Secularism is often used synonymously with opportunism in matters of ideology and faith. Time-servers are happy to flaunt their so called secular credentials when the going gets tough for people of particular faiths. And when the analysis of religions is done by an English literature major, we wonder whether he is writing the essay as a literary exercise — some new addition to his writing portfolio.
Daniel Wallace has written such an article. Like a contemporary P. B. Shelley he has argued passionately for the truth being supreme even when the entire world seems rotten. Posturing as a social critic he has traced corruption through the Middle Ages to our own day. Only Wallace is no Shelley and what he writes is hackneyed knowledge known to amateurs of Christian-studies.
It will be unfair on my part to single him out for his naivete. His essay is symptomatic of what is wrong about theoretically discussing religions. Religions are meant for living not discussing. Neither Christ nor the Buddha wrote books, they just lived. It is the sign of an unformed mind to speak of truth being separate from religion.
It is not the fault of a religion that men do not follow it. Also one forgets that those who do not know speak and those who do know never open their mouths.
Wallace and his ilk see religions as mere ideas and religious dialogues as a clash of ideas. Everything boils down to a sort of arm-chair discussion of what happens to be the life-blood of millions all over the world. There are people of all faiths who have little idea about the theology of their religion, nonetheless they live holy lives.
This reduction of religion to abstraction is the root of many of our problems. Guys like Wallace with their faint Marxist tones have diluted both Marxism and Christianity. These types later become our policy makers. They do not understand that for the Israeli Rabbi, God really and literally spoke to Moses from a burning bush.
The Muslim really and absolutely believes that the Quran is not only the Word of Allah but an extension of God Himself. As Wallace blindly criticizes the sale of ‘indulgences’ by the Renaissance Roman catholic Church, he does not know or purposely leaves out the fact that ‘indulgences’ are part of Church dogma and are available even today. Only they are no longer sold for money.
This understanding of religions’ living traditions is crucial while we try to bring peace in a broken world. In their zeal to proclaim their secularism, men like Wallace exhibit a kind of inner emptiness. T. S. Eliot, who ushered in Modernism in English poetry called such men as Wallace, hollow. They are his classic examples of hollow men.
It is a pity that when good men should work to see how religions coexist, they end up showing religions corrupt and unworthy of following. That is why religious women and men do not pay attention to the ravings of ideologues.
Via: State Press
Image: Cartoon Stock
