For more great blogs as
this one go to Daniel’s blog site at: www.Mannsword.blogspot.com
The Assassination of Theology: The Case of Union Theological
Seminary
There is a growing
disdain for theology, even in many seminaries. The last past-president of Union
Theological Seminary, Joseph Hough, Jr. provides a good example. In an
interview with the New York Times, 1/12/2002, The Times writes
that Hough “has been calling in recent speeches for Christians to adopt a
new theological approach to others, one that goes considerably beyond simple
tolerance.”
What is Hough calling
for?—that Christians surrender their claims that they are right and others are
wrong:
“Religion, our rituals,
our music, even our theology is a human attempt to express what we have
experienced…Therefore, we want to be careful about claiming that one religious
form is the only one that is authentic or real.”
Because our theologies
are merely human, we shouldn’t be dogmatic about them, certainly not to
the point where we claim that we’re right and the Buddhist or Muslim is wrong.
But Hough isn’t simply concerned about Christians being “careful” about
asserting that Christ is the “way, truth, and life” or about asserting any
other exclusive claim. He later clarifies that the Christian has absolutely no
legitimate right to make such a claim at all.
“The fear that openness
to other religious traditions will destabilize our Christian faith has led many
to resist full recognition of the adequacy of other religions to transform human
beings with hope and promise.”
According to Hough,
other religions are fully adequate. The “adequacy” that he’s referring to isn’t
just some form of psychological adequacy, but an adequacy before God, an
adequacy that sidesteps the need for the Savior.
“I believe that there is
ample evidence in the best of the world’s religions, including our own, that
God’s work is effective. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and others have been
and are being transformed by a powerful vision of God that redeems them with
hope.”
It’s no longer the
Savior that transforms but a vision or philosophy of the many religions. What
is this “vision of God?” Many Buddhists don’t have a God; many are avowedly
atheistic. Some have impersonal gods, while others have gods who are continually
at war with one another. Of what does this “powerful vision” consist in view of
their differing “visions” of God? Hough’s wording suggests that they share a
common transforming vision but what exactly do these religions hold in common
in terms of a belief in God?
Putting aside these
incoherencies, it’s not easy to contend against Dr. Hough. I can easily
envision a debate scenario. I’m being scorned as narrow and judgmental. The
accusing fingers point in my face. It’s my absolute beliefs that lie at the
root of pograms, persecutions, and genocide, as Hough insinuates.
“The fomenting of
religious conflict has been and still is a theological problem for Christians,
because we have made our claim to God’s revelation exclusively ours…we have
killed each other and members of other religions in defending that exclusive
claim.”
According to Hough, we
Christians are judgmental, thereby causing strife. However, Hough is equally
judgmental! He refers to the “best of the world religions.” How can he stand in
judgment over the religions that aren’t the “best” after he forbade the Church
from doing this very thing? While claiming that historical Christianity is
intolerant, he displays the same intolerance of Christ’s exclusive claims:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except
through Me” (John 14:6). He subsequently adds,
“Wherever there is peace
and movement toward peace, where there is justice and movement towards justice,
God is present and working.”
According to his criterion,
when Hough fails to see such a “movement,” he deems that God is absent. That’s
quite judgmental! What makes Hough’s judgments valid while, according to him,
other religious judgments are invalid? Why should he alone possess the luxury
of making value judgments that he denies to everyone else?
Furthermore, if it is
our exclusive judgments that cause intolerance and bloodshed, why is it that
Hough’s exclusive judgments about what is “best” won’t cause this? Won’t those
religions that fail to make the grade of “best” resent such a judgment,
especially from one who derides judgmentalness?
Everyone draws a line
somewhere, and Hough is no exception. Everyone has a religion or worldview from
which he or she judges other worldviews, whether consciously or unconsciously.
This is inevitable. Hough also has a religion – we call it “religious
pluralism” - by which he critiques the rest, although his standards might be
different. Nevertheless, he too is passing judgment and is dismissive of other
religions. He too is claiming, although not overtly, that he is right and
everyone else is wrong. In fact, all of “best” world religions are wrong in
holding their own exclusive claims while Hough is right!
One might wonder at this
point how it is that Hough is the president of a “Christian” Seminary and why
he continues to identify himself as a Christian. He says that,
“Religion is something
that we human beings put together in an effort to give some cultural form to
our faith.”
From this perspective,
the Bible is just another human effort. We therefore have to cull from it the
good stuff and leave behind what offends. For Hough this would include the
exclusive sayings of Jesus. This leaves us with a reconstructed, postmodern
Jesus! Instead of God’s Word standing in judgment over us, it is we who
exercise dominion over His Word. The result – an entirely different faith!
If we did possess such
discernment, what need would we have of the Bible, let alone of Christ Himself?
What need would we have of seminary, learning, even of Christianity? Also, if
it’s all the same, is there anything to learn about? Why study about our own
religion or even other religions? Why not just leave the ivory tower and live
the life? But what life?
The belief that the
Bible is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16) is central to Christian faith. Although
this is a doctrine that others have a right to contest, Hough instantly
dismisses it without an argument. How can he consistently preach tolerance and
non-judgmentalness in view of his own dogmatism?
IS HOUGH’S “RELIGION OF
PEACE AND JUSTICE” THE CORRECT RELIGION?
Christianity has always
placed a high priority upon peace and justice. However, Christianity looks
beyond the superficial. It recognizes that the motives of the heart are at
least as important as behaviors. Jesus often criticized Pharisaic externalism.
They often did the right thing but for the wrong motives (Mat. 6). Although
they looked spotless on the outside, Jesus declared that they were filled with
filth (Mat. 23-- something that could be said of the entire human race). They
were more concerned with the opinions of man than the opinion of God (John
5:44).
At first glance this
might seem to lack ethical significance. What difference do our motivations
make as long as we’re acting morally? The Bible recognizes that peace and
justice can’t be maintained without the proper underpinning. The communists
talked a lot about justice but had a twisted human heart. Consequently, this
twisted heart twisted everything they touched, albeit sincerely and
idealistically, with serious consequences – the slaughter of 100,000,000!
It’s not enough to look
at an outward show of peace and justice and then to conclude that God is
present. The way we think and believe is foundational and must not be
discounted. The book of Proverbs assents to this: “For as he thinks in his
heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7). If this is true, we can’t divorce
behavior from religion and its teachings. It’s the belief that Christ has died
for me, one so utterly unworthy, that impels me to love and protect others,
even those who disagree with me and hurt me. It’s this belief that prepares me
to lay down my life for others even in light of my repeated failures to live up
to this standard.
.
What is justice?
Declaring all forms of sexual misconduct as protected human rights? The Bible
defines justice differently: “He who justifies the wicked, and he who
condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord” (Proverbs 17:15).
Peace and justice must
rest upon moral standards and accurate data. But is this possible when the
“Religion of Peace and Justice” forbids anyone to say that they have the
exclusive truth because religion is merely a human creation? If all religion
and ethical standards are merely human attempts to understand God’s truth, it
follows that no one can make an absolute truth claim.
We all need standards by
which to measure behaviors and the various claims of what constitutes peace and
justice. We need our law books that coherently define what constitutes a crime.
We also need religion upon which the law rests. Without the authority that
comes from above, law is arbitrary, dictatorial, and fails to command
conscience.
Upon what principles
does Hough’s system rest? It’s not enough to say “peace and justice.” In the
USA, it’s easy to use these terms and to get away with it. Since our society
has been so thoroughly Christianized (and so too great portions of the world),
we lose sight of the fact that there are many other conceptions of justice.
There was the “law of suttee” which directed widows to throw themselves upon
their deceased husbands’ funeral pyres to join them in death. There are female
circumcisions and honor killings that constitute justice in other parts of the
world.
I’m confident that Dr.
Hough would protest against these practices. However, what criteria would he
base his judgments upon? If justice and peace are the bottom line, there is no
underpinning to determine what is just. If “religion is something that we human
being put together,” then to what body of truth can we appeal to justify our
conceptions of justice? Hough has made the connection between man and God
tenuous by relativizing religious truth claims. What does he substitute for
them?
Hough claims that he’s
found evidence of justice and peace “in the best of the world’s religions.” He
then goes on to mention the major five. Of course, his assessment demonstrates
a pragmatic wisdom. These five along with the “others” probably include about
95% of the world’s population. On the surface, this seems very noble. However,
each religion, by its very nature, is intolerant of others. Many Buddhists and
Hindus cannot countenance the idea that anyone who eats meats will enter into
Nirvana, while many religious Jews believe that Jews are ontologically
different from other peoples, the Goyim, while Muslims believe that no one who
rejects Mohammed can enter into the Garden.
What does his
endorsement of these “best” religions entail? Mustn’t he too discriminate
regarding their teachings? He must and does! However, what makes his standards
any better than others? According to Hough, his religion is also
man-made. Perhaps he would appeal to his conscience, but they too have a conscience,
which instructs them differently. Who’s to decide?
IS THERE ANY HOPE THAT
HOUGH’S RELIGION MIGHT BE FRUITFUL?
Hough’s religion is
based upon a discredited assumption: sameness will remove any basis for hatred.
If we’d merely shed our exclusive truth claims in favor of a “God” in general,
would love and peace prevail? The communist experiment was built upon a similar
assumption: removing class distinctions would usher in a utopia. Instead, the
world has witnessed the “utopia” of genocide and oppression.
History has taught us
that distinctions and competing truth claims are here to stay. It’s unrealistic
to expect to cleanse humankind’s religions of their distinctive dogmatic
claims. Instead, maturity demands that we learn to love despite the
competing truth claims. There are always going to be differences in any
meaningful relationship. It’s therefore unrealistic to demand that love be
predicated upon sameness or at least an absence of dogmatism.
Dogmatism and
exclusivity aren’t necessarily evils. I want my wife to be dogmatic - dogmatic
in her faithfulness to me. I also want her to exercise “exclusivity” in her
regards towards me, and it seems to work.
Likewise, the Christian
should be dogmatic about love, determined to always reflect Christ to this
broken world. However, this dogmatism is insupportable apart from a dogmatic
belief in Jesus Christ and His Self-sacrifice. Yes, we can resolutely determine
to act this way despite the erosion of the “exclusive” Christian beliefs.
However, without this underpinning, this determination will soon erode.
Nazi Germany and its
belief in Aryan superiority didn’t occur in a vacuum. It followed on the heals
of several generations of unrelenting liberal attacks against the Bible led by
the German seminaries and universities. Consequently, the Church was rendered
ineffective in its struggle against Nazism. Foreseeing what lay ahead, the
German poet Heinrich Heine wrote in 1832,
“It is to the great
merit of Christianity that it has somewhat attenuated the brutal German lust
for battle. But it could not destroy it entirely. And should ever that taming
talisman—the Cross—break, then will come roaring back the wild madness of the
ancient warriors, with all their insane Berserker rage, of whom our Nordic poets
speak and sing. That talisman is now already crumbling, and the day is not far
off when it shall break apart entirely. On that day, the old stone gods will
rise from their long forgotten wreckage and rub from their eyes the dust of a
thousand years’ sleep. At long last leaping to life, Thor with his giant hammer
will crush the gothic cathedrals…For thought goes before deed as lightening
before thunder. There will be played in Germany a play compared to which the
French revolution was but an innocent idyll.”
Instead of promoting
love, Hough’s belief that the Bible is just a human attempt to understand God
will bear the same fruits as it did in Germany through the contributions of
“higher” criticism. Ironically, it’s the exclusive Christian conviction that
Christ died for our sins, the Righteous for the unrighteous, that fuels our
love. Once that is taken away, there is nothing to prevent the “old stone gods”
of lust, anger, and rage from “roaring back.”
No comments:
Post a Comment