www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenism, Diversity, and Political Correctness

In terms of absolute basics, both the Pope and the Council(s) are irrelevant. It is Christ and Christ alone who guides us.

He said: "love your neighbor as you love yourself." There are no footnotes; no qualifications; no exceptions.

What's the big deal?

Blessings!

That's the million dollar quesiton, "What's the big deal?"

Well I will tell you what it is for me.

The Big Deal is that to love my neighbor as myself means that I care for the state of their soul and salvation, does it not?

Now if someone is following a lie, something that will lead them to Hell, isn't it, out of that Love you speak about, my job to help them see this and try to direct them to the Truth?

Right now, I see the ecumenical/interfaith dialogue as only dealing with what is similar between the groups. It is my opinion that it is the differences that matter, not the similarities.

John 14:1-6
1 "Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. 2In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4And where I go you know, and the way you know."
5Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?"
6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.


Doesn't this say it all?

David

David,

It is true no one enters the kingdom except through Christ. Yet who Christ welcomes is up to Christ alone. We have the mandate to take the Gospel to ends of the earth and can never cease to proclaim Jesus is the Christ. However, in ecumenical and interfaith dialogue I think it best to look at the truths we share with others and build a relationship with them and preach the Gospel through our actions. I believe we have a better chance of convincing non-Christians of the truth of the Gospel if they see us do what is righteous for Christ's sake rather than simply preach from the roof tops at them about their error.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'" (Mathhew 7:21-23)

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25:31-46)

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

[ 12-24-2001: Message edited by: Lance ]

I believe that our brothers Robert, Steven and Lance have demonstrated a great deal of reflection, prayer study in their posts.

The primary focus must be on the Gospel mandate. The Lord told us to "love God" and also to "love our neighbors as ourselves" -- no exclusions, no footnotes.

The issue is not our ability to judge who is following the Gospel or who calls "Lord! Lord!" In this case we are the servants -- we don't make the decisions. The Lord does that. We just have to love our neighbors, even to the point of being "used" or "abused". That's our lot. Can we make judgements about others. No. Can we use scriptures to make sure that the sinners 'get their due'? No. It's Christ's call; not ours. When we try to make sure that we defend ourselves and our legitimacy by defining others as 'outside', then we've fallen outside the pale of the Gospel. That's a Gospel "no-no".

Brother David asks: "

The Big Deal is that to love my neighbor as myself means that I care for the state of their soul and salvation, does it not?

Now if someone is following a lie, something that will lead them to Hell, isn't it, out of that Love you speak about, my job to help them see this and try to direct them to the Truth?"

Actually it is our job to "model" the life of love of God and love of neighbor that Christ taught us. There cannot be ANY aspect of judgement on our parts -- it is forbidden to us.
Why? Because the Holy Spirit is a reality; and what the Holy Spirit does is independent of our ability to discern and 'judge'. The Lord God works out His will in ways that are His. We are obliged to butt out. Just model. And be loving.

Can we be 'wise as foxes' to secure ourselves? Sure, but we must never be denigrating or condemnatory towards others to do so.

Blessings!

[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: Dr John ]

Again, I want to thank those who attempted to help clear the fog that surrounds this issue for me. Especially Alex, Serge, and Robert.

But, once again, it is disappointing that some of you chose to read into my question and that you chose to address that which you read into it rather than addressing my issue.

That being said, let me say this.

I agree with Alex and his comment on religious relativism, maybe it is because I am not keeping a close watch on such dialogue, but it appears that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is saying that any religion is ok, it doesn't really matter. They do this by focusing on the things that are similar.

I was involved with some dialogue with some muslims, it seems that the biggest sticking point with them, the rank and file muslims, about Catholicism is, as they put it, our Idolatry (statues and icons), the Divine Christ, and the fact that Islam teaches that the Bible is not the original Word of God.

They teach that Christ was nothing more than a prophet. They also teach that the Word of God that was handed down through the Jews and Jesus has been corrupted by man to say what we want and that the Bible is this corrupted work and is not the Word of God any longer.

If we just focus on what we share in common, then the things we have that are different will never be corrected.


Christ is Born!
David

With all due respect, I think that there are many ways that we can fulfill the Gospel without 'judging' others. Evangelization is a Gospel-required activity. Christ Himself instructs the Apostles very specifically to go forth and make disciples of all nations, by *baptizing* them in the name of the Trinity -- ie, the specific reference that Christ makes is to that of religious conversion of others -- He wills it, He instructs the apostles to do it. Christ also made very clear to all whom He met on earth that there was a clear choice to be made: believe in Him and be saved, or not. Christ dialogued with everyone, and opened the possibility to everyone to believe in Him -- but was not relativistic about their beliefs. The discussion with the Samaritan woman by the Well is quite illustrative of this, in my own view. But Christ also bore no illusions about the success of such evangelization efforts, specifically instructing his disciples, again, to shake the dust from their feet of any town that rejects them -- a kind of directive that probably doesn't pass the test of early 21st Century Chrristian sensibilities as has been stated here and elsewhere, but one which nevertheless was the directive of the Lord.

I think that the Gospel is quite illustrative about ecumenism, evangelization and the spirit in which they should be conducted. We are, like Christ, to be open to everyone (ie, we shouldn't shrink from dialogue with anyone), but at the same time we are to be firm about the demands made by Christ, about their exclusivity. Christ never said to anyone "well, that's interesting what you believe, it;s actually very close to what you should believe, so maybe in time you'll believe what you should believe and maybe I should focus on the similarities" -- he simply offered them a choice -- believe in Him or not -- a choice offered in the spirit of love and respect for human free will, not of judgment in itself. This is the spirit in which evangelization (which is basically ecumenism with non-Christian religions) should be conducted, following the example of Christ.

We are clearly not to *judge* those who reject Christ, in an eternal sense, for we can't say with any certainty what will happen to them in God's mercy. At the same time, we very much can judge the nature of their beliefs in terms of their consistency or inconsistency with the Gospel. Using the prohibition against "judging others" as a means to justify an extremely relativistic worldview is misplaced, in my opinion.

Having said all of that, we are also to act as an example of what Christianity is about -- as Christ Himself did as well -- otherwise the Christian message is to fall on deaf ears and the charges of hypocrisy can scandalously ring truer than they ought to.

All of this goes together -- charity and Christian love toward all, coupled with offering those who do not believe in Christ a true choice -- not a relative one, or a mealy-mouthed one, but a frank and honest one, as Christ Himself does in the Gospel -- and, when rejected, moving on to the next, not judging the eternal fate of the person who rejected Christ, but not affirming them in their non-Christian beliefs, either.

I think that the Roman Catholics are taking a two-pronged approach, as they sometimes do. On the one hand, the *official* documents are quite clear that the RCC believes that Christianity is required for salvation -- "Dominus Iesus" affirms this in clear terms. On the other hand, there are various ecumenical initiatives taken with non-Christian religions that, at times, can suggest somewhat more of a relativist view. Coupled with the constant media harping about how Islam and Christianity are similar, about how we all worship the one same God, etc, this can result in a good many folks who have neither the interest nor the firepower to slough through "Dominus Iesus" or the Vatican II documents to be quite misled by these actions. It is true that part of the way we can preach the Gospel to the Muslims is by acts of love and charity -- but the other part -- actually preaching that Christ is required for salvation -- cannot be overlooked either, and particularly not in the context of a fruitless search for commonalities that will only lead to muddying Christianity's claim for exclusivity, made first by Christ Himself. Again, follow the example of Christ -- practice charity, and preach salvation in Christ -- not one without the other.

Brendan

Brendan,
Your words are made of gold. I couldn't have said it better. I am going to nominate you as the "Man of the Year" here in the Byzantine Forum.
Would anyone care to vote for Brendan?

C Roshdectvom Xristov'm,

I must also agree with Brendan. We must be careful not to go too far to try and be theologicaly PC. There are limits to everything but God.

Dmitri

I agree with you that the deep and wide theological differences that separate Christians and Muslims cannot be ignored. They certainly cannot be compromised since that would destroy the essence of each faith and that would be intolerable.

It is Paradise to idealistically ignore the fact, but, as much as I hate to admit it, Christians and Muslims are actively engaged in spiritual "jihad" and will continue to be until the Day of Judgement, when Allah will reveal all.

Inshallah, I pray that on humanitarian issues we will be able to cooperate and be Allah's mercy in an oftentimes merciless world. Hamduallah for trans-religious organizations, such as the UN.

Abdur

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Abdur Islamovic ]

This does not address my question. You claim that God has not been seen. Either you do not know the faith very well or you are pointing toward something that is not quite clear. If you do not wish to answer my question that's alright, but don't be dismissive. It's not appreciated!

Dan Lauffer

"Oh Please! The Pope relies on faith that Pope Clement actually lived and was really a Pope. Somebody could have forged documents in 300 AD that claim they where written in 100 AD. Basically, we must trust somebody some where in the chain. This all boils down to faith. If we had HARD physical evidence for the Church then there would not be any other religions. (The closest thing the church has was the shroud which Carbon 14 dates to the middle ages.)

Don't turn this arguement into something it is not please..."

:rolleyes:

[ 12-27-2001: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

K.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Hello:

Just a few thoughts on this thread.

The Pope, faithful to the Holy Tradition of the Catholic Church, has always stated that authentic Catholic Ecumenical and Interfaith dialogue will never compromise Truth by assuming the relativistic "I'm OK, you're OK" positions that some, incorrectly, assume.

While Ecumenical dialogue has the ultimate goal of working towards Christian Unity, Interfaith dialoge, by its very nature, cannot have this same ultimate goal. By sharing our Truth with those who do not subscribe to it, we are in fact preaching the Gospel from a standpoint of humility and charity.

Telling others that they are going to hell unless they become Catholic is not the current way the Catholic Church preaches the Gospel. Throughout history this way has proven to be somewhat effective to increase the number of baptisms, but terribly ineffective to produce authentic conversion to the message of the Gospel.

And it might be not entirely accurate since, as "Dominus Iesus" clearly states, the exclusivity of Salvation is of the Lord through His Church, not of the Church in and of itself. Institutional membership in the Catholic Church is not a guarantee of salvation and not being an official member of the Catholic Church is not a guarantee of damnation. The Church is the means of salvation, not the source nor the end.

Interfaith dialogue with Jews and Muslims can be more intense, since all three religions claim to worship "The God of Abraham", so we are bound to have at least some common ground that we do not share with Hinduism, Budhism, and other religious systems.

Interfaith dialogue is not intented as a pointless babling about our different theologies, but rather as a means to find better ways to live together, even with our differences; to find better ways to work together in benefit of those who need our help.

And ultimately, isn't this what the Final Judgement is all about, what we DO for others? Of course our faith is important, because what we BELIEVE is the motivation of what we DO, but isn't it true that even if we cannot agree in what we BELIEVE, having an agreement in what we can DO TOGETHER is in and of itself an important thing?

Dismissing Islam as a bunch of lies is terribly unfair, and probably untrue. Islam was a great progress for the Arabs who, before Islam were politeistic. Islam united the Arab nations and promoted the formation of a Culture that brought about progress in many fields of the sciences and the arts, many of which are pillars to our modern society.

We have to give up our fears of Islam. We have to understand that the "Islamic" terrorists are to Islam more or less what the Ku-Klux-Klan is to Christianity.

I would never say that Islam is the Truth, but I think it is better than many other religious systems that are fashionable these days. I don't believe that the Q'ran is the inspired Word of God, but I do think that God might prefer to have people reading the Q'ran than, say, watching HBO.

Shalom,
Memo.

Amen! Amen! Amen!

Kurt

Memo,
Hear my thoughts,
Generally speaking the Roman Catholic Church tends to speak from the two sides of her lips. It desires to be humble and charitable but on the other hand historically that has not always been the case. Charitable does not mean kissing the Quran and fasting one day of Ramadan. IMO, the big issue I see within the Roman Church is dealing and accepting relativism in relations with various faiths. There is no need for me to bring up uniatism since you brought up Islam. I'll give you some observed corrections to what you said.

Generally speaking Islam is a bunch of lies. It's obvious you have never studied its foundation, its way of life, and various perceptions. Do you know any Arabic or have lived in the midst of the Muslims in the Middle East & Islamic nations? Islam is not some sort of great advance by the Arabs excluding the sciences that were later to come forth. It developed based on syncretism of various religious and cultural models before it. Most of the Arabs prior to Islam were Christians. Then we have Arab Jews and pagans. To keep reiterating that the Arabs were pagans prior to Islam is the same nonsense that Muslims apologists keeping using to deny the roots of Arab Christianity. Christian Arabs were a vital force prior to Islam and afterwards. Most of the Christians Arabs, sad to say, converted to Islam due to fear and avoiding paying dhimmi taxes. The Byzantine Empire lost & weakened her control of the Arab Christian tribes. Muslim apologists tend to place the Arab Christians and pagans in the same category as Dar al-Harb(house of war).
The Islamic fear factor is a real menace to be dealt with. Not because of the Sept. 11 incident because its history speaks for herself. The West has not also been charitable in her history towards Islam.
I do encourage anyone interested in Islam to learn Arabic, read the Quran & Hadiths. However, don't be surprised to be reading about the HBO in the hadiths when it speaks of Paradise.

Anyone interested in reading about Arab Christianity, please refer to Irfan Shahid who is a well-known respected scholar from Georgetown University. His books are "Byzantium and the Arabs in the 4th", 5th", and 6th" Century".

Rummy,


Sort of like persons who claim to be true Orthodox but participate in relativist, ecumencial forums like this one?

K.