Several speakers were invited to the Auckland Anglican Cathedral to debate the question "Does Religious Diversity Undermine Christian Faith?"

Dr Laurie Guy (Carey Baptist College) and Glyn Carpenter, expressed a cautious position, particularly in relation to the significance of the National Statement on Religious Diversity. Bishop Richard Randerson (Anglican/Cathedral), Jenny Te Paa (Anglican/St Johns College), and Dr Lois Wilson (Uniting Church of Canada/former president of World Council of Churches) expressed a more enthusiastic position. Jeremy Hema (Catholic/youth/Maori) spoke from a perspective of marae protocol.

Glyn Carpenter's talk is below

But google "religious diversity jokes" and you get a paltry 34,000 sites, and a quick scan reveals that these are predominantly articles about warnings, legal prosecutions, and acts of violence.

Religious diversity doesn't seem to lend itself to jokes and humour.

But does RD undermine Christian faith?
There are many dimensions to Christian faith

There is a personal dimension.  Jesus called Peter, Andrew, and the others to follow him.  Today, individuals are likewise called to follow him.  The salvation Christ offers, the presence, knowledge, and enjoyment of the one true God - in this life and in the next - is individual - inclusively available to all - exclusively through Jesus alone.

There is a corporate dimension to the Christian faith.  We need each other, for the different gifts and talents, for corporate worship and edification, and so we can grow into spiritual maturity.

And there is also a public dimension to the Christian faith.  This is seen in our Great Commission calling to make disciples and baptise them in the name of the one true God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  It is seen in the Great Commandment to "love our neighbour", and the calls of Amos to act justly and of Jeremiah to seek the peace and prosperity of the places where we live.  It is seen in our prophetic calling - to challenge people and leaders to align themselves with God.  And it is acknowledged in public rituals - such as prayer at parliament, ANZAC parades, and school assemblies.

I believe the Christian faith is uniquely important in all these dimensions.

Turning to the phrase "religious diversity", a straightforward reading shows this to be a simple statement of fact.  We have many different religious groups in NZ - Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and others.  They are all tiny compared to Christianity.  In terms of the three dimensions of Christian faith outlined above, it is hard to see how RD in this sense creates any problem for Christianity.   In fact, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that the more non-Christians we have around us, the more opportunities we have to share the love and truth of Jesus Christ.

One of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith, (many would say the most important) is the doctrine of grace.

Grace is so fundamental that non-believers struggle to reconcile images of Christians using displays of force and demanding things from others, with the Christ we claim to follow.

The Bible tells us we are saved by grace, Jesus was full of grace, - we should likewise be people of grace.

God used the experience of Israel after 400 years in Egypt to remind them that they knew what it was to be aliens in a foreign land, so they should treat others accordingly.

This is the same challenge to Christians today - to remember that we were once not part of God's family, to extend the maximum grace possible to others - regardless of their beliefs or religion, to endeavour to not make people feeling alienated. 

This involves grace-filled, loving, dialogue with others who are not Christians.  There are many stories of Jesus himself dialoguing with people who weren't followers, including those who weren't part of the main God-group of his day.

One of the more scandalous stories He told describes a Samaritan (read "person outside mainstream religion") whose actions are clearly endorsed by Jesus, while those who thought they were God's people, are clearly criticised.

But there is another way in which the phrase RD is used.  In this sense, it is not simply recognition of or acceptance of the existence of other religious groups, but a specific intention to promote other religious beliefs into the public sphere, and to equalise all religions in all areas.  It is this sense which creates major unease about the RDS.

By definition, RD in this sense would undermine Christian faith - initially in terms of its recognition in public occasions, but who can guess where to from there?

If the ruling paradigm says that all religions are equal, and should be treated as such, what happens ultimately to a religious group which does not accept this?  It is hard to see how religious groups that believe differently can long be tolerated.  Religious conscience will eventually have to conform to the dominant paradigm or face the consequences, as is currently happening, for example, to Catholic adoption services in UK.

Paradoxically, Christian faith in a personal and corporate sense can flourish in adverse conditions, but this is not a condition we should seek or blindly slip into.

The brochure for this evening, describes the NSRD as an "aspirational statement" that "acknowledges religious diversity while promoting national unity".

The main stated purpose of the statement is to reduce the chances of religious tensions and violence such as have occurred overseas.

I trust everyone here is agreed that we want to avoid such problems in NZ.  In the first instance, we do this by committing to dialogue over violence, and connecting over isolation.  As people of grace, with the biblical story, and maybe even personal experience, of what it is to be aliens or outsiders, we should be committed to such dialogue.

Of course, we do not need a RDS to have dialogue.

Those interested in interfaith discourse have been meeting and talking for years.  Those not interested will naturally be suspicious as to why something is needed to facilitate that which is happening already.

When the mosque in Auckland was vandalised, we issued a press release against the vandalism and followed up with a meeting with the leader of the Islamic Associations.  When a member of another faith group recently made extremist comments about Christians in the media, we arranged afternoon tea, and talked the matter through.

It has been difficult to see what benefits come from this statement, and we have consistently stated that we see no need for it.  One member of the working group said that immigrants and members of minority faith groups were not sure what rights and protections they had in NZ.  My response was that a summary document of the relevant sections of law would have achieved this purpose.

On the other hand, many have expressed concern that such a statement could lead on to policies or even laws which restrict the expression of Christian faith.

At this stage the NSRD does not do that. 

While we saw no need for the statement, we have been part of the process, and have sought to ensure that the statement was at least accurate and fair, that the special importance of Christianity was noted, and that the freedom to propogate our faith was preserved.

The NSRD was affirmed in Hamilton as a basis of ongoing dialogue.   If attempts are made through policy or legislation to force people to accept this statement, there will be problems.  But if it remains a basis for ongoing dialogue, I think it could be accepted by most people.

Glyn Carpenter
8^th May 2007

Share this page.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Email this page to a friend.

Add Comment