McKenna

I was reading Wikipedia's article on Hans Kung earlier and I found this. I thought it would be an interesting addition to our discussion on ecumenism and partnership between religions.

From the Wikipedia article:

Drafted initially by Dr. Hans Küng, in cooperation with the Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions staff and Trustees and experts drawing on many of the world's religious and spiritual traditions, Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration identifies four essential affirmations as shared principles essential to a global ethic.

 

1. Commitment to a culture of non-violence and respect for life

2. Commitment to a culture of solidarity and a just economic order

3. Commitment to a culture of tolerance and a life of truthfulness

4. Commitment to a culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women

 

This Declaration was signed at the Parliament of the World's Religions gathering in 1993 by more than 200 leaders from 40+ different faith traditions and spiritual communities. Since 1993 it has been signed by thousands more leaders and individuals around the world. As such, it established a common ground for people of faith to agree and to cooperate for the good of all.

Thoughts?

Mckenna: If you are not a pluralist, I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but when you quoted Diana Eck, it was implied when she said,"...in a pluralist view, ... we honor the same God..." We abandon morality if we do not decide right from wrong.

I don't know if I'm not a pluralist. I think there are a lot of definitions of pluralism floating around this thread so I'm not sure whether I am or not. I believe exactly what I stated above; that I don't think all religions can be factually "right" but that doesn't stop them from providing genuine experiences IMHO.

Our Faith is not from some inexplicable religious experience. We would only be fooling ourselves.

My faith comes from what I deem religious experiences. And I could be fooling myself. I'm okay with that possibility. I understand that you're not and I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking. I'm just trying to explain my POV.

It comes from knowing of and understanding an infinite God who is personal with you. That personal God said, Here is my only begotten Son. Because of His sacrifice, neither you nor any fallen "man" need live in guilt. Salvation is yours, believe it because "I" did it for you. If you deny My Son, you will not be Saved. If you follow Jesus, believe it when He said. "No one comes to the Father except by Me."

Those are your beliefs; I disagree. But this is not the right thread for theological disagreements

We could go on ad infinitum discussing all these particular issues. Unless we can come to grips with fundamental (don't be frightened by that word!), universal truths then discussing the particulars will be endless. Indeed we all have a world view (philosophy) and we must decide what it is and where it came from.

Yes, and I don't believe any single human being can possibly "come to grips" with universal truths. I don't think the whole of an infinite truth can be grasped by a finite mind. Which is exactly why I believe as I do (see the story about the elephant, above).

If given a choice between unreasonble and reasonable answers for these truths, and since everyone here appears reasonable, our choice is obvious, we want reasonable, rationally and logically considered, able to be communicated truths neccesary to answer Mans needs sufficiently and to "...speak with all men, religions, philosophies and sciences about those things... ." SOMA.

Of course we want reasonable answers.

To understand we should know that the three areas of philosophic thought are what they always have been. The area of "Being", the metaphyical neccesity; then of "Man and his dilemma", that is: the moral neccessity. The third area is "epistemology" or, how do we know that we know, our epistemological neccesity.

Biblical Christianity provides the answers to those areas of question...sufficiently.

 

I run a great risk saying this, but here goes; because Biblical Christianity is the only religion which can answer those questions satisfactorily then that does, in fact, make it the superior religion.

I don't know how to "find out why you can so brashly say that" as you commanded me to do below. But needless to say I disagree with you. For one thing I'm not sure any religion really answers the question of epistemology sufficiently (including Christianity). As for meeting the first two criteria I think most religions do a pretty decent job (i.e. Buddhism).

Before you blast away, find out why I can so brashly say that.

Can you say any other religion can reasonably provide answers to the three areas? And how?

Illogical, unreasonable leaps of faith will not be accepted. Points will not be counted off for spelling.

I'm sorry if you thought I was "blasting away" at you. I really wasn't trying to go on a rant or anything, I just needed a lot of space to explain my views.

Though now I'm slightly irritated because I feel you're being condescending. But that's okay, perhaps I came off as condescending earlier, and if so, I apologize.

Anyway, I answered your question above. It's not a sufficient answer but maybe you could first explain how your version of Christianity meets all of those requirements. But we are so far off topic...this should probably be addressed in other threads.

I would argue that the ecumenical world should be dominated not by a discussion of unity, especially theological unity, and the theological goal should be pluralism. This would allow different religious groups to focus effectively on social justice concerns. Such a dynamic seems to have the real potential to bring people together.

Also, tonight I was watching "A" Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and there was an interview with Jim Wallis (I think it was the episode from last night, 1/22). Interestingly, Wallis expressed pretty much the same sentiment: that our focus should not be on everyone else's religious beliefs but on our mutual moral values (and the moral values he was advocating were social justice, environmental concerns, etc.); and that, in terms of our politicians, our concern should not be whether they are religious, but whether they have, as he put it, a "moral compass." Just thought it was interesting/relevant

I would argue that the ecumenical world should be dominated not by a discussion of unity, especially theological unity, and the theological goal should be pluralism. This would allow different religious groups to focus effectively on social justice concerns. Such a dynamic seems to have the real potential to bring people together.

I agree. I think the most practical aim of ecumenism would be to bring people together over social justice. It's a lot less touchy of a subject, it's easier to bring people together on (without anyone feeling they're giving up some of their values), and it is helpful to the community as a whole, which can further advance ecumenical dialogue.

Russ, nice job. Mckenna I was fortunate to attend a Quaker worship and it was very impressive. You go into the silence, but if compelled to speak, sing or remain silent is a spiritual awakening. People spoke some supported in an inspirational way and some disagreed in an inspirational way. The majority chose silence. It all was a part of the silence inside and out. Russ is the way service is usually conducted? I really like this procedure and found it very beneficial.

It does sound nice. Perhaps I'd like it more than I think. After all when I pray I normally lapse into silence fairly quickly, without even meaning to. I'll be talking along and suddenly I'll just stop and pray inwardly instead. Anyway, I'd really love to attend a Quaker worship session sometime.

I recently read a book by a Quaker...it was called a Quaker Book of Wisdom by Robert Lawrence Smith (here it is on Amazon). It was a quick read and a great introduction to the Quaker mindset, which I find appealing.

The challenge to us as People of Faith is not to focus on differences, but to recognize similarities. Faith is not a subject in and of itself to be studied lest we lose sight of the very reason for our Faith. The Light of God Within is the same regardless of what you call yourself or what books you read. We can disagree over words and exchange quotes endlessly, but in the end it must be the Light of God Within that is our motivation in all things and not human constructions, interpretations, words, books, or any other form of second-hand experience with The One. God is within us, all of us, here and now. We need no books, no quotes, no third-party guides or interpretations from experts, no priests, bishops, ministers, hymns, or other such human symbols or representatives to speak to God for us and in our behalf. God is as close to each and every one of us as our own heartbeats and all we have to do is close our eyes, clear away the noise and clutter of our world, and reach out to The Source. God can be experienced by you, by me, by us. It is from that contact, the same contact that Jesus had with God Within, that is truely transformative and can change our lives. This simple Truth needs nothing more than itself.

Beautifully written

You're Quaker, right? I've always thought the Quakers had a beautiful message and a wonderful way of looking at faith. The only problem for me is I don't think I'd be able to handle the silent worship, I'm too restless But I'm very glad it works for you!

I'd just add a simple thought. God is big. Many people try to make Him small so that they aren't so scared. I think they are just trying to figure out how to be safe. Totally understandable.

 

To me, a small, knowable God is much scarier than a big, ineffable God. To me, hard and fast rules conflict with my experience of the complexity and paradoxical nature of people and life. To me, learning about God by any name, is an act of faith. It increases my sense of TRUTH at the heart of it all, and it's so very beautiful.

 

Grace is that God will interact with all of us exactly where we are.

I love the sentiments you expressed here, especially the bolded part. I agree with you there. I flourish in the uncertainty provided by believing in a God too big even for our words, metaphors, images.

That aside, pluralism is still very bothersome. Mckenna responded apparently certain that all religions could be right, but no religion actually makes that claim. And likewise, assuming I understand her comment correctly, the ecumenical conversation door is shut if we insist a personal-infinite God really exists! If we encounter other faiths and do not insist by reasonable argument that a personal-infinite God really exists, we deny the truth, other faiths will not understand us and any ecumenical conversation will be useless. Once we compromise on what Christianity really is, it ceases to be Christianity. I equally despise its misuse! We, as "fallen man", are susceptable to that sort of thing.

 

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion. It eliminates the personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it worships both the natural and spiritual, based on a sense of the experience of all things. It makes no room for the human soul or God. Hinduism has unlimited resources for unlimited gods. Islam flatly denies Jesus as Saviour and Lord. The Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom. The Roman Catholics puts the Church between my soul and the Lord Jesus Christ, denying reading and interpreting the Scripture under the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit, declaring that guidance belongs to the Church! I could go on, but you get my drift.

 

Understand only one religion can be true, or ALL are false, they cannot all be true. That is based on the teaching of each religion. Each of us must must make a personal decision, a reasonable decision, based on what actually is. That is why Biblical Christianity is true. It is the only one sufficient to answer our need because of what truly exists. We shouldn't withhold that truth from anyone.

David...I respect your position but I don't feel like you really understood what I was saying. Where did I claim that all religions are right??

I'm trying to figure out how to explain this. See, to me, asking if a religion is "right" completely misses the point. To me religions are man-made constructs that use images and metaphors to try to explain the unexplainable. If someone asked me, "Do you believe your religion is right?" I would have no clue how to answer the question; I don't even understand the question. I view religion more like poetry than math. If someone says, "Am I right if I say 2 + 2 = 4?" I could say yes; that's a fact; there's no dispute. But if someone asked me, "Is this poem correct?" I'd say "Uhhh. What? What on earth do you mean?"

Yes, certain religious beliefs can be factually "right" or "wrong" if they depend on historical events (which is really only the western religions, as far as I can tell). And I will argue against someone's beliefs if I believe they are harmful. But if the religion provides someone with a genuine experience of the divine - then I just have to accept that that's the way God's reaching them.

I'll give a more concrete example. I have a friend who's Mormon. Now, when it comes to Mormon theology, I am in disagreement with them on pretty much everything. I don't believe virtually any of their accounts of historical happenings; and I believe I'm "right" in that sense, because I have genetic data, for example, on my side against their claim that Native Americans are descended from Israelites (if I'm understanding the idea correctly). I also have argued with this friend several times about their views on homosexuality, which I view as harmful (their views I mean). However, when I think of my friend's relationship with her faith - when I put myself in her shoes - I can't see how it could be wrong. It's so right for her - it connects her so genuinely with God - that it really doesn't matter if certain events are factual. And so I deeply respect her faith, because I know that it feeds her soul.

Likewise, when I look at my own faith from others' perspectives, it's sometimes hard to imagine why I believe what I do. But from my own perspective, my beliefs in God exactly match what I need them to be. I envision God the way I do because it's the best way I've found to connect with Him. I don't believe my theology is actually correct in describing the way God is because I think God is beyond our words and thus there is certainly a large piece of the puzzle that I'm missing.

It's like the story of the blind men all touching different parts of the elephant. The guy who touched the tail described the elephant as a whole very differently from the guys touching the elephant's legs, stomach, trunk, or tusks. We all have our own ways of viewing God and I don't believe any of us have the full picture. I think some of us have come close, and those are the people who are hailed as Spirit People as Marcus Borg calls them. I believe Jesus to be someone who was very intimate with God and saw a lot of truth, and I follow Jesus for that reason and also because my ancestors have been Christian for a long time and Christianity permeates my culture. For me Jesus is the fullest revelation of God but that doesn't mean, in my view, that God can only be known through him. Yes I know you'll disagree with me and throw Bible verses at me but I don't care; we have our separate faiths and like I've tried to stress I'm okay with that and I think God is too. I'm sure you believe in God the way that's the most conducive to a spiritual experience for you, and I am so, so glad for you for that.

Okay so that was pretty long...but I really wanted to make myself clear. I feel like Progressives run up this accusation all the time, that we're just saying "everyone's right," and I just wanted to clarify. I believe the sentiments I have expressed here are what is being said in the TCPC's Point 2: "By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we are Christians who recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God's realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us."

Not the same thing as saying everyone's "right," whatever that means.

One more quick thing - I said you'd "shut the door on ecumenical conversation" as a reaction to your statement "There is no other answer." I don't see how you can argue with that. Saying everyone else is wrong does sort of make ecumenical conversation difficult.

God bless.

1. How does language “an approach to God” fit your spiritual needs?

 

To me, it implies a personalness (is that a word?). It tells me that we all come to God in a unique way, not by a formula.

 

2. What language would you have used for you own spiritual journey?

 

Probably the word "enlightenment", although I don't consider myself a mystic. I don't think that I really came to God or that he came to me. He's always been there. I just think I had my eyes opened to him.

 

3. Do you feel as the life and teachings of Jesus have brought you closer to an experience of God? How so?

 

They bring me closer to experiencing God because Jesus accepted people just like me, warts and all. And he stressed that God's kingdom was already within us if we would seek for it. I try to follow his two greatest commands. And doing so often brings me love in return.

 

4. How does the absence of salvation language help or detract from your spiritual path?

 

Things can go so stereotyped, especially the word "salvation." It had a broad meaning in the Old Testament, everything from deliverance to healing to wholeness to restoration to nuturing. But in the culture that I am often involved it, salvation is narrowly defined as being taken out of the going-to-hell line and put in the going-to-heaven line.

 

I'm beginning to see that my salvation is not a one-time process. My deliverance, healing, wholeness, restoration, and nuturing is an ongoing, everyday process. I don't deny the value of the destination, but I am finding the journey just as rewarding.

 

5. How does the Jesus of history or his teachings affect your understanding of God?

 

They show me that God is foremost a father, a father who waits for us and runs to us to embrace us and kiss us upon our return. A father who is not angry that we left home. A father who is so glad for our return that life becomes a celebration of relationship.

 

6. How might our understanding of who and what we are, as human beings, change if we remove the need for the sacrifice of Jesus as the Pascal Lamb, our redeemer?

 

We might get beyond the notion that Jesus had to "fix" some type of inner character war in God. We might get past the pagan notion that the gods do demand human sacrifice and blood. We might begin to believe that God loves us and accepts us just as we are without having to torture his son for our sakes. We might actually begin to believe that God is, and always has been, a God of love.

 

7. What is the difference between savior, hero, master, teacher, or prophet for you?

 

I think the differences a quite self-evident. Jesus is portrayed as all of these (and more) in the New Testament. I find that I don't have to choose one and only one definition. But he transcends them all for me and becomes the face of God. That brings me comfort and invites me to come closer.

 

wayfarer

Lovely writings. I agree!

When it comes to religions, they may all be wrong, but only one can be right. They can't all be right (Pluralism). Only one philosophy, one religion, fills the need in all of the world's thought, whether East, West, new, old, ancient, or modern. Only one fills the philosophical need of existence, of being and it's the Judeo-Christian God, personal and infinite.

I think a lot of people would disagree with you on that one. Namely the people who have been hurt by the Christian religion and the people who have had deep, meaningful relationships with the Divine through their own faiths. Or people like me who feel fulfilled by following Christ but understand that Christianity is not for everyone; that my way of connecting with God is different from others'; and that that's okay.

Because He is really there, He really exists. There is no other answer.

Well that kind of shuts the door on ecumenical conversation.

A believer is liberated by the Spirit of God and has inner peace, as well as peace with God.

I'm glad you're so fulfilled by your religion (honestly, not trying to mock)

My Buddhist, Muslim, UU, Mormon, Catholic, and Methodist friends are too

That's why I agree with David and Soma:

It only hurts ourselves to make God into a rigid plastic statue that glows in the dark only for the sake of saying we know the boundaries of God when God is infinite.

Again Diana Eck is on point and makes a distinction between the exclusivist, the inclusivist and the pluralist:

 

“In the moments of quiet…I enter into my church…and pray. Ranjini, my Hindu friend, goes to the temple in prayer in front of the large granite image of Vishnu. Are these two acts of worship structurally or experientially the same, but theologically different?...There are at least three possibilities. Perhaps only one of us worships the “true” god, as the exclusivist would say. Perhaps only one of us sees God fully and the other but partially and dimly, which is an inclusivist position. Or, in a pluralist view, perhaps we honor the same God, whom Christians and Hindus know by different names, experience in different ways, and see from different perspectives and angles….God transcends our complete comprehension…this would leave room for the self understanding of both…and would be a pluralist view.”

I'll close with a couple of quotes:

"God has no religion." -Mahatma Gandhi

and my personal favorite: "God is like a mirror. The mirror never changes, but everybody who looks at it sees something different." -Rabbi Harold Kushner

As Jones mentions elsewhere in his writings, religion flows from the inside out and not from the outside in.

That's an interesting concept and, I think, a very true one. At least, that's how it ought to be. When religion becomes a way of life, rather than just a "Sunday" thing, it becomes something that dwells within us, rather than something that is imposed on us from the outside.

It's also interesting to note that the vast majority, if not all, of the criticisms of religion that I have heard tend to attack only the latter sort of "religion" - the one that flows from the outside in, which can thus be criticized as a kind of "brainwashing." Spirituality that comes from the heart can not be criticized as such, unless the argument is made that one is brainwashing oneself. Even if that's the case, I'd prefer to brainwash myself than have someone else do it for me, thank you very much

Anyway, ramble ramble, I liked what you said!

Thought I'd resurrect this thread because I've been looking for progressive Christian devotionals lately Anyone know of any good ones that haven't yet been mentioned on this thread?

Well, the reality of life is we can only control certain things. One of my favorite sayings is "Life is what happens when you are making plans."

Sounds like you and soma are pretty much making the same point, so I guess I must be misinterpreting the saying, "Not my will, but Yours."

I guess, in that context, it sounds to me like Jesus is saying that his death is God's will, and so that's what's going to happen. It sounds like an appeal to, but recognition of, God's omnipotence and the possibility of divine intervention (or the lack thereof). Does that make any sense? Now, I personally reject this idea, for the reason you stated in the quote below - sh** happens, that doesn't mean it's God's will. (I personally don't believe in divine intervention.)

But maybe you both are correct in interpreting those words in a different way. Maybe we should look at the passage to see the context in which Jesus uses the words? Anyone know the verses?

Regardless, I now see what the OP was saying in stating the power of those words. Allowing God's Will to run your life instead of your own...that's what it means to dedicate our lives to God, I suppose

Conservatives blame everything on God. A friend of mine from college lost a younger sibling in a car accident when he was 14 (the sibling was 12) somehow this was God's will, from a conservative point of view. A more progressive or liberal person would acknowledge that sh** happens. It is horrible that his sibling died but it certainly wasn't God's will. It is what happens when a vehicle runs off the road and hits a tree and someone flies through the windshield.

"not my will, but yours" seems more of an acknowledgement of having limited control over one's own life.

But how does that view differ from a conservative's? I've never heard of a conservative who rejects the idea that God is omnipotent and to some degree controls what happens.

One reason I am a liberal Christian is that I think the Bible was written by men, not God. If the Spirit could get writers to quote Jesus perfectly 50 years after His death, I'm sure that would still happen today. Instead this resource is less than perfect.

 

Still it must capture something of Jesus. Do I have to know which is the historical Jesus and which is the legendary Jesus? I hope not, because all I really know is what parts of the story of Jesus affected me most. Why should He be a way to God, whether it's a real person or a character in a book who shows me that way?

 

I suspect the most important image of Jesus for me is the way He prayed the night before His crucifixion. The synoptic gospels vary a little in describing this, but the key phrase for me is, "Not my will, but Yours". Did Jesus really say that? Was He just a man who didn't know what the gospels say He did at that point? I used to wonder about that. I find that I don't now.

 

When I started praying again in my thirties, I didn't follow this example. I didn't trust God that much then. I just wanted help. So I went to God as a last resort. That went well enough that I learned to go to God as a first resort about certain things.

 

I don't remember how long it took me to pray, "Not my will, but Yours". I'm sure different people see that differently. Besides the ridicule atheists would give me for that, I remember a conservative who claimed I only prayed that so I could say everything I did is God's will. No, I mean what I pray. I believe in the power of prayer in ways that that conservative apparently doesn't. My experience has borne that out for me.

 

Jesus taught me that. I don't believe everything the gospels has Him saying, but this one reached me and works for me. I guess that's one of the complexities in following Jesus. Who is the Jesus who leads to God as opposed to one who doesn't? Still He's been a way to God for me.

Hey David!

I realize this is a pretty old thread, but I was looking through some old ones and came across it. I like what you've written here a lot. I was wondering if you could expand a bit on some of the ideas you presented, though. You said, "I believe in the power of prayer in ways that that conservative apparently doesn't." What do you mean by this? How do you view the "power of prayer"? What are the implications of the words "Not my will, but Yours," in your view?

I realize these are personal questions, and I don't mean to pry, so don't answer them if they make you uncomfortable! I just thought this post was interesting and was hoping I could get you to explain it a bit more

Very wise. The only caveat I would put on Point 6 is this: I am absolutely certain that I am loved by a personal, loving, passionate God. I have no doubt about any of that. What that means in all the chaos of my life and world I'm learning little by little.

 

The above quote from the scholars explains why so many people don't worship a living God, but a straw man, a limited God, a set of characteristics or rules or ideas which can be easily manipulated and controlled. We cannot control God. To the extent that we think we can, what we are controlling can't be God.

 

But the history of religion is of the offer of freedom and love being turned into Law, Rules, Philosophy, Ideology, you name it. We are more comfortable with those things. They fit our expectations, rest easily in our little boxes and don't challenge our categories. But the real Yahweh . . .!

 

"The Spirit blows whither S/He will . . . "

 

And who was it in the Bible who said "It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Living God!"?

Love your ideas. I'm trapped somewhere in between the "set of rules" God and the Living God. I'm still grappling. Where did you get such certainty for your caveat?

Huston Smith's "The Worlds Religions" is very good. It covers the major traditions. He is very readable and an expert.

This is what I was thinking of suggesting I am currently enrolled in a world religions class and this book has been our primary "textbook" for Hinduism and Buddhism, and we also used it a bit for primal religions. All that we've read so far has been very interesting and well-written. I also have read a little of the section on Christianity and enjoyed that as well.

I would also recommend Philip Novak's The World's Wisdom: Sacred Texts from the World's Religions which has also been mentioned