Krister Stendahl's Three Rules of Religious Understanding (Mormonism, church, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Krister Stendahl was a Swedish theologian and New Testament scholar. He was, at one time, Professor at the Divinity School at Harvard University, where he also served as dean, before being elected Bishop of Stockholm in 1984.
One of my favorite of his many writings is Three Rules of Religious Understanding that I personally find very worth keeping in mind when discussing religion with people whose beliefs and practices vary. The three rules were:
(1) When trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.
(3) Leave room for “holy envy.”
By (3) Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in another religious tradition or faith, elements you admire and wish might find greater scope in your own religious tradition or faith.
He believed it possible, and I agree, to put all three rules into practice while still arguing that a particular faith is to be preferred above all others. Some people have a really hard time following any of these suggestions, but I find them very admirable. What do you all think?
That sounds fine, but I suspect it would set off alarm -bells in the Faithful brain, as suggesting an adulteration of their true faith with false doctrines.
Krister Stendahl was a Swedish theologian and New Testament scholar. He was, at one time, Professor at the Divinity School at Harvard University, where he also served as dean, before being elected Bishop of Stockholm in 1984.
One of my favorite of his many writings is Three Rules of Religious Understanding that I personally find very worth keeping in mind when discussing religion with people whose beliefs and practices vary. The three rules were:
(1) When trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.
(3) Leave room for “holy envy.”
By (3) Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in another religious tradition or faith, elements you admire and wish might find greater scope in your own religious tradition or faith.
He believed it possible, and I agree, to put all three rules into practice while still arguing that a particular faith is to be preferred above all others. Some people have a really hard time following any of these suggestions, but I find them very admirable. What do you all think?
I could get on board with these in principle. (3) is basically about humility. Even as an atheist there are things about various traditions that I can respect, and that they happen to be faith traditions doesn't necessarily get in the way and it certainly doesn't make me incurious to understand them.
(1) is a bit difficult with certain groups. Scientology comes to mind. They sell their beliefs piecemeal and don't seem to want to discuss them openly, so you can't understand them in detail except their either paying for their courses or via their enemies. But then that's exactly why some don't feel they qualify as a true religion so much as a marriage of brainwashing with a pyramid scheme.
I am sure that even for theist-to-theist dialog, for it to proceed very far, neither party can be terribly controlling / judgmental / paranoid / secretive. That's a wet blanket in any sort of relationship. My denomination of origin for example was disparaging of "ecumenism", feeling that such dialog led to compromise of both principle and truth. Sort of a sectarian version of the argument that white supremacists use against mixing of the races. Wouldn't want our stock diluted
My denomination of origin for example was disparaging of "ecumenism", feeling that such dialog led to compromise of both principle and truth. Sort of a sectarian version of the argument that white supremacists use against mixing of the races. Wouldn't want our stock diluted
Well, I am not in favor of ecumenism, but I do believe it's good to find common ground where it actually exists, instead of simply pretending that it doesn't exist at all.
That sounds fine, but I suspect it would set off alarm -bells in the Faithful brain, as suggesting an adulteration of their true faith with false doctrines.
No so much among liberal theists. I would imagine that any church whose pastor participates in an ecumenical community activity of some kind such as taking turns giving invocations at public events and the like, is probably sufficiently liberal not to be very threatened by interfaith dialog. Although I have known a couple of more conservative pastors who do such things because they see it as a marketing tool more than because they are really coming together with their colleagues as full equals.
Well, I am not in favor of ecumenism, but I do believe it's good to find common ground where it actually exists, instead of simply pretending that it doesn't exist at all.
I don't know what ecumenism represents to you or why you aren't in favor of it, but in my experience if interfaith exchanges take place among the laity it is usually because of tacit permission and encouragement from their own spiritual leader, who hopefully leads by example. And that means some form of accepting your fellow clergy as equals and seeking common cause with them.
That doesn't have to go so far as the fool's errand of getting disparate faith traditions to subscribe to some sort of common doctrinal statement. I would have been content with them just respecting the differences, not trying to eradicate them. But my tribe considered even this to be the dreaded "ecumenism".
I don't know what ecumenism represents to you or why you aren't in favor of it, but in my experience if interfaith exchanges take place among the laity it is usually because of tacit permission and encouragement from their own spiritual leader, who hopefully leads by example. And that means some form of accepting your fellow clergy as equals and seeking common cause with them.
That doesn't have to go so far as the fool's errand of getting disparate faith traditions to subscribe to some sort of common doctrinal statement. I would have been content with them just respecting the differences, not trying to eradicate them. But my tribe considered even this to be the dreaded "ecumenism".
I understand ecumenism as a sort of compromise intended to ultimately unite two or more groups as one. This would be a virtual impossibility with respect to Mormonism. Mormonism would simply cease to exist if we had to give up any of our beliefs in order to get someone else to incorporate other of our beliefs. We do, however, frequently participate in interfaith groups, forums, and activities, just as a means of building respect between all of us, and to learn about one another.
I understand ecumenism as a sort of compromise intended to ultimately unite two or more groups as one. This would be a virtual impossibility with respect to Mormonism. Mormonism would simply cease to exist if we had to give up any of our beliefs in order to get someone else to incorporate other of our beliefs. We do, however, frequently participate in interfaith groups, forums, and activities, just as a means of building respect between all of us, and to learn about one another.
I think ecumenism as conceived a little over a hundred years ago had some breathless and grandiose notions that it would unite many denominations; it was a reaction to denominations multiplying like rabbits and had the laudable sentiment that Christians could accomplish much more in the world united rather than divided.
I think that has proven to be a pretty obvious failure however so today I think it usually just implies these "interfaith groups, forums, and activities" you mention. Or at least that's the only context I've seen it used in by my former peeps.
I had to chuckle when you said "Mormonism would cease to exist" if you had to give up any of your beliefs. What you really meant was any of your beliefs that are distinctive to Mormonism, and that's exactly why the original sweeping vision of ecumenism failed. I chuckled because it's almost exactly what a pastor in the charismatic movement told me when I was still an evangelical and debated him on the scriptural justification for his beliefs. The scriptural support for a separate experience of the infilling of the holy spirit with particular signs such as speaking in tongues actually boils down to a couple of half-verses which can be interpreted at least two different ways, and when he finally admitted this he said, "but ... but ... if we didn't believe this we wouldn't be charismatics anymore!" Well ... um ... yeah.
Which is why I am glad not to have any skin in that game anymore ;-)
I understand ecumenism as a sort of compromise intended to ultimately unite two or more groups as one. This would be a virtual impossibility with respect to Mormonism. Mormonism would simply cease to exist if we had to give up any of our beliefs in order to get someone else to incorporate other of our beliefs. We do, however, frequently participate in interfaith groups, forums, and activities, just as a means of building respect between all of us, and to learn about one another.
As long as the focus in religions remains on what is believed ABOUT God and Jesus or whatever there cannot be any ecumenism. If the focus switched to how we are to BE, then the differences would more readily vanish, although not completely. I have little use for specific beliefs ABOUT God and Jesus. I am completely concerned with what God wants me to BE.
Krister Stendahl was a Swedish theologian and New Testament scholar. He was, at one time, Professor at the Divinity School at Harvard University, where he also served as dean, before being elected Bishop of Stockholm in 1984.
One of my favorite of his many writings is Three Rules of Religious Understanding that I personally find very worth keeping in mind when discussing religion with people whose beliefs and practices vary. The three rules were:
(1) When trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.
(3) Leave room for “holy envy.”
By (3) Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in another religious tradition or faith, elements you admire and wish might find greater scope in your own religious tradition or faith.
He believed it possible, and I agree, to put all three rules into practice while still arguing that a particular faith is to be preferred above all others. Some people have a really hard time following any of these suggestions, but I find them very admirable. What do you all think?
1 and 2 make sense for those parties who are in a scholarly, sober and mature conversation to better understand each other's faith and find a common ground.
One and two are also fine when a person is doing an honest and genuine comparitive religions study to figure out which one makes more sense to him, and which one talks to his heart - No 3 could also play a good role here.
But No 3, in my opinion, does not hold any value in most cases when a person has taken the final leap into a faith after doing his research.
For example, in person A's religion, drinking of alcohol may be prohibited but in person B's religion, drinking alcohol may be allowed.
It wouldn't make a lot of sense if person A uses the "room for Holy Envy" and starts to yearn, and wishes if drinking of alcohol was a permissible practice in his faith as well.
But it would make a lot of sense, in my opinion, if person A firmly believes that it MUST be in his own greater benefit when the lord he believes in, refrains him from drinking alcohol.
This is what's called faith based on the trust of unseen.
Over all it's a good OP.
I appreciate and acknowledge the wisdom. Thumbs up!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
