Reinventing Christianity in the context of other religions and non-religion
It is an axiomatic truth that until fairly recently, using 1960 as a benchmark, it was not necessary for Christian leaders in America to be cognizant of non-Christian religions, or, for that matter, of unbelief. There just weren't that many Buddhists (except in Hawaii) or Hindus or Taoists, etc, and as for Jews, by the 1950s they were part of a spiritual triumvirate that Will Herberg characterized as Protestant, Catholic, Jew, the title of his well known book of the era. And while there certainly were Atheists in the population, they had a "low profile" if for no other reason than the fact that there weren't many of them. The contemporary revival of Atheism under people like Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens, and others, was inconceivable at the time. Of course, in the cities things might be different enough that special recognition of non-Christians (or non-Jews) was a good idea politically, which certainly was the case in San Francisco with its large Chinese population, or Seattle, or Chicago, or Boston, or New York. And in university towns the "new" subject of Comparative Religion was making its debut. Actually, study of world religions had been around since the end of the 19th century but not until the 1950s was it regarded as more-or-less important. Those were years when, for instance, Zen Buddhism and Hindu sects like Vedanta were becoming popular among the cognoscenti and the younger set, and classes in Comparative Religion were over-enrolled to accommodate the new interest in "exotic" faiths. And it helped that the Baha'i Temple near Chicago (in Wilmette) was finally completed after about 20 years of work of different kinds, a building sometimes called America's Taj Mahal. In the last phases of its construction, before the exterior ornate ribbing was completed and only a dome was in place on top of a 9 sided shell, the temple had the nickname, "God's orange juice squeezer," which was kind of what it looked like. Viz, for those old enough to remember what orange juice squeezers were We now live in an era where, outside of rural fastnesses mostly in the West and the South, "everywhere is Alexandria," so to speak, where it is common for there to be minorities of Hindus (as in parts of New Jersey and Texas), minorities of Buddhists (Colorado) communities of New Agers (Arizona, etc), plus Muslims in various places, especially where black people live in any numbers. We also live in a global marketplace. International trade is part of everyday life for just about all Americans, and TV news every night usually features stories about China or India or Korea or Egypt or Israel or you-name-it, where majorities of the population are not Christian, where conflicts between faiths are anything but unusual. That is, it is in everyone's best interests to have at least minimal knowledge of "other religions." The trouble is: What do you do with this knowledge? And the trouble is that Evangelicals by and large do not have this knowledge and simply don't care that they are uniformed. To say the same thing, many and probably most Evangelicals are in denial. For them it is still 1950, or even 1850, where Christianity not only is normal but is dominant in culture, where the only thinkable discussion of religion necessarily must be Christian and focus on the Bible. But we do not live in that kind of society any more; it is long gone. This fact is not even acknowledged. As is usual in my writing about such topics, there is some exaggeration and hyperbole. Yes, there are exceptions, and yes, at least a minority of Evangelicals know better, but to paint a picture that is all-too-true generally I think my characterization serves its purpose. Which is to say that we need to reinvent Christianity so that it is relevant to the world of the 21sr century where other religions really matter and other religions deserve to be respected, at least somewhat, maybe a great deal, with the huge exception of Islam, a religion that is at war with all the other faiths and which observes a form of "morality" that just about all other faiths regard as intrinsically EVIL. To re-use a metaphor that understates the case in a tasteful way, "Muhammad does not play well with others." Heck, Muhammad may kill others if they venerate a Goddess, may kill others if they criticize Muhammad (the "crime" of blasphemy), may kill Muslims who convert to another religion, and on and on, all of which comes under the rubric of "shirk," viz, departures from Islam that Muslims regard as capital offenses. That is, by my way of looking at the world, there is a "family of faiths" who all share pretty much a common morality. Islam is the big exception, and, speaking personally, I regard most metaphysical differences as secondary and morality as primary because morality is the glue that makes civilization possible. As Jefferson put it, he was unconcerned whether someone worshiped one God, or none, or 100 gods, as long as he did not break his legs or punch him on the nose. With Islam you get extreme intolerance that is outside every civilized norm. Yes, there are exceptions, Qardiri Sufism for instance, and MINOs, Muslims in name only as in the Gulf states, or the Ibadis of Oman, but to speak of every kind of Muslim orthodoxy. That version of Islam, which is dominant throughout Dar al-Islam, is pure poison. What is at issue is the "family of faiths" -just about all religions except Islam. But can Christianity in any orthodox form actually find some way to respect people of these other faiths, maybe to learn from them, and maybe to also regard as "God's people"? This is not to discuss the "liberal Protestant" approach, which seeks to deny the real differences between religions -as if all liberal Protestants, as part of their faith, are now Baha'is for whom all religions are basically the same religion except for the wallpaper. Which is to say that religious reductionism strikes me as unjustifiable and pernicious, which disrespects the truth in the name of interfaith harmony, as if truth does not matter when we sing kumbaya together. What does the Bible say about "other religions?" For me -and other scholars- Malachi 1: 11 is crucial. It says, to quote from the 1972 New English Bible translation, which many scholars prefer- "From furthest east to furthest west my name is great among the nations. Everywhere fragrant sacrifice and pure gifts are offered in my name; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of Hosts" Note that this is all present tense, "is," not "will be." This wording or some close variant is standard in the Tanakh, in the RSV, in the Oxford, the New Jerusalem, and so forth, unlike the KJV or the NIV. That is, plainly put, for all of the great beauty of the language of the King James or the generally good translation of the New International, the translation for Malachi 1: 11 is terribly flawed. This is not about the situation that will exist at some unknown date in the future when Christ returns to rule the world, it is about the world that Malachi knew from first hand experience when he lived, probably during the ea of the Persian Empire under the Achamenids (think Cyrus, the lord's "messiah" of the second part of Isaiah. What this says is that the religions of that period of time, Zoroastrians, the ancient "Ishtar religion," Isis religion, an early form of Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism, to cite the most numerous groups, are the religions where "fragrant sacrifice and pure gifts are offered in my name." And this gives us a frame of reference in the Bible's own terms. Here are a variety of religions each of which are compatible with Hebrew religion. By extension later religions that have Zoroastrian, Hindu, Buddhists, etc roots also are in this "family." This fits perfectly with Deuteronomy 32: 8-9 When the Most High parcelled out the nations, when he dispersed all mankind, he laid down the boundaries of every people according to the number of the sons of God; but the LORD's share was his own people, To be sure, Deuteronomy says nothing good about idolatry (see 4: 15-20) but the point not to lose sight of is that each religion known to the writer was said to have had its rightful place in the world. What about the New Testament? Not even to count references in the Gospels that can be taken to refer to people of other faiths (John 10:16 "other sheep not of this fold and other verses) there are extended passages in Acts that deal with the question. Perhaps most significant is Acts 10: 34 - 35), because it is at the conclusion of a lengthy pericope (series of statements that are all related) that starts with the famous 3: 12 about no salvation for anyone except believers in Christ. It is Peter who is speaking in both places but who now says, after a number of new insights_ "I now see how true it is that God has no favourites, but that in every nation the man who is godfearing and does what is right is acceptable to him." Peter had an epiphany, he had stated out with a rigid view of salvation and ended with a far more open and tolerant outlook. Which, BTW, is the pattern of Plato's dialogues, where someone starts with one position only to learn that that position was inadequate and that there is a better may to think about things. And, of course, literate Christians of the era all knew their Plato, it was part of the shared culture of the Roman Empire. Which has been documented by Bible scholars repeatedly even if Evangelicals either are unaware of these people or refuse to consider the research because their doctrines will not allow any such thing. In any case, Paul picked up the thread in Acts 17: 22 - 30 "Then Paul stood up before the Court of Areopagus [Or: in the middle of Mars' hill.] and said: 'Men of Athens, I see that in everything that concerns religion you are uncommonly scrupulous. For as I was going round looking at the objects of your worship, I noticed among other things an altar bearing the inscription "To an Unknown God". What you worship but do not know —this is what I now proclaim...." Paul went on to say that other religions were quite acceptable to the Lord even though any idolatry involved was not acceptable at all, but otherwise the people concerned were right in the sight of God. In short, it is not necessary to regard openness to other faiths as leading to syncretism in which you compromise your own religion. Or compromise it away. But if you ignore all the "ecumenical passages" in the Bible because you believe in doctrines that refuse to acknowledge that there even could be ecumenical passages, you will miss everything relevant. It would be far better to start with these ecumenical passages and work with them. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
