In a recent interview, Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Shori has said: "Some people think that you can read the Bible without understanding the original context and simply take literally what you read. We will interpret - and it's an important part of faithful living," Jefferts Schori said. "To assume there is only one way of reading is hubris."

The question is not whether there is only one way to read a text, but whether a text is inherently intelligible, and thus capable of being read. Multiple readings of a text may indicate either (1) a superfluity of meaning in the text--the text is inherently intelligible, but means more than can be stated in a single or simple reading; (2) ambiguity in the text--the text has no clear meaning, and thus one reading is as good as another; (3) inability to read on the part of the reader--the problem is not with the text, but with the reader.

In regard to the Scriptures, the church has always affirmed (1), but the church has also affirmed the inherent intelligibility of Scripture, its clarity, coherence, sufficiency and complimentarity--no part of Scripture can be played off against another--so (2) is not a valid reading, but is rather a heresy. Because the Scriptures have an inherently intelligible meaning, a proper reading is receptive. The goal of the reader is to submit his or her understanding to the inherent intelligibility of the text. The church has always recognized that (3) is a possibility, but this is a damning indictment, not something to be extolled! It is an indication that the reader has either failed to or is incapable of submitting his or her understanding to the text, or, worse, has willfully decided to ignore or thwart the plain meaning of the text in favor of personal wants.

[More]

I do not pretend to have a gift of prophecy. In fact, I often get things quite wrong. However, the response of the House of Bishops today to the Tanzania Communique immediately brought back to me the words I wrote to Bishop Andrew Smith almost four years ago now, which now seem amazingly prescient. Of course, I could not have known when I wrote this letter that only two years later Bishop Smith and an entourage would invade our parish of St. John's, Bristol, change the locks on our building, hack into the confidential files on the parish computer, impose a priest-in-charge who was a leading officer in Affirming Catholicism and who would then fire those of us who were the legally elected vestry, and, finally, that Smith would depose our rector, the Rev. Dr. Mark Hansen from the priesthood of the Episcopal Church. And I certainly could not have foreseen that I would be one of several dozen who would sign a presentment against our bishop that would be completely ignored, while Bishop Smith, still under charges, would be assigned as a judge in the trial of Bishop Cox for crossing diocesan boundaries. The ironies of my letter are rich, it seems.

Pay especial attention to what I wrote about the oath of obedience. In the last several years it has become quite clear how TEC interprets that oath. And note what the HOB said today about the "sufficiency of Scripture."

[More]