-4-
(Our
Perspective Needs To Widen)
We
have touched upon the concept that the theologies, and religious faiths based upon
them, were directly related to the knowledge and way of life of the particular
people they served. As the world merges into a larger and larger family; that
is, as we begin to share in a greater knowledge, not only of the world around
us but of each other, the theology must strive to be much more encompassing. In
the realities of this world we live in, the compositions, aims and goals of our
societies are much more diverse than in any previous era. Today's world is no
longer simple communities of farmers or hunters who are self-dependent, but
rather, an interdependent world community dealing with a diversity of cultures,
societies, and philosophical ideals. If theology is to be responsible, it can
no longer ignore the religious beliefs of those who disagree with its
doctrines; it can no longer exclude people by contending that they are pagans,
heretics, or satanic because of their beliefs.
The reality of our world
telIs us that every religious ideal has its saints
who are a credit to its existence and its demons who could disgrace their
founders. The Christian
church can lay no greater claim to holy people than the Buddhist, nor are there
any greater numbers of saintly Muslims than there might be Hindus. Responsible theology has to recognize that God in Her
wisdom could have provided more than one way to attain personal salvation
whatever one's definition of salvation is. We must admit that for God to
have done otherwise would be a gross injustice by the very Deity who is often
proclaimed most just. What rationalization can be used to justify that God
would pick a chosen people where birth into a particular race would give one an
unfair advantage? What kind of a God would offer His salvation only to those
whom can accept Christ as God when there are religions and cultures that
consider it blasphemous to declare any man God? Doesn't this give a very unfair
edge to the people born into Christian families over Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim,
Jew, or any other religion?
And what religion which exists is so
perfected, that it stands out so much above every other, that it can proclaim
it holds God's truths above all the others? One might a reasonable argue that
if God had a particular faith which represented Her truth it would offer some
mark of distinction that would make it stand apart from others. One cannot cite
miracles, for all types of religious faiths have miracles they can report. You
cannot cite numbers, for there are large numbers to many religious faiths. You
cannot cite the resurrection, for there have been numerous resurrection
accounts of religions now extinct. If God's ways were not diverse, if there was
only one truth and one way; would it not make sense that the true religion
might stand out from the rest?
While some may argue that their particular
faith does stand out over others, we must keep in mind that such claims are
subjective. It would seem that if we were talking about a religion endorsed by
God, that which makes it stand out would be more objective; in other words,
even those who are not believers might be able to observe the a Divine
fingerprint of sorts. What would seem to make more sense from a theological
perspective is that God's relationship and messages to humankind are diverse,
presented in a manner which most greatly effects the
people that it serves. Given the expansion of cultural contact and the
inter-relations among peoples, it would seem that the best way for theologians
to approach God's inspiration today would be to study the religious scriptures
and beliefs of a wide variety, looking for the common messages that link them.
Of course you cannot look to these
scriptures literally, for they in fact would contradict each other. But if we
approach God's message in symbol and metaphor, with the knowledge and
understanding that we have of each other and the world today - we would have
the necessary tools to look beyond our own narrow perspectives and truly find
the inspiration of the Almighty. This is not to say the Buddhist, or the
Christian, or the Muslim, or the Jew, or any other; do not have all the
messages necessary to carry out a satisfactory relationship with God. We
ourselves will present this theology from a Christian approach (Christian as in
the teachings of Jesus more than the traditional Pauline Christianity which
society is most familiar with).
What we are trying to impress upon you, is
that it is time for responsible theology to stop allowing itself
to be used to justify one person being better in the eyes of God than another.
We have advanced so much as peoples, yet religiously we remain children,
declaring ourselves as the only one's saved - or, declaring ourselves the
equivalent of God's chosen. We have no right: not based upon scripture, not
based on logic, not based upon theology - to say, any person who does not
believe as I do is not saved. Any reading of scripture, any logic, any theology
which makes such an assertion is deeply flawed and can be charged with the
equivalent of a spiritual holocaust - for according to them, those who differ
in their faith will be condemned to spiritual death for all eternity. Any
person, or group of persons, who set themselves up as determining the immortal
state of another's soul is claiming equality to God. No matter what any
scripture says (all of which were written by men), such conclusions must be in
error.
In our own society we can see the danger
of this single way to salvation doctrine. Once a group puts itself in the
position of saying: "By our faith alone we are saved", it is
saying all those who do not share the belief are condemned. But it usually goes
beyond this, and these people begin to proclaim their morality, their politics,
and their personal beliefs as the only ones acceptable to God, which implies,
that anyone who opposes them is of the devil. Once someone is of the devil, out
of God's grace, they are considered to be lesser human beings in the eyes of so
many of the faithful.
These ideas psychologically influence us
often leading to oppression, hatred and bigotry. To give you just a few
examples: such thinking might lead to political ideals, which state: poor
people are poor because they are lazy and do not want to work (of the devil in
some way). One-truth doctrines can oppress a group such as homosexuals, banning
them from various aspects of the society, and this is justified because they
are not saved (of the devil in some way). Theology that allows the
rationalization of this "one faith concept" is not only irresponsible
but also downright dangerous.
Another reason why the responsible
theologian needs to avoid supporting this type of "single truth"
doctrine is because it motivates people to come to God for the wrong reason.
Granted, offering God's only plan
of salvation is a powerful drawing card for a faith based upon such theology.
It fact it is clear, from a sociological standpoint, why it is so often used by
churches. What better inducement can one offer than to proclaim they alone have
God's truth and they alone can lead us to Her eternal
reward? But one has to wonder about the reality of any salvation for people who
cling to God because He is going to give them immortality in paradise. That
would seem to be pursuing God for a somewhat very selfish reason, limiting the
potential of a fuller spiritual experience based on love alone.
It is time for responsible theology to
remove itself from the tunnel vision it so often enjoys. We can and should
explore our own spiritual perspective, expressing our ideals about such, but
never at the exclusion or condemnation of another's faith. We have a right and
a responsibility to proclaim what we believe. We can argue it and defend it. We
can even state in faith that our way will save us. But, we do not have the right to proclaim that to think or
believe differently from us places one in jeopardy with Almighty God. Such
assertions are the most dangerous kind of bigotry in humankind. Such assertions
can lead to massacres such as those of the Native American peoples, or the
slaughter of Muslims in the crusades.
There has never been any official endorsement
by God on any religious faith; in fact, from our reality, God has never even
endorsed Her own existence - unless one sees creation
itself as a proof of God's existence. There is also an advantage to taking into
consideration the beliefs of other faiths in widening our approach to theology.
Incorporating such might help us to see more clearly the inspiration of God
within our own scriptures. Such may help us rectify misinterpretations or
misunderstandings of our own scriptures, helping us to avoid literal
interpretations of scripture
There have been many wise men, which have
studied religions and cultures of a wide variety. One thing, which stands out
in their studies, is the common motifs, and the symbols, which portray those
motifs, among those different cultures. Creation stories, flood stories, belief
in life after death in some way - are almost universal in their scope. Such
forms tell us of a Creator or Creative Force from which we have become
separated. They come alive with the message that there is something very
powerful and important contributing to our purpose of being beyond our
intellectual and conscious perceptions.
Then there are ideals such as loving one's
neighbor, taking care of those less fortunate, controlling our own selfishness,
and the concept of a universal family: which are expressed by many sacred
writings no matter how dissimilar the creeds of the religions may be. These can
give us a prescription, which enhances our quality of life beyond the
ego-driven realities of our world. These can help us to look at our own sacred
stories in a way that may help us avoid error in our interpretations. Such an
approach can also help us to see our own Scripture in a different perspective,
allowing us the potential to get much more from them. The scholars also tell us
that it seems that there is little difference in these themes whether one
culture had contact with another.
Many of these concepts we are discussion
are found in isolated instances where a particular people had no outside
contact with the rest of the world. Might not one make the speculation that God
wanted all peoples to be aware of certain principles? Rather than being
sacrilegious as some claim, it is to
the theologians advantage to look beyond his own
scriptures and reach out to others to support his opinions about God's nature
and intended messages for mankind. We must always keep in mind that human
intellect is limited, but the Divine is infinite.
The only way we can limit that which is
unlimited, which is what we as humans are inclined to do, is to arbitrarily set
aside a portion of it. While this is helpful in relating to God, it can be
dangerous too. We can so narrow the perspective (as in literalism,
or in one-faith doctrines) that we loose sight of the bigger picture. We can so
distort the loving image of the Divine that we no longer have a clue as to the
reality of what we are looking at.
To analogize, if we encounter a circle,
the line is infinite for it has no beginning and has no end. We cannot talk
about the circle's parts unless we identify them in some way. Until we put
points or marks that limit the eternal line there is no reference point beyond
the entire circle.
Now, if we represented God as a circle of
light it would be such a big circle that we could never perceive the whole
circle; therefore, we can only grasp the eternal order of God by looking at the
sections we have marked off. (See fig-I - p9) The more parts we look at, the
greater perspective we are going to have of such an immense circle. We might be
able to use our part of the circle to relate to the circle, but the overview is
tunnel vision at best. A responsible
theology will not declare that its picture is the entire picture of God. It
cannot assert such because it cannot know such.
The affecting nature of "one
truth" theology needs to be restated here to clarify the position for
responsible theology. Such theological attitudes, and the faiths based upon
them, create an atmosphere where one people are implying that they are better
than another - that they are closer to God than those of differing faiths! What
else is one saying when they assert: We hold God's only truth! Or, only through
our faith can you come to God's favor! Psychologically, this only leads to one
group looking down upon others who do not share in their faith. Ultimately,
this can lead to persecution, oppression, bigotry and hatred of those who
refuse to accept their testimony. If we are to approach God in a responsible
theological approach, the theologian must sharpen two human virtues within him
or her self. The first of these is
humility; that knows one's limitations in proclaiming the truth of the
Divine. The second is respect of beliefs which may differ from ours,
for in those same beliefs God may be speaking in a manner we cannot understand
- those same beliefs might allow us to understand our own Scriptures better.
Theologians
cannot ever forget that all religious beliefs are an evolutionary process. If
we take just Christianity as the example, it is a by-product of Judaism. The
Jews in turn have built some of their scriptures and beliefs structures from
other ancient myths and sacred stories of yet older cultures. When we examine
books like Genesis, we see that they are remarkably similar to other myths,
which are. older and which the Jewish peoples had
access to. Of course, they refined these tales and incorporated them into their
own conception of God.
Christianity itself is not just a refinement
of Judaism, but incorporates philosophies from the ancient Greek philosophers
to the very pagan churches it strived to overcome. Each of the faiths that claim to be the final, true,
and unchanging knowledge of God are but a compiling of various types of
inspirations which are refined to fit the needs of the people they serve.
This
is how we evolved to be able to comprehend God, from a polytheistic image when
people could not envision a power capable of overseeing everything, to the
monotheistic religions who used some of those
polytheistic tales to write the story of Genesis. *
Many
of our complex religious systems, and the theologies they are based upon, are
the merging of a lot of sources, which they might tend to deny. Nevertheless,
when we talk about such systems as Christianity, one only need trace its
history to see the impact of sources other than scripture in the formulation of
the theologies. This is in fact the way God seems to have led us, but the
danger comes when we fail to recognize that this influence from outside has
helped us
* Note- John Romer in his
work entitled Testament, c1988, gives an insightful explanation of the
similarities of the Book of Genesis to the older creation accounts which
flourished in the Mesopotamian world in which the Jews wondered as nomads for
much of their early history.
to refine and formulate our religious beliefs. This
blindness causes us to miss out on the same potentially refining qualities,
which might be useful today. A danger lurks when we ignore the profound
inspiration from Jesus, one which directs an individual to "seek and
you shall find". It is this constant "seeking" of truth that
makes theology responsible. The declaration of faith as truth stagnates the
individual, whereas, the seeking of truth provides motivation for growth.
If
theology is to be responsible it must recognize the reality of God in the
diversity of the world's peoples. If we are all God's children Her inspiration is to all of us. Scriptures, the theologies
based upon them and the religious faiths resulting from the theologies are all
human assertions; never to be confused with Divine pronouncements!
NEXT CHAPTER-5-Science, Truth and Human Knowledge
Please email us with your thoughts
and questions.