Different God, Shared Worship?

Don: The incident in which Jesus overturned tables in the temple was intended to be a teaching point:

And He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a robbers’ den.” (Mark 11:17)

His teaching point emphasizes the great mystery that God is the God of all Mankind (“My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations”). That his behavior was premeditated and not an impetuous impulse can be deduced from the reaction of the Jews, who questioned not his behavior but rather his authority for making his point the way he did:

“What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?” (John 2:18)

The answer Jesus gave,

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” (John 2:19)

could not have made much sense to them, or even to the disciples except in retrospect, after his resurrection. He was equating the temple with his body, a point re-affirmed in later scripture describing the new heaven:

I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.  (Revelation 21:21-23)

It was further re-affirmed in Acts, in a passage referencing the prophet Isaiah:

…the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says: ‘Heaven is My throne, 
And earth is the footstool of My feet;
 What kind of house will you build for Me?’ says the Lord,
 ‘Or what place is there for My repose?
 Was it not My hand which made all these things?’ (Acts 7:47-50)

By extension of the linkage that Paul shows between the death, resurrection, and life of Jesus and our own death, resurrection, and life, our bodies are living temples too:

For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,  knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.

Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. (Romans 6:8-13)

Paul re-affirmed the point to the Corinthians:

Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17)

And again:

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19)

So there are really two teaching points to be derived from the story: That within us God wishes to see an attitude of worship stripped of all prejudice, and that our bodies—our persons—are a place of prayer for all people.

Martin Luther King once said that at 11 o’clock every Sunday morning begins the most segregated hour in the United States. He was talking specifically of racial segregation but his words could as well apply to other kinds of diversity and division based on wealth, education, social class, and so on. Might his words also apply to religious diversity and doctrinal division over God Himself? Through these teaching points, Jesus forces us to face this issue, which is an issue of “corporate” worship, by making worship personal rather than corporate. He makes us ask ourselves what we are doing, personally, to make ourselves a house of prayer and a place of spiritual safety for all people.

In response to my question about whether Islam felt threatened by new ideas, a Moslem friend wrote:

“I am not afraid of new ideas and new understandings, as long as it is backed up by defensible logical thought. Everything in life changes—this is how Nature came about; and concepts and ideas can change, too, for a better life, to attain peace, and to be truer to oneself. Sometimes, I am afraid to change things because I can predict what will happen if I do. But we are never really sure of what will happen, so when I am in doubt I leave it in God’s hands, which enables me to dive more deeply into things without fear. But you too seem not to be afraid of new ideas. You read the Bible in a new way. This, to me, is a revolution in itself: To dare to re-think what people take to be fixed ideas is very courageous. You don’t fill in the gaps by making up answers; instead, you highlight the gaps and invite inquiry into them. This is why you have reached things that have been written in other books [he is referring to the Koran] without having read them.”

I responded:

“Think how different the world would be if everyone thought like this. This is what I think Jesus calls the kingdom of heaven.”

So I do not wish to leave the impression that I do not support the church and communities of faith. I think the teachings of Jesus do indeed support them. But faith must be accompanied by humility in the form of acceptance that we are all of us, of whatever faith, seeking knowledge of God. Why are we so driven? And to arrive at the kingdom of heaven, must all faiths see Him the same way? Can we pray together, while holding different views about God?

Donald: I participated in a tour of Tanzania for National Geographic photographers. We visited Rastafarian, Moslem, Masai, and other communities of different faiths. The leaders of these various communities (some of which were many hours of travel away) joined us for a farewell reception. When we bowed heads to pray prior to the meal, the people turned in various directions to address God. We each had our own perspective on where God was, yet we were nevertheless able to pray in spiritual harmony with one another.

Anonymous: The main thing is love for one another. Jesus indicated that if we would only do this, we would have no problems worshiping together in mutual respect. In Jordan, Moslems and Christians used to live in peace and friendship with one another. They recognized that they worshiped the same God.

Donald: Inter-faith collaboration is a hot topic today. But by definition, collaboration has to be a mutual endeavor with mutual consent. Getting there is not easy.

Robin: In discussing Christ’s injunction for us to be “perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect” a preacher called David Jeremiah pointed out that God’s love for Mankind was the context within which Jesus made that remark, and that to learn to love others as God loves us is our ideal objective. It is the perfection for which we are to strive.

Jay: The problem is that action does not match our ideals. Donald’s wonderful group worship in Tanzania was a one-off moment in time; it is not the norm. Evil gets better publicity than Good, but even so, Good seems to be in less than ideal supply. The very passion of Jesus about our all having one God and sharing a temple with Him indicates how far he thinks we are from acting on it. And yet, despite our differences in this respect, nobody argues with love! Nobody describes love as a bad thing. We all believe in God’s love for his Creation. But religions seem to work against the concept that God and his love are for all Mankind. It is disheartening that all of us recognize love but most of us only practice it on an occasional basis, in one-off moments such as helping one another during a disaster, or sharing worship as Donald’s group did.

Robin: It’s Paul’s dilemma in having a willing spirit in weak flesh.

Donald: The occasion in Tanzania was a “life moment” by virtue of its rarity.

Robin: As Hurricane Irma ravages the Caribbean and Florida right now, stories have emerged of white and black families going to one another’s neighborhoods to offer aid. Racism has disappeared—alas, only temporarily. It seems we can only love in a crisis.

Jay: Crisis, hardship, destitution… all seem to eliminate our differences and to make us more Christ-like. Why is it so? Surely crisis is not the only way to godliness?

Chris: Crisis seems to suspend judgment. Why do we fail to see our judgmentalism in the good times?

Owen: Perhaps it’s not so much a matter of ignoring our differences as it is of recognizing our sameness during times of crisis. The differences are external, superficial; the sameness is internal, fundamental.

Robin: We need to learn how to stay at that internal level.

Jay: That is what Christ’s ministry is all about. It does seem to be the case that the inner light shines brightest in crisis. If we could understand how that comes about, perhaps we could apply the knowledge—keep the light burning bright—all the time, not just in times of crisis.

Chris: Can we stay in crisis all the time? That would keep the light shining! There is permanent crisis in the sense that at any given moment there is always someone, somewhere, in crisis.

David: Jordanians and Tanzanians are people first and sectarians second. Love is universal in people. If we could take out the sectarianism—the religion—we would be left with Jordanians, Tanzanians, and everyone else more likely to live as peaceable, friendly neighbors, quite capable of meeting together at any and all times in a spirit of love. It’s the religion that divides, and I can see why Jesus would get pretty angry about the religion around him.

Don: There’s no doubt that Jesus was turning over not just tables but a religious system, a way of thinking, a way of worshiping, a way of seeking and approaching God. Jesus was seeking to undermine a religious authority he found offensive and insupportable.

David: Was he trying to overturn a religion or religion? To me, it had to be the latter. If he was seeking only to overthrow Judaism, he left us no better off: Christians and Moslems will hurl abuse first at Jews and then at each other, all claiming to have the direct line to God. You have to take religion right out of it.

Jay: God was saying that religions’ ideas of how we are to relate to God are the slippery slope. If all could accept that their relationship with God is equally valid, there would be no problem. Wo/Mankind seems to need an orderly way, a structure, to help her and him reach God, and it our major faiths may be equally valid ways at heart. We need the structure of religion, but it presents the danger of religious rivalries. Was Jesus trying to say there is no single “right” structure, or that there should be no structure at all?

Donald: John Lennon seems to have prefigured our discussion when he wrote the lyrics for Imagine:

Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world, you

You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

David: Apart from the “heaven”, he is describing the new heaven of Revelation, in which the nations are at an end, there is no temple (religion), and no possessions except for a white robe and a palm leaf (of which everyone has one of each—nobody goes without). If we are to be perfect, as our Father is perfect, then nations (and tribes and ethnicities, etc.), religion, and possessions (think Rich Young Ruler, as well) are to be given up. Of course it’s easy to say and virtually impossible—if not downright impossible—to do.

And yet the world is changing rapidly. Who’s to say that we won’t achieve the goals of global (vs. national) governance, the abolition of religion, and no personal possessions (because everyone will have free access to everything)? In 20 years the Internet has moved us far along the road to a global village, with old geo-ethno-political tribes going out and new tribes, based on quite different concepts, coming in. This would be worth exploring, I think.

Donald: What is the new world order? People seem to use the term with a sense of fear.

David: In geopolitical terms, the new world order has China at the top. America is demoted. In religious and spiritual terms, it is the world described in Imagine and in Revelation, with only one (admittedly major) difference (heaven). But what never changes, what never loses its place in the order of life, the universe, and everything is the love of which Anon reminded us at the start of this discussion. Nations, ethnicities, tribes, possessions, and religion are all human constructs, and human constructs are subject to decay and change. Love is a divine construct; eternal and omnipotent.

Chris: Ultimately, we must give up the most human construct of all—our selves. Jesus said:

“If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.” (Mark 8:34)

As soon as we enter our will into the equation of life, it all falls apart. Religion and tribes are not the main issue. The question I ask is: How can we let the inner light shine brightest without our selves willing it? Does religion have a role here?

Donald: Perhaps it was the temporary setting aside of self that enabled our small group in Tanzania to experience that “life moment” together.

Jay: It is a problem when something is perceived as an impediment to a relationship with God, as when one religion perceives another to be an impediment. If all religions could perceive one another as moving people closer to God, there would be no problem.

Don: What intrigues me is the overwhelming need of Mankind to pursue a knowledge of God. Over and over again, scripture—and Jesus—seek to get us to seek a better understanding of ourselves rather than an understanding of God. A religion that seeks to understand God becomes arrogant and self-serving. A religion that seeks to show us that we are sinners in need of God’s grace seems more in line with the teaching of Jesus.

This is a crisis. The woman at the well was in crisis until Jesus exposed it and brought her to a new and transformational self-awareness. We see this over and over again in encounters of Jesus. Perhaps the problem is not religion, but bad religion. Or perhaps religion is bad, by definition!

David: It is impossible for most people, I assert on the basis of history and current events, to accept religions other than their own as valid. Christians accept the Christian view after studying the Bible; ditto for Moslems and the Koran. Very few Christians and Moslems have done a comparative study of the Koran and the Bible. So most Christians and Moslems have nothing else to go on but what their own religion and their own Scripture tells them is valid, true, right, and best. How can they ever, in all honesty, say they accept the other’s religion as valid? They cannot.

No doubt many of our problems would disappear if every religionist embraced all religions, but let’s be real: We will never share faith through religion. If we ever succeed in eliminating our differences it will be through sharing the universal and divine attributes of the kingdom of heaven: Love, mercy, and grace. The awful irony is that all the major religions espouse these principles. If you take the religions away, the divine principles remain and the kingdom of heaven is at hand. If this be a crisis, bring it on!

* * *