Secularists and the Christian Left

Most secularists are tolerant and respectful of religion but from time to time I come across secularists who have their own misconceptions of Christianity and even of the Christian left. The Mahablog has a thoughtful post that explores some of the issues involved; here are a few excerpts:

Jesus didn’t ask me to defend him, but sometimes I do anyway. He gets picked on so.

Today’s potshots come from Barry Seidman, who describes himself as a humanist and secularist.

(snip)

In my experience religious liberals tend to respect the principle of separation of church and state, so it’s not clear to me what worries Mr. Seidman. I infer he thinks religious people will always try to impose their doctrines on others and thus cannot be trusted in politics, liberal or not.

(snip)

...the “Abrahamic religion” thing bothers me. One, we’re back in the same old trap of defining religion as monotheism, when most of the world’s religions are not, in fact, monotheistic. And as I sort of argued here, even within the monotheistic religions the occasional genius or mystic has broken out of the God box – Spinoza comes to mind.

It has long seemed to me that there are two basic ways to approach religion — legalistic (or dogmatic) or mystical. All three of the major monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — have mystical traditions as well as legalistic ones. It is true that the legalistic and dogmatic approach is far more common. The dominant sects of all monotheisms tend to treat scripture as law and assume that theological and moral questions can be answered by referring scriptural statute.

On the other hand, most other religions (there are exceptions) more often take a mystical approach and treat sacred texts as guides to truth, not truth itself.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama was once asked what he would do if science disproved something written in a sutra. He said that he would revise the sutra. Westerners sometimes don’t know how to take this, but even the Buddha told his followers they shouldn’t accept anything he taught them on faith. Believing the sutras is not the point of the sutras, any more than believing in science is the point of science.

The entire post is worth reading. I would add that instead of the legalistic/mystical frame, some people find it clearer to talk about the legalistic (dogma) side versus the spiritual side since the word 'spiritual' generally covers more ground than the word 'mystical.' Also, although it isn't discussed as much as it might be in various books, most religions embrace an area of religious doubt and renewal that is included even in the more dogmatic interpretations.

Well, yes, there's even more than can be said. In any case, I'm glad that these are things that liberal, even moderate, Christians can discuss along with others who have much to offer.