Dear readers, today we have a treat. A learned colleague and friend of mine has written something for you to read and think about. After all, what good is a party without a guest? Let me say, his views do not necessarily represent mine. Some of you may even feel your feathers gently ruffled. If so, please comment! I'll let my guest take it from here.
“I
just think all religions are saying basically the same thing. And the
important thing is that we just learn to get along in our world.”
Many
people seek to identify the core of all world religions in an attempt
to harmonize the human experience into a unified vision. The appeal
of doing this is obvious. It could break down barriers between
people, promoting peace and collaboration. The notion that all
religions are ultimately expressing the same spirituality at their
core is a comforting sentiment – understandably so in light of
religious conflicts in the world – but in reality it does violence
to all religions, not least to Christianity.
There
are certainly some commonalities between many different world
religions, and these ought to be celebrated. Most religions in the
world promote good treatment of other humans. Many emphasize the
fundamental equality of all people. Most recognize the limited value
of material things compared to more essential elements of being
human. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share the same concept of one
God and share many stories of how God has interacted with humanity.
These commonalities should remind us of our shared human experience.
To a limited extent, these commonalities should remind us that
partial evidence of God's action in the world might be found anywhere
on earth. However, to fully legitimize all religions is to
simultaneously dismiss them all.
Almost
every world religion claims itself to be the true religion or
philosophy. Some are more tolerant of co-existing religious
expressions, but still see their framework as the authority. For
example, some expressions of Hinduism see the divine Brahman
permeating through all religions. All religions are legitimate, but
only within the Hindu framework of the Brahman. Buddhism’s core
doctrine of anatman, or soullessness, conflicts with religions that
claim that beings do essentially exist, including God, whose
essential existence is central to monotheistic religions. Judaism
claims that Israel was the primary receiver of God’s revelation.
Christianity claims that Jesus is uniquely identified with the one
God and salvation comes through him alone. Islam views that Mohammed
received the final and complete revelation of true religion.
The
reality is that no religion supports the idea that all religions are
saying basically the same thing. To claim that all religions are
essentially the same is to actually deny the reality of all religions
and promote another philosophy/religion as the absolute truth. The
central doctrine of this new religion is that, despite the claims of
all other religions, the true core of all religions is identical and
is defined by the keepers of this new religion. In this sense, it is
like some expressions of Hinduism, wherein all religions have
validity by accessing Brahman. Replace the idea of “Brahman” with
a widely appealing value like compassion and then you have the grand
pluralistic vision that is becoming increasingly popular in Western
societies. Unfortunately, it fails at its own vision because it
simply creates a new religion proclaiming itself as true.
In
particular, orthodox Christianity cannot fully endorse other
religions. First, because of Jesus’ unique status as God’s Word.
It is important to recognize that Jesus does not receive God’s
Word; he is not a vessel for God’s Word. He is not a mouthpiece; he
is not a prophet. He is the Word.
He
is not like Mohammed; he is like the Quran.
He
is not like the Buddha; he is like the Dharma.
This
means that the very essence of The Divine is inseparable from the
specifics of history. The fullness of The Divine is found within our
physical world, but is not the same as our physical world. Facts
about the historical Jesus of Nazareth are facts about God. His
personality is an intrinsic part of God. The divine eternal Christ
cannot be divorced from that first-century, olive-skinned, Galilean
preacher. Therefore, for Christians, any truth found elsewhere can be
assessed only by how it matches the life and teachings of Jesus of
Nazareth. Outside of Jesus, truth can never be complete.
Furthermore,
truths outside of Jesus can never be sufficient.
Jesus himself claims that “he
who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another
way, that man is a thief and a robber … I am the door. If anyone
enters by me, he
will be saved" (John 10:1,9). The reason for the exclusivity in
Christianity is because of the real problem of sin. Sin, like karma,
cannot be erased. It simply exists. No human effort can get rid of
it. Good actions are good, but they cannot erase past karma or sin.
In Christianity (as in ancient Israel) the only release from sin is
death. Death is the payment for sin. Christians believe that in
ancient Israel this was imitated through the death of animals as
atonement. But these were mere foreshadows of the one death capable
of atoning for the sins of all humankind; the death of God himself;
the death of Jesus on the cross. Sin can be erased by this act alone.
Jesus’ resurrection then asserts God’s triumph over sin and death
and promises the resurrection of all who are saved. This is why Jesus
is the door to salvation and only thieves come through other
entrances. He is the only atonement. People from other religions and
philosophy may disagree with this special place of Jesus, but there
is no place within Christianity and within the teachings and life of
Jesus of Nazareth for the concept that “all
religions are saying basically the same thing”. To assert the
common essence of all religions is to deny Jesus.
An interesting read. If the author is here to comment, can you please elaborate more on what you mean by: "However, to fully legitimize all religions is to simultaneously dismiss them all." Do you feel that religions outside of Christianity have no particular kind of value?
ReplyDeleteAlso, how do you feel about the notion that all religions are reacting to a supreme/higher being but within their own cultural frame? I feel this has great implications for the various different interpretations of God/god.
Hi! Author here.
DeleteTo answer your first questions, at no point was a suggesting that non-Christian religions have no particular kind of value. I was saying that from the perspective of orthodox/traditional Christianity (which, yes, is my perspective), other religions without Jesus at their center are ultimately insufficient, and their value is only ascertained in comparison to Jesus.
I disagree that all religions are reacting to a higher being but within their own cultural frame. This would require that Jesus was one just one potential cultural frame of God, but the very center of the Christian faith has always been that the historical Jesus is the unique expression of God. He is an essential part of God, as expressed in the idea of the Trinity.
You can disagree, but that is a movement away from orthodox/traditional Christianity. If you assert a 'better' truth (eg. that all religions are reacting to the same supreme being), then you are dismissing all religions which fundamentally disagree with that only to create your own 'better' worldview. Even if your goal was to affirm all religions, you might find yourself actually patronizing them all.
Interesting food for thought. It's funny since moving to a Buddhist country, I have been reflecting on many of the parallels between Christianity and Buddhism. For instance, If an individual gets a sak yant tattoo ( a blessing from a monk in the form of a snake venom tattoo) that individual must adhere to 10 rules which closely resemble the ten commandments. I also think it is possible to learn and embrace aspects of other religions, while maintaining ones own faith.
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly similarities between religions, and these ought to be celebrated. Certainly things can be learned from other religions. I would say, however, from the perspective of traditional/orthodox Christianity that the metric is always Christ. The validity of anything learnt from other religions is not found from those other religions, but ultimately only if it finds validity in Christ.
DeleteHi Pete! I find this very intriguing. To me, your post seems to be an attempt to raise the validity of Christianity above other religious ideologies, all of which are trying to find meaning and reason amidst a world that often feels meaningless and chaotic, by using Christ as a figure of at-one-ment with the word of God, which in fairness to you is how Christian dogma uses Christ. As a person who invests a fair amount of faith in theories of language acquisition, I contend that the acquisition of language necessitates a psychical split, a reaching out to something that is necessarily other and that is acquired i.e. language (the word). When the acquisition of language is achieved we assert our communion with language by declaring ourselves "I", as in "I think this," or "I believe that." And this "I" is not static, but is used by all of us to represent all of us; so if I was in a crowd of people and someone declared her/himself to be "the one," to be one with the word, I would think of that person as an impostor.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, what I have said does not necessarily contradict what you have said in your post. If Christ is the word, if Christ is language, than aren't we constantly representing ourselves through him every time we communicate or declare ourselves? This seems like a cool idea to me. Please, I'm interested to hear what you think, specifically in response to these questions: Why does Christ function only in christianity? Why must one accept Christ to accept the word? Doesn't the word (language) manifest itself in other religions despite the absence of anything called Christ? I understand that these are difficult questions, but perhaps you have some answer to them.
Firstly, my main goal here isn't to put Christianity above other ideologies. My point, however, is that traditional, orthodox Christian does claim superiority (as do most other religions in their own ways), and this makes it difficult to maintain the argument that all religions are saying/doing the same thing (without doing violence to those religions).
DeleteYes, I do personally assent to traditional, orthodox Christianity, and thereby find a uniqueness in Christ which other religions lack. But in this post, I was just using Christianity as a case study for how a particular religion contradicts the idea that 'all religions say the same thing'. I could've equally used Buddhism, but I not so well-versed at it, and less motivated to use that case study.
I think the main reason I disagree with the rest of your comment is that you seem to have separated the concept of 'the Word' from the physical reality of a first-century Galilean person. The fact that this split is impossible is exactly why Christianity claims uniqueness. The Word in its fullness is not merely abstract concept which can manifest at many times and places (eg. every time we use language). Christianity teaches that Jesus of Nazareth is the Word. He doesn't teach us the Word, or bring us the Word. He is the Word in his very flesh, blood, and bones. So why does Christ function in Christianity? Well, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he functions outside of the world religion we traditionally called Christianity. But he does not function in a sufficient way outside of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. (The relationship between Christianity and Jesus is also an interesting one. The truth is, when I use the word Christianity positively, I view it as the genuine attempt to embody the truths revealed by Jesus' life death and resurrection)
If your question is 'why does The Word function only in Jesus of Nazareth'? Then that's a different question. One that I'm not convinced that I could ever answer the way you want me to. Christianity is a religion of revelation before it is a religion of thought. It's not something you can figure out, it is something you are shown by an other. Traditional Christianity asserts that this is what God has shown us through Jesus of Nazareth; that he is the unique Word. The Word is not sufficiently found apart from that 1st century human.
Disagree all you like. My goal here isn't to convince you of orthodox Christianity. But realize that you are disagreeing with the core of Christianity as it has been expressed throughout history, meaning that any project to harmonize all religions requires you to tell all religions that they are wrong on their core beliefs. This is my point.
From one anonymous to another, I offer my attempt to articulate an orthodox Christian answer that I hope compliments Peter's.
ReplyDeleteRe: Christ as Language - that's a particularly interesting thought process you have led us down. Yet I would offer that Christ as Word is better rendered Reason (logos - a tricky Greek word to grasp in its full nuance) which, could be something above (meta-)language to the extent that it is the divine logos (And what language does God employ?). As we are on the theme of language and its slipperiness (I take it that you are a fan of Derrida?) where signifiers imperfectly/artificially latch on to that which is signified, I suggest that we should think of the Bible, divine Revelation, and prophetic speech as sacraments. They are sacred gifts that are meant to point to something larger, like bread and wine/juice at the "Eubarist table." Words are imperfect and there is no way that we can fully grasp God by means of them (this is one reason why Islam has so many names for the Divine - see I learned something from another faith!). But as limited as such words are, they are helpful and life giving for us and assist us to understand God better than with out them.
Your inquiries about the signifier 'Christ' and what ultimately is signified points to a larger mystery which I have often thought about, especially in relation to the question of other religions in scope of the Christian worldview. The Bible does say that salvation is in Christ, however, does Christ's saving power extend to the Buddhist who never heard of the Christian message? When a Muslim prays to Allah, does Christ, in his mercy and grace claim that prayer? The Bible may provide some elucidates to these points in indirect whispers (i.e., God claims to be leading Cyrus, his messiah, to conquer Babylon and free the Jews, presumably through Cyrus' native conception of the Divine). C.S. Lewis, the famous apologist for the Christian faith, has narratively posited as much in his last book of the Chronicles of Narnia series, "The Last Battle." Nevertheless, one must then wrestle with a clear concern throughout Scripture about the threat of idolatry. The orthodox position has traditionally taken the conservative route: better to point people to a relationship with God in the way it has been most clearly revealed to us and preach a less than comfortable message, than risk saying everyone is ok where they are at and then find ourselves (and them) in trouble.
As for me, I affirm my church's weekly liturgy, "In Jesus Christ we are Forgiven." Yet I know and rejoice in my heart for the Signifier Christ to be so much greater than my own perspective (whether it falls on a more conservative or liberal end of the spectrum, only the gracious Divine knows), a space between signifier and signified for divine creative mystery to dwell and to be at work in new things as we was in the ministry of Jesus and the apostles.
I do want to take a moment to concur with Pete's point that to say all religions teach the same thing as a blanket statement is to patronize the claims of all. What a pluralistic and post-modern environment as HDS has taught me is that a functioning diverse community is not to be one without conflict of worldviews and beliefs. For a Christian to authentically be herself, she must own her particular and exclusive claims, as should the Buddhist, the Humanist, etc.so that authentic, humble, and empathetic conversations and relations can arise. Perhaps none of us can escape our own biases and presuppositions to reach an Archimedean point to objectively judge all, but that shouldn't stop people from making claims about the world and putting some skin in the game (as long as they leave some room for mystery).
Yeah, I recognize your points. I am unsure myself about the role of Christ's salvation for people who don't explicitly recognize him (but somehow can still be saved through him). I am open to some extent of this, but I'm certainly not a universalist. I also do affirm that there's space for mystery in the details of salvation. I still think this is fitting all religions within the Christian framework, which isn't exactly affirming other religions on their own terms (the more Christian side of universalism does this as well. All people (or even the devil himself) find salvation through Christ's sacrifice).
ReplyDeleteTo be sure, anyone who says that all religions say the same thing isn't in fact respecting any of them, because none of them would agree with that. But does the tone/approach of the article reflect an orthodox Christian view?
ReplyDeleteIf Jesus is God in the flesh, and that same God created and sustains and is present to all things, and loves all people as he has shown us in Jesus, should that not mean that an orthodox Christian attitude to other religions be to try and discern how the Spirit of Jesus IS present in people and places of other religions not to look for the differences?
If the disciples of Jesus had their first eucharist / Lord's supper / holy communion, before Jesus died for them, that is, before they denied and betrayed him (as Paul says, 'while we still were sinners Christ died for us'), then shouldn't orthodox Christianity believe that God has already forgiven and embraced all people of all religions?
If Jesus is God, then orthodox Christianity must believe that there is only one God, ie Jesus, and thus how and why could and should it differentiate between the honest prayer of a Christian and that of a person of any other religion? If the Christian is one who knows that their prayer is indeed heard because God has come in the flesh to give us his ear, then should we not rather affirm the prayer of all others precisely because we have that good news for them?
You're touching on a debate that has existed throughout all of Christian discussion. You're essentially defending Christian universalism (all are saved by Christ), which is different from just blanket universalism (all are saved by being human/don't require salvation). You're still wanting orthodox Christianity to define all religions within the Christian paradigm.
ReplyDeleteAs for what orthodox Christianity should or shouldn't be... Well, all committed Christians have part in that debate, but all must realize that we represent one view amid literally billions of Christians throughout history. Not to say that orthodoxy is a democracy. From the beginning, Christianity has appointed people to be authoritative spokespeople for Christianity. In particular, the earliest definitions of Christian have always been given more precedence (that is, the Bible, the creeds, the Church Fathers). So when we're trying to define what orthodox Christianity is, or what it ought to be, we should engage with this. Which makes it a big and complicated project!
As for your particular points defending Christian universalism. The spectrum from full exclusivism to full Christian universalism has always been part of the Christian conversation, but those are the two extremes. The center of orthodoxy has tended to be somewhere between full exclusivism and full Christian universalism (not necessarily in the dead center). It basically comes down to the difference between general revelation (revelation through the nature of reality which is accessible to all people) and special revelation (explicit awareness of Jesus Christ and/or the Scriptures). Some say that there is no general revelation, some say that there is a lot of general revelation. Some say that the general revelation is sufficient for salvation (through Christ), some wouldn't. And there's a whole mess or stuff in between. One historical example is the idea that ancient Israelites were saved through Christ despite having no explicit knowledge of him.
As for my position in all this... if you accused me of being a bit more exclusive than the center of historical orthodoxy, I wouldn't defend myself. If you said I was on the extreme of exclusivism, I would definitely disagree. From my reading of Scripture, I agree that the exact hard and fast rule of "only saved if you explicitly recognize Jesus' death and resurrection" can't be the entire truth of it (at the very least because of those who hadn't seen the death and resurrection yet, like ancient Israel and the disciples at the last supper). But I have no confidence in the salvation of those who do not explicitly acknowledge Christ. There might be some salvation for those who do not have explicit knowledge of Christ even now, but I have no assurance of that. Full explicit acceptance of Christ is the only assurance of salvation, and therefore, I consider it part of the commission of Christians to lovingly introduce people to Christ (even if they're faithful members of other religions).