The 221 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s General Assembly will
be voting on Item
07-02 which is chiefly focused on the
document “The Interreligious Stance of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).” The General
Assembly Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Relations (GACEIR) recommends
that the General Assembly approve ‘The Interreligious Stance.’ Sadly, it is filled with misunderstandings and
distortions of the biblical text. Item
07-02 includes, besides the action on the paper, ‘The Interreligious Stance,”
eight other actions. One of the actions is an amendment to the Book of Order at
G-5.0102.
Although the Advisory Committee on the Constitution is not
recommending the passage of action 2 of item 07-02, I will give an analysis of
it below.
The action changes,”The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) at all
levels seeks new opportunities for conversation and understanding with
non-Christian religious entities,”
to this:
“The Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.) at all levels will be open to opportunities for respectful dialogue
and mutual relationships with religious entities and persons outside the
Christian tradition. It does this in the faith that the church of Jesus Christ,
by the power of the Spirit, is a sign and means of God’s intention for the
wholeness of all humankind and all of creation.”
The change in G-5.0102 is problematic in the fact that it
changes the idea of Christianity from a religion to a tradition. (A tradition has more to do with custom, norms
and ritual than with absolute truths about God, faith and morals.) And the use of the broader term of “religious
entities and persons outside the Christian tradition” allows the PC (U.S.A.),
using the language of the “Interreligious Stance,” to be in ‘solidarity’ with any
kind of spirituality.
But the most troubling part of the item is with some of the
content of “The
Interreligious Stance of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).”
The document takes up most of the almost nine pages of item
07-02. And absent from both the change to the Book of Order and the ‘Stance’
document is the understanding that Jesus Christ is the unique Lord and final
revelation of God. While the paper is divided up into such categories as
“Biblical Backgrounds and Teachings,” and even “Mission and Evangelism” there
is never an actual reference to what it is the Church wants those of other
faiths to know about Christianity in general or Jesus Christ in particular. The
love of God is often referred to but not the real meaning of God’s love as displayed
in the redemptive life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
The GACEIR authors are careful to admonish Christians about
providing a witness that is respectful and listens to the other; they are
helpful in suggesting mutual activities such as doing justice work together and
being neighborly, but they simply fail in helping the Christian to actually
understand what her witness means in the face of religious pluralism. Added to
this is a total deconstruction of many biblical texts.
Under the subtitle “Biblical Backgrounds and Teachings,” the
authors insist that “appreciation” for interreligious activity must “arise out
of interpretation of the Bible, the church’s confessional statements, Reformed
theology, and the lived experiences of the church.” However the only biblical interpretation
used in this section is outside of proper biblical exegesis. The idea of interreligious
‘appreciation’ is read into the text rather than the text speaking to the issue.
In the deconstruction of the text, knowledge
about God comes by way of evolving events showing the love of God, but minus
the redemptive life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
For instance, according to the document, in the Old
Testament “the Israelites found themselves dwelling with Canaanite, Moabite,
Babylonian, and Persian peoples among others and influenced by their religious
understandings.” There is no mention
that this was always a bad influence. The authors go on to state:
The stories of God’s gracious
activities through Abraham (Genesis 12-17), Joseph (Genesis 37-50), prophets, matriarchs,
and patriarchs toward other peoples of the region are part of a growing
understanding of God’s love. God’s love is particularized later to cities such
as Nineveh (Jonah 3) and to empires such as Assyria and Egypt (Isaiah 19:23-25).”
Yes, God’s love was involved in the stories, but it was
always a love that called the people away from false gods, sinful action and to
relationship with the God of Israel. In fact, in the verses preceding Isaiah
19:23-25, God speaks of a return of Egypt to himself:
“In
that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt,
and a pillar to the Lord near its border. It will become a sign and a witness
to the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the Lord
because of oppressors, and he will send them a savior and a champion, and he
will deliver them. Thus the Lord will
make himself known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know the Lord in that day.
They well even worship with sacrifice and offering, and well make a vow to the
Lord and perform it.” (19-21)
This is true religion, a true turning, because as J. Alec
Motyer points out it involves an altar, there is prayer and “God makes himself
known,” (revelation), there is worship and
if one goes to the following verse there is discipline.[1]
And as we look through the lens of the New Testament, through the revelation of
Jesus Christ, we know that the promise of knowing God comes always by way of
the promises of a messiah who redeems his people.
The authors of the ‘Stance’ document turn to the New
Testament and a little more carefully write, “As the followers of Jesus spread
to the cultures of the Roman Empire, they were challenged and influenced by
Greek philosophies, Roman emperor worship, Gnostic teaching, and mystery
religions of the day.” But they do not take the time to sort out and clarify
what influenced and what challenged. In fact, they fail to point out that much
of the New Testament was written refuting the ideas found in those issues.
And later, turning to Paul, the authors write that from him
we learn a great deal about how to relate to other cultures. They refer to his Athens’
sermon as one good example. And then write, “Paul took seriously the question:
What claims do people of different religions make on one another as they live
in accordance with what they believe to be true? Paul’s answer was to honor both
our commitments to Christian conscience and our commitments to Christian
hospitality.” And you might think with this that the authors approve of Paul’s continual
stand for truth. But no, they don’t!
Picking 1 Corinthians
1:22 from the New Testament and Deuteronomy 12:2-3 from the Hebrew Bible they
write:
These passages [those I have
looked at above.] come to us in the context of other biblical texts. Not all
references are loving. Israelites are instructed to destroy Canaanite religious
shrines (Duet. 12:2-3), and Paul uses negative terms to describe religious ideas
of Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:22). Some Christians use similar statements to
condone disrespecting the religions of other people. Overall, however, the
biblical intent is clear: God loves all people—and we are to do likewise.
1 Corinthian 1:22 is, “For
indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom” and it is hardly an
insult. Many of the Jews came to Christ because of the miracles Jesus and his
disciples performed, and the Greeks did love wisdom—undoubtedly it was the
Greeks love of wisdom that would lead some of them to Christ who is God’s
wisdom. However Paul goes on to write, “but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews
a stumbling block and to gentiles foolishness but to those who are called, both
Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." In other words
the crucified Jesus, when his crucifixion and resurrection is embraced, is that
one who satisfies both the Jew and the Greek.
As for Deuteronomy 12:2-3,
since the Canaanite religion required sexual fertility rites as well as the
burning death of children it is hardly surprising that God told the Israelites
to tear down their altars.
This section “Biblical
Backgrounds and Teachings” of “The Interreligious Stance of the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.),” makes the practical part of the document’s advice unacceptable.
Lack of a clear statement about the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the twisting
of Scripture to fit into the author’s understanding of what interreligious
appreciation means leaves the paper open to use by those who wish to deny the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ and those who wish to find additional revelation to sit
beside God’s final revelation.
[1] J.
Alec Motyer, Isaiah: An Introduction
& Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, D.J. Wiseman, General
Editor, (Downers Grove Inter-Varsity Press 1999).
No comments:
Post a Comment