John P. Webster Library First Church of Christ, Congregational, UCC 12 South Main Street West Hartford CT 06107

+Library home +Resources and services +News and events +New materials +Online catalog +Hours and location +Contact us

Online Summer Bible Study, 2004
Week 10 (August 8-14): Isaiah 51-66

Hello all,

Once again, Walter Brueggemann's "An Introduction to the Old Testament" (Westminster John Knox Press, 2003, pp.171-173), for a look at this fourth and final portion of Isaiah. He points out that that last part of Isaiah largely deals with the New Jerusalem--Zion destroyed, anticipated, and reorganized--and the general theme of death and rebirth. And what does the New Jerusalem look like, compared to the old? Justice, peace, and kindness. The final verses of Isaiah, then, provide a condensed version of the salvation economy--both how salvation happens, and what salvation means. Christians, obviously, interpret this salvation economy through the person--or at least the example--of Jesus Christ.

When reading Isaiah 51-66, I found myself extremely moved. Here is the truth and the hope of Christianity in a pure and powerful form. I was surprised, partly to find so many familiar passages in such a short span, and partly because the earlier parts of Isaiah also left me extremely moved--moved to put down my Bible and put a cool cloth over my eyes! In a sense, the book of Isaiah successfully imposed on me the reality and dream of God's chosen people: first the disappointment and darkness, and only then the fulfillment and light. This effect is especially interesting given the long period of time over which the school of Isaiah composed and compiled the text that bears that prophet's name...it reminds me that these are not (only) abstract, universal, spiritual truths or sudden revelations--but rather the slowly unfolding nature of God and God's people in lived or remembered history. Just as we live and remember our own personal and community histories, right now.

Peace,
Mark Kille
John P. Webster Library

Two thoughts from Walter Brueggemann in the last Theotalk message stood out for me:

"the book of Isaiah successfully imposed on me the reality and dream of God's chosen people"

"these are not (only) abstract, universal, spiritual truths or sudden revelations--but rather the slowly unfolding nature of God and God's people in lived or remembered history."

How does the idea of a "chosen people" align with the idea of "universal spiritual truths"?

Most of the history of Christianity is the story of the "chosen people" taking upon themselves the responsibility of teaching "universal spiritual truth" to the rest of the world. The truth that has been spread is seen as the only spiritual truth: Christ crucified and resurrected as the atoning sacrifice necessary to reunite sinful humanity with the One God.

Is it possible for us to see all people as "chosen people"? Is it possible for us to see "universal spiritual truth" as being made manifest in many forms and traditions to people of all ages and lands? Is it possible to see the Buddha, Christ and Mohammed as equally valid ways to the God who is beyond God?

Is it possible for our world to know peace if we do not see these things?

Hi David,

"Two thoughts from Walter Brueggemann in the last Theotalk message stood out for me:"

Actually, those were my own thoughts, based on what Brueggemann wrote about Isaiah. I apologize for not being more clear.

"Is it possible for us to see all people as 'chosen people'?"

In my understanding of traditional Christianity (some predestination excluded), all people *are* God's chosen people. Different strands of Christian thought disagree on what individuals or groups can be said to have properly responded to being chosen, and on how God deals with those who have or have not responded; but all of creation, including all human creatures, exists within God's intention that everything fulfill its purpose of being Good, indeed Very Good.

"Is it possible for us to see 'universal spiritual truth' as being made manifest in many forms and traditions to people of all ages and lands?"

In the sense I think you mean the question, I think as a Christian I would have to answer "no." But it is not the standard doctrinaire Christian "no."

Early Christian thought--particularly Paul's--focused on the idea that Gentiles could find salvation by being grafted onto the nation of Israel through Christ. Later proto-orthodox Christians specifically rejected both Gnosticism (a more "timeless, universal truth" sort of faith) and Marcionism (which saw the New Testament God as separate from, and trumping, the Old Testament God of Israel). However, also rejected was the idea that Gentiles had to become Jews in order to be saved, i.e., they did not have to follow the dietary and other purity laws of Judaism, or be circumcised, etc.

So Gentiles adopted the faith of Israel, but they also *changed* the faith of Israel in ways that many Jews, then and now, have objected to. Christianity would not be Christianity without those changes, for better or worse: no Trinity, no Original Sin, no Sacraments...and that process of cultural and religious cross-pollination--between Jews and Greeks and Africans and Romans, Mediterranean cultures and Northern Europeans, colonizers and colonized, traditionalists and innovators--has continued to this day. However much various authorities try to present Christianity as a static, easily transmitted set of Truths, it has never been and never will be.

So...will one or more branches of Christianity grow in unexpected ways when joined with one or more forms and traditions now considered "un-Christian"? I sure hope so! And I would be surprised if it didn't happen.

"Is it possible to see the Buddha, Christ and Mohammed as equally valid ways to the God who is beyond God?"

It's certainly possible, intellectually. I'm just not sure it's a Christian position to take. However, Christianity emphasizes that we find God fundamentally through grace, not our own efforts; and too much of contemporary Christian "faith" is actually a theology of works, with intellectual assent to certain claims being the work in question. So I would say a gracious and sovereign God is equally able to reach people through Buddhism and Islam as through Christianity.

"Is it possible for our world to know peace if we do not see these things?"

I think it depends on your definition of peace. The United States is chock full of people with diametrically opposed beliefs who are convinced they are right and others are wrong, of all faiths and nationalities and races and ethnicities. Yet we don't see the Southern Baptists taking up arms against the Catholics, or any coordinated large-scale violence of any sort. (There *is* plenty of small-scale violence and some uncoordinated society-wide kinds of violence, which is why I say it depends on your definition of peace). In Europe (excluding the Balkans), there is great tension between the (rapidly growing) Muslim and nationalist/culturally Christian communities, but again: no military operations or major societal upheaval.

Based on these sorts of examples, I would suggest that world peace depends more on broadening access to resources, dropping grudges, and genuinely seeing the world as a single interrelated community than it does on actively embracing religious diversity.

Peace,
Mark Kille
John P. Webster Library

"In my understanding of traditional Christianity (some predestination excluded), all people *are* God's chosen people." (Mark)

While I agree that all people are "chosen", I wonder if it can be said that such a thought is Biblically based. When the Israelites were being led into the Promised Land by Jehovah, the Canaanites who were already living there were not thought of as being "chosen". In all of the many battles chronicled in the OT, God is on the side of the "chosen" people. The enemies being fought are not seen as also being chosen.

Throughout its history, traditional orthodox Christianity has maintained that only by profession of belief in Christ as the redeeming sacrifice can one be put right with God. It is not God who does the choosing of who will and will not be chosen, it is the individual believer who makes the decision. It seems to me that "God's chosen people" have always been a subset of humanity.

"Is it possible for us to see 'universal spiritual truth' as being made manifest in many forms and traditions to people of all ages and lands?" (David)

"In the sense I think you mean the question, I think as a Christian I would have to answer 'no.' But it is not the standard doctrinaire Christian 'no.'" (Mark)

That would mean that Christianity is inherently superior to all other world religions. I think most Christians would agree with you. I, if I understand you correctly, with all due respect, do not.

"will one or more branches of Christianity grow in unexpected ways when joined with one or more forms and traditions now considered 'un-Christian'? I sure hope so! And I would be surprised if it didn't happen." (Mark)

On the other hand, I agree with what you say here wholeheartedly. If other "forms and traditions" have influenced and shaped Christianity in the past and continue to do so today, how can we say "No" to the idea that "universal spiritual truth" is found in "all ages and lands"?

"Is it possible to see the Buddha, Christ and Mohammed as equally valid ways to the God who is beyond God?" (David)

"It's certainly possible, intellectually. I'm just not sure it's a Christian position to take." (Mark)

What is there in Christianity (or the version of Christianity you are referring to) that makes this less than possible?

".so I would say a gracious and sovereign God is equally able to reach people through Buddhism and Islam as through Christianity." (Mark)

I agree with you. Are we still Christians?

"Is it possible for our world to know peace if we do not see these things?" (David)

"I think it depends on your definition of peace." (Mark)

The definitions from Webster's Dictionary that comes closest to what I was referring to as peace are: "a freedom from civil disturbance; a state of security or order within a community provided by law or custom". It is true that for most of us in this country, these two definitions are the reality when it comes to people of different faiths and beliefs living side by side with each other. However, as the old saw tells us, more wars have been fought in the name of religion than any other. It was only a few years ago that India and Pakistan were on the brink of nuclear war. The endless suffering of the Middle East shows no signs of abating. And while we are for the most part civil to each other, religious differences are perhaps the major dividing line between the blue and red states.

How can the world see itself "as a single interrelated community" without at the same time "actively embracing religious diversity"? For over 2000 years, the majority view of Christianity has been based on the belief that followers of Jesus Christ are reunited with the One True God because of their profession of faith. Those who do not profess in and follow Jesus Christ remain estranged from God until they do. I would say that those who have been thought of as being estranged have good reason for bearing a grudge. It seems to me that the time has come for all Christians to take a long hard look at what our beliefs have done to the rest of the world (and to ourselves).

Hi David,

"While I agree that all people are 'chosen', I wonder if it can be said that such a thought is Biblically based...In all of the many battles chronicled in the OT, God is on the side of the 'chosen' people. The enemies being fought are not seen as also being chosen."

The Old Testament is a collection of Jewish documents, reflecting Israel's conviction that they alone were specially chosen by God. However, even so, the Old Testament contains the idea that eventually all nations will be reconciled to God. We have seen that idea in the texts we have looked at in our Bible study this summer, as in the promise that all nations will be blessed through Abraham's seed, and the prophecies of Isaiah that foretell all the nations honoring the God of Israel.

The New Testament--seen by Christians as reporting on the fulfillment of God's promises in the Old Testament--explicitly states that all people have equal access to God and God's favor, as in Acts 10: 34-35 (NIV): "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."

"It is not God who does the choosing of who will and will not be chosen, it is the individual believer who makes the decision."

As I said in my previous post: too much of contemporary Christian "faith" is actually a theology of works, with intellectual assent to certain claims being the work in question. (Historically, proper participation in the life of the Church was often included as a necessary sign and seal of faith). However, the New Testament presents an alternative view....

"You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name." (John 15:16 NRSV)

"[God] chose us in Chrsit before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." (Ephesians 1:4-6 NRSV)

"Consider your own call, brothers and sisters...God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God." (1 Corinthians 1:26-29 NRSV)

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined...And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30)

If it were truly up to the individual believer, then that believer would be able to "boast in the presence of God" for his or her wise choice. Instead, all glory is God's.

"It seems to me that 'God's chosen people' have always been a subset of humanity."

Subsets of humanity has always declared themselves to be God's chosen people at the expense of others, yes. Does it always have to be that way? No. Go back not too long ago, and women had always been a separate and subordinate subset of humanity; for all the problems of sexism that still exist, here and especially in other societies, we can at least look at how men and women relate to each other and see other possibilities besides male domination. Has anything changed about human biology? No. (Though an argument about birth control could be made here). How we *view* human biology has changed. In the same way, how we *view* God's chosen people has to change, not the idea itself.

"That would mean that Christianity is inherently superior to all other world religions. I think most Christians would agree with you. I, if I understand you correctly, with all due respect, do not."

That's fair, though as you know, I do agree that Christianity is inherently superior to all other world religions. Why else would I have chosen to be a Christian? What I do *not* believe is that Christians are inherently superior to adherents of all other world religions, first because we may have misunderstood some critical aspect of the Gospel when developing our institutional Christianities, and second because even if we do have Christianity exactly right in theory, we always fail to practice it exactly right.

I would hope that a Muslim would believe Islam to be superior to all other religions, a Hindu would believe Hinduism to be superior, a Buddhist would believe Buddhism to be superior, and so forth and so on. Or at least, that they would not feel guilty about believing that if they do. We are not obligated to oppress people we believe are mistaken; I am not offended when someone believes I am mistaken about God.

I will quote at some length from Tony Campolo in an interview currently up at Beliefnet.com, because he says things much better than I do, and is a committed evangelical to boot:

"We ought to get out of the judging business. We should leave it up to God to determine who belongs in one arena or another when it comes to eternity. What we are obligated to do is to tell people about Jesus and that's what I do. I try to do it every day of my life. I don't know of any other way of salvation, excerpt through Jesus Christ. Now, if you were going to ask me, 'Are only Christians going to get to heaven?' I can't answer that question, because I can only speak from the Christian perspective, from my own convictions and from my own experience. I do not claim to be able to read the mind of God and when evangelicals make these statements, I have some very serious concerns. I didn't say anything that was relativistic. I am just saying that when we don't know what we're talking about, we shouldn't make absolute statements. And we don't know how God will judge in the end. We do not know the mind of God."

Continuing on with your questions...

"On the other hand, I agree with what you say here wholeheartedly. If other 'forms and traditions' have influenced and shaped Christianity in the past and continue to do so today, how can we say 'No' to the idea that 'universal spiritual truth' is found in 'all ages and lands'?"

First is the question of whether there *is* such a thing as universal spiritual truth, that is always equally true at all times in all places. Allowing that, though, I would say that we can say that universal spiritual truth is *potentially* found "in all ages and lands." The historical work of the Spirit--what bears good fruit--is the ultimate test of what parts of Christianity and other religions are true and what parts are false, what parts are absolute and what parts are contingent, what parts are compatible and what parts are incompatible with the Gospel that God loves us and seeks our reconciliation.

"'Is it possible to see the Buddha, Christ and Mohammed as equally valid ways to the God who is beyond God?'...

What is there in Christianity (or the version of Christianity you are referring to) that makes this less than possible?"

I think any authentically Christian view of God has to affirm that God will always be revealed in ways consistent with the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. (That's the minimum). To the extent that Buddhism denies the existence of a personal God, and that Islam focuses on legalism/works at the expense of grace, they are inconsistent with the Gospel and so are not equally valid ways to God. That doesn't mean they are completely invalid; I don't think religion (or most other things) are best described in dualistic terms.

"'so I would say a gracious and sovereign God is equally able to reach people through Buddhism and Islam as through Christianity.' (Mark) I agree with you. Are we still Christians?"

I'm trying to be. Whether you are, I couldn't judge, and am not trying to. I will say that you present a certain amount of apparent discomfort with being associated with the historical realities of Christianity, warts and all, so I will ask you a question back: do you want to be a Christian, and if so, why?

"However, as the old saw tells us, more wars have been fought in the name of religion than any other."

Since, historically, most societies have been religious, and since in conflicts all available differences are seized upon and magnified, that hardly should surprise anyone.

"It was only a few years ago that India and Pakistan were on the brink of nuclear war."

Yet India and Bangladesh do not have a similar conflict, or India and Iran, or India and Indonesia, or India and any other Muslim nation. India and Pakistan--themselves two countries somewhat artifically divided on religious grounds when Britain granted independence to their Indian possessions, against the wishes of many in the Indian independence movement--both lay claim to the state of Kashmir. It is a territory dispute exacerbated by the religious overtones both sides have heaped up around it.

"The endless suffering of the Middle East shows no signs of abating."

Again, a territory dispute exacerbated by religious overtones.

"And while we are for the most part civil to each other, religious differences are perhaps the major dividing line between the blue and red states."

Having lived in both "blue" and "red" states, with friends and family in each, I have to say I can't agree with your analysis. But I'm not qualified enough to argue the point in any detail.

Meanwhile, I can throw out counterexamples where religious differences have not been a key factor in violent conflicts. Darfur (Sudan), where Arab Muslims are slaughtering black Muslims. Rwanda, where Hutus and Tutsis were not religiously antagonistic that I know of. Iraq invading Kuwait. The Communist revolutions of Russia and China. World War I, with Protestant Germany and Protestant England leading the two sides. The American Civil War, with Protestants killing Protestants left and right. I don't believe the Greeks and the Persians were fighting over religious differences, nor Rome and Carthage. The Napoleonic wars. We didn't drop the Bomb on Hiroshima because the Japanese weren't Christian. And so forth, and so on.

"How can the world see itself 'as a single interrelated community' without at the same time 'actively embracing religious diversity'?"

By refusing to make force an acceptable means of attempting to spread religious beliefs. If "not killing each other" counts as actively embracing religious diversity, then I guess I'm for it. I tend to think of something a bit more intertwined and cooperative, though.

An analogy: I see the Republicans as equally American as me, yet I do not believe their policies to be equally valid as the ones I would prefer. I do not actively embrace political diversity in my own life. Yet I feel no need to go out and kill them or try to rig our system of government against them, even though Republican policies hurt me far more than non-Christian worship. Could God be hurt by "wrong" religion? Theoretically, I guess. But God is a big deity and can look after God's own affairs.

"Those who do not profess in and follow Jesus Christ remain estranged from God until they do. I would say that those who have been thought of as being estranged have good reason for bearing a grudge."

Yes, because we've killed them and oppressed them and generally made life unpleasant for them. Would they really have felt better about it if we had said, "But hey, your views on God: fine by us!"?

"It seems to me that the time has come for all Christians to take a long hard look at what our beliefs have done to the rest of the world (and to ourselves)."

We're supposed to be doing that anyway. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8 NRSV)

Peace,
Mark Kille
John P. Webster Library

"The Old Testament is a collection of Jewish documents, reflecting Israel's conviction that they alone were specially chosen by God. However, even so, the Old Testament contains the idea that eventually all nations will be reconciled to God."

Yes, but the idea was that all nations would be reconciled to the God of the Old Testament, not to the God beyond God whom all religions and faiths yearn for. For the Biblical vision to be fulfilled, the rest of the world would have to come around to seeing the error of their ways and accept the sovereignty of the tribal god, Jehovah. I'm not sure this is the vision the world needs to strive toward in the 21st century.

"The New Testament--seen by Christians as reporting on the fulfillment of God's promises in the Old Testament--explicitly states that all people have equal access to God and God's favor, as in Acts 10: 34-35 (NIV): 'I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.'"

Yes again, but this equal access to God would be available only to those who professed belief in Jesus Christ as the atoning sacrifice who made that the promise of that access a reality. Those not professing belief would still be on the outside looking in, no matter how virtuous their lives might be.

"You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name." (John 15:16 NRSV)

Chose us for what? Were we chosen to be followers of Christ? What becomes of the majority of humanity who are not chosen? Where does the concept of justice come from if we see God as being so arbitrary?

"Subsets of humanity has always declared themselves to be God's chosen people at the expense of others, yes."

What objective evidence can we point to that tells us our little subset is the one that is right?

"Does it always have to be that way? No."

But it will be if we continue to cling to our version of the truth as being the right one while the Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, Shintoists, etc. somehow got it wrong. Without throwing the Bible out, we have to find a new way of looking at it so that it won't always be the way it has been and is now.

"we can at least look at how men and women relate to each other and see other possibilities besides male domination."

Where have these possibilities come from? Perhaps the seed was planted a long time ago by Jesus of Nazareth. Strange how those who claim to follow him have tried so hard in his name to pull the root up for the past two thousand years.

"In the same way, how we *view* God's chosen people has to change, not the idea itself."

I agree. I think that change has to involve changing the way we look at the Bible. It might be time to reconvene the council of Nicaea.

"That's fair, though as you know, I do agree that Christianity is inherently superior to all other world religions."

The suffering that has been unleashed upon the world since that thought was first uttered makes me think that if Jesus could have known about it, he might have remained in his father's carpenter shop.

"Why else would I have chosen to be a Christian?"

I assume you were born in a Christian nation to a Christian family. You probably didn't really have a whole lot of choice before you were old enough to decide for yourself. At that point, being a Christian was most likely a part of your identity. The same would have been true if you had been born in Saudi Arabia to Islamic parents. How do you think you might feel if you heard a Christian say that his religion was "inherently superior" to yours?

"What I do *not* believe is that Christians are inherently superior to adherents of all other world religions, first because we may have misunderstood some critical aspect of the Gospel when developing our institutional Christianities, and second because even if we do have Christianity exactly right in theory, we always fail to practice it exactly right."

That's an extremely fine line you are drawing. If anyone can draw that line, I think (sincerely) that you would be among the ones who could draw it. But for the vast majority of humanity, the temptation to think of themselves as superior because they are safely ensconced in a superior religious system would be all but impossible to resist. It sounds like you are saying that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. If the system itself is superior than how could the adherents of that system not themselves be superior to those of the lesser system? But now I am wondering what you mean by a "superior" religion: a more coherent philosophical system, a more highly developed moral and ethical code, a more viable approach to truth, a closer walk with God?

"I would hope that a Muslim would believe Islam to be superior to all other religions, a Hindu would believe Hinduism to be superior, a Buddhist would believe Buddhism to be superior, and so forth and so on."

I would say that your hope is being realized every day. I don't see how any good comes of this.

_______________________________________________________________________________

From Tony Campolo:

"I don't know of any other way of salvation, except through Jesus Christ. Now, if you were going to ask me, 'Are only Christians going to get to heaven?' I can't answer that question, because I can only speak from the Christian perspective, from my own convictions and from my own experience."

I'm sorry, Tony, but I find this statement to be somewhat disingenuous. If you know enough about the mind of God to believe as fervently as you do that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation then you also know that only Christians are going to heaven. Otherwise, what is the meaning of salvation as you know and profess it?

"And we don't know how God will judge in the end. We do not know the mind of God."

Then why are you spending so much of your time and considerable energy on telling people that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation?

_____________________________________________________________________________

"First is the question of whether there *is* such a thing as universal spiritual truth, that is always equally true at all times in all places."

I think we could spend some time on trying to find what it is that unites the great (and lesser) world religions, but I'm not going to try and start that right now. If we ever do, I think we can make at least a start on describing universal spiritual truth(s).

"I will ask you a question back: do you want to be a Christian, and if so, why?"

I feel a little like Paul falling back on his Roman citizenship. I suppose I could "prove" to you I am a Christian (I realize you aren't asking me to do that). I still have my certification of baptism from Community Baptist Church, given to me in April of 1962. I have belonged to Community Baptist Church in Manchester, Union Baptist Church in Mystic, North Stonington Congregational and Mystic Congregational Churches. I have been a member of the Religious Society of Friends since 1999. Interestingly, there are occasional questions among Friends as to whether we are Christians or not and some outside of RSF find it hard to apply the title of Christian to us. But Quakerism has its roots in Christianity, and it is not uncommon to hear references to Christ and Christianity.

So I have the credentials and the personal history to identify myself as a "Christian". But for many (most) I think it would be a stretch to refer to me as a Christian. I don't believe in the veracity or necessity of original sin as an article of faith to explain the circumstances humanity finds itself in. Without original sin, there is no need for an atoning sacrifice by a savior. That pretty much removes the foundation to build an orthodox Christian faith. I don't know if the foundation was ever there for me, even during my Baptist and UCC days. I feel I have "come home" in a sense as a Quaker; some of my ancestors were Quakers so maybe I have. At the same time, I do sometimes miss the old familiar structure of a Protestant worship service. But I realize that is a sentimental longing, not a need to return to old forms. I appreciate the silence of a Quaker meeting (it does take some getting used to) and the "waiting on the Lord" that wordlessly fills the silence.

So, do I "want to be a Christian"? I already am (more later). Since I put the impediments that kept me from that reality behind me, I've known that more clearly in my heart.

"I can throw out counterexamples where religious differences have not been a key factor in violent conflicts."

Certainly there are factors other than religious ones that are at the heart of violent conflicts, but our exploring of them falls outside the bounds of this forum. I believe it is our task to explore, discuss and come to terms with how religion, especially Christianity, has contributed to violence. Otherwise, how can we hope to lessen this one cause among many as a contributor to human suffering?

"Having lived in both "blue" and "red" states, with friends and family in each, I have to say I can't agree with your analysis. But I'm not qualified enough to argue the point in any detail."

Neither am I. Perhaps someone else could weigh in at this point.

"An analogy: I see the Republicans as equally American as me, yet I do not believe their policies to be equally valid as the ones I would prefer."

That's an interesting analogy. I would like to return to it later. But for now this letter is long enough.

Hi David,

"Yes, but the idea was that all nations would be reconciled to the God of the Old Testament, not to the God beyond God whom all religions and faiths yearn for."

I don't think that's a distinction ancient Israel would have made. But in any case, the Old Testament addresses and acknowledges the ultimate unknowability of God, as in Job and Ecclesiastes and aruably Psalms and probably elsewhere.

"For the Biblical vision to be fulfilled, the rest of the world would have to come around to seeing the error of their ways and accept the sovereignty of the tribal god, Jehovah."

The Old and New Testaments show a progression in understanding the God of Israel to be, in fact, a universal God and not a god that only is concerned with the affairs and well-being of the Jews.

Yes, the rest of the world would have to see the error of their ways--but the Jews and Christians of the Bible are also constantly reminded of the need to see the error of *their* ways as well. Ultimately, Muslims and Jews and Christians agree that the only way out of the trap of human nature is obedience to God. Great differences exist, of course, between and inside the faiths regarding what obedience entails.

"I'm not sure this is the vision the world needs to strive toward in the 21st century."

Opinions differ. I'm not sure removing all sincere detail and commitment from our faith practices is the vision the world needs to strive towards, either. Certainly secularization produced many horrors in the 20th century.

"Yes again, but this equal access to God would be available only to those who professed belief in Jesus Christ as the atoning sacrifice who made that the promise of that access a reality."

That was the understanding of the authors of the New Testament and the official position of the historic Church, yes. But Peter and the earliest Christians, Jews that they were, were able to look beyond the "party line" of the institutional religion of Israel and see the Spirit at work in those who were officially outsiders. Don't Christians have the potential to look beyond the "party line" and see the Spirit at work in those who were officially outsiders? Isn't that what ONA reflects? Isn't that what increased talk in the past half century of "Judeo-Christian" values reflects? Isn't that what the UCC's conversations on religious pluralism reflect? Isn't that, in a sense, what the current Vatican's outreach to other Christians, incomplete and condescending as it is, reflects? Christianity does not stop with the New Testament. The idea that it did is a modern one, prompted by successive reactions against institutional church structures and practices, such that "tradition" became inherently suspect.

"Those not professing belief would still be on the outside looking in, no matter how virtuous their lives might be."

And? We declare all kinds of people to be "outside" a correct understanding of God, even in the UCC. The Religious Right is a prime example. Are their lives not virtuous? If not, by what standard do we judge virtue, independent of a specific understand of God and our relation to God?

"Chose us for what?"

To bear fruit: to love what is good, seek justice, and walk humbly with God.

"Were we chosen to be followers of Christ?"

If we bear fruit, we are followers of Christ, whether we identify as such or not.

"What becomes of the majority of humanity who are not chosen?"

Why do you assume the majority of humanity is not chosen? Yes, traditional Christianity often takes that position. So? Judaism presents an even more restrictive view of who God chooses, and as Christians we move past that. There are inclusivist and universalist Christianities, and they are much more widespread in the pews than in the doctrinal handbooks.

"Where does the concept of justice come from if we see God as being so arbitrary?"

See above re: universalism and inclusivism.

Beyond that, people write whole books about justice and God and what does it mean to say that God is just. The extremely abbreviated version of my own view is that justice is derived from all of our equal status as creations of God; injustice is treating a person or set of people as if they had less importance than oneself or one's own set of people, because it is a denial of God's work in creation.

"What objective evidence can we point to that tells us our little subset is the one that is right?"

None. That's the point of having humility.

What objective evidence do I have that it's wrong to allow the spotted owl to go extinct? What objective evidence do I have that my wife is more suited to be my wife than any other person? What objective evidence do I have for or against any answer to any important question? None, at least none that's conclusive. Yet it is irresponsible and empty not to try to answer important questions.

"But it will be if we continue to cling to our version of the truth as being the right one while the Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, Shintoists, etc. somehow got it wrong."

As I said in my last post, I don't think dualistic thinking is appropriate in the area of religion.

"Without throwing the Bible out, we have to find a new way of looking at it so that it won't always be the way it has been and is now."

It's *never* always been the way it has been and is now.

"Where have these possibilities come from? Perhaps the seed was planted a long time ago by Jesus of Nazareth. Strange how those who claim to follow him have tried so hard in his name to pull the root up for the past two thousand years."

People do stupid things. With sexism, it's a stupid thing that is hardly the exclusive province of Christianity.

"I think that change has to involve changing the way we look at the Bible."

The way we look at the Bible has always been changing, and Christians have always argued over its interpretation. We will continue to do so.

> It might be time to reconvene the council of Nicaea.

I don't think you'd be thrilled with the results of a truly ecumenical council. I know I wouldn't be.

"'That's fair, though as you know, I do agree that Christianity is inherently superior to all other world religions.' The suffering that has been unleashed upon the world since that thought was first uttered makes me think that if Jesus could have known about it, he might have remained in his father's carpenter shop."

As opposed to the Eden the world was before Christianity? As opposed to the Eden that parts of the world are, where Christianity was displaced or never took root? *People* unleash suffering. Christian people, atheist people, Muslim people, Hindu people, agnostic people. Zealous Christians will unleash suffering specifically related to their Christianity, just as any joy they unleash will be specifically related to their Christianity.

"I assume you were born in a Christian nation to a Christian family. You probably didn't really have a whole lot of choice before you were old enough to decide for yourself."

Hee.

Around age 11, I declared that I wasn't going to church or Sunday School anymore. The reason I gave was that if I wanted to be near God, I could do that outside just as easily; the real reason was that we kept doing Old Testament stuff in Sunday School, and since a large number of my friends were Jewish, I didn't see the point of focusing on "their" books instead of "ours." I then spent the next 15 years or so specifically trying *not* to be Christian, going various other routes (Unitarian, Jewish, neo-pagan, agnostic).

Let me be as clear as possible: for most of my life, I wanted to *not* be a Christian. Historically, the Church has been awfully hard on people like me, my family and friends, and vast numbers of people who have been excluded from power and privilege. Yes, I grew up in a Christianity-saturated culture. But I also grew up in a materialistic culture, a heterosexist culture, and an individualistic culture. Why would I return to Christianity, but not materialism or heterosexism or individualism?

I *paid* for my Christianity. I have lost friends and created new tensions within my family. I don't want to sound "poor me," because that's hardly the case, compared either to truly persecuted Christians or truly persecuted people. And also, I (try to) count all loss as gain, for Christ. My point is just--I did not just flop into this identity and this faith.

"The same would have been true if you had been born in Saudi Arabia to Islamic parents. How do you think you might feel if you heard a Christian say that his religion was 'inherently superior' to yours?"

About how I feel when I hear my overwhelmingly atheist and agnostic peers dismiss the idea of religion, I would imagine. About how I feel when I read spirited Muslim defenses of Islam or Baha'i defenses of the Baha'i faith or what have you. Irritated, regretful, regretful that I'm irritated, and irritated that I'm regretful.

"But for the vast majority of humanity, the temptation to think of themselves as superior because they are safely ensconced in a superior religious system would be all but impossible to resist."

People do stupid things.

I suppose my counterargument would be: for the vast majority of humanity, the temptation to think that God doesn't matter because the way we worship God doesn't matter would be all but impossible to resist. I don't myself necessarily think that's true, any more than I think your statement is true. But it's the logical counter.

"If the system itself is superior than how could the adherents of that system not themselves be superior to those of the lesser system?"

Let's say I want to go from my home in South Hadley (MA) to Boston. I can take the Mass Pike; I can take Route 9; I can take Route 20; I can go up to Route 2 and head east on that; I could try driving down random streets, navigating by the sun; I could even go down 91 to New Haven, then up 95 north. Many, many different roads and ways--but only one is the most direct and quickest, the Mass Pike. *By car, driving the speed limit.* Now, let's call the Pike Christianity, and Route 9 Islam, and Route 20 Judaism, and so forth. If I'm *walking* down the Pike, I won't get to Boston before my Muslim and Jewish friends who have cars. If I think the proper thing to do in a car is park on the side of the road and wait for a random tow truck, I won't get to Boston before my Muslim and Jewish friends. If I drive *west* instead of east...Well, you get the idea.

There are any number of other analogies I could toss out. Chainsaws vs. hacksaws vs. hatchets vs. butter knives. Microwaves vs. ovens vs. toasters vs. campfires...A tool can be the best tool for a particular job, but an inferior tool can be put to better results in the right hands.

"But now I am wondering what you mean by a 'superior' religion:"

A fair question.

"a more coherent philosophical system, a more highly developed moral and ethical code, a more viable approach to truth, a closer walk with God?"

Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as yourself. That's a moral and ethical code that leads to a more coherent philosophical system and a more viable approach to truth, which then lead to a closer walk with God.

"'I would hope that a Muslim would believe Islam to be superior to all other religions, a Hindu would believe Hinduism to be superior, a Buddhist would believe Buddhism to be superior, and so forth and so on.' I would say that your hope is being realized every day. I don't see how any good comes of this."

Yet good will come of insisting that a broadly-defined religion is superior to more particular ones?

"I'm sorry, Tony, but I find this statement to be somewhat disingenuous. If you know enough about the mind of God to believe as fervently as you do that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation then you also know that only Christians are going to heaven. Otherwise, what is the meaning of salvation as you know and profess it?...why are you spending so much of your time and considerable energy on telling people that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation?"

This is the hardest kind of question to answer, because you either accept the idea or you don't.

Putting words in Tony Campolo's mouth, he seems to me to be saying that "salvation as he knows and professes it" can only be known to him through his own experience and his own study. His own experience runs straight through a transforming relationship with Jesus, which leads him to the Bible; his study of the Bible leads him conclude that the Bible supports the idea that Christ is the one path to salvation. The data he has available point to a particular hypothesis; but he recognizes that he does not (and can never have) all the data. So his testimony is: Christ is a sure way to salvation. His implied testimony is: Other ways are less sure, as far as I can tell.

Humility, humility, humility. And an academic mindset that allows for an ongoing, fuller understanding of the truth, that sometimes requires setting aside or modifying established theories.

"So, do I 'want to be a Christian'? I already am (more later). Since I put the impediments that kept me from that reality behind me, I've known that more clearly in my heart."

Perhaps you could expand on what makes you consider yourself a Christian, as opposed to a person of any other sort of faith, specified or unspecified.

"Certainly there are factors other than religious ones that are at the heart of violent conflicts, but our exploring of them falls outside the bounds of this forum."

Perhaps, but when one argues that more wars have been fought over religious differences than any other cause, then war as a general topic becomes relevant.

"I believe it is our task to explore, discuss and come to terms with how religion, especially Christianity, has contributed to violence. Otherwise, how can we hope to lessen this one cause among many as a contributor to human suffering?"

I don't think we can do what you're interested in unless we also explore, discuss and come to terms with how religion, especially Christianity, has also contributed to what peace there is in the world.

Peace,
Mark Kille
John P. Webster Library

".idea was that all nations would be reconciled to the God of the Old Testament, not to the God beyond God whom all religions and faiths yearn for." (David)

"I don't think that's a distinction ancient Israel would have made." (Mark)

The ancient Israelites never showed any interest in or compassion for their neighbors. Other gods were considered to be abominations by them. And because they had no knowledge of the religions and faiths of other cultures, I think it is safe to say that the only God they were referring to that all nations would be reconciled to someday was their own. My point is that we have passed the time when we can look at God as the God for some right now and for all when others accept our version of who and what God is and isn't.

"You can keep an old tradition going only by renewing it in terms of current circumstances. In the period of the Old Testament, the world was a little three layer cake, consisting of a few hundred miles around the Near East centers. No one had ever heard of the Aztecs, or even of the Chinese. When the world changes, then the religion has to be transformed." (Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth, p. 21

That doesn't mean I am "insisting that a broadly-defined religion is superior to more particular ones." I can understand how that is a conclusion you could reach but that is because of my not being as clear as I could be in communicating. I don't think a "one religion fits all" is helpful or realistic in terms of how we approach religious beliefs now and in the future. I think everyone should keep their own religion with its comforting traditions and familiar customs.

But in so doing, it is important that all religions are seen for what they are: an imperfect attempt to put into words and actions a response to the mysteries of life. It is easy enough for us to see the shortcomings in the structure of other people's attempts, but I think we must see our own in the same way. We are no closer to God because we have the Hebrew Bible while someone else has the Upanishads or the Koran, but the history of Christianity from Constantine to Franklin Graham has said and acted otherwise. Humility requires a relinquishing of the illusion of superiority the Christian church has clung to for most of its history.

"The Old and New Testaments show a progression in understanding the God of Israel to be, in fact, a universal God and not a god that only is concerned with the affairs and well-being of the Jews."

If that is true, then a universal God would make Him/Herself known in a variety of ways according to the particular culture. So while God is being made known to ancient Israel as seen through the stories in the OT, God was at the same time, being made known just as authentically to the peoples of Polynesia and South America. Yet in the Judeo-Christian tradition, anyone who does not worship the God of Israel as the one true God is seen as being a "pagan", one who has no God.

"I'm not sure removing all sincere detail and commitment from our faith practices is the vision the world needs to strive towards, either."

I agree. What is needed is for us to be conscious that commitment to faith practices can be just as sincere and realistic for my neighbor as it is for me. When I say "us" I mean the entire human race.

"Peter and the earliest Christians, Jews that they were, were able to look beyond the "party line" of the institutional religion of Israel and see the Spirit at work in those who were officially outsiders."

I am suggesting that we, in these first years of the new millennium, need to also look beyond the "party line" of the institutional religion of Christianity and also see the Spirit at work in the religions and beliefs of those who are outside the Judeo-Christian tradition.

"Isn't that what the UCC's conversations on religious pluralism reflect?"

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what is meant by religious pluralism here. Are we talking about the UCC reaching out to Methodists and Baptists or is this a more wide ranging outreach?

"If we bear fruit, we are followers of Christ, whether we identify as such or not."

I wonder how a devout Muslim would feel about being identified as a follower of Christ?

"Why do you assume the majority of humanity is not chosen?"

I don't assume that. But the central premise of orthodox Christianity is that the only way to be saved is to profess belief in Jesus Christ as savior. This is, in my opinion, an idea that needs to change or be discarded completely. I am learning from you that this change is already taking place and in the hearts of some, already has. For the most part, that was not my experience in the ABC or UCC. I find that possibility of change to be both hopeful and interesting. Part of my reason for participating in this dialogue is to learn more about this change in direction for Christianity.

"What objective evidence do I have that my wife is more suited to be my wife than any other person?"

And if I follow your train of thought correctly, what you are saying about religion could be stated analogously by saying that for you, your wife is superior to all other women you could have married (on a good day anyway). But that would not mean that your wife is the superior wife among all wives. Is it something like that? And true, there would be no way to prove that by referring to objective evidence. The funny thing is that a minister I knew at one of the churches I mentioned previously used to like telling the congregation, from the pulpit, mind you, that his marriage was the best in the world. Not the best for him, but the best there is.

I think that the way the Judeo-Christian tradition has been presented to the world has been more along the lines of that minister: "This is the best there is. It's not just the best for those of us who are in this tradition; it's the best there could possibly be for anybody." And the nations that have the Judeo-Christian tradition as their primary religion have also been the most technologically advanced for the past 500 or so years. It's something like having a neighbor who isn't reluctant to tell us his marriage is the best in the neighborhood and he has the biggest house, swimming pool and the fastest cars as well. And then he's always telling us if we would just live like him, we could be as happy as he is. And if we don't live just like him, well, just wait and see what happens then to us someday!

"As I said in my last post, I don't think dualistic thinking is appropriate in the area of religion."

Dualistic thinking is at the center of our religious tradition and has been ever since God separated the light from the dark in Genesis.

"The suffering that has been unleashed upon the world since that thought was first uttered makes me think that if Jesus could have known about it, he might have remained in his father's carpenter shop." (David)

"As opposed to the Eden the world was before Christianity? As opposed to the Eden that parts of the world are, where Christianity was displaced or never took root? *People* unleash suffering. Christian people, atheist people, Muslim people, Hindu people, agnostic people. Zealous Christians will unleash suffering specifically related to their Christianity, just as any joy they unleash will be specifically related to their Christianity."

But Christianity proclaims itself to be the manifestation of God's plan for all humanity. If it is going to take that role upon itself, then it assumes a higher degree of responsibility for suffering it causes.

"I *paid* for my Christianity. I have lost friends and created new tensions within my family. I don't want to sound "poor me," because that's hardly the case, compared either to truly persecuted Christians or truly persecuted people. And also, I (try to) count all loss as gain, for Christ. My point is just--I did not just flop into this identity and this faith."

I respect what you are saying here.

"About how I feel when I hear my overwhelmingly atheist and agnostic peers dismiss the idea of religion, I would imagine."

I'm sure your peers have all they can handle when discussing religion with you.

"Let's say I want to go from my home in South Hadley (MA) to Boston.Many, many different roads and ways--but only one is the most direct and quickest, the Mass Pike."

That's the most direct and quickest for you. But for me, living here in Westerly, it would be far out of the way. I'm going to get on I-95 and head north. Let's say when the Bible was written, it was written only for people living in South Hadley. In fact the good citizens of that town didn't even know Westerly existed. So when they wrote down their directions for future generations to get to Boston, they said "Take the Mass Pike, it's the best way to get to Boston." For the people of South Hadley those directions remain the best way. But does that mean that the people of Westerly should acknowledge that it is the one best way for them now that we know there are other ways that work better for us? As long as you get to Boston, does it really matter what route you take as long as it's the best one for you because of where you are coming from?

"If I'm *walking* down the Pike, I won't get to Boston before my Muslim and Jewish friends who have cars."

But you are still on the best road. If our Jewish friends are going to Boston via South Hadley to Seattle, you may get there before they do anyway. And if the road map they are using for directions is flawed (as orthodox Christianity has claimed for 2000 years) they will never get to Boston.

"Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as yourself. That's a moral and ethical code that leads to a more coherent philosophical system and a more viable approach to truth, which then lead to a closer walk with God."

It could also be the universal spiritual truth that all religions point to.

The data he (Tony Campolo) has available point to a particular hypothesis; but he recognizes that he does not (and can never have) all the data."

This is circular reasoning. He uses the data to arrive at his hypothesis, and then claims the data supports the hypothesis. (I realize we are both putting words in his mouth.)

"Perhaps you could expand on what makes you consider yourself a Christian, as opposed to a person of any other sort of faith, specified or unspecified."

I will in another response in the (I hope) not too distant future. It may take a little time.

"Certainly there are factors other than religious ones that are at the heart of violent conflicts, but our exploring of them falls outside the bounds of this forum." (David)

Perhaps, but when one argues that more wars have been fought over religious differences than any other cause, then war as a general topic becomes relevant. (Mark)

That is a fair point.

Please visit the First Church home page!