The reason for his disappointment is one that resonates with many modern people. "The most divisive and damaging attitude is our insistence on being right. It is a global disaster and a local malady. ... Human beings are simply not privy to absolute truth."
This insistence on being right, the author declares, divides communities, nations, even families. And he is not alone in finding that a troubling thing. He concludes, "If the Spirit of God, through any religion, is to make humans gracious, then the attitude of being right paralyzes that function. To hold a personal, absolute, position on matters of faith is to miss the point."
Yet, it is the author who has missed the point. Think for a moment about what he has said. My editorial comments appear like this:
If the Spirit of God, through any religion, is to make humans gracious, then the attitude of being right paralyzes that function. [And I know I am right about this.] To hold a personal, absolute, position on matters of faith is to miss the point. [And I am absolutely sure about this.]
The argument collapses in self-contradiction. Is the statement "it's wrong to be right" right or wrong? If the statement is right, then it is wrong. And if it is wrong, then why try to persuade people it is right? And yet, that is exactly what the writer has tried to do.
Every religion claims the goal of putting the adherent in touch with ultimate reality, with truth beyond time. In Christianity, for example, as Jesus put it, the purpose of the Spirit of God is to lead us into truth. Polite and gracious behaviour grows out of that pursuit of the truth. It's important to be gracious in the pursuit of truth, but let's not confuse the method and the goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment