SESSION 2 NOTES How Can You Say There Is Only One Way to God? What About Other Religions? Opening Thought

Transcription

1 Opening Thught SESSION 2 NOTES Hw Can Yu Say There Is Only One Way t Gd? What Abut Other Religins? If yu put three swimmers n the Cast f Califrnia and ask them t swim t Hawaii, the Olympic swimmer might swim 500 miles befre she dies. The secnd swimmer might be a gd swimmer, and swim 25 miles befre he dies. And the last swimmer des nt knw hw t swim very well and swims nly ne mile befre he dies. S yu might say that the Olympics swimmer is 500 times better as a swimmer than the third ne. Wh is mre dead? Nbdy can get t Hawaii n the basis f their wn swimming ability. The Bible says we are suppsed t lve Gd with all ur heart, sul, mind, and strength, and ur neighbr as urselves. Nbdy gets there. The unique message f Christianity is that yu get there nt because f yur wn effrt, yur wn gd wrks, but because yu put yur trust in what Jesus did fr yu n the crss. The Objectin Peple say that since there are s many ways t find Gd, Christianity is nly ne amng many valid ptins. The ther religins f the wrld have millins f adherents, prducing much wisdm, character, and happiness; s Christian shuld nt claim t have the best faith r the nly true faith. Vide Ntes Questins fr Discussin 1. In The Gspel in a Pluralist Sciety, Lesslie Newbigin writes, In the past thirty years Eurpeans have becme accustmed fr the first time t the presence in their midst f large numbers f peple f ther faiths. It has nt taken lng fr them t discver that many f these Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Muslims are devut and gdly peple. Since the inter- religius issue is usually cmpunded by the inter- racial issue, and since we are aware f the racism which infects us s deeply, there are the strngest emtinal reasns fr regarding religius pluralism is smething t be accepted and welcmed. In a wrld threatened with nuclear war, a wrld facing a glbal eclgical crisis, a wrld mre and mre clsely bund tgether in its cultural and ecnmic life, the paramunt need is fr unity, and an aggressive claim n the part f ne f the wrld s religins t have the truth fr all can nly be regarded as treasn against the human race. Wilfred Cantwell Smith writes in his bk Religius Diversity, At the cst f insensitivity r delinquency, it is mrally nt pssible t g ut int the wrld and say t devut, intelligent, fellw human beings: we believe that we knw Gd and we are right; yu believe that yu knw Gd, and yu are ttally wrng. Discuss the implicatins f these statements. Why d yu think peple tday are s insistent that all religins are equally valid? The similarity f many religins Many Christian grups (e.g., Prtestants, Rman Cathlics, and sme f the cults like Jehvah s Witnesses and Mrmns) have similarities in their dctrines and ethics. A cncern fr unity** Many peple believe that t ever have peace in the wrld, we have t defang religin. They believe that religins in general erde peace n earth and lead t strife, cnflict, and divisin. Christians must admit that this has ften been true. The experience f exclusin** Many peple have felt cerced, excluded, and explited by prfessin Christians. Relgin tells peple that they have the truth and that this is the right way t believe and act that can make peple feel superir, leading them t caricature thers, separate frm them, exclude them, think f them as less imprtant, and even justify their marginalizatin, exclusin, r ppressin. Again, Christians must admit that this is ften true. The questin f truth Generally speaking, peple are lking fr truth, fr answers, and the plurality f ptins can be cnfusing and discuraging. If all religins are valid, then it desn t matter what I chse, and I dn t have t wrry abut carefully researching it fr myself. ** This is why graciusness shuld always be a distinguishing characteristic f Crss Impact (cf. Matthew 11:28-30; 2 Timthy 2:24-25; Titus 3:1-7). 2. Fllwing are fur bjectins that are raised Christianity s claim t be the nly way t Gd. Hw wuld yu handle each bjectin? a. All majr religins are equally valid, prducing much wisdm and happiness, and basically teach the same thing. We can agree that much is true and virtuus abut ther wrld religins, and that there is enrmus cnsensus amng religins n what cnstitutes ethical behavir.

2 This bjectin, hwever, is nt as pen- minded as it may first appear, because it des nt listen t what the ther religins are actually saying. In reality, there are tremendus differences between the varius religins. They have sharply different views f reality, and cnsider thse views t be nnnegtiable cre beliefs that are necessary fr peple t find salvatin. Furthermre, there are majr differences between hw Christianity and ther religins view Jesus whereas ther religins insist He culd nt be the unique Sn f Gd, Christianity says that nt nly is it true, but that it is necessary fr salvatin (i.e., the prcess by which yu can knw that yur relatinship with Gd is the way it shuld be ). S, this bjectin desn t deny that there are actual differences between the varius religins, as much as it des deny that thse differences matter. This perspective, hwever, des nt take seriusly the belief and practices f thse religins. This psitin claims t be prmting religius tlerance, but nly after it requires every religin t deny its distinctives r t say the distinctives d nt matter. Religius pluralism, then, is nt a tlerant attitude tward all religins, but a new religin itself that essentially asks every ther faith t remake itself in the image f religius pluralism. In ther wrds, it refuses t acknwledge the true diversity f wrld religins ften in the name f prmting diversity. b. Lts f gd and intelligent peple differ with the Christian viewpint, s it is arrgant t claim the Christian beliefs are the nly true nes. We must admit that the Christian church has never lacked fr truly arrgant peple. Truth claims attract arrgance and mral abslutes attract mralists. If a research scientist claims she has discvered the cure t sme fatal disease, but sunds arrgant in tne when she publishes articles and gives lectures, many peple will prbably resist her arrgance and be mved t try t prve her wrng. But des her arrgance prve that she is wrng in what she says? Is it arrgance f a research scientist t declare, in any tne f vice, that she has fund a cure that n ne else has fund? N! Likewise, it is nt necessarily arrgant fr any persn t say that they have discvered a spiritual cure that n ne else has fund. They may be wrng, but they are nt necessarily arrgant. Furthermre, the religius pluralist has t cnsider the implicatins f the arrgance charge fr their wn faith- psitin. Lts f gd and intelligent peple differ with them; s, in their argument, when they becme aware f that, it is arrgant fr them t cntinue t claim that their perspective (i.e., religius pluralism) is the nly true ne. The persn wh says, It is arrgant t persuade thers t yur religius psitin is actually ding the very thing he is frbidding at the mment he is frbidding it. Finally, we can add that, if Jesus Christ is wh he said He is the Sn f Gd frm heaven, bdily raised frm the dead, ur riginal creatr then f curse it wuld be just ne way t Gd. Our suls wuld need Him r they wuld shrivel eternally. The fact is that ur bdies need fd r they will shrivel physically, and that s nt narrw- minded t say that s just the way it is. Likewise, if Jesus is wh He said He is, then ur suls wuld need Him t be eternally full. If Jesus is wh He said He is, then we wuld have t say He s the nly way t Gd; if Jesus is nt wh He said He is, then it is certainly arrgant and narrw- minded. c. Yu can t hld peple respnsible fr rejecting Jesus when they have never heard f Him. The vide discussin hst affirms biblical truth (1) that Gd is just and merciful, (2) that it is necessary t believe in Jesus in rder t cme int a saving, persnal relatinship with Gd (Jhn 14:6; Acts 4:12), and (3) that Gd initiates belief (Ephesians 2:8-9; Jhn 6:44; Philippians 1:29). Hwever, when cnsidering the implacatin f that truth fr thse wh have never heard, he then sneaks ut thrugh the back dr (s t speak) by quting Deuternmy 29:29 and cncluding that we ve nly been tld sme things (n a need t knw basis He then ffers a pssible theary fr hw this prblem is slved, and while he admits that he desn t believe it, it s nt a gd thery in light f what the Bible teaches abut electin (anther discussin entirely J ). His reasn fr ffering this pssible thery is t shw that there might be a way fr Jesus t be ffered as the nly way and at the same time there be sme methd by which Gd is still being just and merciful.

3 In evaluating what the vide discussin hst des here, I dn t think we need t take his apprach. And, we can be certain that nt nly may there be a way fr Gd s mercy and fairness t be seen in this quandry, but that Gd s Wrd indicates there is a way, as shwn belw. We can admit that this is a hard questin (nt in the sense f difficult t answer r understand, but in the sense that its answer may nt be what we want t hear). Hwever, the Bible des give us sme help with it: Rmans 1:19-20; 2:1-3, 14-16; 10:18 cf. Psalm 19:1-4, 7-8; Acts 14:17 Gd has given man enugh revelatin already (i.e., in the rder f the universe, the general gdness f creatin s prvisin, the universal sense f cnscience r mral self- judgment, and the universal judicial sentiment [ t sense (cf. Ecclesiastes 3:11) and seek the eternal (cf. Acts 17:27-28). Scripture suggests that t the ne wh respnds t the light Gd has already given by seeking mre light, Gd will give mre light (cf. Acts 8:26-39; 10:1-48; Psalm 119:130). Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8 Jesus disciples, cmmitted t making disciples, are the slutin t this prblem. We are suppsed t g and preach that all may hear (cf. Rmans 10:13-17). d. Nbdy can knw whse religin is true, s Christianity can t claim it is the nly true way. This claim may reveal simple laziness (i.e., I dn t want t take the time t discver whether ne is mre ratinal and resnates better than the rest). The main prblem with this bjectin is its claim t have an astnishing amunt f spiritual knwledge. Whereas the admissin, I dn t knw which religin is true may be a statement f humility, N ne can knw which religin is true is a dgmatic assertin that presumes the very religius certainty yu just dubted anyne had. Only if yu have cmplete knwledge can yu be abslutely skeptical abut religiun and truth claims. 3. Sme wuld argue that the religius pluralism bjectin is itself a religius belief, claiming t be mre true than ppsing beliefs, and as such is subject t all the criticisms it levels at traditinal religins. Explain. The religius pluralism view is a belief. It cannt be empirically verified. The religius pluralism view is a religius belief. It is a belief abut the nature f spiritual reality, and is quite a detailed descriptin f that reality. Its prpnents, fr example, assert that the ultimate is unknwable and therefre d nt believe that there is ne Gd wh accepts peple because f the sacrifice f Jesus Christ. That is a series f beliefs in and f itself abut the nature f Gd and spiritual reality cmplete with its wn explicit dgma. The religius pluralism prpnents want t persuade thse ppsing them. They believe the wrld wuld be a better place if mre peple thught (i.e., believed) like them. S, religius pluralism is a religius belief that claims t be a better r mre accurate r preferable viwe f spiritual reality than ther views. Their psitin is unusually incnsistent. They say n ne shuld claim that their understanding f religin is mre right and superir t thers, yet they maintain that their understanding is superir t thers. 4. One f the participants said in the vide discussin, I think prblems arise whenever ne grup believes it has the exclusive dmain n truth r the exclusivity hld n truth. I think when yu believe that yu have the firm hld n truth it leads t extreme behavirs at the detriment f thers wh may nt believe what yu d it leads t intlerance. Peple ften say similar things when the tpic f religin r truth claims cmes up. The wrds exclusive, divisive, and intlerant are a cmmn feature f these statements.** Hw wuld yu respnd? Christians can again humbly admit that this is ften true that thse wh represent the Christian psitin are nt always particularly respectful f thse wh disagree. Church histry is filled with terrible intlerance. Tw peple wh hld cntradictry psitins are nt necessarily hstile. Instead, everyne has a view f spiritual reality that is exclusive and thus in cntradictin with smene else s view. Irreligin is exclusive, and even peple wh say nbdy has the truth are making a truth claim s, yu cannt avid truth claims. The pluralistic apprach des nt in itself prmte unity between faiths and cultures. Its idea that truth is relative and that every persn has a right t cnstruct his/her wn religin is grunded in a highly individualistic way f thinking that many cultures d nt share. Therefre, instead f being unifying and diverse, religius pluralism is ethncentric, prmting ne particular cultural wrldview as superir t thers.

4 Great qute frm page 32 in The Reasn fr Gd Discussin Guide n Christianity, its gspel, and intlerance: At the heart f the Christian s view f spiritual reality is a Man wh gave His life in sacrifice fr peple wh did nt believe in Him, a Man wh died asking fr frgiveness fr the peple wh were killing Him. Therefre, Christianity is an exclusive claim, but it is the mst inclusive exlusive claim because it wants yu t exclusively believe in this Man wh died fr His enemies, and asks yu t lve and care fr yurs. S, des the message that Jesus is the nly way t Gd necessarily lead t intlerance? Christians can nly becme intlerant t the degree that they misunderstand the heart f the gspel namely, the gd news that Almighty Gd Himself came t serve us and die fr us, s we culd be saved nt because f ur right beliefs and behavir, but by the gift f His unmerited grace. That message, rightly grasped, cannt lead t cercin r intlerance. The gspel has within it deep resurces fr humility and respect. It is up t Christians t prve this assertin with their lives. Cncluding qute frm page 33 in The Reasn fr Gd Discussin Guide: The fact is that anyne s main identity- factr that which gives them a sense f significance can be a basis fr exclusin and ppressin. Overt abslutes say, What makes me special is that I have the truth and that leads t feeling superir t and t acting exclusively tward peple wh d nt have yur truth. Cvert abslutes say, What makes me special is that I knw that there is n abslute truth and everyne is free t be wh they chse t be. Bus this als leads t feeling superir t and t acting exclusively tward peple wh think that there is truth. But the gspel abslutist says, I have the truth but the truth I have is a suffering Gd, a Lamb that was slain, the One wh died fr His enemies, the One wh came nt t be served but t serve and give His life a ransm fr many. 5. During the vide discussin the hst asked the participants what they thught shuld be dne abut the divisiveness f religin. One participant respnded, Has there been a time n earth where there wasn t religin, and what wuld it lk like if religin were absent? Wuld it necessarily be a better place, wuld it be a less divisive place? I dn t knw. Anther said, All the negative aspects f religin are usually tied t extremists, peple wh take it mre and mre literally. What wuld yu have said in respnse t these statements? Is this hw peple yu knw wuld have respnded? Statement 1 Religin has always existed, will always exist, and will always bring the same prblems it currently des. Man has always been driven by three (r mre) big questins Where did I cme frm? Why am I here? Where am I ging? and thse can nly be answered n the basis f faith. This, in essence, is what the Bible teaches in Ecclesiastes 3:11 man s religius experiments have been and are their attempts at discvering the eternal. And, because f the prblems we ve already cnsidered, with bth the vert and cvert abslutist, tensin and cnflict and divisiveness will prbably always exist. Statement 2 If by literally, he means mre imbalanced, I agree. Fred Phelps, fr example, emphasised certain passages f the Bible (i.e., thse abut judgment) t the exclusin f ther passages (i.e., thse abut lve, mercy, and grace, especially in hw ne warns abut judgment). 6. Stephen Carter (wh was mentined in the vide discussin) writes this Effrts t craft a public square frm which religius cnversatn is absent, n matter hw thughtfully wrked ut, will always, in the end, say t thse f rganized religin that they alne, unlike everyne else, must enter public dialgue nly after leaving behind that part f themselves that they may cnsider the mst vital. Is it pssible t keep all religius views private away frm the public square? Three appraches are being used arund the wrld t address the divisiveness f religin: Hping and expecting that religin will thin ut and eventually g away Frbidding r cntrlling it Urging peple t privatize it (nt bring religius beliefs int wrk, plitics, r public discurse in general; leave it at hme; illustratin: treat it like yur sprts team preference) Carter is saying that privatizatin is an inequitable apprach t civilian life. Religin frmal/infrmal, rganized/persnal: aka. ne s rldview r metanarrative is a set f unprvable faith assumptins abut the meaning f life, abut wh we are, and abut what is really imprtant fr us t be ding. One s view f what prmtes human flurishing is rted in these faith assumptins. S, there is n way we can all just get tgether, leave ur wrldview behind us, and say, Let s just wrk pragmatically and find slutins that just wrk fr everybdy.

5 One vide participant agreed: Everyne has a view f the wrld and it is impssible t separate that view f hw things shuld be and what yu believe plitically. 7. One f the participants asked, Hw d yu pick yur fundamental, yur hme? Is it the way yu were raised? Is it yur wn research? Hw d mst peple yu knw pick their religin r their hme? Hw did yu? Family, mentrs, friends, cmmunity, etc. Research, study, testing, etc. Reactin, rejectin, etc. 8. Discuss hw t handle the mre persnal side f this tpic when yu run yur wn discussin abut this bjectin. Was there anything frm the way the vide discussin was cnducted in terms f tne, atmsphere, attitude, mannerisms, expressins, and s n, that yu might find helpful t adpt, r nt? The vide hst defined the wrds saved and sin when he used them. This is helpful, because there is ften great disagreement between a persn s definitin f a specific wrd, the Christian definitin f that wrd, and what peple think the Christian definitin is. (5:02) In America, there is this prevailing perspective that we want t understand everything first befre we accept Christianity. This is mre a prjectin f ur American, demcratic, individualistic understanding we want a president/gvernr/mayr, and nt a King. This makes sense n the ne hand, because human kings are flawed and mnarchy was nt a gd apprach t things. But if yu have a perfect Gd a perfect King wh cmes and suffers in Jesus Christ then at a certain pint I trust Him. Fall We are all sinners, including Christians. Therefre, Christians will understand that they are n diferent than anyne else (Rmans 3:23), and s they will treat peple with lve and respect and a lack f superirity. Redemptin Sinners are saved by grace alne, nt by any inherent r active gdness. Christianity is the ne religin that says peple are nt saved by being better peple, by being mre disciplined, by praying mre, by being mre cmpassinate; instead, peple are saved by sheer unmerited grace. Therefre, Christians will be marked by the same grace that saved them, shwing a sweetness in dispsitin even as they demnstrate a cmmitment t their psitin. Final Thught Yu cannt actually be skeptical abut ne set f beliefs withut a deep faith cmmitment t sme ther set f beliefs. Yu cannt avid fundamentals and yu cannt avid truth claims. G. K. Chestertn said: A bigt it is nt the ne wh thinks he s right. Every sane man r wman thinks the right. The bigt is the ne wh cannt understand hw the ther persn came t be wrng. 9. Gd created us, we fell int sin, He has redeemed us creatin, fall, redemptin. Hw culd these three cncepts give peple a pwerful basis t treat with respect and justice thse with whm they deeply differ? Creatin We ve been made in the image f Gd and must therefre treat every human being as sacred (Genesis 9:6; James 3:9-10), regardless f what they d r have dne, because they are made in His image. Furthermre, because they are made in Gd s image, all peple are capable f wrds and deeds which are wise and beautiful. Therefre, Christians will expect a lt f nn- Christians t be mral, nice, self- cntrlled peple (smetimes even nicer than sme Christians).