Inclusive Orthodoxy

[BenL]

Here is a Web site I accessed courtesy of Walking With Integrity (http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/), the blog of the Integrity movement in the Episcopal Church.

It is called Exlusive Orthodoxy (http://www.inclusiveorthodoxy.org/), and is a ministry of Justin R. Cannon, now a student for the priesthood at Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley CA. He was previously instrumental in founding www.TruthSetsFree.net and www.RainbowChristians.com.

It is an interesting concept, by which orthodoxy becomes inclusive, but eschews broader inclusivity. From his Web site: "Inclusive Orthodoxy is the belief that the Church can and must be inclusive of lgbt individuals without sacrificing the Gospel and the Apostolic teachings of the Christian faith."

[paul]

BenL,

It is "interesting," eh? I was never able to line up the Apostle Paul's teaching with glbt, even doing the Greek gyrations. Yet, here is one trying to inch closer to fundamentalism yet bucking tradition and including glbt. Ultimately, how does he determine where the line of inclusive and exclusive is drawn?

[BenL]

It is "interesting," eh? I was never able to line up the Apostle Paul's teaching with glbt, even doing the Greek gyrations. Yet, here is one trying to inch closer to fundamentalism yet bucking tradition and including glbt. Ultimately, how does he determine where the line of inclusive and exclusive is drawn?

I like your phrase "Greek gyrations." Sounds like an erotic dance to me. :eek: :lol:

I was hoping we could have some discussion of the relationship between inclusiveness and orthodoxy. In our Episcopal Church, for instance, the communion is open to all who seek God. There is no litmus test for that. People decide for themselves. But most parishes require that a person be baptised.

That's a practice, not exactly a doctrine. Many of our people are uncomfortable with the Nicene Creed. They don't understand it or they feel they can't buy into all of it. I relate to the Creed better some days than others. I don't pretend to understand the fine distinctions the Greek conciliar fathers put on all the clauses, and I certainly don't find it worth killing people over, over even excommunicating them.

Yet, I think it has value in the church, linking us with believers past, present and future. It is a historical document, much as the Articles of Religion are for Anglicans. It expressed belief as it was understood at a certain time. But I don't think we will be judged by its clauses but by how we lived our lives, by what we did to the least of Christ's brethren.

How far does the church have to "stretch" orthodoxy to include glbt people? Is it realistic to think that a denomination simply has to say being gay no longer matters? Or will this kind of thinking change Christianity as we know it irrevocably?

[paul]

BenL,

"I like your phrase "Greek gyrations." Sounds like an erotic dance to me."

That was purely Freudian on my part. :rolleyes: :)

"I was hoping we could have some discussion of the relationship between inclusiveness and orthodoxy."

Yeah...I guess, in my mind, it depends on who's "orthodoxy" you mean. Justin Cannon sites the Apostolic Creed , which "fundamentals" include belief in virgin birth, deity of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus. Really, and perhaps more to the point, Cannon sites Apostolic teaching, which to my way of thinking leaves us with the sticky passage in Romans. Add to that the modern "fundamental" of scriptural inerrancy and we get the great divide between conservative and liberal Christians. Conservative Christian orthodoxy includes the Tanach (i.e.,the Levitical texts). Then, there's always Catholic orthodoxy, still firmly rooted in Thomas Aquinas' ideas of what is "natural" (i.e., all human beings' sexuality is linked to procreation).

So, who's "orthodoxy" do you want to kick around?

[BenL]

So, who's "orthodoxy" do you want to kick around?

That's part of the discussion, certainly. I come from an Anglican viewpoint (and a liberal/progressive one at that), but I know that many here have evangelical or fundamentalist backgrounds. It seems to me that sometimes we wish we could hold onto everything we always thought was orthodox ... except this one thing, GLBT inclusion. Is orthodoxy divisible? Is it take it or leave it? Or are parts of orthodoxy up for discussion?

Orthodoxy has a rock-hard, unyielding sound to it. In fact, the notion of orthodoxy has evolved as Christian thought has developed. Dissent -- dare I say, heresy? -- has always had a role in reforming orthodoxy.

Christ's own version of Judaism was a radical departure form the established Judaism of the Pharisees, Saducees and scribes. I think Jesus' notion of inclusion was radical and unconditional. Why is it so hard for us to open our doors, our arms and our hearts to everyone, not just the people we are comfortable with?

The clan-and-tribe culture is based on an exclusive world view. The kingdom of God is inclusive, Jesus taught, but difficult to get into. The difficult part has to do not with who we are but with how we believe and act.

So whose orthodoxy do we want to "kick around?" Why, our own, that's whose.

[antonyh]

I think this idea of inclusive orthodoxy is really important. I can only speak from personal experience. I graduated from an evangelical Seminary and came out shortly after that. Coming out resulted in spiritual homelessness for me. I wanted to hold onto my Evangelical heritage (it is all I had known) but I did not feel safe in Evangelical churches. I suddenly found myself a "stranger at the gate".

I looked at the Web sites you listed and I like the idea of an Evangelical or Orthodox church that is welcoming to gay people who want to pursue a relationship and gay people who want to be celibate. As long as each category of gay person had equal access to ordination, it would be a great thing.

[BrentRichards]

An important phrase in the Reformed (broader Presbyterian tradition) theological world is:

Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est.

That is, "The Reformed church is always reforming."

Alas, if only they all really meant it.

[justinrcannon]

Hello friends,

It's nice to see people on here engaging in thoughtful dialog about inclusive orthodoxy.

I find it interesting, however, that some people object to the idea of inclusive orthodoxy, as on my site I use orthodoxy in the sense of "mere Christianity' rather than in some Eastern Orthodox way. I am merely asserting that inclusion is not worth sacrificing the Christian faith.

In terms of the question of what the fundamentals of the Christian faith are, it's really not my call or your call or my priest's or your pastor's. The first two ecumenical councils formulated the Nicene Creed which outlines the core fundamentals of the faith which have been professed for almost 2000 years. All I am asserting is that we do not need to abandon the core of what Christianity is in order to grow. Does a tree every grow apart from its roots? No, but rather it remains always grounded in the roots but reaching outwards.

Just as the Holy Spirit has been speaking today, we also believe that he has been guiding the Church for 2000 years. It is my prayer that we may embrace the fullness of the Spirit's teaching.

[paul]

"So whose orthodoxy do we want to "kick around?" Why, our own, that's whose."

Oh, okay, just kind of share our own beliefs rather than "a" belief? I guess I should qualify that I'm considering the question academically, as a former believer.

"In terms of the question of what the fundamentals of the Christian faith are, it's really not my call or your call or my priest's or your pastor's. The first two ecumenical councils formulated the Nicene Creed which outlines the core fundamentals of the faith which have been professed for almost 2000 years."

I think the Judeo-Christian belief system is living, evolving, not static. The gospels quote Jesus as directly contradicting the core fundamentals of the Jewish law (e.g., "you have heard it said, an eye for an eye...but I say to you..."). What you seem to be suggesting is to keep all the fundamentals of Christianity with the modification of including glbt? Really, to my knowledge, the Nicene Creed didn't actually directly exclude glbt. It is argued, by many, that Apostolic teaching does exclude glbt. So, the idea of "inclusive orthodoxy" is an oxymoron to these people. I think it lands on these peoples ears much like it must have when Jesus said to the Pharisees, "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it...you have heard it said eye for an eye...but I say ...." It is a revolutionary idea to many, to include glbt, it strikes at the very roots of their orthodoxy.

[BenL]

It's nice to see people on here engaging in thoughtful dialog about inclusive orthodoxy.

Thanks, Justin, for joining us in this discussion. We often debate things we find on the Web, but it's infrequent when one of the proponents of what we're talking about joins us here. I hope you find our "family" congenial enough that you'll stick around and add your voice to our community.

I find it interesting, however, that some people object to the idea of inclusive orthodoxy, as on my site I use orthodoxy in the sense of "mere Christianity' rather than in some Eastern Orthodox way. I am merely asserting that inclusion is not worth sacrificing the Christian faith.

In terms of the question of what the fundamentals of the Christian faith are, it's really not my call or your call or my priest's or your pastor's. The first two ecumenical councils formulated the Nicene Creed which outlines the core fundamentals of the faith which have been professed for almost 2000 years. All I am asserting is that we do not need to abandon the core of what Christianity is in order to grow. Does a tree every grow apart from its roots? No, but rather it remains always grounded in the roots but reaching outwards.

Just as the Holy Spirit has been speaking today, we also believe that he has been guiding the Church for 2000 years. It is my prayer that we may embrace the fullness of the Spirit's teaching.

I find a built-in contradiction here, which is isn't unusual for me. ;) In your last statement, you recognize the abiding presence of the Spirit in the church. That means to me that the Spirit continues to teach and support, helping us to understand our relationships to God and each other in our own contemporaneous situations. In the previous paragraph, it almost sounds as if everything has been settled, once and for all, and that there's no need for us to search deeper.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to tease out how we can understand the concept of orthodoxy in the 21st century. I often wonder if it is an idea that grows and develops or is the same for all time. Probably both, just to confound us. ;)

Thanks again for joining us. Hope you stick around.

[paul]

"I find a built-in contradiction here, which is isn't unusual for me. In your last statement, you recognize the abiding presence of the Spirit in the church. That means to me that the Spirit continues to teach and support, helping us to understand our relationships to God and each other in our own contemporaneous situations. In the previous paragraph, it almost sounds as if everything has been settled, once and for all, and that there's no need for us to search deeper."

It's not just you, Ben, I see the "contradiction" too.

"Orthodoxy has a rock-hard, unyielding sound to it. In fact, the notion of orthodoxy has evolved as Christian thought has developed. Dissent -- dare I say, heresy? -- has always had a role in reforming orthodoxy."

I guess I maybe 'feel' a "condradiction" here as well. "Reforming orthodoxy?" Is it "the notion of orthodoxy" that has "evolved as Christian thought has developed," or is it the orthodoxy itself?

"In your last statement, you recognize the abiding presence of the Spirit in the church. That means to me that the Spirit continues to teach and support, helping us to understand our relationships to God and each other in our own contemporaneous situations."

I appreciate that you mention the "Spirit" here. The strict fundamentalist, who believes in bible inerrancy, must also with that belief accept the idea that the words that come from God are "spiritually discerned."

It seems to me that orthodoxy or fundamentalism to easily becomes the law carved in stone, where the reformist that Brent mentions, would carve that law on the fleshy tables of the heart.

[justinrcannon]

Hello,

The alleged "contradiction":
"In your last statement, you recognize the abiding presence of the Spirit in the church. That means to me that the Spirit continues to teach and support, helping us to understand our relationships to God and each other in our own contemporaneous situations. In the previous paragraph, it almost sounds as if everything has been settled, once and for all, and that there's no need for us to search deeper."

Explanation:
Never once have I said that everything has been settled once and for all. There is a big difference between "core fundamentals of the faith" and "everything." I do not believe that the core fundamentals of what Christianity is change. Rather, we are growing in our understanding of how what we believe as a Church intersects with and interacts with the world around us. The Spirit is guiding us concerning how we are to live our the radical implications of the Gospel--but the Gospel does not change, God does not change, the core tenets of our faith do not change.

So, yes the Spirit is guiding us in growing in the truth, but not guiding us away from our very identity as Christians. The whole idea of my ministry is that we are Christian and we are gay and one is not exclusive of the other. I am not even advocating a specific brand of Christianity, but rather advocating that we need not abandon the core beliefs of "mere Christianity" in order to be inclusive.

Justin :love:

[justinrcannon]

In light of people's responses to my website it just suddenly dawned on me that not everyone on this board is probably Christian and that may account for the disagreement in this post. You have to keep in mind my ministry is an outreach to LGBT Christians, and the premise of my site is that we need not abandon the Christian faith in order to 1) accept who we are and 2) be inclusive of LGBT individuals with the Church

[paul]

Hi Justin! (btw, thanks for joining in),

In BenL's defense (not that he needs it, but I feel responsible and guilty since I jumped in the middle), he seemed very tentative in his use of the word "everything...," he did say "almost sounds." I think I may have added a bit of fuel by butting in. And now I will shut up about "what" BenL said.

"The first two ecumenical councils formulated the Nicene Creed which outlines the core fundamentals of the faith which have been professed for almost 2000 years. All I am asserting is that we do not need to abandon the core of what Christianity is in order to grow."


It's hard for a skeptic like myself to accept that Nicene Creed actually "oultines the core fundamentals of the faith," but only some of them. Heck, in the fifty years between the first and second council, the virgin birth got added, which many would consider a "core fundamental." My point is that the core changed then and continues to change today. One of the added core teachings of fundamentalism is scriptural inerrancy, not part of the original creed. That's a big sticking point when it comes to fundamenalists including gblt. Bluntly, many fundamentalist Christians feel their very "identity" is threatened by gblt inclusion.

[Daniel]

I do not believe that the core fundamentals of what Christianity is change. Rather, we are growing in our understanding of how what we believe as a Church intersects with and interacts with the world around us. The Spirit is guiding us concerning how we are to live our the radical implications of the Gospel--but the Gospel does not change, God does not change, the core tenets of our faith do not change.

So, yes the Spirit is guiding us in growing in the truth, but not guiding us away from our very identity as Christians. The whole idea of my ministry is that we are Christian and we are gay and one is not exclusive of the other. I am not even advocating a specific brand of Christianity, but rather advocating that we need not abandon the core beliefs of "mere Christianity" in order to be inclusive.

Justin- Welcome to Soulforce.

It's the last phrase here that caught my attention. And I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Do you feel that there is too much 'inclusiveness' going on? That the Christian faith is somehow in danger of being watered down? That core beliefs are being thrown out in order to be inclusive?

If so, I wonder how you feel about someone like me.

I was Pentacostal for a long period during my life- that is- until I came out. The coming out process made me question everything. And while I ended up eschewing the label "Christian', I still consider myself a follower of Christ's teachings. I have also learned much from other spiritual practices, particularly those within Buddhism. So much so that I half-jokingly call myself an 'openly-gay-closet-Buddhist'. :D Of course, learning about and practicing other spiritual traditions can have an interesting affect. It's not unlike learning French when one's first language is English: one ends up knowing English a lot better.

My point here is this. Of course, there is the Creed, but even it doesn't seem so solid once one looks at it from various angles.

While I am no scholar, I've done enough reading to ponder the context of the Creed's creation as well as it's purpose. While it is thought of as affirming of the faith, it can also be viewed as a 'not that' statement- a rejection of various segments of Christian practice extant during the time of it's creation. I find this very interesting. The Creed may have been a way of uniting a movement at odds with itself, but I wonder what was gained and what was lost in the process. Certainly, the 'faith' became more 'exoterically' oriented. Written, codified, organizational, left-brained activity. One could make a case for the 'one true faith', but as I see it, this would be akin to saying that 'the victors write the history books'. What about the right-brained gnostic perspective that was thrown in the dustbin?

I fear that 'Orthodoxy' is like a man from Mars who can't- or won't- speak to Venus.

Perhaps these observations are too rummative. But I don't think we can ignore history and its informative- and transformative- perspective if we hope to glean what 'truth' really means. I think it behooves us to examine why we think the things we do.

[BrentRichards]

Here's my take ... I think what Justin and others are doing is crucial, and here's why: It is NOT necessary to nail down a particular set of beliefs and agreements for most of us here in this forum to accept and value one another. We can be content seeing things different ways, and not needing to put a label on each of our respective belief-systems.

The unfortunate truth is, there is a large portion of the Christian community (a similar situation is doubtless true of other faith communities, but I can only address my own), who simply WILL NOT LISTEN to anyone talking like that. In order for them to get their mind around affirmation of homosexuality, they simply MUST see how it can be affirmed WITHOUT abandoning the historic essentials of the faith ... admittedly not an easy concept to codify, but the basic creeds (Apostolic and Nicene) are probably about as close as anyone is going to get to broad agreement.

I don't think Justin is suggesting that anyone with a different view of Christianity, or anyone from a different faith, is therefore unacceptable as a person, or an LGBT person. Soulforce works within a broadly spiritual base. Justin is working within a specifically Christian context, and if he wants to be heard, he needs to speak that language, and be "legitimate" (I can't think of a better word at the moment) in that community. I'm in the same position, though not in a formal ministry ... I still identify as orthodox (small o), Reformed, and evangelical, and I speak their language.

I can't speak for Justin, only for myself, but lastly, it IS important for me personally to hold to these classic beliefs, and I do. It is NOT merely a matter of cultural relevance. I do genuinely believe in the virgin birth, the literal resurrection, and all that other good creedal stuff. For me, to lay that aside would in fact be betraying my faith ... which is part of why it took me so long to get to affirming, because I could not get here without that particular faith intact. Notice please: FOR ME ... all of you who have found a different way know that I love you, and don't for a moment consider your faith or your journey to be any less legitimate than mine. You know that, right?

[BenL]

Notice please: FOR ME ... all of you who have found a different way know that I love you, and don't for a moment consider your faith or your journey to be any less legitimate than mine. You know that, right?
To start at the end, of course we know you love us ... and we think the world of you! :love: :o (See how well we play together, Justin?) :lol:

The unfortunate truth is, there is a large portion of the Christian community (a similar situation is doubtless true of other faith communities, but I can only address my own), who simply WILL NOT LISTEN to anyone talking like that. In order for them to get their mind around affirmation of homosexuality, they simply MUST see how it can be affirmed WITHOUT abandoning the historic essentials of the faith ... admittedly not an easy concept to codify, but the basic creeds (Apostolic and Nicene) are probably about as close as anyone is going to get to broad agreement. ...

... I still identify as orthodox (small o), Reformed, and evangelical, and I speak their language.

I can't speak for Justin, only for myself, but lastly, it IS important for me personally to hold to these classic beliefs, and I do. It is NOT merely a matter of cultural relevance. I do genuinely believe in the virgin birth, the literal resurrection, and all that other good creedal stuff. For me, to lay that aside would in fact be betraying my faith ... which is part of why it took me so long to get to affirming, because I could not get here without that particular faith intact.

I think we have two different situations at play here, but they bear a striking resemblence to each other. As Brent and Paul mention, the fundamentalist and evangelical communities begin from what they read as a scriptural prohibition against homosexuality. We can argue until we're blue in the face :eek:, but, in my opinion, until people of these persuasions perceive us as spiritual people and Christians, they likely won't accept us. Daniel, by contrast, talks about a certain liberation from doctrinal "rules" and sees spirituality, the union of the human spirit with the divine, as a higher goal than anything orthodoxy, as it is commonly understood, can achieve.

In our own denomination, the Episcopal Church, Justin, while I haven't personally been labeled a heretic, I find that those who champion classic orthodoxy -- and with it exclusion of glbt people -- have a narrower view of orthodoxy than you do. I feel that many conservative or evangelical (labels fail here) Episcopalians see our lives as sinful and our views as heretical.

While the "core fundamentals of Christianity" might not change, I think people's understanding of them can. As Daniel pointed out, a lot of people have a "not that" approach to their faith, rather than seeking God and all his possibilities for us. While I struggle to understand doctrines like the resurrection and the virgin birth, I don't reject them, believing instead that they are there to teach me something about God's love for the world. I find great truth in the mythos at the core of Christianity, and don't always have to understand it to believe.

I think both you and Brent are doing great service (ministry) by showing other Christians that orthodoxy should not been seen as a set of limits but as an invitation into belief.

[Daniel]

Daniel, by contrast, talks about a certain liberation from doctrinal "rules" and sees spirituality, the union of the human spirit with the divine, as a higher goal than anything orthodoxy, as it is commonly understood, can achieve.

It fits! You know me better than I know myself! :lol: :love:

I think both you and Brent are doing great service (ministry) by showing other Christians that orthodoxy should not been seen as a set of limits but as an invitation into belief.

Nice way to put the matter. Generous indeed.

[BenL]

Notice please: FOR ME ... all of you who have found a different way know that I love you, and don't for a moment consider your faith or your journey to be any less legitimate than mine. You know that, right?
To start at the end, of course we know you love us ... and we think the world of you! :love: :o (See how well we play together, Justin? :lol:

The unfortunate truth is, there is a large portion of the Christian community (a similar situation is doubtless true of other faith communities, but I can only address my own), who simply WILL NOT LISTEN to anyone talking like that. In order for them to get their mind around affirmation of homosexuality, they simply MUST see how it can be affirmed WITHOUT abandoning the historic essentials of the faith ... admittedly not an easy concept to codify, but the basic creeds (Apostolic and Nicene) are probably about as close as anyone is going to get to broad agreement. ...

... I still identify as orthodox (small o), Reformed, and evangelical, and I speak their language.

I can't speak for Justin, only for myself, but lastly, it IS important for me personally to hold to these classic beliefs, and I do. It is NOT merely a matter of cultural relevance. I do genuinely believe in the virgin birth, the literal resurrection, and all that other good creedal stuff. For me, to lay that aside would in fact be betraying my faith ... which is part of why it took me so long to get to affirming, because I could not get here without that particular faith intact.

I think we have two different situations at play here, but they bear a striking resemblence to each other. As Brent and Paul mention, the fundamentalist and evangelical communities begin from what they read as a scriptural prohibition against homosexuality. We can argue until we're blue inthe face :eek:, but, in my opinion, until people of these persuasions perceive us as spiritual people and Christians, they likely won't accept us. Daniel, by contrast, talks about a certain liberation from doctrinal "rules" and sees spirituality, the union of the human spirit with the divine, as a higher goal than anything orthodoxy, as it is commonly understood, can achieve.

In our own denomination, the Episcopal Church, Justin, while I haven't personally been labeled a heretic, I find that those who champion classic orthodoxy -- and with it exclusion of glbt people -- have a narrower view of orthodoxy than you do. I feel that many conservative or evangelical (labels fail here) Episcopalians see our lives as sinful and our views as heretical.

While the "core fundamentals of Christianity" might not change, I think people's understanding of them can. As Daniel pointed out, a lot of people have a "not that" approach to their faith, rather than seeking God and all his possibilities for us. While I struggle to understand doctrines like the resurrection and the virgin birth, I don't reject them, believing instead that they are there to teach me something about God's love for the world. I find great truth in the mythos at the core of Christianity, and don't always have to understand it to believe.

I think both you and Brent are doing great service (ministry) by showing other Christians that orthodoxy should not been seen as a set of limits but as an invitation into belief.

[paul]

BenL wrote:
"As Brent and Paul mention, the fundamentalist and evangelical communities begin from what they read as a scriptural prohibition against homosexuality. We can argue until we're blue in the face , but, in my opinion, until people of these persuasions perceive us as spiritual people and Christians, they likely won't accept us."

Admittedly, I have run in some ultra conservative fundamentalist circles. Really, they're all I've ever known, but I have managed to achieve this status of being perceived as a "spiritual" person. I am, as a gay, considered demon possessed. sigh, wrong spirit.

Seriously though, and I am currently discussing this with others on another thread, I think we could get a bit farther in our discussions with such groups if they could begin to define what "spiritual" is. It's a word bandied about quite a bit, but it's impossible to nail down ("the wind goeth where it will..."), and thus violates the security of those who prefer a law carved in stone. Seems Jesus encountered this very problem.