Many Poses, One Portrait: God defined by the World's Religions

My growing understanding of God as transcendent is fascinating to me. I think I am beginning to understand what Ghandi is saying here:

"After long study and experience, I have come to the conclusion that all religions are true; all religions have some error in them; all religions are almost as dear to me as my own Hinduism, in as much as all human beings should be as dear to one as one's own close relatives. My own veneration for other faiths is the same as that for my own faith; therefore no thought of conversion is possible." (M. K. Gandhi, All Men Are Brothers: Life and Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi as told in his own words, Paris, UNESCO 1958, p 60.) [retrieved from Wikipedia article on Universalism]

If God transcends all human understanding, defies human language to define and articulate; if the human mind is limited in its ability to comprehend what God is, then how naive is it to believe that one religion is in and of itself capable of embodying all the truth that is God? Wow! Now there's a question for you!

As my personal understanding of the relevance of religion continues to expand, I am beginning to believe that not only are all the world's religions representations of this single transcendent being/force etc, but all of them are necessary to depict all that God is. Just as Ghandi says that all religions have errors, including his own in this indictment, all religions have some facet of truth which when unified, gives us a clearer and more comprehensive portrait of who God is; albeit, even this is an obscure portrait of the divine. However, with such an understanding, it behooves me to search for truth in all faiths, building as comprehensive a composite of the divine as possible.

I recently began reading a book that I've had on my shelf for sometime entitled, Listening to the Past by Stephen R. Holmes. This book seeks to validate the role of historical theology (Christian) and the importance of tradition in the development of Christian dogma. One thing that drew my attention to the book was a statement made on the back cover:

"...theology is an irreducibly communal task."

The idea that come to mind when I read this small statement is obviously not contextually accurate to what Holmes is trying to get at in the book. But, the statement is nonetheless applicable to the idea here that all religions bear the task of revealing the divine. It is, indeed, a communal task; from the world's inception to the present, the balance of man's search and pursuit of God as expressed in the world's religions is a communal effort to explain and reveal the One that transcends all things yet is immanent in all things as well.

I am sure that I have not done these thoughts justice. I do, however, hope that it has invoked some communal resolve to continue our quest to know God through the various faith perspectives of our fellow human inhabitants of this temporal space.

Can faith help heal our divide? - Opinion - USATODAY.com

Can faith help heal our divide? - Opinion - USATODAY.com

USA Today Columnist, Oliver  Thomas, makes the following statement while writing about the current divisions in America and the need for genuine Community: 

If genuine community is to occur, it will require sacrifice on the part of both winners and losers. Winners must be willing to reach across the chasm that divides us and welcome losers to choice seats at the table. Losers — rather than allowing themselves to steep in their bitterness, awaiting the first opportunity to pounce on the new president — must accept the responsibility of shared leadership. Of being the loyal opposition. John McCain set the tone for this beautifully on election night.Graciousness will be called for all around, as will be compromise — that essential lubricant of our life together. Ours is a world of half loaves, but alas, it is still bread.Here's the interesting thing. America's faith communities are well positioned to lead the way, to set the example for the rest of us. They are, after all, the places where millions of Americans go to find community. There, Republicans, Democrats and independents weekly kneel beside each other to acknowledge their shared humanity and their common commitment to a transcendent God and the truths that transcend our political and ideological differences. Truth. Justice. Love of neighbor.

He goes on to say:

While national leaders must set the proper tone, wars are won in the trenches. Local pastors, priests, imams and rabbis will be called upon to do much of the heavy lifting. For example, getting attached to one another might mean getting unattached to things. Clergy can remind us that the things that give our lives meaning rarely cost money. They do, however, cost. We will need to become better listeners. And less judgmental. We might even relax our grip on the notion that all of life must be adversarial. Perhaps cooperation, rather than competition, is the pathway to this new American dream.

Thomas makes some excellent points in this column. He asserts that we should learn to concentrate on those fundamental beliefs and needs that we all hold in common  rather than being divided by the things that we disagree upon. He contends that there is much work to do in the future of the United States and it can not be done without a deep sense of community and the responsibility to one another that such an understanding breeds. 

Communities of Faith can indeed help lead the way in this endeavor. I agree with Thomas that they are uniquely qualified to help the broader community to come together and pursue community building practices such as the Golden Rule. This will be good not only for our nation but for communities of faith as well. We all need to learn how to sit at the same table and listen to one another's concerns and ideas. Only then can we build a world conducive for everyone rather than a select few. 

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.

Religious Pluralism: Seeing Religions Again with Marcus Borg

Best-selling author Marcus Borg, Professor in Religion and Culture, uses an interdisciplinary approach to examine the role and importance of religions and religious pluralism in contemporary life in this presentation at UCSD.

The Sunni-Shia Divide, and the Future of Islam

If you are anything like me, the animosity between groups within the same religion has often been perplexing. In particular, the divide between the Sunni and Shia Muslim groups in Iraq has cause allot of Muslim on Muslim violence. Today, on Speaking of Faith, this divide will be discussed and analyzed. You can find a station in your area here. If there is not a station in your area or you miss the broadcast, you can listen to the podcast.


Here is the information on the feature taken directly from their site:


The Sunni-Shia Divide, and the Future of Islam
(November 20)
We seek to understand the Sunni-Shia divide in Islam. My guest Vali Nasr says that it is not so different from periods of Western Christian history. And he says that by bringing the majority Shia to power in Iraq, the U.S. has changed the religious dynamics of the Middle East.

Just Say No to "Religious Tolerance"?

Setting a Higher Bar "Religious tolerance" may sound warm and fuzzy, but that doesn't cut it for Gustav Niebuhr. Mere "tolerance" of other faiths feels begrudging, he says, and we can do better. The good news is, people do--every day. Niebuhr tells us the stories you won't find in police reports or press releases, stories of ordinary people searching for common ground.




If the above player does not work for you, you can access the program here.

To go to the Interfaith Radio site where you can find more similar podcasts, click here.

Living with Religious Pluralism

Religious pluralism has long been an interest of mine. Being raised in a conservative pentecostal church, I was led to believe that people unlike us were not saved. Our discrimination even encompassed Catholics as well as Protestants of non-pentecostal denominations. Faith for us was extremely discriminatory and we took the "there are few who find it" of Matthew 7:14  seriously. We were an exclusive few that had the whole truth. Any idea of diversity or divergent approaches to faith were quickly dispelled. 

As an adult, however, I have come to value diversity and believe that there are many ways to arrive at the same place. Each of us are unique individuals with our respective ideas and logic, invested with reason and rational minds that process the world around us in different ways. There are many ways to look at the world and various worldviews that are equally as valid as any other. It is an extremely impious and supercilious attitude that concludes that there is only one way to approach the divine and eternity. 

Christian scriptures record Jesus saying:  "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) This is one of a number of so called "I am" statements in the book of John where Christ claims certain exclusive functions regarding the divine and eternity.  One must deal with these claims to exclusivity en route to a viable understanding of religious pluralism. Do we reject these claims? Can we reinterpret these claims? 

The rise of a global community forces people of different faiths to coexist together far more so than ever before. Exclusive claims have a far greater potential for harm and discrimination today than at any other time in the history of the world. Different cultures are meeting and being intertwined at an unprecedented rate. It is commonplace in our world to go to school, work, and live next door to people whose religious ideas are completely different than ours. Many of our preconceived notions about these faiths and their adherents are being destroyed. As a result, people are confused about how they should act towards those different from them. 

In light of all these developments, I think that we should reevaluate our faith and its truth claims. Especially those of us whose religion makes universal truth claims such as those stated above regarding Jesus. This certainly does not mean that we abandon our faith. But, in order to live peacefully with those around us, we must learn to coexist in a way that does not harm our fellowman nor do any harm to our respective faiths. There are a  number of criterion that should govern us in this pursuit. 

The single greatest value needed in this endeavor is respect. We must learn to respect the right of others to express and live out their faith in the world. This respect implies tolerance; tolerance of different opinions, different values and lifestyles, different religious priorities and practices. We do not have to understand or even agree but we must afford others the right to be who they are and to believe what they choose to believe because to do so is to protect one's own freedoms in these areas. 

Another response to religious diversity is love. Obviously, this is not romantic love but love that prefers others above oneself. Love that is patient and understands that all are God's children regardless of what they believe. Christian love, in particular, teaches us that love does not strive contentiously, is not arrogant and rude, always insisting on its own way. It is a love that values everyone the same without limits regarding religious persuasions. Love that is gracious and merciful; love that gives of itself to others and seeks to understand and meet the needs of others. 

Accordingly, in this climate of religious pluralism, we need to learn to listen and to do so intently. When we listen to one another closely we may find many areas where we agree rather than disagree. Listening helps to avoid assumptions which often lead to misunderstandings and unwarranted animosity. Listening implies that we can actually learn from those different from ourselves; it serves to neutralize pride that can dig chasms between people that are unnecessary. Listening implies an honest effort to truly understand what the other person is saying. 

Dialog is another necessary commodity in our effort to deal with religious pluralism. We must be willing to sit down at the table and really communicate with each another. This opens the possibility within each party of the prospect of change. Rather than always taking an either/or approach, through in depth dialog, we can sometimes embrace a both/and avenue.  It may get a bit sticky here, but genuine communication in this arena implies that we are willing to accept the idea that there are aspects of our faith that can be enhanced by a deeper dialog with those of different faiths. 

Religious pluralism is here to stay. We can fight it but in doing so we are actually fighting our fellowman. Consequently, we must learn to live with it, deal with it in a proactive way. We must learn to engage it in an effort to not only understand the beliefs of others but to more fully understand our own beliefs. This will help us identify those areas of our faith that are negotiable and those areas that are not. An ancient Jewish proverb states:"[i]ron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens the wit of another." (Proverbs 27:17)