Redding's stated rationale is not the logic I'm thinking of. "I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I'm both an American of African descent and a woman. I'm 100 percent both." This sounds like the sort of subtlety that hides a profound truth. As St. Paul said, there is an element of paradox or "folly" whenever one preaches Christ. For that reason the preacher is forced to rely on the Spirit rather than on the eloquence of worldly wisdom.

Preaching Christ AND Mohammed is not paradox or folly. It's a game. Listeners are told to switch off their normal powers of logic and get ready for the game. They are seduced into thinking they are too clever for mere rationality. There is something beyond the language of mortals, and they will tune into it directly if they continue to play along. That is the deeper logic of Ann Holmes Redding.

Joe Bell, reporter for OpinionEditorial.com, explodes the surface logic on display here:

"The comparison of one's gender and ethnicity to one's religion is an impossible exercise. ...No one chooses their own gender or ethnicity but everyone makes a conscious decision to embrace their religion based upon which creed addresses each individual's spiritual and emotional needs. It is possible for an individual to become a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist but no one can make a conscious decision to become black or white."

The logic of "I am both Muslim and Christian" is the same as "this piece of fruit is both an apple and an orange," referring not to some monstrosity created in a laboratory, but to a common household food everyone recognizes at a glance. Once the game begins, a new layer of meaning comes into play. Within minutes intelligent adults find themselves unwilling to express the prideful certitude that this apple is really an apple. A new set of scruples has taken hold. Why did we choose to select apples and oranges for our illustration, and not pomegranates and pineapples? Even though apples and oranges are truly equal, we must be on guard that race was not a determining factor in our selection of apples and oranges, etc., etc....

The point is we are no longer saying anything meaningful at all. We are careful not to convey information and certainly not to express an opinion. We have been trained to be politically correct and, for the moment, safe.

"I am both Muslim and Christian." In our Church's advanced stage of dementia, Redding's attempt at staging an Orwellian moment fails. So an apple is an orange; what else is new? Most Episcopalians are already too numb to perceive any contradiction, let alone any shock. This is just another mediocre stunt by a wannabe prophet. Ms. Redding's religion is neither Christian nor Muslim. It is no religion at all. When her bishop, the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, declares his acceptance of her "as an Episcopal priest and a Muslim", he merely certifies that she fits right in with the wider Episcopal Church.

Ms. Redding has achieved one impressive feat: she has transformed herself from human flesh and blood to human abstraction. According to a colleague, Redding is "by her very presence a bridge person." She is perhaps more bridge than person, but that is the point. By her very presence she is a sacrament of human nature removed from all social reality. There have long been societies that have Muslim and Christian communities, but there is no religious community that is both Muslim and Christian. She has transformed herself into a symbol, but it is a symbol that doesn't stand for anything. She is, as one blogger put it, "a bridge person to nowhere."

The post-modern Episcopal Church, like the liberal culture it represents, proposes a solution to ethnic divisions that are native to the human condition. In the 70's the solution to the scandalous contradiction of maleness and femaleness was to pretend to be an androgynous "human being". The problem was no one ever met a "human being", only men and women. In the 70's we became men and women in hiding. Similarly we now have a model of "inclusiveness" that includes two mutually exclusive religions. We are pretending to have discovered a point of view that is "both Muslim and Christian." It is the pretense that we are above this sort of contradiction that typifies the hubris of the Episcopal Church. The purpose of all this subterfuge is to desensitize Episcopalians to the next erosion of the historic Faith, if that is necessary or even possible. Say it again: an apple is an orange. We are now on notice not to think at all, except to think how clever we are.

The Episcopal Church has become famous for elevating iconoclasts. Since the 1960's names like James Pike and John Shelby Spong have stood atop a growing list of pioneers in what is now a well-worn pattern of publically fouling one's nest and calling it "prophetic". Whether iconoclasm is in any way purposeful or simply a habit, the Episcopal Church now appears under pressure to generate prophetic moments in order to justify its existence. While Ann Holmes Redding is the latest example, she is nothing new.

There is one important element of psychology that characterizes the present era of iconoclasts in the Church. Surprisingly, it has nothing to do with politics, even if the players parade themselves as political. It comes back to the sacramental presence of individuals like Ann Holmes Redding. By her very presence there's a message, and it has nothing to do with Christianity or Islam, even if she spouts wisdom from both of these sacred traditions. What is that message that is now inseparable from her person as a prophet in the Episcopal Church? The same as it was coming from Jim Pike, Jack Spong, and a legion of latter day "prophets."

This is the message of today's iconoclastic prophet, breathtaking in its simplicity: "It's about me."

---The Rev. Canon J. Gary L'Hommedieu is Canon for Pastoral Care at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando, Florida, and a regular columnist for VirtueOnline.