Degree vs. Category

Leftover thoughts from our Islam and Christianity seminar on Sept. 12.

While the seminar was positive and constructive, there were a few moments when tension and anxiety filled the room. At least two who attended weren't pleased with the overall message of reconciliation, hospitality, love and understanding. And one question that wouldn't seem to go away: "Do Muslims worship a different God than Christians?" Andy wouldn't quite go there; one woman who is a leader in the local interfaith movement seemed to balk at the idea that anybody would try to elevate one religion above another; and one or two seemed offended that Andy wouldn't categorically denounce Islam as a false religion, and Muslims destined for hell.

But it's got me thinking, this question of whether or not Christians and Muslims (or anybody else, for that matter) worship different Gods. The traditional answer is "of course." Behind that answer is the often unspoken assumption that, while we say we worship different Gods, the reality is that we worship the one true God, and they worship a false idea of a false god.

In other words, it's an issue of category. 'Our' God is over here in this category of 'true,' and 'their' god is over there in the category of 'false.' We worship a real God, they worship a thing that doesn't exist except in their minds.

I wonder, though, if we're looking at it wrong. That it's not an issue of category (real vs. false, true vs. fake), but an issue of degree. That we're all in some sense worshiping the same God, it's just that some are closer, and have a clearer understanding of God, while others are further away, and have only a hint of God - but worship God as much as that hint allows.

Christianity teaches that there is one God, and that the clearest representation of God is known to us in Jesus Christ. Jesus himself taught that the only true way to come to God was in following him. Our worship of God comes from the knowledge that God has saved us through Jesus, and now lives in us in his Spirit. I would make the case that this means, on the whole, Christians are closest in scale to worshiping God as fully as humanly possible.

But the Hebrew prophet wrote of God placing eternity in the hearts of humankind. The Psalmist tells us that the heavens declare the glory of God. There seems to be this belief within Christianity that only those enlightened by the Spirit can sense and worship God, and everybody else is worshiping either their own imagining, or a satanic misrepresentation. But could it be instead that people of other religions can still sense the working of God in the world; in their hearts and souls, there is some recognition of the reality of the One True God, and they are worshiping that One True God - just not to the same degree as those who have met God in Jesus?

Supposing Mohamed simply had a sensitive soul; supposing he spent hours under the desert sky pondering the nature of the universe and the working of God, supposing he sensed in his deepest places the marvelous reality that is at work behind all we see and hear and touch. . .supposing he truly was sensing the One True God only, in the absence of knowing Jesus, he couldn't grasp the true nature of God in Jesus. In the absence of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he couldn't come to see the reality that is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Paul, Peter, Luther, and me?

You could look at it this way: A lot of people around Washington see Mt. Rainier off in the distance, and have a distant understanding of what's actually up there. We all have a picture in our mind, but only a fraction of those people have actually climbed it, and know what it looks like when you're actually standing on it. It's still the same mountain, but we know it to different degrees.

I think perhaps this is a better way of looking at all the dueling religions: most (not all) have some sense of the reality of God, they are, in some sense, worshiping the real God. It's just that a relatively few have actually met that God and are worshiping him, in the words of Jesus, in Spirit and in truth.

Of course, the idea of degrees of closeness will still rankle people who don't believe any religion ought to claim a greater understanding of truth. Their are those who want to believe that every religion is legitimate in its own way, that none has a greater degree of 'correct-ness.' But I can't go there. I can learn to respect and love people of other religious faiths, but in the end, Jesus was the one who said "No one comes to the Father except by me." That's a claim to singular truth, a claim that all other paths are dead ends. So I hold fast to the truth that God is known to us in Jesus, that our salvation is won in Jesus.

But this idea that Muslims worship a false God. . .I'm not so sure. Maybe they are worshiping the God of the Bible, just not to the same degree of fullness that followers of Christ are.

We interrupt these videos for some religion news

To point you to a great article here.

"On Monday, a new religious study was released that showed that 15% of the US population defines themselves as belonging to no religion. Here is an excerpt from the American Religious Identification Survey—conducted by the Program on Public Values at Trinity College.

The percentage of Americans claiming no religion, which jumped from 8.2 in 1990 to 14.2 in 2001, has now increased to 15 percent. Given the estimated growth of the American adult population since the last census from 207 million to 228 million, that reflects an additional 4.7 million 'Nones.' Northern New England has now taken over from the Pacific Northwest as the least religious section of the country, with Vermont, at 34 percent 'Nones,' leading all other states by a full 9 points."

From the study itself:

Other key findings:

• Baptists, who constitute the largest non-Catholic Christian tradition, have increased their numbers by two million since 2001, but continue to decline as a proportion of the population.

• Mormons have increased in numbers enough to hold their own proportionally, at 1.4 percent of the population.

• The Muslim proportion of the population continues to grow, from .3 percent in 1990 to .5 percent in 2001 to .6 percent in 2008.

• The number of adherents of Eastern Religions, which more than doubled in the 1990s, has declined slightly, from just over two million to just under. Asian Americans are substantially more likely to indicate no religious identity than other racial or ethnic groups.

• Those who identify religiously as Jews continue to decline numerically, from 3.1 million in 1990 to 2.8 million in 2001 to 2.7 million in 2008--1.2 percent of the population. Defined to include those who identify as Jews by ethnicity alone, the American Jewish population has remained stable over the past two decades.

• Only1.6 percent of Americans call themselves atheist or agnostic. But based on stated beliefs, 12 percent are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unsure), while 12 percent more are deistic (believe in a higher power but not a personal God). The number of outright atheists has nearly doubled since 2001, from 900 thousand to 1.6 million. Twenty-seven percent of Americans do not expect a religious funeral at their death.

• Adherents of New Religious movements, inc luding Wiccans and self-described pagans, have grown faster this decade than in the 1990s.

Maybe I'm in the wrong camp

Yesterday on a lark I took the belief-o-matic test over at beliefnet.com. Answer 20 questions, and they tell you what religion/denominational stream best fits your beliefs.

Truthfully, I found I could only answer about 1/4 of the questions with any certainty. In other words, none of their definitions matched my definitions, so a lot of my answers were along the lines of "I suppose, of the 5 options presented, this one is closest to my belief, even though it's still not quite exact. . ."

With that being said, I scored 100% as an Orthodox Quaker.

At least I only got 23% Mormon.

George W Bush and the Bible

By now, it's all over the news that Pres. Bush admitted he doesn't believe the Bible is "literally true." And that he thinks most religions pray to the same God.

And this nugget, regarding the Christian Scriptures: "but I do think that the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son.'"

Seriously. . .one of the most powerful men in the world, the leader of the Free world, the man with his fingers on the nuke buttons, the man making policy decisions that literally affect millions of people. . .and this is the depth of his thinking? He doesn't even have the capacity to sort through the various theories regarding the origins of life?

"I think evolution can — you’re getting me way out of my lane here. I’m just a simple president. But it’s, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don’t think it’s incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."

I honestly believe most of the students who graduated last year's confirmation class could come up with something better than that. I don't mean to be offensive here, but is this the best he can do? The Pope can publish encyclicals regarding faith and science, and our president says "I'm way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president."

So the question - is he really this slow? Or is he still trying to play the politician, pandering to Christians and non-Christians alike? Is he really a simple president? Or does he just play one on television?

Granted, we don't expect our presidents to be theologians. But we do expect them to be (and sound) intelligent - right? But look at it this way: one of the largest bases of support for the Republican Party has been the Christians in America, and, more specifically, Evangelical Christians. And yet when asked about one of the most basic, fundamental doctrines in Christianity, the President replied with "the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son.'" Hooray. At least he paid attention to all those Christmas cards we sent him.

It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas (Or, One of These Things is Not Like the Other)

In the name of inclusiveness and free speech, the Washington State Capitol has three displays up for the holiday season - all paid for and set up by non-government people or groups.

The first is the expected: the Nativity Scene. The second is becoming more visible in our culture: a menorah.

The third is the one raising both cheers and consternation from the locals: a sign set up by the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

Now, understand this. The folks at the FFR have as much right to voice their opinion in public as anybody else. The state can't choose favorites, allowing one group to set up shop while leaving the other out in the cold. Personally, while I disagree with the folks at the FFR over foundational worldview issues, and while I won't hesitate to say that I believe their atheism is wrong (since, as you know, I'm pretty certain there is a God), I believe that in America the FFR has the right to publicly declare their belief that they do not, in fact, believe there is a God. So count me among those who don't really care that the FFR set up their sign.

Except for this - This is the content of the sign:

Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

Which is not the same as simply stating "Hey! We don't believe in God!" See, they've gone beyond "I" language and turned instead to judgmental language - the very same thing they claim they're tired of religious people doing to them. The other two displays are artistic symbols and representations of deeply-held religious sentiments. Both are positive: there is Life here! There is Hope here!

Whereas the FFR folks have essentially set up a combative, over-and-against signpost, a denigrating, insulting, "we're better than everybody else," snide, pompous sign. A sign that essentially tells 95% of the world that they are feeble-minded sheep, mindlessly following empty books and boorish leaders.

So, I ask you. In the end, which is actually more offensive? The Christian and Jewish displays, or the "we're offended by you all" display from the FFR people? Which better fits the theme of "human love and goodwill toward all?" Which of these three is not like the others?

Some Random Stuff

That metro-link train crash in LA a couple weeks back? Turns out the engineer was texting railroad hobbyists. Some people put the blame for the accident on the culture of train lovers. Now there's a growing backlash against said hobbyists. I think I better hide my train calender.
______

On NPR this morning, they announced that Wal-Mart, in order to stave off a slower-than-usual holiday season, is opening its Christmas shops next week. You know that old saw "Christmas all-year-round"? It may be coming true.

Is it too early to throw out my yearly promotion of www.buynothingchristmas.org?

If so, maybe you should go read this article about the conditions in the Chinese factories in which most of Wal-mart's Christmas ornaments are produced.

Or at least rent What Would Jesus Buy? and watch it before you go shopping.

______________

Ben Witherington has posted an article by Dr. James Howell on the issue of "Rights vs. Responsibility."

Instead of “rights,” the Bible speaks of “gifts.” There is no “right to life.” Life is a gift, and this may be the compelling reason we do not have any right to destroy life. I do not have “rights” over my own body; God has those “rights.” My body is a gift of God, an instrument to be used in service to God, a temple of God’s Spirit, not a private domain for me to use as I wish. Christians get “responsibility” – which is “response-ability.” God has made us able to respond to God’s gifts. Responsible people do not gripe or whine so much as they get involved, they do something. Citizenship is responsibility, and perhaps the Christians could foster a buoyant hope in America life by simply refusing to play the “rights” card and instead lead the way in taking responsibility for the good stewardship of God’s gifts.

Good reading in today's political climate.
_________

Scot McKnight on why he remains an Evangelical and doesnt become Orthodox or Catholic.

Commentary on Two Items

1. Scot McKnight posted on 10 Reasons why Golf is better than soccer. If you ask me, that's like posting on 10 reasons why tofu makes for better dessert than does play-doh. In the end, neither one is satisfying. Or 10 reasons why a Honda SUV is better than a Chevy SUV. In the end, neither one is a Jeep. Or even 10 reasons why Country is better than Hip-Hop. In the end, they're still both irritating.

Because golf may be better than soccer, but in the end they're both still a waste of time. Want the "outdoor sporty experience" of golf, try going for a hike or bike ride. Want the team aspect of soccer? Baseball and football are much, much better, much more interesting to watch and/or play. There are a hundred things that would be a better use of your time than golf or soccer. So why does it matter which is better than the other?

And since that's my opinion, that makes it true.

2. On a more serious note, the Seattle papers were abuzz yesterday with the news that yet another Mars Hill campus opened this weekend - this time, across Lake Washington in Bellevue.

It's not really my goal in life to criticize Mars Hill Church - I know people whose lives have been dramatically turned around through the ministry of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill. I know people who still attend Mars Hill, people who are faithful disciples of Jesus and seeking to serve him in the world.

And yet, every time I turn around, they seem to be making these statements that completely rub the wrong way (caveat: I guess there is always the possibility that the press is trying to present them in a poor light. . .).

So, for instance, the Seattle P-I interviewed Jesse Winkler, the 30-year-old pastor of the newest Mars Hill Campus. And I have to wonder, who is training these people?

Winkler: "As Christians, I think we tend to add churchy stuff to what Christianity is supposed to be like. We say Christians are supposed to look, talk, dress and eat and drink this way, and the Bible just doesn't have that stuff."

This argument has been around since, what, the 195os? At least since the early days of the Jesus Movement. Hasn't it already become somewhat stale? Who exactly is he talking about? What Christians (except for a very few) are actually telling others how to look, talk, dress and eat and drink certain ways? Who is he arguing against here? Or is there really no "who," and he's setting up a straw man in order to better market to young people who are always fighting against some supposed "the man" who's telling them how to behave?

(And, as a side note, the Bible actually DOES have a lot to say on how Christians ought to talk and dress and eat and drink.)

Winkler: "We (Mars Hill) keep a little bit of a raw edge to us. We keep it simple, without any human, man-made stuff. We're not the churchiest of folks. We're pretty big Bible people."

I have never, in my entire life, found a church that didn't have "any human, man-made stuff." If he were telling the truth, their women would wear coverings on their heads, their men would be greeting each other with holy kisses, they would encouraging all their people to seel everything so that poor people could eat, their worship songs would be nothing but Psalms. . .If they don't do all those things, then they are "theologizing" the biblical texts, which means they are adding "human stuff." We all add "human stuff." Because we're SUPPOSED to add "human stuff." God didn't give us a detailed playbook, he gave us a book that forces us to wrestle with it, with our "human stuff."

Winkler (when asked about Mars Hill's choice to limit leadership in the church to men): "We believe that's a role God has given to men. He's given roles for women in our church as well, but the office of "elder," we believe, is reserved for men -- for one reason or another. We'll find out (why) in eternity, I suppose."

I know, I know. It's tough to do deep theology when answering a reporter's questions. It's impossible to sum up the arguments for and against women in ministry in one pithy statement. But still. "We'll find out in eternity, I suppose?" That's supposed to convince people that our position is the correct one? It just sounds so. . .trite. It sounds so much like what Josh McDowell attacked in "Don't Check Your Brains At The Door."

It also goes back to that earler part, where Winkler said "We're pretty big Bible people." Because, if that were true, they'd be aware that even Paul commends women who are in leadership in the earliest church.

Now, to his credit, Winkler makes this comment, which is pretty powerful: "The thing that makes us successful is the power of God's word, which is the Bible. When we compromise on that, we do damage to what God wants us to do. The power of this church isn't us, it's God. We're really not driving this ship at all."

I'm saying "amen and amen." Right up to that last little sentence. I think I know what he means, but I'm also wary enough to recognize the possibility of a cop-out. It's too easy, when we're being challenged, to say "well, it's just God is all. Don't challenge me, I'm just doing what God says." Which, sometimes, really means "I have no good reason for doing what I'm doing, so blame God if you disagree." Which is a shallow answer, at best.

In the end, I want to see the Kingdom of God grow, and I want to see young leaders grow into mature leaders. I know people make mistakes and say silly things all the time, and it's not my place to sit over here and say "neener-neener" at them.

It's just that, there seems to be this trend over at Mars Hill of pastors who, while claiming to speak from a biblical point of view, instead seem to be clothing a worldly point-of-view in biblical language and calling it good. And that's not good.

Perhaps it's all just growing pains. It will be interesting to see what happens to a church that markets itself to 20-somethings ages, when all those 20-somethings are in their 40s and 50s. Will the language change? Will the "rebellious" passion remain? Or, 30 years from now, will they become the old fuddy duddies, being challenged by a "new" youth culture?

Just when things were getting friendly

Pope Benedict XVI just approved a document which says that "Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation," while "other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches."

Article here

Apparently, protestant churches are not true Churches because they lack apostolic succession, and the Orthodox church is defective because it doesn't recognize the Pope's authority.

Can I issue a statement saying that Pope Benedict XVI is wrong?

Or maybe I'll just use Fred Clark's statement:

"You're Not the Pope of Me!"

A couple of things

- I'm heading down to the Covenant Annual Meeting tomorrow through Saturday, so I don't know if I'll be blogging anything over the next few days. I do look forward to seeing some old friends and maybe making some new ones. We're staying with my aunt and uncle in Tigard, so should have some good family time. And I hear Bruce and Katy are up from Turlock. . .

- Today was, I think, one of the final visits to the eye doctor for awhile. We've arrived at the place where it's about as good as it's gonna get. I had to accept that, due to the nature of this corneal thing, it just won't ever be perfect and pain-free. The lens that's in now is the lesser of all evils, according to Dr. Ralph. It gets me to 20/25 vision, and it mostly stays where it's supposed to. Although if I look to the right, it has a tendency to pop out. So if you want to sneak up on me, come from the right, as I won't be looking that way much. He did say technology is moving along rapidly, and hopefully in another 10 years they might be able to do a transplant that will take care of the whole thing. So until then, we make do.

- If I was a sociologist, this is what I'd study: It seems we've become a society who expect to have private moments in public spaces. There was an article in the P-I the other day about a park near Pike Place Market that is famous for two things: being a huge draw to tourists because of the view, and being a haven for homeless people, including many drug addicts. The arguments fly back and forth - compassion and understanding for the homeless vs. lock 'em all up so we can have a nice clean park. But I think, underlying it all, is the assumption that "I" can go to a public park and have a private little time there, not having to put up with other people, especially people I don't particularly care for. In reading the comments under this article, I sensed this idea again and again. "I should be able to go to a park and not have to be bothered by other people." The fact that they are homeless is merely a mask for the underlying feeling that public space should become private space.

I know it's not this way in other cultures. You go out in public to interact with the public. I don't think it was this way in America all that long ago - whenever we went camping we made the effort to meet our neighbors. But more and more, we are autonomous individuals assuming we can make our way through public space without having to interact with others (think ipods). And it comes to a head here - I should be able to go to the park and have my little time there and not have to have any interaction with others.

Anyway, I need to think it through more. Maybe you can comment and spur my thinking more.

As to the article in the other Seattle Paper about the Episcopalian Priest who claims also to be a Muslim. . .it's been too long a day to comment.

Jerry Falwell Dead

The story, among other places, here.

Like so many, he did a lot of good, and he did a lot of harm. He will probably go down in history as the hero of many, and the embarrassment of many more. For me, he was the first person I thought of on 9/11. One of my prayers that morning was "Please, God, don't let Falwell make a public pronouncement about this being God's judgment because of the gays. . ." Unfortunately, I think it only took a couple days for Jerry to do just that. I'm sure the days ahead will be filled with mourning and rejoicing, depending on which side of the spectrum you find yourself. If he was anything, he was a polarizing figure. Unfortunately, at least in the public sphere, he seemed much more interested in judging than in offering grace. I trust that he has met the God who is much more interested in offering grace to sinners than he ever was.