tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post114913348747411658..comments2023-09-19T07:50:13.308-07:00Comments on Feminary: Toward a Christian Theology of Interfaith CooperationStasihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10864458542635159512noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1152911474039410532006-07-14T14:11:00.000-07:002006-07-14T14:11:00.000-07:00Gavin,Since I would deny that I hold any of the th...Gavin,<BR/><BR/>Since I would deny that I hold <I>any</I> of the three assumptions you attribute to me, I am tempted to think of you as a poor exegete. So I certainly have good grounds to doubt your interpretation of Scripture. But I looked carefully at your statement of what the Gospel is not, and I agreed. I was surprised, and moved on to what you think the Gospel is, and I didn't see much to complain about there, either. <BR/><BR/>But then your conclusion is that what you think is the Gospel is "very specific and exclusive". And that's a leap, an unsupported leap, at odds with the Jesus I see presented throughout the Gospels.<BR/><BR/>My statement is that we, finite human beings, can have no more than an inkling of what it means when Jesus said "no one will come... but by me." I argue that anyone who is confident that they know what Jesus will do with those who have not "prayed the sinner's prayer" or "confessed with their mouth and believed in their hearts that Jesus Christ is Lord" is claiming to know something which is entirely within Divine perogative, and about which it is not appropriate for us to make strong claims. What we DO know (and we DO know things) is that God was in Christ reconciling the whole world, and no one will face some OTHER god. No one will face a god who IS willing that some should perish.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps Jesus will sit with those who have died, and who were turned away from Jesus by zealous and arrogant interpreters. Perhaps Jesus will chat with them and present the Gospel as Jesus understands it, rather than as many fundamentalists understand it, and after sitting with Jesus, those "will come," when in life they ran (as I would have, had it been presented to me in the fundamentalist way).<BR/><BR/>I take it as axiomatic that everything I think about Christianity will undergo a radical change when I pass from this life to the next. I'd be stunned to discover that on that day, when I know as I am currently known, it'll pretty much be exactly as I thought. I'm sure it won't <B>all</B> vanish, but I'm willing to grant that it'll be at least as major a shift as the jump from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. Things that seem to me to be incompatible now will be put in a new context that explains all. Jesus had a history of not being understood until much later, and I'm thankful that a gracious God does not seem to demand assent to a multiple choice doctrine, but rather interacts with an essay-question faith (my favorite notion from <I>The Wittenberg Door</I>).<BR/><BR/>God bless you, Gavin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1149553382754126342006-06-05T17:23:00.000-07:002006-06-05T17:23:00.000-07:00I wasn't saying I thought it was sacred, that's si...I wasn't saying I thought it was sacred, that's simply the name of the activity: Sacred Pagan Circle. I should have capitalized it, maybe, so that it was obviously a name not an adjective. Of course I don't think it's sacred, and I didn't get into it in this paper, but I actually didn't like standing in it and told my supervisor later that we should have been able to abstain. That was the one and only experience I had where I felt I was very much at odds with the religion which I was exposed to. But I still got along great with the leader of the Pagan group - she's a really smart, awesome student!<BR/><BR/>I've never heard Eck speak or read her writing on Evangelicals. Fortunately, I'm not "using" her to convince people - I have my own relationships both with Evangelicals and with the interfaith context, and I'm trying to bridge the two with what I hope is a lack of vitriol. I just found some of Eck's writing helpful for clarifying my own thought process. But point noted - it's never wise to cite a source that will immediately turn off your audience (I guess I assumed that, like me before now, most Ev's would never have heard of her).Stasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10864458542635159512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1149528360680533292006-06-05T10:26:00.000-07:002006-06-05T10:26:00.000-07:00"Sacred Pagan circle?"You are standing against the..."Sacred Pagan circle?"<BR/><BR/>You are standing against the whole of Christian tradition by deeming pagan practice "sacred." That's cool and all, just making sure you know that.<BR/><BR/>And just a hint, don't use Diana Eck (a woman who has nothing but vitriol for evangelicals) to convince evangelicals of anything!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1149520964232788692006-06-05T08:22:00.000-07:002006-06-05T08:22:00.000-07:00That's a wonderful comment. I learned something ab...That's a wonderful comment. I learned something about Hinduism! Very interesting. I will talk to my Hindu friends to see what their take is on that (although they are probably more "liberal" since they're college students - I really can't fathom any of them saying what that woman said - she probably also is in favor of the caste system, which many of the younger people have roundly rejected as a part of their faith that needs to go away. And we do that with Christianity all the time - slavery, ordaining women - so we can't judge them for wanting to improve their tradition).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I went to InterSem too, but I went this year. We didn't have any guest speakers like that - too bad. Ours was strictly Christian/Jewish, which felt hardly interfaith to me. :) You can look back to my post about it if you like, it's a few months ago.<BR/><BR/>The final thing I want to say is that I think we have to draw a sharp line when we're talking here that we are not talking about salvation because that is entirely God's business. We cannot fathom the intricacies of a life that lead the Almighty to call someone God's friend. So I think we're best off not trying to make any pronouncements ever about salvation or not. Or at least about the afterlife. I think what the anonymous poster said is right on (if a little LDS - but that's okay, I like LDS thinking on this one point - the idea of spiritual growth after death).<BR/><BR/>Is it possible for us to begin thinking about "salvation" not as what happens after you die but rather you are "saved" when you are living the life God wants? When you have joined the cosmic story of God's work in the world? When you are flourishing as a human being (not by any human standards, mind you) because you have everything you want because you only want what God wants...to me, that is salvation. That is life, and life abundantly. And I've actually had people I love tell me that the only thing that matters is heaven, is after you die, and I just don't buy it, because Jesus touched and healed and taught so many people while he was here on earth and his message was always immediate - the Kingdom of Heaven is AT HAND. Not coming. Here.<BR/><BR/>Oops, I started preaching there. Well the point is that if we can have a discussion apart from the issue of salvation, I think it can be more fruitful. Then we can start exploring truth claims and perhaps even agree that competing truth claims are impossible to rectify. That's what J's been trying to get me to admit for several days, anyway. But in order to talk objectively about the various claims of the various religions, you have to completely put aside the question of salvation (which I know is the central and only question for many people) and just look at what we say that is alike and what is different, how we understand God the same and different, how my revelation from God adds to yours and vice versa. Then we could make some progress.<BR/><BR/>Okay, I have to go write a sermon now!!!Stasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10864458542635159512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1149490130238497002006-06-04T23:48:00.000-07:002006-06-04T23:48:00.000-07:00Point one: I love the post. Love it, love it. I'm ...Point one: I love the post. Love it, love it. I'm quite happy with the label "evangelical" though I'm constantly told by others that I shouldn't be using it of myself. They can take a hike. Evangelicals should love interfaith and inter-religious dialogue.<BR/><BR/>Point two: "all religions see something wrong with the world and want it to be better." This isn't quite true. The fine folks at NCCJ sponsor Intersem, where Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish seminary students meet for a 24-hour retreat. At one of those retreats, inter-religious folks came and gave talks about furthering our interfaith dialog. One of those was a Hindu woman who worked at a shelter for battered women. She talked a bit about how Hindu theology does NOT see something wrong with this world, because nothing happens that is not in complete accord with divine will. The world is exactly as the Divine intends it to be.<BR/><BR/>It took a while to sink in for me, so let me repeat: a Hindu woman, working with battered women, believes that nothing happens unless the Divine wants it to happen. Divine sovereignty is absolute; beatings in this life are ultimately due to bad behavior in previous lives, and as such exactly conform to the will of the Divine. They will move the women to higher places in future lives. Our speaker was asked why she was working with battered women whom the Divine wanted beaten, and she said that it is always appropriate to intervene between bad behavior of past lives and consequences in this life, because it is possible for someone to learn <I>without</I> the consequences. The discussion continued. At the large-group debrief, one of the Jewish students said "I used to think Jews and Christians talking about Jesus was hard, but we've entered a whole new level here."<BR/><BR/>Point three: When Jesus says "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes... except by me", we cannot know what that means. It's not a case of God misleading anyone; Middle-Wing's concern. We might have a guess, but we cannot know (There are other examples of this: Paul says "spiritual body" and we might have an inkling, but no one knows. We see now through a glass darkly, but then...). And not only don't we know what Jesus means, it is not for us to speak as if we do know what Jesus will do with those who did not come "by him." All we can do is speculate, guess, and be a bit more tentative in our pronouncements of divine judgment upon those who don't come "by him" the way we think they should have. What the Godhead will do with those people is the Godhead's own business; we can't know, and it is hubris to say that we do. But it's not that we know nothing. What we DO know, the unassailable Christian teaching is that they will face no different, suddenly ungracious or malevolent god. Christians believe that they will face Jesus. And if we actually believe Jesus is the incarnation of the graciousness of the first person of the Trinity, we seem on firmer ground to speculate that Jesus will be gracious to them than to insiste that Jesus is gonna be pissed. Jesus told the parable of the workers, and those that came late in the day got the same as those who had worked all day. Since death has no power over Jesus, it could well be that everyone will face Jesus after their deaths (that is, as late in the day as you can get), and will have a conversation much like the one C.S. Lewis described in The Last Battle, where those who worshipped the false god Tash are quite easily embraced by Aslan. I think that this won't sit well with Middle-Wing, but it'll definitely frustrate Gavin to no end. He'll be praying for me too. I hope so, anyway. <BR/><BR/>So I'm with the Feminarian that when a Buddhist says "I surrender all" it makes God happy. But it sure doesn't make Gavin happy. And the god who has to be behind the system as Gavin seems to understand it doesn't sound much like Jesus to me. In the meantime, I hear the Christian scriptures calling me to give an account for the hope that is in me, not to give an account of where people who believe differently than I do are destined to be sent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1149263312288695242006-06-02T08:48:00.000-07:002006-06-02T08:48:00.000-07:00It's less that I listened to the other writers fir...It's less that I listened to the other writers first and more that I listened to my life...to the prompting of the Spirit (maybe?) as I became close with people from other faiths. Then I found writers who helped me make sense of what was feeling true but didn't work with my old paradigm. Nobody could have convinced me with an argument, just like I don't believe you can make truly deep disciples of Jesus simply with apologetics. There was something else going on. I tried to express that in the piece but I seem to have not done a good job. I didn't want it to turn into a pluralism debate, although of course I can see where it looks like that. But it's really much much more about how can we learn to dialogue and respect those of other faiths, whether we are exclusivist, inclusivist, or pluralist. I lean towards the latter these days, but I was formerly the middle (as is J). The latter came through in the paper, but I fluctuate - some days I feel like the other faiths are seeing some aspect of God but definitely missing the main point; other days I feel like it's not fair for me to judge how much God has revealed Godself to others and where God stands on how well they are doing with God. I go back and forth a lot these days. Since I'm reading Eck, I'm leaning toward pluralism. When I'm back in full seminary classes, I'll probably lean back towards inclusivism.<BR/><BR/>But yes, do pray for me. All us seminary students need a lot of prayer. Seminary does a number on your faith. It really puts you through the ringer. Some days you feel like the ultimate hypocrite and just want to give up. How in the world can I preach to people when I have no idea what I even believe? But other days I think maybe that's why people will appreciate my ministry, because I'm never going to pretend that this stuff is easy to figure out nor that it's easy to follow Christ.Stasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10864458542635159512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1149210358251961502006-06-01T18:05:00.000-07:002006-06-01T18:05:00.000-07:00But what do you ask for? Or ask about? I'm just ...But what do you ask for? Or ask about? I'm just wondering if a Buddhist could say I relinquish all control of my life and all desires, all attempts to control my world and please any power, and I surrender myself to the ultimate reality.<BR/><BR/>Would that then be enough for God to adopt the person as God's child?<BR/><BR/>Because I could kind of see a Buddhist saying something similar to that. And my only thing is that I kind of wonder if that wouldn't make God kind of happy to hear.Stasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10864458542635159512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1149205365080109072006-06-01T16:42:00.000-07:002006-06-01T16:42:00.000-07:00Oh, and that one sentence originally said "all tha...Oh, and that one sentence originally said "all that matters is what God did on the cross," but I changed it because I wanted it to be more inclusive. Also because I'm not exactly sure whether it's the cross or the incarnation or creation or the resurrection...I still have to take soteriology. :)Stasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10864458542635159512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1149205117240496842006-06-01T16:38:00.000-07:002006-06-01T16:38:00.000-07:00Oh, wow, I just saw the other posts too. Okay. L...Oh, wow, I just saw the other posts too. Okay. Let me try to respond.<BR/><BR/>Middle-Wing, you bring up great points. Thank you for adding to this discussion. I want others to join in so I'm just going to let your thoughts sit and be pondered. <BR/><BR/>OK, I'll say one thing, which is that I've been struggling for a while with the whole idea of "accepting" God's gift...I mean, at what point does that become a "work" (not by works but by faith, right)? I don't know. Honestly. What's the difference between works and faith? Is there one? Can faith become a work? I'm really unsure about that whole thing. I do trust God to decide about the salvation thing. Hopefully some of this will be cleared up for me when I start taking systematics. I think if anything, we do accept God's story by our baptism. But is baptism salvation? Who knows?<BR/><BR/>Gavin, you're hitting on exactly what I've been turning over all year. I've finally decided that I don't think Jesus was saying I am THE way, the truth, and the life (as in the ONLY) but was pastorally responding to his disciple's question: Show us the way to the Father. Jesus says, "<I>I</I> am the way...no one comes to the Father but by me." In other words, hey, dude, you've been with me all along and you're doing the right thing! You don't need to worry about finding some way to the Father because I'm standing right here! <B>I</B> am the way. Not I am <I>the</I> way. <BR/><BR/>It's so hard to explain this without vocal inflection. :)<BR/>I'm not doing a good job of it. But Diana Eck does a great job on pages 93-97 of <I>Encountering God</I>. Please read her and don't go by my faulty ramblings.<BR/><BR/>Thank you all for a spirited and deeply theological conversation. I had hoped for such a response.Stasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10864458542635159512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1149204299779977082006-06-01T16:24:00.000-07:002006-06-01T16:24:00.000-07:00Hmmmm...I'm not sure how to respond to that exactl...Hmmmm...I'm not sure how to respond to that exactly. I sense a little hostility and I'm not sure why you'd be angry with me. But I'll start by telling you the parameters of the assignment and perhaps that will help you understand what I was going for.<BR/><BR/>I am studying at an Evangelical seminary and come from an Evangelical background. While I now don't consider myself Evangelical, the majority of my Christian friends are. Definitely the people teaching me at seminary are. I feel I have a very strong understanding of Evangelicals and when I call them to think about something, I don't feel that I am "finger-pointing" (as you put it), but rather attempting to provide prophetic witness - to my own "tribe". <BR/><BR/>This year I did my seminary internship with an interfaith group at USC. I worked with undergrads all year. This assignment was for me to write some suggestions for ways of helping our more conservative Evangelical students (at USC, that is - the ones with whom I've made relationships over the past 9 months) know how to approach an interfaith context. Many of those students simply have no paradigm for joining such a context. They have not been taught how to understand the Other beyond evangelizing. Because interfaith work usually precludes proselytizing, I wanted to offer some suggestions of safe and comfortable ways that Evangelicals (such as myself once) may be able to begin approaching some of the ideas in the article. So yes, it is written to Evangelicals, but it is entirely meant to be helpful and suggestive, not in any way condescending or demanding. I surely hope it doesn't sound that way!!<BR/><BR/>The audience may one day be Fuller people (my supervisor suggested I work it into a presentation for them), but when writing it I specifically had in mind 18-21 year old undergrads involved in such evangelism-heavy ministries as Campus Crusade and InterVarsity. Those are the students who have trouble joining an interfaith conversation, so I wanted to suggest some next steps for incorporation. Of course they are welcome to ignore me. Interfaith work isn't for everyone. But if someone is curious about it (and many, many students in that age range today are very curious about other world faiths), I wanted to provide an entryway.<BR/><BR/>In all truth, the real audience of this piece is me, my supervisor, and the field ed office at Fuller. And also you nice folks here who read the blog. There's not much future for the piece. I just mainly wanted to organize my reflections from the year. And I chose to share it with the blogverse because I hoped it could be helpful to others. It is primarily my story. But I always find myself in others' stories, so I thought this might do the same for someone else.<BR/><BR/>Does this make sense? In no way was I trying to rag on Evangelicals. I've just learned about some of the things that are difficult for them and wanted to offer a perspective on approaching the sometimes-scary world of interfaith work. This comes completely out of personal contact with actual people to whom I was talking. It is not just thrown at all Ev's everywhere. And again, my Ev friends know that I love them and that if I make suggestions for them, I'm not pointing my finger, I'm just suggesting things I think may help them because I'm like them, at least in some ways.<BR/><BR/>I do have to correct you on one point - I am not angry with Evangelicals. I love my Evangelical sisters and brothers very deeply. There are places where they make some mistakes, and there are places where mainliners do as well. We learn from each other. Evangelicals are my people right now - the people with whom I am learning, my Christian community, the people I call to accountability and they call me to it as well. Believe it or not, they love the challenges I present to them. And it goes both ways. Being at Fuller puts me smack in the middle of Evangelical Intellectualism - smart people who are truly openminded and devoted to God. I can relate to them quite readily on all of those points.Stasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10864458542635159512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1149200395170645032006-06-01T15:19:00.000-07:002006-06-01T15:19:00.000-07:00Long time interested reader here...It's all very i...Long time interested reader here...<BR/><BR/>It's all very interesting and reflective of your own experience up until you suggest what Evangelicals should do - are you addressing a Fuller audience with this article? Because you yourself are admittedly not Evangelical, so mentioning them and then giving advice as to how they should go about relating with other faiths just sounds petty to me. <BR/><BR/>I know you've come out of an Evangelical background, so have lots of anger towards them, but it really does no good to finger-point and lecture at them at what they *should* do. Finger point at your own tribe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1149187591830842012006-06-01T11:46:00.000-07:002006-06-01T11:46:00.000-07:00The gift of grace, which depends on the historical...<I>The gift of grace, which depends on the historical fact of the crucifixion, cannot be deduced (because it was really an illogical thing for God to do, frankly) and is therefore missing from all religions. These other religions of the world are good at their basis, but incomplete.</I><BR/><BR/>The question is, does the gift of grace even depend upon our understanding/accepting/knowing about it? Or is a truly free gift that is given to all, regardless of whether we realize it's given or not?<BR/><BR/>If it is the latter, then practicioners of other religions, even though they may not include the gift in their story, are still covered by God's grace. And really, how many Christians truly incorporate the gift of grace into their faith? How many of us actually get it? Is it even possible to get it?<BR/><BR/>I just think it's interesting to make the leap that because another tradition doesn't include part of our story in their narrative, then that means that part of the story is not efficacious for them. If the death of Jesus really did what we claim it did, then it doesn't matter what we think about it or even IF we think about it. The only thing that matters is what God did.<BR/><BR/>And those of us who know the story are blessed, and those who seek truth through other religions and find God (though maybe not that particular part of the story) are also blessed. Because in the end, all we humans can do is seek God. Maybe God won't respond until we have our story straight, but I don't think that's what God is like.<BR/><BR/>Our religion having the right story is not what saves us. The only thing that matters is what God did, not what we think about it. In the end, none of us knows the entirety of God, of what God has done in the world. We can only tell our part of the story and join the cosmic tale on whatever level we're able to. <BR/><BR/>It's a different way of thinking about it, anyway. It's radically inclusive, I know. But it also takes God's grace radically seriously.Stasihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10864458542635159512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8428685.post-1149163752210019132006-06-01T05:09:00.000-07:002006-06-01T05:09:00.000-07:00This is fantastic!! I have just sent the link to t...This is fantastic!! I have just sent the link to the ten men who completed the extended unit of CPE with me this year -- I think this will resonate for all of them, too.<BR/><BR/>Much of what you say here rang a bell for me, and reminded me very much of what my teacher, Reb Zalman, has written about the need to move beyond triumphalism (e.g. the notion that we're the only ones who have it "right") into what he calls "deep ecumenism," a mode of being in the world that presupposes deep and meaningful interfaith interactions.<BR/><BR/>Thank you so much for posting this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com