Interfaith Dialogue - June 23, 2009

Scripture:

• John 14:6
• Acts 4:11-12
• Romans 3:1-2
• Romans 11:1-2, 25-29
• 1 Corinthians 3:11
• 1 Corinthians 8:4-6
• Colossians 1:19-20
• 1 Timothy 2:3-6

Articles:

• "Is Our God Listening?" Diana Eck Encountering God
• Jerusalem launches debate on sharing holiest site
  
• Interfaith dialogue is pointless without intra-faith reflection
• The Pluralism Project

Our discussion this week examined the Christian response to the reality of religious plurality. We focused upon the tripartite model of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism as explained by Dr. Diana L. Eck. The meeting began with some brief explanatory notes elaborating upon Eck's description. She defines Christian responses to religious plurality based upon how they answer the question, "When people of other faiths pray, is our God listening?" This question appears simple enough but has deep repercussions for how we as Christians engage those of other faiths, as well as how we understand God.

Is it OK to just say, "I don't know"? God is far beyond our understanding, none of us has access to the Book of Life, so can we just leave the issue at human ignorance? Some members of the group were fine to do so, but it cannot be ignored that some Christians feel that they do know, largely based upon scripture. We turned our focus to the scripture and looked at how each verse could be read according to a specific slant. While John 14.6's "No one comes to the Father except through me" could be taken as being black-and-white exclusivist, some viewed this statement as being more inclusivist (i.e. Christ's salvific acts allow humanity to come into a new relationship with God not possible without Jesus; one doesn't have to believe in Jesus in order to be saved by him). The conclusion was reached that an exclusivist would have the easiest time using the Bible to prove his/her point while a pluralist would have a more difficult time.

The term "pluralist" continued to cause some problems in comprehension. When one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith is that salvation comes through Jesus Christ, is an individual who believes salvation is possible apart from Christ really a Christian? How does pluralism differ from syncretism or relativism? Further reading will (eventually) be posted in order to better explain these differences.

When dealing with interfaith dialogue in modern society, one must also factor in the accompanying political and cultural ramifications. This is true in America as it is elsewhere in the world. In addition, religious communities are often self-segregating, which might allow for greater religious harmony. However, does this arrangement allow for true engagement with other faith traditions? While it might create a superficial peace and tolerance, without making strides towards mutual understanding, true peace cannot be reached between those of different religious traditions until the move is made from tolerance to curiosity to understanding to celebration.

As requested and as I trepidatiously agreed, here are a couple of papers I wrote in college on the topic:

• The Ramifications of Religious Pluralism for Ministry: How Christian Communities Are Currently Responding to this Challenge and a Vision for the Future
• Exclusivist Christians and Islam: Misperceptions Due to Internal Insecurities
  

Questions for further reflection:
- What is the goal of interreligious dialogue?
- Which Christian response to the issue of religious plurality holds the most promise for American society?
- When people of other faiths pray, is our God listening?

Ecumenism - June 16, 2009

Scripture:

• John 10:16
• Acts 4:32-37
• Romans 12:4-5
• Romans 15:5-6
• 1 Corinthians 1:10-17
• Ephesians 4:1-6

Articles:

• Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S., Executive Summary
• Of special interest to Protestants: Changing within Protestantism
• Major Christian Denominations
• General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns
• Ecumenical Meeting - The Address of Pope Benedict XVI, Aug. 15, 2005
• Catholic Church alone is one, true church, says Vatican congregation
• Primary Source: Responses on some questions regarding certain aspects of the Doctrine of the Church
• The World Council of Churches - Ecumenism is a way of life

Conversation this week looked at what ecumenism is, whether or not it is Biblical, and how to make sense of the various Christian denominations. It was noted that in some ways, there are large differences between the denominations, particularly between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches. However, while there are theological differences between Protestant churches, they are typically more minor. Divisions are not exclusive to Christianity as most of the major world religions have different sects, often in (violent) conflict with one another.

Some of the denominations (such as the Catholic Church and many evangelical churches) believe that their theology is so solely correct that churches that do not share their theology cannot rightly be called the Church. For the Catholic Church, this authority includes the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Since other denominations cannot claim this, at least in their minds, the Catholic Church is the only true Church. For evangelical churches, denominations who do not hold to their theological beliefs, including Catholics, Mormons, and "liberal" denominations like Methodists and Presbyterians, do not have the Truth. The definition of Church depends upon who is defining it.

A distinction was made between theology and worship. One cannot deny that there are theological differences between all of the Christian denominations. However, the question was raised as to whether or not an outsider would be able to tell the difference between denominations solely by attending worship services. This lack of awareness of theology even amongst Christian laity is demonstrated in the Pew Forum study, which revealed the large number of Christians who switch between denominations for reasons including better sermons, closer location, more social opportunities, and marriage. If one is not attached to a particular denomination's theology (if one is even aware of that denomination's theology), it is easier for him/her to switch denominations based upon other factors.

In addition, the argument was made that Christianity is all about the individual believer, even in the early church. This argument reflects the individualistic Western mindset wherein religion is about making the believer feel they have a relationship with God. Therefore, wherever the individual finds spiritual fulfillment, that is where they attend church, regardless of denominational affiliation.

The issue of mere Christianity was also raised. If scripture that argues for one body, one baptism, one Spirit, and full unity is correct, it would seem that denominations are contrary to the will of God. However, if one flock is understood to mean belief in Christ and adherence to Christ's teachings, then the existence of denominations may or may not be a problem. The question then becomes, is this mere Christianity, the lowest common denominator of denominations, enough? Doctrine evolved and churches split over said doctrine because humans were concerned with orthodoxy. Is it enough to believe in Christ or does there need to be agreement on who Christ is (e.g. Trinitarians vs. Unitarians)? Are there any creeds that all Christians can agree to?

What then is the place for ecumenical dialogue? Pope Benedict XVI's speech raises the point that in times of great ethical and moral quandaries, it is expected that the Christian community will answer in one voice. If we are to provide that answer, we must work together. Many, including the Pope, would still leave issues of theology to the theologians, focusing instead on practice. However, what is Christianity without theology?

Questions for further consideration:
- Is a united Church even possible in light of the nature of humanity?
- Is Christianity really an individualistic religion? Did the early church really focus more upon the individual than the community?
- Does mere Christianity focus more upon belief in Jesus or adherence to Jesus' teachings (or both)?
- Where would you draw the line between "Christian" and "Non-Christian"?

Technology and the Church - June 9, 2009

Scripture:

• 1 Corinthians 14:26-33a, 40
• Romans 12:2
• Matthew 28:19-20
• 1 Corinthians 10:23-33

Articles:

• Holy Twitter! They're tweeting from the pews (This article serves as an overview of the topic for those who might be short on time)
• Twittering in Church, with the Pastor's O.K.
  
• Social Networking - Churches on Facebook
• Germans summarise Bible via Twitter
• Pope Uses Facebook to Woo Young Believers

Our discussion primarily focused around the issues of Twitter in church worship services and the use of technology as an evangelism tool.

Questions that arose surrounding this use of Twitter during worship were:
- Does it really help focus the energy of congregants? How many are actually paying attention to the sermon?
- How is Twittering in church any different of a distraction than daydreaming or other activities? Just because someone appears to be paying attention doesn't mean they are actually taking a sermon in.
- Would the pastor really change her/his sermon based upon the congregation's tweets? If not, what is the point?
- Would using Twitter in church be just as effective if it was done after church rather than during the worship service?
- Does tweeting things like the Passion Play or the Bible cheapen them?

Questions that arose surrounding the use of technology as an evangelism tool were:
- Who is really benefiting from the use of technology, believers or unbelievers?
- How is this new trend any different from previous trends like Contemporary Christian Music? Using CCM as an example, who listens to it now, believers or unbelievers?

Opinions on the use of Twitter during worship service were strong. The dominant opinion was that it was distracting for it to take place during a worship service but could be appropriate afterwards. Further, it would not be suited for churches with a more traditional structure (e.g. Duke Chapel) but seemed more probable in those churches that have already adopted a more contemporary service.

There was general agreement that technology is useful for believers to connect with one another, either via facebook groups or websites. Churches should have websites in order to let people know more about them (which spurred conversation concerning the Congregation's website's lack of visibility). However, it is unlikely that the "un-churched" will be converted to Christianity based upon a facebook group. For those who previously were involved with a church, it might encourage greater connection but only if the individual is of the seeking mindset. Even then, any technological approaches must be followed up with personal interaction. The Great Commission requires more from us than just starting a facebook group. The shaping of disciples is a process that involves forming relationships, which cannot be done as well virtually. While it might be easier for some people to watch church services and read the Bible on the web, this must just be a first step. Unfortunately, many people stop with this step.

Questions for further consideration:
- What can Christians do to encourage those that have taken the first virtual step to become physically involved with the church?
- How can relationships formed online be cultivated?
- If a congregation and its pastor are in agreement that using Twitter during worship is a helpful exercise, who are we to tell them otherwise?

Welcome!

In order to facilitate dialogue beyond our Tuesday night meetings, this blog will attempt to summarize an evening's discussion for those who could not be there. It will also allow for conversations between group members to continue through the comment feature. Let me know if you have any further suggestions!