Church Alive

Home

Faith Statements

Project Theology

Theological Digest & Outlook

The Trinity: An Essential For Faith In Our Time

 

 

A Response to Faith Talk II

By Greg Smith-Young

 

(The following is an excerpt from a submission to the Committee which is preparing the new Statement of Faith.)

 

Pluralism: Should we Dance?

Part of the mandate of the Committee charged with preparing a new Statement of Faith for the United church was to acknowledge “our place in a pluralistic world.” Of course, this is our reality, and we must speak to it. Yet I fear that the Statement  leans too far toward making the ideology of religious pluralism our dance partner. At the very least, it leaves pluralism’s invitation hanging.

 

I am glad the Statement’s guiding assumption on this is made explicit: “While believing that our faith is grounded in truth, our truth need not deny the truths of others.” (p. 8) Of course this is true – all truth statements need not be incompatible. Then again, saying this denies the truth of its opposite. So sometimes truth statements do conflict.

 

Our United Church believes many truths that deny the truths of others. We believe lotteries to be wrong, denying the truth claims of governments. We stand against the Iraq war, denying the truth claims of the Bush Administration, and also those (e.g., Irshad Manji, Michael Ignatieff) who regarded the war as necessary for reasons of human rights. We stand for same-sex marriage, denying the truth claims of most of our ecumenical partners. Of course, we realize that our claims to truth are fallible. Still, we would never deny the importance of making these sorts of claims. Justice and mercy demand it.

 

These ethical truth claims emerge out of our theological truth claims. Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr.’s actions for racial equality were based on hotly contested theological truths about what it means to be human in God’s image. Henri Nouwen’s claims about the dignity of all of God’s beloved, whatever their abilities, contest our culture’s valuing of people based on their utility and productivity. The Confessing Church’s stand against Nazism arose out of the basic claim of the early church that “Jesus is Lord! (so Caesar is not).” To these claims we should shout “Amen!” realizing that in our multi-minded world some will boo and hiss.

 

Our basic claims as followers of Jesus, claims from which we must not shrink, will often be contested. To proclaim God’s grace is to deny the Hindu doctrine of karma. To proclaim God’s incarnation in Jesus and his death on a cross is to contest Islamic denials of these events. To speak of our hope in resurrection is to oppose the Buddhist belief in reincarnation. To say “We believe in God, who has created and is creating” is to stand in protest against the creed of materialism. And, to get to the heart of the matter, when we say that God came in Jesus for the salvation of all the cosmos, we contest all claims to truth that deny this.

 

This in no way denies the truth, beauty and goodness (all gifts from God) we find in many other religious traditions. Yet when we get to Jesus, we stumble onto the big difference, something that seems missing from Statement.  On page 13 there is too much emphasis on our commonality. Is faith really “an experience common to humanity”? Sure, if faith is simply a feeling or an attitude. But surely the object of our faith, the one in whom our faith is placed, significantly modifies that common experience. (It is like saying passion is an experience common to humanity. What is significant is where we direct our passions.) Do our various “faiths” rest in the same god? Are we perceiving the same god? Not necessarily.

 

When it comes to Jesus, our perceptions are (sadly) quite at odds with others’. We call him Saviour (though surprisingly the Statement neglects to use this word). But Saviour for whom? For whom is he God’s good, loving and abundant answer to the alienation, sin and brokenness found in everyone? Is he the Saviour for Jews only? Paul would vehemently disagree, as would most Jews today (though for very different reasons). Perhaps Jesus is the Saviour for Greeks then, or my Celtic ancestors? But they had their gods, their own visions of salvation. Would we dare suggest that these were inadequate? No, the Statement seems to suggest. We are left with Jesus being the Saviour for Christians alone. Problem is, before Jesus there weren’t any! Makes his incarnation look like a cosmic make-work project, with Jesus coming to create a people so he could save them, people who, if it were not for him, wouldn’t need him at all. Pluralism’s impulse to niceness turns to nonsense.

 

John Hick was right. If we accept the ideology of religious pluralism, then we must deny the “myth of God incarnate.” And if salvation (or whatever other term you want to use to describe reconciliation and fullness of life with God) is available in other ways, then who needs Jesus?

 

Should we answer the reality of religious plurality by embracing religious pluralism, and the dubious proposal that truth claims that falsify each other can both be true? It feels good. So do a few glasses of wine, but they don’t help us see clearly or walk straight.

 

And most of our neighbours in other religious traditions won’t go for it anyway. Pluralism only works by denying the central distinctive claims of each tradition. It elevates minor themes and excludes major ones. It excludes the Islamic claim that “there is no God but God, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God.” It excludes the Jewish claim to be God’s chosen people. It excludes the Christian claim that Jesus is God-in-flesh, the Saviour of all. In fact, pluralism excludes everything, except itself! In so doing, it has all the potential for intolerance and violence we find in other exclusive traditions.

 

Which gets us to the crucial problem. How do we proclaim Jesus as the Saviour in a pluralistic world, without intolerance or violence (spoken or acted)? God knows we’ve too often gotten it wrong, very wrong. This Good News, in our hands, has frequently become very bad indeed. So how do we do it with faithfulness, truthfulness, love and respect?

 

It seems to me that we already have the resources at the heart of the Story of the One who has come in Jesus, the Word made flesh. If so, then our flirtation with religious pluralism is unnecessary. Briefly,

 

1.   We don’t claim to “have” the truth. The truth has us. It isn’t “us-with-the-truth” against “them-without-the-truth”, but all of us all standing under the truth that is equally calling us all, claiming us all, judging us all, forgiving us all, and renewing us all.

 

2.   This truth is not, primarily, a set of ideas. Rather, truth is personal. It is in-person. Truth is Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, Saviour and Lord. Truth is about relationship, about trust, and about love. Any word or action that denies the person and the character of the Truth is not true.

 

3.   Jesus shows us that truth is cross-shaped. In other words, it is self-giving, not power-seizing. It is humble, not boastful. (See Philippians 2:5ff).

     

4.   Perhaps the greatest inoculation against religious arrogance and intolerance we have is Jesus’ command to “love our neighbour,” which is integral to our love of the God who is True/Truth. Who is our neighbour? Not just our fellow disciples, but also the “Samaritan” with whom we disagree strongly about important things.

     

5.   Please remember that “tolerance” is different from “agreement.” In fact, tolerance can only exist where there is disagreement. I tolerate the disagreement because I love my neighbour with whom I disagree. If we agreed, we would not need tolerance.

 

Given the abundance of these resources, there is no need for us to dance with religious pluralism. The music might sound sweet, but as we get closer, our toes will get trampled.

 

 

The Cross: Are We Ashamed?

I liked the description of the event of Jesus’ death on page 14, followed by an interpretation of this event: “In Jesus’ crucifixion, God bears the sin, grief, and suffering of the world.” Excellent, and so true. Yet is that all we can say? I quickly wrote beside it, “Why no language of atonement? Of sacrifice?”

 

An article on the Statement in the July/August 2005 issue of The United Church Observer helped me understand the Statement’s meagre reference to the cross’s meaning. It seems to be a reaction against much teaching on the cross we’ve heard in the Christian tradition. Dr. Douglas John  Hall’s remarks in the article seem to exemplify this. He comments about how the Western tradition has distorted the cross, turning it into a “sacrifice of atonement for our sins.”

 

Yet isn’t this precisely what the New Testament says the cross was? The claim that Jesus made himself a sacrifice, that this act of love and grace dealt with our sin-guilt, and this reconciled (atoned) us with God is found throughout the NT.

 

1.         It is in the earliest traditions of the church, which

      –    recall Jesus’ words at his last supper, passed on to Paul (1 Cor 11) and attested to in the synoptic Gospels, through which Jesus interprets the looming cross.

      --   attest “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” (a tradition Paul received and recorded in 1 Cor 15:3)

      --   witness to the use of Isaiah 53 as an interpretive lens for understanding Jesus’ death (Acts 8:32, also 1 Peter 2:24).

 

2.         It is in the Gospels, where we see:

      –    a Jesus who will save his people from their sins (Mt 1:21)

      --   the linking of Jesus’ death with the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb (Mk 14:12 and Lk 22:7)

      --   John’s declaration that Jesus is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!” (John 1:29; Lamb being a sacrificial metaphor)

 

3.         It is in Paul’s witness, where we encounter Jesus as:

      --   “a sacrifice of atonement by his blood” (Rom 3:25)

      --   “our paschal lamb [who] has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7)

      --   the one who brings us near by his blood (death) (Eph 2:13)

      --   the one through him God reconciles all things “by making peace through the blood of his cross.” (Col 1:20)

 

4.         It is in other NT witnesses, where the theme of Jesus being substitute and sacrifice:

      --      dominates the letter to the Hebrews.

      --   is expressed in 1 Peter’s claim that we have been “ransomed” with “the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish” (1:19), that he “bore our sins in his body on the cross” (2:24)

      --   finds voice in the Johannine witness that “the blood of Jesus [God’s] Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7), that Jesus “is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (2:2), and that God “loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (4:10)

      --   sings through the attestation in Revelation that Jesus “loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood,” (1:5), and that by his blood Jesus “ransomed for God saints” from the whole world (5:9).

 

To this biblical witness we can add the overwhelming voice of the Church through the ages. We have sung of Jesus’ death for us and our salvation (thanks to, among others, Charles Wesley and Isaac Watts). We have gathered at Table to celebrate it and be nourished by it. It has marked our theology, notably that of Martin Luther’s humbling theologia crucis. A close listen to the voices of our fellow disciples, not least in the two-thirds world, speaks to its enduring and global importance.

 

Dr. Hall is right to say that the “noisiest form of Christianity” these days is one that “buys into that substitutionary Christology, lock stock and barrel.” Except that the noise emanates right from the New Testament itself. It is not a minor theme. It is extensive. It is widespread. It is integral. If we don’t hear it, it is only because we have plugged our ears.

 

To be sure, there are other vital ways of understanding Jesus’ death. It is a victory over the forces of evil, sin and death. It is the most shocking and wonderful expression of God’s love for us.  By all means let’s sound those themes loudly! Has the substitutionary atonement theme dominated too much? Perhaps. Let’s not discard it, then, as the Statement seems to. Rather, let’s express, as best as we can, the fulness of all the meanings of this awful and awe-ful event, this cross which God used (and it was God, if we believe in the Incarnation) to reconcile a sinful world, including this sinful writer, to Godself.

 

Does the cross trouble people today? Well, it always has. Do we cringe at the notion that our sin is so great, so intractable, so pernicious that we can’t deal with it ourselves? Of course, and we should cringe. Is it shocking, astonishing, scandalous that someone else might “carry the weight” for us? Absolutely. That this someone should be, needs to be, and proved to be God? I’m speechless. Words fail. All I can do is say “Thank You,” and try humbly and haltingly to live out this gratitude.

 

I hope and pray that, as the voices of our Church are heard, and as we hear God speaking to our hearts, we will find the words to better express within our new Statement of Faith this terrible beauty of the Crucified and Risen Saviour, in concert with the song of Scripture and the chorus of the church ecumenical. Not for the sake of the words alone, but so that we can all live to His praise with the abundance of our gratitude and a full measure of His love.

 

May the Holy Spirit of God continue to guide, bless and rejoice in our living.

 

 

  


Home

Faith
Statements

Project
Theology

Theological
Digest & Outlook

Living The
Experience