Bishops' Blog

What the Pope Should Have Said (and Perhaps Meant)

   In a recent question-and-answer session recently with students in Singapore, Pope Francis made remarks about the relation of Christianity to other religions which have ignited a  firestorm. Before considering what he said, we should point out that he was not speaking from the cathedra of official (and for Catholics infallible) doctrine. Still, any remarks made by the Holy Father are significant.

       Here are some of the things he said: 1. All religions are roads to God. 2. All believers are children of God. 3. Religions are all like languages describing their road differently. Now Pope Francis can fairly be criticized for making these comments without sufficient explanation. As a result he left his remarks open to misunderstanding, and of a various kinds. I hasten to add that he also had the goal of fostering appreciation and friendship with other religions, which is a noble goal.

       Christians believe that their teaching is final, both in the sense that if cannot be exceeded, and because it confirms  the true ‘end’ or goal of both creation and the human being. This is what the New Testament means when it says that ‘finally’ God sent his Son (so John 1, Colossians 1, Revelation 1 (and the defeat of death and hell), etc. As such, with respect to both truth and salvation, it is not one religion among other (though as a matter of sociology or history it is obviously so). I doubt the Pope meant to deny this finality, the heart of the Creed (and so of Catholic dogma),) but he did indeed leave himself open to this interpretation. He has great pastoral gifts, but theological care, not least in the great tradition of Catholic theology, matters too.

    My goal here is to take a second step and say in what sense the Pope’s comments could be taken as helpful.  First of all, all creatures are of course children of their Heavenly Father- the Gospel means to lead they back to Him! And it so happens that comparing religions to languages has been a fruitful way in the last few decades to think about different religions (my own teacher, George Lindback, helped to make this popular). The point is that languages are enough alike for us to know that they are all languages. But their grammars are different, as a result of which they enable us to say things in each that you cannot say in the others. This difference is important. Religions do have goals, or ends, for human life. But these ends are distinct- Sunyata and Nirvana and heaven in Islam are not the same as the Kingdom of God as understood by Christians.

     We may wish to make comparisons, but these are inevitably difficult and inexact. One could say that all believe in the same God, but only if one also says that believers, in speaking of Him, are significantly in error (as they believe about us!)  Evan among Christians and Muslims, who have a number of things in common (believe in creation, the one God, the end), the question of believing in the same God is complicated. No less an authority than Thomas Aquinas said, first, that we do believe in the same God (since there is only one God!), and then that we do not (since we have crucial disagreements in understanding Him).  Again, these nuances matter, since in them is, on the one hand, ground for conversation, an, on the other, the imperative, for us, of the fundamental affirmations of the Lordship of Christ and His atoning death. These are central to our essential ‘stand of faith.’ Francis’ charity is good, but parsing the difference which do, and do not, constitute something essential, is necessary as well.

Peace,

+GRS

At the Hookses

I am writing this entry at a homestead called ‘the Hookses,’ in Dale, in the southwest-most part of Wales, overlooking the sea.  It was the retreat of John Stott, the late evangelical Anglican priest, theologian, and statesman.  Here you can imagine the quiet, disciplined, and intensely focused life that he led (in addition to his serving as rector of All Souls, London).  And yet for the latter half of the 20^th century he was one of the premier leaders of global evangelicalism (of a stature comparable to Billy Graham). So he leads us to reflect on the real nature of spiritual authority.  He did not hold high office in the Church, nor did his writing or speaking draw any particular attention to himself.  But he wrote constantly, eloquently, accessibly, about the Gospel: among many others, Basic Christianity, The Cross of Christ, The Glory of Preaching.  He was always a catechist as well as a preacher, the message and the messenger aligned

Secondly John Stott, though a thoroughly an Anglican, was first and foremost a servant of the Gospel. This implied a much wider ecumenical fellowship, of which he counted himself a member. Hence He became one of the original moving forces in the Lausanne movement (of which our own Carrie Headington has an important role), which gathers Christians centered on the Gospel from across denominations.  Authority was not something one has, but emerges from the articulation of the Gospel itself.

Third and finally, early on, John Stott saw the importance of promoting global Christianity, and in particular the education and support of its young leaders.  He was a mentor to leaders like Samuel Escobar in Latin America and Bishop David Gitari in Africa. The Langham Trust continues to provide advanced theological education to young scholars from the Global South.  (I served on its Canadian board while at Wycliffe).  For John, to see the wide dimensions of the Gospel led to see the wide dimensions of Christ’s Church.  This too is a lesson to us from the life of this modern saint (a designation he would surely have resisted). 

St. David's Cathedral below

Inside St. David's Cathedral

St. David's tomb in the cathedral with the bishop and dean