A brief reflection on an unfinished conversation with someone I never met. Not long ago a question was posed on an Episcopal Church discussion forum asking what influence John Selby Spong had on the the Church. It erupted into hundreds of comments that devolved into unChristian insult slinging more characteristic of presidential tweets, and the site administrator took the whole thing down. I suppose that alone says something about the influence Spong had on the Church.
Anyway, in the midst of it was a heartfelt statement by one contributor, made with some vehemence, that many Episcopalians, indeed many Christians, don’t believe in a theistic God (whatever that is), virgin birth, resurrection or miracles, but they’re still Episcopalians, she among them.
I thought it a curious statement. To me it established the writer as identifying with liturgy, vestments, music, fellowship, and sacramental acts divested of all their meaning: symbols signifying what? Maybe some undefined better way of being an ethical human? That’s certainly a worthy goal, but it has no need of religious ritual designed as a conduit for communion with God whom we know in Jesus Christ. It reminded me of Roman Catholics who are Catholic because it’s always been what defined the family of which they’re a part; it’s ritual comforting, but its meaning unobserved. Or Jews who are culturally-ethnically Jewish, but are otherwise disinterested in what Judaism exists to be. Or people who like gongs, prayer flags, sticks of incense, sitting crosslegged on the floor, and think they can claim to be Buddhist.
The writer can certainly claim to be an Episcopalian. I won’t disagree, and she would always be welcome in the congregations I worship with. But she cannot claim to be a Christian, at least not as the Episcopal Church proclaims it, and not without twisting the meaning of Christianity out of coherent shape. No doubt she would be outraged, and demand to know what gives me the right to say whether she is Christian or not. The Nicene Creed, for all its ancient weaknesses, draws a very large circle encompassing what Christianity is. For an even larger circle, the Apostles’ Creed does the trick. There is tremendous room within both to accommodate an endless variety of ways in which to proclaim and celebrate the faith. There are portals allowing the still speaking and creating Word of God to be seen and heard. But there are limits, and to deny the fundamental truths that define Christianity is to step well outside them.
In the end, her presence, questions and doubts are welcome. Her proclamations, made with the expectation of receiving approval as an acceptable alternative to our received faith, will always be met with an invitation to explore more deeply what she disbelieves in, but they cannot claim to be Epsicopalian.