Some sectors of the web are astir over Brit Hume advising Tiger Woods to abandon Buddhism and embrace Christianity:
I don’t know Hume and have not followed Woods much. But I have had conversations with many of my friends about whether it matters which faith or religion one follows.
Faith as a noun and as a verb
Some of my friends think that the important thing is to have faith – any faith at all. They think that spirituality is a fundamental part of human life, and that it’s not healthy to neglect or avoid it. But the actual content of that spirituality, whether Christian or Buddhist or Native American or some mixture of anything one finds, doesn’t really matter.
What’s important is to have faith rather than what faith one has; the verb of faith trumps the noun.
At the same time, the recent controversies about politicians (such as Patrick Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi) claiming to be faithful to the Catholic Church while opposing some moral teachings of the Church indicate that content – at least by name – really is important.
In other words, the verb defines the meaning of the noun.
Meanwhile, traditional religions such as the Catholic Church teach that the noun should guide the verb. That is, one’s actions should be based on the content of one’s belief. And, moreover, the quality of one’s belief can therefore be discerned in one’s actions.
But don’t they all teach the same thing?
If the content of various religions was the same across the board, there would be very little conflict between religions, and almost none within religions. But this clearly is not the case. Content matters a great deal to a great many people, and for good reason.
I am a Catholic myself, and have done some academic theological study. I admit to being woefully ignorant about Buddhism or Islam or most other major world religions, but I do know that they differ from Catholic Christianity on a basic level.
Catholic teaching, for example, says that our ultimate destiny is communion in love with God. Buddhism, on the other hand, teaches that our ultimate goal is to end they cycle of rebirth through extinction of oneself. Islam sets forth a paradise including a vision of God, but that seems to maintain an absolute separation between God and the believer.
These different visions of ultimate destiny tend toward different attitudes toward morality: a Catholic approach emphasizes love and hope; a Buddhist approach stresses peace and equanimity; Islam sees morality as duty.
Learning from differences
Now, I’m convinced that no religion could have prospered for centuries on end without some insight into the truth of human nature and the world we inhabit. So I think there’s a great deal that the Catholic Church can learn from other religions, and vice versa.
I also know that, despite the differences, we hold many things in common. Most (if not all) world religions seek to draw the individual out of him- or herself to an attentiveness and care for others and for the world itself. This means we can collaborate on all sorts of philanthropic or environmental projects.
But in the end, reality is one; and different religions describe it in contradictory ways. It really matters whether we reincarnate, or whether we rise again in Christ Jesus. It really matters whether we are allowed to eat pork or any meat at all or only vegetables.
It is theoretically possible that all religions on earth are wrong; but at most, one is right. So I see nothing but good in sorting out exactly which one – if any – is true.
“So I see nothing but good in sorting out exactly which one – if any – is true.”
Yikes! This is dangerous ground here, Rob.
How about this one: God has not concended to make a judgement on which religion is “right”. If God has not, then it would be best if mere man avoids the judgement as well. After all, how can man suppose to judge better than God?
Growing up Catholic, I understand where this is coming from. But I believe the greater truth here is that the Catholic religion does not have to derive it’s legitimacy from being the “one, true” religion. Those are the words of control and government. In a real sense, the Romans still walk with us in the form of structure of the Catholic church.
You can be Catholic and believe that Mohammed and Martin Luther King walked with God. Maybe it’s because I grew up around French Canadian priests, but there was less angst then you’d imagine about the particulars of Catholic doctrine. They were more practical sorts who derived their spirituality from the rituals, community, and shared values.
On the other hand, it is very assume that you will ever have to power to recognize the one true religion. The danger in looking for the “one, true path” is that a)it might not exist because God does not want it to exist and b)you become blind to what you have in common with every other religion and your fellow human travelers.
@Amy – dangerous? It’s a risk I’m willing, even driven, to take. I think the dangers of not sorting out the differences between religions are far more threatening.
You say:
I don’t think that religion is something that we present to God for his judgment, as if it were some celestial talent show or science fair. Rather, I think religion is a human response to God’s self-manifestation in the world. Now, some ways that God manifests himself are common to all people: mainly, the created universe, which elicits a variety of responses, all of which express (in one way or another) wonder.
However, many religions claim that God manifests himself in particular ways to particular peoples. Christianity is one of these, as is the entire Abrahamic tradition. It’s possible that Hinduism could be included here as well, but I think that point could be debated. Anyway, such a claim demands a certain testing. If Moses, or Jesus, or Mohammed, claims to speak for God Almighty, then it’s important to ask whether this purported prophet is trustworthy.
In other words, it’s a question of faith. In whom can I place my faith?
I guess I understand the fear, seeing that much evil has entered human history from a refusal to admit common ground with those seen as one’s enemies. But to ignore the differences, to say that the differences do not matter … that strikes me as the path either to tyranny or chaos. I’d much rather have vibrant arguments between people who respect the importance of disagreement than building habits of fear through tip-toeing around each other and neglecting the implications of what one’s word implies.