-
Website
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/ -
Original page
http://reinventingsdawheel.blogspot.com/2008/07/can-we-coexist.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I am reminded of Mahatma Gandhi, who spoke for Hinduism when he turned away from the western model. It was in his early days. He had resided at a Methodist minister's home for some time in Durban and had listened intently to that good man's exposition of the Christian life. He finally asked a very pointed question, which reaches into the heart of Hinduism "Will Christianity make me sinless?" When the minister replied in the negative the Mahatma said it was not for him. However although he never embraced Christianity he did embrace Christ.
And I suppose that is the most difficult idea for a Christian to accept - people of other faiths will readily embrace Christ - but it may well not be the Christ that two thousand years of councils, creeds and all manner of theologies have striven to give shape and form to Jesus.
Islam readily accepts Jesus as a prophet - but not the greatest prophet. However that is a giant step forward to understanding just one aspect of who Jesus might have been. Hindus will accept him as one of many avatars, Jews are increasingly accepting Jesus (but not Christ) as a great rabbi - perhaps even greater than some of the rabbis of the Mishna - and so it goes on.
Perhaps we may well need to learn to walk alongside rather than contrary to those of other faiths. This will no doubt be a strange word to us, however perhaps it may well bring us peace - which Christianity has certainly not achieved - and neither the faith of Abraham before that time.
I think it is far more important to seek out what is true than to seek out what is Christian.
When we say that only those who have heard of, understand the plan of salvation, and see Christ as the Son of God, we misrepresent His love for all and narrow salvation to what we know--being saved by knowledge--that sounds like legalism to me.
When we embrace all peoples, we give up our arrogance and prejudices and see them all as children of God, just as we are--equal before God.
The more they hear the Truth about Christ and hear His story, however, those who have rejected Him will understand love and accept Him. So that is why we still need to spread the Gospel--so more will be saved.
Yes, many will be saved who do not know Christ except in the Spirit that leads them to love and kindness. Yet it is still through Him as it was for the millions who lived before He was born in Bethlehem.
Please note, I acknowledge that there have been egregious and inexcusable actions by those carrying the mantle of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, but just as the catchy Coexist banner recommends for religions, what about political and social ideas?
Would Democrats/Liberals be willing to coexist peacefully with Republicans/Conservatives and vice versa? Can different groupings of Christians be willing to accept one another - traditional vs. progressive - believing both are a valid path to the kingdom?
Carrying the banner further - What about those who are happy about Adventism the way it is, compared with those that want to Re-invent Adventism? Can we Coexist?
Perhaps before we tackle the larger interfaith issues, perhaps we should learn to coexist with our brothers and sisters within the walls of our own churches and denominations...
Thanks Travis for providing such good food for thought....
Charles
So you're saying that as long as I believe that Christ is the only way to salvation, I cannot be tolerant of other people's belief systems and have meaningful conversations with them?
Are you suggesting that Christianity is inherently militant in nature?
Believing in truth does not necessarily make one a fundamentalist. I believe we can love our "neighbor" as ourselves and yet not try to force him to believe as we do.
God himself is tolerant. If He weren't He would have ended this thing a long time ago. He allows us the freedom to choose and I think we can "tolerate" that same freedom with those around us without pulling a bait-and-switch on them.
Yet ultimately the choices made will result in damnation for some and eternal life for others. I think we owe it to the world to share what we know out of love without an agenda attached to it.
Thanks Travis. If there is an almighty God He is surely not going to condemn the billions who may never have known Him but nevertheless walk the way He would have them walk.
But Jesus is the better way and I do believe that many would be prepared to admit that; if we were to present Him for whom He is and not necessarily whom we have made Him out to be.
As a whole I would say that Christianity has historically demonstrated that it is more militant than not. You may say that you don't subscribe to that form of Christianity, but you are an individual and it is fortunate that there are Christians that are not practicing militant forms. But this has not been because the Bible teaches this. You have to separate the "loving" passages from the violent ones, and/or you have to embrace the enlightenment to some degree.
The exclusive nature of Christ being the only way, when taken to its logical conclusion, has even God presenting violence as the final solution.
I think these quotes from Thomas Jefferson reflect some of my feelings...
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813."
"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814"
As Jefferson believed, I believe there is a greater power than myself, that it is beyond our understanding, and I am reasonably sure that it is not the god of the Bible nor any other god described by any person or persons.
When you have eternal death as a consequence of not believing you substitute love for fear as the basis of life on this planet. There is no sense of freedom with that foundation of manipulation and no matter how nicely it is presented, it still is a form of coercion.
Thanks Charles!
Those are also some great questions. I think what it ultimately comes down to is the battle between my sinful nature, which wants to exalt my thoughts and ideas above what everyone else thinks and the spirit of Christ which humbly tells me to "not be too wise in my own opinion" but to put others above or at least equal to myself.
In general I do not believe that any human society ruled or governed by and individual or an any non-representative council is capable of unbiased fair-minded tolerant rule. If you look throughout history to all the attempts at setting up a Utopian society (Calvin and Zwingli come to mind)they often end in persecution and intolerance towards any minority group living amongst them. This is ultimately the spirit of the Antichrist.
If Adventists weren't so "wise in their own opinion" I believe there is plenty of room within Adventism and even our local churches for some diversity of belief and practice of our faith, but while we would love to think that we can live our lives with Christ's spirit in our hearts, the reality is we are all sinners and that means that self is going to get in the way more often then not.
When we desire change within our church we always have to do much introspection to see what out motivation for change is. Is it self-motivated or is it others-motivated. God help us as we learn to not just coexist in the church but actually learn to love each other. that will be the true witness to the world that we have something worth giving.
Such a statement makes a leap in logic. Life is full of seemingly fear-inducing consequences, but this does not mean that my actions are necessarily the result of fear. I know that if I murder my wife, then I will pay the consequences of that action - in some places, even the death penalty. Could we then say that the only reason I have not murdered my wife is because I am fearful of being executed? Of course not!
For some, such a thought may be what diverts them, and they are living in fear. But simply because there is a legitimate consequence to a wrong decision does not necessarily mean that we act out of fear. On the contrary, when we emphasize the goodness and loveliness of God, I am motivated by love, rather than fear. And I realize that God's loving character naturally wants to turn me away from the natural consequences of my own sinful decisions.
"Such a statement makes a leap in logic. Life is full of seemingly fear-inducing consequences, but this does not mean that my actions are necessarily the result of fear."
Well, we are not talking about the same choices. In life we have more than one alternative and we have observable results.
When we are talking about being destroyed for all eternity for not having a belief we are presented with a choice that only exists within the mind.
You stated this as well...
"On the contrary, when we emphasize the goodness and loveliness of God, I am motivated by love, rather than fear."
Because you are required to emphasize the goodness of God this implies that there is another side of God that has to be minimized. This has nothing to do with logic, but with emphasis.
When we look at the choices logically, there is really only one choice.
Let's look at the choice in another context that has existed and we clearly would call it unjust. How about we returned to the law that said you had to join the Catholic church or you would be put to death? (This is not to be confused with Eddie Izzard's Anglican requirement of Cake or Death!)
Now some of those in Catholic church might say this choice doesn't have to based on fear because there are so many loving things that happen when you are a member of the Catholic church. And they couldn't conceive of why anyone would NOT want to be a part of the Catholic Church.
I would also point out that many Christian churches don't believe that you are really Christian unless you believe in an eternal hell and I hear the quote all the time that refers to the idea that fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I understand that many Christians interpret fear, in this context, as respect, but I would point out that we could then say that perfect love casts out all respect.
To me, no matter how you may reframe it, the bottom line is God will kill you for all eternity unless you believe in a certain way, and that belief requirement, frankly, is not all that clear. This adds, at least in my experience, a whole other level of fear.
But . . . in a way, it is somewhat of a redundancy to speak of "the goodness of God." The God of the Bible is entirely good, so there is no "badness" to speak of at all. His very essence is goodness and love and, therefore, all of His actions are inherently good. All of them.
Some might look at the destruction of the wicked and say that's God's "badness," but, in reality, it is not. For lack of a better analogy, when God destroys the wicked in the end, it would be akin to euthanizing a horse that is in incredible pain. Destroying the wicked is actually a merciful and loving act by God.
At the same time, I don't have to remind you that Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in an ever-burning hell. Such a dispicable "doctrine" would force me to believe that God has "badness."
On another note, I think the idea of "coexisting" is somewhat silly. The basic definition of "coexisting" is "to exist together or at the same time," something that we have already accomplished.
Believing that every other religious system is equally valid as your own is another subject altogether - and entirely unachievable (and illogical). While we should strive to respect others beliefs and opinions, there will never be a time when we all believe the same thing about everything.
And simply because, as a Christian, I can respect someone else's beliefs, does not mean that I cannot lovingly share with them the hope I have. Jesus Christ, incidentally, pulled no punches when He plainly told the Samaritan woman, "Salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22). He had no room for religious plurality.
So if I am going to follow Him, I will inherently rule out the possibility of "all roads leading to Rome."
But . . . in a way, it is somewhat of a redundancy to speak of "the goodness of God." The God of the Bible is entirely good, so there is no "badness" to speak of at all. His very essence is goodness and love and, therefore, all of His actions are inherently good. All of them.
Well, this probably is the core of our difference. This statement, to me, has no basis in evidence or logic since the god of the OT is brutal, jealous, unpredictable, doesn't follow his own moral code, and frankly has rules that seem rather egocentric and immature.
What seems more likely and logical is that this is a god of iron age men made up by them to serve their need for meaning and to help make sense of the apparent randomness of life.
This god was certainly not a god who allowed the possibility to coexist with any who apposed him. Death was the command to be done to any who did even the slightest insult to this god including gathering wood on the Sabbath and doing sculpture. The list of offenses punishable by death is long.
This would explain why you find no room for plurality, because you god has no room for it either.
When the disciples wanted to use their new-found power to call down fire on those who rejected Jesus (Luke 9:51-56), he corrected them by saying, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”
So what spirit was motivating them? “There can be no more conclusive evidence that we possess the spirit of Satan than the disposition to hurt and to destroy those who do not appreciate our work, or who act contrary to our ideas” (The Desire of Ages, 487).
As for the violence of Christianity. I think empires are violent, and when empires co-opt religion (or are inherently religious like a theocracy), then the religion gets violent.
The first 300-400 years of Christianity (true Christianity as Jesus intended it?) look nothing like the post-Constantinian "conversion."
(personal confession: groups like the Anabaptists, Mennonites and Quakers seem a lot closer to this original hue than a lot of what I see in current Christendom--young.anabaptistradicals.org, www.missio-dei.com, geezmagazine.org...)
Yet, the "hell" question remains. Dead for eternity may come across as violent if one sees it merely as a punishment for holding wrong opinions or for getting the liturgy backwards (I believe Jesus use of "belief" is defined to mean more than mere mental consent by the rest of his teachings, just like "to know" meant more than mere knowledge since Adam knowing Eve resulted in a child).
However, to a father who is asking the God of the universe to bring justice because of the rape and murder of his litle girl, it may appear to be a pretty simple action to stop evil in its tracks. Yes, I'm using an extreme case, but it's not fictitious.
And the mystery and scandal of it all is that even the most violent and detestable person can repent and be forgiven and can have the eternity God intends. Stephen and Saul/Paul will have quite a reunion after the resurrection if I understand the story correctly.
Sabbat Shalom, Jeff
p.s. trudyj, do you have a blog at wordpress?
Christianity, in SDA form, is my choosen religion, for a number of reasons, but what life boils down to for me is a reclamation of the terribly broken relationship between me and God, and me and other humans.
When and if I share Christ, it is from the perspective of what He has done for me. And I don't mean that in a theological way. I mean, what He has done for me today. Like, stopped me from yelling at my kids. Because don't we all want to yell at our kids sometimes? And don't we all feel pretty cruddy when we do it, and wish we didn't? Christ isn't my personal genie, but he offers me some powerful answers to life's persistant questions (or is that Guy Noir? Anyway...)
I can appreciate that others have found God in other religious structures here on earth, and who am I to try to sway them from their spiritual walk? But when I am real with another person, this Jesus person just has to come out, because I would be sunk without Him. And if that is compelling to them, so be it. But if it isn't, I'm not going to worry about it.
Let's just coexist as humans.