which the image of God shines in every man and woman and nature functions as it ought, without moral, spiritual, or physical decay or death.
This is not a ridiculous thing to say but I must disagree (with the first and last part). The idea of a “continuing creation” in which human beings participate is sound biblical theology.
First one must recognize that creation is not just “making things exist” but more precisely “shaping chaos into order”. The Flood Narrative (Genesis 6-8) alone indicates the unfinished character of creation. In Genesis 1 God takes what I call the “dark ball or angry water” and divides into light, life, and shape. In the Flood Narrative God reverses creation – the language is almost exactly the same but in reverse – and the world returns to a “dark ball of angry water”. And after the Flood – back again. Creation. Un-creation. Re-creation.
The very presence of such a sequence demonstrates that “creation” is not an entirely fixed and finished state. And God calls human beings to participate in the management of creation. Look at all the things human beings create in the subsequent chapters of Genesis. We create new people. We create cities and culture. If some are concerned about equating human beings with God let me clarify that there is a distinction between how the Creator creates and how we as junior co-creators create. One theologian calls this “creaturely creation”.
The commenter is partly correct about returning creation to an original state – but this misses an important point in salvation history. Consider Exile. Israel is restored but is not quite exactly as it was before. Consider the book of Revelation. The world and the redeemed are healed and restored certainly but not quite exactly as they were before. Jesus is now the “lamb that was slain”. (Excuse me? The slain-ness of Jesus is now part of the eschatological vision.) Even the redeemed carry their scars and the memory of blood and tears.
God does not merely repeat himself. There will be a new heavens and a new earth. Not just a return to the old ones. C. S. Lewis also makes this point.
One reason why it is important not to relegate “creation” solely to a past event is to recognize the ongoing relationship between creation and salvation. Throughout the Bible these two are intertwined. It is a mistake to say “creation is here in the past, now we have salvation”. Salvation is in fact an expression of creation theology. Observe how often the Psalmist cries out to God as creator.
This is but a brief outline of what I argue is a biblical theology of continuing creation and human beings as participants in and managers of that creation. For more let me quickly direct you to three works that explain this more fully:
- Jon Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil
- Samuel Balentine, The Torah’s Vision of Worshop
- Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation commentary)
Now to a second example.
Much was made of how the Presiding Bishop made use of the baptism of Jesus in a devotion with diocesan clergy in (state? reference?). The conservative priest (after giving credit to the Presiding Bishop for being fairly pleasant in person – and this is consistently true) then did not understand how “you are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased” could possible apply to us. He objected that this was a gross misuse of Scripture. God the Father said this to Jesus his Son at his baptism. End of story.
Well no. Or rather yes but that is not the end of the story. She was using lectio divina in which part of what we listen for is what God says to us through the Scripture. It is not necessarily a literal, precise, or “original” meaning of the Scripture in question.
But more to the point this week I have been listening to a CD chock full of sermons (MP3 format) by Rev Dr Paul Zahl formerly dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Minister and now rector of All Saints Church in Maryland. Hardly a flaming liberal. And sure enough in one of his sermons he clearly takes the Father’s words to Jesus and applies them… to us.
Listen to the whole thing here. You do not have to register. (Oddly enough that sermon for January 13 which is also my birthday. Woohoo.)
Look. I have an amazingly low opinion of the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. She is a disaster. Her theology is not orthodox. (What I do not understand is why even liberal Episcopalians should tolerate her. You want a liberal Presiding Bishop? I quite understand. But why not have one who is a better preacher, better writer, better speaker, better retreat leader, better leader in general?)
But she is not entirely wrong about everything. And some of what conservative Anglicans are (too) quick to reject from her just might be (more or less) sound biblical theology.
