A fellow online friend who is seminary lecturer spoke in an event "Was Jesus Political?" last Friday. Was quite an interactive event with attendance of 300. Check that out.
"In antiquity, according to Aristotle, politics is understood in the broad sense in which the objective is to realise the idea of a good life of a community within a city. On the other hand, politics can also be understood in the narrow sense as an art of gaining and maintaining power. I prefer to engage my reflection on the political Jesus in the broad sense. I use political to mean relating to public, state, or civil affairs. As such by “political” I do not mean that Jesus was thinking in terms of forming political parties or launching a revolt against Rome or Jerusalem. By “political” I propose to reconsider the historical Jesus as someone who has a mission to the nation of Israel in calling her to repentance in light of the coming judgment of God." -- Kar Yong
Another friend, Steven wrote a wonderful piece "The Tension of Religious Pluralism1 Post September 11: In Search for a Model for Dialogue between Christianity and Islam in Malaysia", speaking of his thoughts and experiences in interfaith dialogue in a Malaysian context. In search for a workable relationship between Christianity and Islam in Malaysia, he proposes that Malaysians can model "peace among religions" which may lead to "peace among nations".
"there is no peace among nations without peace among the religions, there is no peace among the religion without dialogue between the religions, there can be no dialogue between the religions without serious research into the foundations of the religions." -- Hans Küng
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
19 comments:
I didn't write that piece in the best of my mind..wished to improve on it when i have the time.
Thanks for the linkup... : )
Regards,
Jack Said
"Historical Jesus"? How much more blasphemous can liberals become in the name of Intellectualism?
“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
“ I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.” 2 Corinthians 6:14-16
As hard as I tried, I simply could not find the words “interfaith” in the verse above. I looked between the lines, over it and beneath it but I just can’t find it! The Jesus Christ of my bible has never sought to recognize the equality of another religion. In fact, my bible says that Jesus Christ came to die for the sins of all men and that we should preach that Truth to the ends of the earth. My bible also said that we should never compromise the Truth for doctrines of demons all in the name of peace. Do we have the same bible?
Thyreos,
Perhaps I am wrong here and I may have misunderstood you, if you say historical jesus is blasphemous, are you then denying that Jesus did exist as a human? Are you suggesting that the historical Jesus did not exist? (Cf. the Philippian Hymn in Phil 2:5ff)
I do believe we read the same bible - but perhaps with different presupposition and perhaps we choose to be selective in our reading.
I am not sure about "your" bible, but the bible I read, NA27, the Greek Bible (not even a translation - I read it in the original language) informs me that Paul engages intellectualism in his Aeropagus speech. If not, how could Paul reach out to the Athenians? Jesus had a converstaion with the Samaritan. If not, how would he reach out to the pariah of the society?
If we do not engage the unbelieving world, how could they believe our message? See Rom 10:14ff?
Regards,
OB Lim
I do not deny that Christ existed historically as a man, but He is so much more than that. On the other hand, the “Historical Jesus” idea which exists among biblical scholars implicitly denies His deity since it focuses on studying the man of Christ using humanistic methodologies which leave little, if any room for faith.
Jesus preaching to the Samaritan woman - interfaith? Paul preaching in the Areopagus - interfaith? I see absolutely no grounds for justification of interfaith. I am not against evangelism but interfaith. No, Jesus did not carry out a dialogue in order to achieve mutual peace and understanding. He did not seek to hold discussion forums whereby the Jews and Samaritans could converge and reach an understanding of one another’s faith. He simply preached the life-giving truth to her and her people. In fact, He told her point-blankly “You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.” John 4:22. Doesn’t sound much of a fantastic opening statement for an interfaith forum, does it?
The same applies to Paul when he preached in the Areopagus. He preached the gospel with no deceit throughout his missionary journeys. There is a difference between interfaith and evangelism. And it is no small difference! Ask yourself, would Jesus or Paul participate in an interfaith forum and merely discuss issues in pursuit of reaching common grounds in the name of tolerance and peace? Would it not be seemingly recognizing the validity of other faiths when Jesus is the ONLY way? Would Jesus and Paul not have preached a message of repentance instead?
Ps. I am not opposed to intellectualism as I have a taste for it myself. However, I disagree with it when it becomes a substitute for faith.
Why are you pitting intellect to faith?
As if one can and must fill the other's role?
You talked about having taste of intellectualism...i don't even know what you mean.
As to your challenge, which I thought arrogant, sorry if i miscontrued you, I read NA27 too, probably not as fluent as OB Lim, I also read ESV. And yes, to put it in context, I believe I am reading the bible you are reading, but perhaps both of us asked different questions? Or did you?
Liberals and orthodoxy are overated words...pls go the extra mile to understand those who disagree with YOUR reading of the bible.
The problem which I see you interpreting Jesus' activities is the same as those who asked the great WWJD question, we imagine we SHOULD act like Jesus. What if we ask, WWJwantmetoD?
Jesus didn't do many things which we did today, our democracy, our laissez faire, our science and tech and definitely our globalization.
We have the choice to box Jesus in first century Palestine, like some of our Muslim friends did for Muhammad and Islam, OR we can choose to use our brain, or what's left of it after the faith-thing, to engage, to do the difficult tasks of thinking through, struggling through, praying through the complexity of our own world and time and become the type of persons Jesus wanted us to be NOW and HERE, not act as if we are living in Palestine in his time.
But well...
Side note, let me play your unfair game a lil and say, "as much as I've tried, i cannot find the word 'Trinity' in my bible, even the greek one". Sigh, and then again, you are the one who have tasted the intellect and did the faith thing.
If you need to know, i adhere to the reformed faith and attend a brethren church. But i know, you'll be like, that doesn't make me a good servant deserving a pat on my back in heaven somewhere later. I know...but by faith..ah the wonderful all rounder word.
Jack Said
Dear Thyreos,
I am not entirely sure you really understand the meaning of "Historical Jesus" that NT scholars talk about, even though you claim you have a taste of intellectualism - you say that "the “Historical Jesus” idea which exists among biblical scholars implicitly denies His deity since it focuses on studying the man of Christ using humanistic methodologies which leave little, if any room for faith." This statement of yours clearly betrays your complete ignorance of the scholarly study of the Historical Jesus.
From this statement of yours, you demonstrate one thing - you are obviously and completely ignorant of the works of NT Wright, Ben Witherington, Larry Hurtado, James Dunn, all of whom are committed Christians whom I have the delight of meeting them and engaging with them personally. This convince me that you simply do not know what you are talking here, and I am not sure you clearly understand NT scholarship very well. Perhaps I am wrong here. I doubt you have any clear grasp of the scholarship of the historical Jesus.
BTW - like Jack Said, as much as I tried, I cannot even find the phrase "accepting Jesus as my personal saviour and Lord" in both NA27 and all english translations.
But I still believe (that means I believe with ALL my heart and with ALL my intellectual capabilities) that I am saved by grace through faith - opps...the word faith again.
Regards,
OB Lim
OB Lim,
Perhaps you are right when you say that I’m ignorant on those Historical Jesus scholars that you have named. However, based on my reading on the works authored by people whom you would probably term as “fundamentalist Christians”, I have come to associate the idea of the Historical Jesus as one stripped of His supernatural and deity. In fact, I have heard claims from other scholars that the Biblical Jesus is simply the apotheosized Historical Jesus. I may be wrong, but perhaps there are different breeds of Historical Jesus scholars out there.
Jack,
I am not pitting faith against intellectualism. As a matter of fact, I am aware that intellectualism is necessary especially in the field of apologetics. Anyway, I did not intend to come here and debate on the virtues of intellectualism. I apologize if I came across as arrogant; it would be very unbecoming for a Christian to be perceived so.
As for both your “trinity” and “accepting Jesus as my personal saviour and Lord” statements, yes they are nowhere to be found in the scriptures but are they biblically inconsistent? I am not rejecting interfaith simply because it is not found in the bible, but on the grounds that it contradicts the scriptures. Likewise, all secular things that you, Jack, mentioned such as democracy and laissez faire should be measured as such.
But then again, I am just another fundamentalist passing through.
As a fundamentalist I absolutely agree with OB Lim and Jack Said :)
of course the part where historical jesus is being discussed among us fellow brothers and sisters, those who are actually studying the whole subject would make much more sense and then clarify to the likes of me who havent even heard of the NA-27. however, i have not seen the interfaith issue that was brought up to be resolved. can that be further discussed?
Thanks thyreos, anonymous , OB Lim, hedonese and ej for your responses.
Forgive me for my ignorance, haha. Like ej I do not know what is Na-27 myself but it do sounds like some military intellgence stuff. I am sure scholars like OB Lim would be well versed with this, and give his perspective on it.
But something to be noted is that, finding a historical Jesus may not necessarily be contrary to faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Using historical methods to examine the historicity of Jesus may increase the credibility of the biblical claims made about Jesus Christ.
Thyreos is also rite that there are historians who stripped out the supernatural elements in their study and there are also evangelical historians who do not reject a priori all supernatural elements :)
just as there are different kinds of systematic theologians, so there are diff types of biblical scholars engaged in the study of historical jesus
NA-27 is the greek new testament from which our english translations (such as NIV, ESV, RSV, but not KJV) are based on. Not some military intelligence stuff lah.... :-)
i still see no further discussion concerning interfaith. i guess i would just share my few thoughts about this topic then and just share a few verses that was preached to me in AIVCF just two days ago.
Ephesians 1:10
that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth-in Him.
Galatians 3:28
There are neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
Revelation 7:9-10
After these things i looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could nuber, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands and crying out with a loud voice, saying "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and the Lamb!"
These are among the few verses which are definitely geared toward unity. However, the unity described is unity in Christ Himself. Thus, i believe that there is no room for compromise.
This will prove a hindrance then when it comes to countries like ours (i assume most of us are from *****sia since keropok lekor is :P) because of the ISA and whatnot. this is one stronghold which has yet to be broken yet.
thanks!!
God Bless!!
sorry for some typos at the top. Especially the one in the revelations verse. nuber. hahahah.. its number actually. but thats obvious.
That is why Steven in his essay present three models for dialogue. The first one is the inclusivist model of which many of us, I believe, reject because it undermines the exclusive claims of Christ, and it is geared towards a wrong kind unity (as proposed by ej). Most orthodox Christians and Muslims in Malaysia reject this I suppose.
However we are also wary of dialogues where each religious groups use as a platform to hentam each other (which Steven calls it as "exclusivist" model). My previous visit to the UM interfaith dialogue was nothing but a christ-bashing exercise by adherents of other faiths.
Not only we do not display full understanding of each others faith, we close ourselves to learn (learning is different from believing). Worse still, we start criticizing things that we do not fully understand (which I think make a fool out of ourselves).
I am all for apologetics and intelligent winsome conversation to persuade each other to faith in Jesus, but I am not too keen on bashing other religions and faiths, nor to live in a 'syok sendiri' christian gethho (added with our ethnic minority gettho), oblivious, not interacting nor living incarnationally in our wider multireligious society.
Because all truth is God's truth, maybe we can find some similarities between our faith and other non-christian faiths (and differences too). For example, Paul finds that the unknown God of the Athenians sounds familiar with the mysterious YHVH. Our Christian ethic of honouring our parents strike some similarities with the Confucian ethics as well. Our spirituality of prayer and fasting, is practiced extensively among the Muslim community as well.
We can harp on our differences and take a hostile stance towards each other, or we can radically love people who are different from us (Lk 6:32-35, interpreted metaphorically and literally).
While we pursue unity in Christ, wouldn't the unity in Christ leads us to an overflowing love that leads to neighbourliness towards others?
If neighbourliness means relating, loving and reconciling with others, wouldn't finding a common ground to live with (i.e dialogue) something worthwhile?
Keropok lekor (makes me kinda hungry :) ),
Since you discount the inclusivist and exclusivist positions, I presume that you reject universalism as well. And so, what sort of interfaith model do your subscribe to then?
Being a Christian doesn’t mean bashing other faiths, the Apostle Paul never did go around denouncing the pagan religions of Rome. Instead he preached the truth of Christ where ever he went. He never sought to establish common grounds of sorts with the heathen. While he did refer to the unknown god of the Athenians, it was most certainly not because he wanted to find common grounds but to use it as an opening point to preach to the Athenians. He never did try and reach out to find common grounds for the sake of peace or whatsoever. It would be wrong to draw parallels between the various faiths for would Christ desire Himself being equated with other religions? If anything, I argue that finding the similarities between faiths will strengthen the Universalist perception that all religions “promote good works and etc” and thus weaken the case for evangelism.
The Lord has commanded us to love “your neighbor as yourself” and I contend that that is a perfect model of peace for a Christian. It doesn’t entail recognizing the validity of your neighbor’s religion for if you truly loved your neighbor, you would want him saved. Neither does it imply living in a “Christian ghetto” as you put it. It means that we care and show love as how the Good Samaritan did. Compromising our stand for the sake of peace is surely not what Christ had in mind when He uttered those words. In fact, when Christ said that He came not to bring peace on earth but instead division, I believe it will be the precise result of people standing up for His truth.
Thyreos said, “While he did refer to the unknown god of the Athenians, it was most certainly not because he wanted to find common grounds but to use it as an opening point to preach to the Athenians. He never did try and reach out to find common grounds for the sake of peace or whatsoever.”
I think our effort in finding common ground to live with can draw parallel with what Paul did in Athens in his day. While Paul did not go about with “interfaith” as we understand today, the act of referring to the unknown God, quoting Greek philosophers and poetry show not only how he is devoted understanding the people he is reaching out to, but the act of speaking at the Areopagus in itself, is parallel to christians giving witness to their faith in public settings, interacting (dialogue) with other faiths and philosophies of the day.
Engaging in peaceful dialogue or sitting as equals in at a table, doesn’t mean that one compromises one’s own convictions. I believe that Paul in speaking at the Areopagus (with the Gentiles) did not compromise his beliefs, but instead gives credibility to what he is preaching. If the christian faith is true, we do not need to defend nor fear compromise, it speaks for itself and defends itself through interaction, scrutiny and dialogue with others.
Finding similarities as a basis to live together is like me and you having coffee together at Starbucks and discuss our interests and hobbies. While we may have different interests, we find something similar we can talk about. I would not in anyway try to become like you, nor you would try to become like me at the end of the conversation.
So do the case with dialogues. I don’t think that interacting with other faiths would give the wrong impression of our faith. Instead, I believe that through articulating our faiths with each other, we further clarify our similarities and differences, which I think would be a great opportunity to explain to adherents of other faiths about sola fide (salvation by faith alone). Besides, interactions with other faiths would probably spur christians to think more deeply of their own faith, and engage more seriously in evangelism and apologetics.
Dialogue doesn’t necessarily entails validating our neighbour’s faith as true per se, but acknowledging the inherent search for spirituality, truth and faith in God in each human being. For example, it acknowledges that God’s code of morality may be reflected in man-made ethics, it acknowledges that some form of man-made spirituality reflects the hunger and thirst for the divine, it acknowledges that some man-made search for truth reflects the desire to know him, and what better opportunity for us to provide a possible answer to that search, Jesus as salvation.
Our social witness through caring and sharing with our neighbours, should come with our intellectual integrity to speak up for our faith and interacting with others. It does not necessarily mean compromise, nor does standing up for truth must necessarily bring discord. For when we knew the truth, the truth sets us into freedom, including freedom from hatred and discord.
yay to choonwei! :)
Amen! couldnt have said it better myself Lekor
Post a Comment