On the Inhibition of Ann Holmes

According to Episcopal News Service reports (story: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/81803_101582_ENG_HTM.htm), Bishop Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island has formally deposed Ann Holmes from her post as a Priest. Former Rev. Ann Holmes had formally recited the shahada or the formal profession of conversion to Islam. She was convicted of abandoning the communion of the Episcopal Church by the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Rhode Island, and the Bishop reaffirmed that decision.

Before You Read On (The Disclaimer)
This post will get a bit polemic and harsh, because frankly the doctrine of the Church is harsh towards this kind of behavior. I will be highlighting how Islam is incompatible with the discipleship and priesthood life of a Christian. This is not intended in any way to disrespect Muslims. It is intended to highlight what I think are grave issues of discussion that affect the doctrinal life of our Church and ones that ought to be discussed openly. Also, I do not regard Ann Holmes as a Priest nor as a fellow Christian, being that I believe conversion to another religion is automatic self-excommunication from the Christian fellowship of believers, therefore I will not refer to her as Reverend in any part of this post.

The Story of Ann Holmes
The ENS story records Ms. Holmes's comments as follows:

While serving at St. Mark’s, said Redding in an interview, “I was facing a personal crisis and I needed to surrender. I did know that the word ‘Islam’ means ‘surrender,” but I was surprised when I received what I believe is one of the few invitations I’ve received from God in my life, and that unexpected invitation was to surrender by taking my Shahadah.

“It’s still a mystery as to why, on March 25, 2006, which happens to be my ordination date and the annunciation, I felt called to say the Shahadah with the intention of becoming a Muslim. I’m continuing to explore what it means to be both a Muslim and a Christian, and I expect to be the rest of my life. Being a Muslim makes me a much better Christian, and being a Christian makes me the kind of Muslim I want to be. I see as my calling and privilege witnessing the deep reality of one God.”

So that's the basis of this whole debate and discussion. Now, let's get into the heart of it.

What is the Shahada?
The word as-shahada (roughly: testimony) refers to the act of bearing testimony to and affirming the principal tenets of Islam. An English translation of the profession is: There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet. However, according to Islamic practice, the Shahada must be recited in Arabic. The recitation of this fulfills the first Pillar of Islam. The Shahada must be recited honestly and in the presence of two Muslims to be considered valid. In addition there are six conditions required. This single act, completes the act of conversion and abandonment of the Christian faith (this point to be explored later).

Did Ann Holmes intend to become a Muslim? Was her Shahada valid?
Those who would question the intentionality of the statement or whether this was merely an act of solidarity must consider the circumstances in which the act was done. Although I am unsure if there were two Muslims present, Ms. Holmes herself states that she intended to become a Muslim. Regardless of whether the Shahada itself was valid in the eyes of Muslim law, the intent and commission of the act is what applies with regard to Christian considerations as to what she actually did. The mere act itself shows an abandonment of Christian principles, if it were actually valid, it would provide administrative proof to that effect.

Why is this so serious?
Unlike simply expressing a preference for a certain theological outlook, or saying that one believes in an alternative interpretation of scripture is not the same as professing to have converted to another religion. By converting to Islam, the convert is to assume that Muhammad is the last prophet and the Al Qur'an is the final and absolute word. Furthermore, as Ms. Holmes so succinctly put it herself, Islam means surrender, surrender to the principles of Islam, the loss of one's cultural identity, one's previous religious identity, in exchange for the identity of Islam.
The meaning of the Shahada and the consequences of the act are in direct contradiction to essential principles of Christian doctrine that Ms. Holmes agreed to upon her ordination. It is in contradiction to our belief that the Old and New Testaments hold all that is necessary for salvation. Furthermore, Muhammad is not accepted as a prophet in our tradition. We are, unlike Muslims, not obliged to follow his teachings. Furthermore, Islam, unlike Christianity, does not affirm grace and forgiveness for all people. God will judge all people, including Muslims. This contradicts the Christian affirmation that those who choose will be saved by grace and the atoning death of Christ on the Cross. On another point, Islam rejects the divinity of Christ, which is considered an essential doctrine of Christianity. Islam refers to Jesus as only a mere prophet or teacher.

The Seriousness of the Act and the Compatibility of Such Act with Christian and Islamic Jurisprudence.
Christianity and Islam, as Bishop Wolf rightly put it, are incompatible. Actually they are mutually exclusive. As Episcopalians, we have covenanted with the Lord at our Baptism that we accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. We also pledge to continue in the Apostles' teaching and in the breaking of the bread together. (Book of Common Prayer p. 304ff). Being a practicing Muslim, one would naturally reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and subjugate His royal position into that of a mere teacher or prophet. Now, while I have problems with this particular type of thinking, it would not be as serious of Ms. Holmes simply stated that she agreed with multiple points of Islamic theology and attempted to somehow integrate that into the larger Christian corpus of theology (as problematic as that may seem).
It is also eminently clear that the act committed (and the stance continued to be held) by Ms. Holmes is incompatible and indeed constitutes an offense in both Episcopal and Islamic jurisprudence. The step she has taken is to publicly identify her self as a Non-Christian. From a Sharia (Islamic Law) and Qur'anic perspective, when one converts to Islam, it is to the exclusion of all other religions including Christianity. According to Sharia, her profession of still being Christian would be a form of the legal offense of Shirk (Qur'an 9:1-15, et seq.), associating Lordship with something other than Allah. From the perspective Episcopal jurisprudence, she also is in a state incompatible with her role as Priest. The Priesthood Ordination Vow (Constitutions & Canons, Art. VIII) and the Baptismal Covenant would both be breached in this case.
From the jurisprudential and theological perspectives, it would be impossible for Ann Holmes to be both an Episcopal Priest (let alone Episcopalian layperson) and a practicing Muslim at the same time. It is clearly not the case, that Ann Holmes gives any regard to this when she states: "I’m continuing to explore what it means to be both a Muslim and a Christian, and I expect to be the rest of my life. Being a Muslim makes me a much better Christian, and being a Christian makes me the kind of Muslim I want to be."

What of Her Personal Identity and Rights?
In a pluralistic and open democratic society of ours, it is not outside of the norm that one can be whatever they want. They can self-identify as they wish without consequence and practice their belief openly. So, if she wishes to be a Muslim-Christian or Christian-Muslim, she is free to do so as long as she wishes, from my perspective as a citizen of the United States towards another citizen of the United States. However, from my perspective as an Episcopalian Christian and being mindful of our tradition, our theology and our practices I must remind everyone that membership in the Church and possession of the authority of Priesthood is not a right but a privilege (albeit one that is laxly enforced). She does not have the right to hold the Priesthood if she insists on being in constant non-compliance with Canon Law. It is a shame that Ms. Holmes was not deposed sooner.
If Ms. Holmes wishes to be a layperson in the Episcopal Church, like all others she would certainly be welcome, I am sure. But, it is a totally different thing when she assumed the role of Minister of Word and Sacrament and Priest. She is then no longer her own self. She belongs to the people of the Church. She is obliged to them to teach them the Word of God as contained in the Bible and to maintain the Doctrine, Discipline and Practice of the Episcopal Church. If she wants to share her vision of Muslim-Christian identity, she is certainly welcome to do so, but the Episcopal Church is NOT the right context for her activities, and she should not be using her Priesthood Collar to lend credence to her theology or way of thought.