We’re over halfway through the Plurality 2.0 series and it’s been really amazing to have such a “plurality” (sorry, couldn’t resist) of authors and voices on this important topic. Doug Pagitt mentioned in his video submission that at first he wasn’t quite sure what to do with the topic. He said it’s just sort of the situation we’re in – not a lot to discuss. Yet, I’ve seen some other comments here on Pomomusings and other places that cry “HERESY” that we would be discussing the issue pluralism in a positive light here.
Last Sunday churches around the world dedicated their worship to the celebration of our interfaith world on Pluralism Sunday. There was a listing of churches that celebrated Pluralism Sunday here and they also shared how they were going to celebrate. Our church didn’t do anything, but fellow Presbyterian minister John Shuck posted his sermon “One River, Many Wells” here. I’d encourage you to read his sermon – his two points were:
- We need inter-religious dialogue so we don’t kill each other, literally.
- We need inter-religious dialogue so we can gather what wisdom we can to create mythologies that the 21st century demands of us.
I know we could have arguments back and forth forever as to the exclusivity of Christ and whether there is any salvation apart from the Christian faith – but I would hope that we could agree with Rev. Shuck on these points. Clearly in a world where people seriously misunderstand each other when it comes to cultural and religious identities and beliefs (Barack Obama is a Muslim…? Really?) we need to strengthen opportunities for dialogue.
Clearly in a world where these serious misunderstandings have and will continue to lead to wars where innocent people die, we need to strengthen our knowledge and respect of other religions and other ways of interacting with the Divine.
I will write more on pluralism for the Plurality 2.0 series at the end, but in case you want to read a few past thoughts of mine on the topic, please check these out:
- “Your God is Too Small”
- Communion, Unity and Ramadan
- My series on The Center for Progressive Christianity
Related posts:
- Pluralism and the Interfaith Youth Core
- Blog Series: Plurality 2.0
- Countdown to Sunday: A Review
- Tony Hoshaw on Plurality 2.0
Share This Post:
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
1. We need inter-religious dialogue so we don’t kill each other, literally.
2. We need inter-religious dialogue so we can gather what wisdom we can to create mythologies that the 21st century demands of us.
1. Inter-religious dialogue will not save us from killing each other, literally. Wars are politically driven–religionists involved in them are scapegoats of the media, despite the degree to which they participate in and feed ongoing international political struggles. Hear the words of the prophet:
Lukewarmness about belief is likely to prove a handicap when one is confronted with a full-bloodedly metaphysical enemy. The very pluralism you view as an index of your spiritual strength may have a debilitating effect on your political authority, especially against zealots who regard pluralism as a form of intellectual cowardice. The idea, touted in particular by some Americans, that Islamic radicals are envious of Western freedoms is about as convincing as the suggestion that they are secretly hankering to sit in cafés smoking dope and reading Gilles Deleuze. . .
. . . We find ourselves, then, in a most curious situation. In a world in which theology is increasingly part of the problem, it is also fostering the kind of critical reflection which might contribute to some of the answers. There are lessons that the secular Left can learn from religion, for all its atrocities and absurdities; and the Left is not so flush with ideas that it can afford to look such a gift horse in the mouth. But will either side listen to the other at present? Will Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins read this and experience an epiphany that puts the road to Damascus in the shade? To use two theological terms by way of response: not a hope in hell. Positions are too entrenched to permit such a dialogue. Mutual understanding cannot happen just anywhere, as some liberals tend to suppose. It requires its material conditions. And it seems unlikely these will emerge as long as the so-called war on terror continues to run its course.
The distinction between Hitchens or Dawkins and those like myself comes down in the end to one between liberal humanism and tragic humanism. There are those who hold that if we can only shake off a poisonous legacy of myth and superstition, we can be free. Such a hope in my own view is itself a myth, though a generous-spirited one. Tragic humanism shares liberal humanism’s vision of the free flourishing of humanity, but holds that attaining it is possible only by confronting the very worst. The only affirmation of humanity ultimately worth having is one that, like the disillusioned post-Restoration Milton, seriously wonders whether humanity is worth saving in the first place, and understands Swift’s king of Brobdingnag with his vision of the human species as an odious race of vermin. Tragic humanism, whether in its socialist, Christian, or psychoanalytic varieties, holds that only by a process of self-dispossession and radical remaking can humanity come into its own. There are no guarantees that such a transfigured future will ever be born. But it might arrive a little earlier if liberal dogmatists, doctrinaire flag-wavers for Progress, and Islamophobic intellectuals got out of its way.”
2. We don’t need inter-religious dialogue to know, seek, or find wisdom. We need Christ. If you think otherwise, you’re not a Christian.
Thanks Adam for the shout and for this very encouraging series.
@Jason,
John Shuck is not a Christian in any recognizable sense of the term (he would celebrate this as a badge of honor). If you believe and think the opposite of what he writes you’re on the right track.
Bless your heart, Brian. I do self-identify as Christian.
That’s not his contention. He wasn’t saying that you don’t self-identify as a Christian, he was saying that you are not one. It’s the question of being rearing its ugly head in post-modernity!
Hmmm. OK, so who makes the definition? All we have here is
I am.
You are not.
Yes, I am.
No, you’re not.
An excellent question John. But shouldn’t you start with the slightly more Socratic question: “What IS a Christian?” Only by knowing what a Christian IS, can you then give a proper definition of one, unless you believe that definitions can float around all by themselves and be about nothing. But they can’t. Definitions are always definitions of some thing.
What IS a Christian?:
I know Brian doesn’t think you’re much of a Christian, he was pretty plain about that. But I’d suspect that if you started with this question, he would warm up to you a bit. Now someone might say that TO BE a Christian is just TO CALL ONESELF a Christian, but I’d bet this is sort of the thing that Brian is reacting to.
I may not be much a Christian, a C minus at best. : )
1) I self-identify. Not persuasive for you. (For sake of reciprocity, if either of you said you were Christians, I would take you at your word. Step 1 would be enough for me. As if you would even care what I think. I don’t really care what you think, although it is fun to play along for awhile). So…
2) In my denomination to be a member of a Christian church requires one to affirm that Jesus Christ is one’s Lord and Savior. I have done and continue to do that.
3) I am a Christian minister in good standing in the PCUSA, so obviously, others who have authority in regards to that have affirmed that I am a Christian.
Those who don’t recognize the authority of my denomination wouldn’t find either steps 2 or 3 that persuasive.
I don’t particularly care to convince you or Brian of anything. Since his comment was placed on a public blog, I thought I would state it for the record.
Self-identity doesn’t cut it, John. Creeds matter. The objectives of faithful intelligence matter. Convincing folks of truth matters.
It’s pretty easy to sit back into the recognition of your ecclesiastic authorities’ claims about who you are as a minister, but the Gospel demands more of us: it demands our hearts, our souls, and our minds. So shit or get off the pot.
Well, Jason, you’ll take Jesus’ role and judge whether or not I have followed the gospel’s demands? Not impressed. But you do have me at a disadvantage. I am open about who I am and what I do. You, on the other hand, are an anonymous “Jason.” An anonymous Jason who thinks he’s Jesus. I could ask what you do for the gospel outside of anonymously trolling blogs, but I won’t. A pissing contest over the value of our works is not what it means to be a Christian, is it? You are right of course. The Gospel demands. All of my works are as filthy rags. My only assurance is to remember my baptism. Peace be with you.