(Three things before you read this post: first, his post is NOT about which of the World's many religions is correct in its assertions about life's greatest questions, technically. Secondly, please do read everything correctly before you conclude on what you think I'm saying, it's a bit long. Thirdly, you don't have to agree.)
Definitions of words and concepts keep changing, at the same time, there may exist many conflicting shades of understanding of a particular concept; thus many times, the reason people fight is their different understanding of the same concept. When the matters are clearly defined, you may discover, the parties were both on the same page all along.
Conversely, people may think they agree on a matter because they have not looked, a bit deeper, at the accurate understanding and accompanying implications of the concepts they hold on to and agree about. When you understand the implications of what the other fellow means, you may discover that you don't really agree as much as you thought you did.
Now, when you say, Religious Tolerance (RT) what do you mean? When you say that you are a Christian, what do you think it means?
When some groups, say Religious Tolerance, they mean, we all should be of the disposition that all religions are correct (or using slightly different words, not necessarily wrong) in their different and contrasting ways adopted in reaching God in the various worldviews.
This route to understanding RT comes with compulsory disdain, for the claim to exclusive accuracy by any one sect as religious arrogance. People who have adopted this view are in all fairness, trying to objective and fair to all—it's a large planet you know! This is very commendable.
But the matters for which religion tends to address are too fundamental to collective humanity and life's greatest questions, unlike like choice of music or food where what you choose is dictated by personal preferences. These different choices weigh differently.
Let me use an example to attempt an explanation of how all choices are not of same gravity. Assume you and another friend visited your lecturer at his apartment, you're presented 4 options of juice: banana flavored, mango flavored, pineapple and orange flavored. Each man should be allowed his choice—no right or wrong answer—it is subjective. Now, assume that you are in an exam hall with the same lecturer and given options to choose from, though you're still allowed and have the right to choose any option you want, all options cannot be correct this time because the examiner has a curriculum to mark from.
The first kind of choice with juice options should not be approached as the second circumstance of options in the exam hall. I'd be the first to admit that this example might be weak, thoroughly mundane and limited. Discard that.
I believe in Religious Tolerance but not as defined or perceived in the aforementioned definition (paragraph 4). Religious Tolerance should be marked by RESPECT for other people's self-evident right to believe whatever they choose to believe.
If I want to believe in a stick, reincarnation, multiple gods, etc, it's my choice but for me to attempt to coerce you to adjust your own to add mine in the name of tolerance is subtle intolerance on my part, especially if your belief clearly spells out in its sacred texts, its exclusivity.
Tolerance means, even if I believe that the worship of my 5 ancestral gods is truth, I should endure and demonstrate enough respect to allow you believe in your Holy Cow, without the use of force to pull you to join me.
All the world religions CANNOT be correct at the same time! This one is too simple to explain. In fact, it's more logical to believe in none than to try accepting all.
Tolerance should not eliminate variation, that would be compromise. Tolerance sprouts on this soil of consensus; that we all agree to disagree amicably.
You cannot run away from the existence of superior ideology or religious thought. If you intend to counter this opinion, you will have by that intention, implied your view is superior, thereby reinforcing that there's superiority of thought.
Peculiar in this light is the Christian's case. A Christian, we assume, believes in Jesus, in a general sense.
If you say that you believe in Jesus and believe in religious tolerance, the next logical question is to ask you to explain your understanding of RT. Does your definition hold that you respect people and their basic right to different beliefs? If yes, that would not conflict with the teachings of Jesus, you agree to believe in—choice is a fundamental gift of God to man. This definition of RT is not opposed to living amicably in society and not hate people just because they believe differently from you. That's compatible.
But if you hold that you believe in Jesus and your definition of RT implies no one group should assume exclusiveness to truth, it would still not negate with peaceful coexistence in society but next logical question is, which Jesus are you talking about?
If you mean the Nazarene, you may be contradicting yourself, already. Do you know the implications of what his recorded words and those of some of his immediate apostles hold in the light of your definition of RT? Let me share just two basic ones, of so many.
As regards knowing ('approaching') God, the Nazarene said:
"...I am THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE: NO MAN cometh unto the Father (God), BUT BY ME.'
John 14:6
That's pretty 'narrow-minded', if you ask me, this man Jesus, your hero, may not have passed YOUR religious tolerance common entrance exams.
Second citation, hehad a lively fisherman, Peter, among his first apostles. These first apostles lived virtually with him everyday for 3 years, it would be hard for them to misrepresent him. They taught, what he taught them.
Hear Peter:
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
Acts 4:12
It doesn't get more exclusive than that.
Like, I said at the outset, this post is not to say which is right world view, my point in putting this is to show, that a person cannot hold the brand of RT that fights exclusivity of truth and hold a belief in Jesus. They are mutually exclusive. You're not Gandhi.
Another reason why it's not compatible to hold the non-exclusive brand of RT and a belief in Jesus is, that brand of RT suggests a non-evangelical stance, since we all may not be necessarily wrong in our different beliefs, why try to propagate your message? This opposes the very thing Jesus said to do to the uttermost parts of the earth.
You may have a valid case against a style of evangelism because of the 'force-it-down-your-throat' attitude of some who attempt it. Jesus' instructions on it was underlaid with love as motive and had instructions to return with your peace if you're rejected in a house.
Evangelism is not church publicity (I intend to write in another post, which will be less neutral, about this). Suffice it to say, by way of summary, every religion should hold forth to its adherents some measure of exclusivity to truth, but this needs no accompanying bitterness, emotional or physical harm on the part of the adherents against those who don't agree. History SEEMS to show this is impossible but that's only because of improper teaching and extremists. Think carefully of what I have said.
(PS: a religious fundamentalist is not the same as a religious extremist.)
Comments
Post a Comment