When People of Diverse Faith Come Together

When People of Diverse Faith Come Together
5-26-05

Many of us have a consciousness to work in our local and world communities for the betterment of mankind, not only because for many of us it's one of the tenets of our faith, I believe for many it's a human instinct to want to help our fellowman. These charitable deeds are rendered through our churches, church of The Salvation Army, a service organization such as Rotary International, or just as an individual. In all of these organizations you find a spectrum of creeds and religious beliefs. One thing I like about Rotary is that it claims no creed but embraces all religions into the common cause for a better understanding, goodwill, and peace for all peoples around the world. In my faith, as a United Methodist, I would not be identified as an “evangelical,” for I do not believe that any one religion holds the one and only truth with regard to salvation, nor do I hold a constrictive view of salvation for others who may be unwavering in what salvation means to them. I believe in religious tolerance and freedom of religion, which with that belief I have certain responsibilities. One can believe whatever he or she believes and that’s ok with me, as long as I’m given the same civility to proselyte my own convictions. And therein this great expanse of religious diversity, if we will, we can all work together for the good of all peoples.

In the article herewith from the conservative Jewish writer of the N. Y. Times, David Brooks tells of “A Natural Alliance” between evangelicals and liberals. Brooks refers to Rick Warren, author of “Purpose Driven Life.” Just as a side note to this story, I must tell you I was greatly impressed by Rich Warren when he recently was interviewed by Larry King: He stated that with the proceeds from this book he had paid back all the salary for the past 25-years his church had paid him and that other proceeds from the book was going to third-world countries to fight poverty and disease. That’s the kind of faith commitment that gets my attention regardless of how he may define “salvation.”

So what are we doing with our faith? Are “works” just as important as other tenets of our faith? What’s Your Opinion? Have you financially supported or signed up for a mission project recently?

Here are two excerpts from Brook’s article in the NY Times. Full text follows below and also attached.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"And when I look at the evangelical community, I see a community in the midst of a transformation - branching out beyond the traditional issues of abortion and gay marriage, and getting more involved in programs to help the needy. I see Rick Warren, who through his new Peace initiative is sending thousands of people to Rwanda and other African nations to fight poverty and disease. I see Chuck Colson deeply involved in Sudan. I see Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals drawing up a service agenda that goes way beyond the normal turf of Christian conservatives."
"Serious differences over life issues are not going to go away. But more liberals and evangelicals are realizing that you don't have to convert people; sometimes you can just work with them. The world is suddenly crowded with people like Rick Warren and Bono who are trying to step out of the logic of the culture war so they can accomplish more in the poverty war."
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
May 26, 2005- NY Times
A Natural Alliance
By DAVID BROOKS
Earlier this week I listened to Rick Warren speak at a conference sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Warren is the pastor of the Saddleback Church in California, the country's largest megachurch where 20,000 people or so go to worship each Sunday. He's also the author of "The Purpose Driven Life," which has sold more than 25 million copies in English alone.
My first thought was, How come Christians have all these megachurches but we Jews don't have megagogues? I think the answer is that if some Jews built a megagogue, the other Jews in town would say, "That megagogue I wouldn't go to." They'd build a rival megagogue. You'd end up with 10 really big buildings, each with about 40 people inside.
My second thought was, Why don't my books sell 25 million copies? I thought maybe I should write a book called, "The Blinking Flat Purpose Driven Tipping Point That Got Left Behind." Or maybe I could write a book for rich Republicans called, "The Chauffeur Driven Life," which I think would do quite well.
My third thought, which may be more profound than the other two, is that we can have a culture war in this country, or we can have a war on poverty, but we can't have both. That is to say, liberals and conservatives can go on bashing each other for being godless hedonists and primitive theocrats, or they can set those differences off to one side and work together to help the needy.
The natural alliance for antipoverty measures at home and abroad is between liberals and evangelical Christians. These are the only two groups that are really hyped up about these problems and willing to devote time and money to ameliorating them. If liberals and evangelicals don't get together on antipoverty measures, then there will be no majority for them and they won't get done.
Now, you might be thinking, fat chance. There is no way the likes of Jerry Falwell and Barbara Boxer are going to get together as brother and sister to fight deprivation. And I say to you: All around me I see bonds being formed.
I recently went to a U2 concert in Philadelphia with a group of evangelicals who have been working with Bono to fight AIDS and poverty in Africa. A few years ago, U2 took a tour of the heartland, stopping off at places like Wheaton College and the megachurch at Willow Creek to urge evangelicals to get involved in Africa. They've responded with alacrity, and now Bono, who is a serious if nonsectarian Christian, is at the nexus of a vast alliance between socially conservative evangelicals and socially liberal N.G.O.'s.
Today I'll be at a panel discussion on a proposed antipoverty bill called the Aspire Act, which is co-sponsored in the Senate by social conservatives like Rick Santorum and social liberals like Jon Corzine.
And when I look at the evangelical community, I see a community in the midst of a transformation - branching out beyond the traditional issues of abortion and gay marriage, and getting more involved in programs to help the needy. I see Rick Warren, who through his new Peace initiative is sending thousands of people to Rwanda and other African nations to fight poverty and disease. I see Chuck Colson deeply involved in Sudan. I see Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals drawing up a service agenda that goes way beyond the normal turf of Christian conservatives.
I see evangelicals who are more and more influenced by Catholic social teaching, with its emphasis on good works. I see the historical rift healing between those who emphasized personal and social morality. Most of all, I see a new sort of evangelical leader emerging.
Millions of evangelicals are embarrassed by the people held up by the news media as their spokesmen. Millions of evangelicals feel less represented by the culture war-centered parachurch organizations, and better represented by congregational pastors, who have a broader range of interests and more passion for mobilizing volunteers to perform service. Millions of evangelicals want leaders who live the faith by serving the poor.
Serious differences over life issues are not going to go away. But more liberals and evangelicals are realizing that you don't have to convert people; sometimes you can just work with them. The world is suddenly crowded with people like Rick Warren and Bono who are trying to step out of the logic of the culture war so they can accomplish more in the poverty war.
E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
RESPONSE to “When People of Diverse Faiths Come Together”
6-11-05Hi Mr. CoxI have read your comments and the article by David Brooks. I am accepting your invitation to dialogue about the subject. Let me first establish the premise from which I speak. I am not certain how I should label myself. I really don't like labels because they tend to lump one with a certain group with whom he or she may share only a few views. There are persons who will label anyone who does not agree with them. "That guy is a communist, he is a liberal, he is a conservative, he is carnal, he is worldly, or he's a prude." Honestly, I would prefer not to be known by any label other than that I am a "Christian" Maybe I should allow others to tell you who I am. People who have been exposed to much of my 53 years of fulltime Christian ministry, that has taken me to much of the world; tell me that I am a conservative theologically and a liberal socially. I will admit that I have a strong social consciousness and have traveled far and near and worked hard to try making the world a better place in which to live and a harder place in which to do wrong. If I may say so myself, I am a Christ centric gospel teacher/ preacher, who believes the bible to be authentic, inspired and reliable for salvation and conduct of life and if that is true, then I must share my faith along with my good works. The Bible teaches that the very book is inspired. If I could not believe what the bible says about itself, then I would not believe what it says about anything. It is the desire of God, based on what is written in His Word "all men everywhere come dto repentance." That truth coupled with faith is a pre-requisite to being born again and made a new creation in Christ Jesus, old things passing away and all things becoming new, which is the first step toward freedom from poverty. It is called "redemption and lift" To every pagan part of the world where the gospel of Christ has gone civilizations have emerged and people have stopped eating one another and started demonstrating love and kindness to each other. I don't buy into the nonsense that what I have just written is "just your opinion," and others have another interpretation. I have no right to a wrong opinion nor does anyone else. I know where I came from, who I am and what I am to do in this world, and where I am going when this life is lived out because of that Word. Others will say, "I see it differently. I don't believe that Book is anymore than just a book of interesting literature, history or worse, a myth." I would die for them to have the freedom to believe that, but I would, as long as I live, try to get them to see the truth of the Word of God the fact that God has a purpose for their life and that what they need is not "religion," but a relationship with a Person. The Person of Jesus Christ who said: "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no man cometh to the father, but by me." (John 14:6)There are some things in this world that are absolutely right and others that are absolutely wrong. Reverence is right, compassion is right, charity is right, truth is right, integrity is right, morality is right. These are not open to any and every person's opinion and again no one has a right to a wrong opinion in relation to the absolutes. There are other things that are absolutely wrong. Murder is wrong, even if it is inflicted in pre-natal life or at the time of some incurable disease by the practice of euthanasia. Fornication is wrong, uncleanness is wrong, inordinate affection (passion) is wrong, evil concupiscence (desire) is wrong, covetousness, which is idolatry is wrong, The same can be said about lying, anger, wrath, malice (murderess intent), blasphemy (railing), filthy communication and lying, and the list goes on. There are other things that are neither right nor wrong. It is a matter of one's convictions. In the days of the Apostle Paul the church at Rome was divided over observing certain days and eating or not eating certain foods. Paul advised the Mature and strong among the believers who did not hold to these scruples, to not look with disdain upon the weaker believer and he suggested that the weak not scorn the mature because they exercised a liberty that freed them from the legalism of the weak. He also warned that neither of them should violate their consciousness in the matter. The point is that when it comes to the absolute of right or wrong, there is no place for compromise, and you don't have to be a rocket scientist or a theologian to know the difference. Hidden people in the world, when found, have revealed to the Anthropologist that they have high moral and ethical codes to live by even though they have not had a bible. How can that be? It is God's responsibility to project light and it is man's responsibility to respond to the light projected. Every person on earth has a twofold minimal ground of responsibility, even without a bible or a preacher, and that is the ground of the revelation of God in nature and the conscious of man. "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows us his handy-work. Day unto day (or after day) uttereth speech and night unto night (or after night) reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. There is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." (Psalm 19:1-7)When light is projected it must be responded to. The fact is, just as the masses fail to respond to the revealed truth of God in Christ, so do those who have never heard that truth from a person sent by God to witness to them. Missionologist tell us that, though we have been at the business of trying to reach the world for Christ over 2000 years, the vast majority are still not converted. If everyone in the world that has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ should tell everyone in the world that they know about Jesus Christ there would still be 2.7 billion people who would have never heard the name of Jesus, to say nothing about his redeeming grace.So much for the premise from which I respond:I believe the Christian church, in the times we live, has the grand adventure of attempting to initiate a renaissance of Christian creativity, and imagine entirely new ways to compassionately respond to tomorrow's challenge. In our creativity we must not diminish the main purpose of the church. We must keep the main thing the main thing.In that context there are several statements that may come clear if I could hear some elaboration from you and Mr. Brooks. Here are a few sentences as example:1. One can believe whatever he or she believes and that's ok with me, as long as I'm given the same civility to proselyte my own convictions."The last part of that sentence is fine, but the first part concerns me. Is it really ok with us to passively concede that it makes no difference to us that people with eternal souls hold a religious believe that has no redeeming grace in it at all? I do not mind working with people whose faith if devoid of a saving quality for the good of all peoples, as long as I am not forbidden to share with them the fact that there is a Christ who alone is the savior of all men. (John 3:16)2. "And when I look at the evangelical community, I see a community in the midst of a transformation - branching out beyond the traditional issues of abortion and gay marriage and getting more involved in programs to help the needy. "."I see Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals drawing up a service agenda that goes way beyond the normal turf of Christian conservatives." I have been attending National Association of Evangelicals conventions since 1961. I have served for 25 years as General Superintendent of a denomination that is a member of the NAE. I wonder where has David Brooks been? What he calls the "traditional issues of abortion and gay marriage and especially the latter one have not been traditional issues in the Evangelical world. The matter of legalized gay marriages is a rather recent phenomenon. If the evangelical community is in the midst of a transformation that will take them beyond the traditional values that we hold sacred and dear, and cause us to go soft on the evangelistic mandate given to us by our Lord, then believe me, that transformation will be the beginning of the end for evangelicals and will cost our world more than we will recover from in many generations.The implications of such statements in Brook's article like the couple above is, that until recently, the evangelicals of the nation and the world have been oblivious of social service and social action. Few statements could be further from the truth. The groups that make up their collective member bodies of the NAE have been out front on social service and social action issues from the very beginning of the movement. Just consider the many such ministries founded, financed and operated by evangelicals. Not all, but most orphanages that I know anything about belong to evangelical conservatives. Evangelicals own and operate as about as many hospitals in America and the world as any other religious distinction. We are certainly in the lead with the number of missionaries and mission stations that practice obedience to the Evangelistic mandate as well as the social mandate across the far-flung plains of the earth. What religious category does Brooks think the Salvation Army is identified with? What about the World Relief program of the National Association of Evangelicals, Has he heard of Franklin Graham's Samaritan's Purse? Has he never heard of the "Feed the hungry Children" ministry? What about the historic Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago and thousands more in city after city, rescuing the suffering and broken wrecks of humanity in our urban centers? Evangelicals operate most of them, in my opinion. I could go on but I think you get the point. Mr. Cox the statement that really concerns me most is your expression "In my faith, as a United Methodist, I would not be identified as an "evangelical," for I do not believe that any one religion holds the one and only truth with regard to salvation. That is a giant leap from where the founding fathers of Methodism were. If evangelicals do not have the only message that offers a hope of salvation in Jesus Christ. Would it be fair to say that the religious liberals have the only source of salvation? Is our hope in the Roman Catholic Church and allegiance to the Pope? If not, do one or more of the cultist groups have the saving message. If we cannot know what the true source of salvation is and if it is bigotry to claim that you know, how can we determine were to go to get the salvation that is necessary for an eternity with God? If you can get salvation from anywhere, then my guess is you can get it nowhere so we are therefore of all men most miserable. Whether we like it or not salvation comes from one fountain. It is from Jesus Christ, He whose we are and whom we serve, our consolation, our comfort, our crown; or lover, our life and our legacy. He condescended to serve as "God with us." He said, "If you have seen me, you have seen God, for the Father and I are one." Paul the Apostle said, "He is the express image of the invisible God. He voluntarily gave his live on the center cross volitionally and gave the victory shout, "it is finished." He was buried in a borrowed tomb. On the third day He arose, victorious over death, hell and the grave, and He ascended on high leading captivity captive and gave gifts unto men. He reigns now in might and majesty on high in the presence of God the Father, from which He shall appear again to receive us to Himself that where He is there we may be also. That is the totality of the gospel. Those who believe that and trust in that sacrifice for sin are saved. They who reject it are lost. That is the clear teaching of the bible. We that are saved engage in good works, not to be saved, but because we are saved and it is our way of saying a great big "THANK YOU" to our Lord for being our savior. TO GIVE A SUMARY. The church is rather like a fire department. The fire department has one objective, putting out fires and preventing further outbreaks as far as possible. But in fulfilling, this task, it has a variety of equipment and a variety of techniques. The method of extinguishing any given fire is determined, not only by the nature of the equipment; it is also determined by the nature of the fire. In larger blazes, including forest fires, such factors as air supply, prevailing winds and weather have an important bearing on the strategy to be employed. This is an important measure true in the proclamation of the Gospel. The good news of God's salvation is the front edge of the Christian message. But it is not the hole of Christian truth. Behind it, in support, lies a network of doctrine, all ultimately relevant to salvation, but not immediately so. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is indispensable to the truth of salvation in Christ. It is not immediately relevant, however, in the sense that the preaching of doctrine of the Trinity is the most direct way of bringing to bear the message of salvation, that statement itself requires qualification, for there have been periods in the church's history when the deity of Christ has been disputed (at the time of the Council of Nicaea. For instance), and the truth of the Trinity of God has of necessity moved to the forefront of Christian proclamation.The point is well taken. The context is as important as the content when it comes to making a proclamation of Christian truth relevant. The Christian message must not be changed, but should be adapted to the taste of the hearer, as well as be suited to his needs. There is imposed on all sincere Christian communicators of the Gospel a duel and a threefold responsibility constraint. We must be true to the truth, but we also must make the truth relevant to the needs of the hearers. We are responsible for presence, proclamation and persuasion. Woe betides us also if we do not allow the New Testament to provide the guidelines of any reform that is needed. The real question is, can we determine what our theological approach should be to preserve the truth, make it relevant and persuasive based on our best understanding of the supposed circumstances of the present and the future? If we cannot, or if we can, and do not then we will be taken unprepared for the future life when this life is over in this world. Whatever the circumstances of the present or future demanded of us, in order to be relevant in our presence and our proclamation, we must insist that our message remain Christian, even if we are not persuasive. If we can only help improve their circumstances by doing good things for them, and not have the option to proclaim a persuasive salvation message, then we might as well stay home!

For my response go to this link: http://criticalactions-what-isyour-opinion.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-do-you-view-christianity.html