Friday, November 21, 2008

Can people of different faiths coexist together intimately?

For many Christians there are two scriptures that serve to regulate relationships for them:



  • Amos 3:3 "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"

  • 2Cor 6:14 "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Regardless of whether or not the interpretation of these passages is correct or not, they are used as is to discourage the development of relationships with people who do not agree with or adhere to their particular religious perspective. It is considered to be unequally yoked to be friends or romantic partners with a non-Christian, regardless of whether or not that person is an adherent of another faith or not. This is an exclusive mentality that tends to invalidate any faith besides its own; to become relationally engaged with people unlike themselves is to break a fundamental rule.

Now, it would be a violation of the spirit of this blog to make light of this practice and the ideals behind it. There are many good conservative evangelical Christians that take this to heart and feel that it is a non-negotiable rule. And, in many ways, there are good reasons for it. All of us have heard the statement that there are two things you simply can not talk about in public or even family gatherings: politics and religion. How many uncomfortable settings have we endured and relationships strained because of conflict in these areas. Thus, it would appear that this prohibition, this need to agree so to speak, is warranted.

To be honest, I've felt this way for much of my life, no matter what religious persuasion I was operating from at the time. I have been an evangelical Christian, a Wiccan/pagan, an agnostic, etc, and today I am a left leaning liberal progressive Christian (now there is a label for you!). Throughout each season in my life, I naturally gravitated toward those people with whom I had the most in common. This is just human nature.

My question, however, is does it always have to be this way? Notwithstanding the scriptures mentioned above as well as the natural inclinations of our human nature, is there not something of value to gain from developing relationships with those who are vastly different from ourselves? Obviously these are rhetorical questions, but is my faith so secure and complete so as not to be affected by intimate relationships with people of different faiths? I would hope so.

If the ideals of religious pluralism and tolerance are to prevail in our day, we are going to have to be willing to live and let live. This means that we must acknowledge that each person is on their own spiritual journey; a work in progress, an evolution if you will. Regardless of of how their faith measures up to ours, their spiritual journey is equally as valid as our own. This is not a matter of right and wrong. It is a matter of freedom to follow the dictates of one's own heart. Each of us are free to develop our own ideas of of the divine and to formulate beliefs and opinions about how life is to be lived and how God is to be understood. It only becomes detrimental when we try to impose these ideas and understandings of God as the only legitimate way.

Tolerance is the key and we must learn to practice it in every sphere of our lives; in our families, marriages, and places of employment, etc. How rich our lives would be if we could share our faith with others and learn from them as well? The chasm between groups is man made and it can be bridged or removed altogether with some concerted effort. I happen to know this from personal experience.

This subject is more than abstract to me because my wife and I are very different in our religious beliefs. As I've stated before, I am more liberal than her in just about every area. Contrarily, she is more of an evangelical Christian and more conservative than I am. I would like to say that it has not been problematic but the fact is, it has. And, I would like to say that because I am the liberal one and inclined to represent myself as being more open minded, that she has had the greatest difficulty adjusting to our situation. But, unfortunately, I am not sure that is true. Ideological differences between people who are intimate can be a difficult hurdle to overcome.

One of the first things I had to do in coming to grips with our differences was to give her permission to not be like me. That may sound haughty; I mean, as if she needed my permission for anything. But, on my side, I had to give her the same latitude that I wanted myself. Shakespeare's famous quote in Hamlet is most applicable here: ”This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.” Just as I must have the freedom to live out my spiritual and religious convictions, so should she be given the same freedom to be true to her self.

Because of our love and commitment to one another, we have made allot of progress in this area of tolerance and giving the other the space to be who and what they are. Fact is, her faith and convictions have positively affected me in too many ways to share here. I am thankful for how she sees God and she has helped me to be more sober and circumspect in how I relate my current beliefs with those I held in the past. To use a common cliché', its so easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thankfully, I am learning that I don't always have to relinquish every thing in my effort to embrace new and fresh ideas.

Lastly, I am not sure that there is an appropriate way to end this article, so I am not going to try. What I hope is that we can continue this discussion in our comment section. This should be an ongoing conversation among people of faith. Some questions for discussion: can two people get married and stay married with opposing belief systems? How can we introduce issues of faith in our relationships in a way that is non-threatening and productive? How do we reconcile our right to formulate beliefs and opinions about how life is to be lived and how God is to be understood with the civility of respecting other people's right to do the same thing? With a Mosque on one end of a street and a Synagogue on the other, how do we coexist together, pooling our resources to make positive changes for the community at large? These are all pertinent issues facing our world today.

Meet me in the comment section to continue this discussion.



Bishop Gene Robinson: The Man Behind the Rhetoric

The name Gene Robinson invokes varied responses; a plethora of emotions and polarized opinions surround this man about the legitimacy of his ministry. Being the first openly gay man ordained as a bishop has brought him allot of notoriety, much of which I am sure he would gladly relinquish if possible.

Robinson's case has served to bring the divide within the church regarding homosexuality into sharper focus. For many years now homosexuals have lobbied among most of the mainline churches for recognition and equality. Some churches, such as the United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church of American, just to name a few, have officially sanctioned the ordination of homosexuals to the ministry. Others, such as the Presbyterian Church USA have sanctioned compromises that allows the issue to be taken up within local bodies and decided there rather than taking an official stance that's sure to invoke a schism. There are a few mainline denominations, the United Methodist Church being the first that comes to mind, that is still holding to its standards; but the opposition is alive and well in the UMC and continues to challenge the general church to accommodate the growing number its gay and lesbian constituents.

Amid this worldwide debate within the church catholic, men like Gene Robinson are reduced to symbols and icons of the ongoing struggle. Many people formulate opinions and ideas about Robinson without having any first hand knowledge regarding the man himself. However, I think the first thing we need to do in this debate is to humanize these people who represent a departure from how its always been done. In so doing, I think it will bring a realism and compassion to the polemic that is not currently present. It is real easy to herald against ideals and to spout biblical mandates and prohibitions, especially when we are dealing with abstracts. But, we must realize that these mandates, positions, and prohibitions affect real people; people with real lives and aspirations whose future depend upon the ultimate conclusion of this controversy.

While its not a place one would normally go for information on the lives of religious icons such as Gene Robinson, GQ magazine ran an article about him in its June 2008 edition. I know this is old news per se, but I've found that allot of people missed this article and I think its an important read. No matter where you stand on the issue of homosexuality in the church, I think seeking to know the people behind the issue is important. GQ did an excellent job on this article/interview and I gained a deeper respect of Bishop Gene Robinson.


There is also an excellent podcast that accompanies this article. I highly recommend it! You can listen to it here.