|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion Turning the tables on the multi-faith agendaA response to the move to treat all religions as essentially the same and all faiths as equally validOn the first Monday of the new millennium, leaders of nine religious faiths in Britain, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, stood together in the Palace of Westminster for a 'shared act of reflection and commitment'. Together, they made a public statement: 'In a world scarred by the evils of war, racism, injustice and poverty,' they would work together 'to help bring about a better world now and for generations to come.' The Prime Minister, who hosted the gathering, described the occasion as 'progress of a very special sort'. Paul a participant?It was all very cosy, but somehow I could not imagine the apostle Paul being persuaded to take part in such a meeting. As evangelical Christians, while we should be very much in favour of peaceful co-existence, conversations and positive kindness towards people of other creeds, the Bible is adamant that we must not be united with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6.14-15). Christianity is not to be confused or identified with any other religion or philosophy (Galatians 1.8-9). Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is unique and his work is unparalleled and the world is to be evangelised. Over against this biblical stance is the 'multi-faith' agenda which is the move within society to treat all religions as essentially the same (despite 'superficial' differences) and all faiths as equally valid. The collision of these two outlooks is inevitable and is likely to become increasingly serious in coming years. What are we to make of it? Prescriptive pluralismWe need first to remind ourselves that a religiously plural environment is nothing new for biblical faith. In Old Testament times, the people of the Lord were surrounded by the gods of many nations such as Egypt, Canaan and Babylon (Exodus 20.3, Psalm 115.2-8, Isaiah 46.1-4, Daniel 3.1-6, etc.). There was a riot in Ephesus as people turned to Christ away from Diana, so undermining the trade of silversmiths in their religious trinkets (Acts 19.26-27). This is just one example of how in the New Testament era, it was against a background of many other religions and philosophies that the early church 'turned the world upside down' for Christ (Acts 17.22-23). So the gospel making its way in a pluralistic society is actually only par for the course. But what is new perhaps, is what we may call the current agenda of 'prescriptive pluralism' in society. This is the new idea that a multiplicity of beliefs is not just an observable fact and not only is right, but that any person or group which claims to have 'the truth' in an absolute sense is to be castigated and despised. Exclusive claims are equated with religious fascism.(1) But we need to realise that though this agenda presents itself as so reasonable and concerned for liberty, it is actually riddled with self-contradiction and, dare I say it, desperate hypocrisy. It is a biased agenda'Religion' is by general agreement a very difficult term to define. Some 'religions' believe in God or gods, others like Buddhism, don't. If you say that religions always include an unproven belief about an afterlife, then you have to include secularism as a religion since it can never prove its claim that there is no afterlife. The late Lesslie Newbigin recounts the reaction of a learned Hindu friend: 'I can't understand why you missionaries present the Bible to us in India as a book of religion. It is not a book of religion.'(2) Rather, the man saw it as a 'unique interpretation of universal history'. So it would appear that some people from different religious backgrounds from ourselves would, for example, not recognise Christianity as a religion. But how then is 'religion' defined by the multi-faith approach? Basically, it seems it is tacitly defined as anything that is not Western secularism. As such, its very assumptions are prejudiced. It is the construct of a Western 'Enlightenment' mindset which will include anything under the category of 'religion' except itself. It is an irrational agendaIn wanting to promote the idea that all faiths are essentially saying the same thing, the multi-faith agenda has to abandon the logic of 'either/or' with respect to truth, in favour of a 'both/and' approach. It sets aside the law of non-contradiction. But there are many aspects of the different religions within the world which are directly opposed to each other and are not peripheral matters. For example, the Bible says that Jesus died on the cross (John 19.33-34) whereas the Qu'ran says he didn't (Sura 4.157). They cannot both be right. Neither is this of minor import for Christianity. If Christ did not die, there is no atonement for sin, there is no forgiveness, there is no gospel. The 'both/and' approach cannot be sustained. It is nonsense and encourages people to leave their minds at home when it comes to religion. This is an implicit attack on the integrity of all religions. The multi-faith agenda is itself irrational and promotes the idea that religion is irrational. It is an imperialist agendaAgain, the comments of the late Bishop Lesslie Newbigin explain this point: 'In the famous story of the blind men and the elephant . . . the real point of the story is constantly overlooked. The story is told from the point of view of the king and his courtiers, who are not blind but can see that the blind men are unable to grasp the full reality of the elephant and are only able to get hold of part of it. The story is constantly told in order to neutralise the affirmations of the great religions, to suggest that they learn humility and recognise that none of them can have more than one aspect of the truth. But, of course, the real point of the story is exactly the opposite. If the king were also blind, there would be no story. The story is told by the king and it is the immensely arrogant claim of one who sees the full truth, which all the world's religions are groping after. It embodies the claim to know the full reality which relativises all the claims of the religions.'(3) The multi-faith agenda is actually the worst form of arrogant religious imperialism. It is an oppressive agendaUnder the guise of a political correctness which will not allow people of different opinions to offend one another, free speech and the free discussion of ideas is already being eroded by the multi-faith agenda. Rather than enhancing a true dialogue between the religions, the multi-faith agenda seeks to label the expression of honest disagreements as a crime against society. But the silencing of genuinely-held views is the mark of a totalitarian state. Putting all this together, we see that the whole agenda is astonishingly hypocritical, because all the things of which it accuses religion (especially evangelicalism) - bias, irrationality, arrogance and intolerant dogmatism - it is guilty of itself. Rather than co-operating with events like that in January, it would be better for us to befriend and love those of other faiths in a way that is not manipulated by the expectations of secularism, and at the same time speak out against the deceit of the multi-faith approach. JEB1. A Passion for Truth, by Alistair McGrath, IVP/Apollos, 1996. Dr John Benton© Evangelicals Now - March 2000 |
|
