by Ago Maya, Jr.
“The
world is becoming a single place.” This is how globalization
has been seeing our life today. In a way, globalization is a ‘complex
connectivity,’ which means the presence of rapidly developing network of “interconnections
and interdependencies” of life. Such reality of globalization is observed in
the locus of faith or religion, especially Christianity. Globalization is perceived
to bring about that interconnectedness and interdependence traits of religious pluralism, which are both the
accepted reality, likewise emerging ideology in our present world.
To fully harness this so
considered a progress of globalization in religion – interrelatedness and
interdependence - there raised the promotion of what is called “Moderation”
ideology in religious circles. This
ideology began as simply part of the call of the former Muslim Prime Minister
of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, to Christian denomination
leaders during his plenary speech at the World Council of Churches conference
in Kuala Lumpur on 2004. Now it has emerged as a very much adhered and growing movement
pursued in many nations and very much supported mostly by non-Christian groups.
According to nations
who believed to have been experiencing peace in the midst of religious
pluralism, this moderation has always
curbed extremism among religions for it has been guarding each religion from
bigotry and hatred and each has been allowed the practice of the true teachings
of each one’s respective religion. Former PM Badawi mentioned that some separatists
practice their faith in absolutist terms that there is no more space for any compromise
with others, and that the teachings they believe are being implemented in a
totalitarian way. His urging and plead is that devotees of all faiths must be sincere
in promoting the values of peace, of tolerance and of plurality in religion. In
other words, for the sake of peace and harmony, ‘moderation’ must dominate over
passion, devotion or dedication or faithfulness in religion. He ended his
speech saying, “We cannot stand before a
compassionate God while there is so much we have left undone because we are
disunited. There is so much we could do, having received one another, to
receive others [all other faiths].”
Imagine
yourself having received an email from a non-Christian individual or may be a government
official about such religious concern and humbly pleading you as a Christian
leader to observe moderation. Because a response is being awaited, how would
you reply expressing what you feel?
- Do you see “moderation” as the balancer
of interest for all faiths?
- Are you in favor of providing a room for
compromise in our passion to witness for Christ and to obey the Great
Commission in Matthew 28: 19-20 to make disciples? If so, up to what extent you
may possibly compromise and the limitations of tolerance of other faiths?
- How could or should a faithful Christian
called urgently to make disciples of all nations become moderate in obeying
this considered to be a non-negotiable mandate?
Sources:
Enns, Paul. The
Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989.
Hunsberger, George R. Bearing the Witness of the Spirit - Lesslie Newbigins's Theology of Cultural Plurality. Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
Ott, Craig and Harold A. Netland. Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in
an Era of World Christianity. Grand Rapis, Michigan: Baker Academics,
2006.
Prime Minister Badawi’s Speech. http://www.ytlcommunity.com/common/printerfriendly.aspsection=1&fileid=122
1. I see moderation not in the interest of all faith but moderation so as not to "turn off" the person whom I am planning or wanting to share. I believe there is such a thing as proper timing.
ReplyDelete2. I would not compromise nor dilute the gospel but maybe use loving one another in the hope that like Jesus, love would conquer all.
3. When we disciple, it's for the purpose of walking with them so that like the 12 disciples, they can be more Christlike. When we disciple in moderation, does that mean that there are aspects of their past lives that are wrong or sinful we will tolerate? If that is the case then I don't think so. But since we have also learn what is to contextualize, maybe there are some aspect of their worship or methodology that we can fit in to their context without actually compromising or diluting the essence of the Christian faith and practice. It's like what Paul would say that "Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial."
1. I see moderation as an idea to think of to balance one's head and heart. It's a necessary thought alternative in matters that deal with peace and diplomacy. When we pursue peace and diplomacy, it doesn't mean that we have to be on the losing end of the deal. This is just a good idea to think of to promote harmony among men in hot-tempered situations.
ReplyDelete.
2. The gospel shall remain as its complete message. However, as much as possible, I would go for progress, and harmony. If a decision is within my sovereignty, I could always go for options to meet what I advocate for. This may take time. This requires patience. I may have to fail and succeed. But if I really believe that I stand on the truth, I am on the winning side. And I wouldn't be lazy.
3. Focus on your call. Inspire others to focus on theirs. Be patient. This will take time. We will win.
The "Moderation" ideology promots libetalism and is fatal to Christian faith and God's commandment to the Great Commission.
ReplyDeleteI see moderation as a danger in winessing for Christ because it seems that you are giving chances to those other religions to have their exposure. Because of this, the truth might be hidden. On the other hand, it may also serve as a strategy in sharing the gospel especially to unbelievers because you are not that really giving emphasis that christianity is the truth and theirs is not which might offend their current belief.
ReplyDeletei can understand that moderation is danger but somehow it is also good to share the witness of Jesus Christ and people will understand the reality of Jesus Christ and they will not follow to Christ like blind man, they will follow to Jesus by knowing the truth of other religions. if you will not bear other religion you will have no chance to share the gospel.
ReplyDeletePractice of moderation is an issue or challenge to the christian faith and is a red signal to be a witness of Christ. Moderation and secularism go side by side. We need to consider it critically and examine the result of moderation. I don't dare to say that moderation is bad or good but we need to consider it carefully. Thanks kuya to bring out this issue to us.
ReplyDeletehow about those religions that command killing other people? can we tolerate just "moderation" in this?
ReplyDeleteModeration, for me is a middle term and anyone who seeks to promote peace and instill religious tolerance would often find a common ground so that nobody is hurt or insulted at the end of the day when you have done everything. But we also need to be cautious while practicing moderation because there is a tendency for compromising our faiths and beliefs. The need is to balance between these extremes or you'll end up splitting yourself and be thrown on your back while trying to balance.
ReplyDelete1) Moderation can be an equilibrium in the interest of all faith. But moderation can be also religious democratism, giving liberty and freedom to all religious affairs and traditions without governmental impediments- to which will never threaten Christianity as a group.
ReplyDelete2) Faith should never be degraded or compromised, the modes of Christianity may be (eg: style of worship, approaches of ministry, evangelistic strategies). I believe that it is always a prerogative of a person, by his faith, to stand firm in what he believes in. In addition, I think in a moderation implied country, standing firm to faith without offending someone is always acceptable. Hence, as a Christian, it gives a way to reaching out to people but with the limitations of not forcing them to do something that they might not feel comfortable. By then, after the sowing of the God's word, the working of the Holy Spirit comes in and they should leave to Him the results.
3) For centuries, wise and learned missionaries never came to their desired mission field without proper training, tools and approaches. I believe that a "moderated" country is never too hard of a Mission field than that of a Muslim country or a Communist country. My point is, obeying the command to make disciples doesn't always contradict with religious moderation of a country. If we become too dogmatic with our DESIRED and PREFERRED Christian 'practices', we might be prompted to stop something what we do. For me, the best plan for countries who practice moderation is to keep the movement slow but sure, contextualize without compromising non-negotiable biblical truths.
What I get from moderation is to minimize the more explicit ways of envangelizing like crusades, concerts,etc and use the more subtle ways of sharing the gospel like one-on-one conversations or inviting people over for a meal, and other not so obvious ways. For me if moderation can be defined this way, this is a better way to go. In places where public confession of Christianity is risky churches are still growing because believrs continued to live out Christianity even without public proclamation.If moderation on the other hand will mean just quietly attend Sunday services, live in peace with neighbors and stop evangelization and discipleship then thats an entirely new story we cannot accept.
ReplyDelete- Do you see “moderation” as the balancer of interest for all faiths?
ReplyDeleteI have seen people practice moderation in their unique way and I myself practice it in such a way that bridges are built to connect and to impart God's word without forcing our theology. But when moderation dictates for me to compromise my personal view regarding Jesus Christ and scripture then thats a different story altogether... I will not be forcing theology upon people but I would not be silent about sharing what I believe in when the need arises. Situations call for us to speak up and be bold but in terms of making bridges and connecting to a wider audience, then i thats where I would think moderation works.
- Are you in favor of providing a room for compromise in our passion to witness for Christ and to obey the Great Commission in Matthew 28: 19-20 to make disciples? If so, up to what extent you may possibly compromise and the limitations of tolerance of other faiths?
I would not say compromise is the best word for this, but rather being flexible to a certain extent when it comes to reaching out to others and building bridges with others. I have always had a stance of not being too hard and legalistic to my approach with my disciples given the context that I am ministering to, but i see how a strict approach may be appropriate to other contexts or other people because I have seen how God can use that approach as well. All in all, regardless of approach, I would think that a fiathful believer sensitive to the leading of the spirit and to the needs of his audience and ministry context would learn how to obey the Great Commisison and be flexible at the same time. We can't box witnessing and sharing the gospel to a certain formula, because believers throughout the world have proven that gospel sharing takes form in many ways and in many shapes depending on the need, circumstance and situation which calls for flexibility.
- How could or should a faithful Christian called urgently to make disciples of all nations become moderate in obeying this considered to be a non-negotiable mandate?
Aspects of Moderation can work depending on context, depending on the call of the Lord, prompting of the spirit and the need and concern of the context, and so its upon discretion of a believer to be as such depending on the people group/ persons he or she is ministering to. We should not be boxed to one form of approach in how we deal with people, because again as i had mentioned, i would rather we build bridges and avenues for gospel sharing and for relationship building instead of destroying them and causing division and hostility with others.