Three types of religion

When we start to consider 'world-views' we can be met immediately with the falsehood that "all religions are the same"

 

Clouser in "The Myth of Religious Neutrality" goes a way to identifying how this is an inadequate analysis, even at the most superficial level, but Westphal is even more helpful. 

Westphal presents an interesting taxonomy of religions in his book "God, Guild and Death"  that shows that they very much are not, on their own terms, the same as each other.

Mr AI summarizes it below

"AI Overview              

In his book God, Guilt, and Death, philosopher Merold Westphal categorizes religious sensibilities into three main classes to explain human responses to finitude: exilic, mimetic, and covenantal religion. These are structural classes of religious thought rather than rigid historical traditions.

1. Exilic Religion

Core View: Takes life in the material world to be an exile from the soul's true home.

Salvation: The process of returning to that spiritual home.

Key Focus: The divide between the transcendent/spiritual and the physical world, often viewing the latter as fallen or a place of alienation.

2. Mimetic Religion

Core View: Views life as normatively controlled by a right, harmonious relationship with nature.

Salvation: Achieved by rehearsing or participating in the origins and depths of nature, often guided by myth and ritual.

Key Focus: Cosmic order, cyclical time, and living in accordance with the rhythms of the natural universe.

3. Covenantal Religion

Core View: Adds a historical dimension to the cosmological focus of mimetic religion.

Salvation: Finds ultimate meaning in historical interactions between the divine and humanity, giving specific historical context to human guilt, death, and redemption.

Key Focus: Time as linear, historical responsibility, and moral obligations to a personal, active deity.

While Westphal uses these three categories to describe the phenomenology of religion, he also famously explored the Phenomenology of religion broadly, and examined how modern critiques of religion can function as a tool for Religious Belief.

If you are exploring Westphal's work, I [Mr AI] can:

Detail how these categories apply to specific traditions (e.g., how Christianity blends these elements).

Summarize his concepts of faith and reason.

Provide an overview of his views on the hermeneutics of suspicion (Marx, Nietzsche, Freud).

Let me know which of these you'd like to focus on! " [end of AI]

Some people are faced with contention about the 'rightness' of seeking to persuade others to change religion.

Two thoughts on this:

Firstly it raises an interesting question of moral epistemology and the possible source of 'rights' along with the basis for any ethical or moral judgement, because those who would reprimand for proselytizing are themselves seeking to impose their 'religious' belief on us!

Secondly, we typically have initial evangelistic conversations that 1. seek to understand the other's belief system, and 2. seek  to explain ours. No push to 'convert at all"

Greg Koukl has two excellent books on this: "Tactics" and "Street Smarts".

On covenantal religions.

The three main ones are often said to be Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There are others of course but very small. Perhaps Zoroastrianism, for example.

Islam is interesting in this category as its conception of Allah ("the god") has mimetic characteristics.

 

Allah seems to be contained in the cosmos, has physical characteristics and seems to be physically localized. His "word" seems also to be both "Isa" (the Islamic misnamed distortion of Yeshua) and the 'eternal Quran', which itself is eternally physical on tablets in 'heaven'. This latter is strange given its occasionalist references, historical errors, physical mistakes and inclusion of late Christian pseudepigraphica.

Why only 1 way?

At my youth group (attendee only) back last century (I love saying that), one of the other attendees asked why Jesus was the only way.She had become quite upset at the exclusivity as she perceived it that this claim seemed to entail.

All I can recall of the answer was a repetition of the relevant scriptural passage, with no further discussion, and much frustration and bemusement all around.

In later years the obvious answer has come to mind and one that reaches back into the scriptural framing of reality: Jesus, is the creator.

 

He is the "reference point" for all that exists and the integration point for we who are alienated from our creator, which alienation only he is able to overcome by giving us new life.

Nothing and no one from within the creation can resolve its final dilemma of estrangement (Romans 8:19ff), only one from without the creation.

Who do we follow?

In a Christian gathering we often declare our allegiance, our vision and our commitment in some formal manner to commence our time together (some people call this a "service"; perhaps because we serve each other as per 1 Cor 14, although gathering/assembly/meeting are perhaps better words).

We might do this in the words of the Apostles Creed, a passage of scripture, or prayer.

My favourite scripture passage is (from the Morning Prayer format):

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us: but if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 St. John 1.8-9. 

Of late some Christian gatherings start with intoning an 'acknowledgement of country'. Sometimes this is given an attempt of a buffer, packaging it with some Christian niceties. But this is false as we would not do the package if we weren't really doing the AoC.

In case you don't know, an AoC is intended to 'acknowledge' Aboriginal presence on this island prior to the arrival of multi-cultural refugees from Britain in 1776 or so. Noting this is already well done and honoured in endless adoption of Aboriginal place names across Australia.

The AoC itself is a type of ceremonial paean derived from one invented in the 1970s by an Australian Aboriginal entertainer, Ernie Dingo (BTW a very good entertainer!) at the behest of, I think, of a Maori group who did historically have such a greeting.

So what does recital of these words imply when done in some association with a Christian gathering of any type, in a church publication (newsletter, website, letter) or sign?

As one of my bosses told me many years ago (she was CEO of a professional society) when a board member wanted to do something similar. The boss lady supported my rejection of the idea because "we do not split our brand". That is, we do not represent ourselves as anything but ourselves. We do not confuse our market as to who we are. No offense implied or intended, but we are who we are, not someone else.

Aside from her commercial 'nose' and loyalty to the organization, she could see the diffusion of our allegiance to our mission being implied by acquiescing to the request.

Now, what happens in a church context?

Same thing: we 'split our brand'. No longer do we meet to edify one another in the Spirit, we also meet to 'acknowledge' on political (perhaps on faux or real or misplaced compassionate grounds) a formal non-Christian, indeed pagan belief structure with practices as diachronically ungodly as the Western heritage is.

Do we acknowledge the Ancient Greeks or Romans? Caesar, even Constantine? No. What about Boadicea, Nero, or Scipio Africanus? No. These would be completely incongruent with our faith.

It also degrades implicitly the faith of Aboriginal Christians as we overturn Paul's teaching in Galatians 3:28. All of a sudden there is 'Jew and Greek'! We have injured in our words the unity of the body of Christ. We have said we meet for other than our Christian mission of making disciples. We have confused our message in our now split brand, mixed our allegiance and denied our Lord. Instead of inviting the world in, we have asked to join it!

Let's stop doing it and get some backbone when questioned. We are no longer of this world: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Christians, we are all "in Christ". Thanks be to our Lord and Saviour.

  

Conversations

In almost every congregation I've been part of, after the formal session we have coffee and buns, or similar (rarely lunch, because the NT congregational practice ain't for we moderns, it seems) and chat with each other.

Almost never have I experienced a theological or other serious topic arising in conversation.

Now when I've been in other groups: a political party, a couple of community volunteer groups, board member of a charity, even in professional contexts, the conversation is always concentrated on the activity of the group. Never idle chit-chat!

Why is this so?

Now, even at church board meetings and the like, we chat on topic!

On the up-side, maybe its because we are in some way sharing our every-day-ness with each other, like with your pals in the school playground.

Maybe its because the talk we've heard is so far from relevance to our lives there's nothing to connect with. Maybe the talk is a mere 'set-piece' like a grooms speech at the wedding breakfast (that's at the reception) and no further comment called for or even possible...

I've tried on a few occasions recently by hanging back with my own 'news' and asking what people thought of the talk, or the whole session. That usually gets platitudes (because mostly people forget the talk the instant they walk out of the auditorium).

From time to time there are real meaty conversations; but, so so rare.

Is this a mark of a deeper problem? 

Then there's the newbie.

I've been a newbie at a church gathering. I've also been on the other side.

Questions I've dealt with include:

Are you new here?

I haven't seen you here before.

Are you a Christian?

But NEVER have I heard (so this is what I say): "Hello, I don't think we've met, my name is " 'Watcher' "...then a follow up, if I need it is "What brought you here?"

This starts a real conversation, not one that requires admission that you are a newbie. Plenty of people volunteer that, but the question requires no explanatory response.

Another follow up could be "What are your thoughts about the event we've just experienced/the talk they guy/girl gave/what this crowd (or we) believes...? 

 

 

The sermon spot

If we must have the rhetorical set-piece known as 'the sermon' at least let's make it useful!

For instance, the speaker comes across Colossians 1:14 - "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." referring to Yeshua.

I heard of one speaker who did explain that "firstborn" referred to primogeniture.

 

Primogeniture is a historical system of inheritance where the firstborn legitimate child inherits the entirety of their parents' estate, titles, or royal succession, typically prioritizing the eldest son. It was designed to keep large estates and political power intact, though it has been largely abolished in modern societies in favor of equal division.

The guy did briefly mention this, and that it was a counter to Arians who claim that Yeshua is not divine.

But, how is it a counter? How does the creator-son inherit what he has created? Doesn't he 'own' it already?

 

Well, no. Satan is the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2) -- the one who sought to tempt Y to prostrate before him to gain the world, to inherit it as it were (Matthew 4:1 ff).

 

Y as firstborn to inherit must be placed in the great arc of redemption: Creation-Christ-New Creation.

 

Creator - The creation fallen under the influence of Satan - Christ defeats the consequence of the fall at the cross - Christ brings the New Creation and now 'inherits' it for all eternity! No more satanic influence. 

The Problem of Evil Solved!

My letter to a speaker in our Sunday congregation, recently.

To Jimbo: 

I've heard that the most common asserted objection to Christian faith specifically, or Christian theism more generally, is the so-called "problem of evil".

I think Luke 13:1-5, which you were able to touch on in your sermon last Sunday, deals with this in "nail hit on head" fashion.

There are several Christian responses to the PoE, but most seem to be sought within the framing of the objector, which is typically in terms of some form of quasi-Aristotelian fantasy 'god as fairy god-father' figure.

This 'god' is characterized in a trio of metaphysical absolutes: omniscient, omnibenevolent , omnipotent, construed in homo-benevolent fashion (that's the fairy god-father piece). That is 'god has to do right by me on my terms'.

The abstractions that underlay this almost narcissistic view fail at the starting line because God reveals himself to us not in static absolutes, as the ancient Greek philosophers were inclined towards, but in terms of interaction ("I am who I am: Ex 3:14). Don't worry, this is not a take on 'process theology'; what I refer to is God's action in history in relation to us on the grand arc of salvation from Creation, through Christ to New Creation.

Outside this framing we are diverted to the 'god has to be nice to me' game. This is agnostic of the nature of God, man and the creation set out in the creation account (Genesis 1-3:8a), the fall, and God's resolving action to 'over-rectify' the fall (not that we know the possible path of history absent a fall).

By 'over-rectify' I mean that those in Christ are now destined not back to Adam's state, but to be adopted into Yahweh's family!! So, the problem's typical framing relies on the 'god of my invention' and not the Creator God of revelation!

God's rectification of the Fall's result comes by way of the Messiah intervening in this corrupt world--of our own making--to not scrap the world, and us, but to start again (part of the theology of the flood in contra-positive fashion). Nor will he accept who we are in our 'God-repudiating' state, ethically free individuals (part of our 'imageness-now-marred' nature), about whom the place of our congress with God has fallen with we its stewards (Romans 8:22).

Against this, God has sought to renew us within that fallen world with the fall-ness of the world itself exhibiting its state to we who share that state...as its stewards. The two are inseparable. And here we can respond to the horror show of the fall by either loving it or rejecting it in repentance, or die fixed in it (as Yeshua points out in the Luke passage). Thus we are born from above upon repentance and belief as the first phase of the great rectification his kingdom will bring. The first act of grace to us to counter the fall.

As those in God's image-marred (that is, everyone) we detect the uncongeniality of much that goes on in our world and ourselves, while unable to do much about it at cause, while, by God's grace we do have some ability to ameliorate the signs of fall, as history shows.

Nevertheless, we need Christ's 'rescue' to give us new life, the life of his kingdom, not our fallen world.

In short the fallen cosmos, full of 'not-god-ness' is constantly telling us all is not right (our 'not right' detector is still working), and while the creation bears witness to God, more so does Christ who brings the promise of his kingdom and the actuality of new life. Nevertheless while in this fallen cosmos we still suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (Hamlet), yet with hope!

This is the work, not of the 'fairy god-father god' but the God who loves, saves and restores while 'respecting' our choice in the creation made for us to know God in.

BTW, to Mr Atheist: how does rejecting God solve actual evil? It seems all you are left with is mute, uncomprehending despair with no out but the hope of oblivion. Yet for some reason you don't gallop to that end, you avoid it! Why?

 

How to teach apologetics.

This morning at the old ecclesiarium, the paid guy's talk was on Luke 13, among other things.

It was all OK as far as it went, but it didn't go far enough with a massive missed opportunity.

The passage that caught my thoughts was vss. 1-5, about the WHS disaster at Siloam where a tower collapsed killing 18 men.

The issue of the importance of repentance was picked up (oddly, as the congregation does have a Calvinistic tinge, alas) but the opportunity for a bit if apologetic training was missed. And every opportunity should  be taken to at least give people the means of fruitful discussion with others.

One of the most difficult (for most) questions non-believers put to Christians is the 'problem' of suffering in a world with a loving God. Of course most people here conceive god as a sort of fairy-godfather who should be nice to us then just get out of the way.

Yeshua puts his finger on the point: repent.

Our experience of a world where we have betrayed our imageness and turned our backs to God is a world in a spiral of death makes a point. It is not 'natural'. It is discordant with what we hope and how it should be.  So 'evil' (or for the godless 'inconvenience') is the great alarm bell that there is a cosmic fire in our world and we'd better act fast.

This is not 'condition normal' it is 'condition red -- emergency' and the only way out is to re-engage with the Creator by repentance to him (and for we post resurrection folks) belief in Christ.

Belief here means entire commitment!

God has acted and offered us the way out of this mess in the world he made for us to reflect his love in, but don't. Yet it remains our world which will be replaced by the New Creation populated by those who want out (or 'in') and are 'in Christ'.

Nothing else matters (apart from caring for the sick, the poor and the damaged, being kind and humble).

So, Yeshua is the solution of the massive and terminal 'problem' we experience. If we didn't experience it, how would we know there was a problem?

After explaining this in a kind discussion, with lots of questions. it might be apposite to ask the nonbeliever if their non-belief offers a better solution. Probably not.