Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Marsha's Musings: Opening a Can of Worms Here
I am going to open a can of worms here. I read a lot about "religious tolerance and interfaith dialogue" these days. I would like to know what my readers think this means? It seems to be a hot pototoe in the political and religious arena. I have my thoughts about what the statement means, but in the interest of hearing what others have to say about it and not what they think about what I think it means, I am going to hold my fire. I want to hear your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
A can of worms indeed. These terms have so many connotations and implications at a number of levels. But in that you’ve opened the door to “my thoughts,” I get to frame my own response.
To define interfaith dialog, I’d have to define where the boundaries of “my faith”. “tolerance” also needs some definition.
“Religious tolerance” may mean different things to different people. In the venue of our secular, pluralistic society it usually means all faiths have equal weight and should be regarded as equally valid. Truth is relegated to a personal opinion, which is to say we all get to have our own truth, and my truth is no better (or worse) than yours. This makes a certain amount of “worldly” sense, but it doesn’t hold up under Biblical scrutiny. For me “tolerance” is limited to allowing another the personal prerogative to believe as he or she chooses, recognizing that we all have an appointment to give an account for our choices (in belief). In other words, I won’t shoot a man for opting to believe a falsehood. Yet my tolerance does not extend to ‘valuing” another’s false choice. In this regard, I make value judgments. Falsehood ought to be denounced for what it is. I do not “tolerate” that which contradicts scripture. In fact, I am to “hate all false ways”.
Then to what extent do I allow for “interfaith” dialogue? To shake out a response, I first need to define my faith. Much turns on what scripture calls “the gospel.” Paul stated that it is “the gospel” which is God’s power to save us(Romans 1:16) That sounds pretty important. He also stated that it is our belief in “the gospel” that triggers our salvation. In I Corinthians 15: 1-4, Paul restates the fact that that our salvation is rooted our belief in the gospel, which he succinctly defines as being that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”
The parameters of this gospel are so important that Paul puts some boundaries around it. In Galatians 1:9 it says that “if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” In other words, if someone tries to say there is any other way of salvation that what is expressed by this “gospel” as having been defined by paul, they are to be “accursed”.
What is “dialog” for? If it is to muddy the boundaries of the gospel, then it is flawed. If dialog regarding salvation is to appease or otherwise place a mantel of approval on an invalid salvation approach, as would be found in the cults, then again, that is a flawed and unbiblical phenomenon. They are to be accursed not dialoged with.
Our fellowship is based on that which we have “in common” with others. We can’t have a salvation type fellowship with those who are not saved, ie. Those who promulgate another gospel. This is not to say we cannot partner with the unsaved on areas where we have lesser things in common. Take Roman Catholics and Mormons for example. I do not have a basis of “Christian fellowship” with them because they have “another gospel”. If they are willing to hear scripture regarding the gospel of Christ, let that conversation continue. Yet there are “lesser” things we do have in common. We share a hatred for abortion. I don’t see anything wrong with having a dialog on strategies to curb abortion. Likewise we need to oppose homosexual special rights. I would be agreeable to dialog on how we can save our culture from a vicious assault on the sanctity of marriage. Seeing marriage perverted will have catastrophic effects on our culture and peoples lives, as we can already see in the offing.
Your turn. Fire away….
There doesn't seem to be too many people who want to stick their necks out and join in my "can of worms"!
Perhaps they are all waiting to see what I think first. LOL.
Here goes. I wrote a letter to the editor of an online newspaper recently on this issue. His whole article bemoaned the fact that "evangelicals" don't have any religious tolerance and aren't willing to have interfaith dialgue. There was not one mention of the Bible in his whole article. The whole article centered around man's feelings. Not one word was mentioned about what God says in His word, the Bible. My experience tells me that if a person is going to stay true to what the Bible teaches, that there is no such thing as "religious tolerance". The moment a religious conversation starts between me and one of a different faith, if something is said that contradicts the Bible and I point it out, the other person gets mad at me or their eyes glaze over and they won't hear another word I have to say. Religious tolerance is only possible if everyone sets aside their own particular religious beliefs. In which case, there wouldn't be any religion of any kind if we all did that. I'm not quite sure what they mean by interfaith dialogue, unless it's a situation where people come together to meld all their different beliefs together, pick and choose what's acceptable and trash the rest maybe? I am not sure. But the interfaith dialogues I've had have turned out pretty much like I described above...the dialogue is fine as long as the Bible stays out of it or if the Bible is used, it's misused. Verses are twisted and quoted out of context and when this is pointed out...then the conversation is pretty much over. It becomes an arguement.
These terms are thrown around in an attempt to silence anyone who would point out what the Bible has to say about various belief systems or lifestyles.
Marsha, I have missed reading your blog. I love your "can of worms" as I think it is thought provoking!
I, as you know, am LDS. I know you are not. As far as "interfaith" thoughts, I respect that you believe the way you do, even if I have different views on some things. I was just talking this post over with my husband and when we read your blog we are always amazed at how similar our beliefs are to yours. I think that that is the beauty of the "dialogue". That maybe we can all realize that while we may believe that (individually) that each person has their "true" church we can also appreciate that most religion wants people to strive to be better and that we do share some if not most beliefs. I think it can bring us together rather than cause arguments and division.
I love the scripture in Joshua that says "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord". If you are firm in your own beliefs you don't have to be argumentative. I am not out to convert anyone who doesn't want to know about my church but I love learning about what others think and I have learned so much specifically from you and your posts. I have never known anyone who studies the Bible more (personally) or who has such a "Godly" focus.
Thanks for your thoughts and for bringing this up. It's great amongst all the blog fluff to come across something to make you ponder.
Loads of love and Happy New Year!
Angie
Post a Comment