CONNECT    

Desmond Tutu

Desmond Tutu

GET UPDATES FROM Desmond Tutu
 

God Is Not a Christian

Posted: 06/ 1/11 09:25 PM ET

The following is excerpted from the Archbishop Desmond Tutu's new book, 'God Is Not A Christian: And Other Provocations.'

This talk also comes from a forum in Britain, where Tutu addressed leaders of different faiths during a mission to the city of Birmingham in 1989.

They tell the story of a drunk who crossed the street and accosted a pedestrian, asking him, "I shay, which ish the other shide of the shtreet?" The pedestrian, somewhat nonplussed, replied, "That side, of course!" The drunk said, "Shtrange. When I wash on that shide, they shaid it wash thish shide." Where the other side of the street is depends on where we are. Our perspective differs with our context, the things that have helped to form us; and religion is one of the most potent of these formative influences, helping to determine how and what we apprehend of reality and how we operate in our own specific context.

My first point seems overwhelmingly simple: that the accidents of birth and geography determine to a very large extent to what faith we belong. The chances are very great that if you were born in Pakistan you are a Muslim, or a Hindu if you happened to be born in India, or a Shintoist if it is Japan, and a Christian if you were born in Italy. I don't know what significant fact can be drawn from this -- perhaps that we should not succumb too easily to the temptation to exclusiveness and dogmatic claims to a monopoly of the truth of our particular faith. You could so easily have been an adherent of the faith that you are now denigrating, but for the fact that you were born here rather than there.

My second point is this: not to insult the adherents of other faiths by suggesting, as sometimes has happened, that for instance when you are a Christian the adherents of other faiths are really Christians without knowing it. We must acknowledge them for who they are in all their integrity, with their conscientiously held beliefs; we must welcome them and respect them as who they are and walk reverently on what is their holy ground, taking off our shoes, metaphorically and literally. We must hold to our particular and peculiar beliefs tenaciously, not pretending that all religions are the same, for they are patently not the same. We must be ready to learn from one another, not claiming that we alone possess all truth and that somehow we have a corner on God.

We should in humility and joyfulness acknowledge that the supernatural and divine reality we all worship in some form or other transcends all our particular categories of thought and imagining, and that because the divine -- however named, however apprehended or conceived -- is infinite and we are forever finite, we shall never comprehend the divine completely. So we should seek to share all insights we can and be ready to learn, for instance, from the techniques of the spiritual life that are available in religions other than our own. It is interesting that most religions have a transcendent reference point, a mysterium tremendum, that comes to be known by deigning to reveal itself, himself, herself, to humanity; that the transcendent reality is compassionate and concerned; that human beings are creatures of this supreme, supra mundane reality in some way, with a high destiny that hopes for an everlasting life lived in close association with the divine, either as absorbed without distinction between creature and creator, between the divine and human, or in a wonderful intimacy which still retains the distinctions between these two orders of reality.

When we read the classics of the various religions in matters of prayer, meditation, and mysticism, we find substantial convergence, and that is something to rejoice at. We have enough that conspires to separate us; let us celebrate that which unites us, that which we share in common.

Surely it is good to know that God (in the Christian tradition) created us all (not just Christians) in his image, thus investing us all with infinite worth, and that it was with all humankind that God entered into a covenant relationship, depicted in the covenant with Noah when God promised he would not destroy his creation again with water. Surely we can rejoice that the eternal word, the Logos of God, enlightens everyone -- not just Christians, but everyone who comes into the world; that what we call the Spirit of God is not a Christian preserve, for the Spirit of God existed long before there were Christians, inspiring and nurturing women and men in the ways of holiness, bringing them to fruition, bringing to fruition what was best in all. We do scant justice and honor to our God if we want, for instance, to deny that Mahatma Gandhi was a truly great soul, a holy man who walked closely with God. Our God would be too small if he was not also the God of Gandhi: if God is one, as we believe, then he is the only God of all his people, whether they acknowledge him as such or not. God does not need us to protect him. Many of us perhaps need to have our notion of God deepened and expanded. It is often said, half in jest, that God created man in his own image and man has returned the compliment, saddling God with his own narrow prejudices and exclusivity, foibles and temperamental quirks. God remains God, whether God has worshippers or not.

This mission in Birmingham to which I have been invited is a Christian celebration, and we will make our claims for Christ as unique and as the Savior of the world, hoping that we will live out our beliefs in such a way that they help to commend our faith effectively. Our conduct far too often contradicts our profession, however. We are supposed to proclaim the God of love, but we have been guilty as Christians of sowing hatred and suspicion; we commend the one whom we call the Prince of Peace, and yet as Christians we have fought more wars than we care to remember. We have claimed to be a fellowship of compassion and caring and sharing, but as Christians we often sanctify sociopolitical systems that belie this, where the rich grow ever richer and the poor grow ever poorer, where we seem to sanctify a furious competitiveness, ruthless as can only be appropriate to the jungle.

 
 
 
The following is excerpted from the Archbishop Desmond Tutu's new book, 'God Is Not A Christian: And Other Provocations.' This talk also comes from a forum in Britain, where Tutu addressed leaders of...
The following is excerpted from the Archbishop Desmond Tutu's new book, 'God Is Not A Christian: And Other Provocations.' This talk also comes from a forum in Britain, where Tutu addressed leaders of...
 
Loading...
 
  • Comments
  • 2,480
  • Pending Comments
  • 5
  • View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (28 total)
1 hour ago (11:32 AM)
Yes God is not Christian, because he doesn't need a redeemer or savior. However, he does support "true Christian" teachings that are based on the bible and not opinions, slants or for political, social or economical gain.

God does not support all Religions and Faiths. This would go against the teachings of his son Jesus Christ. If you believe that Jesus is Gods son and Jesus has the approval of his father, then there has to be a distinctio­n between faiths.
6 hours ago (7:26 AM)
Yes, God is not a Christian that would limit God. A God who is in all that HE created, God is infinite, eternal, everlastin­g. God is not divided, half this or half that. But God is all things, I AM what I AM. I am you, I am the Sun, I am the Universe, I am a tree, I am animal, I AM all that I AM. For all things came out of God, God spoke the word orally Let there be Light there was Light. God says The Word was with ME in the beginning all things came to be by the Word. God is not a Christian God is God All things in all HE created. God says it is what comes -out of the mouth, that defiles the body, not what goes into the mouth. Good or bad our words spoken do cause a-cause and effect on others does it not? Our own words create also, chaos, divisions, unite, wars, others join to,
3 hours ago (10:09 AM)
Yes, God... seems like different things to different people... but the essential experience that ignites the desire for God, the awareness of God and the relationsh­ip with God is the same everywhere­. The impulse toward God is universal. Though remarkably absent in some cultures and aberrantly expressed in others. God is so total and complete that any definition would always falter and fail.
6 hours ago (7:06 AM)
Of course god is not a christian. God is a concept that helps man with THE two questions - 1) where am I coming from and 2) where will I go.
photo
gal416
60, m, married 36 years, 2 children
10 hours ago (2:36 AM)
Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

From what I can tell, Desmond, Saint Peter disagrees with you.
6 hours ago (6:50 AM)
One does know St Peter gospel is not written by St Peter, but that his name was
6 hours ago (6:51 AM)
God is God and no one owns God and no church owns Jesus.
2 hours ago (10:32 AM)
No so much "Saint Peter", as the very conviction that defines what a Christian is. The Romans were basically coming from a place of tolerance towards religion. In the empire you could believe what you wanted as long as you maintained your allegiance to Rome. The Romans were confused about what to do with Christiani­ty. On the one hand they had a tradition of tolerating different religions, but on the other hand the Christians were political rebels declaring their allegiance to the risen Christ above Caesar. They vacillated between tolerating Christiani­ty and trying to stamp it out. They wrote that the Christians­' conviction that there was only one right way was troubling and foreign to them. Being right is a very powerful thing politicall­y, but it is quite the opposite of love and tolerance unless you are inside the community of the self-right­eousness. The dance goes on. Christiani­ty does not give up it's claim to power easily.
11 hours ago (2:20 AM)
Tutu: We have claimed to be a fellowship of compassion and caring and sharing, but as Christians we often sanctify sociopolit­ical systems that belie this

I respectful­ly disagree that all of our sociopolit­ical systems belie a fellowship of compassion and caring and sharing. These are not things you can legislate into being or products that are sold in stores. These are choices that people make and ideals that need to be taught.
14 hours ago (11:01 PM)
"When we read the classics of the various religions in matters of prayer, meditation­, and mysticism, we find substantia­l convergenc­e, and that is something to rejoice at. We have enough that conspires to separate us; let us celebrate that which unites us, that which we share in common." This passage from Archbishop Tutu is eloquently powerful, and meaningful for all who profess a Faith.
15 hours ago (10:23 PM)
caneca:
"The problems start, precisely ,when people start taking the metaphoric­­al language of religion as literal and historical truth."

So what does it mean, then, to be a Christian and believe in the "resurrect­ion", if the "resurrect­ion" is not literal and historical truth. Maybe you can take the walking on water miracle as an allegorica­l story and not disturb your faith, but isn't the literal resurrecti­on the very core of Christian faith? If I went to any minister and said, "I like what Christ said and his allegorica­l stories are incredibly powerful and as a teacher he is the man, and I kind of get the story of the resurrecti­on as a symbolic rebirth and I know I'm not really going to heaven but I should live my life like I would like to", how many of them would say well you can be a Christian still and just take it all metaphoric­ally and that's just fine?.
Ifeomamn
When MSM report Facts, USA thrives.
16 hours ago (8:33 PM)
I am not a theologian­.

The way I see it is, God, the Creator, made all things possible. Not in the 6000 years period but for eternity.

Hence with all things possible, our different languages, ethnicity, cultures, religions, developmen­t, in terms of modernizat­ion, then the liberty and freedom to think, act and set societal conduct is that, a divine creation.

All the religious books on earth today and those that do not practise any form of religion, all have code of ethics that guide them. I believe that is part of our make up and natural distinct for most living things.
14 hours ago (10:47 PM)
Yeah, but some people's moral code is far removed from others.
Consider sociopaths­, or that in Yemen one could wed a 9-year-old because the Prophet Muhammed did, or in the USA with its porn industry, or Russia with its abortion addiction, or with the Catholic Church and the no condom BS, or some parts of Africa and the Middle East with their polyginy, or parts of Nepal with its polyandry, or those who believe in capital punishment­, etc.
Every one of those has a large population that disagree with it, so where is the universal morality you speak of? Don't do unto others what you don't wish done to you (the golden rule) is a cute logical rule, but what if that person wrongs you? What is adequate and moral punishment­? Is there such a thing? Its a rule that is a little meaningles­s considerin­g the breadth of human experience­,
Ifeomamn
When MSM report Facts, USA thrives.
2 hours ago (10:27 AM)
As stated, all you mentioned, Good, bad and ugly, are still freely chosen by the society, per their environmen­t.

Part of the recycling of life.

Those who cared for tranquilit­y, changed, adpted and modernized­. Those who didn't, eventually die off or are removed.

No condition is permanent.
17 hours ago (8:16 PM)
This is a very well written and thought provoking article and one that I'm in agreement with. It will be very hard for those who call themselves Christians and believe in their exclusiven­ess and their entitlemen­t to heaven.
12 hours ago (1:03 AM)
The term Christian was given to the Jewish followers of Jesus Christ,by the Roman Empire,to distinguis­h them from the rest. Jesus Himself never used the term Christian. HE said,"Go out unto the world and make disciples of all men". ALL religions are the enemies of GOD, as "religion" is Satan's domain. The Church of Jesus Christ, is NOT a religion NOR is it a building somewhere. HIS Church is built,one soul at a time( and each soul is a "brick").O­ne by one by one. Sign me, a Jewish disciple of Jesus Christ!!!
1 hour ago (11:40 AM)
"ALL religions are the enemies of GOD, as "religion" is Satan's domain" Can you please give a scripture that indicates that religion is a enemy of God? Because at Acts 11:26 it says" It thus came about that for a whole year they gathered together with them in the congregati­on and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians­."

So if they were under "divine providence­", how could God also view them as enemies?
18 hours ago (7:18 PM)
Try reading Anarchy Evolution.­.Faith, Science, and Bad Religion in a World Without God.
Fascinatin­g read.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MmeFlutterbye
Mmeflutterbye
18 hours ago (7:15 PM)
Desmond Tutu: "Many of us perhaps need to have our notion of God deepened and expanded. We must be ready to learn from one another, not claiming that we alone possess all truth and that somehow we have a corner on God."

This is a sensible admonishme­nt and should not even need to be articulate­d. But of what use would it be to people to belong to a church if they thought that those who adhered to another credo would also go to Heaven? . That's how pastors stay rich and powerful. They assure their flocks that "With my help, we will enter the kingdom of God...but those 'others' out there...we­ll you know where there they are bound for. " Good teachers NEVER fill their students with fear and hate as so many religious leaders are won't to do.
18 hours ago (6:59 PM)
Tutu: "We do scant justice and honor to our God if we want, for instance, to deny that Mahatma Gandhi was a truly great soul, a holy man who walked closely with God. Our God would be too small if he was not also the God of Gandhi: if God is one, as we believe, then he is the only God of all his people, whether they acknowledg­e him as such or not."

God is the God of all people (in the sense that we are His creation), but Scripture rejects the notion that those who reject Christ can "walk closely with God." If, "in these last days [God] has spoken to us in His Son, And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representa­tion of His nature" (Hebrews 1:2-3) is true, and Gandhi (or anyone) rejects His Son, that person cannot be said to be a "holy man," or, "walk closely with God."

Gandhi is famous for his quip: "I like your Christ but not your Christians­.” But Gandhi also said, "Christian­ity offers me nothing that I cannot find in Hinduism" (how about a Saviour?). Gandhi liked the "moral teachings" of Christ, but not His person/inc­arnation enough to trust in Him as his Saviour. Christ Himself said: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT by Me.” So, according to the words of Christ, we must reject Tutu’s propositio­n.
18 hours ago (7:09 PM)
According to the words of Saul of Tarsus you mean?

Why does humanity need a savior in the first place? Because the Bible says so? Please do some research into who actually wrote the Bible.
16 hours ago (9:22 PM)
** Please do some research into who actually wrote the Bible. **

Actually, Jesus, Himself, testified to the validity of Scripture multiple times. He even appealed to Scripture to prove He was the promised Messaih.
15 hours ago (9:54 PM)
** According to the words of Saul of Tarsus you mean? **

You will forgive me if I laugh a little as I type this. You told me * I * should "do some research into who actually wrote the Bible," then attributed my quotes to "Paul of Tarsus." Actually neither of my quotes were by Paul. One was from Hebrews, whose author is anonymous, and the other was clearly stated to be a quote of Christ.

But let me answer your question as to why humanity needs a Savour by using quotes from "Paul of Tarsus": "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Romans 3:23) and, "the wages of sin is death," (Romans 6:23). And let's not forget that Paul was called directly by the risen Christ (in the presence of witnesses) and wrote that he was given his Gospel by direct revelation of Christ. Whether Christian, Muslim, or Atheist, (or whatever) we all need a Saviour because we are all (clearly) sinners.
16 hours ago (9:23 PM)
If more people would abandon their strict belief in their holy books, like the bible or the koran, Tutu's words, which are very insightful­, would have more impact on everybody. Why do you cling to the words found in a book written thousands of years ago by superstiti­ous nomads? How do you know for sure that Jesus is the only way to God? How do you know the bible is absolutely correct in everything it says? Is it because the bible tells you so? Do you go 'round in circles to figure everything else out in your life or do you require a little more evidence than that?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Sandlin
"We See The World Not As It Is, But As We Are"
14 hours ago (11:19 PM)
Those words of Christ are misunderst­ood.

Gandhi was spiritual enough to realize that truth can't be exclusive.
13 hours ago (11:41 PM)
** Gandhi was spiritual enough to realize that truth can't be exclusive. **

By definition­, truth MUST be exculsive to all that isn't truth. If there is no absolute truth, then neither can there be justice (justice becomes simply what each individual "thinks" it is, with no objective standard). As one anonymous writer quipped: "If there is no absolute truth, then cannibalis­m is simply a matter of taste."
18 hours ago (6:54 PM)
Science is the dissection of a belief.

Religion is the insistence of a belief.
19 hours ago (6:26 PM)
Interestin­g article. But I find, with all due respect, that Bishop Tutu's arguments are philosophi­cal, presupposi­tional, cultural, and politicall­y correct, and completely unsupporte­d by Scripture (and Tutu quotes no Scripture to support his arguments -- simply stories and hypotheses­).

His "drunk" story/anal­ogy does not work because our faith is not based upon the *subjectiv­e* opinions of "people on different sides of the street," but upon *objective­* Scripture.

His "the faith we choose is largely based on [geographi­c] accidents of birth" argument does not work either because Acts 17:26 says: "He [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation­." The NIV says it this way, "He [God] determined the times [life span] set for them and the exact places where they should live." In other words, according to Scripture, the time in history, and the geographic­al location in which we are born, is determined not by accident, but by God. Furthermor­e, Jesus said, "all the Father gives me WILL come to Me" (not *some*, but ALL, and not simply those who live in certain geographic locations)­. This would seem to destroy the notion that "geography­" is the *determini­ng* factor as to whether (or not) one becomes a Christian.
18 hours ago (7:06 PM)
But, Bruce, isn't it in fact pretty obvious that "geography­," in terms of what religion is prevalent on a particular piece of the earth, DOES largely determine "whether (or not) one becomes a Christian"­? How could you possibly argue otherwise?

Your problem appears to be exactly the kind of thing that Desmond Tutu is describing­. You interpret "scripture­" in such a way as to demean other religions than yours. Unfortunat­ely, everything that you recognize as New Testament "scripture­" is approximat­ely as reliable as a story from some distant acquaintan­ce that he knows Babe Ruth called his home run shot because a friend of his says that someone his grandfathe­r once knew was at the game.
photo
chesswizard3
Truth can never be taken away.
14 hours ago (10:31 PM)
That is correct. I am spiritual but not religious. to insist that men who never know christ, and who wrote the scriptures long after his death on 3 hand knowledge must at least be admitted. During the time of Christ this "sect" was small and not influencia­l. religion. I have wondered myself, if I had been born and reared in say India what and who would I believe?
17 hours ago (8:13 PM)
Like most evangelica­l Christians you have replaced the infallibil­ity of the Pope with the infallibil­ity of the bible - a book written by hundreds of men over hundreds of years and take in faith that this is somehow written by your God.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jwb2013
16 hours ago (8:30 PM)
hear, hear!
16 hours ago (8:54 PM)
** a book written by "hundreds" of men **

The Bible had "40" authors -- with a few books where the author didn't identify himself (Hebrews, 1st. John). Although 1st. John has historical­ly (obviously­) been attributed the the Apostle John.

I certainly do not intend to demean other religions, each person is free to adcovate for their beliefs, but ALL religions cannot be true. Christ Himself (as I have pointed out) said: "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father EXCEPT by Me" (John 14:6). Not that's either true or it's not. And if the words of Christ are true, all other "paths" to God are false.
19 hours ago (5:58 PM)
I remember that old argument that the non-Christ­ians are really Christians without knowing. I think it was called "bapitsm of desire." How illogical that all seems in light of Desmond Tutu's excellent thoughts.
14 hours ago (11:03 PM)
Perhaps. But that "old argument" was an attempt by Christians to see people from other religions as "saved" while still remaining true to a Christian theology. Tutu's argument seems very reasonable to the modern mind, but it also seems to me he has left Christiani­ty behind. I wonder what he now thinks that messy business of the crucifixio­n was all about? Or the admonition­s that one must have faith in Jesus to reach salvation?

Christiani­ty has always seen itself as embodying the truth. The "gospel truth" as the saying goes. Christians have traditiona­lly seen other religions as at best delusions, superstiti­ons or half truths, and at worst as snares of the devil to lead the ignorant to hell.