Truth with a capital T

[qatarperegrine]

The phrase "All roads lead to the same place" came up in conversation yesterday, and I've been thinking more about it.

I don't, in fact, believe that all roads lead to the same place. The analogy is usually, I think, that the religions of the world are all paths leading up the same mountain, which is to say that they all converge on the same end goal. But is the goal the same in every religion? I don't think even the major religions share a vision of what it means to attain spiritual fulfillment -- becoming a boddhisatva is not quite the same as becoming a saint, or a tirthankara, or a Muslim prophet. I suppose one could say (to use Christian language) that the goal they converge upon is God, but I don't find God-as-object-of-quest to be a satisfying metaphor for religion. And this is ignoring the even further question of whether all religious beliefs and practices even lead towards and not away from what I consider to be holy.

I really don't think you have to believe that all religions are interchangable in order to have a profound respect for other religious traditions. I'm not sure you even have to see them as equal, to use the contested word of the week.

My central image of the relationships of the religions is more like a story I heard from Rev. Ben Silva-Netto at a training for Methodist lay speakers in California. He asked us to imagine a room full of art students circled around a model in the middle of the room. Because they all see the model from a unique perspective, and because they come to the assignment with their own personal background and skills, each of them portrays the model differently. One paints a portrait, one draws a silhouette in charcoal, one sketches the model's hands. At the end of the assignment, when the model has left the room and they start looking at each other's work, they are sure to find areas of disagreement in their portrayals. People sitting in very differerent places are likely not even to be able to recognize that each other's pictures are of the same model. (This was certainly true when I took an art class in college!)

Rev. Silva-Netto used this as an analogy for the theological task. When we start trying to explain how we understand "Truth with a capital T" we are likely to disagree with each other. And if I see my own painting rather than the model itself as the Truth, I am likely to see my neighbors' portrayal of the Truth as wrongheaded. But this is only because my own perspective is limited, and I am failing to recognize that the model itself exists in one more dimension than my version of it. So I see my version and my neighbor's as mutually exclusive, not realizing that our disagreements and contradictions don't have to be resolved, that our observations may both be valid even when they conflict. And, in fact, if I were to try to make the draw-er of the silhouette buy into my vision of the model's hands, I would be asking that person to go against the Truth that was disclosed to her.

Anyway, this metaphor is not entirely a satisfying metaphor for religion either, because I think God/The Truth/The Tao/Whatever is a lot more than a passive model. But for me it IS a more helpful metaphor for the intellectual, theological aspect of faith, because it explains how we can acknowledge and even learn from other people's visions of the Truth even when they disagree with ours, whereas (in my mind, at least) the paths-up-a-mountain metaphor requires that we ignore the very real differences between the religions.

So I hear a question like "Is Jesus divine?" and I wonder if yes/no is the right approach. I think there is truth in the Christian assertion that God is ultimately revealed through the life and death of Jesus. I think there is also truth in the Muslim assertion that the whole Trinity idea is a little weird. And I don't think it's violating the Christian tradition to see the perspective that might be gained from both sides of an issue; the Bible is, after all, full of different and contradictory perspectives. Was Abraham saved by faith or by works? The Bible includes (at least) two contradictory statements on the matter. I think things like that are an acknowledgement that different intellectualizations of an experience can be useful even when they completely contradict one another.

In Buddhist logic, a and not-a are not the only logical alternatives. Both a and not-a and neither a nor not-a are also logical perspectives. I see value in a both a and not-a approach to Truth: Jesus is God, Jesus is not God, there are spiritual insights we can gain from both positions. Or to be more apophatic, the divine mystery cannot be reduced to either "Jesus is God" or "Jesus is not God." Neti, neti, the Hindus would say: Ultimate Reality is neither simply this nor simply that, but always transcends any formulations we use to describe it. The Tao that can be described in words is not the real Tao.

I wanted to talk more about Christian particularism and the question of whether "Jesus is God" even is the central truth claim of Christianity. (Not to mention whether truth claims are the heart of religion in the first place.) But I think I'll have to leave that for another day....

Comments

Thunder and Lightning! Very very Frightening

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

I say if God wants us to understand him, he should eliminate all the sects that aren't preaching the Truth. He's got his lightning bolts. He could do it.

This would only work if you accept the ancient-European Pagan idea that G-d "benefits" from human "worship", in that then of course G-d, wants to "get the word out" to gain more from his increased number of supplicants.

But this is rather far from the Jewish perception of the relationship between G-d and Creation. In that we believe G-d to be immutable, and that G-d made Creation for our benefit. We believe that Reality [Tm] was specifically designed, in such a way that G-d is "hidden", and that it is through our Free-Will chosing to fulfill G-d's expressed will, by observing the Torah, that G-d is revealed in the World. Also if you check, you will find that most of the commandments in the Jewish Torah, relate to interactions between humans on the personal and national level. There are very few, that can be thought of as relating to "worship of G-d".

It is our position that the racial human consciousness is constantly evolving. In Biblical times, big pyrotechnic miracles abounded. But even then this was mostly for a rather short period (60 years around the Exodus), with decreasing frequency the later in time you get. But we have since moved beyond that stage in our collective development. Back then, when people were much more simple-minded, miracles were required to counter the rampant idol worship, to show that indeed, while the idols did nothing, there WAS in fact a real Living G-d, that was part of the world. But today, if the world was exposed to a manifest miracle (especially of the "Smiting type" you refer to), then our mission-critical Free-Will would be seriously compromised, in that we would be cowered into following G-d's Wishes, not from our Free Will, but out of fear of Divine Retribution! It is very sad that throughout the ages the Christian Church has consistently used Fear of G-d and Hell-Fire Retribution, as a weapon to control their believers. This has only harmed mankind, and interfered with the Divine Plan.

You might also notice that with one or two rather extreme exceptions (like the overturning of Sodom, and the Exodus), G-d only uses the lightning bolts type of retribution (I don't think actual lightning is ever used, that would be the damn Greeks), against the Jews. This is because the Jews already know that G-d is manifest, and their Free-Will would not be as strongly effected, considering that, already knowing, they had Chutzpah enough to go against G-d's Will.

Re: Thunder and Lightning! Very very Frightening

[qatar.livejournal.com]

Wow, cool post.

"...mission-critical Free-Will..."

I'm not sure I understand what the mission is?

"...considering that, already knowing, they had Chutzpah enough to go against G-d's Will..."

Yeah, that golden calf thing always got me. I mean, G-d is right over there, people! How hard can it be not to fall into idolatry when God is actually present?

Your Mission, should you choose to accept it

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

is to reveal the glory of G-d in this world. This is achieved by observing G-d's rules (in my case the Torah, in yours the Noahide Laws), and overcoming the distractions of this world and our physical nature, in order to submit our will, to G-d's Will. In other words, by setting a personal example of what a person actually BE, in doing so, G-d's Glory becomes manifest. All the rest is just details...

This comment will self-destruct in five seconds.

Re: Your Mission, should you choose to accept it

[qatar.livejournal.com]

Oops, I guess this answers the question I just asked.

OK, so I don't blaspheme (much), murder, steal, commit adultery, or eat the limbs of any creatures, living or dead. I haven't personally established any legal systems, but I'm thinking that's not an individual commandment. I don't think I commit idolatry, except in the sense that I'm as prone as anyone else to treating things other than G-d like they have ultimate significance. Or is Christianity idolatry by definition? :-)

So Leland, this makes me wonder if there can be an alternate version of Pascal's wager, in which one tries to observe all the moral teachings of all the world religions at once. There's a lot of overlap between the seven Noahide laws and Buddhism's Five Precepts, for example.

Re: Your Mission, should you choose to accept it

[qatar.livejournal.com]

I'm still hoping Shmuel will answer this question, but to my understanding most Jews and Muslims would consider it idolatry to see Jesus as part of the Godhead.

Assuming, of course, that Christianity entails seeing Jesus as part of the Godhead. ;-)

Re: Your Mission, should you choose to accept it

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

At what point does the idolatry thing kick in?

What is generally lumped under the "Idolatry" label is actually two different, but related, issues. The first more straight-forward is "Iconography" - creating a physical representation of "god(s)", and using this icon as a conduit for worship, or attributing importance to the icon itself. This later includes Catholic icons of "Saints", or the crucifix, even if one does not claim to worship Jesus as divine.

The second issue is that of "Worship of Natural Elements" - of attributing divinity to "Forces" or observable phenomena in Nature, such as Sun, Moon, Stars, Rain or Fertility, Death etc. Even when these entities are NOT worshiped as "the Godhead", but merely as conduits or lesser intermediates to G-d, this is still forbidden, as while potent, these "forces" they are in no way independent of G-d, so one must always "go to the source". We are taught, that this in fact is how "paganism" got started, in that people belittled themselves, and in finding themselves unworthy of "approaching the King", decided instead to "work" through secondary elements.

The only problem I can perceive in, under observance of the Noahide Laws, also studying Religious Visionary of Your Choice, is that this might lead to some rather strange ideas about G-d, and the Divine Plan. As I will keep on stating, the "G-d of the Jews" is rather different from either the Christian or Muslim god. So you might be shooting yourself in the foot, in this sense. Some of those ideas, will almost certainly be Idolatrous in nature.

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

You are correct in saying that #7, creating a court-system is indeed a "communal" requirement. "Christianity" is NOT idolatry "by definition", although some forms of Christianity, mostly Catholicism and certain Eastern branches, are considered Paganic and fall under the idolatry prohibition.

The only problem I see with your "alternate version of Pascal's wager" is from the POV of the other religions. Unlike the Noahide laws and Judaism, most any other religion "that respects itself" includes and exclusivity clause. ;-)

[qatar.livejournal.com]

"Unlike the Noahide laws and Judaism, most any other religion 'that respects itself' includes and exclusivity clause. ;-)"

Diana Eck divides the possible viewpoints a religious person can have on other religions into three types: exclusivist, inclusivist and pluralist. An exclusivist stance says, "There is no truth/salvation/whatever outside my tradition." An inclusivist says, "There is truth in other traditions, but it's my tradition's truth." And a pluralist says, "Truth is independent of any of these traditions." The example she gives is actually one from the Jewish perspective: a rabbi in a Chaim Potok novel asks, about a Shinto in prayer, "Do you think our God is listening to him?" An exclusivist says "No"; an inclusivist says, "Yes, but it's still God as we conceptualize God who is doing the listening," and a pluralist says "God isn't 'ours' in the first place."

So, that is all background in order to say: I think there are exclusivist, inclusivist and pluralist tendencies in every religion. Judaism has less of an exclusivist tendency than most, but in any religious tradition there are people all along the spectrum.

[qatar.livejournal.com]

So, we already talked about in this IRL, but for the record... exclusivist/inclusivist/pluralist is a spectrum, and people aren't necessarily going to be purely one of the three. I think Paul was willing to use the language of inclusivism and even pluralism to sway his Athenian audience. I think Romans 2 is inclusivist, too: there is truth outside our faith, but it's a watered-down version of OUR truth.

The other thing I didn't mention is that I think Eck sees a fourth choice, relativism, as the other end of the spectrum. A pluralist acknowledges other truths but still professes her own truth. The relativist has given up on capital-T Truth entirely.

Where are pluralist views in Christianity? You'll have to read the Eck book. :-) I think there are interpretations of Christian scripture and tradition that encourage pluralism, though. Jesus said he had other sheep not of this fold, and that the Spirit blows where it wills, to give two examples. Those can be interpreted inclusively by saying that Christ's salvific purpose can be accomplished through other faith traditions but that it's still Christ's salvific work and not, say, Amida Buddha's. But I think they can also be interpreted pluralistically by saying: who are we to place limits on how the Divine Presence may have been manifested to those other folds? And if Jesus truly has sheep in other folds, then the ideas of those sheep may be true in their own right, not only true insofar as they imitate the "real" truths that were revealed to us sheep over here.

[qatar.livejournal.com]

A further thought:

To me, pluralism is a natural outgrowth of the realization that God doesn't fit in any boxes, even the box labelled "Christianity." Eck quotes John Hicks' idea that pluralism is religion's Copernican revolution. Christian inclusivism is Ptolemaic: it sees other religions as orbiting around, defined in terms of their relationship to, Christianity. (This is CS Lewis' view when he says that other religions are true where they correspond to Christianity and false where they diverge.) Pluralism is the realization that all of the religions orbit around God, not around Christianity.

And I think that, while I can't proof-text to support it, this is a thoroughly Christian idea. Christianity may be my path to the Truth, but if I say that Christianity itself IS the Truth, then IMHO I am committing idolatry. I am worshipping "an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals" (Acts 17:29) rather than the true and living God who is infinitely larger than my conception of God can possibly be. (The "God behind God," to use Tillich's language.) As a Christian I cannot say, "I have God totally figured out, and am competent to give an absolute judgment of others' opinions of God based on how similar they are to mine."

Romans 14:4 says, "Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall." If, as a Christian, I am a servant of God, then I cannot presume to judge, in a final sense, my fellow servants. On a practical level I may need to decide whether I agree with them and whether their ideas work for me, but if I dare to say that their ideas are False with a capital F, then I am in effect saying that I am the lord before whom they stand or fall. And that is profoundly un-Christian. IMHO. Not that I'd, you know, presume to judge it so. ;-)

Can you explain this to me?

[aristopheles.livejournal.com]

John 14:6 -- "There is no way to the Father but through me". What's that supposed to mean?
To me it sounds pretty exclusivist, and the context around it does not seem to contradict exclusivism. Is there something else he had in mind?
Of course, in general I see the Book of John as promoting the Incarnation much more than the other books.

Re: Can you explain this to me?

[qatar.livejournal.com]

Sure, that would be my first point. John was written later than the synoptic gospels and it's pretty different from them in content as well as form. The most obvious example is the "I am" statements, e.g. "I am the vine," which are all over the place in John but don't occur at all in the synoptics. It seems reasonable (to me) to conclude that the statements put in Jesus' mouth in John are more reflective of what the early church had come to believe about Jesus than of what Jesus actually historically said.

Putting that aside, though, I think a standard pluralist interpretation fo this verse would question what was meant by "me." I don't think it's an accident that John, the only gospel where Christ claims to be The Way, is also the only gospel that identifies the historical character of Jesus with ho logos, The Word, the animating principle of the universe. So when it says that Christ is the way, the truth and the life, is it saying that the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth is the only way to God? Or is it talking about the logos, the cosmic Christ, the aspect of God that seeks reconciliation between humanity and divinity? This is all a bit abstract and "woo-woo" new age-y, but heck, so is the gospel of John.

And even if that interpretation is rejected, I think I read the context of this verse differently from you. The context of this passage is not Jesus arguing that "I am the way for all people in all times"; this is a specific response to a specific question asked by one of his followers, asking about his followers' path.

Or, to reduce this all to a simpler answer: there is still a difference between saying that Christ is the way and saying that Christianity is the way.