Apr
21
LDS (Mormonism) and Scientology: A Brief Theological Comparison
Filed Under LDS, New Religious Movements, Scientology | 4 Comments
Similarities:
1. Pre-existence of humanity:
LDS: All humans pre-existed in the spirit world before being born on earth.
Scientology: People were thetans in past lives + belief in reincarnation.
2. Unlimited potential for humans:
LDS: Heavenly Father (God) is an exalted man and LDS men may become gods with omnipotence and omniscience.
Scientology: People may become thetans again, regaining their freedom from matter, energy, space, and time (MEST).
3. “Salvation” only through their Church:
LDS: Exaltation and godhood only through the LDS Church.
Scientology: Recovering one’s thetanhood only possible through Church of Scientology.
Differences:
1. Religious terminology:
LDS: Use of biblical and Christian terminology.
Scientology: Develops own terminology; appealing to science, technology, eastern religions, and the New Age.
2. Knowledge of truth:
LDS: Divine revelation received by Joseph Smith and later LDS prophets.
Scientology: L. Ron Hubbard’s findings through his own studies.
3. God and gods:
LDS: Worship of Heavenly Father, but belief in the existence of multiple gods.
Scientology: Minimal reference to God; not the focus in Scientology.
4. Spirit and matter:
LDS: A physical body is necessary for exaltation to godhood. Heavenly Father has a body with flesh and bones.
Scientology: Being trapped in matter is the problem; the goal is to be set free from a physical body.
5. Attaining “salvation:”
LDS: Faith in Jesus Christ, baptism into the LDS Church, receive Holy Ghost, receive temple endowment, be married in a LDS temple, and follow LDS teachings.
Scientology: Through auditing sessions one’s engrams are erased, making one “clear,” and then by taking additional classes one can become an “Operating Thetan.”
6. The final goal:
LDS: Exaltation to godhood with wife and children.
Scientology: Returning to thetanhood as a disembodied powerful being.
Feb
15
Not all holy books are the same
Filed Under General religion | Leave a Comment
When studying other religions it is important to understand how those within the tradition approach their sacred text(s). Different religious traditions have different understandings of revelation. Because of this, believers in the various traditions read their texts differently. We cannot assume that Muslims approach the Qur’an the same way as we approach the Bible or that Hindus approach the Gita as we approach the Gospels.
For example, in most Hindu and Buddhist traditions the historicity or authenticity of the stories about the Buddha or gods are not a matter of concern since the truths being taught is what matters. Since Hindus and Buddhists believe that these truths are eternal, it does matter if the actual events described in the text ever happened or not. This would not be the case for the Bible or the Qur’an, which are understood to be historically rooted. If events recorded in the Bible or the Qur’an were shown to not have happened (if this were actually possible) this would be a problem for believers within the two traditions.
Moreover, in some traditions, like in Christianity and Islam, there is one authoritative text, but in other traditions, like Hinduism and Buddhism, there is not an authoritative text. This is largely due to their understanding of revelation. In Islam, God dictated the words of the Qur’an to Muhammad, albeit through the mediation of the angel Gabriel. In Christianity, God inspired the biblical writers. Thus, although the texts contain the personalities of the various writers, God directed what they wrote. In contrast to the Muslim and Christian view, most Hindu and Buddhist traditions believe that their sacred texts were written by enlightened people who discovered the eternal truths of the cosmos.
Consequently, when studying other religions, especially their holy books, it is important to first investigate how insiders understand their own texts.
Jan
4
A few days ago I finished a study on the Gospel of Mark and realized just how many times Mark notes that Jesus was surrounded by a crowd of people (18 different times from what I saw). Although many rejected Jesus during his three-year ministry, he always attracted crowds because of his teachings, miracles, and lifestyle. I think we can learn from this as we seek to communicate the Gospel to those of other faiths.
One of the most important things we can do is to point others, especially those in other religious traditions, to the life of Jesus. This would include not only encouraging them to read the Gospels, but also for us to fill our thoughts and words with Christ. As we live out a Christ-like life and point others to see the beauty of Christ in the Gospels, others will be drawn to Him.
This past summer I heard the testimony of a sister in Christ who left Hinduism after seeing Jesus’ moral superiority over the Hindu gods she had been worshiping. In a similar way, many Buddhists have been drawn to Christ because of his compassion and selflessness. Many Muslims have been drawn to Christ as they see his love and experience his forgiveness. Also, many animists have been drawn to Christ because of his power to cast out evil spirits and heal the sick. As during his three-year ministry, Jesus continues to draw people to himself.
For example, in China there are now between 50-89 million Christians and some estimate that by 2010 there will be 119.5 million Christians. Moreover, in 1900 there were only 8.7 million Christians in Africa (8% of the pop.); however, in 2000 there were 346.5 million Christians in Africa (44% of the pop.).
May Christ continue to build up his Church by drawing all the nations to himself!
*Stats come from Disciples of all Nations by Lamin Sanneh.
Dec
5
The Disobedient Prophet?
Filed Under Islam | Leave a Comment
Last month I went to the annual meeting for the American Academy of Religion. The most interesting session I attended was titled “The Disobedient Prophet? Tensions between Qur’anic Verses and Prophetic Practice.”
The first presenter discussed the tension between minimalism and comprehensiveness in the development of Shariah law. He argued that the early Muslim community took a minimalist approach in which Muslims could choose to do as they wished as long as it was not required or forbidden in the Qur’an. He then argued that in time, the comprehensive position won out in which Shariah Law was understood to encompass all of life, based upon the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the example set by Muhammad). He finished by arguing that the different schools of law in the Islamic world differ due to the way they have chosen to work out the teachings of Qur’an and the Sunnah.
The second presenter gave the example of how the Qur’an (9:5) teaches to “slay pagans wherever you find them,” yet Muhammad chose to ransom prisioners at the end of the battle of Badr.
The third presenter gave the example of the Qur’anic injunction to beat a disobedient wife (4:34), yet some hadiths recount how Muhammad discouraged men from doing so.
The fourth presenter gave the example of how the Qur’an teaches that those guilty of sexual immorality should receive 100 lashes (24:2), yet in a hadith Muhammad says that those guilty of sexual immorality should be stoned instead.
At the end of the session, the panelists came to the conclusion that these contradictions were only apparent. They went into detail describing how Muslims through the centuries have attempted to solve the tensions. Some of the “solutions” were more convincing than others.
In any case, I left the session reminded of the difficulty and complexity of studying other faiths. Those in the Christian tradition who have studied theology, church history, and biblical studies know how complex some issues can be. It is common place for those who have even graduated with an M.Div. to feel like they just began to scratch the surface on so many different areas of study.
Therefore, as Christians who are studying other religions, we should be humble and realize that the various religious traditions we are studying have their own complex history of practices and beliefs, and cannot be “figured out” any more than Christianity can be “figured out” by simply reading a few books.
Nov
24
Shelfari
Filed Under General religion | Leave a Comment
Now that the semester is over, I will be able to get back to the blog. As you can see I added Shelfari. I hope to include books that might be helpful to you as you study other religions. I will be updating the list periodically. If you have questions about any of the books just let me know.
Oct
11
Seeing “Cults” as People Groups
Filed Under Communicating with those of other faiths, New Religious Movements | 5 Comments
I recently came across an intriguing concept while reading Encountering New Religious Movements: A Holistic Evangelical Approach (ed. Hexham, Rost, and Morehead II). According to the introduction, the various authors in this book intend to bridge the gap between apologetics and contextual missiology. As part of this project, they contend that Christians should approach those in New Religious Movements (NRM) in the same way as they would approach unreached people groups on the mission field.
On the one hand, this might not be a good idea because it might cause confusion. A “people group” is usually understood as an ethnolinguistic group with a shared identity, language, history, and culture. In missions, a people group is the largest group through which the gospel can flow without encountering significant barriers of understanding and acceptance.
On the other hand, seeing NRMs as unreached people groups might help in evangelism. Many Christians unfortunately tend to see those in NRMs (i.e. LDS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc) as opponents that need to be proven wrong. As would be expected, this approach usually closes the door to evangelism. In contrast, Christians tend to approach unreached people groups around the world with a greater sense of understanding and compassion. Maybe by seeing those in NRMs like we see those in unreached people groups, we will be more likely to encounter them with love rather than with contention.
Sep
20
Buddhism in Thailand
Filed Under Buddhism | Leave a Comment
I just finished writing a paper on Buddhism in Thailand and I wanted to point out 2 ideas that are important in understanding Buddhism. These observations apply specifically to Buddhism in Thailand, but I think they also play a role in other contexts.
1. 2 ways of being Buddhist:
a. Monks:
- Seek to follow the teachings of the Buddha
- Observe a more philosophical and “textbook” form of Buddhism
- Study and follow the Tripitika (Theravada scriptures).
- Keep over 200 rules as part of the sangha.
- Have a strict moral code to follow
b. Laity:
- Unfamiliar with philosophical Buddhism
- Mostly unfamiliar with the Tripitika
- Concerned mainly with gaining karmic merit by giving offerings to the monks
- They worship the Buddha and a variety of gods and spirits
- They have 5 moral commandments to follow
2. Buddhism easily assimilates other religious beliefs:
Buddhism in Thailand is a mix of Theravada Buddhism, Hinduism, and animism. Thais believe in karma and reincarnation, but they also devote much of their time in appeasing and worshipping local gods and spirits. These gods and spirits can bring them either fortune or misfortune in this life. Therefore, having the gods and spirits on one’s side is very important.
The image above is of a shrine on the grounds of a large hotel in Thailand. It is someone’s job at the hotel to go and place offerings at the shrine each day to ensure the prosperity and safety of the hotel. The usual offerings are incense, fruit, flowers, and soda in a bottle. Almost every house and business has a shrine where they place offerings each day.
Remember that…
First, Buddhism tends to have two ways of being Buddhist, one for the monks and one for the laity. “Textbook” Buddhism is often foreign to the average lay practitioner.
Second, Buddhism easily assimilates other religious beliefs. Buddhism in Thailand includes elements from Hinduism and animism. Ch’an (Zen) Buddhism in China is a mix of Buddhism and Taoism. In Japan, Buddhism and Shinto are often intertwined.
Sep
9
For one of my seminars I am reading Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission by Harold Netland (2001). I would highly recommend this book to anybody interested in religious pluralism. Netland begins by discussing the cultural context that has given rise to postmodernism and religious pluralism (the belief that all religions are more or less equally salvific). Netland then proceeds to analyze and critique religious pluralism, focusing extensively on the model proposed by John Hick, one of the leading proponents of religious pluralism. Netland finishes by proposing an Evangelical theology of religions.
In one of his chapters Netland presents what he sees to be some of the problems with religious pluralism. I would like to present a few of them:
1. Pseudopluralisms: some advocates of religious tolerance and what appears to be religious equality are actually “covert inclusivists.” That is, although they appear to be saying that they accept all religions, they actually believe that their own is superior. For example, the Dalai Lama is a known proponent of religious tolerance, yet for him “salvation” is ultimately attained within Buddhism. He does not overtly seek to convert people to Buddhism because of his belief in karma and reincarnation; it is not because he thinks that all religions are equally true.
2. Reinterpretation of beliefs and Reductionism: Religious pluralists in order to make their model “work” are forced to reinterpret religious beliefs in a way that would be unacceptable to orthodox believers of the various traditions.
3. Personae/Impersonae: The problem of whether God/the Real/Ultimate Reality that religious pluralists describe is personal or impersonal is another weakness of religious pluralism. Pluralists are unable to convincingly explain how “the Real” can be personal for theists like Muslims and Christians and impersonal for others like Zen Buddhists and Advaita Vedantists. If pluralists end up attributing either a personal or impersonal nature to “the Real” they will be privileging some traditions over others, which is what they are supposedly trying not to do.
4. Ineffability: Religious Pluralists argue that “the Real” is ineffable and has a nature that is beyond the concepts that we have. Although we are unable to fully comprehend God, this does not mean that literally none of the properties attributed to God actually apply to God. According to Netland, this is “self-referentially incoherent” since at least the property of being ineffable would apply to God. Thus, God would not be beyond all our categories of thought and language. Moreover, Netland points out that if no substantial qualities can be properly applied to God then the appropriate response would be “agnostic silence” since we would know nothing about God.
To conclude, Netland argues that a genuinely pluralistic model must be coherent and must not privilege any particular religious perspective. When discussing with so-called pluralists remember that pluralists are usually forced to either distort the religious beliefs of others or they unintentionally end up privileging a particular religious tradition (usually it is their own).
Aug
26
Sign at Lotus Temple
Filed Under Baha'i, Religious Pluralism | 2 Comments
As you enter the grounds of the Baha’i Lotus Temple in New Delhi this stone sign is set into a grass incline. Of the temple it states:
“This House is a place for prayer and meditation for the peoples of all religions and races. From within its portals the voice of mankind will ever be raised in praise and glorification of the creator of the universe.”
As you can see, the temple is intended to be a place of worship for people of all religions. You can also see that they tried to get to what they saw as the common denominator of all religions, namely, worship of “the creator of the universe.”
The problem with this is that belief in the creator of the universe, much less the worship of this creator, is not found in all religions. For example, Hindus and Buddhists do not believe in the creator of the universe. They may believe in a deity who formed this age, but the universe has always existed according to Hindus and Buddhists. It is uncreated and eternal.
I point this sign out just as an example of another weakness in the pluralist position.
Aug
23
In my last visit to India I had the opportunity to visit the Baha’i Lotus Temple in Delhi. The temple was built in 1986 and is known as the Taj Mahal of the 20th century.
The Lotus Temple is open to people of all faiths and each day they have a prayer time where representatives from different religions like Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Christianity are invited to come and offer prayers up to God.
This pluralistic outlook is at the heart of the Baha’i faith. Nevertheless, they still claim that they are the closest to the truth since the last prophet that God sent was their own, namely, Bahaullah (1817-1892). He claimed to be “the Supreme Manifestation of God.” Although they take pride in their pluralistic position, they cannot live it out consistently. This is evident by the fact that they end up claiming superiority over all other religions.