In my Dangerous Religious Ideas class we've been discussing, for several weeks, the religious teachings of election/chosenness as manifest in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Next week we've got to take a bit of a stance by drawing up a conclusion. I'm not big into conclusive conclusions. But here's what I'm working on... hopefully it'll serve to keep the discussion going:
The doctrine of election is not consistent in religious consciousness. Historically the inconsistent understanding of election, taken from the multivalent sources of religious traditions and texts, functioned at least partly as a check. It prevented any one, absolutist stance from being ultimately imposed. This accountability inherent in diversity, however, does not absolve the doctrine of election from its inherent dangers. While it has the potential to protect the self-concept of a vulnerable group, it does so to the detriment of that group’s potential for influence and longevity in the modern context.
The doctrine of election has, at times, functioned as a crutch to get vulnerable groups on their feet and advancing in solidarity with one another. Once a group is up and walking, no longer limping under the load of other groups’ despotic ideals, the crutch becomes useless except as a bludgeon with which to subjugate yet other more vulnerable groups. Even in the hands of a vulnerable group the crutch doubles as a weapon, and the contemporary crutch is far too explosive to ignore, let alone condone. We must seek other ways to ensure each group its particular stride in the global walk of life.
A commitment to the struggle against oppression and injustice today has to deal with the present context of heightened global awareness and multiplicity. Dealing with the present context requires that we be able to distance ourselves – if not entirely, at least episodically – from the exclusive and supersessionist claims of our traditions and sacred texts.
This necessitates a mature acknowledgment of the capacity for humans to be more than one thing at a time, i.e. the capacity for humans to be at the same time individuals and participants. The doctrine of election does not foster this confidence but caters to the incoherent fear that in cooperating one loses one’s identity, and in participating one becomes negligible. Only by moving beyond the doctrine of election can we authentically engage the differences between others and ourselves without absolutely dismissing their faith-perspectives as antiquated or errant. There is not a fixed solution to today’s situation in any faith tradition. Therefore none of us have been elected to share the solution. Though we may all have a part in sharing in the solution. Each faith tradition, if alive and lively, does have the capacity to actively engage the contemporary context. We must collectively commit ourselves to the continual process of nurturing identities that are both secure and pliable.
