Comments on: “He said I wasn’t a Christian”: teaching confirmation class at a liberal Episcopal parish

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:54:58 +0000

The other comments got lost in the time period when this blog was being created. Nothing between November 17-27th survived, alas…

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:32:42 +0000

Hugo,
What happened to the rest of the comments in this discussion?

By: Hugo

Hugo — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:41:12 +0000

Okay, the Hebrew word in Leviticus for “abomination” is Toevah, and it’s regularly used to refer to women’s menstruation elsewhere in the book. This is one of those culture-bound rules that no longer apply, much like Paul’s insistence that men not have long hair.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:10:02 +0000

“Dave, theology is not football, and Christians are not referees.”

Mr. Schwyzer, I would like to introduce you to Mr. Analogy. ;) I agree that Christians are not refs. I personally think that God is the ref.

Honestly, the question is one of authority. When I was a kid I played a lot of pickup games. There were no zebras. We were the refs. In my mind I NEVER traveled. Everyone else did, but not me. The theological question is “who is making the judgments?” The standard Wesley quad regards scripture as infallible.

You profess your Christianity and your feminist views in your blog. I am simply asking for an explanation of how you have come to your theology. I am honestly curious about how you view such things as Leviticus 18:22. For all I know you could use a mystery eight ball from Spencer’s or flip a silver dollar. Seriously though, I doubt that it is that capricious. Tell me more. Let us inside the mind of Hugo.

Sidebar: You de-boned that “Borat” film with a filet knife. Well done.

By: Stentor

Stentor — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:02:30 +0000

I tend to take a deflationary/pragmatist view of the “who’s a real Christian” question — if I know enough about your beliefs to be able to apply any definition of Christianity, then knowing whether or not the label applies doesn’t add anything to my understanding. I know what Hugo and his fellows at All Saints believe (and I know what I think about their beliefs’ veracity), so it doesn’t really matter whether they qualify as “real Christians.” To me, “Christian” is a useful (albeit vague) summary term, not a “natural kind”. So I’ll happily reclassify Hugo’s kids (or anyone else) as Christian or non-Christian depending on what elements of Christianity are relevant to the point I happen to be making at the time.

By: glendenb

glendenb — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:11:07 +0000

You know, I miss a couple days blog reading and this topic comes up! I’m involved in a UCC congregation in Salt Lake City where not only our kids and youth but on occassion our adults are told by “well meaning” Mormons that we belong to the wrong church.

On a regular basis, our kids (8 years old!) are told by their Mormon schoolmates that they are wrong and going to hell because they’re not Mormons.

I have taught the last three confirmation classes in my UCC congregation in Salt Lake City. More often than not, our teens have been told slightly more sophisticated versions of the same crap. When any church teaches that theirs is the only valid way to God they teach their kids it’s acceptable to tell their peers that they’re going to Hell.

Just this week, I learned in my Our Whole Lives class that non-Mormon girls have an automatic reputation for being sexually available with their Mormon peers. The Mormon church has convinced these kids that they’re adherence to antiquated moral values is the same as virtue and that anyone who isn’t one of them is morally suspect.

Our congregatonal response has been to do our best to be clear about our values, to instill those in our kids and youth and to affirm them within our community - to assure them that our vision of Christianity may not be universal, but that they can be sure that their church is a Christian church. But, I get angry at the stories I hear from “my” kids. I just let them know that they will always have a home in our congregation.

By: edgar

edgar — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:52:13 +0000

Hugo,
Thanks for this post. I found myself very moved by it. My heart goes out to your kids, but I think they are very lucky to have a teacher and friend like you. I am always amazed by those who want to reduce Christianity to a series of litmus tests. I am one of those “liberal Episcopal priests”, in part because of the intolerance I found as a teenager among some of my Christian friends who always wanted to define who was and who was not a Christian. Like you, Hugo, I know Jesus as a very real, intimate and loving presence, but as with every other person in my life, my understanding of him, and my relationship with him is not static. It has grown deeper over the years, in large part because of those who have known him in very different ways. To say that Jesus is my Savior is not to say that it is my understanding of him, or what I think about him that saves me. But that he saves me. And no, I don’t know fully what that means or where he will lead me. That’s part of the adventure of faith, it seems to me.
Dave, I don’t think the ten commandments are all that easy to understand. Jesus warned about reducing them to simple “litmus test” statements when he talked about those who have not literally engaged in adultery, but who have done so in their hearts. I can on one hand say I have done no murder, but have I been complicit in the deaths of others through my consumpsion, or through war? Have I wished for the deaths of others through disdain or indifference? Following the commandments, and loving God and neighbor, take constant growth and learning and conversion. “Who do you say that I am?” is not a question that is settled once and for all for me, but one I hear Jesus ask me every day and one that I constantly try to answer through my life, words, relationships, prayer etc.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:00:00 +0000

Hugo:

I believe you are buying if we can find an open restaurant this week and I’ll take your last sentence with the following emphasis. “Which is why a generous and robust ORTHODOXY, embracing the world in all its ambiguity, is necessary to define a church.” :)))

Steve

By: Hugo

Hugo — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:51:38 +0000

Gosh, Steve, you and I are not only dear friends, we think almost the same way. Here’s how I’d write your last sentence:

“Which is why a generous and robust orthodoxy, embracing the world in all its ambiguity, is necessary to define a church.”

;-)

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:47:18 +0000

Hugo,

With respect, it really isn’t a jump.

Look, I get the ambiguity of belief, the functional gnosticism of most evangelicals, the tendency to become proud of my belief in Christ rather than thankful for what He has done, the value of All Saints in pushing to the forefront social justice issues, the “sin of presumption” that any of us can determe who are sheep and who are goats, that “God writes straight on crooked lines.”

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to conflate the personal immaturity of the “conservative kids” with theological wrongheadedness. (And, no, the two are not inextricably linked.) If Jesus was not raised from the dead, if He is not in fact alive, our faith is in vain, to steal a phrase, it becomes nothing other than a sweet sounding pablum, a combination of policitcal activisim and Mitch Albom and, again, a therapeutic monotheism, of which we are all guilty, I suppose. Which is why a generous and robust orthodoxy, engaging the world in all its ambiguity, is necessary to define a church.

Steve