A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on June 10th, 2008 in Progressive Faith

Father Jake tells us that the Anglican Church of Canada is calling it as it lies. For those who aren’t wrapped up in Episcoplia, Archbishop Akinola is setting up an alternate authority for Anglican chuches that don’t want to remain in their current hierarchy because - as Akinola puts it - of the “infestation” of “inclusiveness” and “multi-culturalism“.

As FJ points out, Akinola has proposed putting gay Christians in jail and advocated outright violence against Muslims. Clearly, Akinola wants to turn back the clock to a simpler time when hating everyone who is slightly different than you are is a-okay. Well, actually, he wants to promote it as being the Will of God.

God hasn’t spoken to me lately, so I really can’t say much about God’s Will - I can only infer it in what I’ve studied and struggled to learn. It seems to me that some of Jesus’ followers were disappointed that he didn’t lead a violent uprising to cast out the Romans - and anyone who believes Jesus held supernatural powers would have to say that he could have done it if he’d wanted to. He didn’t. So maybe Jesus wouldn’t want us to beat Muslims into submission (Aside: What does Akinola think about Buddhists and Hindus?)

Jesus didn’t address homosexuality directly - at least not in the records that are left to us. There are a few verses (five, I think) that outright condemn homosexuality. Oddly, those who would get hung up on enforcing these verses seem to neglect the hundreds of verses of Law that sandwich and time-bind those condemnations. If we look to Jesus’ example, we find him walking, eating, and sleeping with harlots, tax-collectors, and all manner of “unclean” people. Somehow, I don’t think Jesus would be booting gay people out of his pack of followers. Even if one considers gay Christians to be somehow tainted, the Bible is repleat with stories of God using tainted people. In fact, one of the overarching messages of the Bible is that we are all tainted.

I think, however, that those of us who want a more inclusive and multi-cultural church need to take another lesson from Jesus. Mainly, his inclusion of Judas in his inner circle. You can’t get more at-odds with someone than turning them over to the authorities that want to kill you. Jesus didn’t say to Judas, “You schismatic! You are trespassing on God’s property - and I think I paid for those robes, so if you want to hang out with the Romans, you’re going to have to leave that with Peter!” No, he said, “What you would do, do quickly.” He said, “Must you betray me with a kiss?”

This is something I have a whole lot of trouble dealing with - and it’s one of the reasons I haven’t written much about faith lately. I bear a rather large grudge against certain conservative elements in a church or two and I kind of like not liking them. Not only is it unChristian to do so, though, it is destructive to the purpose of my church’s existence to be at odds with their existence.

You see, I became an Episcopalian largely because of the wonderful people at Our Saviour. But the church doesn’t exist for me to come in on Sunday and shake hands or hug our friends. That is a by-product of the reason for our existence. Fellowship, love, and belonging are all fringe benefits - and when our little congregation says that it is open for anyone and everyone, they really try and mean it. If that wasn’t true; then I’d have stopped dropping in on a regular basis. And because I feel comfortable dropping by, I find myself open and receptive to re-learning so much of what Christianity means in my life. It may not be PC to talk about the church offering salvation, but that is the purpose - everything else is cake and icing.

But as surely as I would have drifted along if our church were the least bit different than it is, there are others who have stopped by once and left, never to look back. Those people are no less precious to God because they didn’t like this one church. Even if they hate our pastor or our organist or the taste of the coffee we serve after service - they are still loved by God and salvation is still offered to them. If they want to sit in a congregation that looks a little less diverse or that thinks no one else is good enough to creep into the back pew, then that is between them and God. The purpose of the church is to offer salvation - and some people won’t receive it if gay Christians are exclude and some won’t receive if if they are excluded.

So as distasteful as I find conservative Christianity, it is totally irrelevant. The purpose of Christianity isn’t to make me happy. If I insist that someone worship in an inclusive and multi-cultural environment or not at all, then my inclusivity is a farce and I am no better than those that openly call for the exclusion of one group or another. In fact, my inability to see the mote in my own eye may even knock me a wrung lower.

I’m aware that I don’t have deep ties to the Anglican church - we’ve been members for less than a year. Those with deeper roots may feel differently. And, as well, there are those who are charged with vigorously defending the physical property of the church and they must be faithful in their offices. I don’t see schisms as a necessarily bad thing (though I wouldn’t promote it, either). If churches must split over such issues, then let them split. We can hardly be warm and open and generous to the homeless if we turn to our brethren and throw them into a cold, homeless existence and react niggardly to their needs. Our church shares space with the Quimby church (of which I know very little). Surely if we can share on a case-by-case basis with those outside our denomination, we can find a way to do so with those who are within it.

But, if they must leave, then let us play out the tale of the prodigal son. If you remember, he cashed in his birthright. For a congregation, that would be their property. It would not be right for them to take everything, perhaps, but banning the taking of books - hymnals, prayer books, and Bibles - would seem to be antithetical to the purpose of the Church. After all, would we not find a way to deal with losing some of these if a wandering band of homeless people wanted to worship as they drifted from pillar to post?

In short (too late), I think it is a good thing to call schismatics as they are. But that does not change the church’s mission or our duty to our brethren.

Technorati Tags: Archbishop Akinola, inclusiveness, multi-culturalism