The following conversations was between a Sojourn Lakeview Elder(Zack Reuter) and a friend of his.
Zack, I thought you would find this interesting. Seems to me the future is multi-cultural and multi-faith. A program like this would be very healthy and welcoming.
Best wishes,
A Friend
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87809254&sc=emaf
Friend,
Thanks for passing this story along. I heard it mentioned on NPR on the way to work last week but didn't get to actually hear the piece. I'm glad you took the time to send it my way.
I found it fascinating from a cultural observation perspective. It also reminded me of a paper I wrote on John Hick’s theory of religious pluralism. A few thoughts:
A) In the absence of a culturally dominating religious presence, there seems to be a recognition of the need for virtue grounded in something beyond ourselves
B) There also seems to be a desire for open-minded curiosity with regard to different religious beliefs, which I heartily applaud (also, acceptance of individuals with different beliefs). These parents obviously don’t want their children to take a separatist approach to life, and that is commendable.
C) Yet I also noticed that these virtues were quietly equated with a form of pluralism, the belief that all religions are experiencing the same divine being (illustrated by the lamp exercise). The participants are now Muslim-pluralists, Jewish-pluralists, Protestant-pluralists, etc. It seems to me that such an approach actually undermines tolerance, acceptance, and diversity, as it only wants diversity on its own terms. Foundationally it says, “Conformity is the basis of unity.” For example, one mother says she wants her son Luka to learn about and accept all religions: "What I really want for Luka is when he grows up and someone says to him, 'I'm Baha'i' or 'I'm Zoroastrian' — if he doesn't know, for him to say, 'Well, tell me about that." But what if the Zoroastrian made a different exclusive truth claim? Would he be welcomed in such a group? Not likely. In reality, this group is only multi-faith in that it re-invents each faith in order to conform it to a pluralistic view. In trying to unite the world’s religions, the pluralist actually undermines them to the great offense of each. To me, this seems to be the height of arrogance: “Although Jesus, Muhammed, Moses, Buddha, etc. and their historical followers have claimed to speak for different gods (or no god at all), I the enlightened pluralist have really figured them all out, and they are illuminated by the same divine being.”
D) This brand of inclusivism is actually exclusivism in disguise. While these classes present themselves as multi-faith, in reality they have already committed themselves to a single doctrine: pluralism. The journalist picked up on this: “He begins strumming and the kids join in, perhaps not realizing they are crooning a theological message. We are drops ... of one ocean. We are waves… of one sea. Won't you come and join us in our quest for unity. It's the way of life for you and me," they sing. Note that the last phrase is an exclusive claim to truth: “It’s THE way of life for you and me.” They assume (by faith) a very particular view of God, namely that he doesn’t care what you believe about him. They then advance this view as superior to all the rest. This is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical, since they are doing the very thing they forbid others to do! To say that all religions are equally valid is itself a very white, Western view based in the European Enlightenment’s idea of knowledge and values (it is neo-Kantian). Why should that view be privileged over anyone else’s? This strikes me as cultural imperialism, not open-minded curiosity.
E) Teaching virtue for virtue's sake seems to create another form of elitism. In the article, I noticed this in the kids who were correcting their parents. This is actually true of any system of belief with moralism at its core (essentially telling people to "be good"). If you perceive yourself as able to follow the rules (be honest, be patient, be obedient, etc.), you inevitably begin to feel superior to others whom you perceive do not follow the same rules. Moral elitism is a trap that many Christians and other religious people fall into at times.
F) While this Bah’ai class sounds healthy on the surface, it actually discourages critical thinking. I would much prefer a dialog which allows authentic diversity and critical interaction between beliefs. I also think personal acceptance, tolerance, and diversity of belief are better fostered in an environment where conformity is not a prerequisite, such as an open relational dialogue, Q&A session, lecture, or worship gathering. Protestants such as myself, for example, might learn to think more deeply about the doctrine of the Trinity by having to answer the questions of a strict Muslim monotheist. I can say from experience that lectures and books by skeptics have refined my thinking and my position on subjects like the doctrine of creation.
I hadn’t planned on this becoming an article of its own, but I thought it was important to deconstruct. I really have no problem with exclusive claims to religious truth; I don’t think they necessitate or even encourage conflict, separatism, or violence (certainly our friendship is evidence to the affirmative). In fact, I think exclusive claims to truth are inevitable unless one is content with saying only, “I don’t know,” essentially taking no position at all. I believe exclusive truth claims. I just wish pluralists (like the ones teaching this class) would be honest about the fact that they are doing the same thing.
For someone who values acceptance, diversity, healthy thinking, and humility, the Christian gospel actually provides a promising alternative. For example, when properly understood the gospel is antithetical to moral elitism. It is predicated upon one’s inability to “be good” and upon unmerited acceptance and transformation by God. Where moralism/religion says “I am accepted because I’m virtuous,” the gospel says, “I am virtuous because I am accepted.” Since any virtue is from God and for God, the gospel produces humility. The gospel-centered Christian identifies with the poor in spirit rather than looking down upon them.
Second, the gospel provides a paradigm for authentic diversity. Whereas diversity for pluralism is predicated upon everyone believing the same thing, the gospel models unconditional acceptance. At great personal cost to himself, God takes the initiative to accept people who have corrupted virtue and differing beliefs. Because God accepted me unconditionally while I was his enemy, I can love and accept others without added conditions (even those I disagree with or consider enemies). This is one reason why Christianity is historically unique in its ability to thrive in different cultures. True Islam and Hinduism, for example, effectively require you to abandon your culture. At its core, the gospel is a multi-cultural message.
The future will certainly be multi-cultural and multi-faith. Ironically, pluralism undermines this mosaic by making conformity to common belief a prerequisite. It is true that Christianity has often been misunderstood, ill-practiced, and abused. When this happens, Christians become arrogant, intolerant, and culturally imperialistic. I’m sure your knowledge of the church in Latin America brings many examples to mind. However I think the gospel of Christianity, rightly understood and practiced, produces a healthy environment where people are humbly accepted and ideas are authentically and thoughtfully discussed.
Thoughts? Thanks again for the article, very thought-provoking. Thanks also for reading my response. This would be interesting to discuss sometime.
-Zack
