Zeal For Truth

The title of this post will, to most readers, suggest a dichotomy. After all, the popular press is full of “West vs. East” comparisons, setting Muslim against Christian. Leaving aside for the moment the difficulties with that set of conclusions, I wish to point out here one woman who does not read that title the same way.

Meet the Rev. Ann Redding, priestess in the Episcopal church, former director of “faith formation” at Saint Mark’s Episcopal in Seattle,visiting professor of New Testament at Seattle University, and, as of 15 months ago, a Muslim.

The Reverend Redding has come to the conclusion that Muslim and Christian are not, as popularly and classically considered, antithetical convictions. Her conclusion is unfortunately based upon a faulty understanding both of Christianity and of Islam, and is a sign of where liberalism in theology can lead.

The Reverend Redding came to her deeper sense of connection with god through Islam while in an interfaith class offered at her church. While there is nothing wrong with an interfaith class per se, offering one in church was a mistake, in this writer’s opinion. A church exists to strengthen the faith of its constituents, to build them up, and to perpetuate the body of believers until Christ returns. As such, in its teaching it is a place for deepening of understanding of Christianity. As Christians, we have a responsibility to be active in the world, to understand others and their faith, but understanding is not endorsement. Christianity makes an exclusive claim, and Jesus stated plainly that he was “the way” and that no one would come to the Father but through him. The danger in offering an interfaith class in a church, sanctioned by a church, is that those who are weak in the faith will be led astray, as it seems Ann Redding was.

Redding states she came to Islam and felt she was coming home. Redding is black, and feels that Christianity is a religion of white people. In the Episcopal church, she might be right, but even looking at the worldwide Anglican communion, she is wrong. Evidently she has missed reading such works as Philip Jenkins is putting out, demonstrating that the average Christian today is a poor West African or Latin American. Much as the Anglican communion hates to admit it, Rowan Williams is less representative of his church than Peter Akinola. Far more than two thirds of the Christian world is found outside Ann Redding’s insular white church.

And then Ann Redding feels her new syncretic faith fits more closely with her conception of god. Most illuminating here is the end of the article in the first link, which closes with a laundry list of Ann’s beliefs. This is a woman who could not, in good conscience, say the Nicene Creed. She does not believe in the Trinity, does not believe Jesus was God but rather that he was divine in the same sense that we all are, and believes Jesus is savior because he “suffered and overcame suffering.” Neither does she believe in original sin. So in short, rather than embrace one ancient heresy, Ann Redding has made a valiant attempt to embrace them all. Her convictions regarding Christianity cannot, therefore, be said to resemble anything like what the average Nicene Creed reciting Christian understands to be faith. Unfortunately, her bishop finds this “exciting.”

He conception of Islam is similarly hazy. The Quran is pretty clear about Christianity and Islam being separate religions, as even a cursory glance at Suras 5:77, 4:171, and 5:15-19 will demonstrate. This leaves completely aside the interpretive tradition of centuries on both sides of the question. (Which traditions are no doubt important, and part of the reason so much animosity exists, but the roots are at least clear) Redding discounts these objections though, saying that she’ll find these contradictions of her position “a challenge” for the rest of her life.

But Redding primarily demonstrates where liberalism in theology can lead. Liberalism is not, I should state, necessarily a bad thing. Liberalism understood as progressive thinking and exploration of new ideas, that is. Where liberalism goes wrong is when it takes those new ideas, those progressive thoughts, and makes them the benchmark, makes exploration an end of itself, when it places respect and consideration for the new above respect and consideration for the God it purports to study. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and their heirs were not usually accused of being tied to old ways and incapable of new thoughts. But despite their innovation, what they had in common was a desire, not to discover new things, but to better illuminate the old. And as our world is consistent, and our own selves, made in the image of God, are logical, they began with the conviction that God himself must be consistent and logical. Their ideas were revolutionary, precisely because they built solidly upon what went before. In reckless exploring of the kind Rev. Redding is being permitted by her diocese to do, there is no further illumination of old truth, unless it be the old truth that there is nothing new under the sun. Resurrection of ancient heresies in new clothing is nothing new, and just because Socinus has a syncretic disciple doesn’t make that disciple any more correct than he was.