Discussion about this post

User's avatar
J. H. Reinhardt's avatar

I'm generally convinced that this event was less of a problem than some people have made of it. Your call to humility is also well made and quite vital. But two problems in your analysis are worth noting with the intent of further honing in on the most important point you make in the OP:

1. Two of the tweets you cite against the prayer specifically reference the Trinity or a person thereof, which indicates that those folks (that subset at least) either consciously or subconsciously are already alive to the fact there is a difference between God as Trinity and God as Waheguru. You appear to assume they are ignorant of that, but that would be a faulty assumption, based on the evidence presented in the OP. That mistake is exacerbated by the definition of the God you assert that Christians believe in. You say "Christians believe in one God...", but in fact Christians believe in one God who is three persons, and that Triune definition is without fail front and centre, along with the divine attributes, in any Roman, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox definition of God, not to mention in two of the tweets at issue. That false sleight of hand detracts from your much larger and more important point, as I see it, referenced at the bottom here.

2. An additional faulty step occurs when you are discussing God as transcendent but ridiculing religious traditions that claim to have "the fullest picture of God". The claim by a religious tradition to have the fullest picture of God in comparison to all other religions is not a claim on the part of that religious tradition to encompass God himself. For example, if the complete picture of God is on a scale of 1 to infinity, 1 being no religion and infinity being God himself, then Sikhism can claim to be 50 on that scale of having "the fullest picture of God" above all other religions with Islam, Christianity, and Judaism each being, say, 40 on the scale. Sikhs do not thereby claim that their tradition encompasses infinity, Waheguru himself. Heaven forbid. They are simply saying that theirs is the fullest picture of God among all of the religions of the world. That does not deserve the ridicule you give it. It is simply a matter of fact when one is discussing world religions. Ridiculing it calls into question your objectivity in the analysis and detracts from your more important point.

... the more important point, made by you admirably in the OP, being the fact that using enculturated words for "God" are not only possible, but indispensable. As you rightly point out, Christians adopted various words for God that had, at the time, pagan associations. It can only ever be so. Rather than ridicule Waheguru, Christians would be well-advised to affirm that the truth that Sikhs pursue in the concept of Waheguru is found in its highest form in Jesus Christ, the Logos incarnate, one of the three persons of the Triune God. In fact, there is currently a veritable explosion of conversions to Christianity among Sikhs going on. What I would love to know is: in the Bible translations being used in this remarkable evangelization, is "Waheguru" being employed? At least one Punbaji Bible translation of Genesis 1 that I came across the word for "God" being used is Paramēśura (ਪਰਮੇਸ਼ੁਰ). Is Paramēśura free of all pagan associations? I highly doubt it, just as Theos was not free of pagan associations when the Apostles wrote the Greek New Testament.

https://www.thesikhlounge.com/post/the-rise-of-christian-conversion-in-punjab-majha-area

Bl. Sadhu Sundar Singh, pray for us.

Expand full comment
David Parker's avatar

One of your best pieces yet.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts