On Christmas and Pluralism

After months of mining Andrew Sullivan for signs of incrementally growing tolerance between faiths, it appears I've shifted to my old student newspaper pal Kent Leslie ...

The last post I referred you to "An Evening of Kent" his blog for rants and raves which discussed how the educated religious might relate to those who are not interested in nuance in their theology. But Kent has a more scholarly -- and definitely reverent -- blog "Towards a Fuller Understanding of God" which is the focus of my posting today.

Kent's thesis is that the Magi were Zoroastrian scholars and that they too were privileged to have the Divine revealed to them, which brought them to Bethlehem to find the Holy Family. They were not "kings" and perhaps not truly astrologers in the contemporary sense. They received revelation from the Divine. He also notes that (from a Christian perspective) that it is possible that portions of God's truth may have been revealed to people throughout history in all places and that the role of Jesus is to bring it all together.

This idea bothers a lot of Christians. We believe Jesus is right. But we inaccurately come to the converse conclusion: that pagans are all wrong. Pagans are not entirely wrong. They are just wrong enough for us to need to hear from Jesus. Many things they get right. There’s a great deal of Buddhism that is exactly right; a great deal of ancient Greek philosophy that accurately depicts the world; and a whole lot of Zoroastrianism that properly describes God.

How, if they’re pagans, could they possibly have arrived at the truth? Well, it’s not too hard to figure: All truth is God’s truth; all truth comes from God. They got it from God. “But they’re pagans.” Yes, they are. So what? They still got it from God.

As a Christian, I don't quibble much with the conclusion that Jesus uniquely and profoundly embodies heavenly Truth. But, I continue to be drawn to the conclusion that God is so unknowable and so beyond human comprehension, that it could be possible that many faiths -- including Christianity -- have a true, yet incomplete understanding. That we must take the whole sum of theology throughout history to begin to understand the nature of God.

It is a vast task -- which is my point. We cannot hope to understand all revelation, which is why we must be humble when it comes to God. If we say "All truth is God's truth," then we can't expect to either own truth or own God.

In a Facebook exchange with Kent regarding his "Evening of Kent" posting, I said

One of the most difficult parts of any [all] religion is recognizing that some - maybe only the few - relish the uncertainty of faith that leads to both self discovery and the discovery of the Divine. But that others - perhaps most - turn to religion for certainty and safety, and that it might not be God's way to deny them the emotional and spiritual security they crave.

Kent replied:

Personally, I believe anyone who LIKES the uncertainty has something seriously wrong with them. [emphasis added] I know far too many religious anarchists who "don't believe in organized religion," but never think about the fact that "organized religion" is an oxymoron. Religion MEANS organized spirituality. Unorganized spirituality feels good, but is ultimately ... Read Moremeaningless.

You're right, though: The chaos in the universe is meant to propel us towards order. That'd be the Divine. But because He's hard to grasp, far too many folks settle for religion—whether it's our rituals or our belief-system—and religion is no more stable than the chaos. We're only deluding ourselves when we think so.

Yes, I like uncertainity. When I yield to it, it gives me peace. That is a portion of the truth revealed through Buddhism.

Footnote: Zoroastrians are still around today. Take a read of Kent's piece on the influence of this ancient religion on Judaism and then also do some additional reading. Famous modern Zoroastrian: Freddy Mercury from the rock band Queen.

The Evening of Kent

I'd like to recommend the blog of an old college friend of mine, Kent Leslie. Focused primarily on rants regarding his (very learned) perspective on Christian practice. I don't believe he can be classified as pluralist to even the smallest degree, but he has a progressive and very rambunctious attitude regarding Christian practice in America and the responsibilities of believers to be educated and intellectually honest.

What would have happened if Thomas [St. Thomas, the Apostle who doubted the Resurrection] had done as so many morons do, and hidden his doubts, and believed really hard until his doubts went away? Well, first of all, he would have been a hypocrite. And that point needs to be hammered home to the people of your church: Refusing to deal with doubt is hypocrisy. Everyone doubts. Oh, they say they don’t, but every single last one of them is worried that, fr’instance, maybe the End Times won’t turn out the way Tim LaHaye says it will, and they’ll have to live through a few years of tribulation. Or that maybe there’s a sin in their lives that’s getting in the way of their prayers, even though we’ve taught (or should teach) that prayer doesn’t work that way. Doubt is universal. Denying you doubt is like denying you sin.

Give him a read.

"In whose name we pray"

The Sacramento Bee encourages the Lodi city council to make sure its invocations are inclusive. (link)

I've never been to a Lodi council meeting, but I've been to enough public and private meeting where the person leading the prayer gives the standard "Dear Lord, thank you for letting us gather; guide our judgement; etc." invocation. It contains sentiments universal enough to be acceptable to most people of faith, if not embraced specifically. But right there at the end, just when you think that the prayer leader understands that he is performing a service for everyone in the group, not just for his or her particular sect or even for the majority, the prayer will end with "In Jesus' name we pray."

Now, I agree with The Bee. To be acceptable at a governmental function, the prayer at least needs to be as inclusive as possible. Why not end prayers with "In Your name we pray?" The point is that when the leader says "In Jesus' name we pray" the operative word is we. He is leading a prayer on behalf of all, and he should not at the end seek to nullify the prayers of some in the assembly, yanking the rug out from under them, slamming the door in their face and reminding them that if you're not praying in Jesus' name, it doesn't count. But that is the effect it has on non-Christians.

This comes up as well at private events. I belong to both the Kiwanis and to Scouting, both of which open meetings with prayers. No constitutional provision guides these organizations (except of course, the freedom to practice unrestricted by government). I've only been a Kiwanis member a short time, but I find that there is an attempt to be inclusive and respect everyone's backgrounds. Perhaps this is because my club is in a very diverse community. More homogenous communities may have more Jesus-centered language. But I find Scouting members frequently forget about their religious diversity. My Cub Scout pack has members from other non-Christian faiths, and I sometime cringe that they are thought of as being lesser in the eyes of the Christian majority. When a camp leader was asking for volunteers to say grace before a meal, a Jewish dad in our unit joked, asking whether he should step up and lead the prayer in Hebrew. Even more, what if I volunteered to open a meeting with the Heart Sutra.

It is so easy to get bogged down in the procedural rules -- as the previous paragraph did. But I think there is a deeper issue at play here. As a Christian, I can see in others a tendency to focus so much on Jesus that we become incapable of praying to the Creator. When the disciples asked Jesus how to pray, he taught us to use an inclusive prayer that thanks Him for his blessings and asks Him for guidance and wisdom: The Our Father. This model can be embraced by almost all people of faith, and may even be embraced by those, like Buddhists whose concept of God is more universal and less personal.

The Bee's editorial says that a group will be holding a "Stand Up for Jesus" rally on August 5. I think this group is off-track. We Christians sometimes think that because Jesus sacrificed for us that we must return the favor and sacrifice for Him. But that wasn't the point. He died for us, first to redeem us. And secondly, the model of love and sacrifice he set is for us to sacrifice for our fellow man. If we were to trample on the dignity of our fellow man in order to defend Jesus, we do Christ a disservice. We are like the Apostle who raised his sword to defend Jesus when he was arrested. We don't need to defend Jesus. We need to follow his example.

Be inclusive, be respectful and find a way to bring people closer to God with charity and understanding. If we are using prayer to divide people instead of bringing them closer to God, we are not praying in Jesus' name.