MODERN PERCEPTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY
In the Christian time of Lent we should have been giving thought to
self-reflection. 'Should' but outside events made it hard for me to do so. On all sides Christianity, and indeed
many religions are coming under attack. Either they are not scientific enough, or they are irrelevant, or even
they are held responsible for many of the world's ills, including terrorism and war. They are accused of being
dogmatic, divisive, authoritarian, idiotic, past their 'sell-by-date', holding back the development of society,
or the home of unwanted fanatics. Quite a list and, from my point of view, regretfully most of such criticisms
bear varying degrees of truth. We live in a world of huge change at an ever increasing pace in all areas of
life. Many cannot keep up. Many do not want to. Change is uncomfortable. It makes new demands of us. It moves us
out of the cossetting known, makes us uncertain, makes us afraid even. The solution to this lies in history, in
the certainty of what has gone before, or more realistically what we think has gone before. There we feel
secure, comfortable, justified. We need to be told that our long cherished values have merit, are right. The
parameters of life may change but the central core around which our lives revolve, the perceived expression of
the leaders we elect or who attempt to control our lives through the media or other organisations, that must
remain sacrosanct.
That central core, however, is based on control and authoritarianism, i.e. the
retention of power, the need to be right and prove self-worth in an ever changing society. We are rarely taught
to think for ourselves. That is too dangerous to the exercise of power. Consequently it is rarely based on the
empowerment of others, or the feeling that others can improve upon and transcend one's ability and sense of
reality.
THE RISE OF FUNDAMENTALISM IN
RELIGION, POLITICS AND SCIENCE
Thus Fundamentalism is born both for
those who wish to dominate and those who are content to be guided. Yet let me at once say that fundamentalism
applies not only to religion. It applies to every walk of life. It is the true modern curse of existence. It is
found in politics, business, the media, and even science. Here in Great Britain we are governed by a
Parliamentary Party which was elected with less than 40% of total public support yet which firmly believes that
the antiquated system of election (first past the post) gives them the right to govern according to a mandate
supported by a minority of the voters. We have been taken into a war unsupported by the majority of the British
people. In business what the people want has been subsumed into what makes most profit. The media are probably
the most fundamentalist of forces which affects our lives, be it in the press or broadcast. Balanced and
objective reporting is so often replaced by the need to follow the singular viewpoint of the non-elected owner
or producer. Having lived abroad for some 24 years I remain dismayed by the poor quality of British
journalism.
In science, which should know better and which, on British television at least, has been
the most condemnatory of religion, one is so often faced with entrenched positions rather than with an
inquisitive, open and inclusive dialogue. A priori assumptions are the order of the day which, coupled with the
fundamentalist, often sensationalist attitude of the media, give very misleading information on what they are
supporting and criticising. Neo Darwinism seems to have run riot on UK television in recent months, scoring easy
points from such extreme fundamentalist positions as the Creationist lobby in America which maintains the earth
really was created in 6 days.
Such core values of religion, as the generation and appreciation of
art, architecture, music, meditation, the efficacy of prayer, love and compassion were entirely missing because
these are values which, in any final analysis, defy analysis! True, Science can determine what happens in the
brain when we are transported by religious music, or which parts of the brain are stimulated by our appreciation
of art or architecture. Science may even use such knowledge to help in producing these effects but is this a
creative process or a reaction to creativity? Such logical and rational analysis is of little use in determining
the quality of appreciation of the arts. By its own definition Science is knowledge, not experience, and too
often we are subsumed into the mental condition that knowledge is paramount.
THE HISTORIC EXCLUSIVITY OF CHRISTIANITY
This thought for the month, however, is concerned mainly with Christianity
and here I have to acknowledge that Christianity too has fallen prey to this disease. Indeed that fundamentalism
is at the very core of its currently expressed existence, that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and
that salvation lies only through belief in Jesus. Such a belief was almost inevitable when in the Roman Empire
there were few impressive alternatives and the power base of that Empire and its subsequent derivatives, centred
as they were on the twin peaks of Church and State, controlled all life and the media. (Think of the treatment
of the Jews during this period, or the crusades, or the destruction in Spain in the 16th century of the
relatively settled and harmonious enclaves of Christian/Jew/Moslem.) Further, there were few cultural links with
the East to allow such as Buddhism or Hinduism to gain ground. Christianity was dominant and both lived and
showed it.
Those times have changed. Now that the playing fields are level in terms of increasing
democracy, communication and human rights all religions are faced with the same problem. All have emerged from
and developed in particular cultural environments mostly without knowledge of the others. Do they adjust to
accommodate the possibility that other religions have an equal claim to truth or do they merely shout louder and
become more stridently dogmatic? Regrettably the latter seems to be the main choice, certainly of the
monotheistic religions of Jew, Christian and Moslem. Hinduism and Buddhism make a very laudable attempt at the
theological level at inclusion but still suffer from many cultural overtones in terms of expression.
ARCHBISHOP ROWAN WILLIAMS' ATTEMPT TO BRIDGE THE GAP WITH
OTHER RELIGIONS
It seems to be a problem of leadership more than
anything else. Pope John Paul tried to grapple with the problem and came to the conclusion that because people
of other faiths had not known the Christianity then God had a special place for them in the afterlife (rather
than condemning them to Hell). In his recent speech to the United Nations (February 2006) Archbishop Rowan
Williams took the theme of identity, what it is to be a Christian. Here we were told (selected extracts)
"Christian identity is to belong in a place that Jesus defines for us. By living in that place, we come in some degree to share his identity, to bear his name and to be in the same relationships he has with God and with the world. Forget ‘Christianity’ for a moment – Christianity as a system of ideas competing with others in the market: concentrate on the place in the world that is the place of Jesus the anointed, and what it is that becomes possible in that place. There is a difference between seeing the world as basically a territory where systems compete, where groups with different allegiances live at each other’s expense, where rivalry is inescapable, and seeing the world as a territory where being in a particular place makes it possible for you to see, to say and to do certain things that aren’t possible elsewhere. The claim of Christian belief is not first and foremost that it offers the only accurate system of thought, as against all other competitors; it is that, by standing in the place of Christ, it is possible to live in such intimacy with God that no fear or failure can ever break God’s commitment to us, and to live in such a degree of mutual gift and understanding that no human conflict or division need bring us to uncontrollable violence and mutual damage. From here, you can see what you need to see to be at peace with God and with God’s creation; and also what you need to be at peace with yourself, acknowledging your need of mercy and re-creation. This perspective assumes from the beginning that we live in a world of plural perspectives, and that there is no ‘view from nowhere’, as philosophers sometimes express the claim to absolute knowledge. To be a Christian is not to lay claim to absolute knowledge, but to lay claim to the perspective that will transform our most deeply rooted hurts and fears and so change the world at the most important level. It is a perspective that depends on being where Jesus is, under his authority, sharing the ‘breath’ of his life, seeing what he sees – God as Abba, Father, a God completely committed to the people in whose life he seeks to reproduce his own life. What does this mean for the actual, on-the-ground experience of living alongside the plurality of religious communities – and non-religious ones too – that we cannot escape or ignore in our world? I believe that our emphasis should not be on possessing a system in which all questions are answered, but precisely on witness to the place and the identity that we have been invited to live in. We are to show what we see, to reproduce the life of God as it has been delivered to us by the anointed. But what of their own beliefs, their own ‘places’? Sometimes when we look at our neighbours of other traditions, it can be as if we see in their eyes a reflection of what we see; they do not have the words we have, but something is deeply recognisable. The language of ‘anonymous Christianity’ is now not much in fashion – and it had all kinds of problems about it. Yet who that has been involved in dialogue with other faiths has not had the sense of an echo, a reflection, of the kind of life Christians seek to live?"
For the full version of his speech go to: http://www.wcc-assembly.info/en/theme-issues/assembly-documents/plenary-presentations/plenary-on-christian-identity-and-religious-plurality.html
Here we find a man really wrestling with the problem and developing a very
laudable solution but which is nevertheless a non-intellectual and, indeed, a theoretical answer. I say
"theoretical" because Christianity is good at this. I think of the last decade when the
theological wing of the Church of England decided that the concept of Hell was no longer justified only to
see this sidetracked by the General Synod.
If Archbishop Williams had the courage of his
remarkable convictions then practicalities of his statement should be placed before Synod for approval. He
seems to be saying that for Christians their religion is totally valid and must be lived out in accordance
with its doctrines. But when he says, "To be a Christian is not to lay claim to absolute knowledge," and "The
claim of Christian belief is not first and foremost that it offers the only accurate system of thought,
as against all other competitors", there has to be a problem!
PROBLEMS ARISING FROM THIS VIEWPOINT FOR CHRISTIANITY IN A
SHRINKING WORLD
Either Christianity is the one true faith or it
is not. The problem for Rowan Williams is almost akin to the problem of Galileo and Renaissance theologians.
Either the world was centred on Jerusalem (Renaissance theologians), where the crucifixion and resurrection
of Jesus occurred, with the sun and the whole cosmos revolving round it, or it was not (Galileo). Ultimately
one cannot build a defensible theology which has not a universal application. It may enjoy validity in a
particular time and in a particular place but we now live in an age of universalism where there is the
"knock-on effect". What one believes in Canterbury (home of Archbishop Williams) has resonance in
such as religion-torn Nigeria (Christian versus Moslem), even as what is believed in Mecca (spiritual home
of Islam) has resonance in the lives of those living in the UK. True, on the emotional and even spiritual
level it is possible to live out one's life in total fulfilment and obedience to one's particular faith,
which is what, historically, has happened for most if not all religions. But humanity has transcended in
physical terms the boundaries which gave these exclusive faiths utterance. Travel, the Internet, global
trade and communication have all reduced the world to a global village within which we must all strive for
peaceful and harmonious existence.
These are new factors in the equation of human spiritual
existence which have yet to be properly addressed by religion. Once one accepts the validity of another
religion one can no longer allow the expression of one's own religion to contain any exclusive claims.
Compassion of feeling must be translated into compassion of action and redefinition.
What would
this involve? It need not mean much to ordinary humanity. The creeds would need to be rewritten, but who
understands let alone believes them? It is the stuff of very erudite theology, trying to identify the nature
of the trinity or the word 'substance' which unifies Jesus and God while keeping their identities separate.
The claim of Jesus to be the "only begotten Son of God" needs to be redefined. Who are we to know,
given the other examples in our world of great spiritual leaders, or indeed the probability of other worlds
in the universe where a similar position of intelligence has been reached? Similarly the question of Jesus
dying for the sins of the whole world would need addressing. The current and growing untruth of this bald
statement is self evident and a sufficient condemnation. Even so it needs to be recognised that Jesus
himself never claimed such a status. He healed people and set them on their way (no waiting for the
crucifixion) and maintained throughout his ministry that there were those who needed no repentance.
THE EXERCISE OF POWER IS THE STUMBLING
BLOCK
The problem for all Christians is the expression of the
exercise of power. Therein lies Fundamentalism, the idea that there is only one belief system, one mindset.
This is based on theology, not practice. The one thing archbishops, bishops and priests cannot do is to
control the inner spiritual thoughts of the individual. They may control the parameters of what they
believe, e.g. the creeds and the sacraments, but never the heart of belief, that which transpires in the
mind of an individual. They may exercise influence, but never control. Thus we arrive at the major problem -
those who would control us, not through what we feel but what their theology allows us to interpret into our
own spiritual values.
The basic point for all Christians is whether Jesus walked this earth to
promote a practice or a theology of religion. The strange peculiarity of what I am saying is that it need
not affect all of one's own particular beliefs or practices. They somehow tend to remain private. Arguments
rarely rage over the art, architecture, music or the prayerful liturgy of religion. In fact, and possibly of
great importance, we tend to revere and appreciate all such expressions. They enjoy a universal appeal. I,
for example, still remain a committed Christian but because of the cultural overlay, as well as belief in
the central core of Jesus' message, to seek God and love all humanity. Above all I appreciate the
architecture and space of its cathedrals, its art and its music.
Perhaps that is where religion
should start, not with the theology which divides, but with those expressions of belief which uplift us and
help us to transcend the mortality of our existence. These are individual problems requiring individual
solutions. Therein lies the problem. It moves the centre of control away from the priesthood.