One of the most persistent issues I’ve encountered in when trying to encourage a more receptive external pluralism has been christian skepticism towards traditions that are insufficiently theistic (Buddhism, Taoism) or explicitly non-theistic.
I’ve been toying with the idea of trying to take an exegetical approach to lessening the tension on the Christian side. Something like arguing that these traditions can still “touch the hem of Christ’s garment” while being somewhat oblivious towards his face (a somewhat parallel position to that of Moses who perceived the hind most parts of the divine but not the face of Christ prior to the transfiguration).
After all, Isaiah tells us that the train of his robes fills the celestial temple so who’s to say that these traditions are not well and truly perceiving that impersonal aspect of the divine. Whose to say they are not fully grasping the cosmic garment which covers the body of Christ.
Eh. I remain incurably tepid on this Christian pluralism project. It's not just that relegating the Christian prohibition against idolatry to mere "ritual restriction" more or less kills it as a principle; it also takes much of the revolutionary bite (philosophical and moral) of Christianity along with it. Lest you think I'm merely making an argument from unwelcome consequences, I like to think I have pretty good counterpoints to most of what you lay out here, but I won't try your patience with ponderous paragraphs (with apologies for the gratuitous alliteration).
Seems like this post argues in varying degrees for three different kinds of pluralism:
a) tolerance
b) openness to the insights and philosophies of other religions
c) openness to other Gods and other Ultimate Truths
a and b seem obviously correct and well defended, but the implications of c are not. If there's nothing inherently different and superior about Jesus Christ, then one's not really a Christian at all, but just a Perennialist, though perhaps one who still favors the Christian idiom. And if Jesus is the fullest manifestation of Christ, why bother with other gods at all, even if they are filled by Christ in some way as well?
Syncretism and appropriation are the way humans work. It is our nature to take what works better than what we already have and use it to our benefit. It forever will be so. To insist that there is only one right way to do things and to believe does not celebrate the diversity of Life. As things emerge, we may hold onto certain things and let go of others. There may even come a time when we let go of the terms God, Christ and Christian in favor of new terminology. These are, after all, just fingers pointing at the moon. Is not the experience more important than the words we use to describe it?!
I kept finding myself forming questions while reading only to have you answer them forthwith. You have left no stone unturned in this and I learned a great deal. Thank you.
Wonderful stuff.
One of the most persistent issues I’ve encountered in when trying to encourage a more receptive external pluralism has been christian skepticism towards traditions that are insufficiently theistic (Buddhism, Taoism) or explicitly non-theistic.
I’ve been toying with the idea of trying to take an exegetical approach to lessening the tension on the Christian side. Something like arguing that these traditions can still “touch the hem of Christ’s garment” while being somewhat oblivious towards his face (a somewhat parallel position to that of Moses who perceived the hind most parts of the divine but not the face of Christ prior to the transfiguration).
After all, Isaiah tells us that the train of his robes fills the celestial temple so who’s to say that these traditions are not well and truly perceiving that impersonal aspect of the divine. Whose to say they are not fully grasping the cosmic garment which covers the body of Christ.
Eh. I remain incurably tepid on this Christian pluralism project. It's not just that relegating the Christian prohibition against idolatry to mere "ritual restriction" more or less kills it as a principle; it also takes much of the revolutionary bite (philosophical and moral) of Christianity along with it. Lest you think I'm merely making an argument from unwelcome consequences, I like to think I have pretty good counterpoints to most of what you lay out here, but I won't try your patience with ponderous paragraphs (with apologies for the gratuitous alliteration).
It's funny how you see violence by the Russian Orthodox as "damnable" but violence by Islam merits not so much as a word of critique.
Seems like this post argues in varying degrees for three different kinds of pluralism:
a) tolerance
b) openness to the insights and philosophies of other religions
c) openness to other Gods and other Ultimate Truths
a and b seem obviously correct and well defended, but the implications of c are not. If there's nothing inherently different and superior about Jesus Christ, then one's not really a Christian at all, but just a Perennialist, though perhaps one who still favors the Christian idiom. And if Jesus is the fullest manifestation of Christ, why bother with other gods at all, even if they are filled by Christ in some way as well?
Syncretism and appropriation are the way humans work. It is our nature to take what works better than what we already have and use it to our benefit. It forever will be so. To insist that there is only one right way to do things and to believe does not celebrate the diversity of Life. As things emerge, we may hold onto certain things and let go of others. There may even come a time when we let go of the terms God, Christ and Christian in favor of new terminology. These are, after all, just fingers pointing at the moon. Is not the experience more important than the words we use to describe it?!
I kept finding myself forming questions while reading only to have you answer them forthwith. You have left no stone unturned in this and I learned a great deal. Thank you.