My Debate with Tony Jones of God's Politics

I disagree especially with the notion that "questioning" superficial customs of another religious tradition is either: a) post-modernist in any meaningful sense; or b.) a way foward in overcoming religious intolerance. Very significantly, his reply misses what for me is the most salient point: his post gave offense to Mormons! One would think that this would give him some pause, but no, it does not.

For example Mormon blogger nofolete wrote: "No fair making fun of the magic underwear. Would you object to a Zoroastrian or Mandaean president on the same grounds? And the "not Christians" argument is pretty old. The church has included Christ in it's name since the 1830s...As for creeds, I for one am glad we don't have to rely on Orthodox misreadings of ancient Greek philosophy in order to consider ourselves true followers of Christ."

Giving offense to members of another tradition is neither an inherent good, nor evidence of post-modern thinking. Any "post-modernism" worthy of its name must take account of power relationships. Michel Foucault, taught us to question the Power Relationships that color and inform a particular discourse. In this case, the power in the US is with non-LDS Christians. When a member of a Majority religion questions the faith practices of a minority religious group, such as the LDS in this instance--it does not represent a path toward religious tolerance, but rather the dominant power group expressing that power over the less powerful, "the least of these" in Biblical terms. It was precisely this that offended me in Jones' post and made me want to speak up for the Mormon community. And, for me, it does represent a type of theological immaturity when we are hung up the superficial--undergarments, veils, etc-- in defining our own relationship to the Other and/or the Other's good faith effort to love God.

Second, neither my way, nor Sen. Obama's, can be fairly characterized as "secularization" in any fair way. Although I believe public discourse should be based upons secular principles of reason and value and not based upon appeals to religious sources, this is not to say that I believe in "secularizing" religious belief or giving up one's religious identity when one enters the public arena.

Rather, as regular readers of this blog are aware, my own way forward is a combination of the pragmatisim of William James and the "depth ecumenicalism" of Hans Kung. And for what it's worth, I totally disagree with his take on Sen. Obama. We noted echoes of Kierkegaard and William James in Obama's speech here.)

Kierkegaard argued that every individual has an individual existential relationship with the absolute. The absolute is ultimately unknowable but still worth the effort of the human attempt to understand. Credo ut intelligam, in the famous prayer of St. Anselm, I believe that I may understand. The struggle at the heart of this relationship involves doubt and an acceptance that humans will never fully comprehend this absolute. This is a very different perspective on religion than the self-righteous certainties of the religious right.

But, as Dionne notes, this is Obama's somehwat surprising personal admission: Here's what stands out. First, Obama offers the first faith testimony I have heard from any politician that speaks honestly about the uncertainties of belief. "Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts," Obama declared. "You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it."

By acknowledging the doubt factor, Obama strikes a profound note for tolerance. Each individual will resolve the existential issue of faith in their own fashion. Some people will not undertake the exhausting wrestling match with the absolute at all. That is their right and an existential choice worthy of respect. In matters of the spirit, one size emphatically does not fit all. We should expect to come to different judgments, even within ourselves at different times of our own lives. We should expect to have these discussions, because they are discussions of nothing less than what it means to be human. But Obama doesn't stop there, he offers us the benefit of his own experience--rich with the depths of the vibrant African American tradition of a prophetic and personal faith that has known struggle.

I certainly can't speak for Sen. Obama, but for myself, I would ask Tony Jones to consider a fourth response to pluralism: a pragmatic theology that accepts without question and with respect our own inability to ever comprehend God, and an absolute acceptance of the freedom of every individual to choose to believe or not believe. The choice to believe or not is profoundly personal...The way forward is not with ideological and strident voices such as Mr. Dawkins, but rather with the tolerant pragamtists such as the great William James--who respected and studied the human Will to Believe, or to choose not to believe.

As I wrote here, Overcoming Religious Polarization: A Pragmatic Theological Approach A very interesting recent effort to reconcile Christian tradition and religious diversity was found in the book, “The Wide, Wide Circle of Divine Love: A Biblical Case for Religious Diversity” by W. Eugene March. March acknowledges the claim of a Christocentric theology, but does not find it to be in contradiction to a loving regard for those outside the faith. “Jesus is, for Christians, undoubtedly the most profound moment in God’s story with the human family. What Jesus teaches over and over again is to recognize the depth of God’s grace and the ever so wide circle of God’s love.” March argues that the Bible itself contradicts “the narrow, supersessionist interpretation that God is concerned only with the chosen people, whether Jews or Christians”

March notes that from Genesis 12-- the story of Abraham and Sarah-- that the Bible supports the idea that “all the families of the earth will be blessed.” March explores this and other texts from throughout the Biblical canon to argue that God’s love is not intended for only a select portion of the human community, but all the families of the earth, whether Gentile or Jew, Christian or non-Christian. He argues that all faiths have aspects of their canon that can enhance dialogue and others that are conversation stoppers (to use Rorty’s term). He advocates using the former, what he calls the “generous texts” as a basis for discussion and renewed understanding both within Christianity and in our conversations with people of other and no faith traditions.

Another well-known way out of the box of an overwhelming and limiting orthodoxy was expressed by Abraham Joshua Heschel. One of his most important ideas was his conviction that it is God who is searching out humankind, rather than the other way around. This paradigm shift presents us with the essential question answered by the Bible: What Does God Demand of Us? The liberal and ecumenist Catholic theologian Hans Kung has identified three broad approaches to God in the work of Heschel. First “is the way of sensing the presence of God in the world, in things. The second is the way of sensing His presence in the Bible. The third is the way of sensing his presence in sacred deeds” that is to say in the Commandments.” Obviously, such a theological approach would allow us to look beyond our objections to the religion of the other—whether within or outside our own tradition—to undertake an effort at understanding how God is present or absent in each of these three approaches.

Hans Kung’s own work recognizes the importance of an awareness of other faith traditions to arrive at a better understanding of one’s own path through a thoughtful effort to understand the way of others. In his masterpiece On Being a Christian, Kung wrote passionately of the need for a dialogue and dialectic between the faith traditions. This does not have to lead to some watered down New Age World Religion, but rather, an understanding of the “unique but not exclusive” value of each faith.

As we wrote here: Hans Kung has gone from being a great Catholic Theologian to being perhaps the preeminent World Theologian. He has spent some of his most productive years devoting himself to understanding and writing about other traditions. The index to his book On Being a Christian has half a page devoted to Islam and more than that for Buddhism. He suggests what Christians might learn from these faiths to enrich their own experience of being a Christian. As in this passage: "Christianity could correct its all-too anthropomorphic ideas of God the Father in the light of the reverent more or less transpersonal understanding of God on the part of the Asian religions: an understanding which made a lasting impression on Goethe, German Idealism, Schopenhauer, Jung, Huxley and Hesse-and rightly so." OBC, p.113

The next major work he undertook was his book on Judaism: Between Yesterday and Tomorrow. His ecumenical vision and study is informed by his conviction that the world's religious traditions need to be involved in a dialogue and even a transformational dialectic with each other as well as with human history. All of this while remaining a deeply committed Christian.

So that's my view in a nutshell:

1.) I believe with William James that religious preference and practice or (lack thereof) is a profoundly personal choice and entitled to respect (a priori).

2.) I believe (with Michel Foucualt?) that members of a dominant religious culture should not engage in demeaning comments questioning or ridiculing the members of a less dominant religious culture, and that to do so is inherently a form of cultural bullying.

3.) Most importantly, I believe with Rabbi Heschel that God is much larger than the human understanding of God, and that it is God who is seeking us out rather than our seeking God through a particular pathway to God.

(Aside: this is also what bugged me about the name of the Jim Wallis book and blog, God's Politics. (Faithful Progressive doesn't think that anyone can speak directly for God. We think the real title of the Wallis book is really more like The Evangelical Christian Bible's Politics. We believe that God is ultimately mysterious--"where certainty ends religion begins," William James, I think, once said.)

4.) I believe with Hans Kung that much good can come from interfaith dialogue and that far from watering down things to a universalist strain, that such discussion (when focused not on superficial differences) can deepen our understanding of our choices and possibilities.

5.) I believe with W. Eugene March in using our "generous texts" (rather than our harsh or judgmental ones) to find the best in ourselves and in each other.

6.) I believe Ryan Beiler of Sojourners fairly summed up this whole discussion: "While I still think it's inaccurate to call Tony's comments "mockery," insensitivity may be the fairest criticism. I get the sense that between the two of us, he'd rather err on the side of candid inquiry, and I'd rather err on the side of sensitivity. He's volunteered to grow a thicker skin for these conversations - I'm just not sure it's always fair to ask that of the minority in any given situation. But above all, I believe we both want to strike a balance between honesty and sensitivity while walking the tightrope of true dialogue."

7.) I believe I've said enough and I thank Tony Jones for his reply.