Volunteer chaplains in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department will no longer be allowed to invoke the name of Jesus in prayers at public events held on government property. The new policy is a matter of respecting the fact that people may have different faiths.
What happened at this Police Department is not an isolated case – that is the trend in our religiously pluralistic society. The focus of prayer is no longer to whom you are praying, rather, it is for whom you are praying. Honestly though, if a prayer must be guided by the religious diversity represented in the audience, to whom should such a prayer be addressed?
However, if the outcome of the prayer is dependent on the person asked to pray, one would expect the prayer to be addressed to whichever deity is being approached. Why then should it be offensive for one to pray in the name of Jesus on government property? Government’s role is to ensure impartial opportunities to all religions. Government has no right to determine the appropriateness of a prayer, unless the prayer incites behavior inimical to the laws of the land.
Imagine having to submit a prayer for approval to an administrator to ensure that the doctrine is not offensive to the persons for whom the prayer is being offered. Such practices entrust government with a pastoral responsibility, which is completely out of line with the US Constitution.
In some settings, it is preferred to provide a moment of silence, allowing persons to address their deity in silence. Such a practice is a display of respect for persons of faith, without subjecting a diverse group to a prayer which some may find objectionable.
Unfortunately, some believe, in the name of peace, no prayer should be offered in religiously mixed gatherings. Such a practice dismisses the place of faith in public life and tacitly supports the worldview of non-theists.
Because of the history of Christian influence in America, attempts to deemphasize religion are tantamount to muzzling the Christian voice. The Christian worldview has been replaced with views of tolerance, diversity, pluralism and peace. Many are even rewriting history to distort and delete the contributions of Christians. For these reasons, many frown at claims of Christian exclusivism.
Exclusivism, some would contend, has no place in a pluralistic society. In the present intellectual and religious climate, anyone who makes exclusive religious claims is perceived to be intolerant and bigoted. It would therefore seem more appropriate to talk about Jesus as one of many ways, as opposed to “the way, the truth, and the life.” Such rhetoric is assumed to be divisive and hostile to peace.
But what if such rhetoric reflects a biblical under-standing of Jesus? Should biblical rhetoric change to facilitate the current pluralistic mood? Harvard Religion Professor Dr. Diana Eck believes we should not allow ourselves to be imprisoned in first century revelation. She contends, “Our religious traditions are dynamic not static, changing not fixed, more like rivers than mountains.”
Then what do we do with the claims of Jesus? He said, “…I am the way…no one comes to the Father except through Me…” (John 14:6). His disciples understood this claim and preached it. Within months of His death, Peter said before the Jewish Sanhedrin: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
Before believers were called Christians they were referred to as people of “the Way” (Acts 9:2). They presented themselves as those who believed in the One who said “I am the Way…” Is it likely that they made such claims because they did not live in an era of religious diversity? Certainly not!
The world into which the first Christians carried the gospel was a religiously pluralistic world. When they carried the message of Christianity to cities and villages throughout the Mediterranean, they encountered a wide spectrum of philosophies and religions in the Greco-Roman world.
The first three centuries of church history were a time of intense life-and-death struggle against the seductive power of syncretism. The issue of religious pluralism is not entirely new. However, the twenty-first century version needs to be tackled in a new way. We must meet it in the terms of our own times.
Our methods must change, but our message must remain – Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6). As it was with Jesus and the early disciples, we must expect one of three responses – some will believe, some will reject and some will postpone their decision.
RECOMMENDED:
Diana Eck. A New Religious America (2001)
Leslie Newbigin. The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society (‘89)
Michael Wilkins & J.P. Morgan (General Editors). Jesus Under Fire (1995)
No comments:
Post a Comment