IRISCInternational Research Institute into Spirituality and Change |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Truth and the multiplicity of religions
by Ian Carter Abstract: Truth is central to our religious faith. In a post modern secularised society, claims of religious truth are questioned. This article explores concepts of truth from an interfaith perspective, and suggests values to be learnt from our diversity and differences. Keywords: truth, interfaith, religions, NHS, pluralism, post-modern, interdisciplinary, dialogue Introduction We are faced with a stark choice, either God and truth, or no God and no truth. This is the conclusion of Markham (1998 a) (page 115). As he considers religious traditions, he considers exclusivism "tribal" and the pluralism of inclusivism as incompatible with truth (page 125). He goes on to suggest "... it seems clear that God desires ambiguity and complexity" and celebrates diversity and disagreement (pages 126-7). He approaches natural theology from a Christian perspective, but seems happy that "at the heart of the major world faiths is the same basic structure" (page 21). Elsewhere Markham (1998 b), he is careful to note the complexity and diversity within every religious tradition, and identifies at least four different accounts of spirituality among four major religious traditions. He tells us (page 84) "from an interfaith perspective, it seems clear that both harmonization and the lowest common denominator approach are unsatisfactory. An alternative approach is needed." He goes on to talk of multiculturalism, and concludes that we need to listen to the disagreement and engage with it (page 86). For me this stark choice of either God and truth or no God and no truth, and disagreements and diversity among those who claim religious truth, is brought sharply into focus as I seek to minister as a Health Care Chaplain. Part of my job as co-ordinator of spiritual care in Oldham NHS Trust is to provide for members of other faith communities. I have wrestled with the implications of this for spirituality in two recent articles (Carter (1999) and Carter (2000)). Much is shared between us, but much is in dispute - from beliefs and convictions about the nature of God and the afterlife, to societal understandings of the place and role of women. When distinctive faiths claim to be teaching the truth, what can we say? Points where we converge, points where we differ Many years ago when I was a microbiologist at the University of Kent, Canterbury, my closest colleague was a Muslim. At the time I was learning Greek to prepare for a course at theological college. She could understand why I would want to read my scriptures in the original language, as she did herself. She could not understand why the other "Christians" in the lab thought it so amusing. Points where we converge, points where we differ. At the time I read my Bible faithfully expecting the living Word to direct my life. She too believed her scriptures to be the key to a right way of life. They were just different scriptures, although both just as foreign to most of the others in the lab in the way we applied them. Points where we converge, points where we differ. At the time my prayer life was charismatically alive, and she was faithful and believing in her regular and traditional prayer. Both of us were seen as extreme by the others. Points where we converge, points where we differ. There was much myself and my Muslim colleague shared in common, that the others who had a secularised Christian understanding of spirituality could not grasp. Yet we both thought the other to have missed the truth. Is there some commonality of beliefs and practices which we shared that we were unable to recognise? Diversity and disagreements Where should we search for such a commonality of beliefs and practices? Perhaps in an integrative approach that, shaped by social, historical and cultural embeddedness, is interpreted by human rationality; or may be in a minimalist commonality of whatever can be agreed about the truth about reality and belief, the importance and consequences of holding a religious world-view, and the standards of behaviour and lifestyle which derive from traditional models. However, as I said in the opening paragraph these seem inadequate approaches to the diversity and disagreements of religious truth. Lash (1996) works hard to avoid "the flight into feeling" and "the flight into thought" (page 249) in his attempt to grapple with these issues as he works towards what he sees as religious maturity. Many of the essays and lectures in this book are helpful in considering the relation of theology and the sciences and the secularity of modern Western culture. One of his many helpful comments that rand true to me was "... it is from the way God deals with us that we are brought into relationship with God." (page 65). It is from this perspective that I would like to look at truth and religions. One of the issues that the complex challenge of post-modern thought highlights is that of a context deeply affected by fragmentation, multiplicity, incommensurablity and pluralism. Intelligible cross-disciplinary conversation becomes all but impossible. The very notion of rationality seems all but implausible. The whole process of discovery seems to depend upon conventions and language games. Objectivity and reality seem to be sacrificed on the altar of relativism. Getting reality right Reader (1997) outlines (pages 130-1) the dilemmas of the self as an account of this process - fragmentation verses unification, authority verses certainty, choice verses manipulation. He looks particularly at the challenge of secular humanism to religion, but perhaps the same analysis is relevant in the interfaith context. He concludes that it is important to retain the balances and tensions of these dilemmas to act as correctives on each other (page 167). Some have sought a rational approach to this diversity by the application of hermeneutics - in such accounts words are seen as much more than labels to reality and seem almost to develop a mental life of their own. Meaning is apprehended locally or contextually. For instance Rorty (1991) says (page 1), "(I do) ... not view knowledge as a matter of getting reality right, but rather of acquiring habits of action for coping with reality." It disturbs me that some theologians seem willing to embrace the inherent ambiguity and intractable unreliability of this way of coping with reality enthusiastically, and call for a return to orthodox or neo-orthodox traditional positions. I struggled through Milbank (1993) a breathtaking, critical, scholarly survey of a vast field, only to be disappointed with what seemed like a return to Christendom with a fusion of narrative and transcendental theology. There is a persuasive power in his commitment to love, harmony and peace, but I felt let down as theology and social science seem to have been equated. At the least, post-modern thought makes us question the metanarratives we use, and makes us aware that our narrative competes with other narratives for credibility. As a rational agent, I enter any conversation only from my own perspective on what the rational explanation of experience is. It does not follow that I agree with others who enter the same conversation. One result of present pluralism is fragmentation into "local theologies" - the emergence of communities within which diverse forms of faith and practice are seriously and consciously developed and reinforced - be they liberation, feminist, gay, green, post-liberal, neo-orthodox, or any other of a burgeoning range of theologies. Reader (1994) looks at the implications of suspending universal claims to truth and concludes that some sort of mediating frameworks are needed to move from the local to the more general (page 94). He describes a "poppy seed head theology" in which ideas are blown about in different directions and take root in unexpected places (page 129). A "Third Way" In the context of fragmentation and breakdown of metanarratives it is easy to be critical of other approaches, and in the present political climate I don’t think I dare suggest I would like a "third way"! There will be conflicts as well as agreements in our creative interactions with other Christians and members of other faiths. We all have good reasons to hang on to our beliefs and moral choices and the way we act and evaluate. Because our reflection and rationality is embedded in our communities it shows in our traditioned praxis. In matters of faith and religious commitment we relate to our world through interpreted experience. As we interact with others, the common patterns of that interpreted experience may allow us to have open, rational, genuine, interdisciplinary conversations. Our shared concerns and constructive dialogue may free us from the prison of our tribal concentration upon the relative truth content of our preferred traditions. Markham (1998 a) wonders if our disagreements can be understood as a matter of intrinsic error on one part or the other, or as a matter of incompleteness? Another author I found helpful was Tracy (1994) who speaks of a spiritual journey, a pilgrimage in which "the universal is found by embracing the particular" (p137). He also says there "Surely this route through the particular is a wiser way to find truth, than seeking that ever-elusive goal, a common denominator among religions." The "Third Way" which I’m looking for is to retain a grounding in self respect by believing in the truth and value of my own tradition, while yet being open to other traditions. Neither fundamentalist rejection of other traditions, nor relativist equating of all traditions to sameness are options for me. I want to honour the truth of my own tradition (including its claim to uniqueness!) and testify to the truth of all that it means to me, but not at the expense of dishonouring the commitment to truth and the importance of tradition that those in other great faiths and denominations have experienced. In the above discussion I have noted at several points the way different authors have found strengths in the balances and checks that come from the disagreements between our traditions. van Huyssteen (1999) says (page 285) "... human rationality was adequately revealed as our species’ most distinguishing survival strategy" and in that book argues for theology to speak within the broader context of interdisciplinary reflection. I find that a rational approach which has an appropriate regard for disagreement and difference sits well with my involvement in and experience of ecumenical and interfaith dialogue and my commitment to Health Care Chaplaincy. Conclusion God created a universe, a planet earth and a human race with immense diversity. He demands respect for persons even or perhaps especially when they disagree with me. It seems to me, we have plurality because God intended it, and perhaps through it He intends us to learn the lesson of humility and the need for dialogue. References Carter I (2000) Health Care Spirituality and Change - Creating a 21st Century NHS, Milton Keynes and Malvern Papers. July Carter IS (1999) Spirituality and Patient Care, Milton Keynes and Malvern Papers. October Cobb M and Robshaw V(eds) (1998) The Spiritual Challenge of Health Care. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh Lash N (1996) The Beginning and the End of ‘Religion’. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Markham I (1998 a) Truth and the Reality of God: An Essay in Natural Theology. T&T Clark, Edinburgh Markham I (1998 b) Spirituality and the World of Faiths. In Cobb M and Renshaw V (Eds) Milbank J (1993) Theology & Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason. Blackwell, Oxford Reader J (1997) Beyond all Reason: The Limits of Post-Modern Theology. Aureus, Cardiff Reader J (1994) Local Theology: Church and Community in Dialogue. SPCK, London Rorty R (1991) Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers volume 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Tracy D (1994) On Naming the Present: God, Hermeneutics and the Church. SCM Press, London van Huyssteen J. W (1999) The Shaping of Rationality: Toward Interdisciplinarity in Theology and Science. William B Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||