Do all religions stand or fall together?

[Magnanimity]

Cynthia Bourgeault (an episcopalian priest and spiritual guru that I admire) recently said something in a couple of different podcasts that all religions must either stand together or fall together. It got me thinking whether she may be right.

Now, don’t get me wrong–I’m happy as a clam being Catholic. I feel that the Church generally does a great job of fostering holiness within its people and connecting them with the Source (God). But, I imagine that, were I born in Thailand, I’d be happy as a clam being Buddhist. Or, were I born in Indonesia, I’d be happy with being Muslim. (Let me press the pause button on any desire on anyone’s part to ‘educate’ me about the differences between the religions–let’s proceed assuming that I am knowledgeable of the fundamentals of all of them.)

I wonder if, for the religions that have had enormous staying-power and/or centuries of growth (including, but not limited to, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism), in a certain sense these religions do really stand or fall together, going forward. If progress moves ever forward and secularism continues its onslaught and growth over the wider world, would we reach a place where all religious folks would feel more united with one another against a common “enemy” of irreligiousity/secularism/atheism?

The following points seem obviously true:

1. Secularism (religious unaffiliation) seems like it will continue to grow and spread in the ensuing years.
2. It seems very unlikely that any one religion will spread over the whole Earth and eradicate all the others.
3. A person can still believe that her religion embodies the most truth/goodness/beauty without holding the position that every other religion outside of hers is intrinsically disordered or false.

What do you think? Do the religions stand together or fall together? Can religious folks afford to continue to be so sectarian and ignorant of other religions and the truth/goodness/beauty contained within all religions? Or, can we take the spirit that underlies “Evangelicals and Catholics together,” and cast a wider net out to all religions?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Can religious folks afford to continue to be so sectarian and ignorant of other religions and the truth/goodness/beauty contained within all religions?

It is not sectarian and ignorant to uphold the Truth. To take the contrary position is bordering on Pagan Syncretism, the belief that all religions are the same and Christians, by refusing to sacrifice to Pagan gods are atheists.

 

[Magnanimity]

It is not sectarian and ignorant to uphold the Truth.

It could be sectarian–if you held that your religion exclusively has possession of critical truth/goodness/beauty, not to be located within other religions. That’s the essence of a sectarian viewpoint–you’re part of a group that is ‘better’ than the others.

Syncretism, the belief that all religions are the same

I explicitly stated in the OP that one could still hold the belief that Christ is the unique revelation of God and yet still acknowledge the vast truth/goodness/beauty within other religions. So, religions standing together does not entail bland equality. You can still think yours is “better,” all the while accepting the good possessed and lived out in other religions, right?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It could be sectarian–if you held that your religion exclusively has possession of critical truth/goodness/beauty, not to be located within other religions.

We have the Apostolic Succession, something not found in other religions (Orthodox Christianity being an exception.) Only we can perform the epiclesis and forgive sins.

 

[Magnanimity]

We have the Apostolic Succession, something not found in other religions (Orthodox Christianity being an exception.)

This is Catholic teaching.

Only we can perform the epiclesis

And yet, you can reach across the aisle and unite with those who don’t (Protestants/Evangelicals).

Only we can…forgive sins.

This is a dramatic error. It is, of course, only God who forgives sins, and He is free to forgive as He sees fit and toward whom He wills, since He loves all. Yes, the ancient Christian communions have their unique vehicle for regularly doing this (sacrament of reconciliation) but this says nothing of the freedom of God to forgive when and where he will.

 

[Pattylt]

OP, it’s an interesting discussion and may have to start playing out as secularism continues to grow. The big stumbling block is that religions have been so competitive against each other that each religion will dig in their heels and never incorporate the possibility that other faiths may not be the problem.

When every religion declares it is in sole possession of the Truth…and they ALL do, how do you change the mindset that they really do have a common battle against secularism?

 

[Bithynian]

This is an interesting (and very complex!) topic, and I think it’s been one that’s been discussed by theologians for much of the late 20th and 21st century amid ecumenical efforts.

I think there’s a cautious optimism that yes, religions could afford to work more productively in recognising points of similarity and agreement. At the same time, this ought to occur in an environment where difference is understood and preserved. In this sense, in recognising the sameness in others we risk subsuming their identity into ours (or our identity into theirs) and losing what is distinctive in both of us.

Conceptually, this isn’t different from what religions already do internally: marking boundaries about who’s in and who’s out, how continuity is defined with the past, why we - as opposed to others - are more consistent with Truth than others, etc.

How this works out in practice between religious is, of course, very challenging, especially in respect to preserving a distinct religious voice in public affairs. Rowan Williams has long been an advocate of Christian-Muslim dialogue: he has written books with Muslims on prayer, has written a foreword to Shia hadiths, etc. Pope Francis and Sheikh el-Tayeb recently issued the Human Fraternity Document.

Of course, both examples were roundly criticised by members of their respective Christian communities. Pope Francis was criticised for the document’s statement that God “willed Islam”. Likewise, Rowan Williams was harshly criticised for supporting the application of some parts of sharia law (where it does not clash with prevailing law) in the UK for British Muslim affairs (the UK already has a Muslim tribunal, along with ecclesiastical courts for Catholics and Anglicans and rabbinical courts for Jews).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

This is a bunch of hooey, and seeing as how it came from an “Episcopalian priest and spiritual guru” I wouldn’t give it one iota of thought, nor do I find this person admirable in the least. It’s the proverbial spinach.

God’s church isn’t going to “fall” and it doesn’t need to group up with false religions to stay standing.

 

[Beryllos]

Between religions there are differences. Where do you draw the line? Monotheism vs. Polytheism vs. Pantheism? Ancient vs. recent (e.g., Scientology)? Wise and loving God vs. indifferent or capricious? Personal God vs. The Force?

In other words, which religions are supposed to stand together?

 

[Magnanimity]

The big stumbling block is that religions have been so competitive against each other that each religion will dig in their heels and never incorporate the possibility that other faiths may not be the problem.

Thanks for replying. You make a good point here. The histories of the religions (at least in the West) have been highly competitive and sectarian in the past. But I wonder with the globalization we’ve seen in the Modern Era whether such competitiveness will continue. I think that increased awareness will likely lessen competitiveness/tribal tendencies between the practitioners of the various religions. What do you think? Could our increased exposure to/awareness of these other religions (and them of us) lead to increased appreciation one for the other?

 

[redbetta]

I’m glad I’m not the only one that saw the red flag upon reading “Episcopalian priest and spiritual guru.”

 

[TNMan]

If I see anything anymore from an Episcopalian, ELCA Lutheran, PCUSA or Methodist pastor, I always take it with a grain of salt. They’re the big ones in making a push for universalism.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

Everything will fall, be it secularism, heresy, error, or what have you.

What we do know will never fall is the Catholic Church.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If I see anything anymore from an Episcopalian, ELCA Lutheran, PCUSA or Methodist pastor, I always take it with a grain of salt. They’re the big ones in making a push for universalism.

One has to wonder about their motivation. Why not just go join the Unitarians if they think that way?

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

This OP is an example of the difference between viewing the Catholic Church as having THE truth as opposed to having A truth. You may be happy calling yourself a catholic, but until you understand what having the truth means you will continually be sucked into these false narratives decrying the ‘sectarianism’ of the Church.

 

[redbetta]

This is also the same OP that has been perpetuating the tired pro-choice myth in another thread that pro-lifers don’t care about single mothers or children after they are born.

He seems to be so willing to see the other side that there is nothing he really condemns.

 

[TNMan]

Blows my mind.

 

[Magnanimity]

I think there’s a cautious optimism that yes, religions could afford to work more productively in recognising points of similarity and agreement. At the same time, this ought to occur in an environment where difference is understood and preserved. In this sense, in recognising the sameness in others we risk subsuming their identity into ours (or our identity into theirs) and losing what is distinctive in both of us.

I can live with that, and I think many others (who are ecumenically-minded) could too. I’m not suggesting we necessarily need to create a future “super-religion,” but merely suggesting that I’m not sure we can afford to continue in sectarian/tribalistic attitudes of the past. I think that, prior to globalization, many adherents truly believed that their religion might emerge as the “winner,” the majority that endures until the end. But, in the 21st century, I simply don’t see any good reasons for believing this to be a tenable position. And, I see many negatives in sectarianism itself with its dualistic (us v. them, me v. you) approach to reality. It absolutely is the case that God loves all and desires all to be saved. This is plain from Catholic teaching, but it also rings true in one’s conscience. That being said, do you think that all of these factors taken together would seem to incline us inevitably forward toward a deepened awareness of one another’s religious paths and appreciation for them (and, perhaps too, some type of alliances against the ever-encroaching anti-spiritualism of secularist culture)?

 

[Magnanimity]

So…we can put you down firmly entrenched in the “no” category? I understand sectarian/tribalist inclinations very well. I’m just very unsure that the future (and the now!) has much of a place for them.

 

[Vico]

…

One can read in the Bhagavad Gita (an ancient Indian text), the belief that morality (dharma) will be restored, periodically when the world becomes wicked (adharma):

Whenever dharma decreases , O Bharata, and then there is The arising of adharma, Then do I manifest Myself.

Whereas we have in Christianity the Holy Trinity and the Church (good angels, living faithful, and departed saints).