Scripture gives us example after example in the OT of people who incur God's wrath by going after other gods, and the Acts famously remind us that "there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved". It is clear that we must worship only God as revealed in Jesus Christ - it is only in that name that we can put our trust.

That said, I believe that the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves (Lev 19:18, Mk 12:31, Rom 13:9, etc) entails understanding our neighbors, knowing who they are in order to come into real encounter with them. Therefore we should make ourselves informed and familiar with the faiths of the people around us.

I am not sure that what is described in the case study is offered in that sense. The programs offered may fall short of outright worship, but they are not informational or educational in nature - it is clear that the programs are primarily for spiritual formation. The passage from the Tao seems generic enough - one can certainly meditate on the concepts it offers without compromising one's Christian identity. This material is similar to our Wisdom literature. But spiritual formation in the mode of Mother Goddess and the Universal Divine are quite different.

I am not inveighing against feminine concepts of the divine, but the term "Goddess" is inherently gendered. God can be male or female, but Goddess cannot. This is a linguistic quirk of English, but there it is.

Fuller understanding of what is contained in the exercises in paragraph 4 would permit a better evaluation of the situation. But overall, while I would love to see Episcopal parishes learning and teaching about other religions, especially with genuine input from members of those faiths, I cannot advise the use of non-judeochristian meditations, which stray too close to praying to other Gods.

According to The New Oxford American Dictionary, “American Dream” is defined as “the traditional social values of the United States, such as equality, democracy, and material prosperity.” While the concept of the American Dream includes a variety of values, most people equate it with those surrounding success, prosperity, and obtaining material possessions. For purposes of this brief, I will focus on this commonly held definition based on consumerism. As Walter Brueggemann notes, this ideology of consumerism “operates on the claim that ‘more is better,’ that ‘most’ will make happy, and that each is entitled to and must have all that each can have, even at the expense of others” (Cadences of Home, 27). It is this drive for success and material prosperity that seems to most often come into conflict with the perceived values and teachings of the church.

Brueggemann comments that “For a very long time we have assumed that the ‘American Dream,’ which is our version of Enlightenment freedom and well-being, coheres with the claims of the gospel . . . Now we are coming to see, belatedly are required to see, that the American Dream as it is now understood has long since parted company with the claims of the gospel” (30). Examination of some of the biblical resources on the subject is necessary to help us more fully explore Brueggemann’s assessment of the American Dream.

The Bible has plenty to say about such matters as the love of money and accumulation of wealth. The gravity of biblical insight on this issue ranges from acknowledgment of the accumulation of wealth to mild cautions regarding the dangers of accumulating wealth to stern reproach. The Bible’s acknowledgement of some of the wealthy people includes such people as Joseph (Genesis 39 through 41) Abraham (Genesis 13:2), Boaz (Ruth 2:1), Solomon (1 Kings 3-4; 10:23), Job (Job 1), Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57), and Zacchaeus (Luke 19:2). None of these were condemned by God for having great wealth.

Despite acknowledgements of a number of faithful servants of God who happened to also be wealthy, the Bible contains a great deal of material cautioning against or even condemning those who seek after riches. Cautionary statements include Ephesians 5:15, Proverbs 23:4, Ecclesiastes 2: 1-11, Proverbs 11: 28, Hebrews 13:5, 1 John 2:15-17, and Matthew 13:18-23. These passages demonstrate the futility of the pursuit of wealth, as opposed to living a life in accordance with God’s will. According to scripture, the pursuit of wealth is a futile exercise precisely because such activity leads to separation from God. Passages addressing this consequence include Proverbs 11:4, Matthew 6:19-21, Matthew 6:24, Luke 18:18-25, Luke 6:24-25, Luke 12:13-21, James 1:9-11, James 5:1-5, 1Timothy 6:9-10, and Acts 5:1-10.

While biblical resources regarding wealth range from benign caution to reproach and condemnation, it must be noted that the comments made do not necessarily apply to all people who are wealthy. There were examples of wealthy people who were righteous and followed God’s will, such as Joseph of Arimathea. The Bible does not contain any condemnation against some people, nor do the injunctions against the rich appear to be a blanket condemnation. Rather, the intent of the wealthy appears to be an important consideration. After all, we are told that the Acts community “were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need” (Acts 2:44-45), and that “no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common” (Acts 4:32). In this case, wealth did not appear to be considered an evil per se, but rather a means to helping others who had need. Similarly, the author of Hebrews states “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Hebrews 13:16). Nothing negative is said about having possessions, but only that those who do have more than they need should share their fortune with others.

This is consistent with Jesus’ “lilies of the field” speech in Matthew 6:25-34, in which he tells people that they should not worry about what they will eat or drink or wear or other bodily concerns. God recognizes that we have such needs and will provide what we need. The most important thing is to “strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (Matthew 6:33). Living a righteous life is of more importance than worrying about bodily needs and material possessions. These will be taken care of, presumably through the graciousness of those who have means to do so and the willingness to share of their abundance.

The scarcity of references to the pursuit of wealth for use as a means to providing for the needs of the poor and needy seems to indicate the difficulty of doing so with integrity. I suspect that many people have good intentions of pursuing wealth with the goal of giving back to the community. However, our contemporary, greed-driven society makes implementation of such goals difficult. That is not to say that such societal pressures make altruistic goals impossible to achieve, or that once we start down a path toward accumulation of wealth for personal gain, we cannot change. Ephesians 2:3-5a, 8-10 demonstrates that through God’s grace we are able to turn away from the temptations of the world and live the life God desires for us, doing the works prepared for us. For some, those works just might include striving for wealth that can be used for the good of the kingdom.

John Howard Yoder comments that “the primary social structure through which the gospel works to change other structures is that of the Christian community” (The Politics of Jesus, 154). The Bible’s warnings regarding the use of riches can inform and transform the Christian community’s perspective on how we as Christians use our resources. The community needs to begin to hold its members accountable to the teachings of the gospel as the driving force behind all our actions, including the acquisition and use of wealth. In this way, the church can more adequately fulfill its calling “to be the conscience and the servant within human society” (155). The church can show secular society that the acquisition of wealth can be used for the service of humanity in a manner consistent with the gospel.

The Bible is clear that the accumulation of wealth is not the way to salvation. If anything, the pursuit of riches can be a stumbling block to living a righteous life. Pursuit of wealth can become all-encompassing, to the exclusion of other, more enduring pursuits. But through the grace of God, all have the opportunity to be saved and brought into the kingdom of God through Christ. While the Bible contains warnings about the potential dangers associated with the accumulation of wealth, there is also biblical precedence for wealthy members of the church who have shared from their abundance to help those who are in need. Those who have and accumulate wealth must exercise caution to insure that their wealth does not become an idol replacing God, but rather that wealth becomes a tool for the work of the kingdom. The church, using the warnings contained in scripture, can be instrumental in insuring that the American Dream is not in the service of one’s self, but in the service of God.

Both prayers have been tweaked over time as comments, solicitied and unsolicited, as well as questions have come in. For example, the prayer for those who are scheduled to be executed used to be worded, "We pray for X, who is scheduled to be executed by the state of Y on such and such a day. We pray also for his family, the families of his victims, and the people of state Y in whose name X will be killed." The last part of the prayer raised a few eyebrows and so EPF offered the explanation that when a comvict is executed by the state, the cause of death on the death certificate is listed as "homicide". The prayer in its current form is chosen by the person volunteering to offer the prayer each week.

So, what do y'all think about this? In what ways is this the same kind of thing as our case study and in what ways might it be different? Can one serve as a model for developing a way to deal with the other?

-R

How do we understand ourselves as a single Body when the suffering of the individual comes to the fore. In my estimation, this is one of the core questions that Don and Sheila are facing. Our understanding of corporate suffering and responsibility is often at odds with our understanding of individual suffering and responsibility.

Job expects his friends to step up and understand. They do not and will not. Job is left alone his misery. Paul often speaks of his own sin, the thorn in is side, as his private burden. And yet it leads him to articulate an understanding of shared sin and salvation in the Body of Christ.

Sheila wonders why the church has not responded. Don wants to know why Sheila has not been clear about her needs. I see this every day at the hospital. Ministers are called by the family at the last possible moment, or are never called at all. "We would not want to trouble them" is often a family's rationale. Sometimes it is as if the family assumes that the pastor has some form of extrasensory perception and will know to come without the aid of a phone call. Funeral homes are so aware of this dynamic that many make a habit of
calling the family's pastor for them. I have spoken to many irate ministers and disappointed families.

The nature of the Body of Christ is realized only when our intentional actions (performance) matches our relational assumptions. It takes work. But our suffering may burden us to such a degree that we cannot even ask for help. And, as pastors, we may be limited in the help we can give. Can we arrive before Lazarus dies? Can we bring some resurrection after Lazarus has passed on and been buried? These questions linger.

There is some Bonhoeffer we could apply here as well. Did the Church let you down? Well, of course it did. Sin exists in all of us, even (especially?) those of us who attempt to be the Body of Christ. Why else does forgiveness exist but for the sake of sins? Why else does resurrection exist but for the sake of death?

I attended a clergy community organizing training session yesterday (today, too...so I'm on a time crunch). We talked about the "political agenda" and how things move on and off it. We talked about how the "right" is very good about developing and staying on message, while the "left" speaks from disunity and distractedness. The "right" has a clear, consistent message...therefore they have more power and more items on the political agenda.

No, this entry's not about politics, or why the democrats are usually in response mode, but I do see a parallel with Biblical Theology.

It seems to me that BibTheo is about "setting the agenda" in our parishes and wider church. When what we might call "questionable theology" has a consistent, well-argued voice, then it becomes the agenda, while other theologies are left scrambling in response mode.

Think about typical responses to personal tragedy..."I have [name the terminal illness], therefore God is punishing me." Or "God must have needed my infant more, that's why God called him/her home."

Where are these messages coming from and why are they such common responses for many? I suggest that one type of theology has set the agenda, and we "progressive" pastoral types function in response mode (think CPE visits) to counter this. Even our class assignments are labeled "developing biblical resources for RESPONDING TO [...]."

So after yesterday's exercise at my conference, I'll begin looking at BibTheo somewhat differently. What can I do in the parish to move the "theological agenda" in a healthier direction?

That's all...gotta go.

Dan

One of the first questions one might ask, of course, is “Why bother?” After all, John 14:6 quotes Jesus as saying “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except by me.” Why then should a committed Christian bother to spend any effort learning of other faiths, or have any but cursory contact with non-Christians? Some of the more fundamentalist sects do in fact teach precisely this approach: avoiding (and even fearing) contact with nonbelievers (except possibly for direct conversion efforts), and warning against the dangers of pagan influence. They base their strict exclusivism on the above and other passages (Acts 4:12, or 1 Tim 2:5-6), and seem to have a dread that listening to or learning about other faith traditions will jeopardize their faith, and their salvation.

However, both of these ways of dealing with other religious traditions (disregarding them on one hand, or persecuting them on the other) repudiate the teaching from the foundations of our own faith (In the first chapter of Genesis, literally, “in the beginning”) that all human beings claim a common ancestry, each and every one a precious part of God’s good creation. This is, in part, the basis of our baptismal covenant injunction to “respect the dignity of every human being.” To threaten others, or to fear or belittle their beliefs without taking the time to listen and learn and respectfully consider, seems to deny this inherent personal worth.

In Luke’s recounting of the commissioning of the twelve (Luke 9:1-6) , he instructs the disciples to shake the dust off their feet “as a testimony” against those communities that would not welcome them. Some see this also as further justification for not engaging in interfaith conversation. But this is a reaction to which Jesus encourages them, not an initial approach. First, the disciples were to enter that community, to live in households there, and in fact to be utterly dependent on local generosity while they taught and healed . This would have necessitated coming to know people with a certain intimacy, the sort fostered only by respectful exchange; it is a far cry from the “arm’s length” standard mentioned earlier.

On the other hand, acknowledging the vitality and strengths of another faith does not necessitate a move toward some sort of religious pluralism-- a stance that all religions are equally “true” paths to knowing God. While many traditions may contain some measure of truth, and awareness of the nature of God, a Christian disciple maintains that the truest expression of God is found in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and that God’s love for humanity is most clearly shown through the salvation offered there to all people. This, then, becomes the lens through which we as Christians filter all that we see and learn-- including the writings, practices and beliefs of other religious traditions. As Clooney notes,

. . . a Christian must always in some way “read” the world in Christ, finding its meaning only in his death and resurrection, and must in some way venture the claim that this meaning pertains to every single human being as the single, all-embracing horizon for human experience.1

In other words, we can and should hold tightly to the foundational truths of the Christian faith. “Perfect love casts out fear,” and communication and consideration does not necessitate compromise of one’s fundamental belief system.

One fine example of a better way to approach interfaith relations may be found in the retelling of Paul’s interaction with the Athenians, in Acts 17:16-34. In this pericope, Paul begins his address to the local crowd by showing he has spent some time learning about the community, about their beliefs and practices and culture. Far from denigrating pagan religion and rituals, he acknowledges the virtue he finds there. Scripture says he “reasoned with them.” He does not burst forth with critical commentary (at least, not this time!), but establishes common ground with the “unknown god” he finds them worshipping. Further, he illuminates his teachings about God, and Jesus, by quoting their own poets and writers, as well as the Hebrew scriptures of his own tradition. He cares about them enough to learn from and about them; and then he offers respectful acknowledgment of their religious traditions, without compromising integrity of his own beliefs. In this way, he exhibits the strength of Christianity’s truth in all its fullness, without denying the possibility for virtue in the local tradition.
This is a fine example of the way we can live into the two imperatives of our faith: the Great Commandment (Luke 10:27), and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). This passage shows Paul loving God and neighbor, caring for those around them and treating them and their religion with due regard. At the same time, he is secure in his own faith-- able to communicate the gospel message, without casting aspersions upon pagan practices (however much they may have disturbed him!).

Therefore, I would maintain that it is incumbent upon Christians to walk a middle path between maintaining strict exclusivism and validating amorphous pluralism. Tt is acceptable to acknowledge the good in other religious traditions. They are not inherently and wholly wrong, to be ignored or persecuted, as some might claim. Indeed, some of their wisdom may be worth knowing. However, If Jesus is indeed "the Way, truth, life," then truth and life found elsewhere, even if incomplete, will reflect and dovetail with Christian teaching. And being willing to hear that truth, that life, is not only an acceptable option, but is an imperative for one who intends to live into Jesus’ call to discipleship.

Christian theologies that claim a biblical basis should consider as primary the two great commandments: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus tells those around him: “On these commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” We may read this as extending to the entire Christian canon; that is, the entire Bible hangs upon this summary of the Law. Although these commandments ought to be no less normative for theologies of religions than for any other theology, many current theologies of religions seem to affirm other passages or maxims as being of chief value. The great commandments must anchor our exploration of the Bible, even as the rest of the Bible informs our interpretation of these two verses. For us to adopt a particular theology as adequate, it behooves us first to examine the three main options – exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism – in light of the two main commandments. Only then may we evaluate and choose among the theologies themselves.

In the middle of the paper, I go through the three positions and look at what each claims and how it is motivated by or attached to each of the two great commandments. I could go through all that here, but you're unlikely to read it. So I'll skip to the conclusions:

Pluralism, then, demonstrates a clear tie to love of neighbor. It seems to be motivated by love of God as well, though this association is more tenuous than the former. Exclusivism exhibits the opposite tendency. One can easily see how exclusivism is grounded in and inspired by love of God, whereas its initial connection to love of neighbor is more ambiguous. Inclusivism seems to strike out for the middle ground. It attempts to balance an unequivocal love of God with a strong commitment to love of neighbor, though its link to love of neighbor is not quite as solid as that of pluralism.

Taking the two great commandments as our magnetic north, then, inclusivism seems to be the most biblical response to an interreligious world context. Given the range of possible stands within inclusivism, and in light of the above conclusions, it seems also that one would want to lean more toward pluralism than toward exclusivism within the bounds of inclusivism. A commitment to these two commandments does not rule out exclusivism or pluralism altogether, and others will certainly want to introduce exhortations from elsewhere in the Bible to support any of these three positions. Nevertheless, inclusivism seems to stick closest to Jesus’ mandate in Matthew 22 that they are to form the cornerstone of our faith and theology, and on those grounds may claim to be the most biblical answer to the interfaith question.

As Christians, we should be able to articulate what we believe Jesus has to say on the matter of other religions. I believe John 10:16 needs to be our starting point for demonstrating a Christian vision for a theology of religions. As a part of the much beloved Good Shepherd passage Jesus says, “I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice.” That verse speaks a powerful enough message by itself. But, if we read it in conjunction with what came before, we will note that “the sheep follow him because they know his voice,” (John 10:4). The sheep of the other folds know the voice of God who calls them. The Shepherd may appear in other forms to other peoples, but it is the same Shepherd, Jesus Christ, who is the gate for all His sheep. Nothing can separate us from that love (Romans 8:38-39).

Christ came that we all might have life and have it abundantly (John 10:10) and that life comes through reconciliation with God. By sin, we are separated from God, but “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself,” (2 Cor 5:19). It does not say that God sent Christ to reconcile with just one sort of people, but it says to the world. The entire world, and all its peoples, is God’s creation and are all blessed. Some thought that the message of Jesus was to be limited to just a few, but the Holy Spirit proved this to be false (Acts 10:34-44). In John’s vision of the consummation of all things it is not a select few worshipping before the throne but “saints from every tribe and language and people and nation,” (Rev 5:9). When I synthesize all of this, I must adopt for myself the inclusivist approach to a theology of religions. A brief description of the three "camps" of Christian Theologies of Religion can be found in the extended portion of this post.

Also, I want to offer a word of caution about "doing" interfaith dialogue among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. There is a temptation in many of these types of interfaith discussions to avoid the subject of current political situations in the Holy Land. Because they are so contentious, there is a temptation to try and stick only to “religious” matters in discussion and leave “political” matters aside. In reality, the two are so inter-woven that they are impossible to separate and attempts to do so will only frustrate and retard conversation. It is best to acknowledge the current situation and include it in the discussion. When this is done, it inevitably complicates the dialogue and raises the level of emotional investment, but to have an honest and true dialogue, this must be done. Real interfaith dialogue is not easy. If you leave an interfaith discussion feeling all warm and fuzzy inside then you likely have not engaged in the real and the difficult nature of coming to the table with honest questions and genuine feelings. If you are not challenged by interfaith dialogue, then you have not done it.

-R

Inclusivism also believes that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, but maintains that there may be other ways to obtain that salvation through Christ than the direct confession of the Christian faith. In the end, for the inclusivist, it is Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, who alone saves. But the mysteries of salvation are such that inclusivists are unwilling to pin such everlasting consequences down to a human understanding. John 10:16, mentioned above, supports this claim.

Pluralism proclaims that there is more than one way to achieve salvation through God. From there it can get very diverse. Some Christian pluralists believe that there are different ways to obtain salvation, as Christians define it, than through Christ. Others might say that salvation for a Christian is very different from salvation for a Zoroastrian; that is to say, there are different salvations. Still others might be unwilling to say that only the person and work of Jesus Christ does all the saving. This claim is more difficult to support from Christian scriptures, but Matthew 24:42 has been used to substantiate it.

Jesus warned that the Christian journey was not necessarily one of constant peace, when he said “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.” We are called with Jesus and the prophets “ to bring good news to the poor and to proclaim release to the captives.” We are called with the disciples to "go, proclaim the good news, 'The kingdom of heaven has come near". Following instructions from Paul, we should be “speaking the truth”. If we take these roles seriously, then there is certain to be conflict – between Christians and the oppressive powers of this world, and among Christians as we work towards a greater understanding of the truth. Jesus used moments of conflict with the Pharisees and lawyers as teaching moments, and the people were astounded. Conflict is even productive in this way – through our disagreements, we test our ideas, and we move closer to God in our struggle to understand.

If conflict and strife are inevitable, even helpful parts of the Christian life, however, why is Paul so concerned with conflict in the early church? To the church at Corinth, he writes, “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters.” At the end of the twentieth century, our collective witness to concentration camps, genocides, and unending wars leads us to cry with Paul against quarrels and dissension. “See what conflict can do? Better to strive for peace, even at the cost of silence” we surmise.

For Christians, however, the choices are not between “peace at the cost of silence” and “conflict at the cost of emotional or physical violence”. As Paul writes in his letter to the Ephesians, we are to occupy ourselves by “speaking the truth in love.” Conflict, then, has these two parts: the issue itself at the root of the disagreement, and the behavior of the people who actually disagree. Disagreements may be inevitable, but that inevitability cannot be construed as permission for acting out of anger or hostility. Conflict in the church must be grounded in both the desire to speak truth, as well as the command to love one another.

I have always wanted to be that boy – to play the role of the fearless town crier of truth, consequences be damned. And it seems to me that this role model is pretty well established in Scripture too – Nathan tells David he has no clothes; most of the prophets spend most of their prophecy in warning Israel about its nakedness; Jesus is, shall we say, less than hesitant in identifying several unclothed Pharisees, Scribes, lawyers, hypocrites and just about any other member of his “wicked” generation; and Paul’s calls for love and unity are punctuated with recommendations for removal of immoral persons “to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (1 Cor. 5:5) or wishes for an offending brother’s simple emasculation (Gal. 5:12).

Now this narrative of the prophetic truth teller seems to be playing inside young upstart Rob’s head (and staid old Jim probably thinks he too has truth on his side), but as readers we surely didn’t cheer either combatant on. Instead, we thought their story was more than a little “yucky” and seemed to heave a collective sigh of “Can’t we all just get along?” Well, no, we can’t.

First of all, imagine this story of a proposed new deacon’s school as played out along the lines we perceive in the First Corinthian hymn to love (1 Cor. 13:4-7). Jim and Rob would have agreed to meet at a neutral location, listened patiently to each others’ reasoned stories regarding deacons, kindly shared a cup of tea and left with a big hug after agreeing to disagree. Besides producing several zzzzz’s in the audience (and one wonders if, absent passionate conflict, this new tale even rises to the level of a story at all), one may rightly ask how has this terminal niceness moved the ball – Rob and Jim may be back in relationship, but the church is still floundering and those deacons are still lost in the wilderness.

Indeed, for story to work its magic, there must be conflict and there must be those who are willing to stand as that boy and say “The Emperor has no clothes.” In Paul’s version of the Jerusalem council, this is exactly the role he chooses to play (See Galatians, chapter 2). In this situation, Paul recognizes that he isn’t called to put on new clothes of “niceness” (especially when those clothes are primarily constructed out of an aesthetic of niceness), but rather to don “the whole armor of light” (Eph. 6:10-20).

While we may employ weapons such as kindness and patience, we must never lose sight that we are wearing armor because we are in a struggle. We may walk in newness of life, but we still walk in a fallen world – saved not by our own discernments, but by the grace of God alone. However, Scripture does put a bridle on those of us itching to shout “Bring it on!” – we must ask ourselves “Is this fight of God or is this a contest I desire because I want to be entertained?” (See 1 Tim. 6:3-5 and Titus 3:9-11). Of course, we can never actually know the certain answer to this question (that’s for our progeny to figure out), but there are times, when the light is just right, when our reflection looks back from the mirror and cries out “You have no clothes!”