ARE WE AN INCLUSIVE CHURCH?

private discussion list - will be posted to diocese of Albany website eventually... | January 28, 2004 | The Rt. Rev. David J. Bena

[ahadams2]

ARE WE AN INCLUSIVE CHURCH?

The Rt. Rev. David J. Bena January 28, 2004

A column by the Rt. Rev. David Bena, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Albany, New York.

Last week, as I was checking in at an airport, the airline staff person asked if I happened to be a Catholic or an Episcopal priest. When I said I was an Episcopalian, she responded, "Well, are you an inclusive Episcopalian or an exclusive Episcopalian?"

Sensing that I was being baited, I replied, "What does the word 'inclusive' mean to you?" She hesitated, and then said, "Oh, I don't know...a place here everybody can go and feel welcome."

"Good answer," I quickly shot back, "Then I am a part of the inclusive church...But tell me, when you say a place where everybody can go and feel welcome, do you mean that there should be no rules regarding ethical behavior for the members of the church? Is it OK for someone to come every week and steal a purse on the way out? Do we need to teach him some ethics about stealing being wrong, even though some would say that kleptomaniacs don't choose that lifestyle - it just seems to be with them from birth?"

"Well, of course we have to have rules. I don't want someone stealing my purse. What I'm talking about is an inclusive church that welcomes everyone in spite of their sexual proclivities."

"Oh," I responded slowly, "so actually, when you say inclusive church, you're really confining it to a SEXUALLY inclusive church?" "Right!" she said gleefully, seeing that she had made contact!

"OK, now let's look at that. Do you mean there should be no rules regarding sexual behavior? Is it OK for another woman in the pew to hit on your husband? I've been told that some people find it impossible to sustain a life-long relationship with another person, and that they have within them an uncontrollable need to have multiple sexual relationships. If we find folks like that, should we say it is OK for them to commit adultery or go through a number of marriages and to feel really good about themselves in spite of that problem?"

"You are being difficult!" she responded impatiently. "Of course it would be wrong for someone to think that they can have my husband sexually. You know what I'm talking about - same sex!"

"So," I stated tentatively, "in your estimation, an inclusive church is simply a church where people can practice sex with people of the same gender and be told that it's perfectly normal."

"Well, not exactly. Only as long as they're wired that way, and then it would be OK."

"Three problems here," I said, as gently as I could. "One - there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that anyone is 'wired' that way. There is opinion, but no scientific evidence. While we do know about chromosomes and gender determination, we do NOT know about a gay gene - after extensive searching, no gay gene has been found. We really don't know why some people prefer same-sex relationships. It's possible that some were taught that way as children, that some were curious and got into the life style; that some craved a lost relationship with a parent; and that some do not remember a time when they were not drawn to same-sex relationships. That's the first problem - we don't know what causes it. The second problem is that, even if some may be 'wired' that way, that does not mean therefore that homosexual activity is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. It looks like some people are 'wired' to be lifelong pedophiles; some are 'wired' to have many sexual relationships at the same time; some are 'wired' to have an ongoing sexual relationship with both genders at the same time. Does being inclusive mean that there are no sexual standards beyond how one is 'wired?'

The Church has always tried to be compassionate and inclusive. But it does have a teaching responsibility. It has to hold up standards in a compassionate way...or there will be no standards at all. And the third major problem is that our Scriptures and Tradition hold up only heterosexual relationships as honorable. The whole theme of the bible (not just a few proof texts) about sexual activity is that it a gift of God to be shared between a man and a woman in a covenanted relationship.

What I'm saying is that we are inclusive, in that all are welcome to come worship, accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and be a part of the family. But just as a nuclear family has a teaching responsible, so does the Church. We need to, in a loving but firm way, teach the ethics and morals of the Historic Church, and raise up leaders who will model that behavior. To use a trite phrase: we need to love and welcome the seeker after truth, but not honor lifestyles that do not honor Christ. If we REALLY love seekers as Jesus loves them, we need to be teaching them and assisting them to break free from lifestyles that enslave them. And teachings from the scriptures are really the authoritative way we can do that. THAT is what really makes us an inclusive, loving Church."

"Thank you," she said, as she continued her work, pondering these things in her heart.

[ahadams2]

Ping.

[trebb]

Good article - rational and straightforward.

[bonny011765]

His communication skills offered much to be emulated. I like the way he distanced himself from the passion of this issue. Then he isolated her true question. Then he taught her tenets of the faith, as he inquired as to her belief system underpinnings.

[newheart]

A friend of mine pointed this out to me recently (and I incorporated into my freep tag.

"Chrisitanity is the most inclusive of religions. It's borders are completely open. But there are citizenship requirements."

Whosoever will, may come to the Lord. But they will be changed by Him. That is the good news. We can all be changed. But if we come simply asking Him to tell us that our sins are not really sins (all of them), then we miss the point.

[AnAmericanMother]

It's a good article. But - based on my experiences in such conversations - I don't believe it happened as described.

The other party involved would have been screaming "Homophobe! Homophobe!" just as soon as she saw things were not going her way. About the time the first question directed to her definition of 'inclusive' was made plain, she would have accused the bishop of "attacking" her and being "insensitive."

Of course, I'm a lawyer and not a bishop, so my cross-examination technique may be just a trifle more confrontational . . . ya think? :-D (Couldn't resist, but actually you have to conduct a good cross exam with the same sort of delicacy used by the bishop here. . . maybe even more so. I always caught more flies with honey - you could see the other lawyer grinding his teeth just about the time I convinced his witness that I was her best buddy and agreed with everything she was saying.)

[q_an_a]

the next question after can someone hit on your husband is, should a man leave his wife, take a lover and still be allowed to be a priest? that is what gene robinson did and the church should have kicked him out. all the gay conversation is just red herring. he cheated and live in an illicit lifestyle.

[madprof98]

The Episcopal Church has become "inclusive" in the same way as the Presbyterian Church USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the United Church of Christ, among others. That is, everybody and anybody is welcome to commune with them--except Christians.

[ahadams2]

when that particular argument is brought up the heretics just roll their eyes and mutter about divorced conservatives...believe it or not that's their only real response. Remember the heretics don't feel responsible for the logical defense of their arguments.

[Alex Murphy]

Whosoever will, may come to the Lord. But they will be changed by Him

Good observation. The problems come when people don't want, or don't see the need to be changed...

[FreeRep]

Good article. We moved to different city and are now looking for a different Episcopal church. Keep up the good work.