The Syn of Syncretism
July 21, 2002 | 9 Comments
Earlier this month David Benke, a minister with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (”LCMS”) was suspended for participating in an prayer service with Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and non-Lutheran Christians at Yankee Stadium for victims of the 9/11 tragedy. The charges against him were “syncretism” and “unionism,” which consist of worshiping with pagans and thereby giving the impression that 1) there might be gods other than the one true Christian god, and/or 2) the Christian god might not be a Lutheran. The Raving Atheist, of course, knows that everybody at the prayer service was merely babbling at the sky and bemoans only the fact that his tax dollars were used to finance such a meaningless affair.
However, I share a certain philosophical sympathy the LCMS insofar as its theological position, although false, at least has the virtue of consistency. The ecumenical, interfaith notion that “we all worship the same god” is demonstrable nonsense, since radically different characteristics and moral beliefs are attributed to god. Accordingly, if one god is the true god, then all others must be false.
This view, ironically, puts me into bed with the most fundamentalist of religionists, including Baptist minister John Blanchard, the author of the excellent (and rabidly raving) “Does God Believe in Atheists?” Commenting on the 1986 Day of Prayer for World Peace, an event similar in spirit the Yankee Stadium get together, Rev. Blanchard made the following astute observations:
Organized by Pope John Paul II, it drew together 130 religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury . . . leading representatives of Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism, the Dalai Lama . . . as well as snake worshippers, fire worshippers, spiritists, animists and a gentleman rejoicing in the name of John Pretty-on-Top, chief medicine man of the Crow Indians of Montana. Even if we assume that everyone attending the event was genuinely concerned for world peace, it is difficult to see how they could unite in praying about it. To whom where they praying? To the supreme, sovereign, yet loving God of the Roman Catholics and Anglicans? To some or all of Hinduism’s millions of deities? To Islam’s austere Allah? To the spirits of inanimate objects revered in Tibetan animism? To fire or snakes? To whatever object of worship commends itself to the Crow Indians? And how does one pray to Hinduism’s ultimate principle or Zoroastrianism’s spirit of light and goodness?
There is no “lowest common denominator” which allows all conceptions of deity to be both inclusive and valid . . . It is one thing to defend the right of everyone to freedom of worship; it is quite another thing to say that everyone’s choice is right. Toleration is not the same as validation. Theoretically, all religions may be wrong; logically, they cannot all be right. The idea that all religions are the same is clearly ridiculous, but it is no more sensible to say that they point in the same direction or lead to the same destination.
A similar point was made by devout Catholic Rod Dreher in National Review Online . Dreher expresses a further concern that religious relativism will lead to moral relativism and soft nihilism, and thus ultimately the adoption of a widespread view that “abortion, gay sex, living together outside of marriage, and viewing pornography are morally acceptable.” Unlike Blanchard, however, Dreher is no philosopher and commits a series of embarrassing errors in argumentation.
First, Dreher doesn’t make the slightest attempt to defend what is apparently most important to him: his “truth claim” that “salvation comes exclusively through Jesus Christ, and that the Church of Rome is a necessary part of the salvific equation.” The document he cites, “Dominus Iesus” doesn’t either, but merely sets down a of arbitrary pronouncements which are to be believed on faith because their proof is said to be a “mystery.”
Nor does Dreher explain either how his particular moral beliefs are derived from his claims about Christ and salvation. His point seems to be that moral relativism would disappear if religious relativism disappeared. But even if every religion adopted his objectivist approach, all you would have is what we already have, thousands of churches with no consensus on abortion, gay sex, the death penalty and other debated issues.
Lastly, Dreher’s attack on a mentality that makes moral judgments “without critical reflection on the implications of particular views and actions” is hypocritical. Indeed, his whole point is that we should ignore those implications and simply do the bidding of what some church says that some mysterious god wants. And even in that regard he isn’t consistent, since he attacks his own Pope for going too far in inviting African witch doctors to a Vatican-sponsored prayer conference.
July 25th, 2003 @ 2:45 pm
You’re a moron. Nuff said. Dedicate yourself to improving society and your emotional well being. And use fewer curse words, people might actually listen to you… okay, maybe one more person.
July 25th, 2003 @ 3:31 pm
Two questions. Can you prove it? Do you mean a proof moron or a belief moron?
July 25th, 2003 @ 3:36 pm
Well, at least it’s the level of discourse I expect from an anonymous schmo[e].
July 25th, 2003 @ 3:36 pm
Well, at least it’s the level of discourse I expect from an anonymous schmo[e].
July 25th, 2003 @ 3:36 pm
Well, at least it’s the level of discourse I expect from an anonymous schmo[e].
July 25th, 2003 @ 3:36 pm
Well, at least it’s the level of discourse I expect from an anonymous schmo[e].
July 25th, 2003 @ 3:36 pm
Well, at least it’s the level of discourse I expect from an anonymous schmo[e].
July 25th, 2003 @ 3:36 pm
Well, at least it’s the level of discourse I expect from an anonymous schmo[e].
August 16th, 2003 @ 5:54 pm
Very nice. Here’s my take: http://ns1.madnet.net/~peterj/reltol.html