Nate Knows Nada

From the Salty Vicar:

I do wish that more Episcopalians felt more anchored – the
conservatives do have it right that the church has given its flock very
little. We progressive Christians have to recognize that fact and start
offering the Gospel, with clarity, with confidence, the Gospel that God
is here, now.

And this:

…When reading [conservative] blogs, you’ll find a lot of ridicule about
“inclusion.” They will attempt to diminish the radical power of “love
thy neighbor.” They caricature the liberal understanding of love by
conflating it with the “anything goes” gospel….

But, ye liberals, if someone ridicules “inclusion” you may bring up
Samaritans; you may bring up the Moabites, and you may bring up the
rules of hospitality. I advise, however, not to play the game.

Instead remind them that we don’t worship inclusion. Instead, it is
simply a practical way of bringing people to God. Surely, God invites
us into his love. This is what we mean by inclusion.

“Inclusion” is a tactic. It is not a religion.

GetReligion’s article about U2 the other day spawned this very insightful comment:

I recently saw a CD in a Christian bookstore of U2 songs covered by
Christian artists (“In the Name of Love”). When I asked the clerk if
the store carried CD’s by U2 themselves, I was greeted with a shocked
expression and told “No, we only carry CHRISTIAN CD’s here.” Apparently
the exact same song is “secular” if sung by U2 but “Christian” if
performed by Toby Mac.

Yes.  This is precisely the problem with many evangelical
Christians today.  Only when actions are taken by certain people
(designated “Christians”) can such actions be regarded as “good, holy,
and pleasing.”  Should the exact same action be taken by someone
who is not part of the designated group, it suddenly loses its approved
status.  The action’s ethical status depends entirely upon the
ethical status of the actor, not the action itself.

I’ve written about this before.