To a fierce advocate of LGBT issues in the Anglican Communion: Christology and the future of LGBT activism

This is a note to a retired priest in New Zealand who is a very zealous proponent of a particular interpretation of sexual ethics within the church. I left it originally as a comment here, and have slightly edited it (removed one paragraph which was too specific in nature). It seems to me like it could be relevant to a great many advocates of LGBT issues in the Anglican Communion; so I post it here.

Fr. Ron,

As passionate as you are about the LGBT community – I’d urge you to turn your passion also to understanding how the Christology of The Episcopal Church (TEC) effectively places it outside of Trinitarian Christianity. This is one of the reasons why “dissidents” left – because, unfortunately, TEC has been showing itself as a dissident with regard to Christ Himself. And it’s likely, in the long run, to undermine much of what you are trying to achieve with regard to LGBT rights as other churches decide their positions on this matter given what occurs in the midst of us Anglicans. However, I don’t wish so much to engage you in your thoughts regarding these “dissidents,” but rather to speak to your love of Christ and of LGBT people.

Your voice is heard in the LGBT community and within TEC – you could help advocate a returning of TEC to faith in Christ – e.g., acknowledging Christ as God incarnate in human flesh – instead of this all generally being a set of edifying metaphors for the purpose of directing person’s actions toward various causes for social justice.

No matter how important the cause of LGBT inclusion in the church may be … this is not “the same thing” as Jesus Himself – we must recognize Jesus as The Risen Christ to whom we must turn in seeking transformation of life – and not as various metaphors for doing various good things.

Inclusion Gone Wrong: A Case Study

In my last post, I discussed the dangers inherent in the inclusion / exclusion paradigm when it is elevated to the level of one of the dominant features of church discourse.

Allow me here to give a "real life" situation I've seen where "inclusion/exclusion" has been the predominant paradigm of thinking within the church. Situation is real; names & other info has been changed to protect the identity of those involved. Call this, as it were, a bit of "field work."

Sam is an Episcopalian, is involved in local church leadership, comes from a church whose church life and theology is closely bound with the National Church. Sam knows a lot about liturgical colors, about civil rights, about poverty issues, and is quite vocal, but he really doesn't know very much at all about Scripture or theology. But Sam loves talking about the sacred, and believes firmly in the sacred, and in helping people. Sam likes Spong, but finds it difficult to say why other than that Spong helps him think. But Sam is very dedicated to the church, and incredibly eager to help. Sam is very liberal in politics. Sam is respected since he's so vocal in supporting the rights of the oppressed, and in defending social justice issues against the attacks of right-wingers which he's read about in the papers. If you want to know how to help convince your neighbors that gun control is a good idea, Sam is a very good person to go to, with statistics, voting records, and a lot of helpful information about what some of those wacko right-wingers are up to.

Joe is a non-denominational type Christian, and has quite a substantial knowledge of the Bible and of church doctrine; much of this through self-study. Joe has been hurt in the church, and tends to be skeptical of churches and clergy in general. Joe often makes comments at gatherings about scripture and theology which overly critical and not terribly helpful, sometimes "cherry-picking" Scripture to make a point. Joe doesn't know that much about civil rights or poverty issues. Joe doesn't believe that partnered gay people should be clergy, but doesn't believe in gay-bashing, either. Joe is very conservative in some specific points of theology, similar to some more conservative Baptists.

At an official church gathering where scripture and theology are discussed, Sam makes some remarks which are rather revealing of how little Sam knows about either Scripture or theology. Sam tends to think that if he feels something about Scripture or theology, there's no point in his not saying it at such a gathering. In other Episcopal church settings, people have been interested enough in what Sam says about the sacred. But often enough, in this setting, Sam says things which reveal that Sam doesn't know much about Scripture or theology. But Sam doesn't think it's relevant whether he has the "book knowledge" or not, and that his personal faith validates what he says, and that it's not all that important if he's, e.g., talking about what the Bible says about Adam and Eve, and it turns out he's made a mistake, that this is should be normal for any Christian, since Christians shouldn't be "obsessive" about Scripture or doctrine.

Inclusion as dominant paradigm in church discourse

I was recently in a discussion on a forum board of predominantly Episcopalians, asking the question: "Can we be totally inclusive?"

The question is interesting because in some quarters, especially congregations which are supportive of the National Church, the notion of "inclusion" has become so predominant in discourse that it functions as a major paradigm in regulating thought and discourse - more important than just about any theolgical notion (with the exception of "love").

When our discourse about the church becomes dominated by the notion of "inclusion," we are not looking in the right place - and we are in danger of flirting with exclusivism.

When we are so focused on inclusion, the basic question that we are asking is, "Who belongs inside, and who belongs outside?" As this question grows to predominate our church consciousness and our ways of speaking about things, it means that we tend to try to answer this question before answering other questions - or to answer those other questions on the basis of our answer to this one.

The danger is that we start providing answers which are patently silly, destructive, or otherwise unacceptable - because we are then likely to see a simple "flip-flop" - where, still focussed on the same question, we begin thinking, "We have way too many people in here, a lot of them don't belong! Which ones do we need to push out?" We've seen this type of thought in this thread already, in speaking of "tolerating the intolerant" and the danger of this attitude. When "tolerating" and "inclusion" become such an incessant and insular focus, it's only natural for us to start to logically begin flailing about and contradicting ourselves. The answer isn't within the narrow margins of the question "inclusion or exclusion?" - it needs to be found elsewhere.