Jun 21 2007
“I am both Muslim and Christian” –Huh?
 
[From Seattle Times]
Shortly after noon on Fridays, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding ties on a black headscarf, preparing to pray with her Muslim group on First Hill.
On Sunday mornings, Redding puts on the white collar of an Episcopal priest.
She does both, she says, because she’s Christian and Muslim.
Read about it here.
[From me]
Huh? Jesus said in John 14:6
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Islam and Christianity are not compatible. I don’t get this one. I think you have to choose whom you will serve. I choose Jesus.
What do you think?
[HT] TaranÂ
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
31 responses so far
I suspect she is more attracted to the cultural and disciplinary aspects of Islam (which, after all were lifted from Christianity and Judaism) than the deeper theological aspects. She also seems to have purposefully chosen to set aside the major issues dividing the two Faiths.
As stated in the article:
People within one religion can’t even agree on all the details, she said. “So why would I spend time to try to reconcile all of Christian belief with all of Islam?
“At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That’s all I need.”
I don’t understand how she can do that, however Islam is far closer to Orthodox Christianity than say, Mormonism and some say you can be both a Christian and a Mormon. And since Buddhism has no divine Being, some could be both Christian and Buddhist.
Is it newsworthy just because it is about Islam? If she got Spiritual growth out of attending a Synagogue would it be a different story?
MIT,
For me it is newsworthy because no matter if it was Baptist, Methodist, Pres, AoG or Non-Denom and any other religion besides Christianity.
This isn’t a Baptist joining a Episcopal Church which worships the risen Savior. This is a person dividing their faith between a works based religion and a fine denomination like yours that teaches “Grace.”
I don’t think this is a bit unusual considering the times and the place - 21st century Washington State.
It’s also evident to me that the evil one is making some inroads in blurring the diving lines between the true believer and all the rest - including those in the “church” and those of different religions.
Many will recognize immediately that Rev. Redding is deceived. But, there are some in the Christian community that would say that this is a harsh characterization.
You certainly don’t want to major on the minor but if you minor on the major, you’re in deep trouble.
“I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I’m both an American of African descent and a woman. I’m 100 percent both.”
That would be an example of the logical fallacy of categorization. She compares being two religions (two like things) with being a woman and being African-American (two unlike things-gender AND race).
A logical analogy would be to say that being Muslim and a Christian is like being a Man and a Woman. Which shows the absurdity of her argument.
It’s not simply the bad theology…it’s the lack of critical thinking. And she’s going to be teaching at a Jesuit institution???!?
I file this whole situation under the category of “Discernment takes a holiday.”
What makes it even worse is that her Bishop thinks this situation is just fine.
Taran, good points re. the logical fallacy.
Denominations and other religions may have some non-essential views that are similar or different. The real dividing line is the essentials of the faith - the exclusivity and divinity of Jesus, the authority and accuracy of the Bible, etc.
There is absolutely no way to say that different religions have the same essential beliefs and that more than one can be true at once.
Taran, agreed, it sounds about as absurd as being fully human and fully divine.
I think she makes an excellent point that people routinely accept absurdities and contradictions within a single religion, so what she is doing is little different. They just assume that with future meditation, the apparent contradiction will be resolved, as it must since God wouldn’t make a mistake like that.
I think what she is doing is more or less what the Bahá’à Faith do on a much larger scale; trying to normalize and integrate warring tribes.
My (apparently less than clear) point was not that the Christian tradition is immune to competing truth claims, but rather that Redding sets up a false dichotomy, pitting gender against ethnicity.
That is indeed absurd.
Islam recognises Jesus as the penultimate prophet, and that he was born of a virgin. They believe in the historical Adam and Eve, Abraham, Isaac, etc. In many ways, Islam could be regarded as a Catholic heresy. Catholcisim relies on both faith and works.
What this lady believes is no more absurd than believing that dead people can crawl out of their graves, talking donkeys, or the sun being commanded to stop still, in order to have enough light by which to massacre a few thousand more human beings.
Hi Francoise,
I think you are confusing miracles with contradictions.
Jesus rising from the dead was a miracle. It may or may not have been true. You can accept or reject the veracity of that statement based on your investigation of the evidence.
Saying Jesus died on the cross (Christianity - to pay for our sins) and didn’t die on the cross (Islam) is a contradiction. They can’t both be true.
Neil-
Does isalm believe that Christ didn’t die on the cross or do they believe that he didn’trise from the dead? Or both?
Hi Alan,
Both. The Koran says, “they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them” (Qur’an 4:156)
Since they don’t believe He was crucified, they also wouldn’t believe in the resurrection.
James speaks of someone who is double minded as being unstable in all their ways. To have even a basic understanding of both religions… you’d have to choose. I am not wanting to pass judgment but I wonder what is in her medicine cabinet…Paxil, Zoloft, Lithium?
She sounds like the guy who says he’s a 3-point Calvinist. There ain’t no such thing.
Like there isn’t a rock so big God couldn’t move it, either.
As the article goes on, it seems pretty clear (at least to me) that she abandoned Christianity a long time ago, and probably never really walked with Christ in the first place. She places her assurance on her baptism (infant), she already doubted the divinity of Christ, she did not believe in the trinity as one God in three persons, she sees Jesus as God’s Son in the same sense as we are all God’s children, and Jesus merely lived the closest to God’s will that any person has ever lived.
The last part, about her see-through cross and the pouch, was interesting. She made her cross. I think it is a good bet that she has made her “Christ” as well. What I think is pretty funny, is that while she claims to be fully Muslim and fully Christian, she does not wear her head scarf whenever she is out, only when she prays. Does she wear it when she prays in church? Jesus tells us that we can not serve two masters. I think she is trying, but eventually, she will have to be fully one or the other, right now she is half of both.
Taran, I understood your point. Mine was that religion *thrives* on impossible dichotomies. It would not be the first time a god was both dead and alive at the same time, or whatever else is needed to rationalize the two. You’re using real logic when you need to be using religious logic, which is as pliable and resilient as the logic of a delusion.
I’m told over and over that practicing Christianity means above all having a relationship with Jesus. She developed one. Through Jesus, she found God. She also found that God was Allah, and he wants submission. Everyone here seems to instantly discount that she claims to have come to Islam through Jesus. Dozer goes so far to suggest that she has a mood disorder, which seems a little irrelevant to me but the idea seems to be to attempt to discredit her.
Well, what if your personal Jesus told you something utterly outside your experience? Maybe even something impossible. Would you believe the impossible thing, or would you turn your back on him? What if you knew, as you do now, that if you told anyone what you had learned from Jesus, they would simply tell you you didn’t really know Jesus?
How do you judge whether someone knows Jesus or not? If you allow that people can think that they have a personal relationship with Jesus, but be wrong, what does that mean? From my point of view, it means there is no reason to believe one Jesus over the other. Furthermore, if I were to accept the capricious Universe presented in the Bible, I would also have to consider that both contracitory Jesi are true, because I would believe that “impossible” things do happen.
Oh shoot, I’m using real logic again, I must correct myself: I would just continue believing whatever the hell I wanted to believe.
David Cecil,
I take issue with a couple of your statements and assumptions, and would like to challenge some of them.
You say she “already doubted the divinity of Christ” I could not find that in the article, could you please give a citation?
What I did see was “she struggled with the nature of Jesus’ divinity” surely something that Christians for centuries have done?
Or are we not allowed to ask questions? I find that in asking the questions, He gives the answers just as St. Thomas was not castigated for his doubts but simply shown the Sacred Wounds by Jesus.
I do agree that her views on the Trinity are unorthodox, however does precise belief in that complex doctrine open the gates of Heaven? I wouldn’t go so far as to say that.
You mention her baptism. “She places her assurance on her baptism (infant)”. Are you aware that Episcopals take baptismal vows that are renewed annually? (usually at Easter). Do you know what those vows say? Here are just two of them:
Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept Him as your Savior?
Do you put your whole trust in His grace and love?
You also might be aware that far more Christians over the centuries have been baptized as infants (as the Jews were circumcised as infants) than as “adult believers”. I have never had an Anabaptist be able to show me the verse that defines the “age of accountability”.
Baptism is a vastly more important thing to Episcopals/Anglicans than I see it in more Protestant Churches.
I don’t mean this as an attack, but I feel that witness needed to be given to the other side of part of your comment.
MIT,
Sorry it took a while to post your response. It got hung up in the anti-spam. I always value your thoughts.
THX Kevin,
And so I am totally clear, I choose Jesus. Islam has no appeal to me
Francoise, some day you will understand the mercy of God, rather than focus on the judgment. Both happen, but God is rich in mercy and it shows throughout the OT.
What I think this shows is how little people understand about following Jesus. And, if people don’t understand that, then why not?…
This has been a rather heady discussion, of which I don’t think my brains are prepared, but I do believe that Redding’s decision (to remain a Christian while embracing Islam) is one that is more telling of our society’s determination to water down commitment and conviction than it really does with the religious views of anyone.
In my experience those committed to either Islam or Christianity have been committed. To the point of exclusivity of all other religious beliefs. We have in recent years decided that tolerance at the expense of integrity. As a matter of fact, we have re-defined tolerance (making allowance for people to believe as they want–right or wrong) so that it is synonymous with acceptance (whatever anyone wishes to believe is right as long as it is right for them).
To claim “I am a follower of Christ and a follower of Islam” shows no desire to decide for either. In so doing it makes ones belief in either to become insignificant in itself. I was once told “Stand for something or you will most certainly fall for anything.” To admire the good qualities of several religions and so decide that you believe in them all is actually to believe in none of them.
Pardon me, that should say, “we have decided for tolerance at the expense of integrity.”
Benjie, that was my point. Well said.
Now, MIT, what you have done, whether you intended to or not, is asked me to make a rather long comment. I doubt I am even in the same league as you as far as intellectual ability or endeavors, but I will do my best to explain my reasoning.
First, a quote from the passage concerning her doubt in Jesus’ divinity (I will place asterisks by what struck me as a sign of her doubt):
“For Christians, belief in Jesus’ divinity, and that he died on the cross and was resurrected, lie at the heart of the faith, as does the belief that there is one God who consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Redding’s views, even before she embraced Islam, were more interpretive than literal.
She believes the Trinity is an idea about God and cannot be taken literally.
*She does not believe Jesus and God are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus.*
*She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine â because God dwells in all humans.*
What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that out of all humans, he most embodied being filled with God and identifying completely with God’s will.”
In this part of the article, which I must acknowledge is not a direct quote of her words, but the journalist’s summation, it looks to me like she does not believe Jesus is God, that Jesus is only divine in the sense that all humans are divine, and that the only thing that makes him unique is that “he most embodied being filled with God and identifying completely with God’s will.”
The journalist does go on to say that she believes Jesus died and was resurrected, and that she considers him to be her savior. But what does she mean by “savior?” It seems, based on the next sentence, that he is her savior because he is a guide of sorts:
“At times of despair, because she knows Jesus suffered and overcame suffering, ‘he has connected me with God,’ she said.”
Now, I will agree that Jesus “connects” us with God, but I find her language deceptively off course by a degree or two. Through Christ we are “reconciled,” but I got a certain New Agey feel from her use of the word “connect.” This could simply be a bias on my part.
As for if we can ask questions, I certainly believe we can ask questions. I think it is much better to doubt God than to dismiss Him outright. However, it seems to me that she has gone past asking questions and struggling to a set view. She does not indicate, especially in the passage I quoted earlier, that she is still struggling, she has a very clear view of who she believes Christ to be.
Now, for believing in the Trinity. While I believe that it is through faith in Jesus Christ that we are saved and not in the precise belief of the Trinity, I believe it is hard to truly believe in Jesus Christ if we do not know who He is. Is He the Son of God, is He God? What was it that Athanaseus argued for all those years, “one substance?” That Christ is “very God of very God.” Jesus is not just a super man or the best human ever, although He IS the best human ever, He also just happens to be God as well.
But I am wasting precious space saying things that you can say much better than I could.
What else… Her baptism. I was not aware, until reading your comments, that the Episcopals take baptismal vows that are renewed annually. My ignorance, and I have truckloads, shines in the light here.
When I made that careless reference to her baptism, I was thinking about the following statement from the article:
“‘I don’t care,’ she says. ‘They can’t take away my baptism.’ And as she understands it, once she’s made her profession of faith to become a Muslim, no one can say she isn’t that, either.”
Now, I would agree with her that noone can take away your baptism. However, the context of the statement is as follows:
“Frank Spina, an Episcopal priest and also a professor of Old Testament and biblical theology at Seattle Pacific University, puts it bluntly.
‘I just do not think this sort of thing works,’ he said. ‘I think you have to give up what is essential to Christianity to make the moves that she has done.’
‘The essence of Christianity was not that Jesus was a great rabbi or even a great prophet, but that he is the very incarnation of the God that created the world…. Christianity stands or falls on who Jesus is.’
Spina also says that as priests, he and Redding have taken vows of commitment to the doctrines of the church. ‘That means none of us get to work out what we think all by ourselves.’
Redding knows there are many Christians and Muslims who will not accept her as both.
‘I don’t care,” she says. “They can’t take away my baptism.’”
My fallacy was that I equated her words with a focus on her baptism being the key to her being a Christian. She did not say that they can’t take away her salvation through Christ, or that they can’t take away her faith in Christ, but that they can’t take away her baptism. As you point out, the majority of Christians over the centuries have been baptized as infants. I affirm that a person who has been baptized as an infant can be saved. However, I disagree that the baptism of the infant is the act that saves. Perhaps baptism as an infant makes the infant a member of the community of faith, just as circumcision did for Jewish males (but what of the females?), but circumcision alone did not make a boy a follower of God. Scripture speaks to the true circumcision being that of the heart, not the flesh. If the internal change of Jesus Christ becoming our Lord and Savior does not happen, the external act of baptism is worthless. I may be wrong, or I may have misworded what I believe, but that is where I must stand.
Tangent:
And just a caveat, I am probably a bit more liberal on this view than my Baptistic brothers. While I believe in believer baptism, that a person should be baptized after they themselves make a statement of faith in following Jesus Christ (not a stand in), I would even go so far as to say that a person who was baptized as an infant, who does follow Christ in faith, and who believes that baptism was sufficient, is acting out of faith and does not NEED to be rebaptized. I think one of the biggest inconsistencies of the Baptist faith is the claim that baptism is not a sacrament, that it is merely a sign, but that it is not “real” or “good” unless it is done in precisely a certain way. If you have to be dunked to truly be baptized, then there must be more to the baptism than a simple, outward sign of an inward grace or activity.
I also do not hold to an age of accountability, having not been able to find one in Scripture either. However, I do believe that a person needs to be able to repent and to believe in Jesus Christ, and I do not know of any infants who have been able to do that.
End of Tangent.
I apologize for making such a blanket statement about her baptism, I forgot myself for a moment and did not take the time to acknowledge the different faith traditions that are in the world. However, I do hope I explained why I felt her “baptism” statement was off, and that I would not have said such if I got any inkling from the article that she actually believed in Jesus Christ as God Incarnate.
Because, as you inadvertently communicate, infant baptism is seen as the New Covenant substitution for circumcision, I felt that she was claiming that an action of which she had no true part in, and by that I mean she made no choice, was enough to keep her Christian. My view was that she never was a Christ follower, because she did not appear to ever be following Christ Himself, but an interpretation of Christ.
However, since we can assume that she did annually recite the baptismal vows of the Episcopal Church, of which I was ignorant, perhaps she is placing her faith in something more than the act that was conducted in her infancy. This leads me to a question to you for clarification: does the recital of the vows act as a recommittment, or does it redo the baptism every year, or what? I am just curious, as I did not know about the vows, and am ignorant of the circumstances and impetus behind reciting them annually.
Well, I guess those were the items with which you took issue. I did not take it as an attack, so no harm done. I wrote my responses as succinctly as I could, and I hope you will excuse the cold way that it is done. I really prefer give and take to hardline “I’m right and you’re wrong.”
A parting thought: I think you are right when you say that baptism is more important to Episcopals/Anglicans than to most other Protestants or Non-Catholic practices. One of the sad things about the continuing protestation of all things Catholic is that we have really stripped our practice of faith from symbolic acts and meanings. Baptism is important to Baptists (we take our name from it, for crying out loud - oh, and I am a Baptist), but we do not dwell on it or fill it with pageantry. Perhaps it is an idiosyncrasy of ours that we claim baptism to be so important, but our practice shows otherwise.
Thank you for calling me out, Monk-In-Training, I am now thoroughly exhausted. Go easy on me, I am no scholar.
I hope you don’t mind long comments on your blog, Kevin.
To me, MIT’s first comment was right on the mark.
BUT: at the same time, there has to be room for bridge-builders. Early Christianity thrived on them, and eventually overcame a host of “competing” religions and faiths. Would it have been a bad thing for the 9-11 terrorists to have bought into the ethics of Christianity (not to mention Islam) even had they remained Moslems?
A year or so ago, I was invited to a party at my wife’s employer, who is Moslem, after the birth of his baby. I attended; when it came time for their afternoon prayers, I offered to withdraw, but our host insisted that I remain, though they all knew I was a Christian and a Baptist minister. They went through their ritual prayers, and I sat on a sofa and silently prayed for them through Jesus. Perhaps in a small way, a few bridges were built that afternoon.
A friend who is a missionary of another denomination told them that on furlough a few years ago, his family stayed in Ohio, either Toledo or Cleveland. There, he began attending a large Mosque, even speaking Arabic and participating in the physical aspects of the prayers. After a while though they noticed that his prayer book was different, and questioned him about it. He insisted that he was a Moslem–which simply means “one who submits to God.” He explained that his submission involved submitting to Jesus as savior; and he was accepted there. I suppose there were no converts to Christ, but there were definitely brides built which would not have happened with a confrontational style. In fact, his desire for a future furlough is to a city with a significant Moslem population (which has not happened yet), rent a building, and begin his own Mosque with Jesus as the center. He hasn’t been able to do it, but I wonder if there is anyone in the US, with a sensivity to Moslem culture and deep understanding, who has tried it this way?
BTW: I understand this is NOT what this Rev. Redding has done (if the news report is accurate–which is never a guarantee). Like many others, I cannot reconcile Islam and Christianity, without “gutting” one or the other of its core beliefs. I guess what I am saying is we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater!
Two thoughts . . .
I heard a pastor (a former Muslim) say something like, “I don’t know one intelligent Muslim who thinks Allah and the God of Christianity are the same.” People like Rev. Redding are much quicker to say such incorrect things than Muslims, in my experience.
I agree with John F. - we need to find ways to talk with them. I have a Muslim employee and we have a great relationship. He asks for and appreciates prayers for his family. He knows I’m not praying to Allah. I’m hoping that over time we’ll be able to talk more specifically about the Gospel.
I had a good conversation with a Muslim contract employee in my group a couple years back. He had quoted the Pope, so I asked if he was Catholic. He said he was a Muslim, and we talked about various matters of faith. We had a lot in common - family values, a desire to serve, etc. - but I made sure to point out that both of our views could not be true (e.g., Jesus either died on the cross or he didn’t). I hope a seed was planted.
Uh, that should have been three thoughts, not two! (Believe it or not, I’m a CPA!)
David,
Sorry for your comment just now getting on here. It was caught in my anti-spam for some reason. I haven’t been on my computer all day and it’s hard to check the anti-spam from my Treo.
Monk-In-Training,
I am sorry that my response is so late coming. I posted a comment earlier today, and it never showed up. Perhaps it was too long and got axed! Since it is much later and I am just taking a quick break, I will give you a condensed version (update: no can do, it is long), so please forgive me for the lack of self-deprecating commentary.
You asked for a citation to support my view that she âalready doubted the divinity of Christ.â Around about the middle of the article, the journalist stated the following (emphasis mine):
âFor Christians, belief in Jesus’ divinity, and that he died on the cross and was resurrected, lie at the heart of the faith, as does the belief that there is one God who consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Redding’s views, even before she embraced Islam, were more interpretive than literal.
She believes the Trinity is an idea about God and cannot be taken literally.
*She does not believe Jesus and God are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus.*
*She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine â because God dwells in all humans.*
What makes Jesus unique, she believes, is that out of all humans, he most embodied being filled with God and identifying completely with God’s will.â
Near the end of the article:
âBeing Muslim has given her insights into Christianity, she said. For instance, because Islam regards Jesus as human, not divine, it reinforces for her that âwe can be like Jesus. There are no excuses.ââ
Granted, these are not direct quotes from Rev. Redding, but it is what I read that led me to the diagnosis I gave. If this is merely a struggle âwith the nature of Jesusâ divinity,â than I would have thought language to support that would have been included. Granted, she struggled with His divinity for years, but that part of the article has a past tense feel to it, with her later statements seeming to be more final.
I do agree with you that is is okay to struggle with the Jesusâ divinity, and that Christians for centuries have done this, but the end has either been an acceptance of His divinity and His humanity or classification as a heretic. Struggling and doubting are not problems, and I did not fault her for struggling. Though St. Thomas doubted, He believed and declared Jesus his Lord and his God when he saw the wounds. Where would St. Thomas be had he seen the wounds and declared Jesus simply his rabbi and his friend? -Thatâs a rhetorical question, as we cannot know the answer.
As to needing to understand the precise belief in the Trinity to âopen the gates of Heaven,â I would agree that it is not necessary, and I never claimed it was necessary. All I said is that âshe did not believe in the Trinity as one God in three persons.â I based this statement off of her view that âJesus and God are not the same,â and her reported belief that âthe Trinity is an idea about God and cannot be taken literally.â Perhaps I overshot by taking those statements and extrapolating that she denies âthe Trinity as one God in three persons.â However, a denial of Jesus as God would remove one of the persons, thereby negating the âone God in three personsâ makeup of the Trinity. Wouldnât that, in essence, be a denial of the Trinity? Since I had already reported that she denied Jesusâs divinity, and followed the Trinity bit with a statement about how she does view Jesus, I see how I was a bit redundant.
Just a question: if the Trinity is just an idea about God that cannot be taken literally, does that mean it is a lie that harms? I would be curious to know what good such an idea is, if it canât be taken literally. Perhaps in your studies, you have found more insight into what she is getting at.
Now, on to the matter that I see really stirred you up, as it offended you personally, something which I did not mean to do. My statement about her baptism. I was not aware, until I read your comments, that Episcopals take baptismal vows that are renewed annually. Since I was not aware of them, I did not know what those vows said until you quoted them to me. Perhaps, when she made her statement about Baptism, she referenced her vows, I do not know. I was referring to her statement:
ââI don’t care,â she says. âThey can’t take away my baptism.â And as she understands it, once she’s made her profession of faith to become a Muslim, no one can say she isn’t that, either.â
Her focus was on her baptism, just as it seemed to be on her profession of faith to become a Muslim. The vows you qouted were about turning to Jesus Christ, accepting Him as Savior, and trusting in His grace and love. I saw in her statement a focus on the act, and one that I understood, based on the way the following sentence was worded, was conducted on her behalf by her parents.
âThough her parents weren’t particularly religious, they had her baptized and sent her to an Episcopal Sunday school.â
While I understand the theological view behind infant baptism, and I am aware that the majority of Christians over the centuries have been baptized as infants, I also do not believe that baptism alone saves anyone. Just as you renew in your vows annually, it is through a person turning to Jesus and accepting Him as their Savior, and through His grace, that we are saved. I could have (and regrettably did not) easily left out the descriptor of âinfantâ and still made the same point. I have met many people who have been baptized as adults who have no outward fruit in their lives to show for any inward change through faith in Jesus Christ.
I saw in her statement a view that you touch on, that just as a Jewish boy (Do you baptize girls? What of the Jewish girls?) was circumcised and became a member of Israel, so she, through her baptism, had become a Christian, and it didnât matter what anyone said, she would always be Christian. Does she have to follow Christ? Not to hear her tell it. However, Scripture tells us again and again that the mutilation of the flesh is not true circumcision, but the circumcision of the heart. There were many boys who were circumcised in Israel, but who never followed God. Those who followed God circumcised their hearts as they lived.
In my more liberal bent (from other baptists), I believe that a person can be baptized as an infant, and if they grow up and believe in Christ and view their baptism as sufficient, then I acknowledge it as sufficient. I have taken quite a bit of heat for not requiring believers who grew up in other faith traditions to be baptized in our church. They donât become âmembers,â but I donât make them do something that is empty. But the faith has to come with it, or the baptism, whenever it was done, was meaningless. Thatâs my view.
I am also aware that far more Christians over the centuries have believed in the Lord without the ability to read Scripture for themselves, but I do not desire to remove the Bible from the pews. It is an amazing thing what happens when people read for themselves, the wrestle with such crazy ideas and they stray close to herecy. What Rev. Redding denied, but I, and you, affirm, is what another Episcopal Priest in the article stated:
âSpina also says that as priests, he and Redding have taken vows of commitment to the doctrines of the church. âThat means none of us get to work out what we think all by ourselves.ââ
Thank you for challenging me, for you have challenged me to flesh out the thoughts that were behind my words. I apologize for writing as if infant baptism were an error. While I hold to baptism of believers, and by immersion, I do not mean to discredit your views. I disagree, and I honestly do pray for those people I know that believe they are saved because their parents did something when they were infants. I also pray for those people who believe that just because they went down an aisle when they were teens that they are saved. I should know, I was baptized as a kid, and again as a believer. The first one was not done in faith, and it was not done in response to Jesus Christ. It meant nothing to me. I did not take your questions as an attack. If anything, you remind me of my older brother quite a bit. I am not a great thinker, I am a great feeler. It helps for me to have to exercise my thinking skills to flesh out the things that I instinctively feel. Feeling is not wrong, we just donât give it much credit in the West.
I hope I clarified my thoughts for you.
No problem, Kevin, I realize that it was long. I just retried another one, so you can probably delete one or the other, as they are not identical, but essentially the same. I was about to just send MIT an email, since I figured I was too long winded. I apologize for my lack of brevity.
David Cecil
I appreciate your response AND the email! Thank you for your clarification, and apologies for the requirement for a long post.
I understand more now your position. I don’t agree with hers, btw, but I do want to be sure people don’t dismiss out of hand, questions people have. Seeing your response I no longer think you did.
An issue that I run into all the time and may be a log in my eye is that conservative Christians dismiss deeply held views of liberal Christians as not only invalid but as not important to us. I try to give witness to the “other side” as best I can, often I do so poorly. I am hoping the Church is moving beyond the Liberal/Conservative divide into a newer era.
I would love to talk to you about Baptism, but perhaps we could do that via email and not clutter up Kevin’s nice tidy blog.
And so you know, I do believe and declare that in fact Jesus (God the Son) was hypostactially united with His flesh in the body of His Mother. I also believe and declare that He Who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate, and His natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone.
I see a lot of value in what this woman is doing. I notice some believers do also, but some cannot get past, “the Bible is right, the Quaran is wrong, what more needs to be said?”
That’s taking the position that whatever flavour of Christianity you practice is the be-all and end-all of human lifestyles. There is a lot more to religion than what god you bow down to. There is a lot of wisdom and experience coded into successful religions. For example, many Christians find it helpful to practice secular Budhism — I think because it is largely about how to cope with worldly existence, which Christianity is relatively silent about.
There could be a great deal of non-supernatural, non-getting-the-Holy-Ghost’s-panties-in-a-bunch every day useful things each religion can adopt from the other. If no one tries to find those things, everyone loses out. What she is doing leads to greater understanding, cooperation, and peace. How can people be saying that she is not doing Jesus’s or Allah’s work?