Pluralism

I finished Joseph Telushkin’s A Code of Jewish Ethics, Volume 2: Love Your Neighbor As Yourself.  I have three items:

1.  On page 434, Telushkin states: “One upshot of Rabbi Meir’s teaching is that parents should not try to make all their children alike or copies of themselves.  Rather, as Proverbs teaches, ‘Raise a child according to his way’ (22:6; emphasis added).  Observe your child carefully, and support her interests and enthusiasms in order to develop her potential.”

The KJV translates Proverbs 22:6 as “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”  And the KJV for Proverbs 22:6 was what I heard when I was growing up: that parents should teach their children the way they should go. The problem, of course, was that there were children who grew up and departed from the way that their parents taught them, especially when that “way” was religious.  One way that Christians tried to explain that away was to say that Proverbs 22:6 was a truism or a general principle rather than a promise.  And some essentially rewrote the verse to say that, if you give a child a religious upbringing, the child will grow up and eventually come back to God, even if she departed from the path for a time.

Literally, however, the first part of the verse reads, “Train a child according to his way.”  As you can see, Telushkin takes that to mean that parents should encourage children in their (the children’s) interests and talents.  A friend of mine had another interpretation of Proverbs 22:6: that it means that tolerating a child as he walks in his evil path (his way, according to nature) will set the child on a path of evil from which he won’t depart.  The idea, for my friend, is that parents should teach their children so that they don’t walk in their own way, but rather according to the right and moral way.

2.  On page 440, Telushkin refers to a statement by the sixteenth century Rabbi Judah Lowe, who said in Be’er Ha-Golah 2:424-426:

“If a person does not intend to goad, only to convey his faith, even if his words are opposed to your own faith and your own religion, you should not say to him: ‘Do not speak and keep your words to yourself…’  On the contrary, let him speak as much as he wants…Reason requires that nothing be hindered, that no mouth be closed, and that religious dispute be open for everybody…This is the only way by which men can reach ultimate truth.  Any proponent who wants to overcome his opponent and demonstrate his own correctness would very much want his opponent to confront him to the utmost…”

It’s for reasons such as these that I support freedom of speech.  I think that the Supreme Court was right not to ban Hillary: The Movie due to campaign finance regulations, for, when different voices are allowed, we arrive at the truth.  At the same time, having more money means having more opportunities for your speech to be heard, and that does concern me.  There should be avenues for people without much money to speak.  Blogs are one means, but what if someone doesn’t have a computer?  Perhaps he can use a computer in the library.

3.  On pages 441-442, Telushkin quotes the pluralistic teachings of Sir Jonathan Sacks, who was Great Britain’s chief rabbi.  Sacks wrote a book entitled The Dignity of Difference, and he states: “Judaism is a particularist monotheism.  It believes in one God but not in one religion, one culture, one truth.  The God of Abraham is the God of all mankind, but the faith of Abraham is not the faith of all mankind…God is God of all humanity, but no single faith should be the faith of all humanity…God no more wants all faiths and cultures to be the same than a loving parent wants his or her children to be the same.”

It’s Not Censorship (Technically-Speaking), But It Still Stinks

This will be a rambling post.

In a sense, I can identify with the companies that have pulled their sponsorship from Rush Limbaugh’s radio program.  These companies support such values as civility and respect for people, and they do not feel that Rush practices those values.  Consequently, they choose not to support Rush.  I understand and I respect that.

But I myself have no intention of trying to get Rush kicked off the air.  In fact, I’m getting sick of conservatives getting kicked off of programs, period.  I think of Pat Buchanan being fired from MSNBC due to pressure from a left-wing group.  In my opinion, we lose out when voices are silenced.  And, while we may think that society would be better off if certain voices were simply not heard, I believe that those voices should be addressed and countered through debate, not silencing them.  (I’m refraining from using the word “censorship” here because the government did not remove Pat Buchanan from MSNBC, and I define censorship as the government repressing freedom of speech.)

“But you’re a right-winger, James.”  Well, I’m more middle-of-the-road nowadays, maybe even center-left.  But let me say this: I’m not going to join right-wingers to get things kicked off the air, either!  The conservative American Family Association has long liked to target sponsors to get certain programs kicked off.  I have not joined them, for I happen to like the shows that the religious right dislikes (i.e., Desperate Housewives, Picket Fences, Brothers and Sisters, etc.).  L. Brent Bozell (nephew of William F. Buckley, Jr.) has for years sought to remove Family Guy from television.  I happen to like Family Guy.  I think it’s funny.  It goes too far at times, but I’m not going to support getting it kicked off the air.

Another pet-peeve I have: When someone expresses an opinion, people act surprised and outraged that he has expressed that opinion.  I have in mind Kirk Cameron’s recent comments on homosexuality, which GLAAD has criticized.  Look, criticize away, for this country is all about debate!  But should we really be surprised that Kirk Cameron made those comments?  He’s a conservative Christian!  Of course he feels that way!  There are many people in the United States who still believe that way!  I hope Kirk Cameron is not pressured to contrive some phony apology.  People are still entitled to their opinion, even if that opinion is wrong and (in the eyes of some, such as GLAAD) outdated.

I tend to admire people—-on both the Left and also the Right—-who acknowledge and respect that there are people with different points-of-view, whether or not they agree with those viewpoints.  Let’s go a step further.  I admire those who also try to understand why other points-of-view exist.

Atheists Cope; Separate Truths; Heresy Bible; Messy Reality; Contextual?; Is Inerrancy Necessary?; Sue Heck

1. William P. Young, The Shack, page 66:

But in spite of his anger and depression, Mack knew that he needed some answers.  He realized he was stuck, and Sunday prayers and hymns weren’t cutting it anymore, if they ever really had.  Cloistered spirituality seemed to change nothing in the lives of the people he knew, except maybe Nan.  But she was special.  God might really love her.  She wasn’t a crew-up like him.  He was sick of God and God’s religion, sick of all the little religious social clubs that didn’t seem to make any real difference or affect any real changes.  Yes, Mack wanted more, and he was about to get much more than he bargained for.

This calls to mind a recent post by ex-fundamentalist Ken Pulliam, Evangelical Pastors are Discouraged and Depressed.  Ken cites a study that concludes that many evangelical pastors are depressed, as well as Jonathan Falwell’s observation that there is something wrong in the current state of ministry.  Ken states the following:

While I would not criticize anyone for having clinical depression, depression due to discouragement is another matter when it comes to an evangelical Christian pastor. He (there aren’t very many shes in evangelical pastorates) is supposed to be a child of God, have direct access to the throne of God to ask for help and provision, be certain of going to heaven when he dies, have all of his sins and guilt removed, what in the world does he have to be depressed about–if what he believes is really the truth?

Personally, I approach this issue as I do the problem of evil: Sure, ministers are depressed, by what are atheists’ solutions to depression?  Many of them say that they don’t buy into an afterlife and thus try to live this life to the fullest.  But that can be a pretty depressing thought in itself.  There are things in this life that are enjoyable, but there is also a lot of pain and sorrow—from me not getting what I want, and also from genuine tragedies, such as sickess, evil people, and natural disaster.  Plus, this life goes by so fast, leaving in its wake many regrets and unresolved issues. 

If this is all there is, and there is no loving God looking out for me, I’d be depressed.  As Ken pointed out in a post, Is Religion Cognitive-Emotional Cheesecake?: Matt Bradshaw and Chris Ellison have shown that religion can reduce the stress caused by financial hardship.  Andrew Clark found that European Protestants and Catholics are less fearful of unemployment than the non religious.

But atheists do get through life.  I once asked one of them when I was in college, “How do you get through your day?”  His response was that sometimes he doesn’t!  He just goes through life and tries his best.

When I was at Harvard, doing my applications for the next level of my study, I was trying to find peace in the notion that God had a plan for my life.  I overheard an atheist talking with a friend, and he was discussing his own experiences in the application process.  He just talked about tasks he was performing—sending in an essay, etc.  He didn’t believe that God had a plan.  On the opposite extreme, he didn’t strike me as an arrogant person who believed he was the master of his fate and the captain of his soul, for he realized that some colleges might not take him.  But he tried his best, and what happened, happened.  Plus, he’d continually identify his options and weigh them accordingly. 

2. Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land, page 181:

“…each religion claims to be truth, claims to speak rightly.  Yet their answers to the same question are as different as two hands and seven hands.  The Fosterites say one thing, the Buddhists say another, the Moslems say still another—many answers, all different.”

That reminds me of an article that I read recently, Separate truths – The Boston Globe, which challenged the notion that all religions are saying basically the same thing.  Actually, the article argued, they’re saying quite different things, and we need to grasp that fact if we are to interact with the world as it is.

I think it’s a little of both: many religions have similar systems of morality—such as love for neighbor.  But there are also clear differences.  Pluralist John Hick acknowledges this, which is why I’d like to read more of him in the future.

3.  Raphael Loewe, “The Medieval History of the Latin Vulgate”, Cambridge History of the Bible, volume 2, page 107: 

As regards ecclesiastical leadership, although we may suppose that the theological climate in which scriptural innovation was received would be conditioned by sensitivity towards any attempt to saddle heretical notions on to the wording of Holy Writ, such hesitancy may be here discounted on account of Jerome’s own staunch orthodoxy and attitude towards Arianism.

Do we have a lot of heretical biblical texts?  Early Christians produced new translations of the Hebrew Bible by the truck-load, and, as Emet would probably point out, they sought to conform the Bible to Christian doctrine.  But were there heretics who did this?  I remember Bart Ehrman referring to texts of the Gospels that were adoptionistic, in that they held that Jesus became divine and Christ at his baptism, an idea that became a heresy.  But were heretical versions of the Bible stamped out?

4. Alberdina Houtmann, Mishnah and Tosefta, page 19:

Goldberg went the other way in accepting the existing arrangement of Tosefta as intentional.  He explained the differences in arrangement of the material on didactic grounds.

We encounter here the question: Does the Tosefta depend on the Mishnah?  By and large, one can make a case that it does, for it often follows the order and the subject matter of the Mishnah.  But, apparently, there are times when such is not the case.  And so messy reality leads to messy scholarly attempts to account for that reality!

5.  Ehud Ben Zvi, “Introduction: Writings, speeches, and the Prophetic Books—Setting an Agenda”, in Writings and Speech in Israelites and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, page 26:

The oral prophecies from Mesopotamia suggest that oracles dealt with the relatively close future, not with an ideal future set far away from present reality.  The same holds true for the written collection of Assyrian oracles.  As mentioned above, one of the prominent messages of the prophetic books is to advance an image of an ideal future, and to reassure society that the future will become reality, by the will of YHWH, at some indefinite point in the future.

I thought that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible were speaking to their own times.  First Isaiah believed that the Assyrians would ransack Judah, and God would build a Messianic sort of kingdom on a remnant.  Jeremiah thought that, after seventy years, the Israelites would return from exile in Babylon, and that would lead to a time of peace, along with a new covenant, in which God would internalize his law in the hearts and minds of the Israelites.  Ezekiel believed something similar.

Yet, the fact that these prophecies were redacted and reinterpreted indicates that those who read these prophecies and added their two-cents to the biblical books did not limit them to their original historical contexts.  They applied them to new contexts.  The heroes and villains changed, but God’s plan remained the same.

6.  In Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics, Herbert Brichto states the following:

When Scripture ceases to be relevant to our experience of life, it is as artistically trivial as it has been declared metaphysically and ethically pointless. The Bible has proven that it can survive a failure of aesthetic appreciation, but it is doubtful that it could survive as an artistic creation shorn of a capability for compelling assent to its moral affirmations and its mordant yet never morbid assessment of the human condition.

Does the Bible have to be religious Scripture for us to get moral lessons from it?  When I do my weekly quiet time, I don’t really focus on whether or not the text I’m reading is inerrant.  Rather, I just read and study it, and edifying things emerge that I feel can help me to have a better attitude and approach towards life.  But that’s where I am right now.

7.  I watched the season finale of The Middle, and I found Sue’s story to be moving.  Sue is a high school student who is usually forgotten by her fellow students, her teachers, and the school staff.  It’s like she’s invisible!  She can be in a class, and the teacher doesn’t even know her.  Sometimes, the teacher marks her absent even though she’s right there in the classroom.

Sue also tries out for every school activity, only to fail.  She tries to be on the swim team, and she fails.  Cheerleader—fails.  Drama club—fails.

One day, Sue’s mom, Franky, marches to the school and asks why it can’t try to make her daughter feel like she’s a part of it.  In response to Franky’s plea, the school enacts a policy: the cross-country team will make no cuts!  Everyone who tries out for it will be on it!

Sue is eagerly getting ready to try out for the cross-country team, but, alas, she’s hit by a deer!  (No, she didn’t hit the deer—the deer hit her!)  And so she’s on crutches.  She goes to the coach and asks to be on the cross-country team, and he replies that she can’t, because all applicants must complete five laps to be on it.  He then casually dismisses Sue, and tells her he was glad to meet her.  She replies that she was in his math class, so he didn’t ”just meet” her!

Sue then goes out to the track, and she hobbles on her crutches, trying to make all five of the laps.  Her fellow students don’t know her name, but they cheer her on, even if they call out “Norma” instead of “Sue”!  Sue’s dad wonders if he should stop her, and Franky tells him to let her finish what she started.  Rain comes.  Hail comes.  The lawnmower spews mud on Sue.  But she keeps on going.  Finally, after five laps, she crosses the finish line.  Her classmates and her family (even her jock brother, Axl, who thinks she’s a geek) cheer for her, and the coach throws her a jersey for the team.  At long last, Sue Heck is part of a school activity! 

Biblical Diversity and Harmonization: The Case of James McGrath

Many biblical scholars affirm that the biblical writings are diverse from one another in their ideas. Conservatives assert that the Bible never contradicts itself because it is divinely-inspired, whereas liberals have no problem claiming that the Bible is contradictory, since it was written by different people who did not share the exact same religious worldview.

But how do religious liberals (or even conservatives who acknowledge biblical diversity) find spiritual value in a contradictory document? Do they accept some things in the Bible while rejecting others? Do they seek a common thread that runs through all of the diverse biblical writings, such as a loving God or social justice? Do they think that the Bible contains a “big picture” that is more than the sum of its diverse parts?

I’m sure that each of these approaches has someone who follows it. Today, I want to look at how James McGrath interacts with such issues in some of his blogposts. But please remember this: James McGrath has been blogging for a long time, and I haven’t read all of his posts and comments. Consequently, this post of mine is not an exhaustive treatment of his beliefs.

My format in this post will be as follows: I will identify a topic, include links to McGrath’s posts, and then interact with them. The topics will be biblical diversity, the deity of Christ, Christian exclusivism, and the substitutionary atonement.

1. Biblical Diversity

The Bible: Pure or Special Blend?
Review of Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted

In the “Review of Bart Ehrman,” McGrath disagrees with fundamentalist tendencies to harmonize the Bible’s passages on Jesus’ resurrection. He also states that fundamentalism often goes against what the Bible actually says, and that fundamentalists themselves “pick-and-choose” what they deem to be authoritative in the Bible, even if they assert the contrary. In “The Bible: Pure or Special Blend,” McGrath says that Christians would do well to appreciate the diverse voices in the Bible. In these posts, McGrath seems to affirm biblical diversity while dismissing fundamentalist attempts to harmonize biblical contradictions.

2. Deity of Christ

Incarnation in Luke-Acts and in John?
Following the Historical Jesus

In a comment under “Following the Historical Jesus,” McGrath implies that one should not conclude that Jesus is God on the basis of the Gospel of John. His reason may be that the Gospel of John is later than the other Gospels, which do not claim that Jesus was God. Here, McGrath prioritizes the earlier Gospels over John in his attempt to understand what Jesus believed about himself. In “Information in Luke-Acts and in John,” however, McGrath asks a profound question: Often, Christians read Luke and the other synoptics in light of John’s claim that Jesus is God. But suppose we read John’s claim in light of Luke? According to McGrath, Luke presents Jesus as filled with God’s Spirit. Maybe John, when he calls Jesus God, is saying that Jesus was so filled with God’s spirit and transparent to God’s purposes that he was practically identical to the divine, even though he also affirmed that the Father was superior to him. McGrath draws a parallel with Islamic mystics, who subsumed their own identities in their devotion to God. Although McGrath affirms biblical diversity in this post, his approach here seems to be rather harmonistic, in that he tries to reconcile the different Christologies of Luke and John.

3. Exclusivism vs. Inclusivism

Is Jesus the Only Way? Not according to most Christians…or the Bible!
Krister Stendahl on Religious Pluralism

The issue here is whether or not non-Christians can be saved. Christian exclusivists maintain that belief in Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation and a relationship with God, thereby excluding people from other religions. In “Is Jesus the Only Way?,” McGrath asks why Christians must prioritize exclusivist passages such as John 14:6 (“No one comes to the Father but through me”) over more inclusivist passages of Scripture, as when Jesus heals people and commends their faith, without requiring them to convert to monotheism or understand who he is. Here, McGrath seems to prioritize certain passages over others. In “Krister Stendahl on Religious Pluralism,” however, he’s open to Krister Stendahl’s non-exclusivistic interpretations of John 14:6 and Acts 4:12. Ultimately, McGrath may have problems dismissing the exclusivistic passages in favor of inclusivist ones, so he’s open to alternative interpretations of the former.

4. Substitutionary Atonement

What’s Wrong With Penal Substitution?
What Do You Say That I Did?
Celebrating Easter with the Doubting Disciples

Did Christ die in place of sinners and pay the penalty for their sin, a doctrine known as “penal substitution”? McGrath says “no.” For him, not only is that unfair, but the Bible doesn’t even teach it. The Bible often presents God forgiving people without a blood substitute, and it also affirms that one man cannot die for another (see Exodus 32:33, which McGrath does not actually cite) but that people die for their own sins. For McGrath, the model of atonement that Paul presents is participatory, in which believers die with Christ, rather than Christ dying in place of believers. McGrath does not deny that certain passages in the New Testament view the blood of Christ as expiatory for sin, a position that is salient in Hebrews. Although McGrath asks in “Celebrating Easter” why Christians prioritize Hebrews so much, since it barely made the canon, he interprets Hebrews without reference to penal substitution. For McGrath, in Hebrews, the blood of Jesus atoned for our sins by cleansing the heavenly sanctuary, as blood is a cleansing agent within Leviticus. McGrath sees no need for the substitutionary atonement here!

So what is my point in all of this? My point is that even a religious liberal like James McGrath sees some need to harmonize the diverse passages of Scripture, as much as he may oppose harmonization. We can appreciate biblical diversity, but (in my opinion) certain questions are unavoidable for those who want to view the Bible as authoritative on how God relates to humanity. “Which opinion within the Bible should I select as authoritative, and why that opinion and not another one?” Like many conservatives, McGrath desires some consistency throughout the Bible, rather than viewing it as a mess of contradictory ideas that confuse believers on what God actually wants.

Forum on Mary Lane’s Comment

Under my post, Person with Asperger’s Seeks Spiritual Home, I sort of violated my own rule. I told my readers not to respond to what other commenters are saying under the post, since its aim is to help the spiritual seeker with Asperger’s (Anthony), not to ignite a feud.

But Mary Lane made a comment that I had to respond to. She said the following:

I would have to say that most likely those who feel that they need to dabble into religions outside the Scriptures that God has given us, are living life on the edge-okay? The Devil is just as real as the God who created him (Isa.45:7) and he is very adequately disguising himself in the religions of men and organizations. Innovative novices are subject to being “taken at his will” (II Tim.2:25-26) It behooves those of us who decide to remake God into a more palatible Image, to consider that the actual Designer of that designer religion, may not be able to save us. (Just FYI)

Mary Lane may be addressing me and/or Anthony, since both of us have looked into non-Christian religions. Anthony dabbled in Kabbalah and was thinking briefly about studying Buddhism, and I’m currently reading the Koran, with Buddhist and Hindu scriptures lined up on my desk for future projects.

Here are two points:

1. On one hand, Mary Lane’s comment convicts me. I’d like to think that God is somehow involved in all religions, but is such the case, according to the Scriptures? Paul said that those sacrificing to other gods were actually worshipping demons (I Corinthians 10:20), even though Zeus often stood up for justice. Revelation 12:9 affirms that Satan has deceived the whole world.

But there is also a strand of biblical tradition that appreciates the wisdom of other cultures. Paul quotes Stoic authors in Acts 17, in his attempt to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And, as Randall Heskett points out (see Wife Swap), the Book of Proverbs includes chapters that contain the wisdom of non-Israelite kings (e.g., Proverbs 31). And there are Christians (e.g., C.S. Lewis, the Pope) who view other religions as preparatory for belief in Christ. In the second century C.E., Justin Martyr even posited that Socrates was open to the divine logos, even though the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, would come centuries later.

2. Mary Lane criticizes remaking God into a more palatable image. As you can tell, she doesn’t care much for pick-and-choose religion! But, as I wrote under the post, I wonder why she is a Christian and not (say) a Muslim. A lot of evangelicals will respond, “Well, because the God of Christianity loves us so much that he sent his only Son to die for us, whereas Islam’s deity is rather harsh.” But isn’t that accepting an image of God just because it’s more palatable than another image?

Or an evangelical may respond, “Because Jesus rose from the dead.” Well, Islam claims that Muhammad ascended to heaven! Why should we accept one truth claim and not another?

Another common evangelical response: “Because the early Christians were willing to die for their faith, and who would die for a lie?” But the early Muslims also suffered for their beliefs. They were persecuted and kicked out of Mecca. Why would people suffer for a lie?

Please address these comments here and not under the post about Anthony’s search for a spiritual home.

Thanks, to all who will participate.

WordPress readers: See Forum on Mary Lane’s Comment  on Blogger, since that may be where Mary Lane responds.

More on Clones

For background, see Altruism and Jesus Clones.

Felix links to an article on his blog that criticizes a common Christian claim: that Christians should give up themselves. In “Altruism,” I discussed this in light of altruism. In “Jesus Clones,” I referred to the belief of many Christians that all of us should be like Jesus, which, for many, means happy-happy extroversion.

Here I want to talk about the Christian belief that everyone should believe the exact same way. For me, life is interesting because it has different people with different beliefs. The different ways that people get through life are of interest to me.

There is a strong part of me that likes John Hick’s view on religious pluralism: that God interacts with people through various religions, making them better people through his grace. Or, as “God” said in Joan of Arcadia, God made different people, so there are different ways of relating to him.

At Harvard, a teaching assistant defined Thomas Jefferson’s view on religion as follows: different religions are like different flavors of ice cream. As long as you’re kind to others, you can pick whatever flavor you prefer.

I wonder if there are insights that non-Christian religions have that Christianity does not emphasize as much. Buddhism, for instance, talks about non-attachment as a key to happiness. I guess Christianity has that concept in some way, shape, or form, but Buddhism expresses it in its own unique fashion. As a result, I’m not sure if I’d call Buddhism superfluous.

On the other hand, is it wrong for all of us to believe the same way on certain things–how we should treat one another, for example. And not all of the religions can be right in their truth claims, right? Truth is truth. Shouldn’t everyone believe in the truth, whatever that may be?

Is there a way for Christianity to be true, while preserving and celebrating the diversity of life, particularly people’s different worldviews?

Obama on Faith

I read the chapter on faith in Obama’s Audacity of Hope. It moved me to tears at some points, as when he talked about the time he reached out to peaceful pro-life demonstrators at one of his rallies, or the lesbian woman who took offense at his opposition to gay marriage. (She thought he was calling her a bad person!) I had to chuckle at his descriptions of Alan Keyes, the flamboyant, Harvard-educated, Christian conservative orator who ran against Obama for the Senate in 2004. While Obama knew that Keyes stood no chance, there was something about Keyes that got to him and made him think about the role of faith in politics. And Obama gave me food for thought as he discussed the relationship between religion and public life. He supports the separation of church and state, yet he believes that religion belongs in the public sphere, as long as Christians also come up with secular arguments for their policy proposals. That sounds convoluted, I know, but it’s a tough issue!

Perhaps what really got me thinking was Obama’s description of his own faith journey. His family was not that religious, but his mom encouraged him to study numerous religions as different ways to approach life. She herself did not identify with a specific faith, but she instilled in her son a love for life and a passion for social justice. As Obama worked on social justice causes within the African-American community, he felt rather rootless, since he did not belong to any religion. He felt like a detached observer, who had all these inner convictions floating around without much grounding in story, tradition, or community. He gravitated towards the African-American church because there were things about it that appealed to him, particularly its passion for social justice and its notion that church was a hospital for sinners, not a gathering of saints. And so he was baptized in the Trinity United Church of Christ!

As far as his current faith life goes, he identifies with Jesus’ command to love others, even as he struggles with parts of the Bible that give many of us pause (e.g., food laws, death penalty for children, etc.). He tries to be humble on issues such as abortion and homosexuality, for he realizes that he doesn’t have all of the answers. At the end of the chapter, he says he’s not even sure what happens when we die or what existed before the Big Bang. But he recounts that he “grasped a little bit of heaven” as he tucked his daughters in one night. He has committed himself to a faith (Christianity), yet faith, for him, does not preclude doubt.

I can identify with much of what Obama says, for it overlaps with my own faith life, on some level. Over the course of my 31 years, I’ve encountered all sorts of belief systems: atheist, Jewish, Muslim, New Age, and a host of Christian denominations, some of them mainstream, and some of them not. Which one is right? I really don’t know. There are Christian apologists who claim they can prove Christianity, and, while their arguments deserve thoughtful consideration, I don’t see them as a silver bullet. As I’ve said before, there are a variety of ways to read and interpret evidence. There are also Christians who say that they experience God directly (as in God speaking to them and guiding them), but that doesn’t happen to me. Plus, I don’t know enough about people in other religions to say that it doesn’t happen to them.

But I feel a need to belong somewhere, within some story, tradition, and community. I can’t live with a bunch of free-floating convictions. For me, right and wrong need to be grounded in an objective source, namely, God. And this God needs some definable attributes. He can’t just be the nebulous “higher power” of Alcoholics Anonymous: I want a God with a clear personality and goals. And I believe that I must take all of a tradition, not pick-and-choose from it, since picking-and-choosing means I’m creating my own God. So, in some way, shape, or form, I’m a fundamentalist.

I read my Bible and talk to God every day, for that is how I feel I encounter him. The stories of the biblical tradition frame and embody my morality, and they can relate to numerous events of life! I participate in regular rituals, such as the Sabbath and the holy days. As I led the Lord’s supper this year, I reflected on rituals: On that occasion, I was grounding myself in the Christian story. What Jesus Christ has done for me is the basis of my identity, security, and morality. Do I believe that everything in the Bible actually happened? Do I dismiss Jewish interpretations of the biblical prophecies that Christians apply to Jesus? Do I embrace a literal reading of Genesis 1 as opposed to evolution? What happens to those who don’t believe in the Gospel? These are still issues with which I struggle, and I don’t have all of the answers. But I still place myself in the Christian story, as I embrace what Jesus Christ has done for me.

Others may have other stories that embody and ground their own sense of identity and morality. I can’t really say that mine is better than theirs. I can’t prove that mine is true and theirs is false. And, as far as better and worse goes, better and worse depends on one’s perspective. As I’ve said before, there are things about the biblical tradition that are attractive, and there are things that are repulsive. Christian fundamentalists tell us to “just have faith” on the repulsive parts. But, if we open the door to that, how can we say that any religion is better than another? People can say “just have faith” to explain away the unattractive parts!

I admit that there are problems with my approach. It sounds like I’m saying Christianity is not objectively true, or that it’s right for me and not necessarily everyone else. And I accept such criticism. How can being part of the Christian story help me if I don’t see it as objectively true–as an accurate description of a real God who acts in the real world? And so, yes, I do see Christianity as objectively true. I have to for it to do anything for me!

But perhaps that beneficent being called God can interact with all sorts of people, in a variety of belief systems. Sure, I have to believe that Christians have an insight and a relationship with God that others lack, since why else would I be a Christian? But can I still say that God reaches out to all of humanity, in some way, shape, or form? Obama may not always be sure about faith, but he sensed something transcendent when he tucked his girls into bed. And, as John Hick says, even people in non-Christian religions have a sense of morality and the transcendent. Do they encounter God? Who knows? I hope God is that big!

But I myself can’t embrace a nebulous sense of the transcendent. I’m not a Unitarian Universalist! That’s why I ground myself in a specific tradition: Christianity. But, even then, I maintain an academic sense of detachment. I don’t assume that the interpretation of Scripture I grew up with is the only way to see the text. (That would be boring!) There are all sorts of interpretations! But, in the midst of this cacophony of interpretations and denominations, I cling to some basic truths: that there is a loving God, and that he is working to make me a better person. I’m God’s project, but I’m also his child!

Some Loose Ends on Religious Pluralism

I just want to add a few more thoughts on More Than One Way? I didn’t know where to fit them in my other posts, so I’ll put them here.

1. Geivett/Phillips respond to accusations that they are proof-texting. That reminds me of an incident I had at Harvard. I was in my senior seminar, and my project was to attempt to show that Isaiah 53 predicts Jesus Christ. (Unlike with my undergrad thesis, I don’t look back on this one with that much favor). I was trying to set forth my theology using Scriptural support, and one of the students snidely asked, “And what is your basis for what you’re saying? Prooftexts?”

But I wonder what the basis is for liberal theology. If they’re not relying on the Bible, then where are they getting their ideas about God and his purposes? And why should we trust their ideas as reliable? My paper was not the best thing I’ve ever written, but I see nothing wrong with using prooftexts.

2. That brings me to an interesting McGrath quote:

“Most Western religious pluralists appear to work with a concept of God that is shaped by the Christian tradition, whether this is openly acknowledged or not. For example, they often appeal to the notion of a gracious and loving God. Yet this is a distinctively Christian notion of God, grounded and substantiated in Jesus Christ…As Gavin D’ Costa has pointed out, John Hick’s concept of God, which plays a significant role in his pluralist worldview, has been decisively shaped by Christological considerations, whether he realizes or is prepared to admit this. ‘How credibly,’ he asks, ‘can Hick expound a doctrine of God’s universal salvific will if he does not ground this crucial truth in the revelation of God in Christ, thereby bringing Christology back onto center stage?’” (168).

I have a slight problem with this quote. Does a God of love exist only in Christianity? I don’t think so. Judaism has it too. Also, Clark Pinnock refers to “the Saiva Siddhanta literature of Hinduism, which celebrates a personal God of love, and the emphasis on grace that I see in the Japanese Shin-Shu Amida sect” (110). Of course, McGrath has a point when he says that Eastern religions may draw on Christianity in certain areas (he mentions grace), and I don’t know enough about Hinduism or Japanese religion to determine if this is true of them. But something tells me that other religions have some idea of God’s beneficence, even if it may not be as high as Christianity’s.

Overall, however, I appreciate McGrath’s point in that quote. Liberal theologians are usually getting their ideas from the Bible. And, if they see the Bible as authoritative on God’s gracious nature, why can’t they accept the rest of it? We need some foundation for theology, here!

3. We always talk about those who have never heard the Gospel. Geivett-Phillips say that those who never heard would not accept the Gospel if they actually did hear it. But, as McGrath points out, the New Testament presents an example of people who didn’t hear the Gospel but would have believed had they heard it. Matthew 11:21-24 states:

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you” (NRSV).

Geivett/Phillips essentially blow this off. They say: “Our own view is that Jesus’ reference to the people of Tyre and Sidon is hyperbolical. His point is not that they would actually have believed if they had been in the same situation as his first-century audience, but that his first-century audience was even more obstinate than these ancient peoples who were known for their rebellion against God” (259-260).

Jesus doesn’t mean they would have believed? Then why’s he say that they would have believed? Maybe Jesus says what he means and means what he says. Why are some conservatives so literal on some interpretations of Scripture (as are Geivett/Phillips in their focus on even the smallest details of certain verses), but so loose on others?

4. Clark Pinnock says the following:

“I fear that restrictivism may prevent people from seeing truth and goodness that result from God’s grace working in other people and hide from them the spirit of Jesus, who regards deeds of love done for the poor as done for him (Matt. 25:40). He has a generous spirit and can detect the seed of faith evidenced in good works in those who are unaware of any relation to himself” (254).

I’m not sure if I agree totally with Pinnock’s view here, since Paul says that we’re saved by faith in Christ, not good works. Pinnock has to deal with that, on some level! But I like his picture of God and Christ as persons who look for the best in people. It reminds me of something I read in Philip Yancey’s The Jesus I Never Knew: When Jesus healed a person, he often complimented the healed person by pointing out his faith. Jesus returned the compliment! There are plenty of Bible passages that condemn humanity as sinful. But does God ever seek and acknowledge any good in human beings? And how should we be in our relationship with others? Should we see them as hopelessly corrupt, or should we look for the good in them? Which approach will improve our relationships with other people?

These are just my thoughts. Number 4 is not entirely orthodox, but it’s something I’ve often wondered about.

Geivett/Phillips’ Exclusivist View

Today, I’ll point out some interesting things in Part 4 of Zondervan’s More Than One Way? This section presents the exclusivist view, the belief that only those who hear and accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ can be saved. The main article for that section is by R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips, called Geivett/Phillips throughout the book.

I don’t want to dig my academic grave in case I meet Geivett or Phillips for a job interview. This book is dated to 1995, and they’re probably big names by now. But, back then, they were young. They had made names for themselves at a Wheaton conference, and they were also published authors on religious pluralism. But I doubt that they were as famous as John Hick, Clark Pinnock, and Alister McGrath. So I think that they were really trying to compensate for that. They wanted to prove themselves.

Consequently, their article and responses are longer than those of the other authors. They have lots of footnotes. They use words like “veridically” (was that on the GRE?). Their writing style is rather technical.

I didn’t really enjoy reading their responses to the other authors, and I was dreading their main article. But, surprisingly, my reading of it went by pretty fast. It was neat, Scriptural, and somewhat enjoyable.

Basically, they are your typical apologists. Their argument goes like this: God exists because the universe had a beginning and thus needed a cause. There is evidence that the universe has a design that allows for human existence. If things were only slightly different, life would not exist, showing there’s a creator who cares about humanity. And there is evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, which validates the Gospels.

Once Geivett/Phillips validate the Gospels (or, more accurately, refer us to other authors who claim to do so), they cite some exclusivist passages as authoritative (i.e., Acts 4:12; John 3:16, 18; Romans 10:9-15; John 14:6; 17:20). They point out that, in the Bible, God often spares only a few, so we shouldn’t be surprised if he does that with salvation.

They also respond to inclusivist readings of Scripture. For example, inclusivists like to cite John 1:9, which says that the Logos enlightens every man who comes into the world. Inclusivists interpret this to mean that people can be saved apart from explicit faith in Christ, since the Logos still communicates to them, through nature and morality. The Logos who became Jesus Christ was, after all, the divine wisdom who permeated the universe. But Geivett/Phillips apply John 1:9 to Jesus’ incarnation. When Jesus came to earth, his light shined on all sorts of people and forged distinctions (John 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:39-41). It shone on people, but not everyone was saved, for many resisted the light. And so Geivett/Phillips make John 1:9 explicitly about the incarnate Jesus.

Here are my problems with Geivett/Phillips:

1. Overall, I agree with the cosmological argument and the argument from design. I don’t think that the argument from design is perfect, mind you, for there are many things about the universe that make little sense to me. For example, how’s it help humanity for so much of the earth to be covered with salt-water? But, in the end, the design argument still works because so many factors had to come together for life to exist, and I don’t think that could have happened by chance.

But these arguments for God’s existence do not prove Christianity. They can easily coincide with Judaism and Islam. Heck, they can even coincide with Hick’s religious pluralism, the view that God interacts with all of humanity through their different religious traditions.

Actually, I think that these arguments can present problems for Geivett/Phillips’ position. God made a wide world with all sorts of people, who are objects of God’s care and concern. And God interacts with only a small fraction of them, while he consigns the rest to eternal torment (or, for annihilationists, destruction)? That doesn’t make much sense to me.

2. Geivett/Phillips do well to point to conservative scholars, who accept the historical reliability of the New Testament. My problem with Hick is that he acts as if all of New Testament scholarship is minimalist (although he cites a few conservative scholars who agree with him). From historical-criticism, Hick constructs a Jesus who did not claim to be God but was a good moral teacher.

Personally, I don’t construct my theology from historical-criticism, for it’s an unstable foundation. So many scholars disagree about what is the earliest strand of tradition, or what is reliable historically. I prefer to go with the final form of the biblical text. That’s what has come down to us. I don’t dig underneath the text in search of what’s earlier, for God can teach us through later stuff. And is my theology based on anything that’s not historical? Perhaps. God can instruct us through material that’s not historically accurate.

But, back to Geivett/Phillips. Geivett/Phillips want to prove that Christianity is true, beyond the shadow of a doubt. And I don’t think they successfully do that. For example, would Jesus’ resurrection prove Christianity? Even Geivett/Phillips acknowledge that one can interpret that in different ways. For instance, they say that “Pinchas Lapide, an eminent Jewish scholar of the New Testament, affirms the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus, though he denies that Jesus was the Messiah of Israel” (266). So one can believe in Jesus’ resurrection without being a Christian. How, then, does it prove Christianity? Geivett/Phillips should do more work to demonstrate that it supports Christian orthodoxy.

3. Geivett/Phillips are not exactly pastoral. Alister McGrath makes this point: “What does one say to a young Chinese student who has become a Christian, and yet whose parents, back in the rural heartland of the People’s Republic of China, have never heard of Christ? He is naturally concerned for their spiritual welfare and destiny. I think it is this kind of pastoral concern that makes me a little hesitant concerning the approach taken by Geivett and Phillips” (258).

I’ve heard Christians say, “Oh, it’s so great to believe in Christianity! It comforts us. We’ll get to see our departed friends and loved ones.” But that’s not true for every Christian. What if most of one’s friends and loved ones are unsaved?

Geivett/Phillips argue well from Scripture. Their interpretation may be the way things are. And they say on occasion, “We’re not cold and heartless! We’d love for inclusivism to be true. But the Bible says otherwise. Don’t blame us!” (my paraphrase). But they should work on their bedside manner. Is the Bible a cold set of propositions? Or does it reflect concern for people? If the latter is true, then Geivett/Phillips should add some pastoral concern to their clinical analysis.

But that’s just my two cents, for what it’s worth!

Alister McGrath on Religious Pluralism

I finished More Than One Way? last night, while I was watching my Moses marathon. Today, I will touch on Alister McGrath’s essay.

McGrath basically argues that the religions are different, so we can’t affirm that they’re all saying the same thing. Ironically, I was reading this article while watching a 7th Heaven episode that touched on this issue. The episode I had on was about a Muslim family, which was struggling to find acceptance in the neighborhood. Ruthie was telling her little brothers, Sam and David, that Muslims believe in God. Sam and David then asked, “Well, if we all believe in God, then aren’t we the same?” The dog, Happy, then says “Rrrr,” as his ears perk up. I interpreted that to mean “Good point!” or “That’s something to think about!” (I’m an Aspie, but I can still read dogs.) But, anyway, I saw this whole exchange while I read McGrath state the following:

“It is perfectly possible for the Christian to engage in dialogue with non-Christians, whether of a religious persuasion or not, without in any way being committed to the intellectually shallow and paternalist view that ‘we’re all saying the same thing’” (158).

Coincidence? Who knows? It was a funny incident, though.

I don’t really care what Sam and David said, for their acting is rather stilted (although I was touched when they prayed for Simon at the end of one episode). But I have a hard time disagreeing with Happy. I love that dog! If only he were on more 7th Heaven episodes.

Here’s my reaction: We are all the same, in the sense that we’re people who need, want, and deserve love. But our beliefs are not necessarily the same, or even compatible in all areas. And, yet, there’s a lot of overlap. I agree with Hick that most religions have some sense of the transcendent, along with an ethical maxim of loving one’s neighbor.

But, even here, there can be nuance. I was thinking about this last night as I watched Cecil B. Demille’s Ten Commandments. Egyptian religion had ideas of love for the poor and oppressed. We see this in Egyptian literature, but even Pharaoh Sir Sethi Hardwicke said on the movie that he nourished the poor and the orphan. Yet, Egypt also had slaves and treated them like dirt. Cecil B. Demille talked about this at the beginning: “But each sought to do his own will, for he knew not the light of God’s law. The conquered were made to serve the conqueror. The weak were made to serve the strong.” There was an ethical sense even in Demille’s Egypt, so, contra Cecil, it didn’t completely lack the light of God’s law. But that ethical sense wasn’t consistently applied. The culture had blind spots! You can see that contradiction in probably every culture.

I got a kick out of one of McGrath’s statements: He said in opposition to Hick that different cultures have contrasting ideas of salvation. McGrath then refers to the “Rastafarian vision of a paradise in which blacks are served by menial whites” (171). I can detect some scorn in that reference. Christians, after all, believe in the equality of Jews and Gentiles, so it is obviously better than the racialist Rastafarian vision! And, yet, the Bible presents a vision that resembles the Rastafarian notion of paradise:

“[T]he house of Israel will possess the nations as male and female slaves in the LORD’s land; they will take captive those who were their captors, and rule over those who oppressed them” (Isaiah 14:2 NRSV).

This is my problem with McGrath: He says that different religions contradict one another and cannot be reconciled, but he ignores the diversity within the Bible itself. The New Testament presents an image of Jews and Gentiles being equal in God’s community. That was Paul’s whole point: He wanted the Gentiles to enter God’s Israel as Gentiles, without having to become Jews first (through circumcision and Torah observance). But not all of the Bible favors that sort of equality: Isaiah 14:2 presents the Gentiles as menial servants of Israel after her eschatological restoration.

Here are a few more points about McGrath:

1. He seems to know all sorts of people. He mentions Satanist acquaintances, for example. It’s good that he reaches out to all kinds and tries to understand their perspectives. I’m not as good as making friends, but, when I look back at my life, I realize that I’ve met all kinds of people–not Satanists, but people from other religions.

2. McGrath disputes the notion that God’s plan rests entirely on Christians. Often, in my experience as an evangelical, I felt as if people’s eternal destiny depended on me. I thought I needed to sell the Gospel–through good arguments, through being nice, through being impressive. But life is not that neat. Non-believers have arguments for their non-belief. Arguments such as “Jesus was Lord because he wasn’t a liar or a lunatic” do not silence non-believers, at least not in the real world (they might on evangelism videos!). Plus, should I feel guilty of sending people to hell just because I make a social faux pas? Ridiculous!

Yet, God does involve us in his plan. We shouldn’t kick back and expect him to do everything. We are participants in what he is doing. But we’re not generating every aspect of what he is doing, through our own strength, wisdom, and perfection.

I’ve always been familiar with questions on religious pluralism, but the issue really hit home for me when I was at Harvard. There, I encountered people from all sorts of religions. As I saw Jews with their yarmulkes in the Law School library, I thought to myself, “Are they going to hell?” Of course, I held fast to annihilationism, the idea that God will destroy the wicked rather than tormenting them forever and ever, but that didn’t make things better, at least not in my eyes. Does God have a plan for that Jewish person with the yarmulke? Or is his intention merely to burn him up? That Jewish person probably knows Christians, but is God’s plan for him solely based on what Christians do?

In those days, I was reading Isaiah, and the scenario that appeared throughout the book was as follows: God will restore Israel, the nations will be impressed with God’s power, and they’ll come to Jerusalem to worship God. God acts, and that draws the nations to God. Yet, Israel still participates in what God is doing: She follows God and becomes a holy society, one that is a model to the Gentile nations. How different is that from what we see today? Now, there are all sorts of religions, and no way to prove which one is right (in my opinion). How is God acting today to draw nations to himself? And what role do we play?