comparative-religions « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Introduction to Comparative Religions (Honors' Class) Spring, 2005

peterkrey — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:11:26 +0000

Honors' Class for Comparative Religions - Spring Semester, Los Medanos College

Dr. Peter Krey

Course Introduction, January 18^th through 20^th, 2005.

The ecumenical movement brought many Christians from different traditions together. Many times the police did it, New York's finest, by picking us clergy up in their vans to bring us to their meetings dealing with intractable city problems. When Rabbis and Imams were also present, it was an inter-faith meeting. When only Christians were gathered, then it was ecumenical.^{^[1]}

In one meeting, a lay leader, i.e., non-clergy, compared the church to a coffee: “Chock full o' Nuts.” We all laughed. He later ran off with the treasury.

In that ecumenical meeting, hearing Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic priests and Protestant clergy talk, it occurred to me that they were representatives of former Greek and Roman empires whose values their churches continued to keep alive. I later came upon this thought in Thomas Hobbes:

...if a man consider the original of this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof.^{^[2]}

But to be associated too closely to the secular time seems to some to take away human freedom. Why not live out of previous cultures in present circumstances, if the values cherished are positive?

Reinhold Niebuhr speaks of the need for personal or individual transcendence in several of his books. Why not live in Western culture out of Eastern values? Why not be Caucasian and live out of an African-American ethos, or vice versa? Some people are even in the body of a man, but want to live out of the life of a woman, or vice versa. They sometimes even surgically and with the help of hormonal treatments change their bodies to transcend or change their gender into the opposite one.

Reinhold Niebuhr is far more conservative and does not refer to what is happening here on the gender edge of our world. But he says:

Part of the anatomy of human self-hood is to be able to stand beyond and outside himself and his communities^{^[3]}

Niebuhr means that a human being has to be free to transcend the given community s/he is part of. Religions may provide ways to participate in such freedom. He speaks about the "transcendent dimension within the human soul" in one of his later books.^{^[4]}

His concept of transcendence helps me, a practicing and deeply rooted Christian of the Lutheran Denomination, as traditions are called here, to learn about and understand other religions. But the same concept also more basically explains why many people feel unfulfilled, duck-taped to and caught in, an impersonal, depersonalizing secular order.

Niebuhr also provides a criterion for determining whether religion is positive of negative in the place just cited:

It was a mistake of the religious ages to regard the religious dimension^{^[5]} as good in itself and an equal mistake of the secular age to regard it as purely the source of evil. It can be both destructive and creative. It is creative when an ultimate norm or value is set in judgment over the historically relative and ambiguous achievements of [hu]man existence. It is destructive and a source of evil if a simple identification is made between the ultimate norm and the norms and values, which we cherish.^{^[6]}

The longer compass and the gyroscopes of stability – (gyroscopes are used to stabilize ships) - are sometimes provided by religions to people and cultures. What about states? Question: What happens when the deep cultural strain is merged with the state? In secularism, the state can co-opt and compromise religion and in clericalism, religion can co-opt and compromise the state.

Often we fear to study other religions because we are afraid our own beliefs and convictions will become undermined. The concept of transcendence can also help us here. We are free to investigate other religions and do not have to forsake our rooted-ness in our own religion. It even becomes our experience that it takes knowing other religions to understand our own.

We can investigate different religions from many different scholarly stand-points:

***phenomenology of religions: the source of religion is an encounter with the holy, {Rudolf Otto (1869-1937)} and the holy is the numinous, while the manifestations by which religions display themselves are their phenomenology. The religious phenomena that undergo rigorous descriptive observation and analysis (via Edmund Husserl's method) are authentic records, (sacred texts, symbols and doctrine), (piety, social structure, and their idea of the holy), historic settings, career of the founder, saint, or philosopher. Thus the phenomenology of religion is the objective analysis of religious essence (the numinous) as it displays itself on the world stage.^{^[7]} "Religious phenomenology demonstrates the primitive, folk, and world religions live through the stress and strain of interaction with law and ethics. They are quickened through ritual, social change, and historical interpenetrations."^{^[8]}

***Comparative religions: religions studied side by side and compared to highlight their similarities and differences. "Only what has been understood can be compared."^{^[9]} Seeing the ways that various religions solve the same social and historical problems confronting human beings help bring out the particular nature or essence of each one. For such a study of religions to succeed one needs sympathy for things that are religious, personal religious experience, and impartiality.^{^[10]} Actually to understand a religion an inner participation and commitment are also a prerequisite.^{^[11]} For example in comparing religions, the teachings of one are often compared with the reality of another; but doctrine ought only be compared with doctrine, ideal with ideal, and reality with reality.^{^[12]}

***the history of religions: a religion can be studied as it progresses and changes through history, from its founding to it most modern manifestations. In doing so, the historian does not need to limit his or her study to one religion, but can trace the origins and interactions of the world religions, starting with the most ancient e.g., the Hindu, to the latest, e.g., Islam, or Protestantism, if you will. (Karl Jaspers has an Axial Theory of religions, where Protestantism - with Luther and the Reformation -is considered an early modern breakthrough into the numinous after Confucius, Buddha, Moses, Socrates, and Mohammed.)

***the sociology of religions: Robert Bellah theorizes that

there are three approaches to religion:

1) the cognitive propositional

2) the expressive experiential

Using a Noam Chomsky expression, there is a deep structure to all religions and there are surface structures. (Perhaps phenomenology of religion tries to get at this distinction with the numinous and the phenomenal.)

3) the cultural linguistic

Religion is a whole way of life, according to Robert Bellah. Learning religion is like learning a language with a whole grammar into which one is inducted over a long period of time. Religion is a system of beliefs and practices relative to the sacred, creating a moral community. This moral community is critical. Private religion violates moral community. [A constant theme of Bellah.] Bellah’s definition of religion marginalizes private religion.

See a sample lecture of Robert Bellah using a cultural-linguistic approach: "Being- and Deficiency-consciousness."

***the theology of religions: such a study views other religions from a Christian theological stand-point, pointing out that a scientific approach to religion is doomed to miss the essence of religions. Schlette argues there is special sacred history and general sacred history of the non-Christian religions and they are willed and sanctioned by God with their negative as well as positive elements. They encounter God's divine guidance and presence and are embraced in God's universal salvific will. The non-Christian religions are ways of salvation, while the Christians walk the extraordinary way, whose election is for the sake of other religions. Christianity is not a superior way of salvation, but an epiphany for other religions. The ways lead through the darkness into the way through clear light. (I might add to Schlette that some of Christianity still needs to muddle its way into clearer light as do other religions.) Schlette presents an interesting way of one religion affirming the participation of the other religions in salvation history.

***anthropology of religions: the many methods used by this discipline make such a study unwieldy. Interestingly enough, one study speaks of making a "hiérography" of a religion, much the way anthropologists do an ethnography of a culture.^{^[13]}

***Philosophy of Religions: religions as grist for the mill of metaphysics, except that the truth question would be unavoidable, where other "scientific" studies might avoid evaluation by attempting neutrality.

A QUESTION:

I wonder if there is a psychology of religions and which one of you might write it from a Jungian or Freudian perspective.

^{^[1]} Οiκoυμέvη: "ecumenical" the civilized world, social responsibility for the whole world, locally as well as globally: œkumenical, from oiκoς i.e., oikos house, household, kingdom.

^{^[2]}Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, (London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1962), p. 500.

^{^[3]}For example in The Structure of Nations and Empires, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1959), p. 290. Niebuhr wrote his works before we became conscious of sexist language.

^{^[4]}The Self and the Dramas of History, (New York: University Press of America, Inc., 1983), p. 240. He even claims that the social dimension of the self has to allow for the transcendence of an individual self even if it seems irrelevant to any sense of meaning the community may have. (Ibid.)

^{^[5]}Niebuhr writes that AThe sense of the ultimate can be defined as the religious dimension of existence@ (p. 290).

^{^[6]}Ibid. Paul Tillich's great rule of the ambiguity of all human phenomena, especially includes religions. Tillich is a great Christian theologian, who believed Luther's theology should be translated into modern language and symbols. God is the ground of being. Faith is ultimate concern. Justification by grace is acceptance of the unacceptable, etc.

^{^[7]}Edward J. Juri, Phenomenology of Religion, (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1963), p. vii-viii, 3, and 293.

^{^[8]}Ibid., p. 4.

^{^[9]}Heinz Robert Schlette, Towards a Theology of Religions, (London: Burns & Oates, 1966), p. 46.

^{^[10]}Ibid.

^{^[11]}Note how much Huston Smith answers these strictures.

^{^[12]}Ibid., p. 131. Schlette is citing T. Ohm in an endnote.

^{^[13]}Schlette, p. 46 and n.130.

Faith-Based Initiatives and Religious Pluralism

Doug Geivett — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 06:28:31 +0000

Government support for "faith-based initiatives" has been one of the most visible of George W. Bush's initiatives during his two-term presidency.

This program was welcomed by many religious believers, especially Christians and most especially socially conservative Christians. Many of these Christians have been theologically conservative, as well. One implication of this is that many Christians in favor of faith-based initiatives object to religious pluralism.

Because so much support for faith-based initiatives comes from socially and theologically conservative Christians, some opponents of Bush's policy have directed one particular argument against this constituency. They have argued that—under the government program—nonChristian institutions of faith must be allowed equal opportunity to participate in the program. They have then assumed that Christian entities in support of the policy would object to nonChristian participation. This would mean one that Christian supporters of the Bush policy have a double standard, one for themselves and another for nonChristian entities. And this is both offensive and non-viable in a socially and politically pluralistic environment such as we have in the United States. The alternative is for Christian groups to withhold support for faith-based initiatives. Without their support, one might imagine, the policy would die on the vine.

What should we make of this argument?

First, we must distinguish between religious pluralism, in the theological sense, and social and political pluralism. In the Christian theological tradition, "religious pluralism" is a term for broad approval of the view that salvation is available in the context of a variety of religions, rather than through Christ alone. Opposition to this kind of religious pluralism is compatible with acceptance of social and political pluralism; it's even compatible with the sort of social and political toleration that is considered such a virtue.

In a modern democracy, there are bound to be many different kinds of religious communities, members of which have equal entitlement to participation in government arrangements. All have the same rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Christian advocates of faith-based initiatives are free to support nonChristian institutional participation in faith-based initiatives.

In fact, one expression of Christian charity would be to welcome the aid of nonChristian groups in the effort to assist members of society most in need of assistance.

We come to the second point. The objection to Christian support for faith-based initiatives, outlined above, may prove too much. It assumes that, apart from support by Christian conservatives, the faith-based Bush plan would lose traction. Let's assume this is true. Why would that be?

I'm sure the answer is complicated. But part of the answer may have to do with how Christian institutions, among faith-based organizations, provide assistance to those in need. It may happen that a significant majority of faith-based assistance work is handled by Christian organizations. There are, after all, many more Christians in the United States than there are members of other faiths or secularists. But it would be of much more interest to learn about any differences there might be between Christian and nonChristian programs of assistance, in terms of theological motivation, organizational infrastructure, efficiency, lay participation, and so forth.

Christianity stresses "good Samaritan" behavior. It would be interesting to compare nonChristian faiths, and also secularism, on this point. Of course, organized groups of secularists are not faith-based entities, in the traditional sense. So, though they might support faith-based initiatives, in the interests of assisting by all means those in need, they would not qualify for participation in faith-based initiatives. At any rate, non-sectarian societies that exist to help others have long been supported in various ways with government aid.

We should recall another feature of the "good Samaritan" practice within Christianity. In his parable of the good Samaritan, Jesus instructed his audience to provide self-sacrificing assistance to those in need, even when those in need are not members of one's own community—including one's own community of faith. This perhaps explains why so many institutions (for example, hospitals and world relief organizations) have been the legacy of Christian social activism.

Studying the ways in which, and even the extent to which, different religious faiths conceive of their role in assisting the needy could contribute mightily to inter-faith understanding. It could also provide useful perspective for evaluating the objection to faith-based initiatives described above. Are Christian organizations the primary vehicles for the distribution of faith-based aid? If so, we might look to the social practices of nonChristian faith groups for a deep explanation.

The Denomination Game: Catholics and Protestants and Mormons, Oh my!

makeitso57 — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:33:35 +0000

It seems to me that Protestant Christians worship with their heads while Catholic Christians worship with their heart. I have fairly extensive exposure to both and I find that what I really want is a sort of combination of the two. I want outstanding preaching that engages my brain and challenges my behavior with a comforting sense of ritual that allows me to pray a rosary, go to confession, and light a candle when I pray about something really big in my life. The Protestants seem to have really great Bible Study’s and sermons while the Catholics have a sense of belonging and a common ritual that can free people up in the way the approach and pray to God.

Catholics have more formalized prayer formats like Lecto Dvina, Centering Prayer, The Rosary, Novena’s and even Chaplets. (What is a chaplet exactly?) The older I get the more I sometimes don’t know what to say to God in prayer. I don’t know, and can no longer pretend, that I know what “outcome” I should be praying for regarding any given event. What happens when life is hard and I can’t go to church without a winning smile and a hearty “Jesus loves you” for everyone I meet? Bad stuff happens and we suffer the loss of jobs, parents, friends, kid’s spouses, you name it, and yet we go to churches where an eternally uplifted countenance and cheerful demeanor seems to be required. Our faith has been shaken and we are a quivering mass of questions on the inside. The pain of pretending that we’re all right is more then we can bare to project to the ever vigilant greeters at a protestant church. At times like this its best to be Catholic. I can pray a rosary, or the divine office and trust the Holy Spirit to intercede for me during this prayer because he knows much better than I do exactly what I need and often times how I feel. As a Catholic my just showing up and taking part in communion and mass has great significance and I can participate and belong at Mass if my heart is broken or if I’m on top of the world.

Protestants have a much better quality of both preaching and teaching. The Eucharist is the center of the mass but the “message” is the center of a protestant service. How many times have I been blown away by protestant sermons and bible study’s and look at the growth of my walk with the Lord that has been the result of such fine teaching. How many times have I been starved for teaching and direction only to receive a rambling Catholic homily? How many times have I been to Catholic Bible Study’s only to discover that it’s about the presiding priest, deacon, cannon lawyer or nun rather then about the laity trying to make sense of it all. The presiding official tells us the “answers” and somehow the journey of finding our answers in the faith we profess is bypassed. There is the old adage that if you give a starving man a fish then he eats for a day but if you teach him to fish he eats for a lifetime. In effective Bible Study how you arrive at your position in the faith is at least as important as coming up with the “right” answer. You learn to have faith by struggling with your faith and by learning from the Christian resources you have such as the bible, the church, and fellow Christians. Protestant bible study’s expect you to apply yourself to the bible and learn while too often the Catholic Bible Study’s expect you to listen to the person giving the bible study and write down the answers.

One has the feeling that one must adopt an affected persona to go and be educated at the protestant church or surrender your curiosity at the door to attend mass. (As if my confusion were not great enough, the guy I wanted for President was a Mormon.) One church is governed by a sort of ruling elite click group while the other is governed by a monolithic high command that can be every bit as suffocating as the “in” group at a protestant church. I feel the need to pick one, catholic or protestant, but then you have the problem of which of the protestant churches are best. How would you even begin to tackle the sometimes minute, sometimes major differences between protestant denominations?

I have no idea what I’m going to do beyond trying churches of both sides here in Bucks county Pennsylvania in the hopes that I will somehow find my answer. Each weekend I will try a different church and see where that takes me. Look for continuing updates on my quest for a “Church Home”. In the mean time I suggest that one of the best teaching churches I’ve ever come across is New Hope Christian fellowship in Hawaii; Pastor Wayne Corderio presiding.

المناظرة الرائعة: القرآن والإنجيل فى ضوء العلم

anwarica — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:01:05 +0000

المناظرة القوية والتى تستمر قرابة الـ4 ساعات عن القرآن والإنجيل فى ضوء العلم .. المناظرة بين الدكتور زاكر نايك والدكتور وليام كامبل .. المناظرة تحتوى على معلومات دسمة جداً وردود قاطعة لا تقبل الجدال، وأعتبرها من أهم المناظرات التى تابعتها حتى الآن.

المحاضرة على يوتيوب:

أو التحميل من روابط مباشرة: جزء1 - جزء2 - جزء3 - جزء4

جزى الله خيراً الأخ حسن إبراهيم على كل هذه الروابط.

The Shiites and the Sunnis

ssbg — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 05:17:11 +0000

This is from http://hughhewitt.townhall.com

Posted by Dean Barnett

1) Who are the Sunnis and the Shiites?

They are the two main sects of Islam. And generally speaking, they’re not crazy about each other.

2) What are the differences between them?

Historically, they suffered their fissure 13 centuries ago when they differed over who the rightful heir to Muhammad was. Beyond that little nugget, the typical congressman shouldn’t have to worry his pretty little blow-dried head about the origins of the two sects.

The Sunnis historically were much more political than the Shiites. Devout and fundamentalist Sunnis felt (and feel) that there can be no law above the Koran. That means they feel that government by necessity must be a theocracy. Also, fundamentalist Sunnis consider Shiites to be apostates. An apostate is an even worse thing to be than an infidel.

Shiites traditionally were relatively non-political. You’ve seen this kind of Shiite philosophy in action in Iraq where Ayatollah Sistani supported the formation of a secular government and declined to claim the reins of leadership himself.

3) So who’s Sunnis and who’s Shiite?

The Shiite majority countries are Iran and Iraq . The Sunni majority countries are everyone else.

4) But wait. I thought you said Shiites were more open to secular governments than Sunnis. Then how do you explain Iran? Is Iran not a theocracy?

The ascension of the Khomenist Shiites in the late 1970’s marked a sea-change for the Shiite world. The Khomenists brought theocratic dictates to the Shiite realm. Before that and even after that, Shiites would have secular leaders like Yasser Arafat who in spite of his many flaws was at least not a religious nut. But with the Khomenists’ star continuing to rise, the Shiites are becoming every bit as radicalized as the most radical Sunnis.

5) Can Sunnis and Shiites get along?

While of course tolerant people of any faith can get along, rigid fundamentalist Sunnis and Shiites don’t get along. Like I said, the radical Sunnis like the Wahabists and those in Al Qaeda consider the Shiites to be apostates. The Khomenists think much the same about their Sunni brethren.

6) Why’s that?

Because they practice slightly different faiths. The Shiites like Ahmadenijad wait for the 12^th Imam. The Sunnis like bin Laden consider this apostasy. And vice versa.

7) But wait. You said Syria is a Sunni country. And yet they seem pretty snug with Iran. What gives?

The controlling Baath party in Syria is part of the Shiite Alawi sect. Even though the Alawis make up only 10% or so of the population, they are in firm control. So Assad cooperating with Iran is a Shiite/Shiite partnership.

8) How come the Sunni majority tolerates Assad’s leadership?

It’s a dictatorship, dummy. Dictatorships get “tolerated” until they’re not anymore. But since Hafez Assad seized power in 1970, he and his chinless ophthalmologist son have had a solid grip on things. When the so-called war on terror started, Syria was considered a low-hanging fruit because of the country’s massive Sunni majority and Bashir Assad’s weak nature. But the fruit has gotten a lot higher over the past several months with Israel’s failed war against Hezbollah and Iran’s increasing brazenness in supporting its Syrian puppets.

9) What really worries me is that Iran will get a nuclear bomb and then give it to Al Qaeda. Am I wrong to have such a concern?

Right church, wrong pew. So to speak. Iran and Al Qaeda will never work together. Ever. Iran is run by fundamentalist Shiites. Al Qaeda is composed of the world’s most radical Sunnis. They hate each other even more than they hate us. Iran would never give Al Qaeda a weapon of mass destruction because if they did, it would be every bit as likely to detonate in Tehran as in Manhattan.

But Iran has its own terror group that is more lethal, better funded and better organized than Al Qaeda. Iran runs Hezbollah. If Iran wanted to give a weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist group, it wouldn’t need to outsource the project. Its own in-house terrorist brand is a lot more efficient at what it does than the cave-dwelling losers who comprise Al Qaeda.

10) That’s sobering. I guess we should be fighting Iran and Hezbollah. After all, we did declare a global war on terrorism and together they represent the globe’s most dangerous terrorist threat.

Yes, we should. And the fact that we aren’t tells you all you need to know about the Global War on Terror. At this point, it’s a pile of hooey. After we got to Al Qaeda and made them pay for 9/11, our country lost interest.

11) So, the big question: Can the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis live peacefully alongside each other?

It depends on how fundamentalist and radicalized each sect in Iraq is. We know each sect has its elements that are bent on violence. The question is whether these elements are fringe groups or the mainstream. If they’re fringe groups, they can be destroyed and peace could break out. If they’re the mainstream, there’s no hope.

12) So what if they’re the mainstream? Then what?

Then the country has to be broken up, with the Sunnis getting a piece and the Shiites getting a piece and the Kurds holding onto their piece.

13) That’s disappointing. It doesn’t quite match the original vision of an Islamic Jeffersonian democracy that swirled about our heads three years ago, does it?

Radical Shiites and radical Sunnis have as much interest in living in a Jeffersonian Democracy as the typical American has living under Sharia. The quicker we come to peace with that fact, the better.

14) Now that I know all this stuff about Shiites and Sunnis, I’m not sure it was such a good idea to invade Iraq. Gosh, I probably should have read some books between 2001 and 2003. Anyway, are we better off having invaded Iraq? Did I do the right thing supporting the war?

Relax. You did the right thing in supporting the war. We cannot afford the existence of states that will support and sponsor terrorism, especially terrorism aimed at us. That’s why Saddam had to go. And that’s why the lunatics in Tehran have to go. And it’s why Assad has to go as well.

15) But why can’t we just leave the region and end this national nightmare? Besides, I’m a Republican Senator up for reelection in ’08!

While we might want to disengage from the problems, our problems have no interest in disengaging from us. Believe it or not, Senator, there are more pressing national concerns than your reelection. If Iran and Hezbollah are allowed to continue on their current course, we will long for the good old days when the worst that the bad guys could do to us was fly a few airliners into buildings. Trust me on that.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.

Sex and Starving People

philosophicalcuisine — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:01:52 +0000

I stood near the statue my lover sculpted of the Buddha during her writing fellowship and I drank the wine from the bottle and the wine was good. From our balcony, the world let out a breath.

"This must be how it feels in Asia," I screamed at the top of my lungs. "Asia!"

My lover, nude on the couch with the Sudoku, smiled.

"Let's make love now," she said.

"How can we? There are so many starving people in the world," I replied. How heartless could she be? I untied my ponytail, furiously.

"I'm sorry I snapped like that," I confessed. I began to weep. The world let out another breath. I felt it against my bare chest. It felt like clarity.

"It's okay. I deserved it. I beg your forgiveness," she cried out, tossing the Sudoku over the couch, and kneeling against its arm.

"You always already have it," I said. Then, we kissed with tongues on the coffee table, knocking over the scented candles and the Starbuck's Double Shots.

What does it mean to (not) be a love-maker in a world with so much suffering?

Have we yet to transcend the bounds im/explicitly of the self enough in order to realize the matheme of otherness?

Must an ethics include sex with so many starving people existing in the world? Perhaps it must. Perhaps it must not.

Or must an ethics include sex with starving people, if an ethics exists at all. Let us consider the counter position. What might it (not) mean if we did (not) have sex with starving people? Is there a sex with(out) a certain starvation? Or, is starvation the non/essential indexical of all sexual experience?

Alas! Perhaps the starved are the most sexual of all. Perhaps from them we must learn and we must refrain from instruction. How arrogant are we! We must not make love to starving people - no, must allow them to make love to us. For their starvation holds the key of sexuality.

Make love to us, starving ones. And let the world breathe upon us.

Comparative Soteriologies: Reformed Evangelicalism and Conclusions

wesleycrouser — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 03:32:02 +0000

In the Christian tradition, God created man in His own image (Genesis 1:26) so that man could have communion with God and delight in Him (John 17:13, 20-26). And in this communion, God set standards of conduct. His standards for morality are incredibly – in fact, infinitely – high. In the Old Testament, God commanded His people to be holy (literally, “set apart”) and blameless because of His inherent holiness and perfection (Leviticus 11:44-45; Deuteronomy 18:13; cf. Leviticus 19:2). And in the New Testament, Jesus reaffirmed this concept, stating, “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48, NASB). This is extreme and radical. Moral perfection is an incredible concept. And, as humans, we are doomed to fail in achieving this infinitely high standard of mortality. In fact, the Bible even teaches that humans are inherently doomed.

Unlike most other religions, Christianity holds to a concept of original sin. This concept is primarily based upon the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans. Because of Adam’s original sin,[1] as Paul comments, the rest of humanity is destined to follow in his footsteps of disobedience. Each and every individual inherits the sinful nature that came forth in Adam when he first sinned. Paul writes, “Therefore…one trespass led to condemnation for all men…[and]… For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners” (Romans 5:18-19). A few verses earlier, Paul shows the reasoning behind this condemnation. He writes that death is the result of sin (Romans 5:12; cf. 6:23; Genesis 2:16-17; 3:19-24); that sin is a result of knowledge of and disobedience to the law (Romans 5:13; cf. 3:20); and that even when there was no revealed law,[2] as during the time of Noah, sin caused death because of the natural law[3] within every human being (Romans 5:14; cf. 2:12-16). Thus, man, upon birth, is inherently evil (Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Ephesians 2:3). Contrasted to Jewish thought, man’s inclination is to do evil.

This idea of natural sinfulness is quite evident in society today – even from birth. Often infants and toddlers are thought of as protected and innocent. But no parent, however, has ever had to teach their children how to be selfish or impatient – qualities that all will agree are undesirable. When these small ones first learn to speak, typically one of the favorite words is “mine.” They understand possession quite well. And although infants are not typically imprisoned for murder or theft, they quite emphatically manifest a sinful disposition.

In fact, Paul continues on with this theme of inherent wickedness. He quotes Psalms 14 or 53: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (Romans 3:10-12). Paul declares that man is so evil, that, in all his egocentrism, he does not even desire God! As John Piper comments, “It is a myth that man in his natural state is genuinely seeking God. Men do seek God. But they do not seek him for who he is. They seek him in a pinch as one who might preserve them from death or enhance their worldly enjoyments.”[4] Rather than God, the ultimate desire and end of natural mankind is his own personal pleasure.

But this inherent sinfulness of mankind presents quite a problem. Because of God’s inherent righteousness, He must punish sin. And in appeasing His righteousness, God must punish sin. Wayne Grudem eloquently explains, “The primary reason [that God punishes sin] is that God’s righteousness demands it, so that he might be glorified in the universe that he has created.”[5] For “I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 9:24). God’s inherent justice and righteousness require Him to punish sin so that in all things He is honored (Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 10:31).

What, then, is this punishment that God is required to deliver? Eternal damnation to a place known by the New Testament as hell is the punishment that God requires. Wayne Grudem defines hell as “a place of eternal conscious punishment for the wicked.”[6] The Bible describes hell as “the outer darkness” where “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:30); “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41); “the unquenchable fire” (Mark 9:43); a place “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48); and a place where people “will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger” (Revelation 14:10; cf. John 3:36). The last passage from Revelation pictures contains the best picture of hell in light of God’s inherent righteousness. To manifest His righteousness, God pours out His wrath on sinners who have sinned against an infinitely perfect, holy, and pure God.

But all is not lost, as God has designed a system in which atonement can be made for sins and in which His righteousness is displayed for all to see. Prior to the earthly ministry of Jesus in the Old Testament, atonement for sins was made through the Jewish sacrificial system through a substitutionary atonement. Each year, the Pentateuch declares, the sins of the nation of Israel were placed upon the head of a goat. “This goat pictured the substitutionary bearing and total removal of sin.”[7] Although the people of Israel deserved just punishment for their sins, God declared that an animal would bear His wrath against their individual and corporate sin. It is important to note that, according to Christianity, the goat has no system of moral values, so it is innocent. God required sacrifices to be pure, both physically and morally.

The New Testament Book of Hebrews, however, declares that no atonement for sin was actually made by the sacrifices of animals. The writer says, “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near….But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Hebrews 10:1, 3-4, NASB). The author of Hebrews says that the purpose of the sacrifices of animals was only to provide a knowledge of things to come. These sacrifices existed to point one toward an infinitely greater and effectual atoning sacrifice – that of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. God’s design in this system was never to actually forgive sins through the death of animals. Atonement, then, had only been made for sins in a ritual manner as presented in the Old Testament. No actual atonement ever took places through the sacrificial system.

So how is atonement for sins effectually made? Because man is incapable of atoning for his own sin, from the beginning (Ephesians 1:3-14), God the Father planned for His only begotten Son (John 3:16, 18), Jesus Christ, to be the atoning sacrifice for sin. Jesus was the only one that could atone for sin because, as God-incarnate (Colossians 2:9), He was morally perfect – completely without sin (Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 2:22). But not only did Jesus live a perfectly sinless life, He also lived a life of perfect obedience and righteousness (Matthew 3:15; Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 5:8; 1 Peter 3:18). And on these premises, it pleased the Father (Isaiah 53:10) to offer His Son as a propitiation[8] for sin (Romans 3:25). At one time in history, Jesus Christ, in His moral perfection, took on the wrath of the Father against the sins of many (Mark 10:45). In His sacrificial death on the cross, Jesus Christ paid the price for the sin of man (Isaiah 53:6, 12; John 1:29). Jesus Christ bore the sin of many while none deserved such an incredible gift! And as Jesus bore the sin of man, man was given the righteousness of Christ. “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). In God’s eyes of judgment, men now have the righteousness of Christ (Philippians 3:9). They are, because of this substitutionary atonement, sinless before the Father on behalf of the Son! As J. I. Packer explains, “The judge declares guilty sinners immune from punishment and righteous in his sight. The great exchange is no legal fiction, no arbitrary pretence, no mere word-game on God’s part, but a costly achievement.”[9]

Not only did this ultimate sacrifice of the perfect life of Jesus Christ atone for the sins of mankind, but it also fulfilled the system of animal sacrifices once for all. Because atonement was actually made for sins, and this system of sacrifices had been fulfilled, it was unnecessary to continue to make atoning sacrifices. As the author of Hebrews writes, “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself” (Hebrews 7:26-27).

How, then, does one become one of those whom Christ’s atoning sacrifice is effectual? Whoever believes that the death of Jesus Christ effectually atoned for all of his sin and that the Father resurrected Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:3-4) has atonement for his sin. And this atonement for sin brings eternal life in the presence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36). “[I]f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved….For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’” (Romans 10:9, 13). But even this great gift of faith and belief is from the Father! “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Because God performs all of this atoning and saving work, there is no superiority among Christians (Romans 3:27). The old Christian adage, “The ground is level at the foot of the cross” rings quite true. Because salvation is of God, all are equal in standing before Him! In this work, all the praise and glory goes to God (Ephesians 1:6)!

Let us now return for a moment to the theme of the manifestation of God’s inherent righteousness. Part of the Christian gospel is that God’s righteousness would be displayed and vindicated. And this is done perfectly through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. About this theme, the Apostle Paul writes:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:23-26, emphasis added).

As we noted before, no actual atonement for sin had been made in the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. Therefore, atonement had never been made for the sins of the faithful Old Testament saints (see Genesis 15:6). If God were to allow an Old Testament saint such as King David into heaven, to dwell in His presence eternally, without complete forgiveness and justification, God would be guilty of committing the greatest miscarriage of justice in history! God, in passing over the treacherous sins of David (some obvious sins were those regarding Bathsheba and Uriah [2 Samuel 11] and the census [2 Samuel 24]), would be manifesting His unrighteousness! But God was able to manifest His righteousness in that He did not grant eternal life to those whose sin was not forgiven. God chose to not pour out His wrath on Old Testament saints like Abraham and David, but rather to pass over these sins until the appointed time. Because these saints (beginning in Genesis 3:15) looked forward to the Messiah who would one day redeem them, God set them apart for eternal life. His righteousness was then vindicated when Jesus Christ suffered the pain of His Father’s wrath for the sins of those who had come before and after Him. Thus, God is “just and [is] the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” And in Christ Jesus His righteousness is manifested and vindicated. None can accuse God of injustice (Romans 9:19-24).

“God is the gospel,” as John Piper so simply wrote. Without God, there is no gospel. But the Christian gospel is “good news” because it lets us see the glory of God. It lets us see Christ in all of His perfect beauty. In a sermon entitled “The Excellency of Christ,” Jonathan Edwards shows the uniqueness of Christ’s glory.[10] Edwards said that the glory of Christ appeared in “an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies,” often manifest in comparisons such as that of Christ and the lion and the lamb of Revelation 5. But this is the gospel. This is good news! For people to see God as He is and delight in communion with Him is the purpose of existence. As the great English Calvinists wrote, “Man's chief end is to glorify God [1 Corinthians 10:31; Romans 11:36], and to enjoy him forever [Psalm 73:24-26; John 17:22, 24].”[11] Some of these excellencies in which we are eternally enabled to delight are shown by John Piper. “In other words,” Piper says,

-we admire him for his glory, but even more because his glory is mingled with humility;

-we admire him for his transcendence, but even more because his transcendence is accompanied by condescension;

-we admire him for his uncompromising justice, but even more because it is tempered with mercy;

-we admire him for his majesty, but even more because it is a majesty in meekness;

-we admire him because of his equality with God, but even more because as God's equall he nevertheless has a deep reverence for God;

-we admire him because of how worthy he was of all good, but even more because this was accompanied by an amazing patience to suffer evil;

-we admire him beause of his sovereign dominion over the world, but even more because this dominion was clothed with a spirit of obedience and submission;

-we love the way he stumped the proud scribes with his wisdom, and we love it even more because he could be simple enough to like children and spend time with them;

· and we admire him because he could still the storm, but even more because he refused to use that power to strike the Samaritans with lightning (Luke 9:54-55) and he refused to use it to get himself down from the cross.[12]

In the end, Evangelicall Christianity is like the other world religions in that it is a works-based religion. Hindus are able to achieve moksha through personal meditation and good karma. Muslims enter paradise if their good deeds outweigh their bad. Similarly, Jews enter Gan Eden after a process of purification, which is based on their own good deeds. Roman Catholicism requires baptism to wipe away original sin and good works to increase justification. Purgatory cleanses each individual so that he is worthy of entering God's presence. Evangelicalism also relies upon good works. This righteousness, however, is not the righteousness of mankind as is the case with other religions. This is the cardinal difference between Evangelicalism and the other religions of the world. The difference is the work of Christ jesus. Christianity is founded upon the premise that man is incapable of being good, and only Jesus, God-incarnate, can truly be righteous. For this reason, it is necessary that jesus be the one to atone for sin. He alone is capable. All the good is done by Christ jesus and Christians are merely the beneficiaries of His gracious work. Christianity is radical because one must only believe. No law or moral code has any claim over those who are in Him. And because this work is a work of God, salvation is secure for those who will believe. "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Romans *8:1-4). How great a salvation!

[1] For the history of the original of sin (the act, not the concept), see the section on Judaism.

[2] Revealed law is the commands given by God to various individuals. For example, God commanded Adam and Eve to not eat of a specific tree in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:16), and an extensive law for the nation of Israel was given to Moses (Exodus-Deuteronomy).

[3] For a take on the inherent, natural law that arises within each individual, see the Appendix in Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2001.

[4] Piper, John. "What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism." Desiring God. Mar. 1998. 20 Apr. 2006 <http://desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html>. For more on this issue, see Piper, John. God is the Gospel: Meditations on God’s Love as the Gift of Himself. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005.

[5] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Leicester, England and Grand Rapids Michigan: InterVarsity P, 1994. 509.

[6] Ibid., 1148.

[7] MacArthur, John F. The MacArthur Study Bible. NASB Updated ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006. 176.

[8] Propitiation is a sacrifice that appeases the wrath of God.

[9] Packer, J. I. "Justification in Protestant Theology." Honoring the People of God, the Collected Shorter Writings of J. I. Packer. Vol. 4. Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1999. 227. as quoted in Piper, John. God is the Gospel: Meditations on God’s Love as the Gift of Himself. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005. 43.

[10] Edwards, Jonathan. “The Excellency of Christ.” The Works of Jonathan Edwards: Sermons and Discourses 1734-1738. Vol. 19. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2001. 565.

[11] The Westminster Shorter Catechism, 1646. Question 1.

[12] Piper, John. God is the Gospel: Meditations on God’s Love as the Gift of Himself. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005. 52-53.