RELIGIOUS RIGIDITY

 as written and compiled by John J. Shaffer 1988

Background: This paper was written for personal therapy after leaders of the Sitka Ministerial Association vetoed the participation of a Mormon children’s choir in the annual Community Christmas Concert in 1988.  Written on January of 1989 B.H.  (Before Harvard experience as a Merrill Fellow.)

Issue:  What groups can sing in the Christmas Concert or Religious Rigidity in Sitka, Alaska.

What is the measuring stick?  Membership in the Ministerial Association?  Belief in the Trinity?  Similarity in Doctrine?

CHOICE:  To be a Jonah, who does not want to relate to persons he had no regard for, or to be a ‘party person’, as described by the Apostle Paul, or to be open to God’s leading to include persons who are different from ourselves, religiously speaking, knowing that this is being faithful to the biblical witness in its entirety, if not in specifics.

John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, focused on this problem in his own relationships with religionists of his own time, who differed from him on the details of the religious life. He suggested that if one’s heart is right, then ‘give me your hand’. He also suggested that except for the essentials of the faith, he would “think and let think”, which probably cut down on some of the conflict in his own time and place.

Today we have lots of examples of religionists who take a narrow view of acceptable beliefs and behavior, with the result of lots of human misery, wars and hostility. Gracious behavior, in relationship to our treatment of other religions, will do more for Christianity than ungracious behavior.

I am reminded of the words of Robert Frost, in his famous poem “The Road Not Taken”.  “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I – I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.”

The essential problem, as I understand it, comes from the focus on some biblical verses that suggest that a person should not be “yoked to unbelievers”. This has been applied to marriages, as well as whether or not to associate with specific religious groups.  The idea is in the Bible, but there are lots of opposing ideas, where Jesus associated with those who were criticized by the dominant religion of that time and place in Palestine.

Given the attitude that all persons should believe as we believe, prior to inclusion in fellowship or even being allowed to participate in community activities, it is evident that even Jesus would be excluded from some meetings and organizations. Lest we forget, Jesus was a Jew.

Given enough time, I could come up with reasons why we should not associate with any of the 21 religious groups in town. I could even come up with reasons not to be a part of the United Methodist Church.

Just to be even-handed, if you promise not to tell, I will admit that we have some hypocrites in the United Methodist Church…even as members. In fact even the preacher in one.  Definition time: “not living up to what one professes.”

Going back in time, way back in time, Martin Luther approved killings in the Peasant Revolt and John Calvin supported the killing of Servetus for his alleged heresies. In some ways, excluding is a form of killing, only it is much more genteel. In contemporary times, we know all about the sexual preferences of those pastors formerly in the Assembly of God denomination, Swaggert and Bakker.

The problem of excluding is not a new one. It first came to me, in an organizational way, while a pastor in the 1960’s on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska. We attempted to form a Ministerial Association at Kenai in the wake of Vatican II. This not only opened the door to Catholic-Protestant shared participation, but it gave the local priests the freedom to attend public meetings.  At the first gathering of 15 pastors, I invited the Catholic priest to share in leading the devotional time. After the meeting the local Assembly of God minister came to my home to explain that he had a pain in the pit of his stomach over associating with a Catholic priest in this way. He said that he was not going to be able to participate in the group if the Catholic priest was allowed to be a member. He was not alone. Eventually, only 5 of the 15 who attended were willing to be official members of the Ministerial Association: myself, an Army chaplain, two Catholic priests and a Lutheran pastor. Eventually some of those hang-ups disappeared, but the earliest expressions of ecumenical cooperation were very difficult for several pastors.

Another personal story comes from my experience as a summer furlough pastor at Cooper Landing in 1961. I thought it would be neighborly to visit with a local pastor of the Bible Baptist persuasion. When I identified myself on his doorstep, he made it clear that I would be invited in for coffee (I only used that drug in rare social occasions then.), if I believed that the Bible was the Word of God. Not really understanding why I should waste my time with a trip to his home, I assured him that I did so believe, muttering under my breath, “if you mean by that, that the Bible contains the Word of God”. In his own way that pastor was insisting that I believe as he believe before he would fellowship with me. His total lifestyle was not as pure as the Mormons, who do not happen to approve taking that particular drug ‘to get through their days’…but I digress, as I often do.

Years later, I found myself in Nome, Alaska, with a Ministerial Association that involved most of the clergy in town, everyone except the Bible Baptist pastor, who would not do anything of a religious nature with other clergy in any way, shape or form. That including sitting in the same room while prayer took place.

Then we had an experience in Anchorage in the 1980’s, where there were enough clergypersons of similar style, so most groups did not associate with anyone who might be ‘different’. But even the liberal, mainline, old-line, sideline group was able to develop its own problem of inclusion/exclusion. This centered on the question of whether or not to create a group in which a Jewish Rabbi could hold membership. The debate went on and on.  Some did not participate because Jews were not included and others threatened to withdraw if Jews were included. The political climate was very difficult, until Roman Catholic Archbishop Hurley made it known that he wanted the Jewish Rabbi to be included.

After several years of foot dragging and inaction, I decided to give the situation some intentional focus and I found myself in one of the bitterest debates of my career, as some felt that this decision centered on protecting the purity of the Christian Faith for all time. In the process of allowing this to happen, the Interfaith Council of Anchorage was created. One pleasant by-product was the inclusion of a charismatic group for the first time.

At the decisive meeting, the vote to include the Rabbi lost by one vote.  I announced I was done with the group and a cooler head asked for a brief recess.  Groups formed and after some private discussion, there was a motion to reconsider and on the next vote it was unanimous to include the rabbi.  Several decided to abstain from voting and an Episcopal priest announced he was done with the group and there was no request for another recess.

A fascinating footnote to me was to hear a Catholic priest in 1987 mouth some of the same objections to including other religions that was said about Catholics in 1961.  When I told him how disappointed I was in his stance, he changed his vote, which put him on the same side of the archbishop, who was not present.

Focusing just on the style and operation of the United Methodist Church, most of the time the participation of the pastor in such organizations is assumed and enjoyed. It is not a formal decision of the church as to whether or not the pastor should participate.

I sometimes wonder what kind of witness it would make for me to exclude myself from such groups until they focused on the spirit of Jesus Christ at the point of including the “outcasts” (fringe religious groups) of my own time and place.

I would have been tempted in Seward when it came the United Methodist turn to speak at the Easter Sunrise Service, only to learn that some pastors were urging their members to boycott the service, because the United Methodist pastor was a woman.  One said it was okay to attend, but ‘don’t listen to what she has to say’. That was too bad, as they would have learned about the women who were the first to give witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As I have shared, the hot debate in Anchorage caused me to resign, then cooler heads prevailed and the by-laws were tightened, so that only Jews could join, but not Muslims. The proposed changes had been defeated by one vote short of the 2/3rds majority needed. I was just trying to avoid the fight of the next century, when sincere and dedicated Muslims will be a major part of the religious scene in America. They already are in the ‘world’ in which we live. After the by-laws were tightened to specifically only mention Jews, the body was able to vote approval unanimously…and only one group of Christians resigned, but relatively quietly.

I must admit that I have lost patience with debates that center on “what if’….’, as opponents drag out all their fears, as well as any imagined fears that others have. What if Moonies and Satanists and eastern mystics invade our hallowed meetings. I am just perverse enough to feel that if such an event would ever occur, it would give us the opportunity to bear witness to our own faith in positive ways, as well as guarantee that such groups would be more moderate in whatever they are trying to accomplish.

[Update:  in 2020, the Faith in Action Network in the State of Washington includes members of the Islamic Faith who participate in the process very effectively. Could it be that I was occasionally ahead of the times?]

Why did Jesus associate with sinners, instead of the holy Pharisees (of which he most probably was a member in good standing?)  Jesus did associate with sinners, you know. The Bible is very clear at that point.  He also associated with Samaritans…with women…with lepers…with fishermen…with tax collectors…but not with Mormons or Roman Catholics or Baptists (not counting John or baptizers) or Methodists. For some, the Bible has to be very specific to be effective and that is a shame. I would prefer that people focus on the spirit of Jesus Christ, then we might have grasped the point he was trying to make with his own life and witness.

The Bible provides us with enough information for us to make a choice. Fortunately, the early church struggled with this choice [Can Gentiles become Christians without first becoming Jews?].   And we Gentiles were allowed in…directly, not as second-class citizens, religiously speaking.

Even the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) struggles with the question of relationships with foreigners and some put away foreign wives, but Praise God, Boaz married one (Ruth) and helped produce the line that produced a very important Jew in my life, the Jew named Jesus.

This has been a helpful quotation for me in my own spiritual life.  It comes from the experience of a pastor during and after World War II, in Germany.

“In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”  – Pastor Martin Niemoeller

Personal paraphrase (based on Niemoellers’ quote) of our American experience…

“First they came for the Indians, and I didn’t speak up, because it was before my time; then they came for the communists, and I spoke up and my patriotism was questioned, until the time when relating to some communists was made popular by Nixon and Reagan; then they came for the Catholics and I spoke up and some walls of separation and suspicion came tumbling down for some;  then they came after the trade unions, and I didn’t speak up, because there were obvious excesses of power in some of the unions; then they came after a variety of religious sects and new religions, and I spoke up and experienced some alienation, but I felt in tune with the spirit of Jesus Christ; then when they came after me, I knew that I would survive, for I had sought for the truth and the truth has made me free.”

Consider these words of Edwin Markham: (which I have followed when I have been at my best)  “Someone drew a circle that shut me out   Heretic, a rebel, a thing to flout.  But LOVE and I had the wit to win   We drew a circle that took someone in.”

As hard as it may be for some to hear and accept, there is a great deal of truth in this quote:

“All religions have some truth; none have the truth!”  Rabbi Abraham Feinberg

The world would be a safer, and perhaps saner place, if more persons would operate on some of this philosophy.

Personal correspondence with Tony Campolo, an articulate and respected writer and speaker, produced this quotation:   “I think that evangelicals and liberals can get along quite well as long as evangelicals are willing to admit, as I do, that the evangelical position is only a Christian position and not the Christian position. It is only when persons establish a particular theological stance as the only legitimate one to have in order to be part of the household of God that real trouble starts…”     -Dr. Tony Campolo   11/4/85

Not a bad credo for Bible times or modern times.  It applies, in my view, to relationships with others than liberals and evangelicals. When we have a history of suppressing cults, for example, we only give rise to feelings and attitudes that have the potential of coming back and haunting us in future years.

I am aware, for example, that Methodism was regarded in negative ways (the word ‘cult’ may have been used) in our beginning years. Certainly the enthusiasm of those years was suspect in many Christian circles.

We need to be very careful, as United Methodists and as Christians, as to the way in which we relate to other religions.

[The following was written after my study leave experience as a Merrill Fellow at Harvard Divinity School.  4/22/89 while still the pastor of the United Methodist Church of Sitka.  I served there until 1995.]

Much of my personal research at the Harvard Library was focused on the issue of pluralism and diversity in the religious community of our world.  As is often the case in academic work, the problem is much more complex than I realized.

There were personal opportunities for dialogue with students of others faiths (Buddhist, Jewish, Unitarian-Universalists, Baha’i and a variety of mainline and evangelical denominations), as well as visits to Friday worship at a Muslim Mosque in Quincy, MA. and a Jewish Temple in Needham.

The primary new word added to my vocabulary is the importance of holding persons of other faiths in esteem. Now I must confess that this is easier for me with some groups than others. It will be a real challenge to attempt to practice that in my own faith and life, for there are some representatives of other faiths that are very difficult to hold in esteem.

In addition, it is extremely important for persons of all faiths to share the main points of their own faith clearly, in those forums where it is appropriate. Dr. Harvey Cox has a new book “Many Mansions”, which would be very helpful in such an endeavor. He speaks of the need to speak up for Jesus in the context of dialoguing with other religions.

While I recognize my own concerns are not very relevant in Sitka on the international scale, I think the principles apply even here. It is obvious to me that the deepest fears of Americans could not handle the establishment of Islamic Mosques in every city and village of our land, but this is coming, my friends. And Muslims have as much right to evangelize America as we have had to send missionaries to Africa and Asia in recent decades.

Given our demonstrated lack of willingness to dialogue with one another within the Christian community, there is no question how some of us would handle new faith options in our midst.

We would turn our backs on the opportunities or we would give birth to hostility that would only damage the fabric which holds us together in human community. Humanity and the earth deserve better treatment.

There are many books being written on these issues. More than I could absorb in my brief three-month study period. If anyone is interested in further bibliographies or information, do not hesitate to inquire.

It is obvious to me that the pastoral and administrative leadership of 22 so-called Christian organizations in Sitka are not able or willing to dialogue together, so we have demonstrated our capacity. However, for those of us who wish to enter the 20th century by helping our laity prepare for even greater, if not more difficult opportunities, then such reflection is imperative.

One of the best reminders is to remember that final judgment is not in our hands. It is in God’s hands.  Let God be God!

Footnote:  While the pastor at Stanwood United Methodist Church (2000-2008), there was a two year study of the Islamic Faith, led by a member of the Islamic Faith from the Seattle Area.  Sixty people participated, with 1/2 from the church and 1/2 from the community.  There was strong support from the Baha’i Faith.  My role was dealing with the hostility from some members of the community of Stanwood and Camano Island.  There is obviously a hunger for information and the desire to build up goodwill between different religious practices and belief systems.