Staying in fellowship

I have many friends who are in the Episcopal Church and, thus, are affected by the protracted debates between various parts of the world-wide Anglican Communion on controversial issues. The Anglicans have been struggling lately with the questions on the proper role of women within the church hierarchy and with the issue of how or whether homosexuals can be part of the church.

Now, the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, which is an every 10 year gathering of Anglicans from around the world, is on the horizon. Several prominent leaders of the church, mostly from the global south, though, are threatening to boycott Lambeth. So, at this conference that is supposed to demonstrate the essential unity of the church regardless of where in the world it is, the questions over what it means to be in fellowship with another in the context of a church are crucial.

Since I am not an Episcopalian, I do not feel qualified to speak much more about the specifics of their controversies. I can, however, relate to an incident in my own experience.

From 1993 to 1997, I served as the pastor of the Hillcrest Baptist Church in Mobile, Alabama. HBC was a relatively new church, having started about 10 years before I arrived. Despite its youth, though, the church had already caused much controversy in Mobile because the church decided to recognize the spiritual gifts of women and to ordain some women as deacons. [For those not steeped in Baptist (Southern, that is) lore, all who minister to others - both pastors and deacons - are ordained.] The overwhelming majority of Baptist churches in that Association [Baptist churches in the same geographical area are part of an association of churches] believed that to ordain women was to go against Biblical teaching. Thus, the move was made to "throw" HBC out of the Association, essentially to disfellowship HBC. The attempt did not succeed, then. Within the past few years, though, the issue was resurrected, and, this time, the defenders of Baptist purity won.

Interestingly, I had framed the parameters of this debate in the first Sunday night study I conducted at Hillcrest. I chose to use the Nicene Creed as a framework to lead a discussion on some basic and historic beliefs of the Christian Church. That decision was potentially controversial because Baptists are supposed to reject the use of creeds, but I did it anyway. On the first night of the study, I asked the questions, "What must you believe in order to be a Christian? What must you believe in order to be a Baptist? Are there differences between the two answers?" Implicit in this set of questions was one more: "What do you with someone who has a different list than you do?"

These questions, I believe, are still important for folks in churches to consider. Perhaps, the most important one is the implicit question. Can people worship together, work together, and serve together in the same local church or in a wider church body even though they may not agree on theological interpretations? OR, should churches only admit those who agree completely on everything? AND, what issues are important enough so that differences on them are sufficient to sever fellowship with other believers?

Multiculturalism? Not in my neighborhood!

I have had several opportunities to voice some of the things I have discovered about SLC that I did not expect. Most often I remark on the diversity of the city. This diversity includes both ethnic and national background and religion. Just down the hall in the apartment complex where we live is a Muslim family from India, for example. I am looking forward to being part of the interfaith community in the city.

Yet, I am aware of the continuing resistance to accept those who are different from them. I choose not to use the word 'tolerance' for I see that as suggesting the enlightened view of a majority toward those who are in the minority. If I tolerate you, I place myself in a position of superiority over you and hint that I could withdraw my gracious offer at any time. So, I think of acceptance -- the emotion expressed in the Civil Rights standard, "We Shall Overcome" with the verse, "We'll walk hand in hand ... some day."

Toward that end, it might be helpful to contemplate what one of my PhD seminary friends wrote nearly 10 years ago. Rob Sellers, and his wife Janie, served as Southern Baptist missionaries in one of the most religiously diverse countries of the world, Indonesia. When they left the mission field, he went to Hardin-Simmons University, in west Texas, to serve on faculty. On November 2, 1999, he addressed the college community in chapel. His title was "In Defense of Multiculturalism," and he asked the question of this very un-diverse community of why they should be concerned with multiculturalism.

Rob made the following points:
1. "First, because it is appropriate. This is the personal answer. Racial, religious, or social discrimination is our problem."
2. "Second, we should accommodate discussion about multi-culturalism because it is smart. This is the practical answer. ... We learn from others whose viewpoint differs from our own."
3. "Third, we accept others because it is right. This is the political answer. 'Justice for all' is our national heritage."
4. "[Fourth], we look out for others because to do so is good! This is the moral answer. Morality demands more of us than legality."
5. "[Finally], we reach out to others because it is compassionate. This is the Christian answer. Tolerance is the secular answer, the philosophical norm. But love is Jesus' way. And love is more demanding than tolerance."

In the midst of growing hatred and intolerance of people in our world, wouldn't it be wonderful if all of the people in America who believe in "God or a supernatural force" (that would be more than 90% of us) would embrace these values?

We hold these truths to be self-evident ...

... that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights ...

When I was in junior high, all of the students in my grade were asked to memorize certain significant historic pieces, among the pieces was the opening to the Declaration of Independence. At that time, the words represented little more than an assignment. I had some facility for memorization, then, so the task was not too hard for me. So, I breezed through the recitation, received my grade, and did not think much about the words again, much less wrestle with the philosophical concepts presented.

I now regret the cavalier way I treated those words. I wish that some teacher had taken the chance to try to engage me and my fellow junior high-ers with something of the significance of those words and the rest of the Declaration of Independence. I realize that, probably, we would not have been receptive, but maybe some germ of an idea would have been planted that would have stuck with me as readily as the words still do.

Of course, while the words are significant, it is the concepts they embody that are more significant and are harder to see lived out. It is easy for us to demand our rights; it is much harder for us to be willing to grant such rights to others, particularly when their freedoms challenge our ideas of what is right.

One thing that was reaffirmed for me as I read Founding Faith was that the men who were responsibile for shaping how this country would operate were human beings and were products of their times. They did things we now see as contradictory; they disagreed with one another; they changed their minds; their views were dynamic and not static; and, their choices often reflected political necessity instead of philosophical purity. Yet, they could affirm the basic truth that all men [we, of course, would now read all people] have basic rights which should not be taken from them by others.

The framers of the Declaration stated that the rights championed therein were part of the gifts endowed upon human beings by 'their creator.' Would that we recognize our role and responsibility in helping secure 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' for all people, regardless of how different from us they may be.

Madison on the religious

With the celebration of the 4th of July at hand, dignitaries across the country have waxed eloquent on the meaning of our glorious liberty and the responsibility we each have to maintain it. I can make that statement with great confidence, even though I have not listened to any 'speechifying' leading up to July 4th, and I shall not listen to any on that glorious day.

One component of our liberty as Americans that is near and dear to my heart is religious liberty. Here is one thing concerning the relationship between religion and government and the independence of each written by Madison in 1821.

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

As with Madison, I firmly believe that the 'mutual independence' is the best context for both the religious side and the political/governmental side. May it ever be so.

Jefferson on Religion

In 1825, Thomas Jefferson offered his advice on obtaining 'salvation' to a young man who was the son of a friend. From what is now known about Jefferson and religion, for 'salvation' has decidedly religious overtones, it is remarkable to me that the former President would be concerned whether anyone would obtain salvation. Perhaps you, too, would be surprised. Or, perhaps not, after you have a chance to read his advice. Jefferson commented:

Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence. So shall the life into which you have entered, be the portal to one of the eternal and ineffable bliss.

Washington on Religion

Washington was a sincerely religious man. His speeches and letters are peppered with references to God and the work of God in the world. More than likely, though, he would not have been welcomed in many of the churches that today loudly proclaim Washington's Christian bona fides.

In 1795, four years before his death, our country's first president wrote this:

In politics, as in religion, my tenets are few and simple; the leading one of which, and indeed that which embraces most others, is to be honest and just ourselves, and to exact it from others; meddling as little as possible in their affairs where our own are not involved. If this maxim was generally adopted, wars would cease and our swords would soon be converted into reap-hooks and our harvests be more peaceful, abundant and happy.

[taken from Founding Faith, p. 183, and attributed to Bruce Chadwick, George Washington's War.]

Sound advice, this. Be honest and just in dealing with others; expect the same from them; and do not become involved in the affairs of others unless it affects you.

Franklin on Religion

Since I have finished the book Founding Faith by Stephen Waldman and the 4th of July is at hand, I thought it would be appropriate to feature quotes from various prominent 18th century Americans who were instrumental in the struggle to obtain freedom for our forebears from English rule. In no particular order, I decided to open with a quote from Franklin. This is from his letter to Ezra Stiles, then the President of Yale.

"You desire to know something of my religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render Him is doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.

I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all."

[Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from "Benjamin Franklin" by Carl Van Doren, the October, 1938 Viking Press edition pages 777-778 Also see Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94]