Inclusive or exclusive in your view of other faiths....surely followers of christ should be the most inclusive.
Every Monday morning we have training and it always inspires me. Today we were talking about our understanding of other religions and asking the question 'are we inclusive or exclusive in our view of religion'. We also considered what we as followers of Jesus are called to do concerning other religions. What i took from the session was the importance of having an inclusive stance towards other religions. Indeed, it was proposed that when we are exclusive of other religions we become defensive and this affects the way we present our faith. The war on terrorism is a perfect example of exclusive faith. George Bush presents as a christian quote "God loves America", yet we fight with weapons. Do we really want to wipe out another faith as a response to what has happened (i'm sure these are questions that have been asked before but it's just fresh in my head today). I also realise that i haven't felt the pain or desire for revenge that may come with losing someone to a terrorist act.
When we are inclusive we embrace others peoples views and in turn people feel respected. To open up some debate about who is right and who is wrong again is destructive. Instead acceptance is the key. As followers of jesus we are called to love and accept....yet so many Christians feel the need to attack other religions. It almost makes me want to break away from the term 'christian' because the influential people out there do the term so much harm. Think Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson and others in the public eye who i cant think of right now. What Oasis feel strongly about is creating a new understanding of the term 'christian'. I want to be a follower of jesus.... Following the actions of someone who had such a love for other people seems more appealing that the 'anti' abortion, homosexuality, sex before marriage picture of christianity currently in parts of society. Please help to change this picture....
The thing i like most about what we covered today was this statement.... "Jesus came to the earth not to create religion but instead to show Gods love". Simple and comforting. Where did we get it all so wrong....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi Andrew! What a thought provoking post, you are certainly being stretched in your thinking as well as your actions and this is all good.
In your post I am not exactly sure what you mean by "inclusive" - it has various possible meanings? Please can you clarify?
However in the meantime I would like to make a few comments about what you have suggested.
Firstly you suggest that "the war on terror" is a form of Christian exclusivism. I'm not sure about that, it looks to me more like the use of fear to justify American Imperialism to a significantly Christian electorate there. "Christian exclusivism" is more usually defined as the belief that Christ is the only saviour - a belief held as much by pacifist Christians as those who support 'just' wars.
Secondly you suggest that it is possible to be a follower of Jesus without "opening up a debate about who is right and who is wrong". However- this is a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it, because as soon as you follow Jesus this debate inevitably follows. Jesus did indeed selflessly serve humanity, (which we must immitate), but he did this not just by touching lepers, healing the sick, identifying with outcasts, but also by preaching truth and righteousness and driving money changers out of the temple! He confronted sin and suffering in all its forms, being willing to both confront wrong ideas and to reach out to all people. God's laws after all, are given in love for the good blessing of humanity!
I guess the oldest cliche in the book still rings true (love sinners, hate sin) but it is more costly for us than mere acceptance of everything. Being rejected like Christ by a society hostile to the biblical message is part of what following him actually means.
I agree that if "ALL" people see of Christianity is that "anti' abortion, homosexuality, sex before marriage picture of christianity" you decry, then there is a HUGE problem. However if on the other hand we are unwilling to actually live out and proclaim the teachings of the Bible then we appear to other faiths as simply weak hypocrites - unwilling to stand up for our beliefs. In fact one Islamic website celebrates this weakness of British Christians citing it as the key reason that Christian influence is one the decline here.
In my life I have had 2 friends from Muslim families. One is still a Muslim, the other I came accross after he had become a follower of Jesus. Both of them are totally "inclusive" to other people on a relational level, they are hospitable and friendly people who accept others. However - they both are willing to disagree with others very strongly when matters of faith, ethics and conduct clash. Such clear and frank discussion seems OK to me. The Biblical record of people whose faith made them publically disagree with others is impressive, including such figures as Isaiah, Elijah, Jeremiah, Amos, Paul, and of couse Jesus himself.
Surely, total acceptance of others (in a Chrstlike way) is compatible with a total non-acceptance of non-Biblical ideas (in an equally Christlike way).
If we allow ourselves to be cornered by a false dichotomy which pits the wicked agression of George Bush on one hand against an unwillingness to stand for righteousness on the other - we will miss our calling.
The key phrase in all this comes from John's gospel which describes Jesus as being "full of grace and truth". It is tragically true that in our dealings with those with whom we disagree Christians have lacked GRACE, and must urgently repent of that. However, we equally cannot embrace this grace at the expense of TRUTH, for this is to be equally unchristlike - just in a different way!
Your final statement is compelling though. "Jesus came to the earth not to create religion but instead to show Gods love" - absolutely! I feel really stretched and challenged the more I read the gospels and try and progressively engage with the man that Jesus actually was.
I hope these thoughts continue to stimulate this important conversation.
How I look forward to your blog. I love your non religious approach and your 'out of the box' thinking is so refreshing. While I can't disagree with the theology of hideous man, I am somewhat overwhelmed by such a well constructed and educated response and a bit concerned that it may stunt your willingness (and others) to share in such an open and honest way. I though a blog was an informal and easy way to share thoughts and feelings and not to be judged for having them. Sermons are for Sunday and even that's too painful where I come from! Stay out of the box Andrew but be ready to take cover!
Hello Tumpy!
Then I think we see blogs as slightly different things then.
My understanding is that the whole point of posting stuff in the public domain is to stimulate discussion - and was really trying to join in the spirit of the thing by replying to a very stimulating posting with what I had hoped was stimulating response.
I don't apologise if my post seemed educated - I am but a theology student who can't help himself. However I do apologise if it came accross as judgemental - not the intention at all; just to join in the discussion and see where it leads us!
Hey Andrew! Happy late, late birthday!
Post a Comment