A little Christmas Trudeau

“Uniformity is neither desirable nor possible in a country the size of Canada. We should not even be able to agree upon the kind of Canadian to choose as a model, let alone persuade most people to emulate it. There are few policies potentially more disastrous for Canada than to tell all Canadians that they must be alike. There is no such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. What could be more absurd than the concept of an “all-Canadian” boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate. A society which eulogizes the average citizen is one which breeds mediocrity. What the world should be seeking, and what in Canada we must continue to cherish, are not concepts of uniformity but human values: compassion, love, and understanding.”

The elephant in the room

Calgary zoo has erected a statue, in the image of the Hindu god Ganesh, in front of its elephant enclosure. Concerned Christians Canada (CCC) has launched a formal complaint regarding the display of this quasi-religious symbol. They claim that the image serves to indoctrinate people into the Hindu faith and that it contravenes the religiously neutral paradigm which must be honoured in public space. It also apparently makes the zoo into a less than safe family friendly venue.
See C.C.C. statement here --- CBC News story here
I have this weird image in my head of a family walking through the zoo and the Dad goes dashing on ahead to the Elephant area and throws himself in front of the statue to protect his family from the danger of looking at the statue.
Anyways…
This irks me. How can a modified symbol that has been stripped of its religious symbolism hold any power whatsoever? Can this thing really make the zoo unsafe for families? Is an exposure to muted version of another religious icon so powerful that it will cause unsuspecting onlookers to covertly be influenced toward Hinduism? Is the protective power of YHWH that weak? If seeing this image for Canadian Christian children is harmful should we not be making efforts to extract the children of missionaries in India for exposure to the more accurate version of the their gods displayed even more publicly?
Shouldn’t it be Hindus who are annoyed here? Isn’t this actually a flippant treatment of their religious symbols which are to be held in honour? Isn’t removing the religious symbolism a problem for Hindus?
Does anyone remember that this is the image placed in front of the elephant cage?
What about other Christian religious symbols that adorn the public spaces of space we live in? Should we remove these symbols as well?
In our own town a public museum has been developed with public monies in the space that used to be the Mennonite church, how inclusive is that imagery to the significant portion of Coaldale’s population that still adhere to the Buddhist faith?
Has anyone from the CCC really taken a look at the political optics on this?
How is this anything but an opportunity to demonstrate the resilient confidence that Christian virtue in the context of pluralist diversity? Is it not true that the Christian principles have their most salient meaning in the face of pluralist milieu?

Slaying Pluralism - a.k.a. a needle in Gil's ribs

what is pluralism?

It's a monster I tell you - look at me when I'm talking to you son - a veritable monster.

what makes it such a monster?

Now pay attention boy - this is important (look at me when I am talking to you). Pluralism is everything that is bad about the world today. Its the idea that you can pick and choose whatever the snot kind of idea you want to and plug it into your system of thinking. Doesn't matter if that new idea is basically completely opposite of a different idea you still believe. And then you just smile and nod at everyone else to tell them to screw off - Cause you are plural and you are right - got it? Now you're saying what is the big deal about that. Well, for starters it's insane. There's no way you can keep two exactly opposite ideas floating around in your brain at the same time. It's scientifically not possible and on top of that the Bible says exactly that - you can't serve two masters! And son if you take anything away from this here chat remember - ideas are our masters (and questions are their evil henchmen).

so pluralism is bad because it makes us consider other ideas?

That is right boy!.And as a Christian we have to make sure that we take our minds captive. Literally we need to put our minds in chains and sock them away for two double lifetime sentences with no chance of parole. But not only is pluralism insane it's lazy!

Lazy?

Yup - now listen boy cause you'll miss this... If you go around thinking that Buddhism might have some angle on truth and evolutionists do too and then you play with the God made everything idea - well pretty soon you are just going to give up - it's too hard to think about all that stuff and besides your friends all think wildly different stuff and you still wanna make out with them after class - right! so chill don't take everything they say so seriously just accept whatever - it'll be okay. THAT is what Pluralism would have you believe son. Tricky little bugger that one. Pretty soon you are just throwing everything you ever believed in right out the door.

do you really think so?

Well look sure your friends come from different backgrounds. They've experienced life really differently than you have. Their idea of God or truth might be messed up cause of the divorce of the parents, the ethnic background they come from, their exposure to TV. But we've raised you better than that - AND there is no need to sully your good name or that of the Lord Jesus Christ by trying to get so stinking involved in other people's lives and ideas. I mean if people have experienced crap like that in their lives their ideas about truth and God and religion have to be screwed up. (doesn't the Bible say something about sowing and reaping...)

But...

No don't give me that --- it's dangerous. The most important thing to remember is that you need to protect your faith. Lock it up! Cause they are going to tell you that science can disprove God. And they will tell you that history points to some horrific parts of the church's past. Then they will teach you that came from monkeys. They'll suggest that homosexuality is natural too. They throw in the beer or the bong and Whammo they have you hooked. You can't compete with that nobody can - not even Billy Graham. Next thing you know you're considering that sitting around doing yoga is 'good exercise'!

Are you sure that is the way it is?

Look right all the way down through history Christianity has been the underdog. That's our thing. And don't let anyone tell you different. I mean we've never been so arrogant and dismissive as people are these days - claiming that they are so open minded as if that we a virtue or something. I mean you tell a pluralist that the world is flat are they just going to incorporate that into their ideology? come on?

But...didn't we do that a few years back?

what do you mean?

didn't we believe that the world was flat in spite of the growing evidence that it wasn't?

well, yeah but that was different. first of all that wasn't the real church and second everybody thought that way back then - we weren't the only ones. and there were some pretty stubborn people back then who could seem to just let common sense take over. And that was before we really started using reason to develop strong theology. you know the reformation and stuff...

...Look I don't know why you need so much convincing here. Pluralism is the neighbour to atheism. And that is that.

so it's a monster then?

Yup!

So in this picture you've created for me here Pluralism is the giant hulking monster on the horizon and we are...the little guy down by the stream picking up stones for our sling?

...Sure!

Okay, so who wins?

Gil says it better here

Do some Christians want to be hated?

Dan Kimball over here lays out some very good smack on this 'they will hate us" rhetoric.
I think sometimes it seems that for some Christians it is important to make faith so:
- -confusing
- -obnoxiously confrontive
- -idiotically simplistic
- -naively promising
- -methodically 'step by step' dull
- -hypocritcally judgemental
- -religiously conformist
that people can't help but HATE it all.
And instead of becoming (or refining into) something distinct and true. We have become repulsive and stained the beauty of the gospel...

Let me ask you a question...

Can you recognize truth wherever you find it?
Is it hard for you to see truth because you've forgotten the source of truth?
Is this truth?

Does this video clip speak truth?
The idea that we should take the focus off of ourselves and focus on the needs of others is a solid Biblical teaching. You can find that taught in many places through out the Scriptures but...
...this video is made by a Buddhist.
What do you think about it now?
Is it still truth in your mind?
What does this works authorship do to your analysis of the content? Do you tend to reject it? Or criticize it? Are you indifferent? Could you careless about what kind of person created this piece?
Should you care?
There would be those who would suggest that this video is actually Satan disguising himself as a n 'angel of light' in order to suck unwitting people into Buddhism. Could this actually be so? And if it is must we not then also discount the message of the video as false? And if we do that - how does that affect our understanding of Scripture's teaching?
There would also be those who might use this precise peice of work to prove that Buddhism is not unlike Christianity and that in fact every religion is essentially the same in purpose. Could this actually be so? Why is it possible to erase clear and important distinctives between two faith perspectives in a single stroke?
And of our reaction to this?
Well for me - my reaction goes like this.
First I was drawn to confession - "He who does not love is brother does not love God"
Second I was reminded of the faces of inner city Calgary that I visited several weeks ago with our senior high group. I was moved to prayer and reminded of my commitment to serve them.
Third there was a tiny seed of embarrassment/jealousy that a Christian organization or author had but this same video together. I wish it would have been us. I'm not sure if this embarrassment is the right way to feel but...

ht: reflections

Let me recommend

CBC Radio’s Ideas: The Best of Ideas Podcast
Available as a download here or through iTunes…
A few interesting ideas that are discussed by the three panellists…
-what is the place of charity in tolerance?
-is giving money to someone on the street really a power move that while stemming from what appears to be an act of kindness is possibly more about exerting ones superiority over the person to whom the charitable act is directed?
-in order to tolerate there must be something negative that I must have to tolerate. So instead of the much maligned concept that it is in many evangelical perspectives is tolerance really an act of grace?
-why does it seem that tolerance has come to mean that in order to be tolerant I must deny my own traditions, beliefs and cultural values?
-why does it seem that Christianity has become the area of society that must be tolerant to every other perspective?
I will comment soon on this and more…

Willard on Pluralism

Everyone is talking about pluralism these days…
What is it? Well to start with pluralism is actually a term that can be applied to a number of different aspects of philosophical understanding. It can apply to social, moral, political, metaphysical, ideas – to name a few.
Lots of people (especially people who label themselves as Christians) are actually really concerned about pluralism. They figure that it is a bad thing that our culture is pluralistic. That is to say that our culture can tolerate competing religious and ethical views. They suggest that when people advocate differing moral, theological, religious and philosophical perspectives they are harming the strength of the Christian position. The problem is that for years and years Canada and the United States have lived under the concept that Christianity formed the foundation of our society. Christian ethical positions have held the most authority. Along with that the two countries have slumbered along with a quasi Christianized culture. There are a lot of things in our culture that reflect a Christian perspective: think holidays, swearing on a Bible, public institutional prayers. So when in the last few years we see people suggesting that other perspectives and cultural ideas should be embraced in our culture many people start to get uncomfortable. But all too quickly we forget some of the founding principles of our countries. Fairness, equality and justice are hallmark virtues of our nations.
Enter Dallas Willard:
First, pluralism is not a bad arrangement. It is a good thing. It is, in fact, a social expression of the kind of respect and care for the individual that is dictated by trust in God and love of neighbor. Therefore the Christian does not oppose pluralism as a social principle. Pluralism simply means that social or political force is not to be used to suppress the freedom of thought and expression of any citizen, or even the practice that flows from it, insofar as that practice is not morally wrong.
Pluralism does not mean that everyone is equally right in what they think and do. It does not mean that we must agree with the views or adopt the practices of those of other persuasions. It does not mean that we must like those views or practices. It does not mean that we will not appropriately express our disagreement or dislike for other viewpoints. (emphasis mine)
I realize that philosophical or theological pluralism is different than pluralism as a social concept but…
I get really worried when I hear people complaining about pluralism as a threat to Christianity.
Basically, I think it amounts to laziness. Why should we worry about Christianity losing strength to other religious perspective in our culture and society? Really the way I see it this just gives us another great chance to show the beauty of life lived in honor of Jesus’ principles.
Sure it means our kids will face increased opposition to their perspectives. Sure it will mean that we will actually not only have to be able to know what we stand for but be willing to live it out in the face of opposition.
Willard again:
Second, the Christian gospel does not require cultural privilege or even social recognition in order to flourish. God's work is not disadvantaged by persecution, even to death, and much less then by mere pluralism. As Christians we stand now in the Kingdom of the Heavens, and it is always true that they who are for us are more than they that be against us. (I Kings 6:16) It is always true that the One who is in us is greater than the one who is in the world. (I John 4:4)
On the other hand, there can be little doubt that if the teachings and example of Jesus were generally followed in a given society, that society would be remarkably better off than any which followed another way. The constant drumbeat of moral failure and incompetence now heard from American institutions--from the universities and scientific or artistic communities to business corporations, the Church and sports--simply would not exist if Jesus were trusted and obeyed. There would be no sexual harassment, no gutted savings and loans, no homelessness or gang violence in a society that substantially accepted Christian principles of life. It is not the Christian who loses when social prejudice goes against Christ, but the society itself.

how bigotry seeps in?

You've read some of my point of view on the subject of yoga.
Isn't actually hilarious that I would be posting about yoga? I mean close your eyes and think about me actually doing yoga. If you're at least not smiling - I am wondering if you know me at all...
Actually I have very little interest in yoga (still laughing?). But yoga has become little flash point for me due to concern that some has had for how the pominence of yoga is evidence of a larger problem of pluralism in culture and even in the church. I received a brief article (an exerpt for a larger book YOGA AND THE BODY OF CHRIST) by Dave Hunt that describes the dangers of yoga and how Christians should respond - or more precisely: why we should be afraid of the subtle intrusion of this demonic force into Christianity.
"Yoga opens the door not to true enlightenment but to demonic seduction of mankind. And...yoga is gaining adherents amoung Christians and being practiced in a number of churches, including those that claim to be evangelical."
The article is little more than excessive fear mongering which in itself presents a wider problem in addressing the issues of pluralism that are present in our culture. Unfortunately, this over anxious approach tends to obscure truth by inciting reaction in people's hearts instead of an honest investigation of truth.
But what is most disturbing to me is how the article itself sneaks a subtle bigotted remark into the work. Now this may seem insignificant to some and quivelling over words to others but in a time when words are more important than ever I think we need to pay attention.
The article warns that Yoga is actually mounting a spiritual assault on Western culture. Then this:
"Most Westerners find it difficult to think of these smiling, bowing, obsequious, and supposedly broadminded yogis, (etc.) as missionaries determined to spread their mystic gospel."
Did you notice? The word 'bowing'? Why would the author insert that word particularily? Is he trying to convey the concept of respect that these yogis have? Or is it a subtle reference to their ethnicity? The latter is what is disturbing? The term brings to mind instantly the common oriental practice of bowing in their greeting rituals. When one (me in particular) reads that phrase it immediately brings to mind ethno-oriented imagery. What's wrong with this? Aren' t most yogis of oriental background? Sure. But the image actually goes beyond trying to describe their ethnicity it is actually intended to draw out a particular reaction toward a broader ethnic group by linking this term with the implied intention to 'spread the gospel'. So the effect ends up producing something along the lines of: BEWARE of those orientals they will introduce this yoga stuff which will destroy your faith.
I know this seems like a big jump. One I am not altogether comfortable with. But the imagery and implications that come to mind for me are unmistakable. Perhaps it is an equally anxious over reaction - I am open to that.

Some friends of mine have been talking...

about how pluralism is affecting our lives - especially as we try to live them out day to day. Here and here.
And I was listening to John Mayer and I am starting to wonder if I am, "lack of coherence or consistency with respect to one’s views about the world." Well not really so much. but check out these lyrics and then if you want to follow the link to watch a video performance of the song...
Is there anyone who
Ever remembers changing there mind from
The paint on a sign?
Is there anyone who really recalls
Ever breaking rank at all
For something someone yelled real loud one time
Everyone believes
In how they think it ought to be
Everyone believes
And they're not going easily
Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword
Like punching under water
You never can hit who you're trying for
Some need the exhibition
And some have to know they tried
It's the chemical weapon
For the war that's raging on inside
Everyone believes
From emptiness to everything
Everyone believes
And no ones going quietly
We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for
What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can
Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can
Belief can

Video Clip of song on YouTube

Not sure that I fully grasp what Mayer's point is entirely here but let me suggest a few things.

So much of western culture is cerebral - head based. Think about it. This gets really evident when it comes to popular culture. Societal distinctions are made on the basis of musical tastes, habitual Television viewing experiences (shows you watch regularly), reaction to movies, pundits perspectives on politics, talking points, 'branding' as a marketing strategy (Mac/PC; Nike/RBK; Telus/Bell), choice of sports team selected to win pugalistic ball game (Colts by the way), etc., etc., What these factors all have in common is that they are essentially things that we 'receive' through our senses and interact with in our brain. Even jumping around at a concert, is, at the core, an experiential element. These are not things we actually do. They are essentially things that happen to us...

In my view these are societal distinctions are becoming more and more important strata of identification. This is not how it used to be. Much more importance was put on one's ability to accomplish certain tasks. Vocational roles, gender function roles, financial status roles, etc., Now it's not that these things are no longer important but they are lessening. And things like keeping up with the lastest television show, or having the right brand of clothing are more important.

Problems around pluralism are complicated when they are related to the cognitive aspects of human experience. When one of the main functions of societal identity and one's place in it is the determination of what point of view we are going to take on this or that, we are dealing with pluralism in only one dimension.

As far as Christianity is concerned, for as long as our focus is going to be on trying to convince people to think the right thoughts, we will struggle in our culture. When we decide to be obedient to the truth we know and put into practice the best way to live - I think we will struggle less with how alarming pluralism seems to be in culture.

Luke 7:35 - "Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children."Otherwise said, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Eugene Peterson

I think this is what John Mayer is getting at here. Everyone is competing for brain space over what is the right way to think. Yet ironically for all the energy wasted on convincing people's brains our actions seem to tell the most gruesome tale about what we really think. Of course it would be stupid to shut off our brains and stop doing all this wild and wacky theology and ideology. But it might be better for us to remember what kind of pudding we actually taste like...

What is our responsibility to people who choose not to follow or are ignorant of Jesus?

I recently lead a roundtable discussion with youth workers on the issue of ‘reaching non-churched teens’. The discussion was lively. I was struck by a few thoughts from the various perspectives that were represented.
Ideas about how pluralism changes our perspective on ‘reaching’:::
We have been conditioned to see Christianity as something to be defended. We are in defence mode. So our approach with non-followers of Jesus is to convince them of the truth of the gospel while defending it from the places where its exclusive claims come in conflict with other religious perspectives. Apologetics while important as a technique to define and refine doctrine and theology is limited in its ability to provide the vehicle for people to ‘get to Christ’. Instead I would suggest that our defensive attitude has been harmful in exasperating the smorgasbord approach to religion prevalent in North America. This classic approach is played out on front door steps between Christians and Mormons. But when we teach our children that Christianity needs primarily to be defended in the face of other religious perspectives we handcuff our children. Their faith perspective is only maintained as long as they have the resources to know and defend truth. When those run out they are liable not only to stop trying to convince others but to lose their own faith position.
We must realize that truth does not so much need to be defended as to be proved. Through our lives. That is to say that if we believe following Jesus to be the best way to live our lives better prove it. Take marriage for instance: what would societies response be to the church if when they looked at the church they saw that not only were we able to get married and stay married but that we experienced the best marriages on the planet?
That would not only be appealing but would provide a convincing argument about how and why marriage should be the way it is.
Ideas about how moralism affects ‘reaching’…
I feel like so much of our focus in trying to ‘convert’ people is to change their morals. It seems like the primary thing for us. If our primary objective is to change people’s behaviour aren’t we missing the point of the miraculous power of the gospel and reducing it to little more than a glorified self help project or group therapy experience. Time after time we notice how Jesus encounters with people rarely demanded action on their part but that when they encountered his redemptive work in their lives they were compelled to change their behaviour. Behaviour modification seems to be a natural consequence for most people who encountered Jesus. Perhaps when we focus on changing other people’s behaviour we focus on the wrong thing. Plus behaviour modification is often so self serving. We want people to change to be more like us so that we are validated in our own convictions and lifestyle. Perhaps considering our duty or responsibility to serve the people around us should be our primary focus. As mini-Christs we should ask the question: how can I serve this person so that they experience the unmerited redemption of Christ in their lives.

Diego MSN conversation 3

Diego: So how was lunch?
Dale: Not bad. We missed you. I got your email though
Diego: Okay so clear this up for me.
Dale: I’ll do my best. First of all we need to recognize that Yoga itself is a spiritual pathway most closely associated with the Hindu religion (although it has some strong connections to Buddhism as well). Yoga’s main philosophical principal goes sorta like this: God is inside of you because you are God and concentrating on yourself puts you in touch with the God in you.
Diego: Whoa – that is a pretty bold claim…
Dale: Well sure it is and really you have to know that I am way over simplifying the practice of Yoga but…
Diego: Okay so that would definitely go against the Christian belief that we are all sinners – rotten to the core.
Dale: Yup pretty much. But here is the other thing. Most of the yoga exercise programs that are out there are quite different from the actual Yoga practiced within the Hindu traditions. In fact many of the gurus of Yoga would be embarrassed with the way Yoga has been cheapened in our North American culture.
Diego: Kinda like we are embarrassed by some of the people who call themselves Christians on TV and stuff…
Dale: Exactly. So we have to careful that we don’t assume one is the other.
Diego: But isn’t it kinda like drugs. You know you start with pot and it leads to acid and then to crack and then to Meth? You know…
Dale: Well, that is one of the main arguments that Christians have used over the years, to convince themselves that doing yoga is wrong. The idea is that you start innocently enough in the exercise form of yoga and then drift in to the deeper ‘stuff’ of the actual yoga teachings. And to be sure this is something we need to be careful about. I can’t stress this enough: If you are going to allow yourself to be ignorant about all this stuff or even just let your curiosity get out of control, it might be easy to get sucked into all kinds of stuff you don’t intend to. I mean just look at how materialistic everyone is these days. We start out at Christmas with the idea that we need to show love to people by giving them gifts and we end up with people being trampled trying to get the best deal at Wal-Mart on Black Friday. You gotta know that some kind of progressive crap is going there…
Diego: So are you saying to stay away from Yoga in any form because it will lead you to investigate the deeper forms?
Dale: Well, no. I’m just saying that we can’t underestimate the power of suggestion that some of these things tend to have. So a lot of it has to be an analysis of your own personal boundaries on this stuff.
Diego: Okay point taken. But I am still not clear on this…
Dale: Uh, maybe this can help. Mark Oestreicher posted a pretty good response to some critics who accused Youth Specialties of getting to cozy with Yoga. Anyways read the whole response here but check this out: “Sure, yoga, I suppose, could focus on Hindi or Buddhist gods or something – but it can also focus on Christ. We received a couple stomping-mad complaints about the yoga at the National Pastors Convention, saying “putting your body in those positions invites Hindi gods to enter your body.” I’m sorry – this just sounds like heresy to me. If we don’t believe Hindi gods actually exist, then why are we concerned about them entering our bodies? And even for those who would say this is about other dark spiritual forces in the world; well, as believers, we have no fear of them. So the whole “don’t put yourself at risk by doing these stretching exercises” argument is just lost on me.”
Diego: That makes some sense to me. If we don’t believe that these gods exist what are we afraid of?
Dale: Exactly. Again this isn’t the whole answer on the topic but it’s a start.
Diego: Just curious have you ever done yoga?
Dale: Me – No! Are you kidding about the only yoga position I could do is the beachball and its just no that popular.
Diego: LOL!

Diego MSN conversation 2

Diego: The other day I was talking to a friend who has just started a workout routine to get in shape. It sounded really good but…
Dale: But you were afraid to mention it to me lest I thought you were pestering me about my weight?
Diego: No – well sorta…actually it was that the workout routine contained yoga exercises as a part of the training. Aren’t we supposed to stay away from yoga cause of it connection to cults and stuff?
Dale: Hmmm! This one is tricky. There are a couple of ways to look at this and a bunch of things to consider.
Diego: Are you saying it might be okay to practice yoga or other meditation practices?
Dale: Back the cart up. Let me suggest a few things to consider and then we can keep talking about this…
First, here’s a quiz. Ready?
Diego: Sure!
Dale: How do you usually pray? I mean what position is your body in when you pray – usually?
Diego: I don’t know. I stand, sit, kneel, slouch – whatever. Usually I close my eyes. But if I am alone I usually like to sit cross-legged on my bed and hold my hands open in my lap or holding my Bible.
Dale: How do you think your physical posture affects your prayer?
Diego: Well I find if I allow my body to move with what I am saying or feeling at the time there seems to be a greater connection for me to God. I know it weird but…
Dale: Does closing your eyes make your prayer more effective?
Diego: No, I don’t think God listens to my prayer more when my eyes are closed. But I do feel like I can concentrate on my inner thoughts and lose the distractions if my eyes are closed.
Dale: Good point! Let me tell you a little story: I grew up in Nicaragua and as a missionary kid I attended a lot of church services. When someone prayed in church it was way different than what we are used to up here in Canada. I mean as soon as someone would start praying other people would start talking out loud – thanking God and agreeing with the person who was praying and saying other stuff that the person who was praying might have forgotten to say. Plus they almost always stood and often had their hands up in the air. Sometimes it got so you couldn’t hear the person who was ‘praying’. So growing up – I remember thinking that the really good prayers were the ones where people got excited like that. My prayers were good – the ones I prayed on my knees beside my bed or at the dinner table – but the real good ones were…
Diego: Sometimes I wonder if it would be better if we got a little more excited when we prayed.
Dale: Sure. But I would say my ideas as a child were off the mark. I would say that there is no position that makes us more or less likely to pray well. Now I know that Yoga is way more than just a position of prayer, but I think we need to start by just saying upfront that as a physical body position it really is no better or worse for me spiritually than standing sitting or anything else.
Diego: I get that. Sometimes I pray while I’m driving to school and listening to the morning show on Fliesch 92 fm. Regardless of what music is playing I still feel pretty close to God. So it’s all good?
Dale: Well it would be premature to stop it there but we should pick this up again tomorrow at lunch.
Diego: Pizza Hut with Jodi, Kayla, and Avery?
Dale: Yup!

Diego MSN conversation 1

Diego: Dale tell me something… when you look at all the different religions they seem to actually be trying to get people to do the same thing. All religions ask people to practice kindness and patience. If I’m right even Buddhists have a concept of suffering that seems similar to our idea of ‘taking up our cross’. It seems that so much of the things that Christians are supposed to be doing are being taught and done by other religions and often even better than we are. It seems hypocritical for Christians to claim that their way is the only way when it seems so similar to so many other religions.

Dale: Diego, you’re right there are huge similarities between what other religions teach and what Christians teach. This Irish play writer dude (George Bernard Shaw) said something once that kinda says the same thing that you are saying, "There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it."
Personally, I think you’re wondering about stuff that basically scares a lot of Christians off. They don’t really want to think about how similar things might be. So a lot of them put up some pretty huge walls against other religious perspectives. Its too bad really cause I think that too often that approach leaves us looking pretty naïve.
I have heard a lot of Christians talk about how evil the Koran is for instance and that it encourages young men to sacrifice their lives for their faith. And I’ve heard lots of Christian people making fun of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons because of some of their seemingly weird rituals and practices (and to be perfectly honest some of that stuff tends to freak me out).
But let’s stop and think about how our own religious ideas and practices look to other people. For instance, let’s take communion. Most Christian churches celebrate a form of the Lord’s Supper. But when you look at it isn’t the idea of eating bread and drink wine or grape juice that represents Christ’s body and blood pretty much a cannibalistic sort of ceremony. We think it is pretty normal though. But I’ve heard that when Christians start teaching about Jesus in some of these tribes in South America, Africa, and South East Asia that have struggled with cannibalism – the communion ceremony presents a problem for them. So my point is that there are many ways that Christians criticize other religious positions while our own practices might actually present big problems for other people.

Diego: Yeah but aren’t there a lot of place where the virtues that are taught in the different religions are almost identical?

Dale: Yes. For instance, Mormons practice generosity and service to those in need in ways that often put us to shame. There that Buddhist thing you mentioned that believes in suffering and personal sacrifice being the road to nirvana or enlightenment. The Hindu ideas about contentment match those of the beatitudes that Jesus preached about.

Diego: So doesn’t that make you think that maybe we can just pick and choose the ideas and practices we want to follow? Don’t we all eventually end up with the same result even if we call that result something else?

Dale: Sure it makes me wonder that. I think anyone who looks carefully at how the various religious/philosophical perspectives are structured will see fabulous similarities to many Christian ideas.
But for me the fact that so many of the other religious paths share so much in common with Christianity is a very reassuring thing in confirming that the Christian perspective is accurate. Some people say well other religions are just stealing concepts from Christianity. That seems like a pretty ignorant and arrogant statement to make. In fact there is lots of evidence that Christians have often stolen ideas and practices from other religions and adopted them as their own. And even if somehow you could prove that all the other religions were just copycatting Christian that wouldn’t be a very solid argument to stand on. But if so many of the practices lead us to very similar results there must be a reason for this similarity.
The Bible describes a longing that everyone has for God –even though people may not recognize it we all have this sense that we have lost some important part of ourselves. I think that the Christian ideas have an answer for the problem of loss that all of humanity struggles with. I would suggest and I think this fits what the Bible teaches: We have lost a relationship with the Divine and we desperately want to get it back. We’ll do anything almost to recover what we’ve lost. The only problem is that if we think we really aught to behave better than we normally do - - we have to admit that something extraordinary needs to happen before we can realize our deep desires. In the Christian way of thinking this extraordinary thing is that God chose to become one of us. So instead of us having to work our selves up to God – he comes down to us.
Basically, it boils to something like this. Many of the other religious viewpoints try to change the human behaviour problem that exists because we have lost contact with the Divine but Christianity is unique in actually offering a relationship with God that addresses that core issue of loss. So the similarities between religious practice confirms the idea that we have lost touch with the Divine. Really that is why the Christian idea of heaven is such an exciting concept to me. We get to be complete with God again. But I digress.

Diego: So tell me what should do with all these other rituals and religious practices that seem to bring us the same results as the Christian ones? Should we write them off and dismiss them or what?

Dale: That will have to be for another time. I will call you about the hockey game.

How to handle the problem of pluralism…

LARRY KING LIVE INTERVIEWS MADONNA (January 1999)

MADONNA: I am a Kabbalist. There is definitely a Kabbalistic approach to life or
a Kabbalistic point of view, but it's not different than a lot of other
teachings. I study Hinduism; I study Buddhism; Taoism.
KING: You believe in
a supreme being?
MADONNA: Absolutely. But I also believe that all paths lead
to God.

So it takes Madonna to speak out loud what is commonly in western society. It’s true our culture is comfortable embracing the idea that all religious perspectives are equally valid. This is where we run into a problem because Christianity traditionally maintained that its path is the only one that leads to God. John 14:6 (of course there are many more that are quoted from both the old and new testament) is the typically quoted verse that most Christians use to defend the idea that their set of beliefs and religious practices provide exclusive access to the Divine. For Christian this position – that they are the only one’s who are right – puts them in a very interesting place in society. Either they are the big bad bully on the block or they are considered the half-witted fool in the corner. In both cases a less than attractive position for us to be in as the light of the world.
Recently, I have had some interesting discussion with several people about the affect of pluralism. What I’ve done is synthesize these into an email/msn type discussion that I want to share with you. Please feel free to respond and provide correction to my position or ideas or to even suggest other veins of discussion in this whole topic. So join in the conversations.

more guns and such

Steve Argue has a great article in THE JOURNAL OF STUDENT MINISTRIES about putting an end to war imagery in youth ministry. Here’s a quote:
“Some youth leaders argue that Christians are called to the public square because we’ve let “them” dominate it for far too long. But I believe it’s time to admit that the church has lost its positional status with earthly powers (i.e., governments and political parties) and confess that we’ve craved endorsements from the wrong authorities. Some seem to want to “get the power back” or “fight the power with power.” But teenagers must see—through our example—that embracing the way of Jesus comes through serving our world, living by sacrifice, and demonstrating unconditional love. The Sermon on the Mount takes priority over ideological debate. If we believe we’ll win the battle in the public square, we’ve already lost. The public square is too small and has too narrow a vision. God desires to bring healing to the whole world.”
There is a lot of fear about the onslaught of pluralism in our culture. I think many Christian families are worried that they will lose their children to the ‘anything-goes’ spiritual climate. I think their fear is real and well founded but not because our culture’s pluralistic philosophies are so powerful. No I think it is precisely because we have modeled and handed over to our children an essentially neutered religiosity. And it is only natural that in light of this it would be critical to “Draw The Battle Lines”. So often we have reduced Christianity to a set of ideological principles that need to be defended.
The more that the public square is overtaken by opposing positions from our own the more threatened we become. Retreat, retreat
Speaking of retreat – I am going on one this weekend hmmm.