Posted by Helen on: 06.30.2008 /
A friend from the church I used to attend emailed me this column by Eric Zorn and asked me my opinion of it.
In the column Eric Zorn praises the ‘Humble Majority’ revealed in recent Pew Forum findings. Here are a couple of excerpts
In reading the results of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s poll of American religious beliefs and practices, the number that jumped out at me was 70. That’s the percentage of adults affiliated with a faith tradition who said they agree with the statement, “Many religions can lead to eternal life.”
It all adds up to whopping proof of the existence of what I’m calling the Humble Majority—the roughly three-quarters of us who feel that, at some point, the great riddles of life are, in fact, riddles.
The Humble Majority is a spiritually diverse crowd, to say the least. But the poll indicates those people share a common view that no single religion or philosophical system has a monopoly on the Absolute Truth.
Basically Eric is saying “You can’t be humble if you’re certain that your beliefs are more true than mine.” He’s reacting against people who dismiss his beliefs as certainly inferior.
Yet isn’t he doing the same thing they are, in dismissing them as certainly arrogant?
Why is their certainty about him arrogant, but his certainty about them isn’t? That doesn’t make sense to me.
I would redefine humble people as those who do not attribute negative character traits to those they do not know. To me humility has everything to do with how you treat others. Treating some people well and writing others off is not humble. It’s arrogance towards those being written off.
I can understand the frustration of Eric and others with Christians who are arrogant. In my experience some Christians annoying limit the definition of humility to having a right relationship with God. They routinely write off and negatively stereotype people who aren’t Christians without ever realizing that this is the opposite of humility.
But not all Christians are like this. My friend who sent me this article is not arrogant. I often want to defend people who aren’t Christians against what I hear Christians say about them. But when I read articles like Eric’s I want to defend her. When you know people it’s much harder to throw stereotypes and labels around about groups they belong to. Because if you do, you’re betraying your friends.
Comment by: joe
1People are scared of difference, scared of believing different things and of allowing other people to believe different things.
Hence we have the absurd situation you’ve described above ‘we’re tolerant of every view except those who are not tolerant of our view’. Which is little better than projecting wild intolerance in the first place.
Comment by: Erin
2I’m wondering, just as Eris says in reply to your comment, if the difference between the two positions could simply be the ability to say “I could be wrong”.
Comment by: Helen
3Thanks for your comment, Joe.
Erin, I just saw Eric’s reply. I’m glad he isn’t claiming certainty in spite of what I thought. I appreciate people willing to say “I could be wrong”.
Comment by: Steve R
4Maybe “humble” is a poor choice of words, but I think Eric raises a legitimate point here. During my evangelical days, I often heard the argument that “Christians are not the only exclusive group–everyone’s beliefs exclude something.” Well, that’s true as far as it goes, but it also minimizes the fact that there is a huge difference between believing that you have the only valid path to God, and the view that other paths might be equally valid. Whether to describe that difference as one of humility is open to question, but it seems to me that the second position is much more inclusive (and therefore less exclusive) than the first.
Comment by: benjdm
5Oh, no? The United States, the One Nation Under God, whose motto is that we trust in God, seems very polarized to me.
Comment by: Christine Wicker
6Helen,
You are such a delight. So uncompromising in your kindness. I love it and try to be like you.
But I’m not really. I loved Eric’s column.
It seems to me that arrogance/nonarrogance starts at your premise. It has very little to do with the individual person — at least in this particular case. (Though not in reality, of course.)
The individual Christian may not be arrogant at all. In fact, many of them are troubled by their belief that the Bible says they are the only ones saved. They wish it were otherwise. They are truly pained at being the only ones going to heaven.
But their premise is “I and those Christians like me are the only ones saved. Either because I was chosen by God or because I repented or because I believe…..”The premise itself is exclusionary. Arrogant, if you like.
The premise of Eric’s Humble Majority is quite different. It’s “I have beliefs but I am not willing to say or believe that my ways are the only way to heaven.”
Christians are caught in a bind because of their doctrine. They may feel pained by that bind but can’t get out of it. Because of what Jesus said. Because they believe the Bible. And most importantly because they believe that their interpretation of the Bible is not an interpretation but a Truth.
So they themselves may not be arrogant, but the doctrine is. It claims to be not only the better way, but the only way. It’s monotheism. If they follow it, they are on an arrogant, exclusionary path.
The Pew figures show that many Christians are quietly choosing against that arrogant Truth. Probably not publicly. And probably not with a lot of thought about it. They just accept the contradiction without dwelling on it. As we all do all the time in other ways.
I am more and more convinced that they are following the spirit of Jesus, which was demonstrated again and again when he was asked to choose between the Law and the people. But most of them don’t feel that way. They respond because their inner selves dislike the arrogance of that premise.
I’m going on too long, but one more point. It seems to me that there is a great difference (on the arrogance scale) in believing “Everyone who doesn’t believe as I do is going to hell.”
And saying, “I disagree with you and think your position lacks humility.”
Comment by: Helen
7Thanks Steve - good point.
benjdm, that motto certainly doesn’t include atheists does it?
Thanks for your comment Christine. I take your point and I like how carefully you worded it, in saying ‘I think your position lacks humility’.
For me it’s important to distinguish between positions and people. I appreciate the way you did that.
Comment by: Christine Wicker
8Thank you, Helen. This issue of whether the humble may ever criticize is a crucial one, I think. I’m glad you brought it up.
Comment by: Teresa
9This is a fabulous discussion, and I would just like to add that the biblical mandate is to “speak the truth in love.” Speaking in love is a lot different than being brutally honest and writing off entire groups of people. I think if Christians truly spoke truth in love, as love is defined in 1 Corinthians 13 - being patient, kind, not self-seeking, not boastful, not easily provoked, doesn’t think evil of others - fewer people would be turned off by the Christian faith.
Comment by: joe
10Hang on, isn’t all truth arrogant? How do you distinguish between an arrogant and a humble truth - when the very nature of belief is that if I believe x and you believe y then I believe you are wrong?
Also I don’t really understand why people get offended by other people’s understanding of who ‘gets to heaven’. That seems to me to be rather a stupid thing to complain about, because unless everyone was a universalist, there are obviously going to be differences in understanding of who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’.
Comment by: Helen
11Thanks for your comment, Teresa!
Joe, I think the reason people get upset about this ‘truth’ is because it doesn’t just say “You’re wrong” - it says “I’m acceptable to God but you aren’t and you’re therefore going to be punished in hell forever”. That’s maybe not how Christians say it but that’s what many people hear. And they find the concept that they deserve eternal punishment offensive.
Comment by: joe
12To be fair, that isn’t Christian teaching, but I can understand the offence if people think that is what is being said.
I get equally offended by universalist teaching, but I don’t say that they’re not humble, I just say it is meaningless nonsense.
Comment by: Helen
13Joe, perhaps a Universalist would say that the nonsense which offends you isn’t actually what they teach?
Comment by: joe
14probably :)
Comment by: Beth Patterson
15And…another perspective might say that that which offends us is a response to or a projection of some part of ourselves that is already cut off because of its unacceptabiity to the persona(the face we show to the world). In other words–if we have a reaction to anything (positive or negative), it’s probably because we’re ’still’ wrestling with the issue, possibly on an unconcsious level.
So, in this instance, intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance sort of thing.
Any sense in any of that?
Great discussion–
Comment by: Helen
16Thanks for your comment, Beth.
I think you’re right that when we’re strongly against something it’s often because we’ve struggled or struggle against it in ourselves.
I think it can also be because it’s hurt us a lot when we’ve been on the receiving end of it from others. Or we’ve seen other people at the receiving end and hurt by it.
Regarding intolerance of intolerance being intolerance - I understand where both sides are coming from: those who object others are intolerant and the others who respond “Don’t you realize your intolerance of what you call our intolerance is intolerance too?”
They’re both somewhat right imo; but I’ve never seen this go anywhere because the people saying it to about each other aren’t taking time to listen to each other’s real concerns and to understand each other and get to know each other. In my experience these assertions are thrown back and forth between two groups of people who don’t like each other and who aren’t doing anything likely to change that. So it goes nowhere - they are words that build walls not bridges.
For me, most of the time it’s not so much ‘what is true’ but ‘whether people are using words, true or not, to build walls or bridges’. What use is ‘truth’ if people use it simply to build a wall around their group? What good has it done them? How has it helped the world? Is that what ‘truth’ is for, building walls? If Jesus is the way how can building walls do anything except get in the way of the way? If you see what I mean :)
Comment by: Bob W
17I think we assign attributes to things where they don’t belong. The belief is not arrogant, the believer may or may not be. We only call it arrogant because we don’t agree, if we did, we’d call it the truth instead. The believer is simply examining the words of Christ (I am the way the truth and the life — the only way to the Father) and making a decision as to whether or not they actually believe it.
If we are not allowed to truly believe what we believe just because it makes other uncomfortable we don’t have much left. Anyone has the freedom to believe whatever they wish. We can respect that right and freedom without being forced to dismiss our own beliefs.
Intolerance is the same from any position, disagreeing with ideas is entirely different from rejecting people. We need to love people wherever they are as they seek God. That doesn’t mean we have to agree, just try to love them.
Agree to disagree, but don’t try make me stand for everything and windup standing for nothing at all.
Peace,
Bob W
Comment by: Helen
18Bob wrote:
Bob, thanks for your comment. I appreciate you making the distinction between disagreeing with ideas and rejecting people.
In practice how can we convey that distinction to people? How can we achieve disagreeing with them without them feeling rejected? Is it up to them to figure out those are two different things or could we be doing more to make the distinction clear?
I don’t think it’s quite that simple. People disagree over what that statement by Jesus means. Mightn’t it be arrogant to claim my interpretation of Jesus’ words is right and yours isn’t, as if I somehow can be certain what he meant?
Comment by: joe
19I agree with Bob to this extent: this label of arrogance is in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe it would be easier to discuss with a non-religious example.
One person might believe that catastrophic climate change is a reality. Another person might believe it is not. Both might have reached their conclusions looking and accepting certain bits of evidence. In a sense you can claim that both have have a belief about climate change and both are interpreting the data and evidence presented.
The proponent could claim that the dissenter is arrogant because he refuses to accept the mountain of evidence he presents. His opponent could claim that he was arrogant because he blindly accepts the consensus (or whatever). Both believe they have the truth.
But the reality is that they can’t both be right (though of course they can be both wrong) because the options are mutually exclusive.
OK apologies if that is a bad example, maybe I should have chosen textual criticism of a novel or something.
Comment by: Bob W
20Good thoughts, Helen and Joe. Alot of it is perception and unfortunately we can do a miserable job of trying to communicate our beliefs and not even realize it. We become a little (or alot) self righteous in some cases and people start to think that Christians believe they are somehow more entitled to God’s grace and gift of eternal life. I think that’s the biggest misunderstanding. If people could see Christians more like Jesus, full of humility and grace for others, they wouldn’t be put off. Instead we beat them over the head with apologetics and wonder why they get irritated.
Helen, while I can appreciate what you’re saying, Jesus statement is a pretty bold one for him to have meant it in an ambivalent way. Otherwise he could have said, “I am the best path to the Father” or “I will show you a way to the Father”. But “No one comes to the Father but through me” is a pretty inflamatory statement to make if you don’t mean it. This is of course, only my opinion. And I completely agree there are plenty of places open to a wide interpretation. That just isn’t one that strikes me that way. But I’m open to hearing what you have to say, I just can’t promise you we’ll agree.
At some point I have to decide what I think something means, not because my pastor told me, or I saw it on youtube or whatever, but because I have read and meditated on it and I truly believe that’s what it means. It’s not a matter of being arrogant, it’s my personal decision. It’s not arrogant for me to share what I believe, the person receiving can agree or reject it as they please. This is simply what I have come to believe is true.
People have a fear of certainty, a fear of absolutes, a fear of not having wiggle room. I think it’s built into us all. But we can’t really live in an existence without them, literally and spiritually. Sometimes for something to be true, and something else must be false. Other times there are shades of grey, but not always as often as we’d like. So the questions is, what are those things, those absolutes? We can’t build a belief system if every block we use may or may not hold weight.
I am willing to examine my beliefs and do so regularly. But there is nothing wrong with me truly believing what I believe. If I don’t or can’t, what’s the point?
Peace,
Bob W
Comment by: Helen
21Bob wrote:
I understand what you’re saying and we probably won’t agree but I’ll throw something out anyway.
What makes a $20 bill worth $20? Do you have to believe in it for it to be worth $20? Of course not. You can use it and not have to believe in it because other people have ensured it’s legal tender.
What if Jesus’ statement is like that? What if he means “I’ve done what’s necessary to open the way”? What if he’s unlocked the gate and people doing their best to live decent lives are no longer prevented entry?
They fear it when they are on the downside of it but in my experience they crave it when there’s an upside. People love having certainty about heaven if they are going there. They hate it when other people declare with certainty “You aren’t going there”.
On the contrary, isn’t that the definition of a belief system? It wouldn’t be a belief system if it didn’t require faith. And you don’t need faith about certain things, only about that which isn’t certain. The two are mutually exclusive. You don’t say “I believe it’s raining” when you’re standing in the rain. You say “I know it’s raining”. If you say “I believe it’s raining” that means you aren’t 100% certain - you may have strong evidence but for whatever reason you don’t know for certain.
I understand what you’re saying - why should someone else get to say “Sorry, you’re not allowed to believe that?” What communities do do is make rules about acceptable behavior. If your beliefs lead you to behave in ways outside their rules you’ll face the consequences of that.
Comment by: Bob W.
22Okay, I just wiped out my response for the third time by hitting the backspace key and selecting the text in the preview area. Maybe God’s trying to tell me something : ) Thanks for your thoughtful response.
On the $20 bill, it’s worth $20 because the authority behind it says so, whether I believe it or not. In this analogy if Jesus is the authority (fair enought since he made the statements) his statement has a specific value of $20. I can choose to ignore that and imagine that it has no value, or it’s worth $12.50 (or $200). Regardless of what I choose its’ value remains $20. So yes people can take away whatever they want from his statements, but it’s safe to say He had an original intent and value in saying them. We could take away the wrong thing or the right thing and in doing so we may miss the value of it entirely. I always look for the simplest application first and work my way through. I see it one way and you do another, maybe Jesus saw it in a way that neither of us has considered. I’m only doing my best to interpret what I think he meant. Only he knows for sure.
If that’s what he meant and all we need to do is be good then he didn’t need to sacrifice himself. If we think this we’re going back to the “i’m a good person so why shouldn’t I go to heaven” works justification type of system. The new testament tell us no one is good enough on their own accord so Jesus does what we cannot. I understand that people don’t want to feel they are in need of rescue, I’d rather not too but I know I need God’s grace as much or more than the next guy. My brother in law explained it to me once in a way that was very helpful. It’s not that we’re such bad people, it’s just that the standard of perfection is beyond our reach so we need someone to intercede on our behalf and fill the gap. God has to be truly just or he can’t be just at all. He is a God of absolutes and I can’t alway reconcile my understanding of how he works. But I can accept that it may be beyond my comprehension. I don’t have any illusions about the superiority of human intellegience.
I feel that absolutes are essential but I have mixed feelings about them. I take no pleasure in the thought that anyone would go to hell, and certainly do not think that I deserve to go to heaven. No one does, it’s a gift, that’s the point. When Christians forget that their righteousness is not their own it is repulsive and I can see why people are put off. I am too.
I think of faith as the mortar and the blocks as the statements of scripture that we build or foundation on. Some require more faith, others do not (Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind) comes to mind. It takes faith to put that into action but the statement is not frought with possible misinterpretations. I think my point is that if every single blocks is open to constant re-interpretation you can’t build a very strong structure. Sometimes we want to re-cast things into something that makes more sense to us or is more comfortable but in reality it is what it is whether we like it or not. I don’t define God, he defines me.
Not sure what you’re driving at here, hopefully I didn’t break any forum rules. If so apologies, just looking for people to bounce ideas off of. Thanks for the good conversation!
Peace,
Bob W