Have you attended an inter-religious dialogue? I've often found myself in such events wherein some Smart Alec stands up and says, "We all must practise the golden rule - to treat others the way we want to be treated. We must not say our god is the only true god, and our religion is the only true religion".

Sounds all right, no?

But then, he goes on to say, "All are the same god. We just have different names for that one god, and we worship him in different ways". At this point, I see red flags waving all over my inter-religious dialogical sensibilities.

To insist that everyone's god is the same and that this god is just named differently and that we worship him differently is as ethnocentric and obstinate an insistence as that of the one who claims that his god is the only true god. Here are my two reasons why:

1. If all our gods were the same god, there wouldn't be a need for dialogue. Most pluralists I have met before seem to forget that part of an inter-religious dialogue is that of acknowledging that we are different, and that it is all right to be different in our convictions. Even if we wanted to rest purely on our commonalities, one main thing we have in common is that we have differences in our convictions! So for a dialogue partner to state his claim that all rivers flow into the same sea, and then to insist that everyone else has to embrace the same claim in order to bring about religious harmony, is as bad as someone who says he is Christian and thinks that everyone else should be Christian in exactly the same way that he is.

2. Not everyone in an inter-religious dialogue believes in a god! I know of at least one religion, in every inter-religious dialogue that I attend, which does not subscribe to the existence of an Almighty God. That religion speaks of itself as a way of life, a philosophy, a search to end human suffering by transcending beyond one's self, not of a god who brings salvation to his people. How dare anyone insist that everyone's god is the same to the exclusion of the religion that doesn't even subscribe to a godhead. What audacity to exercise such conceited ethnocentrism.

All rivers do not flow into the same sea. We are of different religions with different ways of articulating our understanding of the divine. And each religion, by its sheer nature, is exclusive in its claims to understanding the right path towards the divine. Whilst we each disagree with one another, that's okay; we can still honour one another's search for truth and purity. That's real dialogue.

Posted by SK at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Many people are quick to express disagreements about issues, doctrines, and opinions. The fact is, many don’t understand enough to have the right to agree or disagree. But still, they’re quick to assert the personal right to do so.

When we disagree simply because we do not understand enough – yet foolishly think that we already do – it’s a sheer manifestation of folly and self-deceit.

Of course, this inevitably brings in the question of dialogue. The initial phase of dialogue always involves listening and a search to understand a position with which we’re unfamiliar. More than that, we need to give ourselves the mental and emotional space to come to terms with the reality that such contrasting positions actually do exist, and that these positions form the moral and religious convictions of our neighbours. For as long as we still find ourselves in a state of shock, space must be created for our personal acceptance (not necessarily agreement!) of our neighbours’ positions.

When we are calm and rational, and are conscientiously sure that we have tried our utter best to understand the inner workings of our neighbours’ convictions, then we can begin formulating our agreements and disagreements, providing reasons for our positions.

In the process, we will also inevitably discover that convictions are not cold beliefs; they don’t exist in a vacuum. The believer with a conviction is a person with a personality, feelings, and a mind. He is respectable and worthy of dignity inasmuch as we ourselves are, regardless of what his beliefs may be. He is a child of the universe, like we are. Like us, he too is a believer – we just believe in different things. Even the skeptic is a believer in something.

Seek first to understand before jumping to conclusions of agreement or otherwise. Jumping to conclusions is jumping the gun. The next time we catch ourselves being too quick to express agreement or disagreement, be even quicker to ask ourselves, “Do I truly agree/disagree, or am I just exhibiting ignorant folly in thinking that I already know?”

Posted by SK at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

London, May. 7, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican's top ecumenical spokesman has posed a challenge to Anglican leaders, saying that the Anglican communion must decide whether it has more in common with the Catholic and Orthodox churches or the Protestant denominations.

[ Read more ]

Posted by SK at 12:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For as long as I've been involved in ecumenical dialogues - both interfaith and intrafaith - one issue I've been extremely concerned about has been the inclination for dialogue partners to remain at the comfortable level of superficial pleasantries and convenient alliances.

Beyond establishing friendship within such contexts of dialogue, I've often felt that authentic friendship also involves mutual searching for truth (however it is defined), together with mutual help rendered in one another's search. This is something I have, rightly or wrongly, observed to be largely absent in most dialogues.

I'm delighted to have come across Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran clarifying the following:

Interreligious dialogue is certainly a bridge-building exercise. […] It includes creating harmony in society, encouraging development of friendship and spirit of tolerance. But it goes beyond the niceties of polite conversation which encourages people to stay where they are and avoid talking about the grey areas of disagreement. It is a journey in search of the truth.

[ Read more ]

Posted by SK at 2:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In mid 2007, the Vatican released a document called Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.

The document described Christian Orthodox churches as true churches, but suffering from a “wound” since they do not recognise the primacy of the Pope. The text also refered to “ecclesial communities originating from the Reformation”, a term used to refer to Protestants and Anglicans, stating that in these denominations the wound is even "more profound”. It states:

Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of "Church" could possibly be attributed to them.

Is the Vatican therefore now withdrawing from its endeavours to seek unity with the rest of the Christian world? How should this document and the statements contained therein be construed by those who seek fellowship with the Catholic Church?

Topic:
Blessings Amidst Blunders... Catholic-Protestant Relations

Resident Instructor:
Revd Dr Jojo Fung

Invited Speaker:
Sherman Kuek

Venue:
Sacred Heart Cathedral,
Taman Sri Tebrau,
Johor Bahru, Malaysia

Date/Time:
01 April (Tuesday) @ 8 pm

Posted by SK at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In one of today's newspapers, the Vatican is reported to have defended the right to evangelise and to accept new converts (read here).

Let's face it: few of us ever bother to open our hearts to try and understand what others believe. We're afraid that in listening, we might be "bought over". That just shows how confident we are (not) in what we believe.

I think all of us need some evangelisation. Some of us are really good at evangelising others but become stiffly resistant towards others' evangelisation efforts, as if only our gospel is worth listening to. At a human level, I think if we want others to hear us out, we too should listen. Otherwise our gospel is no more than one that defies the right to human dignity.

But what if after listening to the gospel from over the other side, we discovered the poverty of our own gospel? Frightening thought, isn't it? Here's how I see it:

If we end up being "bought over" to a belief that we have reason to think is more credible than our previous convictions because we're now more informed about the issues surrounding our faith, what's wrong with that?

In response to the newspaper article, here's something good for our souls:

The purpose of this video is to help Protestant Christians and others develop a better understanding of the Roman Catholic Church, its history and basic beliefs by listening to Roman Catholics tell their own story.

Posted by SK at 3:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Listening is such a lost art, even in the Christian tradition. We have very devoutly spiritual Christians who happen to be brilliant theological minds, but who function like heresy hunters. At the slightest hint of some doctrines or belief that takes a marginal variance from their own, they don’t think twice about pointing it out. Not only do they point it out; they in fact point it out as if their view was superior and absolute in its validity.

Why can’t we meet someone who has a different theological position on some issues, and think to ourselves that perhaps this person has seen a perspective we’ve been missing? Or perhaps that this person actually does know more than us on something of that issue, and that we actually need to learn? What makes us often conclude so conveniently that our views are the absolute ones?

Are we afraid if we actually listened, that perhaps we might be obligated to yield our positions? Are we afraid to leave our views open to scrutiny for fear that our views might actually be proven wrong? Since when were we appointed to be guardians of doctrinal truths (well, truth in our view, at least) without the appointment of an ecumenical council?

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t share our views or state our position. I do that a lot; and I believe I’m doing just that right now. One stark example I can cite is a recent meeting I sat in last month consisting of various representatives from different Christian traditions, during which it was mentioned that “the Christian message is love”. I responded, hopefully gently, that in my tradition, the Christian message is not love. The Christian message is Jesus, who taught us to love. But Jesus and love cannot be mistaken to be the same entity. Our understanding of love is contingent upon who Jesus is, and our love cannot stand apart from him. God is love, but love is not God. The point is, part of the listening process also involves the sharing of our own positions and convictions, and that’s okay as long as it’s done with utmost respect.

I think we need to learn to listen to one another. I’ve grown up in a strictly Reformed tradition wherein black and white were thoroughly delineated (I’m not saying all Reformed people are like that – it’s just the background I grew up in). Over the years, I found myself opening up to a plethora of other voices, meeting people who might have had something to say from different perspectives, and discovering many areas of grey apart from the black and white through which I was taught to define my faith. As a result, my position on a number of issues has shifted; probably not changed all together, but nevertheless significantly shifted.

Of course, this puts me in great peril, because some people think I’m no longer “evangelical” (sigh, whatever that means anymore, really). Some say I’m liberal, and fortunately, yet others still say I’m evangelical (like on the occasion when I said that the Christian message is Jesus, someone stood up and commented that it seems I’m evangelical). And there have even been some who have called me a fundamentalist, actually! This just goes to show that different people develop different perceptions of one same object (in this case, me); and this further compounds the need to listen and to try to understand why and how these perceptions develop.

Yes, listening does that to a person. It ensures that our senses are not dulled to a world containing wisdom in various expressions. It ensures that we don’t become protectionistically elitist in our self-understanding. Many things in life are, after all, not as clearly cut and dry as we’d like them to be.

It’s very unlikely that I’m ever going to move away from my personal conviction that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and that no one goes to the Father except through him. It’s very unlikely that I’m ever going to shift from my understanding that Jesus is uniquely very man and very God. I’m always willing to strongly defend these beliefs (although not at the risk of misrepresenting the very God whose truth I seek to defend, which unfortunately happens a lot among some people I know).

But should that stop me from listening to what anyone else has to say, or put me in a defensive mode about what I believe in, or insulate my faith from public examination, I think it shows an insecurity in my own positions. I know this makes some of my brethren worried about me. To these who are concerned, please keep praying for me.

Thank you for listening.

Posted by SK at 9:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

An Email I Received Recently
Hi (Sherman),

I have some questions for you which need your response. Recently, my pastor shared with me about his struggle over a church member who was marrying a Muslim. He and other church members were invited to the wedding. He saw this as apostasy. The fact that the Christian girl had agreed to enter into union with a Muslim, it was an expression of her having renounced her Christian faith. So he decided not to go to their wedding and advised his church members who were invited not to go too. By going to their wedding, it would mean that they would be celebrating their union. Instead, he shared that we should mourn and pray as we had lost a sheep to a wolf. And he was disappointed with a missionary couple, who were close friends to the bride and who decided to attend the wedding.

Questions:

1) If you were the pastor, would you make the same stand? Why? Please also state the scriptural principles on the reason of your stand.

Perhaps, the only scriptural principle I can draw on for my pastor's position is from the book of Nehemiah, where Nehemiah and Ezra forced the exillic Israelites to divorce their foreign wives as they regained their land. In other words, we need to show we have a different stand from other faiths.

2) What are the practical steps we can take in order to win her back to the Christian faith and yet be able to show a stand in our belief so as not to offend our Muslim friends as we live in this pluralistic society?

The only answer I can come up with is to not attend their wedding and say it nicely that I will mourn for her as she has renounced her faith. After that, I would try to make an effort to remain a friend and try to win her back (together with her husband).

My Reply to the Email
I'm deeply saddened by the position taken by your pastor to not attend the wedding of the couple. To forbid the marriage to take place in the church premises is one thing, but to not attend the wedding is entirely another thing all together. Even if this sister has decided to become a Muslim and to marry a Muslim, there is still a human-to-human level at which we all need to honour one another's choices and to show acceptance and respect for one another. I think the refusal to attend the marriage doesn't speak very well of Christian goodwill. Because implicitly, that refusal speaks of a derogatory view of all other faiths and people who embrace other faiths.

I hold that we cannot get a direct scriptural reference on this issue. In fact, there is no explicit passage in scripture that forbids marriage between a Christian and a person of another religious tradition. We can use the Old Testament passage about God not wanting the Israelites to marry people from the pagan nations; but to extrapolate that and to equate that with the contemporary situation without taking variant factors into account is to be rather naive in our understanding of scripture. As far as scripture is concerned, it is most directly clear in the New Testament that when a union like that takes place, the Christian should not dishonour his/her spouse.

I think one of the greatest fears your pastor might have about attending the wedding is that it might show approval for the sister's decision. But to not attend the wedding would show disrespect; that we can respect only "Christian" decisions and not "non-Christian" decisions. I think we need to be gracious enough to see that every human person is an equal subject on a journey towards God; some have gone further in their journey, some have not. Your pastor's participation in the wedding would certainly have helped them progress positively in their journey. Sometimes we handle people as if they are objects of our faith and not equal subjects in our life journey.

I think if there's anything that can win them to faith in Christ, it would be love, friendship, acceptance, and respect with no hidden agendas. It becomes totally obvious if we establish relations with them for the sake of "winning them to the faith". Ultimately, the best representation of Christ we can offer them is to relate with them, person to person, human to human, friend to friend. Only then can our love be authentic and dignifying to those we relate with.

Posted by SK at 12:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The way in which the Spirit of unity brings his people to a level of maturity where they are able to look beyond themselves, laugh at their differences, and dwell on the importance of listening to one another continues to amaze me.

Have you heard a pastor of a church emerging from a Classical Pentecostal tradition asking questions about spiritual formation? Have you seen the words of Henri Nouwen printed on the bulletins of such churches? I saw all that this past weekend. For me, there was a phenomenal beating of the heart.

I am witnessing a tremendous coming together of various streams of Christian spirituality, which I never saw when I was younger in my ministerial journey. I never thought that a “mainline Christian” like myself would one day be found preaching amidst the people who jump, who play loud music, and who lift their hands when they hear the preacher say something that “speaks to them” – the people who love God.

And for all the “depth” my mainstream tradition claims to possess, I see these people, and I observe a passion to rekindle in my own journey towards the partaking of the divine. I hear the stories they tell one another, as if God was working in their midst in the here-and-now, and I realise how this dimension of the Spirit’s work has often been missing in the circles I’m familiar with. And it dawns on me, how dull it would have been if everyone’s spirituality had looked exactly like mine.

The spirit of self-critique is one that speaks of humility, one which brings us into a greater magnitude of depth. It speaks of self-awareness, understanding where we have come from that we may know how to move forward in our spiritual journey. And it is empowering when we meet others like ourselves who, in being different, also ask questions which reflect the same concern about things that matter in the Christian journey.

True unity is not about reducing everything to a lowest common denominator. It is also not about avoiding discussions on our differences when we come together. True unity is when we are at real liberty to express the richness of our diversity in contribution to the beauty of the larger whole. It is when we are able to come together and perform the different and yet magnificent expressions of our dance of life together, so that all of these expressions result in the artistic reflection of what the divine dance of life must look like.

Posted by SK at 7:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by SK at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)