McConnell’s missional grounding of interfaith dialogue (IFD) is a significant contribution to the discussion on Evangelical approaches to religious dialogue. I believe that it is the area of moving “beyond appreciation” that we need to continue to build on his work as we carefully consider how to think about IFD in its relation to our mission as God’s people. Drawing on the field of missiology, McConnell points out three areas of encounter that surface in the contextualization process: allegiance, power, and truth encounters. While not exclusively limited to this area of truth encounter, he presents IFD as particularly rooted to this area of contextualization.
In what follows, I will briefly summarize the various forms of interfaith engagement outlined by scholars. I will proceed to argue that IFD is properly situated at the intersection of all three encounters outlined by McConnell and that maintaining this broader foundation is both proper and necessary for guiding faithful and sustainable IFD that addresses the whole person in the totality of their human and cultural situation. From this broadened base I will show this missional framework addresses two major challenges and criticisms facing Evangelicals in the public square regarding IFD.
Scholars outline at least four modes of interfaith interactions between religious groups: proclamation, dialogue of life, dialogue of action, and dialogue among experts. In proclamation religious claims are laid out in all their relevance for humanity and society. Dialogue of life refers to those human interactions that take place in our shared life in society. Dialogue of Action refers to collaboration on matters of the health of society such as poverty, foster care and racial reconciliation. Finally, Dialogue of Experts focuses on the theological and philosophical foundations of religious traditions (Stanley J, Samartha, One Christ, Many Religions: Towards a Revised Christology; cf. Kärkkäinen, “Theologies of Religions: A Position Paper,” pg 2.). Given these various forms of interfaith engagement, a form of dialogue is needed that aims at supporting Evangelical involvement in the other forms of interfaith work. Such dialogue should be guided by the principle, “before I can say ‘I disagree,’ I must first prove that I understand” (cf. Gordon Fee, New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students, 33). Morally, this form of dialogue prevents us from breaking the ninth commandment of “bearing false witness against our neighbor” (cf. Richard Mouw, Uncommon Decency, 48-49). Missionally, it is an essential part of stepping into the theological and lived world of others.
In light of the breadth of our mission and the implications for IFD, we cannot limit the missional aspects of interfaith work to “truth encounters.” During our interactions with religious “Others” we get exposed to deeper issues than mere truth claims. In dialogue, we often come to see in others the spiritual dynamics of sin and grace-denial that are also operative in our own hearts (cf. Romans 1:18-23). The great danger and tragedy is that we might very possibly ‘win an argument’ yet be blinded to our own sin and deaf to the Holy Spirit’s conviction. This very well could be the door to a deeper apprehension of the gospel for both partners of the dialogue. For this reason, IFD must reach beyond truth encounters to include power and allegiance encounters. It is here in the messiness of all these encounters where McConnell’s missional framework is most helpful for guiding Evangelical forms of IFD that address the whole person in the midst of his or her particular cultural embeddedness.
It has become an accepted fact in much of academia that all forms of proselytizing are imperialistic power plays. What is preferred, therefore, is a form of dialogue that aims at “understanding” and “personal growth and learning.” McConnell’s missional framework offers a compelling response to such assertions. First, it is important to acknowledge that the pluralistic critique of proselytizing rightly identifies a common perversion in evangelism: the objectification and hence dehumanizing of the person hearing the gospel. Yet we must insist that this objectification is antithetical to the gospel. Furthermore, the pluralist aim of dialogue as “personal growth” runs the risk of the same type of objectification of the dialogue partner. For example, if I see the main goal of dialogue with you as being my personal growth, then I need to use you to improve myself. Over against this view, McConnell’s framework makes room for the transformation of the Christian in the process of dialogue, but it also finds its central motive in love for God and neighbor which compels us to follow Jesus’ example of entering other people’s worlds as we dialogue with others about central issues in theology.
Second, the pluralist assertion that evangelism is a form of oppression and manipulation needs to be carefully considered. Richard Middleton has noted that the dialectic of “oppression and liberation” which the pluralists use as an argument against evangelism can easily be transposed into the dialectic of “powerlessness and empowerment.” Christians assert that the gospel they give witness to is a narrative of liberation and not of oppression.
Furthermore, the gospel actually undermines all forms of ethnocentrism, racism, and classism as it stands with a word of both acceptance and rebuke to all people and cultures including Christians and the Church. This is the significance of McConnell’s discussion on “overcoming bias” in the indigenizing process. As Lesslie Newbigin pointed out so powerfully, we do not meet the religious “other” at the height of our spiritual or moral achievements, but at the point of our deepest selves, the place of true commonness and solidarity – under the cross. It is under the cross that every person is revealed to be a precious bearer of God’s image and yet a rebellious sinner in need of grace. McConnell’s framework is a significant step towards a missional form of IFD that fosters humility alongside of boldness.
