Posted by Benjamin on: 05.04.2008 /
“I think religion is a bad idea,” announced Off The Map’s Jim Henderson at last year’s Seattle conference.
“I think the worst idea of all is that we (Christians) are supposed to be a world religion,” he further explained.
The heartbeat of Off The Map is open minded communication: “We want to create dialog in a world gone different,” says Jim. This perspective is what drives OTM into corners of society that evangelicals typically steer clear of. Like dialoging with atheists, for instance. OTM had a unique opportunity to “buy an ebay atheist” a couple of years ago. This led to many opportunities for respectful conversation between atheists and evangelicals with all kinds of backgrounds. OTM blazed the way with their commitment to travelling to new places in their spiritual thought life.
So it came as no surprise to me when Jim announced that OTM had an open door to participate in an interspirituality event. A citywide five day gathering celebrating the virtue of compassion was being sponsored by an organization called, quite appropriately, Seeds of Compassion.
Each day consisted of panel discussions that featured various social, civic and religious leaders, but the big headliner was Tibetan Buddhist leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner the 14th Dalai Lama. On the last day the event focused on an interspiritual panel discussion on the topic of compassion. Besides the Dalai Lama, the panel included South Africa’s Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Rabbi David Rosen, Ingrid Mattson – who is the first woman president of the Islamic Association of North America – and Benedictine nun and author Joan Chittister as well as other leaders representing their faith tradition.
Representing the evangelical community on the first panel was author and pastor Rob Bell from Mars Hill church (not to be confused with Mars Hill Church in Seattle) in Grandville, Michigan. The second session, also attended by various spiritual leaders, included author and pastor Doug Pagitt of Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Those panel discussions can be viewed HERE.)
That afternoon, Off The Map led a workshop which was called, in keeping with the conference theme, Recovering the Compassionate Tradition of Jesus. It was modeled, OTM style, as a panel conversation rather than a lectern line-up of talking experts. The panel included Todd Hunter, Rob Bell, Andy Himes, Nancy Murphy, Sunil Sardar, Rabbi Anson Laytner and also Ingrid Mattson from the IANA.
About fifty people attended the workshop, including folks from the OTM community. Helen flew in from Chicago, Randy came in from Nevada, and musician and social-spiritual activist David Ruis made his way up from California. Seattle locals like Rose and Rich Swetman, who are long time friends and collaborators with OTM, also attended.
Jim set the tone when he declared, “We want to spend our time primarily listening.” The panelists graciously took turns diagnosing the condition of Christendom in America these days. “There is an arrogance of Christian subculture,” said Todd. Rob noted, “Jesus wants to save Christians!” He then spoke of how Christians have forgotten that our sacred text is the story of the oppressed. “Figure out who they are and help them out, those who are on the underside of power,” he said.
Heads around the room nodded in assent. In the context of the discussion and the Seeds of Compassion event, it made me wonder at how we, as Christ followers, can lead the way in serving the spiritually oppressed, those who belong to minority religions or misinterpreted spiritualities. Later, during the audience Q and A, a Muslim asked the panel, “How is it that some (inflammatory) preachers have such large followings?” Rob spoke up quickly, “On behalf of Christians everywhere please forgive us for Christian cable TV.” The room lightened up as a wave of snickering rumbled through. “I’m with ya, brother, “continued Rob. “Power is always seductive.”
As the panel loosened up they began to direct questions to one another. Jim wisely stayed out of the way as Nancy asked Ingrid and the Rabbi, who were the only two non-Christians on the panel, “How will you know when we are really followers of Christ?” The rabbi answered first, “You need to be honestly open to other people who believe differently. “ He later added that Christians need to view the other person as a person of integrity with their spiritual beliefs.
This was something I could relate to. I have good friends whose spirituality is so different than mine, yet they are some of the most kind-hearted women I know. How can I not respectfully dialog with them about their beliefs? What I’ve found, and continue to discover, is that when I listen, really listen to the other person, then more often than not, they are very willing to also listen to me. That is what dialog is all about.
The most compelling thing I heard at the workshop came from Ingrid. Poised and eloquent, this former Anglican, now-converted-to-Islam woman leader, told a room full of mostly churched people, “Hey, I love Jesus, too! And I don’t think it’s fair for only Christians to have him.” My evangelical conscience tried to protest at this. “What Jesus is she talking about?” But as I listened to Ingrid, as I paid attention to her, this woman who is so different than me, I realized that she is a God chaser just like me.
Is there room for Allah and Jesus in her life? Apparently, and though it is tempting to judge this and to fear the spiritual fallout of being misunderstood as a sympathetic disciple of syncretism, I have decided to see it another way. Randy innocently played a part in this when he whispered to me a Jim quote, ”When people like each other, the rules change.” Later, he and I would talk about those who believe differently, like Ingrid, no longer being an ideology or a category, but rather a person with a face, a name and a heart of gold.
Recovering the compassionate tradition of Jesus. This is why OTM hangs out with leaders and thinkers of other spiritual beliefs. We do well to remember that Jesus spent time listening and dialoging with others who believed differently than he did. The Samaritan woman is a famous example, as well as the Canaanite woman and also Romans, who very likely practiced the paganism of the day.
In these post-modern times of religious pluralism, I think Todd nailed it when he said that we need to shift from beliefism to followership. ”We need to practice being alert to the activity of God. We need to pay attention,” he said. And that is why OTM hung out with Tibetan Buddhists and Islamic practitioners on a rainy Tuesday in Seattle.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
1 05/4/08 7:35 PM | Comment Link |Pam H you are a wonderful communicator- thanks for your generous teamwork with OTM
Comment by: revmama
2 05/4/08 7:39 PM | Comment Link |Well said, Pam. I am so grateful for the many voices from OTM that were part of the Seeds event. Thanks to you and everyone else who was there. It mattered.
Comment by: Liz
3 05/4/08 7:48 PM | Comment Link |listening is great. I think you can affirm when someone says something true no matter their religion. And every time you speak with someone isn’t the time to get a word in edgewise. You have to listen to the spirit. And you can’t view nonbelievers as evangelism projects only. They are people. Real true complaints about abusive church situations deserve validation. BUT and its a very big BUT….there is a line here…when Christians sit and nod their heads that they have been bad bad bad to not play nice and universalistic with everyone else…then that is a problem. If the interfaith relationship is dependent on the Christians agreeing to be univeralists, then that is a BIG problem. Can you affirm that someone is on the road and not quite there yet? Of course you can, but it is important in the language that you use that you do not make out like all roads to God are equally legitimate and truth does not exist and is only in the eye of the beholder. Showing respect to people does not mean pretending they are right all the time. It does not preclude being able to say to someone that you believe them to be wrong and here is why. That can be done by maintaining mutual respect. Of course a lot of the disrespect comes from the other side as well. My mothers rabbi is an antiChristian apoligist. Most of his arguments come down to “Christians have to be stupid to believe what they do’. so, um, I guess they can talk about mutual respect out of one side of their mouthes and call people of other religions “stupid” out of the other. Believe me, Christians have NOT cornered the market on acting like jerks. You have to look at truth without focusing on the handful of people who have been jerks for Jesus. Did the rabbi apologize for the times his people have made a stink about public displays of Jesus? Or the fact that they have used their clout to get completely out of proportion focus on the holocaust while denying other genocides? Did the rabbi apologize for the anti defamation leagues refusal to legitimize the Armenian genocide (my husband is Armenian) Did the Muslim apologize for the folks in various mosques in the US who cheered after the twin towers were hit?(no, not all of them did, but some did) If we are being fair here, were the Christians the only ones groveling around and begging forgiveness for the disrespectful behavior of only some of the members of their religion?
Comment by: Liz
4 05/4/08 7:58 PM | Comment Link |I would also know what constitutes “oppressed religion” in their minds? Disagreeing with them?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
5 05/4/08 9:26 PM | Comment Link |I certainly dont think we Christians have set much of an example of this. We don’t tend to do a lot of groveling around. Rather we tend to do more of what you seem to be suggesting. “Standing up for our rights to our rights”.
Why as followers of the one who spent his first 30 years on earth doing nothing (meaning he chose to be silent when he could have been talking and standing up for Jehovah)do we need to stand up for ourselves. That actually sounds more American- civic religion like to me than it does as followers of Jesus.
Why (even at the risk of being taken advantage of) shouldn’t we followers of the one we say runs the universe model serving from under rather than using power from on top? What are we afraid will happen? Will we lose religious market share? Will The Muslims become the dominant world religion? Who cares? What has becoming the worlds dominant religion gained us?
Comment by: Benjamin
6 05/5/08 12:41 AM | Comment Link |I love that–the believing people–taking them at their word.
Comment by: Helen
7 05/5/08 5:56 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Pam - this is a great write-up of ‘Interfaith Compassion’ day in Seattle.
I very much enjoyed Ingrid’s comments at the workshop. She was the highlight of it for me.
Liz, thanks for your comment. I think Jesus would be delighted to see his followers take the lead in apologizing for the disrespectful behavior of some people who call themselves Christians. The sense I get from his teachings is that he wanted his followers to do what’s right regardless of whether others are or not. In fact he especially wanted his followers to do what’s right if other people weren’t.
Comment by: Brad
8 05/5/08 7:39 AM | Comment Link |Hey Pam,
Great writeup. I couldn’t attend because I was with Brian McLaren at the Everything Must Change tour over by Seattle Pacific University. So, writeups like yours are crucial for the things I miss.
So far, no one has responded to Liz’s comments on her concerns about the “all roads lead to God” issue. I’d be interested in hearing a response on that. This is something that I personally struggle with…how does one bring that up without getting all relativist and wishy-washy.
Actually, while mentioning Brian McLaren, his book “Finding Faith” discusses some of this extremely well.
Brad
Comment by: Patrick
9 05/5/08 9:36 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for the post Liz and Brad. I too would like to hear someone’s comment about all roads lead to God issue….I have lived among muslims in the middle east for over 20 years, seeking to dialog and be perhaps the only Jesus they ever know. Many of them told me that all roads lead to Allah. Others told me I was wrong, but respected me as a person of the book. Many testified after they came to follow Jesus,often after a supernatural encounter of the living Chris that no man had anything to do with, “that I now up close the God that I once knew from far away”. Islam was not able to offer them the intimate and personal relationship with God as the Father, and as the Savior, and as the Holy Spirit, that was brought to us via Jesus of Nazareth.
Comment by: Benjamin
10 05/5/08 9:45 AM | Comment Link |Patrick
Thank you for sharing a bit about your time in the middle east. It sounds like you were mostly at least respected as a person of integrity within your belief system by most of the Muslims you interacted with? That’s kind of kewl.
I totally respect what you did. One of my life goals is to become good friends with a Muslim. But I think it would be really hard, at first, at least, for me as an American to live in the middle east–such a different culture from the one I grew up in. It would take a lot of adjustment for me.
It sounds great that some Muslims are able to experience more intimacy with God when they become a Christian. Of course lots of Christians are converting to Islam for similar reasons, aren’t they? So I guess it works both ways? I met this absolutely beautiful lady named Ann last year who has been an Episcopal priest for years and a couple years ago she converted to Islam because that was where God was leading her. Now she is both a Christian and a Muslim, and I know if you could talk to her you would find her an inspiring and hope-filled person.
Comment by: Liz
11 05/5/08 12:33 PM | Comment Link |first off I wasn’t saying anything about “standing up for our rights” Standing up for God and truth: yes. Jesus did that. Not his personal rights, but the truth, yes. Do you see the difference? If giving up his PERSONAL rights and PERSONAL comfort stood up for the truth, then He would do that. But giving the appearance of caving into the worlds “your truth is yours and mine is mine and oh lets have nice big group hug to cement that” is something that Jesus would never endorse. I am not sure that genuine Christians have done as much badness as you think. Sure people claiming to be of any religion or even no religion at all have hijacked something to make their motives look better than they are. But Christians have also done so much good: hospitals, humanitarian efforts and on and on. Much of this was the work of Christians first. And further, I get very uneasy about people apologizing for things that they personally were not involved in. Like my husband went to a PK thing years ago. They had all the white guys make this big group apology to the blacks and minorities. In the very first place, it is debatable whether my husband classifies himself as “white”. But even if he did, at about the time the whites were doing stuff to the blacks in the good ole US of A, HIS relatives were being massacred by the Turks over in Armenia. He wasn’t responsible. But since he was “white”, he had to participate in the group apology to the blacks or look like as asshole. I do not personally take responsibility for my gene pool and the harm they have brought to this country through the ACLU. I can’t help what my relatives did. I have relatives that were big timers in the abortion industry. I do not feel I personally owe women who have been harmed by an abortion an apology for something I was not personally responsible for. Ditto: if YOU have not partaken in toxic Christianity, then I am not sure you need to apologize for something you didn’t do. It is not YOUR fault that others calling themselves Christians have acted like jerks. Did the supposedly peaceful muslims find they needed to apologize for 9/11? Since presumably their only guilt is by association.
Comment by: Liz
12 05/5/08 12:38 PM | Comment Link |Further I wanted to address the whole thing of befriending people because they are group x y or z? This is a separate post because my computer was being difficult once I hit a certain word count. The uber liberals I grew up around were always befriending blacks BECAUSE they were black. Not because they met some person they wanted to know who happened to be black. But because now they could pat themselves on the backs that oh no, THEY weren’t racist. Really, how dehumanizing can you get? Its not the person, its the group. This isn’t colorblind. It is the very opposite of it. I have heard black people say it really bothered them when they knew a white person was seeking them out not because of their personhood but because of their blackness. How is seeking out muslims or athiests or witches any different? If they are in your path, great, God put them there. But seeking them out because of their group affiliation just seems very forced to me and really yes, dehumanizing.
Comment by: Helen
13 05/5/08 1:54 PM | Comment Link |Liz wrote:
Liz, I think it depends on motive. You’ve described people who get to know another person so they can pat themselves on the back. I agree that’s dehumanizing.
But I see nothing wrong with wanting to befriend someone who is different from me in order to help me understand their perspective on the world. I don’t know that I seek people out who are different from me, but I’m pleased when I run into them because it means I can learn something.
Yes but if Jesus had this attitude he never would have died on the cross would he? Because he didn’t do anything wrong.
His followers are called to do what he did. If he took on the wrongs of other people then perhaps his followers are called to do the same, when an apology is needed.
Brad wrote:
I guess we must be opposites because I don’t want to bring it up and I hope it doesn’t come up. Not because I’m afraid of it; because I don’t enjoy talking about abstract doctrines people believe. I find that boring. I’d rather hear about people’s lives here and now.
Comment by: Benjamin
14 05/5/08 2:03 PM | Comment Link |Brad,
I’d love to hear more about
When you say “wishy washy”, do you mean … bland, dull, uninteresting? Like adding too much water to the soup? Can we have various roads to God, each with a unique, exciting, amazing flavor, and maybe you are saying if we try to throw all the roads into one big pot of soup, the whole is less than the sum of the parts? Is that what you mean? It would kind of mean that you’d prefer to experience each flavor individually, than to try to mesh them all?
Hope I’m not getting that totally wrong =).
That makes a certain sense to me. I mean well made Thai food is really yummy, and well made Italian food is really yummy. But if you tried to combine them, you’d end up with a mess, probably. At least I would–I’m no chef–I can basically make spaghetti with meat sauce, mac n cheese, and sandwiches =). But then again, a really brilliant chef might be able to create a synthesis of Italian and Thai cooking which would be a great delight to the palate? Maybe Brian D. McLaren is such a chef, of sorts?
Comment by: Liz
15 05/5/08 2:31 PM | Comment Link |um, Jesus’ death on the cross was not an APOLOGY. It was as if I stole something and was going to be thrown in jail for it and someone came forward and said I will pay for that (at great personal expense) and not only that but helped me get back on my feet, showed me how to live so i didn’t have to steal. That is not an apology at all. It is a very false analogy to compare it to an apology.
As for “wishy washy”…I think that means undecided. Not taking a strong stand. To compare the truth to mixing food? Um…let’s not even go there….
And I don’t take everything people say at face value. Jesus says to be WISE. Trouble is, I have been around too much and I can see through a lot of stuff. Jesus cut through the crap to see what people were “really” saying underneath it all. Can you really just picture a judge or a cop or a counselor taking whatever is said at face value instead of looking beneath the surface? I can’t. Everyone is prison has an excuse, a reason for why they murdered twenty people or sodomized a little boy. So no, I DON’T take peoples reasons at face value. But sometimes without meaning to, people belie what their real reasons are while they are giving their excuse. I was thinking about this when I was reading some “deconversion” stories online. The thing is, these people all have these reasons why God doesn’t exist because of x y or z in the world. Its really no proof that GOD doesn’t exist, just that God the way they think God should be doesn’t exist. Inadvertantly, people give themselves away. Every freakin’ time.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
16 05/5/08 2:41 PM | Comment Link |Patrick asked:
Great question, an important question.
There is a novel out called The Shack. In one scene of this book the main character is having a conversation with Jesus. He asks him, “Are you saying all roads lead to God?” Jesus answers him, “No. But I will travel down any road to find someone.” (pam’s paraphrase)
This aptly explains how I am able to relax around Muslims and pagans and atheists. I can’t force anyone to believe anything. Spiritual conversations happen when I am willing to listen and care about where the other person is truly at in their life journey, rather than care about my ambition to convert them. Nobody likes to be someone else’s agenda.
Do all roads lead to God? No. But Jesus is not exclusive to the road we would call Christianity.
Comment by: Liz
17 05/5/08 2:50 PM | Comment Link |some of this is just semantics Pam. A Christian SHOULD be able to relax around people who believe differently. That is nothing new or revolutionary. Because Jesus can speak to a person before they formally become a part of Christianity though, does not mean that Jesus is part of those paths. Jesus spoke to me when I was sitting in my mother’s virulently anti Jesus temple. But that does not mean that was a “legit path to God”. Did I learn from it…uh yeah…what I DIDN’T want in my life. I treasure Jesus all the more because I had to seek Him out against a lot of cultural pressure. And I can (most of the time anyway) tell the difference between an honest seeker with real questions and a time waster who already has his/her mind made up and is just trying to manipulate the Christian into saying something to validate their disdain of orthodox Christianity. Jesus firmly told the apostles to shake the dust off their feet and move on with people like that. Yet he spent great time with people who truly wanted to know. The trouble is, a lot of the “dialogue” that goes on between atheists and Christians is for the purpose of the atheist subduing the Christian into a more docile form so they can tell themselves that one path is as good as another.
Comment by: Benjamin
18 05/5/08 3:03 PM | Comment Link |In the sort of classical sense of the word apology, it seems to me like maybe Jesus death could be construed as an apology:
Wiki on apology:
Isn’t this one of the ways that many Christians talk about Jesus’ death–that it provides a defense against punishment for crime–the punishment already having been meted out? Certainly in the penal substitutionary atonement model (which is of course in many ways quite an offputting model), the picture is one of Jesus defending his followers, guilty of capital crimes, in a sort of cosmic courtroom.
It seems simple to me to move from this to that other sense of “apology”: an expression of contrition or remorse for something done wrong. I can very much picture the good samaritan saying to the victim of violent assault and robbery “Wow–I’m so sorry they did that to you.” Or Jesus saying to the high priest’s servant “Wow–I’m so sorry Peter did that to you.”
Christians have a model for such a apology in Nehemiah’s prayer: “I’m sorry for my own crimes, and for those of my in-group”
It strikes me as very possible that such apologies are a fundamental part of the way forward when it comes to racial reconciliation. Look at the amazing progress that’s been taking place in Australia over the last little while after just such an official apology to the native people of Australia.
Comment by: Helen
19 05/5/08 3:53 PM | Comment Link |Pam that was a wonderful response to “all roads lead to God”. Ok, I guess I lied about it being boring to me - I wasn’t at all bored by your response!
Comment by: Helen
20 05/5/08 3:57 PM | Comment Link |Liz, yes you’re right, what Jesus did wasn’t an apology in the “I’m sorry” sense but the analogy I was drawing was, he chose to make amends for something that wasn’t his fault. People who apologize for something they weren’t personally responsible for are doing the same - making amends for something that wasn’t their fault. That’s how I was saying the act of apologizing on behalf of a group is like what Jesus did.
Benjamin it fascinates me how ‘apology’ has that other meaning as well. I wonder how it came to mean ‘defense of an idea’ as well as “I’m sorry”?
Comment by: Liz
21 05/5/08 4:01 PM | Comment Link |an apology implies some personal culpability. I cannot, for instance apologize for my mother’s actions. I can say I feel bad that someone was offended by her. But only SHE can make the apology. If my child shoplifts some candy, my apology is not going to cut it. My child has to be the one to march in and say they are sorry and make restitution. Now “I” can make the restitution FOR them.(not that it would be a good idea from the standpoint of teaching personal responsibility.) I do not think that what Jesus did on the cross to PAY for our sins in our stead is anywhere near the same as an apology. And it is also does not match the defination of remorse. Murderers on death row have remorse. But are they repentant? I always tell my kids that the best apology is not doing it again. Because apologies are way overworked by many as a way to wiggle out of consequences. I also find a huge difference between a government or other institutionalized group apologizing even though it is not the exact same people in office as at the time of the offense. And some vague responsibility because you are part of a nonorganized social group. For instance. I see a difference between the RC church issuing an apology to victims of sexual abuse and anyone who takes the label of Christian feeling they have to apologize for the sins of other Christians. Ditto: the government of a country which has treated certain groups unfairly is legit in their apology. someone who just happens to be a citizen of said country: not so sure about that. As a white person, it is not my fault that black people were treated unfairly a century ago. I would take that further even and say that as a white person growing up in the SOUTH, it is not my personal fault. I do not owe black people an apology. (actually, the government is still trying to weasel it out of me via affirmative action: I said I am sorry with the fact that my law school admission doesn’t count as much as if I was certain minorities, whether I wanted to or not). Do certain institutions. Yes. And the INDIVIDUALS who OFFICIALLY represent them. but not innocent bystanders who have guilt by (very slim sometimes) association. You really need to define your terms and be very very precise.
Comment by: Helen
22 05/5/08 4:06 PM | Comment Link |Anyway…the theme of the day was compassion, which meant that people participating were to model compassionate behavior. None of “I’m not responsible so I’m not going to apologize”;
“I’ll apologize only if you do”; and “Let’s talk about why my beliefs are right and your’s aren’t” are expressions of compassion so they would have been out of place and inappropriate.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
23 05/5/08 4:06 PM | Comment Link |Thanks Helen. But when did you “lie” about it being boring to you?
Comment by: Benjamin
24 05/5/08 4:20 PM | Comment Link |I think the chronological arrow goes the other direction. First it meant “a defense of an idea” and then it came to mean “I’m sorry”. More later =)
Comment by: Helen
25 05/5/08 4:33 PM | Comment Link |Pam, at the end of comment #13.
Comment by: Benjamin
26 05/5/08 4:39 PM | Comment Link |Isn’t that exactly what Jesus did–take on personal culpability for the crimes of others?
Comment by: David Julian
27 05/5/08 5:41 PM | Comment Link |God’s universal truths are God’s universal truths no matter whose mouth they come out of. For example, there is a version of the Golden Rule in every faith group. And, yes, that is syncretism. Christianity (the way, truth, and life) is a way of living and relating to other people(s). There is only one religion. It just has a number of different rule books and names, and Christianity (the religion) is just one of them. It is events like this that show so clearly that WTL Christians are more closely related to other sincere faith groups than to Christianity the religion. And therefore fundamentalist Christianity is more closely related to other fundamentalist religions than to WTL Christianity.
Also, apologetics is from apo- (derived from) + logia (speech). According to my dictionary, apologetics is singular and only refers to defense of Christianity. So Christian apologetics is a redundancy and Jewish apologetics does not exist…
Comment by: Liz
28 05/5/08 5:58 PM | Comment Link |um, no. he didn’t claim responsibility for the crimes of others. He took the punishment. big difference.
Comment by: benjamin ady
29 05/5/08 6:33 PM | Comment Link |It seems to me that questions of responsibility and choosing to pay the price of others’ crimes are integral to the meaning of compassion.
The Dalia Lama has chosen for decades not to respond violently to China’s violent invasion and occupation of Tibet. He and his followers are choosing to *not* hold China responsible, in a sense–they’re saying “We will be the responders with regards to China’s crimes, rather than demanding that they respond. We will choose to accept the consequences of China’s actions rather than pass those consequences back to China or along to others.” They thusly step into the cycle of violence and stop it, kind of like grabbing the ping pong ball when it gets to your side of the table and saying “game over”. If you do that, you have to carry the ping pong ball for the rest of your life, in some sense, otherwise you just restart the game somewhere else. That seems to me to be very compassionate.
It seems to me that this is sort of the opposite of what has happened in Iraq. It seems like many of the players not only keep batting the ball back over the net, but that they keep pulling more ping pong balls out and starting even more cycles of violence. No one has chosen to be responsible for the crimes of others in the same way that the Dalai Lama has. Well, okay, not no one. There are individual players and groups on both sides who have chosen to take such steps. But no big leaders seem to have been acting in that way.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
30 05/5/08 6:48 PM | Comment Link |Not sure what WTL stands for but I agree with your synopsis. Fundamentalism is what scares me - be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu (yes they have a very strong fundamentalistic streak as well)
Comment by: benjamin ady
31 05/5/08 7:16 PM | Comment Link |Jim–just some help on the WTL thing. If you look at David’s comment again, it looks like he’s dividing “Christianity” into two distinct groups, which he calls “Way truth life (or WTL)” Christians and “Christianity: The Religion” Christians–you mainly understood him–you guys are agreeing that the fundamentalists are the scary ones, of whatever religion.
David–thank you for the etymology on apology =). I was having trouble with that–”speech away from”–kind of like speech designed to separate? The “derived from” throws it in a new light. It seems to have come from “apologos: an account or story”. Is this the greek word translated “story” in our English? Would they have said “a bedtime apologos“
Comment by: Brad
32 05/5/08 7:29 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin,
What do I mean by wishy-washy? Oh, I don’t know…maybe a little of this…maybe a little of that. **GRIN** What I mean is that I don’t have my faith nailed down yet, even though I believe some things to be “true”. (I hate that word….truth doesn’t mean what it used to. And it’s a hot button….I’m not trying to start a Truth War…)
I want some things to remain true…one of which is “Jesus is the only way to God.” However, I also recognize truth coming from ANYWHERE. So, notice, I did not say Jesus is the only way to truth.
If someone tells me that the moon is lit up at night by the sun reflecting off it, I’d say, “Yeah, that’s true.” If a Bhuddist says that we need to be aware of how we treat our planet because we are all connected….that’s true to. Truth is truth. But, I will not say that Bhuddism is the way to God.
When I say relativist, I mean “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.” At some point, and this is where I struggle, we have to believe something solidly.
So, what makes me different than the vitriolic “Christians”? I’m more than willing to say, “I don’t know that I believe that or not.” Unfortunately, I think that may make me sound wishy-washy.
Does that make any sense at all?
Brad
Comment by: Brad
33 05/5/08 7:43 PM | Comment Link |Pam wrote:
Pam, YOU ROCK! That is an awesome way to word that.
Brad
Comment by: Brad
34 05/5/08 8:02 PM | Comment Link |Helen wrote:
We aren’t exact opposites. And there’s nothing wrong with not wanting that conversation to come up. I absolutely agree that I’d rather hear about who they are and where they are at, here and now. That’s how I learn….by listening.
I just think that for us to even begin to say we are Christians and that we follow the way of Jesus, people will ask us what we believe. I don’t want to get into deep hermeneutics, or epistemologies, or anything else that will make their eyes glaze over.
If I am called to make disciples (not Christians), learners of Christ, then I have to be able to talk about Christ. I have to be able to live as Christ taught. If I live like Christ taught, but do not heed his call to evangelize, then I’m just a nice person. There’s nothing wrong with that, but at some point, my Christianity has to be about more than just being a nice person. It doesn’t mean that I go around talking about Jesus all the time. Quite the opposite. However, Jesus is the reason I am who I am, I behave like I do, and love others like I do. If someone asks me why I am the way I am, I have to tell them something.
Now, let me clarify something. Being a nice person is IMPORTANT, and I know too many Christians that seem to have forgotten that. If you’re not nice, I don’t want anything to do with your religion.
I believe, Helen, that it was at OTM in Seattle in November that you talked about Christians who seem to have forgotten how to be kind. I so related to that.
Brad
Comment by: Brad
35 05/5/08 8:17 PM | Comment Link |Jim,
Fundamentalists scare the bejeebers out of me. I have great fear (I have a lot of great fears) that people on this thread will think I’m “one of those Fundamentalists”….I am so not.
Loving the conversation. Sorry I’m so long winded.
Brad
Comment by: Helen
36 05/5/08 8:39 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for your response Brad. I agree that if someone asks you should be ready to give an answer for the hope you have - I think I read that somewhere :)
I’m tired of Christians saying things without being asked - perhaps I mistakenly thought that’s what you meant when you asked “How should I bring this up?” I apologize if I jumped to any conclusions from that question about you saying things without being asked or invited. Anyway Pam’s response has some great suggestions.
Yes, I did say that about Christians and kindness at OTM Live. Thanks for caring about kindness.
Comment by: benjamin ady
37 05/5/08 8:49 PM | Comment Link |Brad
You say kewl things. Please don’t apologize for being long winded!
I can identify with that fear.
I don’t mind of someone says “Jesus is the only way to God that works for me”.
Is it possible, however, that if I say “Jesus is the only way to God, a priori.”, then I’m just attempting to push my own limitations onto everyone else?
And more interestingly, onto God?
“I can only manage it this one way.” is a lot different from “The multiverse is arranged in such a way that there is no other way to manage it.” The latter sort of statement would preclude, for instance (currently) faster than light travel. And thus ~70+% (okay, that’s a shot in the dark estimate-but you understand what I mean =))of all science fiction is out the door. Which would be a huge bummer from my perspective. =)
Oh–in answer to your question–You make enormous sense =) Do *I* make any sense?
Comment by: Brad
38 05/5/08 8:51 PM | Comment Link |You certainly didn’t misread what I wrote, Helen,…that’s exactly what I wrote. If I’d read what I wrote, I would have thought the same thing. (But I didn’t.) It’s just not what I meant. HA HA HA HA.
Loving it.
Comment by: Brad
39 05/5/08 9:14 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin wrote:
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Benjamin, I really do appreciate it.
Okay, lost me. What’s a priori?
I would claim that no, I’m not trying to push my own limitations on everyone else, and I’m certainly not putting God in a box. I do believe, though, that the Bible has to have some semblance of authority, or we can’t call it the Word of God. Now….for fear of being called a Fundamentalist….I think that interpretation is a man-made thing, and just gets us into trouble. HOWEVER, I have to live by the way I interpret things….which throws me back into relativism…..AAAAAARRRRGGHHHH!!!
This is the sound of Brad pounding his head against the wall.
**BRAD PUTS ON HIS GEEK HAT**
As for faster than light travel, and multiverses. I spent 4 years as slave to the higher mind at a college here in the Northwest…in the People’s Republic of Oregon. Double major: Computer Science and Mathematics with a specialization in Multi-dimensional Calculus and Spatial Topology. If you aren’t familiar with the concept of a tachyon, check it out. It’s a particle CREATED already moving faster than the speed of light. And by the very nature of quantum mechanics allowing for duality….things existing in more than one space at a time, may not allow for FTL (faster than light) travel, but certainly allows for Dune like Space-Folding. Thus, I would limit the amount of Sci-Fi that can’t be true to a significantly lower made-up number than ~70%. And, of course, as Schrodinger confirmed with his cat….if we put God in a box, we won’t know he’s in there unless we open the box and look…and by that time, it’s already too late.
**BRAD TAKES OFF HIS GEEK HAT**
If Jesus said he was the only way to God, or that his way was the only way to the Kingdom, at what point do we trust him as “Lord”.
Good stuff.
Brad
Comment by: benjamin ady
40 05/5/08 9:49 PM | Comment Link |Brad,
you’re awesome–you make me smile hugely.
By “a priori” I meant “universally true and self-evident”
People used to think that faster than sound travel was impossible. Well into the 20th century. Now we know better. Now a lot of people claim that faster than light travel is impossible. I think someday we’ll know better. A lot of people also claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven. I think someday we’ll know better–we’ll look back and realize the nature of the box that constrained our thinking, and smile gently at our former selves.
Hey–nice geek hat. Where can I get one of those? ;-)
Comment by: Jim Henderson
41 05/5/08 10:45 PM | Comment Link |Brad
What makes you different is that you dialog rather than debate. That is what gives you away as thoughtful person and thinker.
I also happen to believe that Jesus is the only way to God- where I differ from my evangelical brethren and sisteren is that I don’t claim to know whether what I believe is objectively true. I just think its true based on a bunch if things I’ve experienced.
This position gets me in trouble with some Christians who read John 14:6 like a dictionary. I read it knowing that I cant fully comprehend the meanning so I stare at it in wonder in the same way I stare out on the ocean. I just let it wash over me. I cant understand it. I just experience its truth.
If Jesus is the only way to God then people will experience him on their way to God regardless of their starting point. They may not know his name or who he is but if my premise is true they will experience some kind of faith which is the key to Gods heart. Trust,love, humility,risktaking = faith. Not being right, quoting scritpture or having the right information. None of those things open the kingdon of God to people. Righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit are signs that faith is alive.
Whether they call themselves Christians (Jesus isnt a Christian, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews or Hindus) if they express faith they experience Jesus.
Of course I could be completely wrong about all of this - I’ve just decided to bet my life on it
Comment by: benjamin ady
42 05/5/08 11:22 PM | Comment Link |I like it =) But I think you may have gotten the spelling wrong. According to one highly placed source,
Comment by: Brad
43 05/6/08 5:56 AM | Comment Link |Jim wrote:
That is perfect. I’ve often said, “I’d rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be wrong.”
Thanks, Jim. Your eloquence shows through. It is all about how one experiences things, isn’t it?
Benjamin said:
I can’t get you a geek hat, but I do know where geek shirts are on sale…cheap. Black shirt…white letters. **GRIN**
Comment by: Helen
44 05/6/08 7:10 AM | Comment Link |Brad, thanks for the interaction.
It’s been our experience that when a follower of Jesus says “I believe but I could be wrong” people who aren’t followers of Jesus are very appreciative of the humility and honesty and respect conveyed by that. If anyone gets upset it tends to be Christians (not all Christians but some).
So I guess it depends who you want good relationships with.
It’s easy to test what I say - go ask anyone who isn’t a Christian, “If you had to hear me talk about my faith, would you rather hear me say with certainty “I know God” or “this is what I believe but I could be wrong”?”
If you decide it’s a priority to have good relationships with people who aren’t Christians, you are never going to please the Christians who think the ‘offense of the cross’ guarantees such a thing is impossible without ‘compromising your faith’.
I think it’s helpful to decide how much you trust God with other people. The more you trust God the less worried you have to be that you will say the wrong thing and then God will send them to hell. If you had that much power you’d be God instead of God :).
Someone posted yesterday on our offthemap.com site about the untold damage we are doing by promoting Marxism, etc. I agree with Spiderman’s uncle that ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ but I really don’t think we have that much power!
Comment by: Liz
45 05/6/08 11:34 AM | Comment Link |You know what strikes me as a wee bit prideful is that you folks act as if you are the first Christians in recent history to ever care about others or do anything humanitarian. Even Pat Robertson,(whom you despise..and yes…I have my issues with his show…just so you know) has done an ENORMOUS amount with Operation Blessing. Your little group did NOT invent Christian humanitarianism. Every church I have ever been involved in does relief work, local humanitarian charity etc. Just for the sake of doing good. Its NOT a new thing. the not so veiled implication is that you are just so much better than these other Christians who are just so self absorbed. As for dialog with others: this too has been going on for a long time. What IS new is the fearfulness of saying anything definite about Christ or the Bible for fear that will turn people off.
Comment by: Liz
46 05/6/08 12:09 PM | Comment Link |um, so Helen, what you are saying is that Christians should change to please unbelievers. Who for the most part just don’t want to hear anything that might challenge them out of their comfort zone of unbelief. I seriously doubt the early Christians would have allowed themselves to be martyred if they did not believe the gospel with every fiber of their being. If they thought that maybe they were wrong, they would have probably squirmed around on their bellies and begged to have a “conversation” with the Romans. Maybe if they just hadn’t been so MEAN they wouldn’t have been killed, ya know? I bet that’s it: really, there wouldn’t have been any Christian martyrs if Peter and Paul and all the rest of them had only known how to dialog and just been a little more open minded. Then they could have all gone out for a few brews and a latte and had an interfaith conference where they all tried to understand each other. History could have been very very different if only these guys had just had a clue. If only Brian MacLaren had been around then to set them straight…..
This smacks of the dysfunctional family that believes in “peace at any price”.
It also strikes me as the height of irony that women who would rather eat their left ovary than submit to a MAN or change to please a MAN, have absolutely no trouble changing to please an unbeliever who would happily sneer about all that they supposedly hold sacred. Personally, I am into pleasing GOD. Not man. Whether it be my fellow believers or the world. I want Gods favor. And I think the bible is rather clear that you cannot be about seeking both the praise of God and man at the same time. Sooner or later it comes down to choosing one or the other.
Comment by: Helen
47 05/6/08 12:23 PM | Comment Link |Liz wrote:
Liz, could you quote where we said that? I don’t recall anyone saying that. We’re pleased when any Christians help others in practical ways. There’s no reason for us to claim we’re the only or the first Christians to do so.
Jesus was a friend of non-religious people. All I’m saying is, if Christians find that non-religious people aren’t interested in being friends with them, that’s an indication they aren’t being like Jesus. In which case, yes, they should change to be more like change which will also make them more fun for non-religious people to be around.
Jesus was a friend of sinners, so he was pleasing man. Does that mean he wasn’t pleasing God? I thought Jesus always pleased God.
Comment by: Nancy
48 05/6/08 12:51 PM | Comment Link |I’ve enjoyed reading this thread and relating it to my own life. As someone who previously did not like Christians… and came to be a disciple because of getting to know some who did not insist that they were right and I was wrong, but rather loved me for who I am… I can attest to the value of building friendships rather than winning debates. Relationships build upon respect are so important… and as we build true relationships with others we cannot help being changed… and that is not a bad thing.
Liz this quote is interesting,
Maybe I didn’t thoroughly read the entire thread, but this seems to coming out of left field. What’s the point of attacking women here?
Comment by: Liz
49 05/6/08 1:44 PM | Comment Link |no one ever came out and said “we are better”. But all you have to do is keep reading and you get the idea that no other Christians except those in the emerging church ever did anything humanitarian.
Being a FRIEND of people does not equal pleasing them. Always in healthy relationships you will displease the other person sometimes. If you take it to God and their displeasure indicates some character issue you need to change, then you do it. But sometimes their displeasure is their problem. If my friend doesn’t like the fact that oh, say I like animals then that is her problem. It is not my business to get rid of my animals to please this person. I would go so far as to say that someone requesting these changes is not really a friend. So if to please a person in the world, I have to change my belief in absolute truth to something that would be more palatable to them, then I would say do I really need a friend like that? Jesus, you will note did seek out unbelievers. But he didn’t waste a lot of time with people who only wanted that friendship on their terms, not His. I would have to say, I think you really do not grasp what truth is all about. As for “respect”….well..that depends on how you define respect. If its “I will tone down what I believe to be true” and the respect comes from that…well…I would call that compromise. And so would Jesus. I have relationships with family where you just don’t talk about God or truth because it could get ugly. But I have to say those are not very deep relationships. We steer clear of stuff that isn’t going to go anywhere for the sake of a little familial peace but I am not going to kid myself that this relationship is anything beyond the superficial. THEY may be pleased on their end that a topic they don’t want to hear about doesn’t come up but that’s again, not a real relationship. Its a superficial one. And there is a place for that. I think you have twisted around the words of Jesus and what you think “love” is and “respect” is so you can get Christians where you want them: impotent
Comment by: Liz
50 05/6/08 1:48 PM | Comment Link |I said nothing attacking women. I merely pointed out the irony that people who would decry anything about submission to a husband and changing oneself for a man have absolutely no problem telling other believers they have to change themselves to be more attractive to the world.
The world doesn’t like the gospel. And if you base your evangelism on asking nonbelievers how they would like believers to behave (nothing convicting or threatening to the status quo PLEASE) then you are shaping yourself to the world. I really don’t think the apostles took public opinion surveys and planned their outreach accordingly. And they didn’t do too badly. I see you “dialoging” with a lot of people but really not a lot of conversion happening. Just a lot of mutual praise about all the “respectful” conversation.
I made this two posts because my computer seems to have a problem when I get over a certain word count in any one post.
Comment by: Liz
51 05/6/08 2:09 PM | Comment Link |you know, Helen, you really should have been around to speak to Paul and to Jesus too. They were doing a lot wrong since so many people hated them so much. Maybe if they had just not been so darn MEAN, Christians would have won a popularity contest instead of being persecuted and crucified. And you know, Jesus MUST have done something really lousy to Judas to make him feel that he had to betray him. There is a place for looking at yourself and seeing how you come across. But SOMETIMES you are simply preaching a truth that someone else doesn’t want to hear. The bible says that will happen. It also says to guard against trying to please man instead of God. So uh, I think i will go with what the bible says than some person who has decided to dismiss God and who only talks with Christians that she has managed to tame into submission.
Comment by: benjamin ady
52 05/6/08 9:09 PM | Comment Link |Liz,
Your latest comment (51) definitely steps over the line from respectful conversation to disrespectful conversation toward Helen and all of us who frequent JaC. Specifically the sentence containing the word “tame”. Please feel free to check out our about page for the guidelines we’ve set up for the blog. In the future, I respectfully ask that you try to stay within these guidelines. Thank you =)
Comment by: David H
53 05/6/08 10:36 PM | Comment Link |It struck me, when reading the comments from Brad and Liz, who are obviously coming from some very different places, that what drives a wedge between so many (whether Christians or otherwise) isn’t truth but absolutes.
I agree with both Brad and Liz. I believe there are absolutes. I believe there is absolute truth. I’m just not sure how I can prove, even if I am personally sure, that my absolute is absolutely right.
My father was a Southern Baptist Minister. I grew up in several highly conservative churches. But I am part of a Mennonite congregation now. The Mennonites largely believe that they are called to be the hands of Jesus. If asked they will talk about what they believe and why they are doing the things that they are doing. But for them evangelism (if it can be called that) isn’t about what they say. They believe that if they live like disciples of Jesus (as best they can) then the message will get through.
As for that message, that gospel, it isn’t just pray the sinner’s prayer and go to heaven. It isn’t wielding the Bible like the sword of the Lord. It isn’t my way or the highway to hell. Jesus did say there is no way to the Father but through me, but he also said that caring for the sick, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked are what separate those who follow him from those who don’t.
So what is the absolute truth? That I now have trouble trusting those who claim to know what is absolutely true. But I am OK (most of the time) with my uncertainty and confusion. Jesus didn’t command his followers to be sure. He commanded them to love.
Comment by: Helen
54 05/7/08 5:59 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin thanks for reminding Liz about the guidelines.
David wrote:
Exactly.
Comment by: joe
55 05/7/08 7:28 AM | Comment Link |I resent being accused of being tame on anyone. I distinctly remember disagreeing with everyone on this website… at least once a week.
And more often if you happen to have a name beginning with a consonant.
In your comment number 50, Liz, you said:
Well pardon me for being British, but I can’t put a fag-paper between ‘dialoging’ (which I don’t think is even a word) and conversation. People at the event and since appear to have been trying hard to listen to each other, understand where they are from and rearrange their personal prejudices in the light of it. Tomato, tomato, potato, potato, dialogue, conversation. Let’s just call the whole thing off.
What does appear to be happening is that few people are actually changing their opinions on these issues (shocking liberal lightweights that we must be to allow other people to have different opinions) and that those that are changed are orientated away from the form of Calvinistic Determalistic Evangelical Christianity that you espouse.
Sometimes it is true that people don’t want to hear the truth. Sometimes (as has fairly regularly been said to me) it is kinda tricky to work out whether it is a hard truth or just the speaker being annoying.
Either way, you’re not going to win many friends here - or anywhere else where people exhibit critical brain function by arguing ‘this is the truth, deal with it’.
And all the people said: ‘this is the truth, deal with it’
See, we can even mock ourselves.
Comment by: Liz
56 05/7/08 10:10 AM | Comment Link |um, the word “tame” is a problem????
and i beg to differ: Jesus DID in fact care about truth and doctrine. And love. Its not either/or you know. It can be both.
As for the title itself “recovering the compassionate tradition of Jesus” it implies quite heavily that no other Christians in recent history have been compassionate. If you define it as “humanitarian” well..that’s a huge slap in the face to millions of people who have gave of their lives and everything they had to better the lives of suffering people everywhere. If by “compassion” you mean listening to the various reasons people have for rejecting the gospel and accepting it at face value, no matter what: well then, i would say that I am not sure that is a good thing.
Comment by: David H
57 05/7/08 10:55 AM | Comment Link |Jesus did care about doctrine. He defined neighbor, murder and forgiveness — doctrine. He said there is little of worth in doing good to those who do good to you. He said his followers must do good to those that harm them.
As I said previously, I also agree that Jesus did care about the truth. Now, without using the Bible, prove one thing as absolute truth. There can be no room for interpretation; no room for questioning or doubt. But you can’t use the Bible because there aren’t a lot of certifiable facts there. Truth may be defined as the ultimate reality, but us poor folks down here need verification. You must apologize for your faith (apologetics, derived from apology, is the branch of theology concerned with the defense or proof of Christianity) in a way that can’t be disputed on any level or you can begin your discussion from someplace else.
I prefer not to shout from the rooftops that I am right because I have found, often enough, that I am wrong. So I tend to skip apologetics and go to relationship. After all, I am only a small, flawed imitation of Jesus. Listening to people, no matter what they have to say, is a big part of relationship (especially if I am not going to have them exclusively with people who do good to me). I may not accept what they say at face value, but I try to accept them, the places they have been that led to their beliefs (or lack thereof), and the potential that my job isn’t to fix them. I have plenty to work on in me.
When I look back on shouting from the rooftops, as I was taught by my church and parents, I realize that what people often rejected wasn’t Jesus. It was me. My false certainty, my fragile belief that I shored up with shouts and anger and dismissive attitudes towards those who didn’t accept my gospel. I told people they must accept me — just as I am — in order to get to Jesus. Most said: “No thanks.”
But back to my point: Truth (big T kind). Prove me a Truth from Jesus. Then we can dialogue further.
Comment by: Helen
58 05/7/08 12:18 PM | Comment Link |Liz wrote:
It doesn’t imply that to me, Liz. To me it simply implies Christians as a group could be more compassionate. Not that “no other Christians in recent history have been compassionate”.
Comment by: benjamin ady
59 05/7/08 12:32 PM | Comment Link |What exactly are you trying to say here, Joe? =p
Comment by: joe
60 05/7/08 1:43 PM | Comment Link |Just that I frequently fall into the latter category rather than the former.
Comment by: Liz
61 05/7/08 1:55 PM | Comment Link |of course jesus preached love. He ALSO at the same time preached obedience and that the path to God is very narrow. And needed to be entered via Himself. They are not mutually exclusive.
Comment by: joe
62 05/7/08 2:07 PM | Comment Link |Thanks that is really interesting, Liz.
Now do you mind moving on, because you’re boring me. Ta muchly.
Comment by: benjamin ady
63 05/7/08 2:20 PM | Comment Link |I love it that almost immediately prior to the whole “small is the gate and narrow the way” thing Jesus says that God will give good gifts to anyone who asks him in the same way that good fathers give kindly to their own children, only more so. I love the broadness of his statement–the latter sort of giving is limited to a father/son relationship, but the former, says Jesus–applies to anyone who asks. Shockingly broad =).
The vast majority of failing to love, at least in my own case, has to do with the day-to-day failure to be kind, rather than with the more … abstract (and thus meta-) failure to be truthful. The former is why I cannot be a Christian, rather than the latter. Although it is true that I cannot accept the … a priori truth of some of the things Jesus says, the real bottom line problem is that I can’t *do* what he says–which is to love other people. And he even points out the fix for the former problem lies in the latter–”If you want to know if what I say is true, then do what I said to do”. By which I mean to say that if I could pull off the love in the sense of the day-to-day kindness, I suspect the truthfulness would happen by implication.
Comment by: benjamin ady
64 05/7/08 2:22 PM | Comment Link |Ditto that.
Comment by: benjamin ady
65 05/7/08 2:24 PM | Comment Link |I wonder if “When you write, I feel bored” would have a higher EQ value that “You’re boring me”?
Comment by: Jim Henderson
66 05/7/08 2:36 PM | Comment Link |Liz you and I agree about this
Glad to be on the same team
Comment by: joe
67 05/7/08 2:38 PM | Comment Link |Stop trying to be clever with all this EQ mumbo-jumbo, Benjamin ;)
Anyway, back to the story. Someone who was actually there - how did the different participants relate to each other? Were people obviously getting uncomfortable?
Comment by: Liz
68 05/7/08 2:40 PM | Comment Link |you know. THis is going no where. When Jesus says he will give to anyone who asks…I don’t find that contradictory at all with the previous statement. You are His children no matter what. But just like earthly children, if you shut the door to Him you cannot receive. If someone says to Jesus “give me the goodies but please, take a hike, I would rather worship Allah” then, um, how messed up would that be. I think you don’t want to believe Benjamin because you are still really angry at your parents . I have read the stuff your former pastor’s son has written and he sounds like a nice guy (yay for google) I can feel his frustration. Their website doesn’t look like some of the freaky deaky KJV only churches I have seen. There are people like you in every organization, who take every correction as some type of “abuse’. I find it truly frightening that you are going to be a therapist. I have consumed a lot of therapy in my day and I can count on the fingers of one hand (and have fingers left over) the ones who were truly helpful instead of just grinding me further into spinning my own wheels. Good day Benjamin. You are impossible to dialog with.
Comment by: joe
69 05/7/08 2:57 PM | Comment Link |That’s right, Benjamin, you are impossible to dialogue with. You listen to the lady and repent my friend.
Comment by: Benjamin
70 05/7/08 3:05 PM | Comment Link |I repent in sackcloth and ashes. =)
Now what?
(Thank you Joe. I am *really* glad you are here =))
Comment by: Benjamin
71 05/7/08 3:18 PM | Comment Link |So the one panel I saw, which involved a rabbi, a sikh, an evangelical, a muslim, along with one young person that each leader had brought with them, and was centered by Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama–the interaction was marvelous. Desmond Tutu and His Holiness the Dalai Lama (hereafter HHTDL) were at center state, with 5 or 6 people to their left, and 5 or 6 to their right, and they totally set the tone for the whole panel discussion by just … obviously massively enjoying each other’s company–ribbing each other, glancing at each other with these highly significant glances (HSG’s) as if to say “Dude–you are so kewl–and did you catch that? Rock on!”. and so forth. Everyone else got into the spirit of it so that instead of an atmosphere of debate there was one of … hope and joy in the others’ presence. I loved it. One could see why these two guys won Nobel Peace Prizes. You wouldn’t think that one could pick up on that sort of thing from just one panel discussion, but, at least to me, they radiated the attitudes that without doubt led to their winning the peace prize.
Comment by: joe
72 05/7/08 3:24 PM | Comment Link |OK, but apart from all the nice-friendly stuff and apart from the mutual respect stuff and apart from the collegial atmosphere and apart from the HSG’s… forget all that stuff. Tell me about the quality of their dialogue - and in particular, if you pitted the Dalai Lama against Tutu in a no-holds-barred wrestling grunge-match, who would win?
Comment by: Benjamin
73 05/7/08 3:43 PM | Comment Link |It wasn’t dialogue. It was conversation. ;-)
Comment by: Nancy
74 05/7/08 5:40 PM | Comment Link |“It wasn’t dialogue. It was conversation.”
So what in this conversation was most striking? energizing? annoying? inspiring?…
Comment by: Benjamin
75 05/7/08 5:48 PM | Comment Link |Desmond Tutu was teasing HHTDL saying “I always say to him, ‘You must behave like a holy man!’”
That was funny. I really liked Desmond Tutu’s words a lot. He pointed at all of us and said we were God’s vindication for creating the universe. He said it in a way that you almost had to believe it.
Comment by: Helen
76 05/7/08 7:05 PM | Comment Link |I was at the workshop. Someone asked if people were uncomfortable - I don’t think so. The conversation between participants was respectful and I didn’t sense anyone being uncomfortable, except if it was because some of what was said was embarrassingly true. Which is different from being uncomfortable because someone is being disrespectful.
Comment by: Helen
77 05/7/08 7:07 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin, yes, it was very funny when Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama were teasing each other. And Desmond Tutu had a way of making you feel God really was as compassionate as you hoped he was.
Comment by: David H
78 05/7/08 10:14 PM | Comment Link |Just finished reading through Pam’s blog and into Benjamin’s. Then it was off through Benjamin’s life story and disputes with his former church. I’m sure many at the church in which I grew up would also be mystified by my refusal to ever set foot there again.
I am tempted to respond with compassion. I have had some similar experiences, so I feel what you are saying. Based on what I know about PTSD and long-term psychological pain, writing about it is probably good self-therapy. I certainly don’t feel qualified to judge (what would be justice anyway).
Liz seems to find all of this just grist. Is this that discernment stuff I have heard so much about? If it is an evangelism technique, I have to say it sucks. I call myself a Christian and won’t accept the Jesus she has extolled with word and deed.
At the risk of being rude, let me apologize for Liz. I am told I share a kinship with her (brothers/sister in Christ). I can’t disown her even if I reject many of the things she apparently believes. So on behalf of my spiritual sibling, I am sorry for the heartless, unloving, mean, Christ-less things that are said by some in our family.
Under the circumstances I can’t really ask that you not hold such things against us.
BTW Liz, about that whole Truth thing. Still waiting.
Comment by: joe
79 05/8/08 2:14 AM | Comment Link |OK, but there were other participants than tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. How did they manage to discuss things without taking offence or were they ironing out their differences to such an extent that it became bland?
Help me out here, I wasn’t there!
Comment by: Helen
80 05/8/08 5:23 AM | Comment Link |Joe, in the panel discussion which Benjamin was posting about, I think it was because everyone was there to focus on their common interest in compassion not their religious differences.
In the workshop it was because the Christians were there to listen and apologize for when they weren’t compassionate, not to argue religious differences.
If people are with you and their purpose is to listen to you and apologize to you, what’s there to argue about?
Comment by: joe
81 05/8/08 5:37 AM | Comment Link |I can always think of things to argue about.
Only joking :)
Comment by: Helen
82 05/8/08 7:09 AM | Comment Link |Joe, yes, it’s different for those of you who have the gift of arguing! :)
Comment by: Helen
83 05/8/08 11:11 AM | Comment Link |Reminder to all commenters: you don’t have to agree with views posted here. Respectful disagreement is fine. Negative personal remarks about other commenters are not. Comments including them will be removed.
Comment by: Should Christians Apologize?
84 05/8/08 11:13 AM | Comment Link |[...] at the Justice and Compassion blog Pam Hogeweide posted her thoughts on the Seeds of Compassion event. While I continue to be [...]
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
85 05/8/08 6:32 PM | Comment Link |It thrills me as a writer when something I wrote provokes critical thinking and an exchange of ideas.
As I’ve quietly followed this conversation I have decided that much of the tension in the room over interfaith dialog has to do with modern versus post-modern thinking.
A modern thinker tends to be an absolutist. Something is absolutely right or wrong all of the time. Post-modern minded people tend to live in the realm of relativism, or, put another way, an “It depends….” attitude. PM thinkers are prone to be willing to see things from a different point of view. Modern thinkers, in contrast, see the world (and faith) through a lens of “is it right or not right?”
OTM had a unique opportunity to participate in a public discourse on the virtue of compassion. It was not an interfaith worship service or an affirmation that we all ultimately are honoring the same deity. It was an affirmation that despite our spiritual differences, we each have a commitment to showing compassion to our neighbor. And it was in this spirit that OTM chose to go forward in sitting at the table with Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs.
Let us continue that commitment with each other as we talk about our differences of opinion.
As Helen and Benjamin have noted, dissent is appreciated here in the OTM community, but not negative personal remarks. Let’s keep healthy boundaries with each other.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
86 05/8/08 11:11 PM | Comment Link |Pam, I remember when you wern’t sure you trusted OTM and now here you are speaking (quite eloquently I might add) for OTM
very nice
Comment by: Benjamin
87 05/8/08 11:28 PM | Comment Link |Pam
You seriosquiolio rock. I sometimes forget that I’m running into a bit of a cross cultural communication situation when talking with moderns.
Comment by: Benjamin
88 05/8/08 11:29 PM | Comment Link |David
re: comment number 78–thank you. =) You … seriosquiolio rock.
Comment by: Benjamin
89 05/8/08 11:32 PM | Comment Link |Yeah. That’s kind of scary–in a very kewl way. Brian McLaren does that to me too. It’s like a sort of … force field or something. Then I go away and remember all the reasons God seems like such a (insert unkind word of choice here) to me. But somehow I’d *rather* feel the other way–the way I feel when I’m around DT or BM or … GM, for that matter.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
90 05/9/08 12:43 AM | Comment Link |Jim said,
Thanks Jim. We had a bumpy start, it’s true. Crazy how things have turned out. It’s been nearly three years since that email exchange with Bob.
Whatever happened to Bob?
Ben said,
Ok, kewl new word. I don’t know how to say it, but any word with quilio in it has got to be good.
I am still quite a modern minded person myself. This is most apparent in my marriage. My husband is the most post-modern minded person I know. When I first became acquainted with this kind of world view and was reading about it I was like, “Whoa. That explains Jerry!”
David said,
Thanks for taking time to read my blog. Are you the David who emailed me today about Blogrush?
Comment by: Benjamin
91 05/9/08 1:29 AM | Comment Link |It’s “Seer ee oh skee OH lee oh.” (I mean the pronunciation)
Nice to see I’m not the only one staying up all hours reading blogs. =)
Comment by: Helen
92 05/9/08 5:59 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin: GM? George MacDonald? I like how he focuses on how Christians live.
Comment by: Brad
93 05/9/08 7:33 AM | Comment Link |seriosquiolio. Great word.
I like to tell people that I have a problem because I tend to be sesquipedalian when trying to be perspicuous.
Comment by: Helen
94 05/9/08 8:15 AM | Comment Link |Ok Brad, you forced me to look up sesquipedalian :)
I love how it’s derived from a word meaning ‘a foot and a half’. So you tend to use words a foot and a half long…yes, I see how that could be a problem!
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
95 05/9/08 9:45 AM | Comment Link |Oh, Brad, stop showing off.
:-)
(so hey, this is comment 95. Let’s post ’til we bust 100…)
Comment by: David H
96 05/9/08 10:00 AM | Comment Link |I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
97 05/9/08 10:06 AM | Comment Link |Is your last name Henson? The email was “signed” by The BlogRush Team, but sent “on behalf of David Hensen.”
(comment 97, people. we’re almost there!)
Comment by: David H
98 05/9/08 10:17 AM | Comment Link |There is not ENSON after my H. Sorry.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
99 05/9/08 10:23 AM | Comment Link |well then, a mystery it shall remain!
(OK, who’s gonna post number 100…!)
Comment by: Brad
100 05/9/08 10:38 AM | Comment Link |I will
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
101 05/9/08 10:49 AM | Comment Link |Whoo Hoo!!!!!!!!!!!
thanks BRAD!
Comment by: Benjamin
102 05/9/08 1:09 PM | Comment Link |Now we’ve attained Pam’s goal of over 100 comments I’m closing comments. If anyone has a particular question they didn’t get to ask email it to me and I’ll consider posting it as a new post to start a new conversation