Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu: "God is Not a Christian"

[markpkessinger]

They tell the story of a drunk who crossed the street and accosted a pedestrian, asking him, "I shay, which ish the other shide of the shtreet?" The pedestrian, somewhat nonplussed, replied, "That side, of course!" The drunk said, "Shtrange. When I wash on that shide, they shaid it wash thish shide." Where the other side of the street is depends on where we are. Our perspective differs with our context, the things that have helped to form us; and religion is one of the most potent of these formative influences, helping to determine how and what we apprehend of reality and how we operate in our own specific context.

My first point seems overwhelmingly simple: that the accidents of birth and geography determine to a very large extent to what faith we belong. The chances are very great that if you were born in Pakistan you are a Muslim, or a Hindu if you happened to be born in India, or a Shintoist if it is Japan, and a Christian if you were born in Italy. I don't know what significant fact can be drawn from this -- perhaps that we should not succumb too easily to the temptation to exclusiveness and dogmatic claims to a monopoly of the truth of our particular faith. You could so easily have been an adherent of the faith that you are now denigrating, but for the fact that you were born here rather than there.

My second point is this: not to insult the adherents of other faiths by suggesting, as sometimes has happened, that for instance when you are a Christian the adherents of other faiths are really Christians without knowing it. We must acknowledge them for who they are in all their integrity, with their conscientiously held beliefs; we must welcome them and respect them as who they are and walk reverently on what is their holy ground, taking off our shoes, metaphorically and literally. We must hold to our particular and peculiar beliefs tenaciously, not pretending that all religions are the same, for they are patently not the same. We must be ready to learn from one another, not claiming that we alone possess all truth and that somehow we have a corner on God.

Continue reading . . .

[madrchsod]

1. yup....

[xchrom]

2. archbishop, dude, you are awesome. nt

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Too bad so few 'leaders' in this country understand that. Beautifully written.

[Vehl]

4. How Hindu of Him :P

Pun aside, its interesting to see the Archbishop say what Hindus have been saying for millenia..that there cannot be any monopoly on truth, and every path is valid for its follower...even the ones that do not require god.

[fmiddel]

32. In my case...

I’m a combination Pentecostal atheist pagan libertarian Star Wars fan. I’m also fascinated in the Egyptian god Horus. How can this be since I was born and raised in Canada?

[Igel]

34. Truly, it's an accident he's an archibishop.

Pay him a bit more, and he'd gladly be a Buddhist monk or an animist.

He'd make an intriguing Lubovitcher rabbi.

After all, it's just an accident, and he sees nothing better about what he believes than anything else. (I've always thought that if you actually believe that, you should go for either the greatest pay, if you're in the faith industry, or whatever is easiest or most pleasurable. Then again, he's Anglican, and that's one of the Xian faiths to which "all things are pure" if they think they're pure. Makes forgiveness for sins a vanishingly trivial matter.)

[LuvNewcastle]

5. Most people stick with the religion

they were raised with. I don't know why it's so difficult for some people to understand something so obvious.

[AlecBGreen]

6. I agree with this quote

"God does not need us to protect him. Many of us perhaps need to have our notion of God deepened and expanded. It is often said, half in jest, that God created man in his own image and man has returned the compliment, saddling God with his own narrow prejudices and exclusivity, foibles and temperamental quirks."

[dmallind]

7. And when faiths are mutually exclusive?

Tutu dances (yeah yeah I know) around the 800lb gorilla. If Buddhists are correct Christians must be wrong - and not just on details but basic precepts. If Christians are even vaguly correct then Shintoists are doomed in error.

Ecumenicalism sounds great until you confront the many cases where basic dogma of faith X makes adherents of faith Y taboo. The only hope for ecumenicalists is that some faith Z that posits any way to god(s)can work is the correct one.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. Then the obvious conclusion is that they are ALL wrong.

A conclusion i came to many years ago.

[dimbear]

27. It's a simple math problem. All religions have an equal share of the One Great Truth.

There are thousands or millions of religions. Divide out.

[Igel]

35. Why?

Apply it to physics.

The Standard Model must be wrong because it's not proven right. String theory must be wrong.

The only entailment if they're all be exclusionist is that at most one of them is right. It's possible that none of them are right, but that's entailed by "at most."

The inference that "all of them are wrong" is invalid; it may be true, but that depends on it's truth, not on the logic. "All cats are black, my pet Igelly is a cat, therefore my cat is black" is true. You may argue that my major premise is false--it's patently false, note even that my other pet cat Furball is brown--not because the logic allows the inference but simply because my cat Igelly is, indeed, black.

"The sky tastes like blueberries, all things that taste like blueberries are blue, therefore the sky is blue" works just as well.

So "The obvious conclusion is that they are all wrong" is true only if, on independent grounds, they really are all wrong.

[okasha]

10. But with a theology like Tutu's,

which is shared by liberal Christians, liberal Muslims, liberal Jews, most if not all Pagans, Buddhists and Hindus, as well, undoubtedly, as some I've left out--"correct" is a meaningless word in this context.

I understand why Abrahamic fundamentalists get hung up on 'my way is the only way.' But why do atheists? This is puzzling to me.

Let me clarify that. I do not mean atheists as a whole taking the position that their way is the only way. I mean atheists taking the position that "one way must be the only way" for believers.

[dmallind]

12. How is "correct" meaningless here.

Tutu avoids the topic entirely, essentially saying "let's all be nice and learn from each other while we stick to our own beliefs even though we must not think we have all the answers". Nice enough thought but even he states "and we will make our claims for Christ as unique and as the Savior of the world". So if Christ is the unique savior of the world, that by definition means followers of religions not accepting Christ are incorrect about something of transcendent importance. No way to weasel out of that.

Sure a (tiny - not all even liberal Christians by a long shot) minority may believe that it doesn't matter - that Hindus and Buddhists heck even atheists will still be saved by the world savior they do not accept, but that does not make them correct, merely saved. And the number of denominations or even pastors claiming universal unconditional salvation is how high?

Nobody speaks for all atheists but the reason I view it this way (how am I "hung up" exactly?) is basic logic. If one group says A not B and another says B not A, it is impossible that both statements are true. You can parse and explain away every shred of the huge scriptural backing for the decidedly anti-ecumenical view of the Christian religion (starting with the 1st commandment and Jesus' own statement that nobody comes to the Father exceopt through him), but you cannot maintain the Christian religion howvever liberal without the salvific nature of Christ. So when any other faith says that Jesus is neither necessary nor even a savior at all, how can they be correct if Christianity is too? Remember I take no position and ask no question about whether they can or cannot get to God/salvation as liberal Christians may or may not believe, but I do ask whether they can be as correct in their belief.

[okasha]

15. Because it's not a matter of being "correct."

Tutu is a univeersal salvationist, as are most modern non-fundamentaist theologians. That means that dogmas and forms of worship are not right or wrong but actually irrelevant to whether or not one goes to heaven--or escapes the wheel of karma or the cycle of reincarnation or however one wishes to express union with the transcendent.

The first Queen Elizabeth, faced with squabbles in the English Church over vestments and other "poperies," famously said, "There is but one Christ Jesus. All the rest is a dispute about trifles." Tutu carries that further to "There is but one Great Mystery. All the rest is a dispute about trifles."

[dmallind]

18. All well and good - although far less common than you imply - but still

that means their mutually exclusive claims cannot be correct whether that's relevant to salvation or not. As one who does not accept the need for let alone truth of salvation the only thing that is of any interest to me in any religion is how true any of its claims are. If the truth of religious claims is as immaterial in this world as it is in heaven what use or need is there for any religious claim to be made?

[markpkessinger]

21. There is a strain of Christian theology . . .

. . .known as "apophatic theology," which has a long and venerable history among the various theological approaches that have informed Christian thought. To be sure, it has received considerably more emphasis among Eastern Orthodox Christians than it has among Western Christianity (Catholic, Anglican or Protestant), which tends to emphasize a "cataphatic" approach. Wikipedia has an article that describes the basis of apophatic theology fairly well:

In negative theology, it is accepted that the Divine is ineffable, an abstract experience that can only be recognized or remembered—that is, human beings cannot describe in words the essence of the perfect good that is unique to the individual, nor can they define the Divine, in its immense complexity, related to the entire field of reality, and therefore all descriptions if attempted will be ultimately false and conceptualization should be avoided; in effect, it eludes definition by definition:
* Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).
* God is divinely simple (one should not claim that God is one, or three, or any type of being.)
* God is not ignorant (one should not say that God is wise since that word arrogantly implies we know what "wisdom" means on a divine scale, whereas we only know what wisdom is believed to mean in a confined cultural context).
* Likewise, God is not evil (to say that God can be described by the word 'good' limits God to what good behavior means to human beings individually and en masse).
* God is not a creation (but beyond that we cannot define how God exists or operates in relation to the whole of humanity).
* God is not conceptually defined in terms of space and location.
* God is not conceptually confined to assumptions based on time.

What all this means, essentially, is that since all attempts to comprehend God are formulated by mortals bound by the limits of human understanding which are, inevitably, constrained by the limits of the temporal realm of time and space humans inhabit, and since God is understood to dwell outside the limits of the temporal realm, then all positive propositions regarding what or who God is are bound to be inadequate and incomplete, and hence heretical. Apophatic theology posits that the only way humans can correctly speak of God is in the negative: i.e., what God is not. Under this approach, one can only speak of what God is not; hence God is spoken of as "ineffable," "incomprehensible," "Unimaginable," "immortal," "invisible," etc., and one avoids statements of propositional truth.

Realistically, it is extremely difficult to embrace an apophatic approach entirely, but it can serve as an important guard against our tendency to anthropomorphise God. Thus one needn't necessarily approach the faith as a simplistic set of propositional truths (that's an unfortunate overlay of Western culture), which must be accepted or rejected at face value. In his article, Archbishop Tutu was drawing on the kind of humility fostered by an apophatic approach in terms of recognizing the limits of all human understandings of God.

Interestingly, there is an (imperfectly) apophatic hymn that has made its way into the Western Christian repertoire. Below is part of the text:

Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inaccessible hid from our eyes,
. . .
Unresting, unhasting, and silent as light,
Nor wanting, nor wasting, thou rulest in might;

[laconicsax]

22. I support apophatic theology. n/t

[dmallind]

26. Would that all believers accepted this

Because if we cannot make statements about what God is, it must surely follow we cannot make statements about what he thinks or wants.

[skepticscott]

36. All very pretty, but nothing here

has been discovered, only decided or declared, with no more evidence in favor than any other theological point of view. And like it or not, these can also be regarded as truth claims about the nature of god. If some people want to take them as their personal conception of a god that exists only in their minds, that's their business, but if they are an attempt to characterize a god that has an existence independent of any believer, then they are as subject to being accurate or inaccurate as any other truth claim.

[okasha]

24. Again "correct" doesn't apply.

As TMO says, this type of theology gives up mutually exclusive claims.

[dmallind]

25. It applies to my view of them very much, and no they don't

Tutu himself said that he claims Christ is the unique savior of the world. Any number of religions claim otherwise.

[trotsky]

31. Oh but it absolutely IS about being "correct," dear okasha.

Liberal theologians like Tutu are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They are making a truth statement - that it doesn't matter what you believe. This statement runs directly counter to the beliefs of moderate to conservative followers of most religions. Tutu (and others who agree with him, like yourself?) are then saying that their beliefs are correct, and the beliefs of the moderates/conservatives are incorrect. You can't escape it, and it's not a "trifle" - it's a weak-assed attempt to water down religion to make it more palatable and acceptable (and peaceful), while also conveniently but dishonestly disposing of the difficult problems raised by differing religious beliefs.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. ''...'correct' is a meaningless word in this context.''

I agree. "Incorrect", on the other hand, is not.

[trotsky]

8. "I don't know what significant fact can be drawn from this"

I do. But those who adhere to a particular religion won't want to hear it.

[laconicsax]

28. Those who adhere to *most* religions don't want to hear it.

[trotsky]

30. Oh yes, that's how I meant it.

If they adhere to pretty much any particular religion.

[Thats my opinion]

11. TUTU is on target

Any reasonable concept of God means there can be no identification of God with any religious tradition. Whatever God is, that concept cannot be captured in any single religious system. Two generations ago there was a popular book titled, "Your God is Too Small." That affirmation still holds.

[dmallind]

14. Given the hypothetical single god, true enough. But..

If God cannot be identified with any religion, what is the purpose of or need for religion, or even theology? If we cannot learn any truth about God from the Bible, or Koran, or Upanishads, how can we learn about him through writings drawn from them, or through priests or imams versed in them, or through any external means since all thought on religions comes from founding texts or oral traditions even less reliable? If religion cannot speak about God what is left but small g gnosticism (a clue there for some btw why the idea that agnosticism is an ontological position between theism and atheism is absurd)? If religion CAN speak about God then how do we determine the truth value of competing claims from different religions or scriptures?

The more "sophisticated" theology becomes, the more meaningless and irrelevant God becomes, because he becones truly ineffable. Something about which we can say nothing true, and about which we can ask and answer no meaningful questions. What then can we say is the difference between God and xcdgety?

Even outside God then, religion becomes even less useful, because its only long-claimed and stated purpose is to get various adherents closer to their various gods. If it cannot do that, what is it but a larger richer version of the Kiwanis or Rotary club?

[okasha]

16. Tutu's not saying we can't learn any truth

about God from any religious tradition. He's saying that no one tradition has all the truth and that understanding can be sought from and found in all.

[dmallind]

17. Well I was responding to tmo not Tutu but that still leaves

the second of my two alternatives: If religion can tell us about God how do we choose between mutually exclusive claims?

[Thats my opinion]

19. First you give up any exclusive claim

[dmallind]

20. Did I make one?

[okasha]

23. Generic "you."

n/t

[skepticscott]

37. The point is that

any meaningful claim, any claim that purports to be an improvement of our knowledge and understanding, has to exclude something.

[skepticscott]

38. Your statement only makes sense

if god is only a concept and if none of the gods in any religious tradition actually exist. If one of those gods did exist, he/she/it could certainly be identified with a particular religious tradition, and the concept of god held by the people he/she/it revealed themself to would certainly be "reasonable".

[tblue37]

29. "My Father's house has many mansions." nt

[dmallind]

33. John 14:6. nt (but very much t itself)