As a chaplain, there is a view I often run across among non-religious, college-educated folks in postmodern western culture that Christianity is scandalous in its particularity, and particularly offensive to non-Christian people. In particular, the Name of Jesus, the idea of the Trinity, and especially the cross and blood of Jesus are all stumbling blocks. Instead, it is often suggested that we omit or underplay language that includes Jesus, or the Trinity, or the cross, or other uniquely particular expressions of access to God through distinctly Christian means (such as the Eucharistic Prayer or the Lord's Prayer).
Instead it is often preferred to substitute generic addresses to "The Divine", or simply "God", or even Western philosophical concepts such as "Ground of Being". This may be suggested with the idea that a more Generic Deist language will make God more "accessible": A general prayer to a general God or Divine, who has no particular story, nor any particular name or way of access, but which is accessible in a generic way by all methods and all names, as well as no methods and no names.
What is often forgotten is that this generic concept of the Divine is one of the most culturally particular ideas in all of religious history. It is only advocated very recently by college educated and often wealthy elites from technological nations, often in the West. It is only perhaps two centuries old. Other than the fairly small Unitarian Universalist Church, there are really no religious organizations which hold such a view of the Divine, or seek to access God in these generic ways with these generic ideas. Most people who hold this particular view of the Divine as generic do not belong to a community of religious practice, but are categorized as "nones" who are "spiritual but not religious". And even Unitarians, as they have solidified over time, have generally recognized that they have some very unique and particular texts and traditions and language which shape the way they approach God which is not universal or generic.
And I am not knocking this, because I believe that the Love of God revealed in Jesus embraces all and is accessible to all through the ways known to them. But as a follower of Jesus, I only have assurance that this Universal Love is real through the particular revelation of God as Triune through Jesus and shared in the Story of Scripture. And to denude the concept of God from all of these particulars and to seek to access God in a universal way which has no particular views or stories is indeed generic. Generic is being used in a descriptive way, not in a normative way, and definitely not in a pejorative way.
And there are many across world history that would affirm that the Love of God or compassion of the Divine embraces all people, even those from other religions or no religion at all. But-- and here's the crucial but-- this universal Divine Love is known for 99.9% of people in very particular ways: Through the Hebrew Prophets, or through Muhammad, or through the stories of Hindu Devas and Avatars, or through the life and teachings of the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas that followed, or through the specific Gurus, Saints, Sages, Mystics, and Philosophers of the various great Spiritual Paths of the world. Everyone, except an incredibly tiny proportion of humanity, approach the Universal Divine through Particular Paths. Only a minuscule minority have ever attempted a generic approach to the Divine denuded of all particularity.
So, let me suggest that asking any religious group to make their spiritual practice more generic and less particular, in order to be more "inclusive", is actually one of the least inclusive things that can be asked. It is asking the totality of human religious experience to be stripped of particularity to fit the tastes and preferences of a sliver of the population who is more comfortable with generic Divine language. Generic Deism can be a wonderful spiritual path for the few who feel fed by it, and gather week to week to worship in this way. But it is not actually generic in the sense of being applicable and appealing and welcoming to all people: It is one of the most particular and culturally conditioned paths in human religious experience.
I have worshipped alongside Unitarians and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and Christians of all stripes. And overwhelmingly, I have felt welcomed and cared for in those environments. But I have never felt the need to have them "water down" or de-particularize their religious language or their claims about the Divine in order to make me feel more included. And when they have come to worship with me, I have rarely felt the expectation to make our worship and liturgy more generic and less particular. We offer prayers on behalf of others in the Name of Jesus, and we bless everyone in the Name of the Triune God, because we believe the Love of Christ and the blessing of the Trinity is for everyone, even if they approach that Divine Reality in other ways that are not ours. Perhaps the main pastoral concession I offer for individual blessings: For those who are not followers of Jesus, I will offer a blessing in a Name of God which flows forth from the Biblical tradition, but without explicitly naming Jesus or the Trinity. At such times, I bless individuals in the Name of the God of Love (cf. 1John 4.8-16) or the LORD of Love (cf. Psalm 136).
But other than that, we teach and preach and pray a maximally inclusive vision of the Triune God of Love known in Jesus. We believe that Jesus came to open a Path to healing and peace for all people, even those who do not know God as God is revealed in Jesus. Thus, we avoid an exclusive vision of God who only truly loves and cares for those who are part of "our" group, while rejecting "those" in other groups. Followers of Jesus know God's Love includes all precisely because that is the kind of God revealed through Jesus, who prayed "OUR Father who is in heaven", and spoken of by Saint Paul when he tells us that "nothing in all creation will be able to separate us from the Love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord".
Generally, my friends from other spiritual paths feel welcomed and included as fellow pilgrims on the spiritual journey, even as it is clear that our religious communities have various particularities. The only time they report to me feeling non-welcome is NOT because I speak of God through Jesus, BUT when I lapse into old habits of exclusionary language which seems to imply some are excluded from God's Love (such as when I pray or speak of "them" as excluded from "us" in some unintended way). Or put another way: It is usually not language about relating to God which makes people feel left out, but rather language about how people relate to each other.
So, it has never been people from other religions who have directly pressured me to neuter or denude religious language, and not mention Jesus or Christian-specific references to God. This has come from other Christians who feel they are trying to protect others, or from college educated people who are non-religious, and not connected deeply with any community of religious practice. Despite not being religious they have very specific preferences on what kinds of language they want to hear when they do encounter people who worship.
To give an analogy: If I am inviting people over for dinner, I can make my home maximally welcoming for people who are different from me and my family. I can clean the house and get rid of trash and sharp edges that might harm someone. I could child-proof it for small children, and perhaps put out some toys. I could avoid gestures and language that might make them feel excluded or demeaned. I could serve them food that won’t trigger allergic reactions. There are many adaptations I could make out of hospitality and love for my guests. But it would be very odd indeed for me to think I had to take down all pictures of my family, and strip all books off of the shelves, and take down all decorations to welcome them. In fact, they probably would find that off-putting and inauthentic. It would be even stranger to think I had to whitewash everything, and purchase beige minimalist furniture, adopting a certain kind of culturally elitist aesthetics, just to make my house welcoming. And above all, it would be wrong to think I need to sign the deed to the house over to someone else to invite them in for dinner. And what is true for welcoming guests to dinner in my house is also true for how we worship as a religion. At the end of the day, we don’t welcome people into someone else’s home. We welcome them into OUR home.
Long ago I heard the phrase "there is no such thing as a view from nowhere". And this is true. We all approach universal truths, ideas, and ideals from particular, culturally influenced starting points, expressed in culturally shaped forms of language. And what is true for ideas is true for God. Indeed, what is true for very particular forms of religion-- such as classical Christianity or Judaism or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism-- is also true for forms of religion that try to paint themselves as more generic and universal. Everyone approaches God from their own starting points and communities, so instead of trying to steamroll all of that unique particularity into a uniform sameness, let's learn from each other and encourage each other to be the best version of ourselves, in all our unique particular glory.
*Cover image produced from prompts given to Dall-E
No comments:
Post a Comment