Thursday, August 12, 2010

Calling Evil Good and Good Evil

I purchased a book called The Lamb's Supper (by Scott Hahn) the other day. I bought it because the premise was intriguing: The Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) helps us to understand the book of Revelation (The Apocalypse of St. John). As Revelation is extremely weird, I thought it would be great to read this book by a Roman Catholic scholar. The book has been very good and interesting. I am nearly through its 163 pages. Also, it is interesting to think that, if the Roman Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) Mass is the major interpretational key to Revelation...then perhaps us Protestants have gotten something very wrong.

I thought it good to share a lengthy quote from the book that will be interesting and informative to all. The passage is about the natural punishment that sin is in and of itself:

"We read on in Romans: "therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves" (Rom 1:24). Wait a minute: God gives them up to their vices? He lets them continue sinning?
"Well, yes, and that is a dreadful manifestation of the wrath of God. We might think that the pleasures of sin are preferable to suffering calamity, but they're not.
"We have to recognize sin as the action that destroys our family bond with God and keeps us from life and freedom. How does that happen?
"We have an obligation, first, to resist temptation. If we fail then and we sin, we have an obligation to repent immediately. If we do not repent, then God lets us have our way: He allows us to experience the natural consequences of our sins, the illicit pleasures. If we still fail to repent - through self-denial and acts of penance - God allows us to continue in sin, thereby forming a habit, a vice, which darkens our intellect and weakens our will.
"Once we are hooked on a sin, our values are turned upside down. Evil becomes our most urgent 'good,' our deepest longing; good stands as an 'evil' because it threatens to keep us from satisfying our illicit desires. At that point, repentance becomes almost impossible, because repentance is, by definition, a turning away from evil and toward the good; but, by now, the sinner has thoroughly redefined both good and evil. Isaiah said of such sinner: 'Woe to those who call evil good and good evil' (Is. 5:20).
"Once we have embraced sin in this way and rejected our covenant with God, only a calamity can save us. Sometimes, the most merciful thing that God can do to a drunk, for example, may be to allow him to wreck his car or be abandoned by his wife - whatever will force him to accept responsibility for his actions.
"What happens, though, when an entire nation has fallen into serious and habitual sin? The same principle is at work. ..."

There are a few things to meditate on here:
1) God's wrath (as all proper wrath) is an expression of love: it is the energy summoned up to rid self or other of evil.
2) Habits
a) Notice how important habits are in this passage. Vice - the habit of doing evil - starts small and then continues on until we are no longer able to control ourselves, but still want to do good (see Romans 7; Aristotle and St. Thomas call this "incontinence"; see next thought). From there, many people who are no longer sure why they should feel bad about their evil deed will be proud of the evil they do...and at that point they have a vice, that is, a genuine bad habit.
b) To help explain the thought above, hare is an explanation of the Vice-Virtue scale:
i)Virtue is having a permanent, fixed habit towards doing what is good. If you are really virtuous, you find doing good easy and are generally not even tempted by evil.
ii) Continence is having a generally fixed will towards what is good...and doing that good most of the time, but not all of the time. Doing good is mostly easy, but temptation is often present.
iii) Incontinence is the partial willing of what is good, but the inability to do it for the most part. In Roman Catholic thought, there are two types of sin: venial and mortal. Venial sin is forgivable in that the person has a will to do what is good, but have not done it (this happens in cases of continence and incontinence). Mortal sin is done from pure vice.
iv) Vice is the habit of doing evil, without care of doing good. Somewhere (whether knowingly or not), a choice has been made to call evil good and good evil. Sins done from vice are not forgivable (they are, thus, "mortal" sins), simply because the person who persists in vice will not ask forgiveness. If something happens in the life of that person where they are "shook up" and turn towards God, then God will, of course, forgive them.
c) Notice also, that as people move from continence to vice, they become less and less wise (Paul says that their minds are darkened).
3) It seems very true that people who act in incontinence or vice need a rude awakening - a cold shower - in order to see things correctly. This has been true in my life (through an act of divine wisdom miraculously breaching my thick skull), in the life of my grandfather (through the fear of dying), and in the life of the Prodigal Son (who suddenly realized that the life of pleasure wasn't nearly as pleasurable as life with his Father).

Monday, July 12, 2010

Review: The Naked Gospel

I have just finished reading “The Naked Gospel” by Andrew Farley. The book is essentially a teaching of the gospel based on what I call a “grace-centric” interpretation of the Bible. Grace-centric” teaching revolves around the idea that Christians are covered by grace, so God does not even really care if they sin. I have encountered teaching like this before, bought into that teaching, and reaped some major negative consequences. So I went into this book knowing that I would not agree. And I don’t.

If you want to read a book revolving around a grace-centric teaching, then this book is for you. It’s all there: Christians have no need to ask for forgiveness anymore; Old Testament law (meaning the moral laws, not the cultic or purity laws) is not a good source of morality for Christians (in fact, it seems as though morality is not so important anymore); We are not on a spiritual journey, but have arrived; etc.

It is interesting to note that I would probably not be able to go toe-to-toe with the author to disprove his exegesis (though this book has inspired my to start looking more seriously at my Bible…not just for personal devotion). But I know from past experience and from present intuition that this teaching is off the rails.

I appreciate people who provide me with different angles to look at the same thing, for they help to sharpen me. In that sense, I am appreciative of this book.

Not much more to say at this point.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

On Spanking




One of the best lessons that children need to learn is that there is good and bad and right and wrong…and that what they want or what they think is not always right. When the Bible (especially Proverbs) talks of the Fear of the Lord leading us to wisdom, perhaps we can also think that the fear of parents (i.e. the fear of children for their parents) leads to wisdom. One major issue for parents of young children is whether or not to spank or physically punish (not abuse!) their children. Many people I know are not in favor of spanking their children. There are a variety of reasons for this: 1) I don’t want to physically hurt my child, because it is bad to hurt others. 2) I just can’t do it because it hurts me to hit my kids. 3) My child will not learn anything for the better; it is far better to reason with our children. 4) My child is good and does not need so serious a punishment.

The first reason is terrible, for it does not spell out a good reason for not spanking. The second reason is also unthinking, but more selfish. The third reason appears to be good, but is actually not. The fourth reason is valid. It is good to state here that many people are against spanking because many parents spank out of anger and do it in a wrong way, so it is best to avoid spanking all together. This argument does not hold in regards to other topics, i.e. marriage (I believe that most people in North America do not understand marriage and often go about it in the wrong way, but I will not say that no one should ever get married, for I know that it can be done in the right way) and it does not hold in the case of spanking either. There are many bad people and we will not put an end the human race simply because no body is perfect. Often the bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch, but makes the whole bunch less appealing, though they have not spoilt.

If spanking does not help our children then I agree that we should not spank. But I believe that spanking is a tool in the school of wisdom. When parents spank their children for the right reasons (to teach the child that he is wrong or has gone astray and done something wrong, and when this is done not in a fit of rage, but in the right frame of mind) their child will (eventually) learn that their parents wish that they (the child) do what is best, not simply what they want, for they do not always want what is best, and, often, what is best does not feel good. For instance, an eighteen-month old does not want to get his shots. It is not fun to be stuck with a needle, for the process is painful and makes the child question the parent’s love. But the shot is for the child’s good, and the parent believes that the child will get over the trauma of the experience, and learn that their parents usually try to do what is best for the child. If the child sees that the parent’s habit towards them is love and goodness, then the child will interpret such pain (which was partially inflicted by the parent) as the parent probably still loving the child, although it doesn’t seem like that at the time.

If a child is to grow up in the way of reason, humility, and openness to others, the child must learn to know that he is not always right, and that he should be more open to being good, or else he will suffer punishment/ correction.

But we can still reply to my essay by stating the second part of 3), which is: “It is far better to reason with our children.” True. It is best to reason with children that can understand and implement what they have learned. However, young children are often unable to reason, so what are we to do with them, simply to distract them from the wrong they are doing, or teach them that whenever they do a certain thing (i.e. get too close to the top of the stairs) they get hurt by mommy or daddy? That way they can start to reason for themselves about what to do or not do rather than having the parents do everything for the child. So distraction is not the most helpful, for it doesn’t help the child to reason and think.

Also, sometimes we need to be shocked out of doing something bad, or else we will not get out of the bad habit. Physical punishment can be much more clear and more shocking than verbal reasoning. (especially for those who do not understand words yet, or do not understand them well enough, or who need a ‘bad attitude’ rehabilitated). Perhaps, then, we can call spanking “physical reasoning”, and then it can be said that spanking is a form of reasoning, and, in fact, it helps children to be able to reason better, to be better people, directed not to their own whims, but to what is good and true.

Parents who care for their children must help their children to seek out truth and to do what is good. Enabling selfishness by teaching your kids that they always know what is best is immoral. I hope that the “anti spankers” now understand that, although parents don’t always use corporal (bodily) punishment with the right attitude and for the right reasons, that spanking is not evil in and of itself, but can be a tool in the parent’s toolbox, helping them to properly raise their children to reach their full potential, and to flourish during adulthood and adolescence.

This essay was written after spending some time listening to friends and relatives who take issue with more traditional parental methods such as spanking and making their children eat food that they don’t want or making children follow a strict bedtime. Perhaps the same principles from the above essay can be applied to other questions, such as forcing children to eat foods that they don’t want to eat.

Of course, I have not addressed every angle that this issue of training your child in wisdom through imposing the parent’s will, but I think that I have made it clear that parents should not be imposing their own will just for the sake of getting what they want, but that they do whatever they do from sound reason and love for their children.

As “the fear of the Lord” is the first step to wisdom, a child’s fear of their parents’ wrath (and by wrath I mean that kind of energy that is aroused in us to deal with evil and vice) is also a step in the direction of wisdom. Fear of evil is a good thing, for we should be scared of getting fat if we eat too many candies and fearful of losing our house if we cannot pay the mortgage, and we should be afraid that we can separate ourselves from God. These fears stimulate us to do what is right. However, fear can move us to do what is wrong (cheat on a test because we are fearful of not passing, or not doing the right thing because we fear that others will hate us for doing what is good, or fearing that God wants to be separated from us).

In order to understand this fear, let me turn to a Catholic Thomist named Josef Pieper, who I respect. Here is a summary of his words of Fear of the Lord:

1- Servile Fear: imperfect fear of the Lord. Fears the loss of personal fulfillment in eternal life. Though it is imperfect, it is still good. Decreases as man’s nature is the more deeply penetrated by his love of friendship with God. Prepares the soul for wisdom. Kind of being afraid of God (‘s punishment). Corresponds to concupiscent love of God. Fears the gain of an evil.
2- Filial/Chaste Fear: more truly fear. Love transforms servile fear to a chaste and filial fear. To see sin as sin. Sin is evil to a greater degree than the actual punishment is. More grieved at the actual possible wrong than about being punished for it. Filial fear increases (not in frequency, but in amplitude?) as the intensity with which we love God. This is because the one who truly sees the good/God knows what he can lose. They see more clearly. The first fruit of wisdom itself. Being afraid of actual evil. This kind of fear does not destroy the mental operations, as anxiety (servile fear) does. Corresponds to caritas love of God. Fears the loss of a good.

In writing this, it is not simply my hope to assert my own beliefs, nor do I wish to condemn parents who have chosen not to spank their children because I know that they only wish to do the best for their children. I am, however, questioning those parents who do not spank their children if they are loving their children in the best possible way. On the other hand, those parents who hit their children out of rage and irrationalism must be chastised for raising children that often end up being hateful, distrustful of good authorities, and encouraging their children to live in fear and to not understand love and the difference between good and evil. Let us teach our children to be afraid of the right things and to love the right things, for their good and ours.

In the last analysis, I am not in favor of spanking in and of itself. I am in favor of goodness and truth. And it is for the sake of goodness and truth that I am in favor of spanking.

Parenting takes a love so consistent and pure. None of us can love in this perfect way, but that isn’t to say that we shouldn’t try or that God cannot help us. But as much as possible, let our children learn of God’s character through knowing ours. Help us, Lord.

Afterthought: All issues to do with morality rely on the virtue of prudence, which is the ability to do what is right in varying situations. General guidelines are good, but no person or situation is the same. Give us prudence, Lord.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

READ THIS BOOK: Who Really Goes to Hell – The Gospel You’ve Never Heard.

Read this Book: Who Really Goes to Hell – The Gospel You’ve Never Heard.

I recently read Who Really Goes to Hell – The Gospel You’ve Never Heard, by David I. Rudel. I was initially skeptical about this book for a few reasons: 1) The Publisher is Biblical Heresy Press; 2) I am generally skeptical of supposedly new ways of understanding the Bible, as most have a very Postmodern ring to them (as the next book I will be reviewing, called “The Naked Gospel”.

Don’t let these fool you. As I read on, with fewer and fewer objections along the way, I was brought to a deeper understanding of the gospel than I have ever known. The title of the book seems to be pointed at grabbing the attention of those who might not be interested in a scholarly work on many of the essential doctrines of Christianity; but the book is just that. Now, I do not know my Bible well enough the properly critique the book, but what I read really made sense to me.

The book purports to destroy many of the common Evangelical Protestant doctrines in favour of a much more biblically founded teaching. I would say that the book is successful in this. This book has helped me to understand, or at least know another quality viewpoint on, many major important biblical teachings, including: What is the role of the Holy Spirit?, How are we to be judged after death?, What is justification?, Why does repentance feature so prominently in Jesus’ teachings?, Why do we need to continue to ask for forgiveness?, What is the relationship with faith and good works?, How does Jesus save us?, What is the importance of Jesus’ entire life?, What does the Bible mean by “God’s wrath”?, etc., etc., etc.

This book I so helpful that I recommend it to all who read this review. This is my advice: get this book. Granted, I know that this book will give some people trouble and will dismantle their current faith, but I believe that it will build up something more solid in the reader. Also, at the very least, the book provides an alternative paradigm to Protestant teachings; this is helpful as truth is often best discerned when two or more options are in competition and one shows itself to be more dominant.

I do not wish to give away any of the answers described in this book, but I will warn that it seems to be something much closer to a Catholic teaching, although the author doesn’t seem to like Catholics or Protestants very much for their doctrines.

Give this book a read. I have to read it again to glean more from it and to understand it so that I can put it in competition with other paradigms that I know, but I am already excited to have read this book once. Read this book. I have not said that about any other book that I have reviewed to date. After you’ve read this book, let me know what you think.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

How Can We Share What We Do Not Know?

I help teach an ESL (English as a Second Language) Bible study class at my Alliance church. I have been noticing that it is often difficult to teach books of the Bible in a meaningful manner, as many books of the Bible are not easily understood. Even with a person who understands the specific book being studied, the teachings of the Scriptures are often difficult to categorize in our minds.

So I've been wondering, why doesn't the church have a catechism class, or a class where we go through the main teachings of the church? This would be done in a systematic manner (and therefore more easily understood), and would have many benefits:

1) Our faith would grow and we would begin to think about and understand God and what he is up to through the church.
2) Our Christian living would be informed and therefore we would be better witnesses.
3) We would be able to worship God more effectively and see his blessings more clearly.
4) We would be more unified as a church.
5) We would be able to explain our faith to others with confidence and therefore be better witnesses.

It strikes me that my church (at least the leadership) has been focused on the congregation being witnesses and being more bold about sharing our faith. However, the biggest reason why we are afraid to share our faith is because we do not really know it. If we do not have even a basic understanding of the faith, then how can we share it? How can we share what we cannot put into words, or live out? (Of course, there is a class like this in my church, but, from a far, it strikes me as less helpful than a catechism class, and it must be attended by more of the congregation. Also this class is not easily accessible to the ESL Bible study attendees, so a separate class must be offered for them. Also, ALPHA classes lean in this direction, too, but they also strike me as less helpful than an actual catechism class, though a catechism class might be able to learn much from the friendly, non-boring nature of the ALPHA program.)

Therefore, I submit that all Christians should be catechized. Perhaps your church doesn't have a book that teaches about the things of the faith in an orderly manner, then find a book that does so. I recommend The Catechism of the Catholic Church As well as the Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas. Martin Luther has also written a Catechism. The Orthodox Church also has some documents of this sort, though I don't know what they are called.

If this resonates with you (the need for you and/or you and your church to grow in the knowledge and life of the faith), then talk to your pastor about getting an adult catechism class rolling.

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Some Articles

I read a very interesting article by Catholic thinker George Weigel yesterday called "Defending Religious Freedom In Full". The article can be found here. Here is a snippet of the article:

"Religious freedom in full also means that communities of religious conviction and conscience must be free to conduct the works of charity in ways that are commensurate with their conscientious convictions. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss the problems that have been posed by tying so much of Catholic social-service work and Catholic health care to government funding – save, perhaps, to note that these problems did not exist before the Supreme Court erected a spurious "right to abortion" as the right that trumps all other rights, and before courts and legislatures decided that it was within the state's competence to redefine marriage and to compel others to accept that redefinition through the use of coercive state power. What can be said in this context, and what must be said, is that the conscience rights of Catholic physicians, nurses, and other health-care professionals are not second-class rights that can be trumped by other rights claims; and any state that fails to acknowledge those rights of conscience has done grave damage to religious freedom rightly understood. The same can and must be said about any state that drives the Catholic Church out of certain forms of social service because the Church refuses to concede that the state has the competence to declare as "marriage" relationships that are manifestly not marriages."

Another interesting article that I have read lately is really an interview of a nun who has her Ph.D in philosophy. The interview is interesting on a few different levels. Clear and sophisticated arguments are made for the important of nuns, gender roles, and the recent issues with the Catholic church. The interview can be found here.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Clarity for Religious Pluralists: Do All Roads Lead to Rome?




My mind has returned to thinking about religious pluralism because of a conversation I had with a coworker the other day, and also because of Lost (where something very similar to the above picture is in a prominent spot in the church where the final scene is held). The basic theory is this: all religions lead to God; therefore, all religions have an equal grasp of truth and goodness. It baffles me that people believe this theory, since it logically does not work. People will not say the same things of different philosophical schools, political traditions, etc., but they feel like they can say this about religions.

So, I’ve finally decided to publish a few short thoughts and questions that must be posed to the religious pluralist:

  1. The fact that we have the debate provides some sort of a clue that not all religions believe the same God.
  2. Religious pluralists can’t answer the question of what happens to people who are not evangelized, because it doesn’t matter whether you know the truth or not.
  3. In fact, a religious pluralist must decide whether or not heaven is for all, since we all pursue goodness in some regard. Bad people pursue their own pleasure, though they do it in a bad way (but how can a pluralist say that anyone’s belief is bad at all?). Therefore, even very bad people believe in God, according to the pluralist. Therefore, religion is completely useless.
  4. Pluralists deny that both goodness and truth are important. Yes, most religions agree on basics of morality (don’t kill, etc.) but the metaphysical truths taught are quite different. In fact, even the ethics (i.e. the goodness that is taught) vary greatly. Therefore, religious pluralist care little for goodness or truth, even though they believe that they care very much about goodness.
  5. There are definite truth claims that are not compatible at all between religions. Many of these claims are significant and cannot be reconciled.
  6. Religion has been around for so many years and the smartest and best advocates of these religions do not advocate that they combine. Why?
  7. No mention of pluralism is mentioned in the Bible, why is this?
  8. If all religions lead to God, would the religious pluralist be willing to die for Jesus or Allah, etc.? Somehow I doubt it. When the questions become this serious, the religious pluralist will not die for a specific figure or religion.

These are basic questions and statements that a religious pluralist must think through in order to be more faithful to themselves as human beings. For human beings are special in that they can use their brains to ponder such intricacies.

It is good to include a long quote from John Polkinghorne’s book that affirms the truth of the Nicene Creed, The Faith of a Physicist. Polkinghorne is more intelligent, eloquent, and helpful than I am, and so his words will be helpful to understand the topic a little more. I will fill out the blog post with a few more comments at the end.


The Nicene Creed was formulated in the course of the same century that had earlier seen Constantine’s conversion, with its consequence that, for a long while after, the theological debate was internal to Christianity. The ‘many “gods” and many “lords”’ (1 Cor. 8.5) of the Mediterranean world disappeared, as would the gods of Northern Europe, while the rift with Judaism was too deep for serious exchange to take place between the two religions for many centuries. For several centuries after the rise of Islam, the principal Christian response to this new religion was by way of resistance to its incursions and attempts at reconquest. How different is the situation today! World-wide communications, and extensive immigrations, have made us only too aware that Christianity is but one among the several great historic traditions present in the world of the faiths. For a bottom-up thinker there is a perplexing contrast with the spread of modern science. Originally the product of Western Europe, it has proved eminently exportable, so that one can expect to receive the same answer to a scientific inquiry, whether it is made in London or Tokyo, New York or Delhi. In contrast, while there is some degree of Christian presence in almost every country, in many it is tiny and the other historic religious traditions have shown great stability in the face of more than two centuries of widespread Christian missionary effort. It is a pressing problem for a credible theology, second only to the problem of suffering, to give some satisfactory account of why the diversity of religious affirmations should not lead us to the conclusion that they are merely the expressions of culturally determined opinions.

Of course, there is unquestionably a degree of cultural determination in our actual religious beliefs. If I had grown up in Saudi Arabia, rather than in England, it would be foolish to deny that the chances are I would be a Muslim. But the chances are also that I would not have spent most of my life as a theoretical physicist, but that does not mean that science is simply a cultural artifact. We must not commit the genetic fallacy of supposing tat origin explains away the content of belief.

To some extent the effect of culture is the inescapable deposit of the separate historical developments of communities. That does not seem to me to be enough. As with the problem of suffering, the difficulty lies not in the existence of the phenomenon, but in its scale. That there should be diversities of religious understanding is not surprising; that the discrepancies in the accounts of ultimate reality are so great, is very troubling. That perplexity is increased when we consider that it is knowledge of God, with all his power to make himself known, which we are considering. An American Indian said to a missionary, ‘If this faith is so true why was it not given to our ancestors?’ (Cragg points out that an Englishman could reply that it wasn’t given originally to his ancestors either. Some propagation of locally given revelation through space and time is not an incoherent possibility for personal divine action.)

There have been three broad avenues of approach to the problem of religious diversity. [The three avenues are 1) religious pluralism, 2) religious exclusivism, and 3) religious inclusivism. I will not include Polkinghorne’s thoughts on 2) and 3), but he settles on 3), which I think is correct.] The approach which is usually called pluralism regards the worlds’ religious traditions as being, in essence, equally valid expressions of the same fundamental religious quest, different pathways up the spiritual mountain. Its driving force is the conviction that God cannot have left himself without a witness at most times and in most places; that most people cannot have been cut off from his saving grace just by the accidents of circumstance. One of its chief proponents is John Hick, who writes, ‘Can we then accept the conclusion that the God of love who seeks to save all mankind has nevertheless ordained that men must be saved in such a way that only a small number can in fact receive salvation?’ I have already made it clear (chapter 9) that I agree with him in answering ‘No’ to that question. But ultimate universal access to salvation does no require the proposition of the essentially equal validity of all current religious points of view. Hick’s pluralist strategy is based on viewing religious tradition as alternative schemes of salvation for ‘the transformation from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness’. The Real itself is inaccessible, and it is only the culturally formed personal or impersonal masks of Reality which the world faiths present to us. Hick’s strongly instrumentalist view of religion means that, for the traditions, ‘their truthfulness is the practical truthfulness which consists in guiding us aright.’ ‘The basic criterion, then, for judging religious phenomena is soteriological.’ No one should deny the importance of religious praxis – ‘the tree is known by its fruit (Matt. 12.33, par.) – nor the presence of compassion in all the traditions, but a purely pragmatic account is as unsatisfactory for religion as it is for science.

When we come later to consider some of the conflicts of understanding between the traditions, we shall see how difficult a pluralist position is if one wishes (as I do) to assign cognitive, rather than merely expressive or dispositional, content to religion. Commenting on Hick’s programme claming to discern a noumenal common denominator, Ward says that ‘The assertion that “only the vague is really true” seems highly dubious; but even if it is made, one is making a selection from a wider range of competing truths in religion.’ It is just not the case that, under the skin, the world’s religions are really all saying the same thing, and one can question whether the attempt to impose pluralism on the traditions does not lead, as Schwobel says, ‘to a personal construction of the history of religions and religious attitudes that very few who participate in them would recognize as their own.’ The driving force of much pluralist thought is the desire to iron out differences in the search for tolerance, but this ‘can all too easily turn into a new guise of Western imperialism where subscribing to the principles of the Enlightenment becomes a precondition for participation in dialogue’ (D’Costa).. The particularities of the traditions must be respected.

Reflecting on all that has gone before, religious pluralism seems to spring from a supposedly intuitive opinion, where we realize that all religions lead to similar goods (i.e. ‘be good’, etc.). However, this opinion is simply that, an opinion that seeks reconciliation between religions, while really destroying them all. That religions are dependent on culture or “different interpretations of the one great light behind all religions” is simply not tenable, as simple logic shows us that their principal statements of faith are incompatible. (p. 176-179)


The goal, then, is to seek for the best and most true of the religions, which I am certain is Christianity. To stop gazing at and looking for the truth is to be anti-human, which is a challenge to those who simply think that we just cannot know very much about God beyond that he wants us to do good and love one another. Those people who claim that we cannot know much about God other than simple ethical truths deny the fact – or are blind to it – that love and goodness fall back on truth. For if something is not true, it cannot be good. And to seek God is the greatest task. We watch shows (I am thinking of BBC’s Planet Earth series) where we humans attempt to learn all there is about our natural planet, just so that we can ‘know.’ It is very human to ‘just want to know’. And yet, on the greatest of topics, theology, we chose to turn our brains off and settle for mere opinion, not founded on solid ground.

However, it is very important to note that other religions have aspects of goodness and truth, and that some religions are closer than others to knowing God. To deny this usually comes from a fear that does not allow for gradations of truth and goodness. To release an arrow and have it hit close to the bull’s-eye is much better than to miss the target completely. However, to hit the bull’s-eye is best by far. The bull’s-eye is to know Jesus Christ.