Joseph Antley Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Bishop Krister Stendahl gave these "three rules for religious understanding" in a 1985 press conference in Sweden, in response to some who opposed to the building of an LDS temple there.(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)If every religious person lived by these rules, wouldn't we all get along a little better and be a little happier?
John Larsen Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Do you think that not adhering to these rules is the reason religions do not get along?
JLFuller Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Bishop Krister Stendahl gave these "three rules for religious understanding" in a 1985 press conference in Sweden, in response to some who opposed to the building of an LDS temple there.(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)If every religious person lived by these rules, wouldn't we all get along a little better and be a little happier?The late Dr. Stendhal impresses me. I am genuinely sorry to hear of his passing. I would like to hear more of his wisdom.
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 John Larsen:If followed those three would go a long way towards peaceful coexistence.
John Larsen Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 John Larsen:If followed those three would go a long way towards peaceful coexistence.I think the three rules might be a good idea, but I do not think it addresses the problem. I think religions don't get along because it is in their nature. For example the Palestinians and Jews or the Irish Protestants/Catholic don't get along--but I don't think it is because of anything on that list.
Mudcat Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Bishop Krister Stendahl gave these "three rules for religious understanding" in a 1985 press conference in Sweden, in response to some who opposed to the building of an LDS temple there.(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)If every religious person lived by these rules, wouldn't we all get along a little better and be a little happier?Hi Joseph,I think your post is a good reminder. I liked Stendahl's thoughts and feel they are conducive to religious discussion and understanding. Its sometimes a difficult thing to forward your own beliefs and positions while allowing room for respect for the other persons beliefs.Respectfully,Mudcat
thesometimesaint Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 John Larsen:That trait is common throughout mankind. If we use the 20th Century as an example. The irreligious can not claim any moral superior morality there either.
ttribe Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 I think the three rules might be a good idea, but I do not think it addresses the problem. I think religions don't get along because it is in their nature. For example the Palestinians and Jews or the Irish Protestants/Catholic don't get along--but I don't think it is because of anything on that list.I don't think it was presented in this thread as the panacea for all religious conflict John.
Joseph Antley Posted March 17, 2009 Author Posted March 17, 2009 Do you think that not adhering to these rules is the reason religions do not get along?I think that not adhering to these rules is the reason that religions do not get along as well as they would otherwise, and I don't think that anyone has argued that different religious adherents would get along perfectly if they obeyed this rules.But thanks for distracting an otherwise congenial thread.
Aquilifer Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 I think the three rules might be a good idea, but I do not think it addresses the problem. I think religions don't get along because it is in their nature. For example the Palestinians and Jews or the Irish Protestants/Catholic don't get along--but I don't think it is because of anything on that list.Yes, but these suggested rules are designed specifically for inter-faith dialogue. The conflicts you present are religious on some levels, but also highly charged at political and social levels.
Lightbearer Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 I think the three rules might be a good idea, but I do not think it addresses the problem. I think religions don't get along because it is in their nature. For example the Palestinians and Jews or the Irish Protestants/Catholic don't get along--but I don't think it is because of anything on that list.The only problem is that both of these conflicts are rooted in political as well as religious differences. I think the religious aspects are exploited to get the political ends accomplished.Darn it! Aquilifer beat me to it... but that is my thought as well.
John Larsen Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Yes, but these suggested rules are designed specifically for inter-faith dialogue. The conflicts you present are religious on some levels, but also highly charged at political and social levels.Which came first? The politics and social structure follow the religion, not the other way around. ...Look, if you look closely at premise one, it is absurd. Take any two religions, A and B. A and B must be in some sort of conflict otherwise their would be no need to try to harmonize. So if B wants to understand A, B should only ask A. But B's position is in conflict with A on at least one point. Since A and B are in conflict, if B derives its position from A that necessarily implies NOT B. But NOT B and B are impossible. This the same thing as saying, when in an argument, simple agree with your opponent and the argument will end. Which is true, of course. But it only works by switching from B to NOT B. But the very nature of the conflict and religion in general is that they have staked out delimited positions that are sometimes in conflict, hence the antagonism. There are groups that do not have any particular theological position, but they are not the source of religious disorder. The conflict a religious group generates will be directly proportional to the amount of distancing that group does from other positions. In other words, the more you claim to be the only true church, the more you will be in conflict with other Churches. It is pretty simple really.
John Larsen Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 But thanks for distracting an otherwise congenial thread.So I was the second post after your OP. I guess you are saying that you made a congenial post to a discussion board. OK, fine. You have to assume on a debate board any proposition is open to debate. To me, interfaith dialog and religious conflict are real issues that are not necessarily solved by simple platitudes. However, if you want to post stuff that is not open to discussion, do it in the social hall.
ttribe Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 So I was the second post after your OP. I guess you are saying that you made a congenial post to a discussion board. OK, fine. You have to assume on a debate board any proposition is open to debate. To me, interfaith dialog and religious conflict are real issues that are not necessarily solved by simple platitudes.He never claimed the list was to "solve" the problems of interfaith dialog.However, if you want to post stuff that is not open to discussion, do it in the social hall.First, it is hubris for you to tell him how to run his thread. Second, I think he hoped for discussion, just not a derail off into the depths you are taking it.
John Larsen Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 First, it is hubris for you to tell him how to run his thread. Second, I think he hoped for discussion, just not a derail off into the depths you are taking it.We run our threads? I was merely defending my honor against the accusation that I ruined a congenial thread--even though the congeniality had only been achieved via a discussion of one.
ttribe Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 We run our threads?In many respects - yes.I was merely defending my honor against the accusation that I ruined a congenial thread--even though the congeniality had only been achieved via a discussion of one. Oh geez..."defending [your] honor"...that's a bit dramatic. Are you going to slap me with your glove now and challenge me to a duel at dawn?
John Larsen Posted March 17, 2009 Posted March 17, 2009 Oh geez..."defending [your] honor"...that's a bit dramatic. Are you going to slap me with your glove now and challenge me to a duel at dawn?How dare you, sir. Good Day!
Joseph Antley Posted March 17, 2009 Author Posted March 17, 2009 So I was the second post after your OP. I guess you are saying that you made a congenial post to a discussion board. OK, fine. You have to assume on a debate board any proposition is open to debate.Except you weren't debating the proposition in my OP. You were creating a straw man.To me, interfaith dialog and religious conflict are real issues that are not necessarily solved by simple platitudes.Which, for the umpteenth time, no one has claimed.However, if you want to post stuff that is not open to discussion, do it in the social hall.I believe posts there are open for discussion as well. Hence it is part of the discussion board.
Mudcat Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 Bump, cause I like Stendahl. He is almost as cool as Antley. Joseph or anyone else, do you see any problems in Stendahl's rules?#1 seems straightforward.but, I think 2 and 3 could be problematic.(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.(3) Leave room for "holy envy."What do you think?
Aquilifer Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 Which came first? The politics and social structure follow the religion, not the other way around.Nonsense. You're forcing a chicken vs. the egg argument on situations where religion, culture, and politics are inextricably linked, not to mention extending Stendahl's "rules" well past their intended purpose of basic courtesy in interfaith dialogue. To the extent that Northern Ireland and the I/P issue are driven by religious factors, perhaps such rules are a good starting point for ameliorating tensions, nothing more. Even if you took religion entirely out of the picture, such hotspots would continue to fester. The "religion is responsible for most wars" crowd doesn't grasp that religion often is merely a useful vehicle for pursuing political, military, and economic goals. The Crusades, so often used to exemplify the evils of religion, are a classic example. Likewise, discussion of the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict can't take place without mentioning secular Zionism and pan-Arab nationalism as fundamental driving forces. But, to get back on point, if Stendahl's platitudes ring hollow and simplistic to you, then perhaps you can share a superior dialogue model with us.
Joseph Antley Posted March 18, 2009 Author Posted March 18, 2009 Bump, cause I like Stendahl. He is almost as cool as Antley. Joseph or anyone else, do you see any problems in Stendahl's rules?#1 seems straightforward.but, I think 2 and 3 could be problematic.(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.(3) Leave room for "holy envy."What do you think?Why do you think they're problematic?I think two is perhaps a little vague, but I think three is an excellent rule. It requires humility and respect, and basically just tells us to look for the good in religions (or ideologies, philosophies, or politics) that we disagree with.
urroner Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 IOh geez..."defending [your] honor"...that's a bit dramatic. Are you going to slap me with your glove now and challenge me to a duel at dawn?Urroner needs no defending. His stench is good enough to knock out enemies at thirty paces.
Sargon Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 Bishop Krister Stendahl gave these "three rules for religious understanding" in a 1985 press conference in Sweden, in response to some who opposed to the building of an LDS temple there.(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)If every religious person lived by these rules, wouldn't we all get along a little better and be a little happier?I love Stendah's three rules! I think I first heard of them from Kerry Shirts in a podcast or a youtube video. I found them online and posted them on my blog a while ago so I would never forget them. I think they are a wonderful guide, and they have helped me many times.Thanks for the reminder!
Mudcat Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 Why do you think they're problematic?Well I don't know that they are problematic, just a thought really.I think two is perhaps a little vague, but I think three is an excellent rule. It requires humility and respect, and basically just tells us to look for the good in religions (or ideologies, philosophies, or politics) that we disagree with.I agree that #2 is somewhat vague. The underlying theme of it would be to compare the best with the best and likewise the worst with the worst. But it leaves open defining what is the best. In example, I might say that the LDS who believed that "after all we can do" might be better interpreted as "in spite of all we can do" as best. However, LDS at large might not agree that this belief is actually best.To flip the coin, an LDS might say the an Evangelical who owned up to some apparent errors in the Bible might be best, but would Evangelicalism at large agree with this position.Hopefully that made sense.#3 on the other hand I think may have a terminology problem in the term "Holy Envy". It implies finding something that another is doing better than your own belief system and basically setting it categorically above your own... at least in that particular area. I suppose I am uncertain if that is actually possible. I don't really have a good example for this. I just wonder if we really can envy portions of other peoples faith? I can at least say I respect certain aspects of another religion, but I don't know if envy is something I can or should do. I think in general you seem to have the same overall interpretation of 3 as I do, being humility and respect (at least on a good day that is, for my part.)Have you got a good example of Holy Envy?
ttribe Posted March 18, 2009 Posted March 18, 2009 Have you got a good example of Holy Envy?I think the "Midnight Mass" thing is kind of cool...but we don't do anything like that.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.