Religious Relativism
Consider this part two of my writings on Religious Dynamism.
Last night , the Harding University Honors College hosted the L.C. Sears Seminar Series at the American Heritage Auditorium. This year’s event was entitled: “Islam in America: A Dialogue in Faith” and features a discussion between Dr. Monte Cox, Associate Dean of the Harding’s College of Bible and Religion and Dr. Nabil Bayakly of Memphis, Tennessee (for more information read here).
The one thing that struck me as interesting was the stark difference in the demeanor of Dr. Bayakly, an American Muslim, and that of, say, an Arab Muslim. Dr. Bayakly is notably a very “American” person. He talks openly of his American virtues in tolerance, democracy, and politics. To me, this illustrated the cultural gap between two different societies, or to put it in Huntington language, the differences across the “civilization fault line.”
This observation is something I see as religious relativism. That is the relative nature of one’s religious doctrine to where one lives and interacts. This may seem obvious to most, but I think its often overlooked, downplayed, or ignored.
Take for instance, the American Islamic faith vis-a-vis Middle Eastern Islamic faith. The American Islamic faith, as represented by Dr. Bayakly, is tolerant, democratic, existentialist, and supportive of a pluralist society. Dr. Bayakly was insistent on the power of American nationalism to reconcile the cross-religious divide between Christianity and Islam. He was, as I observed, a reform-Muslim, he even showed the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed (of course as an example of religious disrespect).
On the other side of the “civilization fault line” we have someone like Moqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr, the leader of the Mahdi Army, represents the fatalistic nature of Islam in the Middle East (to a certain extent), intolerance of other beliefs, and the autocratic nature of Middle Eastern Islam — a stark contrast to the open-minded Bayakly.
The point is that these two different approaches to Islam are determined by societal and political factors relative to geopolitical realities. In America we are built upon equality, toleration, and religious freedom. The Middle East is built upon “caliphate” philosophy of autocratic regimes, intolerance, and general hostility to outside influences.
Religions are relative to the societies in which they live and breathe. The sooner Americans realize this the better off we are as a tolerant society.
This is why it is very difficult to make sweeping statements of any kinds. “Islam is a religion on peace.” “Christianity is a religion of love.”
Maybe. Sometimes. Depends on where you are.
In truth, religion is just an imperfect, institutionalized set of beliefs and practices that is highly adapted to an individual society. That doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as religious/moral principles and ideas; just that it is difficult to separate the timeless, intrinsic nature of any religion from how it is practiced in real life.
“just that it is difficult to separate the timeless, intrinsic nature of any religion from how it is practiced in real life.“
I would say near impossible. The practices of a particular religion are inextricably linked to the societies in which they exist and the common beliefs of the people who practice the religion.
I would go as far to say that religion, at the nuanced level, is the product of humanities strive for principle and root understanding.
I would add that the Islamic faith was considered more tolerant of outsiders than the Christian faith in its inception. Yet, I don’t believe the Christian religion has changed since then. I don’t think you can define what Christianity is based on the mainstream currents of thought within the religion. I realize I’m applying a very non-secular bias to this but because I believe there is a timeless standard held by God, I don’t believe that a large population of religiously perverted people actually change the faith. I also realize that I’m not consistent in my standard here because I would define any other religion based on its mainstream currents of thought. Oh well. Really it comes down to believing one religion and not any other.
The implications of religious relativism never end. They lead to a place that I can’t justify biblically.
“The implications of religious relativism never end. They lead to a place that I can’t justify biblically.”
That’s sort of the point. And why must it be justified biblically? The bible itself is a product of religious relativism — its the manifestation, if you will. The New Testament is 1st Century AD Christianity. There’s no biblical writings accepted as canon from the 21st century.
“I believe there is a timeless standard held by God”
Like what? Women shouldn’t lead devotionals? Slavery is a justified practice? Fighting for the Holy Roman Empire is a get-in-to-heaven-free-ticket?
Right, I know that’s absurd and quite satirical, but it’s to prove my point. Quite honestly, Chris, you don’t see the influence that societies and political system have on religion? You know free-will is a very western ideal? Surely you are aware that many Middle Eastern Christians are Monophysites and Nestorians — they don’t believe in the trinity.
There’s a reason that Christianity is unpopular in Far East societies. Their cultures are founded on Confuscious beliefs, not Orthodox, not Catholic, and definitely not Protestant.
Don’t you think you’re being a bit culturally or religiously myopic by saying that a large population of people can’t alter the discourse of a faith?
By your last statement, you’re telling me something I’m arguing that I’m not. I find this trend over and over in our discussions.
Something about God saying “I never change” and Jesus saying “Heaven and Earth will pass away but my words will never pass away” make it hard for me to accept what you’re saying. You can’t argue what you’re arguing from what Jesus says. You have to take secular arguments.
I’m only saying that if I’m going to be a believer of the Bible, I can’t apply this secular reasoning to it.
Chris, do you obey every commandment of the Old Testament? Do you eat pork? Do you wear poly-cotton blends? Do you shave the hair on the corners of your head? Jesus also said that those who disobey the law of Moses and teach others to do the same would be last in his kingdom. That is one of teachings that will never pass away.
The words of the bible clearly say that you shouldn’t have milk and meat at the same meal, but I’m willing to bet you’ve had bacon with your milk at breakfast and will again at some point in you’re life. Chris, you apply a secular and modified standard to your practice of Christianity, but you refuse to acknowledge it.
The fact of the matter is that no religion is an absolute truth that is good for all people in all times
in all places. To believe otherwise is naivety at best and downright cultural imperialism at worst. If you believe in free will Chris, then you are in conflict with the first century Christians who largely were fatalistic and believed in predestination. You can say what you like, the fact remains that everything is relativistic.
Chris: “I don’t believe that a large population of religiously perverted people actually change the faith.“
Me: “Don’t you think you’re being a bit culturally or religiously myopic by saying that a large population of people can’t alter the discourse of a faith?“
Chris: “By your last statement, you’re telling me something I’m arguing that I’m not. I find this trend over and over in our discussions.“
Then, by all means, explain yourself.
Kyle, if you are a student at HU, I’m sure by now a Bible professor has tried to teach you that we are no longer bound by the Old Testament rules. Notice the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount – You have heard it said, but I say unto you. Notice the words of Paul in Colossians 2:14-17 where he says that Christ’s death on the cross took the old law out of the way. Jesus kept the old law while He lived but then removed it at His death. With Moses present in Matt. 17, God said listen to my Son. The words which will endure forever are also mentioned in I Peter 1:25 as being the gospel, not the law of Moses. The prohibitions you mentioned were a part of the OT Law and were not included in the New Testament of Christ. In Hebrews 7:12, there’s a change of priesthood, also a change of law. Read Hebrews 8 and see how the new covenant of Christ replaces the old covenant given through Moses. Hebrews 10:9, 10 shows that the old law has been removed. BTW, the gospel is for all people for all ages, contrary to your denial of this fact. Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8 and many other scriptures which show the universality of the gospel to all men for all time. We will be judged by the words of Christ, the gospel. John 12:48.
I advise you gentlemen to ignore terrsyj. He’s been hanging around my blog for a while now periodically haranguing me about my language and impiety and giving 1950s CoC style mini-sermons. Don’t let him sidetrack the conversation.
Kyle: I don’t know about “pass away” but it is true that society’s understanding of various statements and commandments changes over time.
Terrysj: That is an interesting theory that you have that we should completely ignore the OT. It is especially interesting because it seems to directly contradict what Jesus said when he talked about those changing the old law being “last in the kingdom.” I am not saying that your position is invalid, but it is ironically a perfect example of how religious interpretation is relative to culture and time. So thank you very much.
Steven: I think we might have been arguing different things. I certainly would agree with you that religions change their discourses over time. I thought that you were advocating that as a good thing, which you were not.
Kyle: If you can read, you would know that Jesus was not talking about upholding law. If you can contextualize, this should not be hard. Very very few people would take what Jesus said about the law of Moses to say that the law applies to us today the it did to the OT Hebrews.
Okay, so several centuries of Christians believed in fatalism. Does that mean they were right in their belief? Why does the changing nature of religious belief mean that religion cannot have absolute principles? Is love not something that should apply to everyone? Okay, so Christians don’t always act in love and sometimes do so in terrible ways. Surely that isn’t a reflection of the faith as a whole.
Cultural imperialism? So it is so terrible that we have people of all cultures admit that they need the grace of God and come to treat other people the way they would like to be treated. My goodness Kyle, how could we be such cruel oppressors?
Discussions like this make atheism so much easier.
I’ll second that, Kolby. One of the greatest things about openly identifying as an atheist was no longer having to participate in these sort of scriptural sausage-making sessions (except as a peanut-gallery commenter).
It’s pretty hard, for example, to use scripture to convince someone that God doesn’t really hate fags. Because it’s quite obvious that He really does hate fags.
The original intent of this post was to show the cultural differences in peoples of religion. It was also to show the dynamism and relativism of religion. The varied writings here are my cases-in-point.
The original intent of the post was fine (and accurate). It was the direction of the comments thread that drained my life force.
The comments to me were quite amusing and lent credibility to the basic tenets of post-modernism and relativism — both of which I ascribed to.
Also, I got to talking about this post with someone outside the blogosphere. They were incredulous to the idea that free will was a 17th century, capitalist influenced philosophy. ha.
You try to point out the relativist nature of religions using scripture and it certainly does help me reaffirm my atheism.
Chris the passage that I was referencing seems to say what I was implying. Don’t question my level of literacy. I have a Bible minor from Harding and have been force-feed the same crap as everyone else who went there. You seem to be arguing that Jesus’ words won’t pass away; except for Matthew 5:17-20.
Thank god I’m an atheist. (pun intended.)
Sorry Kyle. I will never question you again.
I’m glad you all feel better about being atheists. I would hate for you to live your lives with any doubts.
God bless arrogant religious belief.