Jake Lee on Pluralism in America
I asked Jake Lee, Professor of Youth Ministries at Circleville Bible College, to write a post concerning an article he showed me yesterday written by Dr. Marcus Borg. Thanks to Jake for his contribution to this blog. You can read his comments and respond below.
-SS
-SS
“Whether we like it or not, Postmodernism is here.” These were words that echoed through my head at a recent Emerging Church convention I attended. No matter how much we like or dislike that statement, the obvious effects of postmodernity is being felt everywhere in American culture - in our arts, schools, churches and politics. Most experts would agree that we are living in a time of transition, a time in which modern thought still exists and still influences while it is being nudged off the map by postmodernism.
One of the byproducts of this transition in American religion has been pluralism, a belief which states that all religions are equal. In fact, we have no right to even critique or challenge the validity of another person’s faith. As Christians in America, we dare not even suggest that Jesus is the only way.
Dr. Marcus Borg, whose books can be purchased at any Lifeway Christian store or Barnes & Noble, is an advocate of this Philosophy. He writes:
“Religious pluralism is a fact of life in North America, and in the world. To absolutize one's own religion as the only way means that one sees all of the other religious traditions of the world as wrong, and dialogue, genuine dialogue, becomes impossible. Conversion can be the only goal.”
Dr. Borg, goes on to describe how all the “major religions of the world are valid and legitimate,” and “to be Christian in this kind of context means to be deeply committed to one's own tradition, even as one recognizes the validity of other traditions.” In essence, Borg’s argument is that we are simply Christian because we have been born in America just as if we were born in Iran we would be Muslim. There is some truth to that argument; there is no denying that our culture has a strong influence on ones faith.
But does that necessarily validate all world religions as equal? Is Allah really the same as Yahweh? Can there really be many paths to God?
So, my question is this, how do evangelicals respond? How do we respond in a world where truth is believed to be subjective? In a world, where Scripture is no longer viewed as the Word of God, but mans best attempt to describe a religious experience? Lastly, how do we respond to American spirituality that is so pluralized, that it is not uncommon to practice Kabbalah, quote the Koran and have your baby baptized in the Roman Catholic Church?
PS - Is conversion such a bad goal? After all, we get the word conversion from the Latin convertere “to turn around;” which is a close cousin of the Greek and English forms of repent. Of course, if we use that type of language, than there has to be some sort of acknowledgment of guilt or wrong. In addition, it would imply the turning away from one thing and turning toward another.
22 Comments:
I agree with Jake that Pluralism is good for the church, however, I feel that succession is not the way to go. We tried that once already, remember? All it lead to was a whole lot of people dying. Jake needs to realize that times are different now, and that technology has advanced too much to allow such an event to occur.
Um... I am not sure I read anything where Jake said that Plualism was good. But I will let him respond to that.
To answer Jakes question, "...how do evangelicals respond?"
We respond like Christ, out of love.
That may be my shortest post, but it gives my complete answer.
-Matt
Jim,
Thank-you for visiting our blog and for your comment, but I'm not really sure what post you actually read. Jake was not suggesting that pluralism is good for the church. And I don't have any clue what you meant by saying,
"I feel that succession is not the way to go. We tried that once already, remember? All it lead to was a whole lot of people dying. Jake needs to realize that times are different now, and that technology has advanced too much to allow such an event to occur."
Jake was responding to Borg's negative assessment that the opposite of pluralism leads to conversion. Jake said, "Is conversion such a bad goal?" IE: is it really evil or wrong that Christians seek conversion?
I think what Jake is trying to get out of those who comment on this topic is for someone to make the point that religions that are mutually exclusive cannot both be equally valid. A Christian who quotes Jesus as saying, "I am the way," and, "nobody comes to the Father except through Me," cannot believe that statement and then affirm the equal validity of any other "way" as suggested by another religion.
Please restate your points so that at least I can understand what you intended to say. Is there something I missed?
Jake, you write:
"Is conversion such a bad goal?" and of course it is not, at least not in our circles...and I am not in agreement with Borg when he writes: "To absolutize one's own religion as the only way means that one sees all of the other religious traditions of the world as wrong, and dialogue, genuine dialogue, becomes impossible."
There is a book that you will be familiar with, "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society" by Leslie Newbigin, that addresses this issue and others. It's an excellent source and surprisingly the "emergent" church leaders (see "emergentvillage.com) have pointed to Newbigin as a primary thinker who launched them into action; though I'm not sure Newbigin would recieve that as a note of praise (I don't know, maybe he would?).
Regardless, here's my real point: Of course we cannot agree with Borg that "all religions are equal". But we need to listen to him as well. Because we are entering a post-modern era, effective evangelism will rarely begin with deductive proclamations or corporate claims to truth. To do so will always be percieved as pure arrogance. In respect to other religions, dialouge must include respect and admiration, as well as genuine appreciation for other faith traditions beside our own.
Allow me to quote Newbigin for a moment: "Our society in Europe (and America) has moved, in the years since the war, a long way toward the same kind of religious pluralism (as India). During the yeas when I was sitting in discussion with my Hindu friends (Newbigin was a missionary to India of 30 years, you'll remember), Britain was still nominally a Christian country. Apart from the small Jewish community there was no significant non-Christian presence. Preaching the gospel was calling people back to their spiritual roots. There was little distinction between evangelism and revival. Today the situation is different. Our large cities have substanial communities of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Muslims. Their native neigbors soon discover that they are, in many cases, MUCH MORE GODLY, MORE DEVOUT, AND MORE PIOUS THAN THE AVERAGE NATIVE CHRISTIAN (remember he's refering to Europe). What than is the meaning of evangelism in this kind of society?... Is it not arrogance to thrust our religion on them when they have already a religion of their own which is clearly worthy of profound respect?" (I want to note that Newbigin does not endorse pluralism, but is only raising the issue in this paragraph).
Newbigin's point is that adherants to other religions may at times (many times?) be very moral, devout and godly--often more so than the average Christian. On what grounds do we "convert them"? In a later chapter Newbigin also agrues that we must look for God's grace in all faiths and affirm what God has revealed in those relgions--without of course moving as far as Borg in EMBARACING those faiths.
The word "dialogue" may be quickly becoming old and trite these days, but the concept is critical. No one is going to listen to us proclaim our truths, or values or our religion unless both our ears are open and our tongue is kept silent at least half the time.
Jake, you state: "My question is this, how do evangelicals respond? How do we respond in a world where truth is believed to be subjective?" My repsonse, in light of Newbigin's thoughts on the virtuous lives of other faith's believers (even athiests and fallen Christians)is this: In a post-modern age the proof will be in the puddin' so to speak--men and women will be looking at our lives, before they hear our words. One emphasis of the emergent church is orthopraxy over and above orthodoxy. We can critique it all we want--but the truth is we can't have one without the other.
We've all been in the church a long time now. You know as well as I do how far we fall short of Christ's teachings and ideals. Dan Kimbell is not missing the mark when he states, "They love Jesus they just hate the church".
My own father is an agnostic to this day and as a young fiery e
Thinking in Ohio,
I'm a bit confused... are you open to pluralism or closed? Are you suggesting we should open our arms wide to other religions because they are better than ours (morally, ethiclly, spiritually)? Are you suggesting that we learn from them in some way? You sound like you're a little too open to me. And how can we enter into dialogue with other religions if in order to do so we must lay aside our propositional truth? If so you're more liberal than I've been pretending to be.
Sorry guys. I guess I misunderstood Jake. He's a little too "heady" for me to understand. At least I could understand him when he was still a Youth Pastor. This cemetary learning has put a lot of stuff in his head. He could be the next Bishop Spong. He's that good.
Thinking in Ohio,
Thanks for comments. I can see that you are no longer a Ury groupie, but you have officially morphed into a McClaren Groupie. All kidding aside, I agree that dialogue is important and most of what Newbigin is correct in comparing average Christians and other world religions.
I may sound extremely conservative perhaps even fundamentalist, but the end goal of any dialogue should be conversion. Yes, we can learn from the Hindus and Buddhists, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are sinners in need of a savior.
In the New Testament, one of the primary modes of evangelism was dialogue. If we read closely the book of Acts, we see Paul repeatedly coming into contact with many “world religions” and dialoguing most notably in Athens at the Temple for the Unknown god. Paul’s main goal was conversion. Dialogue was a tool/instrument used to meet this end.
Now, I know that it is en vogue to talk about how we are living in postmodern times. However, it doesn’t change what the Word of God says. Postmodern is a world view or philosophy that affects how people interrupt the world, life and even scripture, but that doesn’t change essence of Scripture – “it is the same yesterday, today and forever.” I know that post moderns don’t like to use words like “authority,” “infallible,” or “inerrant,” but it doesn’t change what the Word declares about itself. God is not subject to definition by the postmodern mind. Scripture is quite clear, there is no middle ground; you either with God or against Him – the whole of Scripture attests to that. It is a jealous Yahweh who declares “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
With all that said, we have to be all the more constructive in our efforts evangelize in pluralistic America. We have to be educated in our approach and sensitive to the times. In all reality, today is no more pluralistic then times of the early church and yet, the Gospel still proceeded mightily. We must become like Paul, and become “all things to all people” without sacrificing the integrity of our faith. In addition, become familiar with the times, as Paul, and effectively declare Christ through our dialogue.
Jake
Jake,
First off, let me say that we all stand on the shoulders of someone, unless we are sure of ourselves believe we can stand alone. I'm not so confident myself. You know me well enough to know that I do stand on the shoulders of many men--McClaren is not one of them, Chump! Yeah, I've read a book and checked out his web-site, even heard the guy speak--but I'm no disciple and you know it. Don't paint me as one--or I'll get you back...somehow (evil grin).
Secondly, you know that I (and undoubtedly everyone else here) agree with you that "the end goal of any dialogue should be conversion". My only point is that in a post-modern age, inwhich pluralism is a factor, there will seldom be conversion without genuine dialogue. And the word genuine is an important adjective--because giving lip service or a cordial smile will not be enough.
You also write, "post moderns don’t like to use words like “authority,” “infallible,” or “inerrant,” but it doesn’t change what the Word declares about itself."
That's true--they don't. But also realize that those words have already been deemed inappropriate terminology within the realm of religion (but not science, mathmatics, industry, etc) by our society. There is an immediate bias against all claims to "Truth" among religions. We don't have to like that but do have to live with it.
I believe in the future we will have to approach the "unchurched" with less propositional truth (I am NOT saying we forget it, lose it or lay it aside), and instead lead them to faith, perhaps in a more inductive fashion. What I am saying is that they are going to have to discover Christ themselves. As much as I hate it, experience will be the measure of "Truth" in a post-modern era. And we will have to evangelize within this context. In the past we might have overtly challenged the faith of another, in the present and the future doing so will be a personal afront to their experience and thus to "personhood". We'll close doors to evangelism instead of opening them. Even Paul did not rebuke the Athenians for their faith, he lead them through their experience to the person of Jesus Christ.
Anonymous Q,
Are you listening? You're really someone to accuse another of being a "liberal". I've deliberately chosen to stay out of your little qualms--don't invite me in. But "welcome" to the blog site just the same. Your posts have been thought-provking as well as arrogant and disagreeable, but keep on posting.
If my answer to Jake does not purge my theology enough then let me know. But if my reponse to pluralism is in adequate, what do you propose? You've got to do more than critique me, you've also got to address Jake's original questions.
Thinking in Ohio,
So, what is your view of scripture if all this language concerning scripture has been "deemed inappropriate?"
Sincerly,
V
Thinking in Ohio,
I've enjoyed your dialogue. You are correct in your discussion of the postmodern world being the context in which live and minister.
One thing to remember, God created culture. We sometimes tend to act as if God is constrained, directed or influenced by culture.
Regardless, of the current worldviews or philosophies to quote Anonymous S, "God is God, he can do what he wants."
Meaning that God is bigger than our little philosophies. Even if the postmodern shout from the mountain tops that truth is subjective, and that it can only be defined by and for the community it doesn't change the fact that God is truth. That ultimately truth is objective.
Now, what has been accomplished through our little dialogue is this - we now have a better understanding of those whom we hope to "convert" to christ.
Jake
PS - are you related to anonymous Q?
Sola Scriptura,
I assume you are not a Wesleyan by your name, given Wesley's quadrilateral of Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience... something close yet very distant from an "emergent" view of epistemology.
I do not mean to suggest that absolute truth or claims of inerrancy, etc. etc. are wrong or incompatible with the post-modern era. I am an inerrantist--didn't I graduate from Wesley?
Jake,
Am I related to Anonymous Q? I don't know. Let me ask him... be right back... alright, "No." He does not agree with my conservative view of Scripture and so in the spirit of tolerance he cries "Anathema" and thereby completes disassociates himself from me--as I do with him. Exorcism complete... I will hereby cease to be a schizophrenic and return to my true Wesleayn roots. Sorry I won't see you at Wesley, Sean (grin). Hey, but don't go to such great lengths to hunt the next liberal down... you'll scare 'em all away! Imagine a world without liberals!
Thinking in Ohio,
You are uninformed concerning Wesley and the Quadrilateral. Wesley embrace sola scriptura and it was he who wrote that "he was a man of one book." The quadrilateral was probably a theological construct of an overzealous PhD student. If you read Wesley's journals, he cooled greatly on the whole "experience" aspect, and fell more in line with typical reformed approach to the interpretation of scripture.
How was I to know that you were a graduate of Wesley College? In addition, isn't it true that most wesleyan oriented schools have either embraced a liberal or quasi-neo orthodox view of scripture?
I just surmised from your correspondence with professor Lee that you were either a blatant Liberal or an emergent wannabe.
By the way, since you are an inerrantist does mean you are KJV only?
Sincerely,
V
To all,
I am curious how much time all of you have spent reading, thinking, and writting post to this discussion? If conversion is the goal, then shouldn't you be spending more time doing that? Wouldn't action be more fruitful to achieving the goal than debate?
Just a thought.
BFR
Sola,
I confess I've never read Wesley's journals... another man's diary just never interested me (smile). Yes, Wesley's "quadrilateral was probably a theological construct of an overzealous PhD student" a very keen and astute student nonetheless. I don't know, it's just what they taught me in seminary--they probably didn't know what in the world they were talking about.
Just a point of interest, since you've read Wesley's diary and all... I thought Wesley warmed to the doctrine of sanctification (as a real possiblity in this life) through the "experiences" of the Methodists late in his life. That's what I've read and been taught anyway... am I wrong to believe that "experience" played such a crucial role in the formation of this doctrine in Wesley's life? Please correct me if I'm am wrong... I am your humble student.
BFR,
Since conversion comes through dialogue in this post-modern age...it takes a lot of time and a lot of talking. Can't you see I'm working hard for your salvation? As far as the use of my time goes--you're right, my wife has been a little troubled by my obession with this blog. But it takes a lot of time to carry on two personas. And of course, I was waiting until someone on this blog confirmed her suspicions--now I will have to repent and go back to watching TV instead.
Just for the record, Sola, I graduated from Kentucky Mtn. Bible College and Wesley Biblical Seminary... but this I suspect you know. And I'm not an "emergent wannabe" but if you want to toss names around...Chump.
Should I do an IP search on you guys? LOL.
To the blog authors,
thinking in Ohio brings up something I have been wondering for sometime - are you looking up the IP addresses of those that post? If someone chooses to post anonymously or if they post under a name that you do not recognize, do you think that it is ethical to look up their IP address in an attempt to discover their identity? In fact, I am going to ask you straight up - Have you ever looked up someone's IP address? If you have I hope you have a very good response for me.
I have equipped the HTML code of this blog with a stat tracking script common to any website on the Internet. It keeps statistics related to page loads, unique users, referring links, etc. For individual pageloads it offers information as to what browser type is being used, what Internet Service Provider is being used, and sometimes location. I'm not sure what you mean by "looking up someone's IP address," because the IP address that is displayed through StatCounter.com is a public IP that I cannot trace back to a private machine. It can only display the information I listed above, and I have seen from my own observation that the statistics are inconsistent and unreliable.
This service is completely legal. When a person goes through the setup stages for a new blog they are offered an opportunity to subscribe to a number of these services. It is a common thing, and it is used to track site usage. Any time a website has a "hit counter" or stat tracker of any kind, this is what is being used.
I watch the stats on a daily basis. I am mainly interested in how many pageloads a day and where they are coming from. StatCounter is not intrusive, it merely catalogs information that is sent out from individual browsers.
Am I interested in knowing about the people who come to this site? Yes. The reason is because so far it seems that every single anonymous post has been someone who is using anonymity to play games with others on here. There has been such a level of "pranking" that I try to distinguish prankster from serious. Therefore I try to use the limited tools I have to make that determination. In the end I cannot prove who is who with any certainty, but I can at least make an educated guess as to whether or not I should take a given "anonymous" user seriously (and even then it is not really much of an educated guess). Recently I even considered removing the anonymous posting ability altogether, but I was persuaded to leave the option there just in case someone did not want to broadcast their identity to everyone. Our StatCounter service is private and can only be accessed by Ron and me.
("In the Fight" uses the exact same service, as do many other blogs.)
I don't know if this comforts you in your anonymity or not. But let it be known to all that when you choose to use the world wide web you leave traces of your presence everywhere you go. That is a fact of the Internet. We at this blog do not use any information gained in a malicious or intrusive manner.
I hope this answers your question.
BFT,
Sean's, right. If you just do a "google" search under "IP address" you'll find that EVERY site you visit on the internet gains your computer "fingerprint" if you will. Where ever you go, whatever you do on the internet, it can be tracked. Your IP address is attached to every email you send. This is a good thing, no? Too often the assumed secrecy of the internet can lead us away from God's path of righteousness--whether it be in what we say or what we see--there's grace in accountabilty.
That said, let me say this, simply posting on a blog or visiting a website does not compromise you're idenity whatsoever--it leaves your IP address with the server, which is just a simple way of identifing your computer--not you personally. No one on this site can discover your true idenity through your IP address or the information your server leaves behind. They could compare infromation they recieve and match your IP address to that of another name you are posting under. For instance, Anonymous Q and Thinking in Ohio have the same IP address and computer information, i.e. the same identity. This has NOTHING to do with undercutting your anonymity. When I jokingly said, "Should I do an IP search on you guys" I was alluding to my suspicion that Sola Scriptura was just another name of a blogger on this site. I also suspected the same thing of you, but I was wrong. I'm sorry to have confused you.
Just a suggestion, if you have questions like these, e-mail them to Sean, Ron or McQuire. Your post is almost fear-inspiring. We want others to feel open to post, not fearful. Maybe there is a certain level of "trust" that must be shared in order to truly dialogue with anyone.
To Sean and thinking in ohio,
Whoa, settle down. Back the train up for a moment. "Fear inpiring"?! All I did was ask a straightforward question. I didn't want any spin, all I wanted was a straightforward answer. The best way to get a straightforward answer is to ask a straightforward question.
While I appreciate your treaties on IP addresses, your desire to keep statistics, and the fact that my computer leaves traces all over the net, that was not my original concern. I know that it is legal, I know that other sites do the same, I know that they can be used as an indicator of how your blog is doing. The collection of this information has never been an issue with me, it is what you do with it. To intentionally try and determine a persons identity (to whatever extent that may be) is what I was taking issue with.
I have carried on very meaningful conversations and dialogues with people whose first name is all I knew about them. I have even been in group settings when I didn't know someone else's name, and still carried on a good and meaningful dialogue. I have given you the initals of BFR, if I told you that those initals stand for Bradley Fredrick Rumberg what would that change - nothing. I would still post the same.
Once again, the issue is not that you have that address, it is what you intentionally choose to do with it that I shared my concern about. If I choose not to reveal everything about myself, then you ought to respect those wishes and leave it at that.
What would you do in a prayer meeting if one someone in your congregation said they had an unspoken request? Would you go up to them after the service and ask them to tell you what it was? Would you start asking their friends and family what it could possibly be? Or would you respect their discreetness and simple pray for that which burdens their heart and that which is a concern to them?
Now, once again I am being very straightforward and I don't think that anyone should find this post as "fear inspiring" Thinking in ohio - in any of your college days or seminary days did you ever get into any straightfowrd discussions (or perhaps even heated discussions) at times? Did you ever feel fearful in those moments? I have seen pastors within the same denomination get into some pretty heated discussions and the last thing that I saw was fear (ususally there only a choosing of sides). I can only imagine that this would happen in a setting such as college or seminary. If you, or anyone else truly feels that I have been "fear inspiring" then please point out how this was the case because all I attempted to be was straighforward. In fact, I almost laughed when I read that because if you knew me then you would know that I could strike fear in the heart of a little kitten much less a grown adult.
I hope this clarifies my position and my concern.
BFR
P.S. BFR does not stand for Bradley Fredrick Rumberg ;-)
BFR,
Thinking in Ohio did not say it was fear-inspiring. He said it was "almost." I think he was just trying to make sure that we are careful of what we say because of what it might imply to someone who does not have the proper context. He was trying to be respectful, plus I think he felt kind of bad because his original comment about "searching IP addresses" was probably taken the wrong way.
Be rest assured that even if we put all of our efforts into finding out who you are it is virtually impossible to do so. The stat information is way too general and I do not possess the knowledge nor the interest to try to investigate more. To be quite honest, it doesn't really matter to me. You might as well be Bradley Fredrick Rumberg. In fact, from now on you are Bradley to me.
Be rest assured, you can remain anonymous if you wish. We will respect your anonymity. But at least try to understand where Thinking in Ohio was coming from. There are other ways to ask certain types of questions. Your question is a valid one, and I appreciate the straightforwardness. But maybe that type of question would be better suited for a personal e-mail, something that does not call into question our integrity in front of the whole world.
With humility and respect,
Sean
P.S. I really hope this settles the issue.
Sean,
Thank you for your clarification. I had no idea that my question would cause such a response. In the future I will put more thought into where I direct my questions.
In case there should be anyone out there that has read this and questioned this site's integrity, let me say that these gentlemen have been very genuine with me and I really appreciate that.
BFR
Bradley Fredrick Rumberg,
I'm holding my stomach and laughing that you called Sean's post a "treatise on IP adresses". You people are killing me. AhAhAhAhAhAh-OOOOOOOOO.
Thank-you all for your comments. This topic is now closed for comments.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog