Why religion? If religion is a social construct designed for the benefit of humanity, improving religions by making them more tolerant to serve more people is eminently sensible. On the other hand, if a certain religion manifests absolute truth, there can't be any quibbling with how accepting it is of different viewpoints. Philip Kurian implies that religion should be humanistic. Intriguingly, he finds support for this stance in the Bible. However, I'm hesitant to "take profound comfort" in Kurian's better Christianity because of the inaccuracy of his Biblical references. If Kurian had referred to his ellipsis-less version of the Bible, he might have noticed that the Great Commission at the end of Matthew commands Christians to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," in addition to merely teaching.
As for the verse in Romans "clearly stat[ing]" that "homogeneity" is unnecessary, it is even clearer that "God's mercy" to sinners is only by Christ's sacrifice. This, in fact, is what the entire book of Romans is about. If Christianity is to have any substance beyond being a successful social construct, the Bible is the revealed Word of God intended to direct us to lives that glorify Him. While this involves serving humanity, the Bible should not be compromised by humanistic interpretation. Perhaps it would have been wiser for Kurian to expand his selections to better represent the Bible.
Albert Chu
Pratt '05
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.