The 200% Woman
Have you all heard about the Episcopalian priest who has decided that she’s both Christian and Muslim? No, actually, this isn’t the 2003 fake-news story from Scrappleface-this is for real. Well, she thinks it is, anyway. . .
Since you all most likely have been reading for a while, you know that I come down somewhere between middle-of-the-road Catholic and Snooty Pagan, with a dash of Snark-tastic Luciferan thrown in for spice. So, it might (possibly) surprise you to learn that I think this woman is horribly, horribly deluded-at best. Allow me to quote some other reaction before expanding upon my own.
First of, Average Gay Joe over at Gay Patriot nails it on the head when he says:
The good vicar contradicts and blasphemes the central tenet of two religions, now that’s ambition! This babe is going places!
. . . This has been a persistent problem in recent years among Episcopalians, where priests have openly apostasized only to be supported by their bishops (this latest episode isn’t the first). It doesn’t matter whether one is an Episcopalian or not (I myself am Catholic), but it should be noted that homosexuality isn’t the sole reason conservatives in the ECUSA are bolting. If the church one belongs to isn’t going to remain true to the historic Creeds of one’s faith it is understandable why those who still do may get a tad antsy. Disagreements over sexuality pale in comparison. . .
The Anchoress weighs in with:
Given her background, it is interesting that Ms. Redding could not perceive the idea of “surrendering to God” within Christianity, and I cannot imagine that she is unaware that chanting, surrender and praying five times a day (or more) is not exclusive to Islam, and surely did not begin with Islam. Chanting prayers multiple times a day is not even exclusive to the Abramic religions. Buddhists do it and have done it for a loooooong time.
Jews were chanting prayers 5 times a day ‘way before Mohammed ever met Gabriel, and Christians were doing it before the birth of Islam, as well. Hermits and Monastics have been “sanctifying the day” through set prayer times practically since Christianity’s inception. St. Benedict’s monks and nuns were at it ’round 500 AD, rising even in the middle of the night to chant, read scripture and pray for those who will not pray for themselves. This monastic tradition of praying the Liturgy of the Hours is ongoing, and in fact thriving right now, particularly among lay people (of all Christian traditions) possibly because the world is so loud.
And from the Junkyard blog:
What's strange is that there is chanting a-plenty in Anglicanism, even the new stuff, and meditation as well. It was the opportunity for surrender that she was lacking. There was no opportunity for this in the modern Episcopalian church, an institution that can't even take itself seriously anymore.
Anglicans in America: You've come a long way, baby.
+ + + + + + +
Okay, now, to my thoughts:
Obviously, I’ve never been one for conforming to every single “talking point” of a particular religion. I believe a lot of things that would horrify other Catholics, and other things that would mortify a lot of Pagans. So, clearly, I’m not a stickler for fundamentalism in any form. That said, there are certain central tenants to most formalized religions that either you believe or you don’t. It’s a matter of like-mindedness, really. For instance, I believe in the True Presence in the Eucharist (among other things), which is pretty much my sole claim at being “Catholic.” If I didn’t, I probably would have become Episcopalian years ago. Or rather, I would simply be a matter of adopting a more accurate description of myself, than “conversion.” Religions are basically classifications that we adopt to simplify relations with people of other philosophies/ theologies/ cosmologies. If I say “I’m Catholic,” and you say “I’m Hindu,” then we have a generic, basic understanding of where the other person is coming from. Not exactly, mind you, as we’re all different, but you could assume I follow a guy named Jesus, that I believe He was Divine, and maybe a few other things. Likewise, I would assume that you were not monotheist, were acquainted with multi-armed statues, and maybe avoid eating beef. Basic, generic assumptions.
For me, personally, my faith and belief are pretty much Catholicà but my approach and practice is 40% Traditional Catholic, 40% Pagan-Gentile, 10% Jewish, and 10% WTF. [The, er, other stuff is UPG (Unsubstantiated Personal Gnosis) with a heavy Judeo-Christian slant.] However, this is only possible because nothing in my approach and practice violates the central tenants of my Catholic faith as I understand them. These central tenants would be: The Deity is Triune-Father, Son and Spirit; and Creator of All Things Seen and Unseen. Virgin conception, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Communion of Saints. . .basically, the stuff in the Creed. Nothing in my approach/practice violates these things (although, it took a long time to be sure of that). So, I can easily be comfortable in both spheres, because I see it as a unified approach, even if it took a lot of pondering to get it there.
[This is made a bit easier in that “Paganism” as such has no set Creed and is very, very malleable. In fact, it’s a sort of default for positive faith. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and everything else. So, it can work.]
However, as Average Gay Joe notes, the central tenants of Islam and Christianity are in fact in direct opposition to each other. Any truth in one negates the other. The mere existence of one is a challenge to the other. It’s not something we’re comfortable with. Most of us like to live and let live-you believe as you will, and I’ll believe as I will, and so long as we stay in our own yards, no problem. We’re like this because we’re secure in our faith, whatever it is, and feel no need to shove it down someone else’s throat. But an understanding of Islam and Christianity leads one to think that human history was written by a fantasy author who deliberately set up two major religions to be necessarily at odds with each other. Let me illustrate:
Christianity [and I’m talking about majorities, so please exclude those pesky Gnostics, eh?] believes in the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, that the Bible was Divinely inspired-but not dictated, and that the New Testament is the final “official Word.” (There is room, mind you, for later, personal Revelation, especially in Catholicism-but as far as Canon goes, NT is it.)
Islam, on the other hand, specifically states as central points that: Allah is One and Only One and that those who “worship Three” are pagans and idolaters, that Christ was not Divine and was just another prophet, and that the Bible is hopelessly corrupted but the Koran was written by Allah and dictated by Gabriel to Mohammad.
To whit, if Mohammad was a Prophet, Jesus was not the Christ. If Jesus was the Christ, than Mohammad was not a prophet. One or the other, not both, because each is necessarily mutually exclusive to the other. If someone wants to believe that Mohammad was a prophet, fine, good for them. But that person can not also claim to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and the Messiah of Prophecy.
[This is why the terms “Messianic Jew” and “Jews for Jesus” piss most Jews off so much-because if you believe Jesus was the Messiah, you aren’t a Jew, you’re a Christian with a strong Jewish background. Likewise, if you’re still waiting for the promised Messiah to come as was prophesized to your people thousands of years ago, you’re not a pre-Christian, you’re a Jew of some sort or another.]
The fact is, Islam is like aged dynamite-it doesn’t mix will with anything. The very basis of Islam is that Christianity got it all wrong and is nothing but idolatry, and the Jews abandoned God and are the sons of apes and pigs. The continued existence of Christianity implies that Islam is at best redundant, and at worst is the faith inspired by the False Prophet of the Apocalypse. The persistence of Judaism, however, does not pose such a threat to Christianity, because we realize that our faith is incomprehensible without the Jews. Yes, it took far too long for most of us to figure that out, but I think we finally get it. This is why a priest and a rabbi can greet each other with great respect and admiration- because strangely enough, the priest realizes that the rabbi can help him come to a greater understanding of what it means to be a Christian, and the rabbi can be inspired by the charitable examples of various saints. And both can talk mysticism if they are so inclined. But an Imam can gain nothing from a priest or a rabbi, because the existence of Islam proclaims a belief that the Rabbi and the Priest are corrupters. Likewise, the Rabbi and Priest can gain little from the Imam, because there is nothing new that he can contribute that they do not already have between them.
This is why a woman who claims to be 100% Episcopalian and 100% Muslim is deluded- because the central tenants of each are mutually exclusive. Islam is a refutation of Christianity, and by saying what she’s saying, she might as well be saying “Well, I completely believe in the divinity of Christ, and I don’t at all.”
It makes no sense.
Well, unless she’s got multiple personalities.
.