There is
a growing disdain for theology, even in many seminaries. The last past-president
of Union Theological Seminary, Joseph Hough, Jr. provides a good example. In an
interview with the New York Times,
1/12/2002, The Times writes that
Hough “has been calling in recent
speeches for Christians to adopt a new theological approach to others, one that
goes considerably beyond simple tolerance.”
What is
Hough calling for?—that Christians surrender their claims that they are right
and others are wrong:
“Religion, our rituals, our
music, even our theology is a human attempt to express what we have
experienced…Therefore, we want to be careful about claiming that one religious
form is the only one that is authentic or real.”
Because
our theologies are merely human, we shouldn’t be dogmatic about them,
certainly not to the point where we claim that we’re right and the Buddhist or
Muslim is wrong. But Hough isn’t simply concerned about Christians being
“careful” about asserting that Christ is the “way, truth, and life” or about
asserting any other exclusive claim. He later clarifies that the Christian has
absolutely no legitimate right to make such a claim at all.
“The fear that openness to other
religious traditions will destabilize our Christian faith has led many to
resist full recognition of the adequacy of other religions to transform human
beings with hope and promise.”
According to Hough, other religions
are fully adequate. The “adequacy” that he’s referring to isn’t just some form
of psychological adequacy, but an adequacy before
God, an adequacy that sidesteps the need for the Savior.
“I
believe that there is ample evidence in the best of the world’s religions,
including our own, that God’s work is effective. Muslims, Jews, Hindus,
Buddhists and others have been and are being transformed by a powerful vision
of God that redeems them with hope.”
It’s no longer the Savior that
transforms but a vision or philosophy of the many religions. What is this
“vision of God?” Many Buddhists don’t have a God; many are avowedly atheistic.
Some have impersonal gods, while others have gods who are continually at war
with one another. Of what does this “powerful vision” consist in view of their differing
“visions” of God? Hough’s wording suggests that they share a common
transforming vision but what exactly do these religions hold in common in terms
of a belief in God?
Putting aside these incoherencies, it’s not easy to
contend against Dr. Hough. I can easily envision a debate scenario. I’m being
scorned as narrow and judgmental. The accusing fingers point in my face. It’s
my absolute beliefs that lie at the root of pograms, persecutions, and genocide,
as Hough insinuates.
“The fomenting of religious
conflict has been and still is a theological problem for Christians, because we
have made our claim to God’s revelation exclusively ours…we have killed each
other and members of other religions in defending that exclusive claim.”
According to Hough, we Christians
are judgmental, thereby causing strife. However, Hough is equally judgmental!
He refers to the “best of the world religions.” How can he stand in judgment
over the religions that aren’t the “best” after he forbade the Church from
doing this very thing? While claiming that historical Christianity is
intolerant, he displays the same intolerance of Christ’s exclusive claims: "I
am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through
Me” (John 14:6). He subsequently adds,
“Wherever there is peace and
movement toward peace, where there is justice and movement towards justice, God
is present and working.”
According to his criterion, when
Hough fails to see such a “movement,” he deems that God is absent. That’s quite
judgmental! What makes Hough’s judgments valid while, according to him, other
religious judgments are invalid? Why should he alone possess the luxury of
making value judgments that he denies to everyone else?
Furthermore, if it is our
exclusive judgments that cause intolerance and bloodshed, why is it that
Hough’s exclusive judgments about what is “best” won’t cause this? Won’t those
religions that fail to make the grade of “best” resent such a judgment,
especially from one who derides judgmentalness?
Everyone draws a line somewhere,
and Hough is no exception. Everyone has a religion or worldview from which he
or she judges other worldviews, whether consciously or unconsciously. This is
inevitable. Hough also has a religion – we call it “religious pluralism” - by
which he critiques the rest, although his standards might be different.
Nevertheless, he too is passing judgment and is dismissive of other religions.
He too is claiming, although not overtly, that he is right and everyone else is
wrong. In fact, all of “best” world religions are wrong in holding their own
exclusive claims while Hough is right!
One might wonder at this point
how it is that Hough is the president of a “Christian” Seminary and why he
continues to identify himself as a Christian. He says that,
“Religion is something that we human beings put
together in an effort to give some cultural form to our faith.”
From this perspective, the Bible
is just another human effort. We therefore have to cull from it the good stuff
and leave behind what offends. For Hough this would include the exclusive
sayings of Jesus. This leaves us with a reconstructed, postmodern Jesus! Instead
of God’s Word standing in judgment over us, it is we who exercise dominion over
His Word. The result – an entirely different faith!
If we did possess such
discernment, what need would we have of the Bible, let alone of Christ Himself?
What need would we have of seminary, learning, even of Christianity? Also, if
it’s all the same, is there anything to learn about? Why study about our own
religion or even other religions? Why not just leave the ivory tower and live
the life? But what life?
The belief that the Bible is
“God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16) is central to Christian faith. Although this is a
doctrine that others have a right to contest, Hough instantly dismisses it
without an argument. How can he consistently preach tolerance and
non-judgmentalness in view of his own dogmatism?
IS HOUGH’S “RELIGION OF PEACE AND
JUSTICE” THE CORRECT RELIGION?
Christianity has always placed a
high priority upon peace and justice. However, Christianity looks beyond the superficial.
It recognizes that the motives of the heart are at least as important as
behaviors. Jesus often criticized Pharisaic externalism. They often did the
right thing but for the wrong motives (Mat. 6). Although they looked spotless
on the outside, Jesus declared that they were filled with filth (Mat. 23--
something that could be said of the entire human race). They were more
concerned with the opinions of man than the opinion of God (John 5:44).
At first glance this might seem
to lack ethical significance. What difference do our motivations make as long
as we’re acting morally? The Bible recognizes that peace and justice can’t be
maintained without the proper underpinning. The communists talked a lot about
justice but had a twisted human heart. Consequently, this twisted heart twisted
everything they touched, albeit sincerely and idealistically, with serious consequences
– the slaughter of 100,000,000!
It’s not enough to look at an
outward show of peace and justice and then to conclude that God is present. The
way we think and believe is foundational and must not be discounted. The book
of Proverbs assents to this: “For as he
thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7). If this is true, we can’t divorce behavior
from religion and its teachings. It’s the belief that Christ has died for me,
one so utterly unworthy, that impels me to love and protect others, even those
who disagree with me and hurt me. It’s this belief that prepares me to lay down
my life for others even in light of my repeated failures to live up to this
standard.
.
What is justice? Declaring all
forms of sexual misconduct as protected human rights? The Bible defines justice
differently: “He who justifies the
wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to
the Lord” (Proverbs 17:15).
Peace and justice must rest upon
moral standards and accurate data. But is this possible when the “Religion of
Peace and Justice” forbids anyone to say that they have the exclusive truth
because religion is merely a human creation? If all religion and ethical
standards are merely human attempts to understand God’s truth, it follows that
no one can make an absolute truth claim.
We all need standards by which to
measure behaviors and the various claims of what constitutes peace and justice.
We need our law books that coherently define what constitutes a crime. We also
need religion upon which the law rests. Without the authority that comes from
above, law is arbitrary, dictatorial, and fails to command conscience.
Upon what principles does Hough’s
system rest? It’s not enough to say “peace and justice.” In the USA, it’s easy
to use these terms and to get away with it. Since our society has been so thoroughly
Christianized (and so too great portions of the world), we lose sight of the
fact that there are many other conceptions of justice. There was the “law of
suttee” which directed widows to throw themselves upon their deceased husbands’
funeral pyres to join them in death. There are female circumcisions and honor
killings that constitute justice in other parts of the world.
I’m confident that Dr. Hough
would protest against these practices. However, what criteria would he base his
judgments upon? If justice and peace are the bottom line, there is no
underpinning to determine what is just. If “religion is something that we human
being put together,” then to what body of truth can we appeal to justify our
conceptions of justice? Hough has made the connection between man and God
tenuous by relativizing religious truth claims. What does he substitute for
them?
Hough claims that he’s found
evidence of justice and peace “in the best of the world’s religions.” He then
goes on to mention the major five. Of course, his assessment demonstrates a
pragmatic wisdom. These five along with the “others” probably include about 95%
of the world’s population. On the surface, this seems very noble. However, each
religion, by its very nature, is intolerant of others. Many Buddhists and
Hindus cannot countenance the idea that anyone who eats meats will enter into
Nirvana, while many religious Jews believe that Jews are ontologically
different from other peoples, the Goyim, while Muslims believe that no one who
rejects Mohammed can enter into the Garden.
What does his endorsement of
these “best” religions entail? Mustn’t he too discriminate regarding their
teachings? He must and does! However, what makes his standards any better than
others? According to Hough, his religion is also
man-made. Perhaps he would appeal to his conscience, but they too have a
conscience, which instructs them differently. Who’s to decide?
IS THERE ANY HOPE THAT HOUGH’S
RELIGION MIGHT BE FRUITFUL?
Hough’s religion is based upon a
discredited assumption: sameness will remove any basis for hatred. If we’d
merely shed our exclusive truth claims in favor of a “God” in general, would love
and peace prevail? The communist experiment was built upon a similar
assumption: removing class distinctions would usher in a utopia. Instead, the
world has witnessed the “utopia” of genocide and oppression.
History has taught us that
distinctions and competing truth claims are here to stay. It’s unrealistic to
expect to cleanse humankind’s religions of their distinctive dogmatic claims.
Instead, maturity demands that we learn to love despite the competing
truth claims. There are always going to be differences in any meaningful
relationship. It’s therefore unrealistic to demand that love be predicated upon
sameness or at least an absence of dogmatism.
Dogmatism and exclusivity aren’t
necessarily evils. I want my wife to be dogmatic - dogmatic in her faithfulness
to me. I also want her to exercise “exclusivity” in her regards towards me, and
it seems to work.
Likewise, the Christian should be
dogmatic about love, determined to always reflect Christ to this broken world.
However, this dogmatism is insupportable apart from a dogmatic belief in Jesus
Christ and His Self-sacrifice. Yes, we can resolutely determine to act this way
despite the erosion of the “exclusive” Christian beliefs. However, without this
underpinning, this determination will soon erode.
Nazi Germany and its belief in
Aryan superiority didn’t occur in a vacuum. It followed on the heals of several
generations of unrelenting liberal attacks against the Bible led by the German
seminaries and universities. Consequently, the Church was rendered ineffective
in its struggle against Nazism. Foreseeing what lay ahead, the German poet
Heinrich Heine wrote in 1832,
“It
is to the great merit of Christianity that it has somewhat attenuated the
brutal German lust for battle. But it could not destroy it entirely. And should
ever that taming talisman—the Cross—break, then will come roaring back the wild
madness of the ancient warriors, with all their insane Berserker rage, of whom
our Nordic poets speak and sing. That talisman is now already crumbling, and
the day is not far off when it shall break apart entirely. On that day, the old
stone gods will rise from their long forgotten wreckage and rub from their eyes
the dust of a thousand years’ sleep. At long last leaping to life, Thor with
his giant hammer will crush the gothic cathedrals…For thought goes before deed
as lightening before thunder. There will be played in Germany a play compared
to which the French revolution was but an innocent idyll.”
Instead of promoting love,
Hough’s belief that the Bible is just a human attempt to understand God will
bear the same fruits as it did in Germany through the contributions of “higher”
criticism. Ironically, it’s the exclusive Christian conviction that Christ died
for our sins, the Righteous for the unrighteous, that fuels our love. Once that
is taken away, there is nothing to prevent the “old stone gods” of lust, anger,
and rage from “roaring back.”
