Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Interfaith Dialogue

  • The Difficulty of Appropriate Public Prayer

    MSNBC.com reports that there is a bit of a kerfuffle over whether Rick Warren will use the name of Jesus in his prayer at Barack Obama’s inauguration. At the same time we have a group of atheist and humanist groups suing to prevent any prayer at all at this public event.

    I confess to mixed emotions about the public prayer, largely because I think that the event reflects not only the public, but also the person who has been elected to that office, and Barack Obama is a believer. I could quite easily regard the prayer as relating more to him as a person than as something that is intended to reflect the country as a whole. While I may have mixed emotions, I would suspect that the lawsuit is doomed to failure, except in producing publicity, because we still have military chaplains and prayers to open the houses of congress, and the courts have shown no inclination to stop them.

    But I have more problem with a public prayer as a Christian than I do as a political matter, something that has only been stirred up and sharpened by discussions with a friend of mine who is a pastor and who gets invited to pray at public events. There are two major points involved. First, for most trinitarian Christians, prayer in the name of Jesus (or in a trinitarian formula in some cases) is the way to pray–it is prayer. Second, just what is it that we expect a pastoral prayer at a public event to accomplish? As my friend has pointed out to me, and I agree, the public bodies over which prayer is offered are not going to actually seek God’s guidance and blessing as a group. They’re going to go right on doing whatever they were going to do anyhow. And it’s difficult to expect a public body that is diverse in beliefs to do so.

    So in that case the public prayer becomes, in many ways, an act of idolatry. It is a pretense at worship, but not the reality. A critical part of the Lord’s prayer is “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Show me the public body here in the United States that intends to behave in that particular way. And with acute awareness of my atheist and other non-Christian friends, that is not a prayer that can be prayed collectively by a public body, expected to act in a secular way to govern a diverse body of people.

    Were I an elected individual, I could individually pray that God guide me, even though I must express my viewpoint in non-religious terms in public debate. And note here that I can only express my viewpoint in non-religious terms if it is honestly supportable in non-religious terms. That means that I can pray the Lord’s prayer for myself, but that collectively prayed, it becomes an outright lie. Any prayer prayed in the name of Jesus is similarly supposed to be “under the authority of” as well as “in the name of” and thus, in my view, becomes idolatrous if prayed corporately on behalf of those who do not consent.

    Given that there will be prayer at the inaugural event, I think the explosion of hostility over the selection of Rick Warren to offer that prayer is at best overdone. President-elect Obama, in my view, thinks he’s secure in his liberal credentials and wishes to reach out to a block of voters. That’s the political view. Thinking of it as a Christian I am much less comfortable, not because I don’t think Rick Warren can pray for, with, and on behalf of Barack Obama, but because I think it’s somewhere between difficult and impossible for him to pray on behalf of the inaugural crowd and certainly on behalf of the nation as a whole.

    I understand pastoral prayers in congregations to be collective, that is that the pastor prays both for and on behalf of the people. Those who are more theologically and liturgically oriented than I am may argue this. I don’t see how this can be transplanted to the public square.

    Yet we do so constantly in this country. I’m not sure where my conscience would lead me if I were a pastor. My friend doesn’t want to pray at public events (not in church), a position with which I sympathize. The only compromise position I can see is praying in public, but seeing this as praying solely on one’s own behalf, and for the gathered audience. Trouble is, unlike pastoral prayer in which I believe all participate, I think this sounds a great deal like a violation of the principle expressed in Matthew 6:1-6. The prayer becomes a public show, or perhaps a political show.

    I like interfaith dialogue, but I like interfaith prayer much less. I prefer the idea that in interfaith dialogue all sides maintain their distinctives honestly and openly, yet celebrate the diversity. In my view too much interfaith dialogue involves homogenization and blandness rather than actual celebration of diversity, combined with robust but respectful discussion and debate.

    Readers are free to see this as a modification or even a partial repudiation of my view expressed here, where I considered the invitation solely from the political point of view.

  • PERFECTLY SQUARE Fun in Pensacola

    I talk quite a bit on this blog about diversity and the importance of dialogue and making the most of our differences, so it’s a pleasure for me to highly recommend a program here in the Pensacola area by someone from whom I have learned a great deal on unity in diversity, Dr. Dolly Berthelot. If you are in range to travel to this event, make it a point to do so. You will find it both entertaining, challenging, and practical.

    I would particularly like to recommend that pastors and church leaders attend. As my wife Jody and I teach in various churches, I find that whatever the theology of a particular congregation, the difficulties that the leadership has in engaging the various personalities and gifts of a congregation in service are very similar. We can accurately describe some churches as two or three congregations using the same building. The differences seem small and petty, but actually they usually result from differences in personality and taste and not from some profound, irreconcilable differences of belief.

    PERFECTLY SQUARE (the book and the program) points the way to a solution to this problem. Learn about who you are, and why you prefer certain things, and then how you can turn those differences into assets instead of liabilities. There are reasons some of you like loud music with lots of drums, very little “preaching,” and a great deal spontaneity in a church service, while others prefer a firm order and lots of words, and the reason isn’t that some of you are inherently evil. 🙂

    You will have an opportunity also to sign up for two seminars that will help you carry on. I was surprised by the excellent price for these. Dolly’s time could go for a much higher price. So take advantage of this excellent opportunity and learn to make the most of your personal assets, and those of your congregation.

     

     

    O R I G I N A L , E N T E R T A I N I N G

    S T O R Y , M U S I C A L M I X

    March 9, 7-9 pm, Free

  • We Killed Less People than They Did

    I am often annoyed by the things that the Traditional Values Coalition does. When they call for a boycott of Walmart I don’t expect much damage to be done except to the general reputation of Christians.

    But today I got an alert e-mail from them that strikes me as celebrating Christmas by stirring up hatred. This alert, available online and titled Atheism Has Fueled Greatest Mass Murders In World History is apparently a reaction to some recent comments from various people who object to religion in general and Christianity in particular.

    The response, however, is less than constructive. It appears to be largely an attempt to smeer atheists by linking them with militant Muslims and blaming them for various historical slaughters. After quoting some of the attacks on Christianity, Sheldon says:

    The Christian-haters should turn their attentions to militant Islam and Atheism as the most serious dangers to the world.

    One of my many questions is simply which group of atheists right now is behaving in a manner at all similar to militant Muslims? This strikes me as simply striking out at people one would like to hate without any consideration for the facts or the consequences. (Note that at the same time as I am opposed to demonizing atheists, I would suggest watching out for demonizing Muslims.)

    The attacks to which this alert supposedly responds are a collection of the rather standard attacks on Christianity–responsibility for the crusades, the inquisition, and the Salem witch trials, for example. And what is the response to this? Apparently it is that not nearly as many people were killed as some people claim were killed.

    (more…)

  • Reformation with Warts

    27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and he chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong, 28and the world’s inferior and despised things God chose

  • Atheist-Christian Discussion

    I have noticed from time to time that Christians become very angry with atheists or other skeptics in debate simply for being and saying who they are. Many regard any questioning of their faith positions as impolite, and some even regard such discussion as a form of persecution. It has always seemed odd to me.

    When I discuss theology with an atheist, for example, I expect that he or she will:

    • Deny the existence of God
    • Deny the truth of substantial portions of the Bible
    • Find miracles vanishingly unlikely at best, and most certainly denying the virgin birth and the resurrection
    • Find the idea of the atonement fairly silly
    • . . . and many, many more obvious differences of opinion

    These seem so obvious to me, but I’ve encountered some Christians who become offended when a skeptic expressed each of those positions. I’m not sure how one can fail to be offended when someone says he’s an atheist, and yet suddenly become offended when he also mentions that he believes God’s existence is about as probable as that of the tooth fairy. It seems to me that one implies the other.

    So if I wish to have a conversation with such a person–and I’m pretty much interested in dialogue on philosophy and religion with most anyone–then I have to realize we will differ on these things, and accept that in order to dialogue, we will both have to express our differences. Since I believe in God, and an atheist by definition does not, he will have to tell me in one way or another that he thinks I’m wrong. He might use words like misguided, deluded, or something similar. He may well explain all my spiritual experiences as the result of physical causes, and call them delusional. He might point to the doctrine of hell (in the form in which many accept it) and describe God, were he to exist, as a mass murderer.

    To put it bluntly, I’m quite happy with any or all of those options. If that is what someone believes, that is what I’d like them to express to me. I’m not saying they don’t need to consider the public relations angle in general. But I would like to know what they actually think.

    This little post was inspired by Duane Smith’s post Thoughts on Richard Dawkins at Cal Tech. I have to confess that I really enjoy reading Richard Dawkins. He writes wonderfully well and explains difficult topics with great clarity. I can read and enjoy him, and appreciate his writing, and yet disagree profoundly. It sounds like I would have enjoyed his presentation as well, as I have enjoyed hearing him interviewed on TV. In fact, while he is often vilified as the true example of an over-the-top atheist, I have found him to be very careful and precise in stating what he does and does not belief. He’s not unaware of the nuances in theology, even though he doesn’t choose to give those of us who “practice” those nuances much room to maneuver.

    Having said all of that, I still should make clear that I disagree with Dawkins in a substantial way. I’m a theist, and he’s not. I’m in the crosshairs of some of his remarks. But why should I not be?

    It seems to me that in much of what passes for dialogue in the public forum we have gotten whimpy about ideas. I’m not talking about name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and diversionary tactics. Those detract from the issue. But I’d really like to know where it is that Richard Dawkins has behaved in this way. I can and do get somewhat heated about his comments about providing a religious education for children. But based on the remainder of his beliefs, I have a hard time seeing how he could avoid the conclusion that children would be better off without any form of religious indoctrination.

    In fact, I would ask my fellow Christians to look and see whether the shoe does not fit all too well. Often religious education is not education, but is really just indoctrination. I hear complaints from church leaders all the time about young adults leaving the church, but often those same church leaders are looking for teachers who will “teach the young adults the truth” and keep them from going astray. When I had the opportunity to plan curriculum for youth, I went out of my way to let them hear about other faiths. There was a field trip to a synagogue, I invited an Imam to come in and talk about Islam, we read materials about positions other than those of our own denomination.

    Do I still disagree with Dawkins on this point? From what I’ve read thus far, I very much do. But I don’t think he has stepped over any sort of line in saying so.

    If we, as Christians believe that there are things that are true and things that are false, and that it’s worthwhile to accept the truth and reject falsehood as much as we are able, perhaps we need to encourage each person to express his or her understanding of what is truth, and let’s test this in open discussion. If we are to do this, we have to drop the notion that a particular view is by nature impolite. And while I’m at it, for the same reason we can’t cut off discussion from the conservative side of the spectrum. If we try to shut up those who believe that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle, or that all abortion is evil, rather than engaging in discussion, we will make it harder to find good policy positions.

    Courtesy is good, but when courtesy is interpreted as a demand to cut off expression, then it can easily become a danger.

  • Criticizing Religions

    I have long been an advocate of permitting criticism of Christianity, because I think allowing such criticism is good for my religion. I have friends who would regard my religion as a delusion, and I encourage them to speak directly about what they believe. This is not a matter of commitment to legal free speech, though I do believe that the first amendment should be protected. That is an area in which I might even be regarded as extreme. I say this from inside the Christian faith. If we try to use legal or forceful means to blunt or eliminate criticism, we will be the poorer for it, intellectually and spiritually.

    Now we have the remarks of Pope Benedict XVI. I already commented briefly on those, noting that I’m not too much of a fan of the pope, but nonetheless I did not off hand see anything wrong with his remarks that would justify the kind of reaction they are receiving. Despite the Pope’s apology I have not changed my view.

    In an article I read yesterday, but from the September 25 issue of Newsweek, Jon Meacham said:

    Much of the Regensburg address was a meditation on faith and reason, the roots of religiously inspired violence and the need for believers to see God as a figure of love. Roughly put, his argument was this: to Benedict, Islam’s conception of God so stresses God’s will that God can be understood to command the irrational.

    The problem is with a quotation from Emperor Manuel II. As is usual, many people have brought up the crusades at this point. But one should consider the fact that Emperor Manuel’s situation was one of being invaded by Muslim conquerors. I deplore the religious justification of violence other than as self-defense, yet this emperor was defending himself. Again, I’m not an apologist for the crusades, but one must remember that Christian territories were being conquered by Muslim conquerors. I’m not an expert on the history of that period, but I am certain there were various justifications from both sides.

    The Christian actions in the crusades should not mean that we can no longer have dialogue. True dialogue is also impossible when one cannot criticize.

    Again, quoting from Meacham’s article:

    Then why did Benedict quote the emperor in the first place? The most likely answer is that, no matter what the Vatican says now, the pope believes in having what the Catholic theologian and papal biographer George Weigel calls “a hard-headed conversation

  • Religious Freedom and the Schools

    The Christian Alliance for Progress has been reporting a particularly egregious case of religious intolerance in the school system. There is now a petition drive, and you can get involved here.

    To be honest, I’m not terribly optimistic about the value of this type of petition campaign, but I would imagine it can’t hurt.

  • Comic Sues Jews for Jesus

    Today CNN.com reports (an AP story) that Jackie Mason is suing Jews for Jesus over the use of his image and name in one of their pamphlets. (See the Jews for Jesus press release in response here.)

    I haven’t seen the pamphlet itself, but this action seems over the line to me. The only thing that should offend people in Christian evangelism is the gospel, not the way we deal with other people. When I recently attended a Jews for Jesus event, I was disturbed by a skit based around the song “Tradition” from “Fiddler on the Roof.” Because the folks on the platform say that they are Jewish, and I’m not, I may not be the best judge of such things, but the skit seemed disrespectful of Judaism. I don’t regard disagreement as disrespectful–I knew the group would disagree with mainstream Judaism–but there are respectful ways of presenting a disagreement, and then there are, shall we say, less respectful ways.

    It is my hope that Jews for Jesus will settle this out of court. I don’t think trying to force the issue of the use of someone’s reputation and image in this way is going to be good for the gospel or for interfaith relations.

    Update: Here’s the URL for the tract: Jews for Jesus Jackie Mason tract.