STR Ambassador
October 13th 2003, 04:43 PM
Is Christianity Religious Totalitarianism?
by Greg Koukl
In the aftermath of September 11, I’ve noticed a broad point of view that I’ve heard expressed on talk radio, in the Letters to the Editor, and seen on the Op-Ed pages of newspapers around the country. It is not a new challenge, but it has taken on new force since September 11. It is a twist on an old concern that as ambassadors we need to adjust to. But it is something that needs to be addressed aggressively. I don’t mean in a hostile way; I mean we have to put our minds to being able to articulate a response to this challenge. Stand to Reason has been articulating a response to this kind of challenge for a long time. Many of you, at least in principle, know the response. But I want to talk to you about how to tailor that response to some of the specific ways that concern is being raised in the current circumstances. That has to do with what one has called “religious totalitarianism.” This would be any view that is other than pluralism.
I was listening to a radio show earlier this week and the host was fielding a call from a caller who was raising concerns about those who think they have the right morality. And he made this statement, “The problem is that every culture has its view of what is right and wrong, and that is the source of the conflict.” Yes, there is conflict when people have different views of what is right and wrong. That is what civilization is about, after a fashion. The problem isn’t that people have differing views, because obviously implicit in the challenge is the question of the observation itself, it seems to me. Certainly in the process of the conversation, the caller had a view about what was right and what was wrong.
What this shows is that there is an issue afoot that has been expressed by lots of people, most recently in December 17 issue of Newsweek Magazine, page 19 where they have all the different quotes of the weeks. Here’s one: “The idea that there is one people in possession of the truth, one answer to the world’s ills, or one solution to humanity’s needs, has done untold harm throughout history.” This is really meant to be addressed to people like you and I who believe there is an answer, indeed, one solution to humanity’s needs. That truth is Christianity. Well, on this view, according to this person, this is the very view that has done untold harm throughout history. This was said by no lightweight: Kofi Aannan, Secretary General of the United Nations, in his speech receiving the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize. So, here you have somebody who is recognized by the world as being a standout in the area of peace such that he would receive this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. And then he offers as a propositional truth that people who view religion the way you and I view religion are dangerous.
Some of you may have been aware of another piece that came out on November 27, entitled “The Real War,” published in the New York Times Op-Ed page written by Thomas Friedman. I’ll just read you some selected quotes because I want you to get a feel for the kind of challenge and charges being mad.
Thomas Friedman starts out:
If 9/11 was indeed the onset of World War 3, we have to understand what this war is about. We are not fighting to eradicate terrorism. Terrorism is just a tool. We’re fighting to defeat an ideology, religious totalitarianism. World War 2 and the Cold War were thought to defeat secular totalitarianism, Nazism, and Communism. And World War 3 is a battle against religious totalitarianism, a view of the world that my faith must reign supreme and can be affirmed and held passionately only if all others are negated. That’s bin Ladenism.
You might think that is not a good characterization of Christianity because Christianity has never held that our faith must reign supreme and must be affirmed and held passionately only if others are negated – and it is not clear what he means by “negated” here. We have held that Christianity is true and we are willing to go into the marketplace of ideas where there is a pluralism of ideas allowed to be expressed and argue for our view. We hold that it is actually so.
Friedman makes a statement referring to Rabbi David Hartman. He says, “What first attracted me to Rabbi Hartman, when I reported from Jerusalem, was his contention that unless Jews reinterpret their faith in a way that embraced modernity and in a way that affirmed that God speaks multiple languages and is not exhausted by just one faith, they would have no future in the land of Israel.” His objection is to those schools of religion who preach exclusivism. He writes, “All faiths that come out of the Biblical tradition, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, have the tendency to believe that they have the exclusive truth. But when the Taliban wiped out the Buddhist statues that’s what they were saying and others have said it too. The opposite of religious totalitarianism is an ideology of pluralism, an ideology that embraces religious diversity." He writes that we must embrace this pluralism which is “an ideology that embraces religious diversity and the idea that my faith can be nurtured without claiming exclusive truth. America is the Mecca of that ideology.” He continues along the same path.
Essentially what he is doing here is identifying Christian and Jewish fundamentalists. He says we have to mount a battle against religious views that are exclusive in their claims. He claims that this is an evil. That it is what he calls “bin Ladenism.” And we have to marshal all forces at our disposal to defeat such a view.
Now, some of you who are just a bit ahead of me realize that this is wildly self-defeating because if religious totalitarianism is the practice of taking your religious ideas, forcing others to live as though those ideas are true, then it turns out that Thomas Friedman is also a religious totalitarian. He is not just saying that this narrow, exclusivist view is wrong, he is saying it must be eradicated. We have the same suggestion from the United Nations Secretary General.
How do we answer this? I think many of us realize that basically the nature of Christianity is a truth claim - a claim that is offered as something that is true. It is not a pluralistic claim. It is not an inclusivistic claim. It is an exclusivistic claim. Of course, careful, thinking people from the beginning of time have understood that truth is exclusivistic. That is, if a claim is made and that thing is true, then by force of logic, that which disagrees with that claim is false.
How do we contextualize this claim in this circumstance? The key for us as ambassadors who are going through our doors of opportunity is that we are able to maneuver amidst foolish statements. And we need to help people get clear on the issues.
Here is a way to do that. Given the claim that Jesus is the Messiah, the only means of salvation for the world, what are our options? It seems we have only three entailed by the Christian message. You can either believe it, that is, agree that it is true. We can disbelieve it, declare that it is false. Or we can just withhold belief because you can’t say whether it is right or wrong. You offer no judgment one way or the other because you just don’t know.
Okay. Fair enough. But that is it. There are only three options. And given those options, how is it that the one that does not accept the Christian claim is justified in saying that Christianity is evil, is a form of religious totalitarianism, simply in view of believing that their view of religion is correct? This is what is very important. Christians think their views are correct. Given that claim and given that there are only three options, how is it that Christians can be evil simply for holding the view? Because the objector has only three options too. He can agree with us, which he doesn’t. He can withhold belief, in which case he couldn’t make any judgment whatsoever because he doesn’t know whether we are right or wrong. Or he could disagree, which all these people are doing. But notice that you can only disagree and say we are wrong if at the same time you are implicitly affirming that some other contrary view regarding salvation and religion is actually correct. You may not even know what it is. But some other view is correct when you say that the Christians are wrong. And when you say that, you are doing the very thing that you are objecting to us doing. That objection amounts to the claim that your religious view is true to the exclusion of ours. And if you hold that my view is false, you have to hold that those who disagree with you are wrong – me in this particular case – by sheer force of logic.
I don’t know how he can go any other way. There is no simpler way to put this, given this claim about Jesus. You either believe it, you reject it, or you withhold. These people are objecting. They reject the truth of this claim. But when they reject the truth of this, their claim implicitly is that their religious view is correct against ours. Fair enough. It doesn’t bother me, but it is not neutral. It’s a point of view in which you think I am wrong and you are right.
Some might say, there is another way out of these options. “It's only true for you that Jesus is the only way of salvation.” You see, now they have changed the subject, haven’t they, because the original question was not about me. It wasn’t about my beliefs. The claim was about Jesus being the only way. The claim was about Him, not me.
Under no condition can I be faulted as a Christian for believing that my view is correct because, obviously, both people who fault me believe that their view is correct.
I think what this ought to show us, friends, is a simple truth. Listen carefully, it is not that one thinks he is right and others are wrong that should be our concern. Rather, what matters is what he thinks is right and true. The danger isn’t thinking that you are right. That can’t be avoided unless you withhold taking opinions on anything.
The United Nations Secretary General is a bright man, but the view he expresses here is silly and self-defeating. It doesn’t help anything and we need to be able to carefully and graciously point out to people that they are missing the point. The point isn’t THAT one thinks his views are correct. The problem is in WHAT views he thinks are correct and what means he chooses to enforce his views. Of course, when people have these other silly ideas about religious totalitarianism expressed by Thomas Friedman, they turn into the totalitarian monsters that they are attempting to condemn in their writing. So given that it is not that they believe they are right, but what it is they believe is right, my question is: What precisely is dangerous about the content of the Christian message itself?
By the way, the same line of reasoning applies to objections of objective morality. The problem with you absolutists, one guy said on the radio last week, is that you think you are right. Okay, what is the alternative? That you are right? Then you are just as bad as I am. That no one is right? Then why are you complaining? You either believe that there is objective morality. Of course, that is your objection. Or, you don’t believe in objective morality, but in that case, nothing is really wrong and your objection self-destructs. So what? What’s up about that?
Friedman seems to imply that it is incompatible to think you are right and to be tolerant of those who disagree with you. He thinks that believing you are right necessarily leads to totalitarianism. But, in fact, you cannot be tolerant unless you do think you're right and the other person is wrong. That's at the heart of being tolerant. Otherwise, what is there to be tolerant of? Thinking you are right and being tolerant are completely consistent. Totalitarianism doesn't come from the fact that you think you're right; it comes from what you think you're right about and how you enforce it. Christianity is tolerant and it doesn't seek to enforce its exclusive claims by force or power, but by persuasion - which is exactly what Mr. Friedman tries to do in his column.
Stand to Reason - training Christians in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org
by Greg Koukl
In the aftermath of September 11, I’ve noticed a broad point of view that I’ve heard expressed on talk radio, in the Letters to the Editor, and seen on the Op-Ed pages of newspapers around the country. It is not a new challenge, but it has taken on new force since September 11. It is a twist on an old concern that as ambassadors we need to adjust to. But it is something that needs to be addressed aggressively. I don’t mean in a hostile way; I mean we have to put our minds to being able to articulate a response to this challenge. Stand to Reason has been articulating a response to this kind of challenge for a long time. Many of you, at least in principle, know the response. But I want to talk to you about how to tailor that response to some of the specific ways that concern is being raised in the current circumstances. That has to do with what one has called “religious totalitarianism.” This would be any view that is other than pluralism.
I was listening to a radio show earlier this week and the host was fielding a call from a caller who was raising concerns about those who think they have the right morality. And he made this statement, “The problem is that every culture has its view of what is right and wrong, and that is the source of the conflict.” Yes, there is conflict when people have different views of what is right and wrong. That is what civilization is about, after a fashion. The problem isn’t that people have differing views, because obviously implicit in the challenge is the question of the observation itself, it seems to me. Certainly in the process of the conversation, the caller had a view about what was right and what was wrong.
What this shows is that there is an issue afoot that has been expressed by lots of people, most recently in December 17 issue of Newsweek Magazine, page 19 where they have all the different quotes of the weeks. Here’s one: “The idea that there is one people in possession of the truth, one answer to the world’s ills, or one solution to humanity’s needs, has done untold harm throughout history.” This is really meant to be addressed to people like you and I who believe there is an answer, indeed, one solution to humanity’s needs. That truth is Christianity. Well, on this view, according to this person, this is the very view that has done untold harm throughout history. This was said by no lightweight: Kofi Aannan, Secretary General of the United Nations, in his speech receiving the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize. So, here you have somebody who is recognized by the world as being a standout in the area of peace such that he would receive this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. And then he offers as a propositional truth that people who view religion the way you and I view religion are dangerous.
Some of you may have been aware of another piece that came out on November 27, entitled “The Real War,” published in the New York Times Op-Ed page written by Thomas Friedman. I’ll just read you some selected quotes because I want you to get a feel for the kind of challenge and charges being mad.
Thomas Friedman starts out:
If 9/11 was indeed the onset of World War 3, we have to understand what this war is about. We are not fighting to eradicate terrorism. Terrorism is just a tool. We’re fighting to defeat an ideology, religious totalitarianism. World War 2 and the Cold War were thought to defeat secular totalitarianism, Nazism, and Communism. And World War 3 is a battle against religious totalitarianism, a view of the world that my faith must reign supreme and can be affirmed and held passionately only if all others are negated. That’s bin Ladenism.
You might think that is not a good characterization of Christianity because Christianity has never held that our faith must reign supreme and must be affirmed and held passionately only if others are negated – and it is not clear what he means by “negated” here. We have held that Christianity is true and we are willing to go into the marketplace of ideas where there is a pluralism of ideas allowed to be expressed and argue for our view. We hold that it is actually so.
Friedman makes a statement referring to Rabbi David Hartman. He says, “What first attracted me to Rabbi Hartman, when I reported from Jerusalem, was his contention that unless Jews reinterpret their faith in a way that embraced modernity and in a way that affirmed that God speaks multiple languages and is not exhausted by just one faith, they would have no future in the land of Israel.” His objection is to those schools of religion who preach exclusivism. He writes, “All faiths that come out of the Biblical tradition, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, have the tendency to believe that they have the exclusive truth. But when the Taliban wiped out the Buddhist statues that’s what they were saying and others have said it too. The opposite of religious totalitarianism is an ideology of pluralism, an ideology that embraces religious diversity." He writes that we must embrace this pluralism which is “an ideology that embraces religious diversity and the idea that my faith can be nurtured without claiming exclusive truth. America is the Mecca of that ideology.” He continues along the same path.
Essentially what he is doing here is identifying Christian and Jewish fundamentalists. He says we have to mount a battle against religious views that are exclusive in their claims. He claims that this is an evil. That it is what he calls “bin Ladenism.” And we have to marshal all forces at our disposal to defeat such a view.
Now, some of you who are just a bit ahead of me realize that this is wildly self-defeating because if religious totalitarianism is the practice of taking your religious ideas, forcing others to live as though those ideas are true, then it turns out that Thomas Friedman is also a religious totalitarian. He is not just saying that this narrow, exclusivist view is wrong, he is saying it must be eradicated. We have the same suggestion from the United Nations Secretary General.
How do we answer this? I think many of us realize that basically the nature of Christianity is a truth claim - a claim that is offered as something that is true. It is not a pluralistic claim. It is not an inclusivistic claim. It is an exclusivistic claim. Of course, careful, thinking people from the beginning of time have understood that truth is exclusivistic. That is, if a claim is made and that thing is true, then by force of logic, that which disagrees with that claim is false.
How do we contextualize this claim in this circumstance? The key for us as ambassadors who are going through our doors of opportunity is that we are able to maneuver amidst foolish statements. And we need to help people get clear on the issues.
Here is a way to do that. Given the claim that Jesus is the Messiah, the only means of salvation for the world, what are our options? It seems we have only three entailed by the Christian message. You can either believe it, that is, agree that it is true. We can disbelieve it, declare that it is false. Or we can just withhold belief because you can’t say whether it is right or wrong. You offer no judgment one way or the other because you just don’t know.
Okay. Fair enough. But that is it. There are only three options. And given those options, how is it that the one that does not accept the Christian claim is justified in saying that Christianity is evil, is a form of religious totalitarianism, simply in view of believing that their view of religion is correct? This is what is very important. Christians think their views are correct. Given that claim and given that there are only three options, how is it that Christians can be evil simply for holding the view? Because the objector has only three options too. He can agree with us, which he doesn’t. He can withhold belief, in which case he couldn’t make any judgment whatsoever because he doesn’t know whether we are right or wrong. Or he could disagree, which all these people are doing. But notice that you can only disagree and say we are wrong if at the same time you are implicitly affirming that some other contrary view regarding salvation and religion is actually correct. You may not even know what it is. But some other view is correct when you say that the Christians are wrong. And when you say that, you are doing the very thing that you are objecting to us doing. That objection amounts to the claim that your religious view is true to the exclusion of ours. And if you hold that my view is false, you have to hold that those who disagree with you are wrong – me in this particular case – by sheer force of logic.
I don’t know how he can go any other way. There is no simpler way to put this, given this claim about Jesus. You either believe it, you reject it, or you withhold. These people are objecting. They reject the truth of this claim. But when they reject the truth of this, their claim implicitly is that their religious view is correct against ours. Fair enough. It doesn’t bother me, but it is not neutral. It’s a point of view in which you think I am wrong and you are right.
Some might say, there is another way out of these options. “It's only true for you that Jesus is the only way of salvation.” You see, now they have changed the subject, haven’t they, because the original question was not about me. It wasn’t about my beliefs. The claim was about Jesus being the only way. The claim was about Him, not me.
Under no condition can I be faulted as a Christian for believing that my view is correct because, obviously, both people who fault me believe that their view is correct.
I think what this ought to show us, friends, is a simple truth. Listen carefully, it is not that one thinks he is right and others are wrong that should be our concern. Rather, what matters is what he thinks is right and true. The danger isn’t thinking that you are right. That can’t be avoided unless you withhold taking opinions on anything.
The United Nations Secretary General is a bright man, but the view he expresses here is silly and self-defeating. It doesn’t help anything and we need to be able to carefully and graciously point out to people that they are missing the point. The point isn’t THAT one thinks his views are correct. The problem is in WHAT views he thinks are correct and what means he chooses to enforce his views. Of course, when people have these other silly ideas about religious totalitarianism expressed by Thomas Friedman, they turn into the totalitarian monsters that they are attempting to condemn in their writing. So given that it is not that they believe they are right, but what it is they believe is right, my question is: What precisely is dangerous about the content of the Christian message itself?
By the way, the same line of reasoning applies to objections of objective morality. The problem with you absolutists, one guy said on the radio last week, is that you think you are right. Okay, what is the alternative? That you are right? Then you are just as bad as I am. That no one is right? Then why are you complaining? You either believe that there is objective morality. Of course, that is your objection. Or, you don’t believe in objective morality, but in that case, nothing is really wrong and your objection self-destructs. So what? What’s up about that?
Friedman seems to imply that it is incompatible to think you are right and to be tolerant of those who disagree with you. He thinks that believing you are right necessarily leads to totalitarianism. But, in fact, you cannot be tolerant unless you do think you're right and the other person is wrong. That's at the heart of being tolerant. Otherwise, what is there to be tolerant of? Thinking you are right and being tolerant are completely consistent. Totalitarianism doesn't come from the fact that you think you're right; it comes from what you think you're right about and how you enforce it. Christianity is tolerant and it doesn't seek to enforce its exclusive claims by force or power, but by persuasion - which is exactly what Mr. Friedman tries to do in his column.
Stand to Reason - training Christians in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org