Over the past week, a rather heated discussion has taken place between various Baptist pastors throughout Victoria concerning what our response should be to the visit to Melbourne of the Dalai Lama. A number of people have expressed the view that there is little, if any, difference between him and the prophets of Baal or Satanists. According to this view our response should be straight-out condemnation and a prophetic call to 'no holds barred' evangelism.
I have to admit that I have been extremely disturbed by such an attitude. It seems to me to lag way behind the advances that have been made in both ecumenical and inter-faith relations over the past 50 or so years. After proudly proclaiming our progressive character, maybe Baptists are in fact, at least on this issue, 40 years behind Rome?!
Let me try to explain what I mean...
In 1965, as part of Vatican II, the Catholic Church issues Nostre Aetate ('In Our Times') - quite probably, the most significant document in inter-faith relations for the past 100 years. IN that statement, the Church explicitly stated that while:
"she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ as 'the way, the truth, and the life' (John 14:6), in whom men [sic] may find fullness of religious life, and in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself," nonetheless she "rejects nothing that is true and holy in [other] religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men [sic]."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
In other words, Rome issued both a clear acceptance of the historic faith, and yet als oan acknowledgment that not even the Church has a monopoly on the truth.
Similar Karl Barth (my theological hero!) has had some insightful things to say on this topic. Significantly, for such a thoroughly Christocentric theologian, Barth himself argued that we can expect to see evidence of diviine truth even in non-Christian religions. In CD IV/4, Barth says that we may expect to hear "true words even from what seem to be the darkest places..." There are "signs and attestations of the lordship of Jesus Christ, true words which we must receive as such...to be found with satriking frequency extra muros ecclesiae (outside the walls of the Church)."
Now I'm not suggesting that us Baptist pastors should become either Catholic or 'Barthian'! What I am suggesting is that we are in danger of tending towards an all-too uncritically dogmatic repudiation of all things 'non-Christian' (whatever that means!), that leaves us a generation and a half behind current inter-faith and ecumenical discussion.
This is not something we can afford to let happen.
I for one hope and expect to learn things - even spiritual things! - from those who do not profess Jesus as Christ. This is not to say that I take Jesus' claims of uniqueness lightly. Do I profess my own faith in Christ publicly and without reserve? Yes! Do I take my life of Christian discipleship seriously? Yes!
Do I think that those who 'in good faith' believe something else are not thereby 'saved'? I don't know...And it's precisely in that 'not knowing' that I believe we need to exercise a greater degree of humility.
I have to admit that I have been extremely disturbed by such an attitude. It seems to me to lag way behind the advances that have been made in both ecumenical and inter-faith relations over the past 50 or so years. After proudly proclaiming our progressive character, maybe Baptists are in fact, at least on this issue, 40 years behind Rome?!
Let me try to explain what I mean...
In 1965, as part of Vatican II, the Catholic Church issues Nostre Aetate ('In Our Times') - quite probably, the most significant document in inter-faith relations for the past 100 years. IN that statement, the Church explicitly stated that while:
"she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ as 'the way, the truth, and the life' (John 14:6), in whom men [sic] may find fullness of religious life, and in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself," nonetheless she "rejects nothing that is true and holy in [other] religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men [sic]."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/
In other words, Rome issued both a clear acceptance of the historic faith, and yet als oan acknowledgment that not even the Church has a monopoly on the truth.
Similar Karl Barth (my theological hero!) has had some insightful things to say on this topic. Significantly, for such a thoroughly Christocentric theologian, Barth himself argued that we can expect to see evidence of diviine truth even in non-Christian religions. In CD IV/4, Barth says that we may expect to hear "true words even from what seem to be the darkest places..." There are "signs and attestations of the lordship of Jesus Christ, true words which we must receive as such...to be found with satriking frequency extra muros ecclesiae (outside the walls of the Church)."
Now I'm not suggesting that us Baptist pastors should become either Catholic or 'Barthian'! What I am suggesting is that we are in danger of tending towards an all-too uncritically dogmatic repudiation of all things 'non-Christian' (whatever that means!), that leaves us a generation and a half behind current inter-faith and ecumenical discussion.
This is not something we can afford to let happen.
I for one hope and expect to learn things - even spiritual things! - from those who do not profess Jesus as Christ. This is not to say that I take Jesus' claims of uniqueness lightly. Do I profess my own faith in Christ publicly and without reserve? Yes! Do I take my life of Christian discipleship seriously? Yes!
Do I think that those who 'in good faith' believe something else are not thereby 'saved'? I don't know...And it's precisely in that 'not knowing' that I believe we need to exercise a greater degree of humility.
2 comments:
Guess what Mark - someone actually reads your blog! :P
My question for you is this:
At what point does a "commitment to inter-faith dialogue" start to undermine the ability of 'the christian community'* to communicate the truth?
Do we start to trade a Christocentric epistemology for a comfy little post-modern book club where everyone gets the message that they are believing "some truth" without being introduced to The Way, The Truth and The Life?
*feel free to substitute "the christian community" for 'the church' or 'baptists' or 'Jesus, Mark Lindsay and Co.'
-Paul.
Hi Paul. Thanks for your question. I'm not sure that a commitment to talk is ever a (necessary) betrayal of one's own position. My point is that the conversation has to be genuinely reciprocal. We can't, as Christians, continue to hold on tightly to our colonialist view of evangelism, believing that everyone else who doesn't agree with us simply has to shut up and sit down while we tell them what (we believe) they need to know. It's that sort of arrogance that I'm against. I don't think that means we need to water down our own beliefs - but we do need to be just a touch more humble, and ready to listen!, in the conversation!
Post a Comment