Stop Comparing Religions

I love John Cobb's concept of a Christocentric pluralism. It is certainly not relativism- there is one Christ, and there is "one way". But the identification with the essence of Christ (or the divine wisdom incarnate in Christ) rather than with Christian tradition is where salvation is found. Another way I've heard this put is 'high Christology;open soteriology'. However, @Bo, I'm curious if you see Cobb's pluralism as the problematic application of an external meta-framework through which to view all other traditions (as you critique above), or is Cobb making the kind of adjustment toward other traditions that you propose? You are probably more familiar with his work than I am. Thoughts?

Been a PCUSA pastor for 42 years ... in the last 20, trending toward some form of universalism; in the last 10 years, a universalist. Mark Helm's book sort of put the frosting on the cake for me, along with Barth over the years. When folks ask questions like, "Where's Hitler," I do my best to adroitly side-step it. I'm not God, and no one is. But for me, universalism, Helm-style, fits both the Bible and theology in terms of "just how big is God, and how large is God's grace?". In the immediate moment, our best witness to the world about Christ is the authenticity of our life - and the justice and peace to which we're committed, along with Paul's concern for the whole creation waiting for us to get our act together, as I put it. Anyway, I have found a great deal of peace in this process, and rely upon a God who is vastly more than I could ever conceive, in whom there is a wideness of mercy transcending my own human instincts. I do theology because it's right and good and important; universalism doesn't allow one to be sloppy or careless in thought, but ultimately, it's the love of God that redeems, not the precision of our analysis.

I affirm the humble listener approach and totally love the idea of deep theological conversations across traditions. Here is where this idea falls apart for me, though. (I think Cobb's concept of mutual transformation is more robust and helpful here.). 1)It just isn't enough to listen to each other. We must open ourselves, and our traditions, stories, practices and doctrines, to change. For example, maybe, as some Muslims suggest, the Doctrine of the Trinity really is a bad idea...idolatrous, even. Shouldn't we as Christians be open to hearing that critique and taking it seriously. Maybe we are wrong. Maybe giving it up would be a good thing. What I am trying to say is that this kind of mutal learning and critique may, in fact, lead to theological change, ritual change, etc. That is a big move beyond listening. 2). Shouldn't we at least try to stretch our minds around the problem of understanding the whole elephant if the elephant is reality itself? What is God's relationship to the whole world, a world with many religions and theologies? What part of reality are the various religions providing their adherents access to? Here again, I think Cobb's work is helpful.

Bo, great discussion. >> What I love about Clooney’s approach is that they are not asked to give up their internal belief as christians but are challenged to adjust their external posture toward those of other traditions.<< I love that line! Embracing UR forces one to make that adjustment, and it can be liberating. Suddenly, our God of love is working in people of other religion's lives, not because of what they do, but, just like us, in spite of what they (we) do. Grace is the great leveler for all religions.

I do disagree slightly that apologetics is passing, but would say that the way we do apologetics must change and hopefully the old way will pass. We pursuade others, not be force of argument (although the truly open-minded may be convinced), but by the force of love. When love melts a heart, it is open to change. Apologetics by people who embrace UR changed me, so let's not toss it completely out. Hell, even good old Bart Erhman does apologetics when he defends the historicity of Jesus. I like the concept of "why (and how) we do apologetics" as more important than "what" we are defending, but still think there are some "whats" worth defending: e.g, love, grace, a God who incarnates into our world. Keep up the good work. Cheers.

We should make an effort listen to everybody we meet, even (especially) our enemies, those who are being insulting or downright threatening. Peter asked, "Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times." 

Bad Relativism assumes that listening implies agreement, or at least acquiesence. Good Relativism just allows you to imagine that what other people believe makes sense to them; there's no need to have a gunfight over things like who gets to play on the New Earth, which let's face it, is above the pay grade of anybody here. One can be a Good Relativist and have firmly held positions and advocate for them. (Bo: so why does apologetics go away? Can't we still evangelize?) 

Jesus said Render to Caesar things that are Caesar's ... meaning among other things we can and must deal with those "other" people. Render to Buddha the things that are Buddha's; Render to Krishna the things that are Krishna's. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord, Jesus.

I would absolutely love to be a true pluralist. The best I can manage so far is to be a Christian Universalist. And I can hear the audible sighs of relief from folks in other religious traditions when they discover that I have condescended to believe that "my way" will save them in the end as well: "Gracious", they say, "we were really worried for awhile there, but now that you've become a universalist we're so relieved to know we won't end up in your hell after all".

I don't like feeling smug and arrogant. It makes me feel dirty.

I like what you're saying here Bo. I'm glad that people who are both younger and smarter than I am are tackling these issues and not just throwing their hands up in frustration. Keep it up!

Very few things are more important than what you said: The time for apologetics is passing, which is to say, I suppose, the 19th Century is long gone!

This approach makes sense, though I'd  like to read more and hear more of your class discussion.  The notion that "we're all the same" (spiritually) arose in the Sixties, along with "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe in something."  The latter spawned a lot of, "I believe I'll go have a beer" rather than any serious discussion of what we were saying, as you can imagine.  Religion didn't enter into those discussions much at all, unless someone was touting Ethereal Transcendentalism or some other fad.

What I like about the approach you're presenting is that it removes the demand for empirical, tangible evidence from the debate, or at least, it has that potential.  Humble listening instead of screeching, "Prove it!" just doesn't always fit our cultural need to be RIGHT at all costs, but it does fit a diverse, multicultural world. 

One of the most difficult skills I faced when being trained as a Stephen Minister was that of active listening.  It's so tempting to see a problem, then jump in to fix it, without really weighing whether or not there is anything you need to be doing besides supporting the care receiver.  And sometimes we need to fix ourselves and change our own stances from time to time.  We don't always get it right, but we can always filter information through our own experience, through Scripture, and through the other elements of the Quadrilateral -- and others.  In other words, we don't have to adopt a point of view that's being peddled in the marketplace, but we do have to say, "Tell me more."

I'm fine with holding the method you sketch out (and I haven't read the book you're referencing), but it is very limited. Here are three problems I see immediately:

First, similar reasoning used in a different way with regard to another contentious issue:

1. Each scientific tradition tells its own story - in its own words. So the art then is not in compartmentalization but in humble listening. When listening to evolutionary biology and young-earth creation science, we are to remove ourselves from being 'over' the science as a judge/reporter and humbly place ourselves at the feet as learner/listener.

The problem here is obvious - some ideas are better than others. They have more explanatory power, they fit better with ideas that already have explanatory power, they are more internally and externally consistent. Christian process theology is better than Scientology as a set of ideas. I'm comfortable saying that, and that is without doubt a comparison and compartmentalization.

2. Religions provide people with justification to do horrible things. It might be of value to study how this justification is provided, and why, and what effect it has, and to compare these things across religious traditions. Is saying some things are good to do to others, while some things are bad to do to others putting ourselves "over", or a relic of the Enlightenment? If someone does something awful, but it is part of their religious tradition, should we take the stance of humble listening (and end there)? And if we don't, then we're back in the thing you're saying will never work - compartmentalization and comparison.

3. Religion is not really reducible to a thing - it is a category that we use to describe a ton of things, like ancient writings and their interpretation, ancient and modern practices, worldviews, philosophical claims, ethical claims, supernatural claims, legends, myths and stories, artwork, etc. Each of these things can be compared and assessed on their merits, and people do it all the time. There are linguists and interpreters and questions of internal and external consistency and literary theory to use with narrative and on and on and on. This happened long before there was an Enlightenment, and it happened all over the world, and I don't see a reason why it *necessarily*can't fruitfully happen in the study of religion.

I think humble listening is an invaluable stance, no question. I just don't think it's enough to stop there. I don't think the sole practice of humble listening is any more sufficient than the sole practice of compartmentalization and comparison, and I don't think either one should go unused.

I also didn't see a refutation of the many paths up different mountains approach, or a compelling reason to say it won't work. Religions ask different questions and answer them in different ways. They proscribe different behaviors for different reasons. We can still look at those questions and answers and behaviors and compare them, respectfully and fruitfully. It happens all the time.

This could be helped/clarified, by saying what it is you mean by "work" when you say "This will never work." What is it that you think comparative religious though seeks to achieve, and how does it fail?

Where and how do you draw the line for what religons you will sit before to learn from?