 |
||
 |
||
Jim's PERSPECTIVEOctober 07, 2014“The Lord is the Sprit. And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Corinthians 3:17 Through the media of satellite-fed television and radio, and through the connectivity of the internet, our world is smaller than ever before. We live in the worlds of National Geographic and Anthony Bourdain. That is, through journalists and photographers we realize that we, as westerners, are only one culture amidst many others. The cultures of the west are not the same as those from the east. Those of the north are not the same as those of the south. Peoples who live in polar regions experience different lives than those who live in the tropics. The life styles—languages, foods, dress, abodes, governments, music, religions—of Asians, Africans, Indians, Europeans, Latinos, are as varied as the choices afforded by any supermarket in America. If the word to describe what I am getting at is not multi-culturalism, then maybe “cultural pluralism” is. What the writers and photographers of National Geographic are about is documenting for us the ways and means that people who are different from ourselves live their day-to-day lives. The journalists don’t make value judgments on the life-styles and customs of those they visit. They simply observe and report on what they see and experience. It is not that the cultures are either good or bad, right or wrong. They just are (not to mention the fact that they are vivid and colorful, too). Bourdain, the CNN television journalist, is probably not unique among all the reporters out there, but the way in which he portrays the people and places he visits is interesting. He conveys a very entertaining image of a traveler who enjoys meeting individuals and groups from all over the world, sampling their culinary fares and just “hanging out” with and engaging their common folk. It’s an appealing program to watch. Given that we live in a world of differences, how can we possibly say that one culture or life-style is better than another? Each has its own good and bad aspects. America may be the most powerful, the richest, even the most free, but it does not have as low a crime rate as Japan (and yet Japan has the third-highest suicide rate in the world—only Hungary and South Korea are higher, according to a 2005 Washington Post article). Is it not ironic that people with considerably less than what any one of us has are often much happier than we are? I would bet that most any individual anywhere, if asked, “What do you think is the best country?” would say, “Mine.” I believe that many Americans would say that ours is the best. And it would not be a stretch to suggest that one could find both ordinary citizens and governmental leaders who really think that the rest of the world should be like us, even if it isn’t said aloud. After all, it is not prudent, in a “tolerant” culture such as ours, to admit to any kind of rapacious nationalism—or nationalistic rapaciousness—I’m not sure which. Whether from jealousy or actually deserved, Americans have developed a reputation around some parts of the world as arrogant and imperialist. Back in the 19th century, during the Missionary Movement going on around the world, there was a concerted attempt on the part of some—particularly in colonialist Africa—in the context of “Christianizing” or “evangelizing,” also to “westernize” the people they were attempting to “save.” To colonize, to Christianize, and to westernize were viewed as synonymous. Notwithstanding the good motives of Christianity to deliver from spiritual oppression, ignorance, and disease, sometimes the indigenous people to whom the missionaries were sent were encouraged to throw off their native garb to don western clothes and customs. However, not all of groups of missionaries subscribed to those motive and methods. Hudson Taylor, the British co-founder of the China Inland Mission, is an example of a Christian missionary who sought, in a non-sectarian way, to minister to indigenous people as he found them. He expected his own ministers to exchange their own western clothing for the native garb worn by the people to whom they were sent. It was a novel idea, and not always well-received by either “civilians” or by fellow missionaries. Taylor, his wife, Maria Jane Dyer, and their family were tremendous Christians whose stories should be told and honored. In the 20th century, E. Stanley Jones was, for over fifty years, a missionary to India, and another example of one who, within the context of his total belief in Jesus as “the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” sought to meet individuals where they were, especially theologically, spiritually, and intellectually. Possessing a thoroughly comprehensive understanding of the philosophies and religions of the people to whom he was sent, Dr. Jones met them on their own terms and grounds. His 1928 book, Christ at the Round Table, is a good example of his desire for a mutual meeting-of-the-minds. He believed that Jesus is Lord, and by that he meant Jesus—not as a religion, but rather, as the truth—would trump any other experience. Yet Stanley Jones did not seek to demean others, nor did he exhibit a “triumphalist” sense (I’m right and you’re wrong) of his theology and ideology. He truly and earnestly sought to “speak the truth in love.” The difficulty today is how to present Jesus as Lord of Lords and the dead center of human existence to a pluralistic world that views (with good reason) Christians with suspicion. For those of us who believe that Jesus is not one religious leader among many, and that He is the “the invisible—and express—image of the Father,” a huge part of the struggle, it seems to me, is to overcome the belief of many around the world that be a Christian is to be an American—or a westerner—and to be an American or a westerner is to be a Christian. And to be one or the other is also to be imperialist and triumphalist. In embracing and respecting people where they are—and in fact one should do both—that does not mean that one has to subscribe to the notion that all beliefs are the same, or that all views are equal, and that to accept a person where one is, one must accept what he or she believes. I think that it is possible genuinely to love and appreciate the ways, means, morays, and customs, of others while adhering to the belief that “Jesus is Lord.” And in today’s world, it is not at all easy to do so. It is hard enough to embrace and appreciate fellow Christians who do not share our particular belief system. I would like to imagine that all Christians believe that the task of “evangelism” or “evangelization” (yes, there is a difference) is to get people “saved.” But “salvation” means different things to different people. There are those who believe that “salvation” primarily is to be saved from, in the sense of being saved from hell and punishment, and therefore the task is the call for repentance. And there are those who view “salvation” in a more holistic sense, the sense of being saved for something, i.e., one’s freedom, one’s righteousness, one’s peace and joy, and that the emphases of the preaching of the cross is that God loves his people, and that God’s desire is that we be freed from the effects of sin and thereby find our purpose and fulfillment as persons in Christ. I personally believe that the task as Christians—and it is neither our doing, nor within our capability—is the removal of what divides us. I don’t believe that it is our nationalities, genders, ages, ideologies, customs, food preferences, clothing, music—and all these things by nature are divisive—are what really keep us apart. I think that it is our sin and selfishness, our refusal to relinquish our beliefs that ours is the “right” belief and that our way is the “right” way. Jesus, it seems to me, is the one who “breaks down the walls of partition.” Only He, as I understand it, is the one who can bridge the gaps and blur the lines. “The Lord is the Sprit. And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” - Jim Radford |
||
|
©2013 Jim Radford. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication prohibited.
|
