New Words

     Do we need new words to describe Christianity?

     A year or two ago, the United Church of Christ in the US (not to be confused with the United Church of Canada, or the Uniting Church in Australia, different critters altogether) started an advertising campaign to highlight the inclusive nature of their faith tradition. Their slogan read "Jesus never turned anyone away and neither do we."

     That's about as close as I've heard a liberal Protestant church come to taking a shot at its evangelical relatives. We're usually focused on being "ecumenical". That's a good thing, unless it becomes an excuse for avoiding issues because we don't want to upset anyone.

     The downside is that the only images that get out into the public are usually exclusive ones. Inclusive Christians get lumped in with those who think that anyone who disagrees with them is going to hell.

     Which is unfortunate. My friends who are fundamentalist/conservative don't hesitate to make a distinction between themselves and others.

     They know that I don't share their point of view. We are still friends. Should I die before they are able to save me, well at least they tried. For my part, I just don't dwell too much on my friends' conviction that I'm going to burn in hell for eternity.

     In fact, the only people who have ever taken exception to my challenges of exclusive language are people who consider themselves inclusive. After all, we're supposed to be the tolerant crowd. Criticism of others is bad form. In fact, one group conversation I took part in ended with one of the participants apologizing to the group for being so intolerant of intolerance!

     Since I started this column over two years ago, I've had lots of people send me comments. Some thanked me for my perspective; some disagreed with my statements. All were articulate and polite.

     However, I did have a representative of a committee of a purportedly inclusive religion contact me. The committee wanted to ensure that it was clear that I was not representing them.

     Now, if you've read any of my columns, you know that I write as a lay person, presenting opinions that are representative of my almost fifty years of life and faith experience. When I pointed this out to the person, he admitted he had never read any of my stuff. Duh.

     It's this type of action that leads me to ask the question: Do we need new words to describe a truly inclusive Christianity? We have such a long history of Judeo-Christian belief in the west that any reference to Christianity immediately invokes stereotypical images. And those images are almost all exclusive.

     If, as Bishop John Spong once said, mainline churches define themselves negatively, they're awfully longwinded about it. "Washed in the Blood of the Lamb" takes only seven words to evoke a powerful sacrificial image of Christ. Explaining the metaphorical and non-literal interpretation of that statement in a liberal inclusive context that doesn't involve human sacrifice takes ... well ... you get the point I'm sure.

     On the other hand, new age and faceless spirituality are not satisfying either. At least not in my mind. In attempting to distance ourselves from the exclusivity associated with Christian catchphrases, we often end up distancing ourselves from Christ.

     Jesus and the Resurrection are integral to my faith. The presence of the Holy Spirit in my life every day is as real as the air that I breathe.

     I can and do accept that other people have other images and experiences of God. But it should be possible to express Christianity in inclusive terms as well.

     We just need the right words.

     Can we create a powerful seven word inclusive statement of Christianity? If you'd like to try it, drop in to the website or send me an email.