Embedded Files
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )
AR 22:19 - Ten Misconceptions about Buddhism
In this issue:
BUDDHISM - what's behind its rejection of religious pluralism
MORMONISM - Mouw and Millett: 'clearing the theological fog,' or adding more mist?
WILSON, A.N. - from Christian youth to leading secular polemicist and back
Apologia Report 22:19 (1,339)
May 17, 2017
BUDDHISM
Think you have a basic grasp of Buddhism? Here's a challenge for you. Robert E. Buswell, Jr. (Professor of Buddhist Studies, Univ. of Calif. Director of the Center for Buddhist Studies) and Donald S. Lopez, Jr. (Professor of Buddhist and Tibetan Studies, Univ. of Mich.) have written the brief "10 Misconceptions about Buddhism" which includes:
* - "All Buddhists meditate. - Meditation is often identified as the central practice of Buddhism. However, the majority of Buddhists throughout history have not meditated. ...
* - "Buddhism is a philosophy and not a religion. - Buddhism has many philosophical schools, with a sophistication equal to that of any philosophical school that developed in Europe. However, Buddhism is a religion by any definition of the term, unless one defines religion as belief in a creator God. ...
* - "The Buddha was a human being, not a god, and the religion he founded has no place for the worship of gods. - Buddhism has an elaborate pantheon of celestial beings (devas; the name is etymologically related to the English word divinity) and advanced spiritual beings (bodhisattvas and buddhas), who occupy various heavens and pure lands and who respond to the prayers of the devout. ...
* - "All spiritual traditions, Buddhism included, are different paths to the same mountaintop. - Many great Buddhist figures state unequivocally that enlightenment is accessible only to those who follow the Buddhist path. One can get only so far (generally, rebirth in heaven) by following other religions; only Buddhism has the path to liberation from suffering. All roads may lead to the base camp, but only Buddhism leads to the summit." Tricycle, Sum 2014, <www.goo.gl/1gbPOF>
---
MORMONISM
Talking Doctrine: Mormons and Evangelicals in Conversation, Richard J. Mouw <www.goo.gl/EGL0UQ> and Robert L. Millett <www.goo.gl/Lv7Orp> eds. [1] -- Bryan Hurlbutt (Lead Pastor <lifelinecommunity.com> West Jordan, UT) balances courtesy and criticism in this review. "Talking Doctrine serves to summarize and report on the status of the dialogue that has taken place for several years" between Latter-day Saint and evangelical scholars.
"The book is both an anthology of essays and an artifact of historical relations between two communities. Summarily, the first half of the book is largely a compendium of personal impressions. ...
"The second half of the book is more theologically substantive. It takes up several issues that were put on the table over the fifteen years of dialogue. ...
"Chapters 19 and 20, by Millett and Mouw, focus on the issue of authority. Millett's chapter, 'Authority Is Everything,' emphasizes the importance of having an authoritative lineage to speak to doctrinal matters. What is unclear is why Joseph Smith's claim to authority should receive any more credence than anyone else's claim." (Clarity is also lacking when one looks for current *authoritative* responses for contemporary challenges to LDS beliefs.)
"...the volume concludes with a chapter ('Is Mormonism Biblical?') by BYU professor J.B. Haws. In a telling statement he concedes, 'It might be worth repeating at this point that this advocating for the appropriateness of labeling Mormons "biblical" is more concerned with questions of pubic perception and common ground than with technical theological classifications.' He next admits this approach 'will not satisfy all readers, especially informed ones.' But isn't this problematic? It seems to bring into question the validity and even ethics of creating a perception that can't pass the test of knowledgeable people. Why then make the case for Mormonism as biblical if informed people will not consent to it? (Then there is the more important question: "Which non-LDS persons, if any, do Mormons consider as Christian?" - RP)
"The weaknesses of the book seem to be three. First, it only muddies what it seeks to make clear. If the goal is to clarify the issues at stake between Mormons and evangelicals by creating windows into issues discussed in the dialogues, then the book fails. ...
"Second, pressing the boundaries in dialogue has its own nobility, yet faithfulness to represent each individual's tradition as normatively understood is an important value as well. I think here the book, at times, fails. ...
"The formal doctrines of Mormonism come from scriptures, documents, and pronouncements recognized as authoritative by those inhabiting the LDS apostolic office. None of these scholarly essays serves in that capacity. They may be an interpretive effort to inform formal religious aspects; however, given the hierarchical structure of LDS ecclesiastical authority and its modes of establishing authoritative revelation, this contribution seems largely irrelevant in terms of its practical influence. ...
"On the whole, the book serves as a helpful and informative relic representing fifteen years of dialogue. It is also a helpful stimulant to the constant percolation of theological thoughts ebbing and flowing between the two communities. It fails however, at clearing the theological fog, and in some ways only adds more mist to an area already plagued by postmodernity's flair for perennial ambiguity." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 59:4 - 2016, pp884-9. [4]
---
WILSON, A.N.
Timothy Larsen, who does great review work <www.goo.gl/PMcHyc> and is Professor of Christian Thought at Wheaton College, begins his review of Wilson's latest by explaining that "The eminent British novelist and man of letters A.N. Wilson was a foil in my Crisis of Doubt: Honest Faith in Nineteenth-Century England [2]. My book was an account of Victorians who had been Christians in their youth, later lost their faith and became polemical secularist leaders, but then returned to Christ, and in debates, lectures, and publications thereafter offered learned reasons for their mature Christian convictions."
Wilson certainly has fit the bill <www.goo.gl/p5Kjdt> for "polemical secularist leader." As a result of a one-time exchange of correspondence in the early 1990s, Larsen "wondered if the wind that bloweth where it listeth was starting to move A.N. Wilson in another direction.
"A little over two years later, Wilson announced his return to faith in an article <www.goo.gl/JJvE8K> in The New Statesman, 'Why I Believe Again.' Eerily, he was living out the very life pattern that I had presented in Crisis of Doubt. ...
"Although Wilson might cringe at such a label, [his recent The Book of the People: How to Read the Bible (3)] is - on one level - a work of Christian apologetics. ... He commends the Bible to its cultured despisers. It is actually 'an incomparably rich collection of writings, brought together by Providence to form a single whole, which both reflects and enlightens each life that reads in it deeply.' ...
"The heart of The Book of the People is a series of reflections on how to read the Bible so as to not either get it wrong or dismiss it as wrong." This is accomplished by the retelling of his interactions with others "over many years on the question of the nature of the Bible." Larsen speculates as to the identities behind these unnamed discussion partners - for Wilson leaves numerous clues. One of those interlocutors Larson believes to be Christopher Hitchens.
"Still, this whole book is a warning against taking the Bible too literally. ...
"In the end, he is mapping out an approved middle way. As with all works of apologetics, readers will have to decide for themselves at what points they think he has given away too much in order to alleviate the concerns of his target audience.
"He identifies various pairs of extremes to avoid, one being religious and secular fundamentalisms. ...
"Another pair of extremes is made up of those who think that everything recorded in the Bible is historically accurate by the standards of the Enlightenment versus those who think that Jesus is fictitious. Wilson understands that the key question is: What think ye of Christ?
"His answer is to say, on the one hand, that the details of the Gospels cannot be pressed as historical facts. The portrait has been painted so as to convey symbolic meaning. It does not matter [if] the Last Supper was not literally on the Passover; the point is that the early Church could see profound theological connections. ...
"The title, The Book of the People, points to [the] argument, namely, that when the New Atheists claim that religion poisons everything, they are ignoring the tremendous good that has been and is being done when people rightly handle the word of God." Touchstone, Jan/Feb '17, p65-7. [5]
-------
SOURCES: Monographs
1 - Talking Doctrine: Mormons and Evangelicals in Conversation, Richard J. Mouw and Robert L. Millett, eds. (IVP, 2015, paperback, 256 pages) <www.goo.gl/GkDvQz>
2 - Crisis of Doubt: Honest Faith in Nineteenth-Century England, by Timothy Larsen (Oxford Univ Prs, 2009, paperback, 330 pages) <www.goo.gl/rbHfNL>
3 - The Book of the People: How to Read the Bible, by A.N. Wilson (Harper, 2016, hardcover, 224 pages) <www.goo.gl/RltZbe>
------
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse