What’s in a missions trip?
There’s an ongoing debate about the value of church-affiliated youth missions trips – for both the youth who make them and for the poor poverty-stricken populations they intend to help through volunteer service. Are church missions trips, valuable as learning experiences and cultural exchange as they are, really worth the monetary costs?
Father Thomas Williams, St. John’s Orthodox Church
I can only speak for our diocese - The Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of Wichita and Mid-America. Clearly the answer would be yes. Let me explain. The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America traces its roots in unbroken succession to first century Antioch, the city in which the followers of Christ were first called “Christians.” Hence we are under the Omophorion (stole) of the Patriarch of Antioch. The number of Christians in Syria now is a little less than 10 percent of the population. Our sister diocese there with which we share is Bosra Hauran, which is made up of many poor, war-torn areas in southwest Syria and its environs, including the Golan Heights.
This summer 18 teenagers and young adults from our churches in Texas spent two weeks in Damascus and the Houran region as guests of the archbishop there working on restoring Orthodox churches. These churches go back to the fifth and sixth centuries. They also worked on other church projects ongoing in Houran. Were they missionaries. Not really, for they were in an area where the first bishop was one the the first seven deacons whose ordination is described in the Acts of the Apostles. Antioch, Syria, was home to St. Peter and St. Paul for a time. The Christians there still speak Aramaic, and many live in an area called the Valley of the Nazarene. But it is a poor area and the Americans had come to help.
The great thing that came out of the two weeks was that Orthodox Christians in the Houran diocese of Syria, who can trace their roots to the apostles, got to know Orthodox Christians from the United States who can trace their roots to Orthodox priests in Houston, Texas. When they worshipped together the Arab Christians said, “they pray like we do. We are brothers.” It was very moving for both groups. What the Americans brough home was priceless. What the Arab Christians gained was seeing how “their church” is embraced in America
Bill Bogard, Jewish
I won’t comment on the “monetary” cost-benefit ratio of Christian Missionaries. That question is best left to the Christian community.
But as a non-Christian, I find the missionary efforts of any religion–if the goal is to convert others to their faith–morally objectionable. Central to any attempt to convert another is the assumption that other faiths are evil, those who hold that other view of G-d are bound for Hell (at least certainly not to attain eternity with the Supreme), a statement that only the missionary’s faith is “complete,” and a supercilious form of religious Imperialism.
How would our good Christian supporters of missionary efforts feel if, say, Saudi Arabia spent millions of dollars sending Muslim missionaries door to door in Rapid City to convince the America Infidel that Islam is the only way to paradise, that Christians are evil, and the American constitution should be rejected in favor in Sharia law? Why should I not feel equally antagonistic to the bright-eyed, idealistic, juvenile Mormon missionaries who knock on my door to “show me the way” of Joseph Smith? I’m sick and tired of Christian arrogance, the assumption that Judaism is an incomplete religion and needs some sort of completion through Jesus Christ. Why should not a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Jew, or even an agnostic not show similar animosity toward someone who denigrates his or her faith, the faith of their parents, and the whole cultural set of values?
Thus, let the evangelist help the “poor poverty-stricken” population of the world with the American dollar. But if they really wish to relieve their physical suffering–which is real–don’t go as an arrogant Christian with the hidden agenda of saving his dark and blighted soul by alleviating their pain; rather, keep their religious views to themselves and help them as just another child of G-d, spiritually equal, and needing human help. Aid others–that indeed is the spiritual way– but leave your proselytizing at home.
Dr. Nicholas Wallerstein–humanities and religion professor
I agree absolutely and unequivocally with Dr Bogard. Christians will defend their missionary and proselytizing endeavors by stating that they must bring the “Good News” to non-Christians in order to save their souls, for there is no other way to God except through Jesus. They cite the Gospel of John, in which Jesus purportedly says “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” But as the great Bishop John Shelby Spong (perhaps the most learned Christian in the world) has pointed out, it’s doubtful that Jesus ever even spoke these words. To quote the good Bishop:
“[These words] appear in the Fourth Gospel, which was written 65-70 years after the death of Jesus. They are also part of a series of ‘I Am’ sayings, which appear nowhere except in John and are regarded by most biblical scholars today as the words of the Christian community that have been placed onto the lips of Jesus. They are clearly not the words of the Jesus of history. The scholars in the Jesus Seminar regard nothing in the Fourth Gospel, not a single one of the sayings attributed to Jesus in that gospel, to be the authentic words of the Jesus of history.”
To use these words from the Gospel of John, never even spoken by Jesus, as an excuse to harrass and intimidate non-Christians, and to threaten them with eternal damnation, is immoral and unjust. Neither Jews nor Muslims nor Buddhists claim that their way is the only way to God. Even the Qur’an, for instance, explicitly states that there will always be room (and that there must be room) for God’s other faiths.
There are, indeed, many paths to wisdom, not just the Christian path. The only thing we know for sure is that, as poet/singer Leonard Cohen put it, each and every path to wisdom begins with a broken heart. Christian missionaries need to stop compounding the misery of the world and start to heal it through true love and true brotherhood and true compassion and true toleration. We have not yet seen this.
Hazel Bonner - Seventh Day Adventist
I do not feel that Church group youth programs such as this are worth the cost or the trouble. There are so many worthy projects right in their own communities. Donate the money for such a trip to a worthy cause here, while
taking the time to work for that cause. There are many worthy causes at the mission, like the new Day Care program there, the assisted living homes, building a playground for them. I donate a lot of time at the mission and there is so much that needs to be done. I work primarily for a handicapped veteran whom I became acqauainted with there. He now has a broken ankle and needs someone to take meals to him as I am gone all weekend. As soon as I am done with my work here, I will have to go back there and care for him so he can stay off that ankle. Thank God the bus now runs on Saturday, and there is a bus stop right across the street from me. So I no longer have to walk a mile to the nearest bus stop. I will be doing that instead of going to my church today. I ask myself What Would Jesus Do and I hear him telling me I should go back to spend the weekend with my special friend that I met at the Mission.
Any way enough of my praise for the Lord. The mission is not the only worthy cause here either. There are so many here and the youth pastors must know them, Donate to build a house for Habitat for a local family or go no further than the rez to donate.
My daughter attends the University of Wyoming and they do alternate spring breaks and special internships during the summer. She went to a homeless program in DC last spring and loved the experience. They had to actually spend the first four days being homeless and panhandling. They then donated the money to homeless shelters there and worked in those shelters. That was a great experience for them and also helped the homeless there, but not for the long term.
She did a tabling project this summer in North Yellowstone, but it was not volunteer and she earned her tuition for fist semester there.
So I am sure this would not have come up except the youth brought back the Swine Flu, the H1N1 virus. We also cannot be so afraid of that flu that we isolate ourselves. I am not even eligible for the vaccine as I am over 65, and currently in good health.
August 7th, 2009 at 11:11 am
This, from a co-worker of mine: I have a cousin, 23ish, who has been all over the world on these mission trips. At least four of them, probably more, and right now he’s in Ireland. And how does he pay for it? By hitting up friends and family to pay for every one. We’ve quit contributing by now. After awhile, it seems more like he wants paid vacations than he really wants to do any good. I mean, he might be sincere, but he could sincerely help in his own city if he wanted more than a paid vacation. I mean, I’d love to travel around the world, too, but I’m not hitting up everyone I know to make them cough up the money.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Bill Bogard,
For those of us that are followers of Jesus Christ,we have no choice but to take His message to the other nations.He has commanded us to do so.(Matthew 28:19-20).He has also told us that He is the only way to have contact with God(John 10:6).The reason Christians go to other people with the message of Christ is out of concern for their spiritual welfare,not arrogance.We do not take our message to others at the edge of a knife or the point of a gun.No one is being forced to convert.I realize this happened in the past during the Crusades but that was a response to Islamic aggression.If people don’t want to listen to the Christian message they don’t have to.
August 8th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Rick:
You said “He has commanded us” to proselytize and you are concerned for non-Christians’ “spiritual welfare.”
a), This same argument is also used by Islam to bring infidels into “submission” before their God. They also are “commanded” to spread their “gospel” of Allah. Perhaps a devout Muslim from Afghanistan will knock on your door in the near future.
b). It sounds like you feel the “Crusades” were simply a “response” to those darn aggressive Muslims. Western history is full of Chrisitan (and certainly other believers who assume that all other values other than their own are evil) “aggression” against heathens, Jews, and all other sorts of other faiths. The Conquistador’s gentle concern for the natives? The Crusader’s spiritual concern for the Jews in the Rhine Valley who they murdered? The Catholic Church in Spain during the Medieval period? The Nazis (certainly true believers in the “one way”)? Again, I can find nothing more dangerous than a human being with any power who is convinced that there is but one way toward truth—be it religious, political, or economic.
c) Your statement that “He is the only way to have contact with God” simply illustrates your arrogance regarding religious faith. And from that arrogance–history has proven repeatedly–derives a justification for imposing, through any means necessary, enough force to destroy the non-Christian’s culture, values, and belief system.
August 8th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Dr. Wallerstein said,
“There are, indeed, many paths to wisdom, not just the Christian path. The only thing we know for sure is that, as poet/singer Leonard Cohen put it, each and every path to wisdom begins with a broken heart. Christian missionaries need to stop compounding the misery of the world and start to heal it through true love and true brotherhood and true compassion and true toleration. We have not yet seen this.”
I could not agree with him more. Well said!
August 8th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
It depends on the goals of the trips.
When I worked on the Pine Ridge Reservation, the small communities that dot the area were inundated for a few weeks each summer with the ‘missionaries.’ I was there long enough and took enough interest in the communities and culture that a few of the Native Americans (a few, not anywhere close to most–I was still viewed with a hearty dose of mistrust by most Native Americans) felt comfortably enough to speak openly around me.
The Native Americans used to joke about all the white people taking interest in the reservation for two weeks a year and then promptly forgetting about the people there. The missionaries came in groups, meaning two things: one, the kids there had their own group of friends and it was very difficult for them to socialize, let alone associate with the Native Americans; and two, the group of white people was large enough that very few Native Americans in the community would approach, let alone associate with the group of white kids.
My experience is that they usually came to the Reservation to work during the day, then left en masse to sleep somewhere else off the Reservation. It was mostly a group of kids complaining that they were in the middle of nowhere having to build a ramp to a house all day in the sun. I never saw any of them actually interacting with the people they were supposedly serving (unless one church got together with another and forced the interaction, in which case it looked a lot like a sixth grade dance, except that instead of the boys on one side of the room and the girls on the other it was the whites on one side of the room and the Native Americans on the other).
It seemed very self-serving to me. The Church brought a group to the Reservation for a week or so and then they left, two ramps for disabled people better. Back home, the kids got to hear how great they were and how much Jesus loved them for doing it, the people in the Church got to talk about how closely they were following the will of Jesus and proclaim all of the good their Church was doing, the white people who offered housing in the surrounding areas got to think how charitable the white people are and how the Native Americans could solve all their problems if they would just accept personal responsibility, and the Native Americans happily went about thinking how white people just use and patronize them. Nobody ever thought about it again. Often, the kids went back to the very churches talking about how evil it would be to take money onto those reservations to improve the quality of life there.
If the goal is to do a certain amount of good with the least amount of resources and time possible, the missionaries accomplish the goal.
If the goal is to do some real good in a community, foster brotherhood among different people, acheive spiritual understanding of what it means to follow the ways of Jesus, and develop a deeper understanding that leads to a change in attitudes and actions, then my experience tells me there is a fundamental and utter failure–it is similar to Brian Carpenter’s critique of mass evangelism, except the financial costs of the mission trips are far higher to most churches.
I get it, I really do. I, like Mr. Carpenter, am a pretty hard-core Calvanist in many respects (expect this to be the last time I ever agree with him twice in a post). People do this with the best intentions, people try to come to places like the reservation(s) and do good (So Brian doesn’t call me stupid again or again or again or again or again or again I’m trying to say people come into good institutions or ideas and screw them up at any given opportunity just because we’re people), but somewhere along the line, a good chunk of that goal gets lost or laid by the wayside. After a few years, the idea of helping people is lost, and the mission trip becomes the idea: it is something we do just because that’s the way we do it. Less time is spent trying to figure out how to help people and more time is spent trying to figure out how to make the mission trip smoothly-run and enjoyable. That tendency is not unique to churches, and a lot of it happens in all organizations.
Essentially, what the missions to is try to make the crushing poverty slightly more bearable for the people there. They do nothing to address the poverty or help improve the actual conditions, and for all of the money collectively spent on the missions, I think a lot more could probably be done.
August 8th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I was taught that we can speak of God to others and it is thru’ his Grace, not our actions, that they will come into the fold.
August 8th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Dr. Wallerstein,
You state:”The scholars in the Jesus Seminar regard nothing in the Fourth Gospel, not a single one of the sayings attributed to Jesus in that gospel, to be the authentic words of the Jesus of history.”
I would just like to add that the work of the scholars of the Jesus Seminar has been disregarded by many experts and their scholarship strongly criticized by New Testament Professors like A. Culpepper (Baylor), R.B Hays (Duke), L.T. Johnson (Emory), L.E. Keck (Yale), J.P. Meier (Catholic University), and C.T. Talbert (Wake Forest). In summary their judgments are: Methodologically misguided, no significant advance in the study of the historical Jesus, only a small ripple of New Testament scholarship; results representing the Jesus that the researchers wanted to find; the pursuit of a specific confessional agenda. One of the most common objections to the Seminar is its arbitrariness in dismissing the historicity of well-attested aspects of the Gospel portrait of Jesus, e.g. His escatological outlook, and Episcopal Bishop John Spong stripping Jesus of Christology. G. O’Collins (Tablet 248 [1994], 529-30) in a withering review of Spong’s Resurrection: Myth or Reality? (San Francisco HarperCollin is, 1994), points out extraordinary inaccuracies and ends …”My advice for his next book is to let some real experts check the text before publishing.”
August 8th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Father Williams,
Well, to be fair, I didn’t state that about John’s Gospel. I was quoting Spong, of course.
But nonetheless, just because the Jesus Seminar was flawed (and I’m a fan of some of the scholars you mention, especially Luke Timothy Johnson of Emory), and just because Bishop Spong’s ideas are at times flawed, it doesn’t mean that John’s Gospel accurately represents anything Jesus may have said. That’s a non sequitur. I, for one, remain convinced that none of the Gospels could have or did accurately quote anything much of what Jesus may have said (which would have been in Aramaic anyway, and then translated into Koine Greek, immediately losing some of its original meaning). The Gospels were, of course, never intended to be historically accurate. That is a modern invention. The ancients didn’t have the same sense of writing “history” as we now have. The Gospels were, as you know, intended to be propaganda. Not in the modern negative sense of propaganda, but in the original Greek sense of intending to “sow seeds” (propagation) of belief in order to create new converts to the Jesus Movement. The Gospel writers (whoever they were) were never trying to write history in the sense we understand it now. I have no problem with the intention of the Gospels for purposes of propaganda, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the Gospels were never meant to be historically accurate. And this is part of Bishop Spong’s (correct) point.
However, the Gospel of John has another, greater flaw. If we look back at the writings of the western world, it would be hard to find a document more anti-semitic than John’s Gospel–or at least a writing more responsible for anti-semitism. We may think of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice as another example, and of course Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and zillions of others. But John’s Gospel towers above these in the way it has led to hatred of Jews–and it’s terrible influence on the continued hatred of Jews. No document in history has led to more Jewish suffering than John’s Gospel. This cannot be ignored.
August 8th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Dr. Wallerstein:
I am sure there will be plenty of opportunity to further discuss the historical Jesus as portrayed by the Jesus Seminar of the 80s and 90s, especially when the Rev. Brian Carpenter weighs in. What happened then took them far afield from Bultmann.
I would just make a final point of clairfication so you understand my belief. For for the Orthodox Church, and, I believe for the Roman Catholic Church too, the gospels are sacred texts written by the Evangelists under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to be used in our worship. We believe they are the word of God and thus the presence of God among us in worship. Indeed, the Book of the Gospels is opened and placed on the heads of Orthodox Christians in Ordination and the sacrament of Holy Unction. The Book of the Gospels always rests on our altar table in the Holy Place. So I cannot accept that one gospel or all four, or any part of all four, can be regarded as evil or inspiring evil. That would be sacrilege. We are all weak and do sin constantly, but that is an action of man not God, who is sinless. Nor do we sin under the inspiration of God
August 9th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Father,
Your kind of faith is a gift, one which I wish I had.
By the way, I was Russian/Greek Orthodox for much of my young adulthood (I kind of bounced back and forth between the two Churches). I even considered for several years during college becoming a Russian Orthodox monk. My best friend in college did become a Russian Orthodox monk. I still now and then think of what my life would be like had I pursued that course. I’m not sure my faith could have sustained me, but it might have been worth a try. I still consider the Orthodox Church to be the True Church–much to the chagrin of my Episcopalian parents (and my friends in the Roman Church).
August 9th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Years ago I was driving across the Yukon Territory on my way to Alaska. During the middle of the night, somewhere between Watson Lake and Whitehorse, I drove out of the dense timber onto a hill overlooking a wide river valley. The entire sky was lit up by the Northern lights. The heavens appeared to be on fire with green flames which were reflected in the broad river below.
I had not seen a car for hours and as I parked there gazing at the sight I wished my family which was two thousand miles away could see that sight.
Several years later I went to a Christmas concert in Union Center. After leaving the community center and the few lights of Union Center behind I saw that the sky in the North was filled with green burning lights. I’ve seldom seen them that bright this far south so when I arrived in Faith I called my sister and said,”take your husband and kids a few miles out of town and look at those Northern Lights.”
My sister explained that the girls had just been put to bed and that her husband and the boys were watching a football game on TV.
When I think of missionaries or anyone else for that matter sharing their faith with others, I am reminded of those Northern lights.
It is not out of arrogance or disrespect that they knock on your door wishing to share a message. It is instead because those who have experienced something incredible want to share it.
Two thousand years ago shepherds received “good tidings of great joy…and a message of peace and good will toward men.”
They were also free to put the kids to bed and continue watching a football game just as we today have that same freedom to ignore the messenger. However do not be offended because someone wants to share that which means most to them with others.
August 9th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Joe Taylor,
Thank you for saying so eloquently what I was trying to say.
August 10th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Great posting, Joe Taylor! I live near Union Center and enjoy all the wonders HE has put here for us!
August 10th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Bill Bogard,
Nowhere in the New Testament are we told to use force to spread the gospel.In fact Jesus told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world and His followers would not fight.(John 18:36).So,anytime force has been used to spread Christ’s message it was wrong and against His teachings.
It was not me that said Jesus was the only way.It was Jesus.Your argument is with Him.
That is the crux of the issue.Every person must decide for themselves whether He was speaking the truth or not.
You too could be accused of arrogance.You believe your way is right and my view is wrong.How intolerant of you.
August 11th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Rick says, “You too could be accused of arrogance.You believe your way is right and my view is wrong.How intolerant of you.”
Perhaps it is “arrogance” to assume that there are more more ways than one to Spiritual truth; I’ll even go one step further and say there may be more than one truth in many more areas other than simply theology. But I find that position is much less dangerous in this world than one that assumes there is but “one way” and all others lead to “damnation.” The position that “Jesus” said “no one comes to the father but by me” simply avoids the ethical issue of unilateral arrogance; any religion or philosophical system could equally argue that their God or Truth created but a single approach.
But let’s look at these two alternative approaches in a larger context.
Our difference, I believe, rests in large measure on the difference between Aristotelian and modern Einsteinian or Post-Newtonian physics (assuming for the moment that we don’t consider the historical and psychological proof of the disastrous consequences of Absolutism, the inevitable result of the certainty of a single truth and the need to defeat all other alternative views). Aristotle taught that “a thing can be and not be at the same time and in the same way.” Thomistic philosophy developed from that view, as did the assumptions that a single truth can be known with certainty. And up to the Twentieth Century this “unilateralism” was pretty much accepted. But particle physics and Einstein showed that position to be quite incorrect: modern physics proved that something can be both a particle and a wave at the same time—or Einstein illustrated that speed or mass is not absolute but depends upon the observation of the observer. Modern physics has even shown that the mere observation of a sub-atomic particle alters the “reality” of that particle to the degree that one can never truly “determine” the exact structural relationship of an atom at any exact moment. As uncomfortable as this approach is to many, the theory of Relativity reflected in Modern Physics is reflected in all scientific areas. And I suspect that one major factor contributing to the traditional religious opposition to modern Evolutionary thought—a central key to modern bioloigcal science–is an opposition to a constantly evolving and changing universe: if all species are constantly evolving, then where in this universe can one “rest” in certitude.
But religious certitude seems to attract most humans, regardless of modern physics or science. We humans crave absolute truth, unchanging realities, and certitude. And thus we have one thousand religious Divines, each arguing that their position is the truth because “Jesus” or “Allah” or “Moses” or “David Koresh” or “Ron Hubbard” has apprehended/speaks the truth. And those altenative truths must be defeated because “He” says so.
I suspect that you would say, “The Devil take such a Relativistic Universe.” Or, “On this Rock I will take my stand.”(But both Peter and Luther stood on their own rocks)
August 11th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Bill Bogard,
Just because you believe that there are many different paths to spiritual truth does not make it so.You may be wrong.The whole thing boils down to the fact that I believe in objective truth and you don’t.I don’t think either view is in itself dangerous.I have no intention of censoring your viewpoint nor should you censor mine.I believe in the free exchange of ideas and letting people decide for themselves who is right.Like I said earlier those who try to force conversion on someone are in opposition to Jesus’ teachings.
August 12th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Ricks says, “The whole thing boils down to the fact that I believe in objective truth and you don’t.”
Perhaps you are right in the sense that we do live in two different worlds. My world, as I’ve attempted to explain in my comments, is a world reflected in modern science, the complexities and relativistic physics of Einstein, Post-Modernist metaphysics, scholarly debate, and multi-cultural sensitivity. Objective truth, extremely difficult to ever discover, remains nearly always beyond our grasp, ensnared in language, perspective, culture, history, and psychology; even the basic components of the atom are constantly in dynamic change. Apparently you live in a world where Objective truth should be accepted by ancient texts that have been perfectly transmitted through the centuries, can be apprehended through faith and prayer, or can be taught though “correct” instruction and training.
Perhaps your world is more comfortable, I’ll admit. While I will insist that objective truth may indeed exist on a simplistic level (Is the world round of flat, for example), most meaningful statements must be carefully examined and qualified to qualify as “objectively true.” Nearly every statement of fact must be examined within the context of a hundred qualificatons, must be nuanced within the context of thousand other qualifications. Is the death penalty in America morally acceptable, for example? As implemented by what state, for what crimes, under what conditions, as applied to whom, after what series of legal, psychological, medical tests have been considered, and on and on. Or is this statement or verse in the Torah or Bible “objectively true”? What have a thousand and one scholars said about that passage? What does paleographical, historical, linguistic, poetic, numerological, or psychological commentaries bring to the passage? Does that passage seem to fit within the context of the known author in other passages. And would I censor another for attempting to present yet further interpretations to the thousand that have preceded me through the ages—of course not. But I would certainly never maintain that there is but one “objective” truth that must be accepted on faith or dogma.
As I’ve also stated in this blog, this “world I live in” even influences my personal religious perspective. Yes, I’m a committed Jew, but one who is never quite sure of what it means “to be a Jew” in a post-Holocaust, post-Modernist, world. How and why do I keep Kosher? What Halachic laws are meaningful enough to accept as binding? How do I read Torah when I know that it was written by Men who, while they were convinced they stood in the presence of G-d, were deeply influenced and limited by their current myths, attitudes, language, psychological and historical moment? I simply can’t–apparently as do you–believe that the Torah was written Divinely by G-d, transmitted perfectly through time, and contains timeless truths that must be rigidly followed. But does this deep sense that my faith and its central text is a humanly created set of values and series of documents cause me to disgard that faith of my fathers, that set of beliefs that has given me meaning and solace and joy throughout my 70 plus years? No. Rather, when I read the Torah and the volumes of Jewish commentary I realize I am now in “dialogue” with centuries of scholars who have in turn “conversed” with centuries of others before them; the text, then, becomes this conversation–now deeply more complex, deeply more embedded in the continual spiritual dialogue. And that intricate dance in history and scholarship creates its own the world of truth.
August 13th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Bill Bogard,
Why do you assume that I haven’t studied deeply into the issues you bring up?Is it just because we have come to different conclusions?There are many scholars that have come to conclusions different from yours.Our differences come from our philosophical presuppositions not in the facts themselves.My point being that this is where the discussion should begin.Not in censoring one viewpoint or the other.You say you are a committed Jew but you don’t know why.I am a committed Christian and I can tell you why.So which of us stands on more solid ground?Is it the one that can’t explain why he believes the way he believes or the one that can tell you why he believes the way he believes?
You say your worldview is based partly on Post-modern metaphysics.That explains alot because when you accept a relativistic post-modern viewpoint everything becomes meaningless.Why study any set of facts or consider any data because you can interpret them any way that seems right to you.Then you end up with people like Hitler,Stalin,etc.If there is no objective right or wrong you become subject to whatever someone can convince a majority of people to believe.
I believe God,in his mercy,has given us an instruction book that contains objective truth.The Bible.You may not agree with my conclusions and that’s fine.Just don’t try to censor my viewpoint just because it doesn’t agree with yours.You make the statement that you live in a world reflected by multi-cultural sensitivity yet you have made statements that would offend any Bible believing Christian.I’m referring to your calling us “arrogant” just because we believe Jesus.
August 13th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Rick says, I “make the statement that you live in a world reflected by multi-cultural sensitivity yet you have made statements that would offend any Bible believing Christian.I’m referring to your calling us “arrogant” just because we believe Jesus.”
Please read my response more carefully. Let me state my position clearly: I maintain that one is “arrogant” if one maintains that ONLY through their particular faith can one “approach G-d.” I know of no other religion other than Christianity—and not even all Christian sects, either–that claims this: Islam, Judaism, and others find alternative paths to truth and “salvation” are possible.
I dont know what to call it other than “arrogance” if one finds the other 95% (ie, only conservative Protestantism because modern Catholicism must be excluded from that “exclusivity” club) of the world is doomed to perdition. Sure seems like there will be no traffic jams in Heaven,huh.
August 14th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Bill Bogard,
It’s not arrogance because we are trying to invite the rest of you but that is what you’re upset about.Now,if we wanted to keep everybody else out,that would be arrogance.Like I said before it is Jesus that said He was the only way to salvation.So I guess you should be calling Him arrogant,not His followers.We simply take Him at His word.Your argument is with Him,not us.
We are trying to invite all peoples of all nations and backgrounds to come join us.How can that be called exclusive?