The Substance of Faith

Yesterday, I attended my first lecture in "The Triune God", one of the theology subjects I am studying this semester.

This subject is concerned both with Trinitarian theology and with the Christian understanding of God as a Triune being: that is, one Being with three Persons. The former concerns the specifically Christian doctrine of the Trinity; the latter is how Christians speak of God, how Christians understand the nature of the Godhead.

The focus of this lecture was the placement of Trinitarian theology and the Christian understanding of the Triune God at the centre of Christian faith. All the other teachings of the church - the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Salvation - are founded in and predicated upon the Christian teaching about the Triune nature of the Godhead. There are several reasons for this centrality, but one of the most important is that it goes to the identity of Christian faith.

The Trinity is the specific and particular claim about God made by Christian faith. Only Christianity understands the Godhead in Trinitarian terms: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is the creator, source, and basis of all life; the Son is the Father's decisive act in creation; the Holy Spirit is the Father's ongoing presence in and engagement with the world. God is one Being in which reside three Persons who exist in relation with one another and with the created order. The Son and Holy Spirit are not separate beings, or created beings, or subordinate beings; they are co-eternal and coeval with the Father, of one Being and "of one substance" as the Nicene Creed affirms.

But the other, often not considered point here is that this issue of Christian identity is important for interfaith dialogue. Too often, in my view, interfaith dialogue is predicated upon ignoring the differences between faiths and concentrating on the things held in common by different faiths. In other words, the differences between faiths is seen entirely in pejorative terms, it is seen as a negative; and to counter this "negative", it is necessary to focus on the "positive" of commonality.

I can understand why this attitude exists: partially, it is an attempt to counteract prejudice and ignorance; and, partially, it is deeply psychologically satisfying. However, I think it is misguided. I'm not suggesting that we ought not concentrate on the commonalities; what I think is that we should change our attitude to the differences. Indeed, I think we should celebrate them.

As an example, I look at the phenomenon of the so-called "interfaith minister". This is the subject of a documentary series currently running on the wonderful Compass program on the ABC. These "interfaith ministers" essentially conduct services that not only draw on the rituals and traditions of the major faiths, but also of movements such as neo-paganism and gaianism. I must confess that I viewed this development with considerable reservations, for three essential reasons.

Firstly, it seemed to me that this movement was based on wish-fulfilment: that is, the desire to "unify" the faiths so that people could have the comfort of a religion that pointed to a single, overriding truth that enabled them to avoid having to wrestle with the difficult questions posed by religious diversity. Again, while this may be psychologically satisfying, it strikes me as possibly the least appropriate basis upon which to found an approach to faith.

Secondly, it seemed that this movement was a process of manufacturing a "faith" that essentially doesn't stand for anything or amount to anything. You simply can't throw together a mish-mash of theologies and rituals and expect that it will amount to anything substantial or relevant. Yes, it might be satisfying from the perspective of making you "feel good" or enabling you to get away with not thinking deeply about faith, but there is a vast difference between a spirituality that is founded upon an understanding of God and God's relation to the universe (and which grapples with all the questions, doubts, and ambiguities which this entails), and a "spirituality" that is just a construction whose purpose is to facilitate the desires and inclinations of the individual.

Thirdly, and most importantly, I think this movement toward "interfaith ministers" can actually do a lot of harm, not least because it fails to honour the differences between faiths, and to acknowledge the beauty, power, truth, and poignancy that resides within, and is articulated by, these differences. In other words, the "interfaith minister" movement simply papers over the differences between faiths, as if dialogue could actually be facilitated by pretending these differences don't exist, and that the way forward is to just bung the symbols and rituals of different faiths together and essentially ignore their theologies. But this fails to understand that it is the differences between faiths that is the basis of individual faith conviction; that theological integrity resides, not in cobbling together some religious hodge-podge of beliefs and practices, but in simultaneously asserting the truth of faith claims while at the same time acknowledging and respecting the claims of others.

In other words, the "interfaith ministry" movement is a cop-out, just the latest manifestation of the infection of faith by self-helpism.

And this is why yesterday's lecture resonated so strongly for me: because it reinforced the necessity for me, as a Christian, to articulate the truth of the Christian faith; and, at the same time, to celebrate and see the majesty and beauty and legitimacy that exists between and across faiths because of their differences. It is not difference by which we should be frightened; it is the mediocrity of superficial "unity".

Talk to you soon,

BB.

Quote for the Day: An unlearned carpenter of my acquaintance once said in my hearing: "There is very little difference between one man and another, but what there is is very important." (William James)