You’ve probably heard it said before, but the significance of this matter can’t be overstated: most religions are an attempt to reach God, Christianity is the story of God’s attempt to reach humanity. Now let me elaborate on this point to back up its premise.
Buddhism is about the adherent escaping the realm of Samsara (suffering), and specifically the cycle of rebirth. It has as a goal Nirvana (which might best be described as nothingness or cessation of being). Here sin isn’t given treatment except to call it suffering - inexorably linked with desires, and the pursuit of God or an ultimate and enduring good is not even a possibility, the best one can hope for is thoughts and actions that lead to ones cosmic extermination.
Hinduism has such varied and obscure metamechanics that to try to nail down their salvation muthos is rather impossible in a short paragraph. In this system gods number 330,000,000 (that’s not a typo). There are more gods than any human could possibly appease in a single lifetime and guidelines according to the gods one serves and religious philosophy one takes up that stand in stark contrast to one another. At the end of it all, one is left throwing up his or her hands and simply stating (as has become a popular statement within Hinduism): we’re not trying to reach God, so much as wake up our sleeping atman (soul) to discover that we are in fact gods ourselves.
Judaism, as our spiritual forbearers recognized God sin and the need to be restored to Him, but their mode of attaining worthiness was in keeping the Law. One thing is certain though… no one keeps the Law perfectly, the New Testament comments on this in saying that purpose of the law is in essence to let us know that we are sinners. Man can attempt to reach God by observing discipline in keeping His commands, but we ultimately fail in this endeavor.
Islam likewise recognized both God and sin, and tries to observe a disciplined and highly regimented lifestyle to diminish sin and win God’s favor. Praying set prayers a number of times per day, reciting a statement of faith, observing holy fasting days and attempting live in submission to Allah (God), are all a means of appeasing God. The concept of judgment within Islaam is that our good deeds are weighed against our bad deeds at the end of time, and whichever way the scale tips determines where our eternity will be spent.
Christianity is the only religion wherein God ultimately engages in the work of restoring the relationship between humanity and Himself. We’ll dig into this more next week, but I’m interested to hear your perspectives on this matter… can you think of another religion that violates this paradigm or even plug in a worldview and give it treatment on what it claims to save us from or save us by.
Blessings
Ben
What is this all about?
This blog is set up to be an interactive point of contact with people who attend the connect service at Northern Hills Christian Church. Here you will find questions, scriptures, and devotional thoughts that coincide with the weekly teachings. Feel free to use this site to enhance your spiritual growth during the week and to ask any questions of the ministerial staff pertaining to the teachings and mission of connect.
Blog Archive
About Me
- connect
- www.nhcc-connect.com
10 comments:
Great summary of the various religions and what they offer. I don't know if this emerging new age group has an official name, but I refer to it as the Oprah Winfrey cult. She states that you don't need to know the name of Jesus in order to reach heaven, and she goes on to say that all the different religions will ultimately lead to the same goal, an afterlife of peace and tranquility. Oprah is misleading many through her tolerance of everybody's beliefs. Oprah and her followers are measuring truth by sincerity, and it doesn't matter how sincere this diverse group is, there is only one narrow path that leads to God and that is through his son, Jesus Christ.
Yes indeed, Oprah is sort of the reigning queen of misinformation and partially formed religious muthos. I think neo-paganism may represent the most powerful threat to Christianity right now (at least in the west). Its subjective nature and tendency toward universalism make it appealing to our egoism and our lack of commitment to universal truth... worst of both worlds, as it were.
Ben
Neopaganism is too far out to gain much following. Not too many are thinking about sacrificing at Stonehenge, where the demons dwell. If I may be so pompous as to cite myself twice,:
http://donotletusbeconfused.blogspot.com/2008/01/happy-holy-days.html
http://donotletusbeconfused.blogspot.com/2008/05/beltaine.html
Now, O Ben, I think you are absolutely right about the cultural preference toward subjectivity, universalism, egoism, and lack of commitment, but neopaganism I cannot imagine is the answer.
Theosophy is the answer, for it is eclectic and pluralistic in the extreme, that is, if you want it to be. That is the nice thing about eclectic systems, even though it is not fair to call them systems. Furthermore, it is rooted hugely in emotional experience, which lots of people seem to equate with religious experience, and the vaguer the spiritual realm, the better the soil for cultivating a delusion of this kind. Theosophic belief is inherently pluralistic, after all, and supposes ultimate reality to be hidden.
H.P. Lovecraft's "The Call of Cthulhu" presents this ultimate theosophic reality as orgiastic, dark, blood-drenched, ecstatic chaos. The whole story, in fact, is framed on theosophic ideas, and Cthulhu is the symbolic outworking of theosophic ethics and ideals, if I may here insert my reading of the tale. Also, maybe my rejected comment from last week was not so stupid after all.
Thus the eclecticism of theosophy appeals to the desired subjectivity for obvious reasons, as well as with egoism. Its pluralism strikes a chord with universalism. If all faiths are just sorry attempts at finding the ultimate reality, why choose one? Choose what bits you like, and with the right gnosis, maybe they will be the right ones! There is the eclecticism again. The emotional focus is always self-centered, so there again is egoism. Last, eclecticism and lack of commitment go hand in hand. Who needs commitment when beliefs about reality are preferential?
Theosophy and neopaganism are highly related, though. The old gods are just some among the many of our attempts at reaching the divine, of course. Perhaps they did it the best, though. Pagans loved their ecstatic experiences, as in the popularity of temple prostitutes or the behavior of oracles. On another note, Isis proved to be very popular among theosophists, as she was with gnostics. They are a strikingly similar bunch, actually, theosophists and gnostics. Of course the former were heavily influenced by the latter. And, I think, by Islamic Sufism.
I have another note, appropriate with the approach of the new Indiana Jones film. It is about the Nazis. Do you know why Himmler was so interested in sending archaeologists around the globe? Well, they were looking for swastikas, for where there is a swastika, there were Aryans (not true, but whatever). This is why the Dalai Lama and the Nazis were so close. There are swastikas all over Tibet! But more than that, in the early days of the Nazi party, the fascist political element was quite embroiled with mysticism, in particular the Thule society, which would inspire much of the party's mythological propaganda later on. I point to the famous Nazi propaganda poster of Hitler as Parsifal (as in the Wagner opera, dealing with the mystical subjects at hand) as the ultimate example. In fact, the Nazis got the swastika from the Thule society (which would soon be dissolved). Hitler thought Himmler's archaeological projects were a silly waste, but there it is. The point is that this mysticism is so malleable that the Nazis latched onto it without trouble.
As to Oprah, I have called her a theosophist before, and I have no intention of stopping. Even if theosophy is to be dismissed, there is still her undeniable religious pluralism, which is certainly the most general threat to all sane beliefs about reality. Lack of commitment is probably the biggest motivator, though. It all runs together, though, doesn't it?
Also, mythos is conventionally transliterated with a Y.
Also also, I had no idea I would type so much. I did not mean to, and I did not mean for it to be so rambling, either. Please note that I played the Nazi card against both the Dalai Lama and Oprah, too.
I'm not meaning for this to be a criticism but I'm curious about something. I have heard people seem to make a distinction between "Christians" and Catholics. This, to me is confusing, since the Catholic Church was the first established Christian Church. Is there a difference, to some, between "christians" and "catholics" and why?
Thanks!
Great question, as it certainly reflects an understanding that many people have when entering this conversation. Firstly, the term catholic is roughly translated as "universal" and as such is rightly used to describe the whole church; i.e. everyone who is a true Christian is a catholic (lower case c). Some take this term to mean that the Roman Catholic church is the only true church and that every other church is apostate (outside of God’s will). Every Christian likely desires to be as true to God’s design for the church as possible, so where would be a rational place to go to get a handle of what the church is supposed to look like? It seems to me that the most reasonable source is likely going to be the first church that we read about in the book of Acts (as it was being conducted and overseen by the apostles, and clearly the miraculous work of God was there (sort of like a divine stamp of approval on what was being practiced). So what was the first church like? Let’s step back and take a look at this question for a moment.
The Roman Catholic Church as it stands today has Christians in it (as does every congregation), so know that I have no interest in slinging mud here. But clearly I’m not serving God as a Roman Catholic, so it’s fair to say that I’ve sought out this matter and decided accordingly. The contention that Catholicism was/is the original church is a theory that we could test by comparing it to the historical church of the first century. If we read through the book of Acts (a description of the first church), we find that it has some striking dissimilarity when compared with the modern Catholic hierarchal and clerical structuring. Much of the reformation and restoration churches sought to leave what they perceived to be “the baggage of excess tradition” behind, and return to the original church structure as laid out by the apostles and first disciples. So in a sense, Roman Catholicism says that it was the first church by virtue of being able to trace its lineage back to the establishment of Roman oversight of the church under Constantine (hundreds of years after the church had been in operation), and that its traditions concerning Christian practice are therefore binding (even if they appear contrary to the earliest church). The protestant churches simply deny the authority of tradition, and believe that the church is best served if we continually try to align ourselves with the archetype (the first church), concerning which we have a veritable mountain of textual evidences, and full capacity to analyze in its socio-cultural and historical setting. Hopefully that addresses your question, but much more could be said on issue if you wish to pursue this further.
Let me begin my attempt at a response to this post by making some initial statements. First, this is an excellent question that probably deserves a more substantial answer than what a blog posting can provide, so it may be good to meet with me in person to follow-up any issue that may be left in question. I think that the issue cannot be fully addressed in a few paragraphs and so I will try my best to be as concise as possible without being offensive to anyone in either camp.
At the heart of all of this is the issue of where authority lies. Is it the Church and its leader (Pope or Bishop) or is it scripture and the testimony of the earliest witnesses to Jesus under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. From this point most differences can be understood especially in light of Papal decrees that speak of issues outside of the scriptures and that, at times, seem to contradict teachings of the Bible.
Another point of issue is the term “Catholic” and how it is to be understood in light of this question. In general the word ‘catholic’ means “united, or one” with an additional connotation to encompassing a variety of things. In this sense the term catholic and Christian are synonymous when in reference to a belief in Jesus as the Christ according to the scriptures. This is much different than the reference you are making to Roman Catholicism and the doctrinal differences it has with other Christian churches. This does not mean that the first Christians were Catholic in the Roman Catholic sense but that they were all united in their belief as to who Jesus was and how that was based on the Apostolic (Jesus’ disciples who were charged to deliver the truth of who he is) witnesses. So to say that the first established church was one and united in their belief (catholic) is true but to say that the first established church was Roman Catholic is not. The first established church began on the day of Pentecost when Peter preached the Gospel following the Holy Spirit’s arrival and manifestation (Acts 2) somewhere around AD 29. It wasn’t until heretical teaching began to emerge that there was a need to canonize and “catholicize” what would be understood as Christian orthodoxy based on the original teaching of Jesus transmitted by his closest followers.
With all this being said here are some specific areas of difference that arise between traditional Christian and Roman Catholic views of authority:
--Papacy as the voice for God in his church and the teaching of his infallibility
--Role and function of priest in regards to forgiveness of sin and confession
--Understanding of the Eucharist in regards to perpetual sacrifice—transubstantiation
--Elevation of Mary and the teaching of her being conceived without sin and being free from sin as well—also her perpetual virginity. Scripture teaches that Jesus did have brothers and sisters.
--Election of Saints (Bible speaks that all Christians are saints)
--Doctrine of original sin and the practice of baptism as connection to church
--Mode and candidate for baptism different from Scriptural precedent
--Connection to church is the connection to salvation
--Church tradition versus the teachings of the Scriptures
--Bishops as successors to the Apostles—This was never done by the apostles
--Biblical canon and authority granted by Church instead of authority always residing in the scriptures themselves.
--Use of icons and holy relics
--View on marriage and divorce that are contrary to scripture (total prohibition on divorce; marriage outside the Catholic church as illegitimate)
--The doctrine of purgatory
As stated before, this is but a select number of differences that arise from a distinction between where authority lies. Does it rest with the institutional Church or with Scripture? This does not mean that Catholics are bad and Protestants are good or vice-versa, but one must ask where one should begin when looking at issues of faith, salvation, and doctrine—does it begin with the Church tradition or does it begin with Scripture? I believe it has always begun with God and his word and then that should be the basis for how the Church operates and establishes its means of faith and practice.
(if this has answered most of your question—feel free to skip the last half of this post. The rest is given as a context in which to understand the changes that have taken place as religion and politics mingle in society.)
Important results of the heretical movement
1. Bishop becomes very important to the church
--Gains prestige as source of authority or standard
--To be a Christian is to follow the ideas of the Bishop
2. Word “Catholic”—universal worldwide
--Begins to have a new connotation—the orthodoxy
--Orthodoxy means “correct doctrine”
-- A.D. 150 The Roman Catholic Church seen as the true church
3. Began the process of canonizing the New Testament
This is where the real break down begins and where doctrinal differences begin to emerge. I will, as stated earlier, not be able to cover all of the differences that are present but here are a few areas as well as some historical issues that bring this to light. Please note that Roman Catholicism has its beginnings around A.D. 150 but didn’t take the form that we see today until significant changes in practice took place, such as when Constantine became emperor and legitimized Christianity in A.D. 313.
How the doctrinal issues will change in the 3rd Cent.
--Idea of the “church” changes
--Those outside the church are outside of salvation
--Church becomes more formal and institutional
--Regulations begin to be placed on clergy
--Lord’s Supper changes
--Literal presence of Christ’s body and blood—Transubstantiation
--Stress that this is a sacrifice—old sacrifice offered anew
--Ushers in the change of thought in calling the presbyter to priest—Priest offers sacrifice
--Altar where “sacrifice” takes place
--Baptism changes
--New Testament idea of immersion changes in late 2nd cent.—was for a penitent believer
--Subject changes—who can be baptized?
--Begin to have infant baptism—Iraenius and Origen
--Not wide spread until 6th Cent.
--Comes about because of the doctrine of original sin
--High infant mortality rate
--Also because of the belief that salvation comes as being a member of the church
--Infants immediate church members
--Mode of Baptism changes
--“How” we baptize
--Moves from immersion to affusion (pouring)
--Catholic church will not accept a person who has been sprinkled
--Will except those who are immersed
--Didache—120 “baptism in “living” water (water that runs)
--Basically saying if you can’t immerse then as a last resort pour
Central to all of these changes is the view of authority and where the church derives its approach to such teachings. Previous to these changes, the main authority was based on the words and teachings of the apostles which would later be transmitted into letters and gospels that the Christian communities would recognize as inspired by God. This placed God and his word as the main authority for faith and practice. What changed was the point of authority within the church—was it to be the Church officials or the Bible? As church and politics began to mingle during the reign of Constantine and following there was a greater emphasis placed upon the leaders of the Church and less of an emphasis on the word of God. This gave many the opportunity to change previous doctrine and practices to suit their own desires and political advantage. As the Church entered the dark ages, uneducated and illiterate individuals relied heavily on the Church to inform them on proper ethical practice and salvation issues. This again led to the head of the Church, Pope for Church wide issues or Bishops for local issues in connection with the larger issues, to be elevated to the main source of authority for faith and practice.
It isn’t until Martin Luther and others began what is known as the Reformation to return authority back to the scriptures as the main voice for doctrine and practice. From here the real separation begins and has continued to this day all based on the issue of who speaks for God—the Church and its central leader(s) or the Bible as God’s inspired authoritative word.
Posted by Todd Jefferson
do all dogs go to heaven?
Honestly, I had a really cool dog that I liked more than people, I just wanted to know if I'll ever see him again
Don Bluth certainly believes so.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096787/
Though scripture does not speak directly to this issue there are several who have had opinions on this topic. In particular check out C.S. Lewis' description of this issue in both "The Problem of Pain" and (more indirectly) "The Great Divorce." Either way you look at this issue, (yes or no) really leaves us with the potential to miss the point--is heaven "heaven" because all my favorite things are there--including more stuff, or is heaven "heaven" because God is there? If God is there then he will be sure to include all things necessary for Heaven to be Heaven . I think we are all capable of missing the larger picture so I would suggest one more read for further discussion; this one I am presently reading--"Surprised by Hope" by N.T. Wright. This book is all about a biblical view of death, the resurrection, and heaven--all in conjunction with the mission of the church.
More importantly (back t your post) I think the larger issue of loving a dog more than most people is one that I would rather speak to. Though I understand what you likely are meaning, I have to wonder if you hear what you are actually saying. Though humanity has the greater potential to harm, hurt, or betray us emotionally, as a Christian I am called to love others in the same manner that I love myself--regardless of how I am treated. I can guarantee that people will be in heaven and that they are all people that love God and are loved by him--we must be sure to do the same.
Posted by Todd Jefferson
Post a Comment