Ecumenism at it's finest?

As I was driving around to various freelance writing duties this morning, I was listening NPR on the radio and in particular The Diane Rehm Show, which I mostly enjoy listening to.
Her guests the first hour were a Muslim scholar - can't recall his name - and a Catholic Cardinal or Bishop - can't remember his name.
Anyway, as I was listening to some explanations by the Muslim scholar as to why Muslims around the world were offended by the Pope quoting from Byzantine emporer Paleologus, I was struck by a line of reasoning the Muslim scholar shared that I was surprised to find no one questioned him about - even the Catholic priest.

While I can understand why Muslims the world over would be upset by what they saw as the trashing of the Prophet Muhammed by a Byzantine emporer and the quotation by Benedict - this was one of the explanations as to why Muslims have taken to the streets in violence - I'm amused and somewhat bewildered by some other statements the scholar talked about in terms of ecumenism, "paths" to God and "exclusivism."

Muslim scholar said because of Pope Benedict XVI's speech, in which he quoted Paleologus who apparently likened aspects of Islam to being evil, Benedict is really against ecumenism. And Muslim scholar condemns the Pope's position that there is no salvation for people outside of Jesus Christ. In that vein and with that thinking by the Pope, according to Muslim Scholar, the Pope is not promoting ecumenism.

My bewilderment here comes in where Muslim Scholar accuses the Pope of promoting the idea that there can be no salvation for those outside of Jesus Christ, which is simply not being tolerant of other religions. Now, this teaching is not a specific teaching of the Pope or of Christian peoples, in general, in order to tell others who's "in" and who's "out" in terms of salvation. This is a teaching of Jesus Christ himself. This isn't something made up by Christian people or the Pope to exclude others outside the faith. Take these words from Christ, for example: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me." Christ, by the way, wasn't being exclusive here. He invited all people to come into faith and become followers of his and in that way come to know the Father. He allowed everyone to make their choice of their own free will, but he was still clear on the point that he is the Way. And there are many other references that can be pointed to in which Christ claims he's the only Way. The point here is that if you're going to be a follower or disciple of Christ, you have to take all of his teachings, not just some of them. So to say that the Benedict is being exclusivistic is not valid because he is simply being a good Christian and going by what the Origin (Jesus Christ) taught. The Pope wasn't being exclusivistic in the terms that Muslim Scholar was accusing. Muslim Scholar would have to accuse Jesus Christ of being exclusivistic.

And in the same vein, all religions - not just Christianity - are exclusivistic with radically different teachings about how to reach "salvation." This is not simply a Christian invention.
If you understand any limited laws of logic, one in particular makes this point. This law of logic is knows as the Law of Non Contradiction, which is as follows: A cannot equal -A. It's a logical impossibility for the two to equal each other. And you can plug anything in there: Chair cannot equal Table; four cannot equal two; Hinduism cannot equal Islam; Judaism cannot equal Mormonism; etc.

So back to the point - all religions are exclusivistic and do not hold to the same tennets. All paths do not end in reaching God. If you follow the teachings of Muhammed, you cannot also follow the teachings of Christ because they are not the same and contradict each other. For example, a teaching of Islam indicates that the only way for someone to be wholly secured of salvation is to martyr him or herself for the faith. But you can't hold to that view and at the same time hold to the Christian view that a confession of faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to secure salvation. They're mutually exclusive teachings. I'm guessing that Muslim scholar - at least Muslims in general - would even deny that Christians have salvation as most Christians deny that Muslims have salvation. What it comes down to, then, is which religion seems most reasonable to you - the Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hinduist, etc. systems.

In any case, ecumenism, then, is the idea that two religious groups with opposing views can come together for a common goal like for instance the common goal of peace. While different religions can hold to different beliefs, they can work together for a common goal or end by trying to understand each other better without compromising their own beliefs. And toleration is really the idea that one person with a particular belief can tolerate - with loving, humble kindness - the opinion of someone else even though it may be wrong and vice versa. Tolerance does not mean that I cannot voice my opinions about a particular subject or view and say that, in my opinion, a particular view is wrong. Unfortunately, though, that is how the word "tolerance" has been wrongly cast as of late.

So, for the Muslim Scholar to accuse the Pope of being exclusivistic and against ecumenism for holding to Catholic/Christian doctrine is absurd, just like it would be absurd for the Pope to say that a Muslim holding to Islamic teachings is being exclusivistic.

Greasing the squeaky Islamic wheel

Call me intolerant, call me insensitive, call me what you will, but I'm a little perplexed as to why the Muslim world starts yelling "jihad" and calling for Muslims around the world to slit the throats of "cross worshippers" every time someone says something they don't like. And you can't fall back on "We're oppressed! We're oppressed!" To me, that's a cop out. Hundreds of real Jesus-following Christians are persecuted or killed daily for their beliefs, and while they may believe they're oppressed you don't see them out burning effigies of their so-called oppressors and calling on radicals to slit people's throats. You don't see real Jesus-following Christians taking to the streets en mass calling for apologies and threatening violence when radical Muslims say :"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... "(Allah) will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... (Allah) will enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement" by an Al Qaeda-linked militant group.

www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/17/pope.islam/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/18/pope.islam.ap/index.html

This, to me, is like telling the rest of the world 'I'm going to kill you if you keep telling me I'm violent.' It's all quite suspect since we're constantly told that Islam is not a violent religion and yet violence seems to pour from real Allah-following Muslims like .... well, I have a pretty graphic example that I'm going to censor myself from using.
The point is: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....
The Islamic religion scares me, and it seems more and more to me that might quite possibly be the point.

The Gospel of Processed Cheesy Meat

Oh, dear, where to begin. There are few topics that get me so fired up as the so-called Name it & Claim it, Prosperity, Pie-in-the-Sky, My-Big-Heaven-Daddy's-gonna-buy-me-a- candy-apple-red-1965-mint-Mustang-someday-because-I'm-the-perfect-Christian-brat-and-you're-not Syndrome.
I was pleased that Time Magazine tackled an article about the Prosperity Gospel with what I think is a great deal of seriousness and candor: (It's a long article, so prepare to have a few moments to take it all in)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1533448,00.html


What you haven't seen as you read this is that I've been sitting in front of my computer for quite awhile now trying to figure out a nice way to write what I want to say about this "gospel." Frankly, it's not working. The not-so-good-news health and wealth gospel simply infuriates me. If you could see me right now, you could tell as much. When I get overly angry about something my jaw sets such that I will likely have to have some serious dental work done someday.

First off, I must say that I'm not surprised at the development of such a gospel here in the Land of Good and Plenty. It's typical for us overindulged Americans, who would rather camp out in front of our television sets and be spoon-fed theology from the Great Talking Idiot Box of the Living Room, to buy into a sort of Christianity that compares God to the Great ATM Machine in the sky, who, according to this non gospel, would rather we drive nice shiny cars and live in plush dream homes than develop any sort of character and Christ-likeness.

I wonder why any of us would be surprised by such a theology that would crop up in Good and Plenty Land where the Great and Wonderful Idiot Box reigns on a throne of expensive furniture, despite the fact that something like seventy percent of the world's population goes hungry on a daily basis? Is it just we Western "sort-of" Christians that the ATM god wishes to bless with health and wealth? Is it just we Western "sort-of" Christians that the ATM god has seen fit convey money, good eats, safe homes, retirement savings plans and bank accounts and assets that quite possibly put the governments of small countries to shame? Why, of course, say the prophets of ATM god! Why, this is after all a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles, why shouldn't we taste the greenie delights of this psuedo god? We're basically good, hard-working people just trying to make a decent living! Besides, it's much easier and fits in much more nicely with our materialistic, consume-everything-in-sight-before-anyone-else-can get-a-crack-at-it mentality in Good and Plenty Land. Why deny ourselves - what value is there in it?

But, I say, spit it out, worshipers of the Good and Plenty! Spit this theology out like a bad piece of processed cheesy meat fed to you by god Idiot Box! I know processed cheesy meats appeal more to our tastebuds that are themselves beginning to take on the qualities of these fun fake foods, but in the end it will clog your brain and spiritually kill you just like the fat and preservatives in edible processed cheesy meat will eventually fill up your arteries and kill your body. If you continue to look at God like some kind of materialistic cosmic gift-giver, you will never understand what it is to be fulfilled spiritually. "Things," jobs, relationships, nice furniture, cushy homes and well-stocked cars don't fill us spiritually. Yeah, OK, these things are fun for awhile - I'm certainly the first to admit it. I bought a Jeep Liberty a couple years ago simply because I talked myself into a little lie that suggested that a Jeep Liberty has much more "personality" than the bottom-of-the-line Saturn I had been driving. But when their newness has long worn off and we're stuck with the payment, we find that it's just another thing that has been replaced with a better model.

God fills us spiritually, satisfies our longings for that "there's-got-to-be-something-more-out-there" feeling that the majority of us children of the land of Good and Plenty are searching for. And can I let you in on a little secret? This spiritual satisfaction doesn't always instantly feel good the way a new car instantly makes us feel worthy of higher class, the way new clothes instantly make us feel somewhat better about the wear and tear on our bodies, the way a new home instantly makes us feel rich. But that's just it - don't you see? Things that are good for us don't always carry with them the most pleasant experiences. Think about your last trip to the doctors office, the time you had your wisdom teeth pulled or when your mom had to peroxide the heck out of the road-rash you collected when you took a spill off your bike.

All this isn't to say that God isn't the giver of good gifts. On the contrary, he certainly is! He's the only one who can make that horrible "there's-got-to-be-something-else" feeling finally abate. He's the giver of patience, love, kindness, longsuffering, selflessness, forgiveness, rest, peace and all the rest that goes along with these inner characteristics that help us to grow more Christ-like, help us to put others above ourselves, help us to forgive others not because they need our forgiveness but because, ultimately, that forgiveness allows us to accept God's forgiveness. You see, these are the real benefits - realizing that we, ourselves, matter very little compared to the one sitting next to us, our brothers and sisters around the world who are hungry, naked and homeless. But this self sacrifice bit is a difficult lesson to learn - it's not as easy as processed cheesy meat. It's rather like preparing a seven-course meal from scratch instead of opening a can of cream of mushroom soup and announcing that dinner's ready.

All of this is also not to say that money in and of itself is bad. Rather, it's the LOVE of money that leads to all sorts of evil behavior. I grew up poor. Now that I'm older and I'm not so poor anymore, I had awful pangs of guilt for having more. But I read some Dallas Willard, who rightly said in Spirit of the Disciplines (a book I would highly recommend every Christian read), that we want there to be Christians out there who have money. It's a good thing! Why would we want all of the world's money to be controlled by evil people who would use it for evil deeds? Instead, it's good that there are good people who have lots of money to spread around to the have nots and good causes. And, Willard also points out that those without money are probably more likely to spend the majority of their time of finding ways to get more money. Whereas, those with money will likely spend much less time focusing on the money. So having money, making money, having nice things is not a bad thing. It's what you do with the money, it's what you expect God to do for you regarding money and it's your attitude about the money that really causes the problem.

And one more thing while I'm on my soap box: Those processed cheesy meat gospel prophets out there like Joel Osteen and Creflo Dollar (and, really, doesn't the name just say it all?) are selling false hopes and dreams. Everyone can't be rich. It's impossible for every single person to be monetarily rich. And what happens to the poor slob who buys into processed cheesy meat gospel and only gets a stomach ache for his trouble? What do you tell this person, Processed Cheesy Meat Pastor? Do you tell him he lost his job and can't provide enough food for his family because he didn't give enough money to your ministry or because he didn't buy your book? Do you tell the mother who's child has died of SIDS in her crib that if only she'd contributed more money to your ministry the Good Lord would've blessed her with a living child? And what about the wife who lost her husband of 30 years - why is it that she spent so long taking care of him but loses him anyway? Was it because she just didn't have enough faith in God's good gifts? What happens to their souls, Processed Cheesy Meat Pastor, when God doesn't deliver on the promises you say he'll give, they blame God and reject him? Do you really believe it's the sheep's fault, Processed Cheesy Meat Pastor? Is it God's fault? Or is it a false and unpredictable gospel that will certainly one day clog your arteries as well?

Welcome to the 'It's All About Me' show

So, this isn't directly about religion, but since my worldview colors how I see things, I can't help but ask myself: Why we can't seem to keep our hands to ourselves in terms of attacking and hitting others and if it is any reflection on how we see the world? Afterall, the idea of keeping our hands to ourselves is one of the things we were supposed to take away from pre school and kindergarten. And, really, don't we already know objectively, that it's wrong to let our fists fly on others?

Take this story about the reporter being attacked:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/07/reporter.attacked.ap/index.html.

Of course, this is particularly bothersome to me because, well, I'm a reporter. And the threat of bodily harm, especially when working on sensitive topics, is always a concern. While I've never been physically attacked, I've been screamed at, hung up on, had doors slammed in my face and sworn at. And, of course, I've always kept my cool in return!

Anyway, take, too, the recent incident of the coach tackling the kid playing football on an opposing team. The kid was called for a late hit for the tackling the opposing coach's son, the quarterback. Now, instead of adults merely attacking each other at sporting events, we've got them going after the kids too! What the heck?!?

How is it that we can't control ourselves? Could it be that since we, as a society, tend to think that morals are subjective rather than objective, I can ultimately decide for myself how to conduct myself instead of measuring myself against an ultimate objective good? Subjective morality basically lets us all decide what's good for us, even if it entails tackling a 14-year-old kid and beating the crap out of him. And, really, the culture at large cannot even tell us that its set of standards are the objective because who in the culture gets to decide what the standard is? Is it the majority? But why is your standard any more valid than my standard of morals and conduct? And if the majority decides that sacrificing all first-born 2-year-old males to the God Whatsamajigger, is that really alright? Um .... hmmm .... NO! How do I know that? Morality is objective. If I want to punch you in the face, why exactly is that wrong if our internal system of morality is based on the subjective? It seems to me that when you move from an objective moral standard to a subjective moral standard, then you get people acting the way they've been taught to act: basing their actions on how they feel rather than on what is truly right and wrong. You get people maliciously tackling kids, attacking reporters, "road rage" and a myriad of other scary offenses toward each other.

I don't know about any one else out there, but when someone tells me to just 'do what feels right,' I bristle. If I based all of my actions on what felt "right" during a fleeting moment, my life would be a complete wreck! I'd definitely be overweight, I would be sexually promiscuous, I would likely have killed several people who've ticked me off for various reasons and I'd be so far in debt you'd have to dig to China to get me out of the hole. Subjectivity just doesn't play out in real life. We just don't 'do what feels right' all the time because we're thinking, rational humans who understand the consequences of our actions. And how do we understand the consequences? Not only through trial and error or by example, I contend, but through objective standards outside of ourselves and outside of society.

I say we start a new advertising campaign: 'Before you do what feels right, think about it.' But I guess that's just not as pithy as 'It's all about me.'