Buffet Religion
Posted by: ba <ba@...>
http://www.forthright.net
Straight to the Cross
COLUMN: Field Notes
Buffet Religion
By Michael E. Brooks
"Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and
said, 'Men of Athens, I perceive that in all
things you are very religious; for as I was
passing through and considering the objects of
your worship, I even found an altar with this
inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the
One whom you worship without knowing, Him I
proclaim to you'" (Acts 17:22,23).
The great principle of modern religion and
philosophy is "Pluralism". This is the conviction
that all religions and philosophies, along with
most cultural practices and attitudes, have some
validity. Individuals should choose from among
them according to their own experience,
circumstance and inclination. No single path is
right absolutely, or right for everyone. This
concept is obviously based on the idea of
relativism, which contends that there is no such
thing as absolute truth or exclusive
interpretations.
On my first trek into the Nepali district of
Dhading in the Himalayas, I visited a cluster of
villages in an area collectively called Tipling.
There I visited a medical clinic where there was a
group of American doctors conducting a week's
clinic for the local villagers. I fell into a
discussion with the Nepali government
representative who was coordinating the doctor's
work about my purpose for being in that remote
area. His response to my mission was "why do you
trouble these illiterate villagers. They are
religious. All religions preach to honor God and
treat other people well. There is no difference
among them. Let these people alone."
Seldom have I heard religious pluralism expressed
so briefly and clearly. All religions offer the
same goals. Let each person choose the one he or
she likes. Don't judge between them.
A friend pointed out that pluralists like to offer
only two choices. Everyone is either enlightened,
pluralistic, and tolerant of others, or else they
are bigoted, exclusivist and intolerant of any
other view than their own. The person so bold as
to think that one religion has special claim to
truth is a fanatic, and furthermore is undoubtedly
self-righteous and hypocritical along with it. Are
those indeed the only options? Is there not a
middle ground that honors the absoluteness of
truth without carrying the baggage of bigotry and
intolerance? I believe there is.
Let us compare the wide range of philosophies,
world views and religions as an intellectual and
spiritual "buffet". In a literal buffet, many
different foods are offered, with the customer
free to choose whatever items are desired for his
or her meal. There may be fresh salads, cooked
vegetables, meats, fruits, and desserts. Meats may
include baked poultry and fried red meat.
Vegetables may range from broccoli to French
Fries. It is the customers' choice.
Does anyone contend that among these choices there
is not a range of qualities? Are all of equal
taste appeal? Are all of equal nutrition and
health value? Obviously not. The heart patient is
well advised to avoid French Fries. The diabetic
should avoid desserts. But take it one step
further. Are not fresh vegetables, baked poultry
and fruits not generally accepted as "healthier"
for everyone? Is there not a discernible standard
of "truth" in this illustration; one set of foods
being just plain "better" within the context of
health and nutrition at least?
If a doctor complains about a patient's diet,
should the doctor be accused of bigotry,
intolerance and fanaticism? Or rather is he or she
not simply pointing out a view of "truth" that has
potential benefit for the patient? Now, if a group
of doctors lobbied to have all foods banned and
their production ceased, except for a narrow list
that meets their approval, one might legitimately
complain. That might well meet the definition of
fanaticism.
Are there religionists who are that fanatical in
pursuit of their "one true faith"? Yes there are.
The Muslim fundamentalists calling for "holy war"
certainly seem to be such, and there are other
examples. But does that mean that any believer who
is committed to a particular faith is
automatically "intolerant"? Does it mean that no
one has the right to seek to persuade others to
his or her faith? Absolutely not. Relativism is
simply not true, and its intellectual descendant –
pluralism – is a deceitful attack on true faith
and commitment.
Jesus himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and
the life. No one comes to the Father except
through Me" (John 14:6). That is pretty absolute.
Yet Jesus proved his love and "tolerance" for all
humans through his death on the cross, and through
his willingness for the Father to forgive them.
Those who follow Jesus must follow the same path.
We exhort others to choose that which is
wholesome, beneficial, and true. Yet we do this
without hatred, contempt, or harsh judgment. Our
faith in the one true God is balanced by our
insistence that we "love our neighbors as
ourselves." Such a stance is neither pluralistic
nor intolerant. It is simply "speaking the truth
in love" (Ephesians 4:15).
----
Read this article online, tell us what you think,
see who's commenting, click here:
forthright.antville.org/stories/749369/
----
You can help us get the word out. Here's how:
forthright.antville.org/stories/340415/