"Journeying Onward to Change by Faith or Sight"

Attempting to live out our faith in the strength of our own resources has the disadvantage of blocking our view of the spiritual.  How easy we find it to walk by sight (understanding, our own human enlightenment) and not by faith and yet Paul under the direction of the Holy Spirit challenges that notion when he writes the following.

2 Corinthians 5:7 for we walk by faith, not by sight --NASU

 Most certainly this is but a small part of a greater thought.  However, as with many things in Christian faith, the small and simple are profound and broad in impact.  The point is that we, like those believers of that day  in the Church(s) in the City of Corinth along with Paul were challenged by God to walk not in their human understanding of this thing we call Christianity but by faith.

In comparison to faith, how easy it is to walk through life moving here and there based upon feelings.  In comparison to faith, and though more difficult than feelings, how easy it is to walk through life based upon what we know.  Or, again compared to faith, how difficult it is to live out life in the strength of one's will.  The degree to which we live out our lives based upon these things, is the degree to which living out lives out in faith pays the price.

In other words, when called upon to follow some course of action or another which makes no sense, and if we rely upon our understanding, our feelings, or our will to take action, it very often is at the expense of a decision made out of faith.  Walking by faith in the uncertainties of life is God's design for the one who would follow Him.

However, that is not God's plan for the Christian.  Remember that,

Hebrews 11:1 "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

Though often quite difficult, it still remains the task of the Christian to step out in faith.  It seems then that the hope and conviction to which this verse refers is a much deeper hope and conviction than something one's conjures up out of one's will, belief, or feeling.  These are spirit level activities that come only as the Holy Spirit of God move within the human spirit and create these things in the face of what seems possible.

Finally, all live by faith of some sort.  The question to consider at this juncture is just what is worthy of your faith.  In particular one does well to not place his faith in those things that are temporary--things that will pass away.  For example, there are those who place their faith in governments, yet one does not look far to see that governmental power corrupts (e.g. the disparity between the benefits that the Congress has voted for themselves and what they have voted for the military, other government workers, etc.).

Then too consider the governments one finds across the world where corruption and graft are a way of life.  How deep the disappointment must be for those who place their trust in government.  However, there will come a day that there will be only one government--that presided over by the Lord, Jesus Christ.  Indeed His rule will be fair and just.

We also find people place their faith in movements such a the climate movement, environmental-green movement, equal rights movements, etc.  Though some of have produced change, such change is neither genuine nor is it deep.  There is one exception that is found throughout the history of the world.  It is spiritual revival.  Over and over, culture to culture, and people to people when the social movement is occasioned by spiritual revival (e.g. Billy Sunday, D.L Moody, Charles Spurgeon, etc) there is genuine deep and lasting changes.

Again it all comes back to the question of where I place my faith.  A faith that comes from hearing and that hearing which comes is in conformity to what God's Word says (Romans 10:17)

"Contemporary Religious Pluralism" CT7

In today's culture, instead of religion in general and Christian religion in particular influencing the culture in which it is to serve, in reality, it is influenced by culture.  The whole notion of contemporary religious pluralism is an example of such influencing.

HISTORICAL RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Looking back, historic religious pluralism could be roughly defined as "believe" and "cooperate."  Of course there have always been exceptions and those who did not want to "play."  The point was that no one was asked to violate their own belief system and so no common belief was exacted from its members.  Then too there was an emphasis upon cooperation.  Such lead many of the Mainline Denominations to participate in the Ecumenical Movements of the 50's and 60's.  

But there was a change forthcoming.  Just as notions like sensitivity, diversity, tolerance, etc. gained traction in the culture so too they gained traction in the church and there became a certain preoccupation with being non-offensive.  That non-offensive doctrine became so pronounced that it was no long "believe" and "cooperate" but now "what can we all believe together."  

The importance of Historical Religious Pluralism is that it allowed for one to maintain his belief system and even gave room to personal convictions, that is personal theological conviction.  There was no demand for universal truth and one might even embrace subjective truth.  One might sum up the position in the notion of unity not uniformity.

The unity of "believe" and "cooperate" was how historic or classic Religious Pluralism. However, there was a change and it now placed stress on the notion of "unity" but now it is based on "commonly held belief."  

CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

It is a certain  pseudo-unity in that it can only come as one is completely tolerant of those with divergent doctrinal positions, thus Contemporary Religious Pluralism.  In many ways Contemporary Religious Pluralism is a reflection of the post modern mindset in that it dismisses all that might mitigate against difference and disagreement.

The primary doctrine of the position is contained in the question, "What are the things upon which there is no disagreement?"  Of course there is very little, even among those who claim the title, "Christian."  Add in those of other major religions and the list grows ever shorter with the greater the inclusion.

The outcome is that cardinal doctrinal differences compromised, set aside, negated, etc.It is a certain  pseudo-unity in that it can only come as one is completely tolerant of those with divergent doctrinal positions.
In extreme cases divergent religions are called upon to cooperate.

As with most any position that is largely indefensible, the arguments tendered are not based upon ethical principles but the mores of that particular religious sub-culture.  The likely arguments are

• Reactionary in that they react against those who have an exclusionary doctrine, e.g. the eternal outcomes of the saved differing from those of the unsaved.
• Generalizing in that they move from a specific example to a general belief.
• Discriminating in that it embraces all except those of deep conviction which would include those with ethical truth claims and those with exclusive truth claims, etc.
• Devaluing in that those who hold to ethical truth are often named as uneducated, without compassion, irrelevant, and intolerant.
• Universal in that all religions contain elements of truth
• Inconsistent in that tolerance is one of the mantras, however as already noted, such belief allows for "correct" discrimination.

THE TENSION

The culture including the sub-culture of religion is in a state of tension.  Such tension occasions the opportunity for the individual to choose.  One can choose the Contemporary Religious Pluralism track or one can choose the more traditional approach.  One is untenable unless one is willing to give up almost all of what one believes for the sake of "unity."  Then based upon that foundation of "unity" one's belief system is built back.  The problem is that the outcome of course is some kind of a "group think" theology.

The other choice in terms of religious pluralism is the more tradition approach.  Such says that each believes as he will, each allows the other to believe as he will, but we join together in what we can, accept our differences, and move forward in what we can jointly support.  In this kind of relationship there is no "Mush God" for each serves Him as they understand Him to be!

"Ethical Truth vs. Moral Truth Revisited"

Truth claims!

• Is it possible that one can find safety and security without a validation of belief?
• How is it that one can know that their beliefs are in fact true?  
• What claims of validity can one offer as proof to themselves and to others?  
• Is there confirmation and thus confidence because of the logic in their truth claim?  

Certainly there are many who would validate one's pathway to truth.  For example those who hold a  Judeo-Christian ethical view of life believe with one another that there is such a thing as Divine revelation.

Then there are those who hold a  Modernist moral view of life who would agree that there is in fact this body of "stuff" that can be labeled as "truth."  They may disagree on what is in that collection of "stuff" and they may disagree how one arrives at what goes in that collection of "stuff" but they would agree that there is "stuff" called truth.

So then both the Judeo-Christian thinker and the Modernist thinker would agree that there is some sort of truth.  They may disagree as to pathway to, what qualifies as, the characteristics of, but not at the notion of there being  some "stuff" we call truth!

Then too the Modernist thinker would agree with his fellows about "truth" in at least one respect.  They both would postulate that truth is discovered through human effort.  That is discovered through one's rational process, scientific discovery, collective opinion,  cultural behavior norms etc.

Since such "truth" as may be discovered is relative not universal, subjective not objective, etc. there is the potential for conflict within the Modernist position.  In other words, one man's "fact" might be another man's "fallacy" or "fiction."  Even so they would agree on the validity of there being a pathways (different as they might be) to their particular set of "stuff" they call truth.

However,  the question of logic must be introduced into the discussion.  In other words, if a generality fails to be logical in content and process, then more than likely it leads to an invalid position.  Such logic would go on to say that if it can be proven that there is at least one exception, one erroneous element, or at least one inconsistency to the position held, then the table is set for two other questions.

They are these.  First, has not the basic generality been invalidated by one or more of the things just mentioned.  Second, since the door is now open to exceptions, error, and/or inconsistency, how many other problems might there be?

Are you with me so far?

Remember now the Modernist makes the claim that there are no universal truths and in fact all truth is man discovered and is relative even unique to time, culture, the individual, etc.

So here is the dilemma  Is not the proposition that there is no universal truth in and of itself a generality and thus a universal truth?  If one accepts such to be so, then the Modernist has just made a "logic" hole in his no universal truth claim.  (We might at this point ask of other problems with their "stuff" called truth?)

That then leads to another question.  How many other universal truths might be lurking about within his argument or perhaps out there just outside his consciousness?  Oh by the way, the proposition of there being no universal truth when argued by the Modernist shares characteristics with ethical truth, that is it is held to apply across time and culture etc.  It is held to apply no matter the situation or the individual.

Should not those who hold this position "fess up" and admit that in at least one instance they hold a universal objective truth!  If they do of course they open the door to there being other universal truth.

"Nice argument," one may say.  "Don't believe it but, nice argument."  Well, other posts will continue the discussion.  In the mean time maybe the following is worth thinking about.

Could it be that there not being universal objective truth leaves the individual cut loose form the very things that allow him confidence in the content and processes of this thought life which then has implications for his actions?.  Could it be that cutting the individual's moorings from universal objective truth has a debilitating effect upon the relationships that one has with himself and thus others?  Personally, I am convinced it is so!