An Evangelical’s view of the do’s and don’ts of theological dialogue
In the newly planted church I attended, testimonies of God’s dramatic activity abounded. It was common to hear a young woman share how Christ picked her up from the despair of drug addiction. Or for a man to testify that before he met Jesus he was a wretched drunk, but now Christ delivered him from the evils of alcohol. Yet another would share the great joy of leading someone to Christ as part of an evangelistic outreach. But as a young Christian, I never heard anyone rise to claim God’s blessing on a recent interfaith dialogue.
In fact, in our little evangelical church we had standards for what was an acceptable testimony. These ranged from answered prayer to sharing your faith with the unsaved. There were simply no categories for more nuanced encounters. So a call to convicted civility was beyond our level of understanding. And anything that even appeared to allow for divergent views was quickly dismissed as a dangerous liaison.
The word “mission” was similarly defined. In those days it was understood to be the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Clearly, the goal was conversion followed by baptism and joining a local church. Of course, there were encounters with people of other religious beliefs and those who had no religious beliefs, but these were simply diversions on the road of our witness. Our goal was evangelism.
After a few years, my wife and I were sent out by our local church as missionaries. With all the fanfare due to a hero, we left for the field to reach the lost. In the early years, we did not consider any of the daily routines of life to be significant if they did not lead to evangelistic contacts. We were on a mission from God and nothing could divert us from that task.
Over the years, we came to appreciate a number of important elements of our missionary calling that escaped us in the early years. It started with a realization of God’s amazing love. Even though we memorized John 3:16 long before, it dawned on us afresh that “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (John 3:16, NRSV). God loved this broken world at a level far greater than anything we could imagine.
By that time, we were working among poor migrants in the capital city of Papua New Guinea; people who struggle everyday just to have enough to eat and a place to sleep. It was a far cry from the relative affluence of our sending church. The brokenness of the world was in constant focus. Yet in those difficult conditions, God had raised up from among many different tribes a people for himself. Men and women, who like us, had experienced salvation in Christ.
The “Indigenizing” Principle
The distance between their world and ourswas staggering for us, but not for God. It was at that point we realized God came to them where they were, just as he did us. While this was new to us, in reality there is nothing new about this approach. For example, the group of shepherds heard the announcement of the good news of Jesus’ birth in a field where they were tending sheep (Luke 2:8-14, NRSV). In his study on the transmission of faith in Christian history, Professor Andrew Walls points to the underlying continuity in Christianity; God accepts us as we are. Walls refers to this as the “indigenizing” principle in church history (Known as the “indigenizing principle,” it is found in Andrew F. Walls, “The Gospel as Prisoner and Liberator of Culture” In The Missionary Movement in Christian History, Orbis 2000, page 7).
To be more precise, God accepts us as we are solely on the ground of Christ’s work, not based on who we are or anything that we are trying to become. This is the essence of the Gospel. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “… God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8, NRSV). While we rejoice in this amazing grace, we must consider the implications of this acceptance as we are. It also means that God accepts us in the context of the family, affinity groups and cultural context that make up our worlds. As we know intuitively, it is not possible to separate a person from the influences of their social relationships or their cultural setting. This means accepting not only the supportive social relationships but also “those predispositions, prejudices, suspicions, and hostilities, whether justified or not, which mark the group to which we belong” (Walls, page 7).
This collective set of assumptions which guide our lives is referred to as our worldview. Studies in anthropology reveal that worldview is a powerful force in shaping both values and behaviors (For an extensive discussion see Charles H. Kraft, Anthropology for Christian Witness, Orbis, 1996, chapter 4). For example, when I was a child my mother used to say, “WE don’t eat like that!” This usually followed her observation of me picking up my meat or vegetables to speed things up so I could go out and play. Needless to say, after years of hearing this, I assumed that the use of the knife and fork separated the well-mannered people from those with bad manners. So you can imagine my shock when first faced with the prospect of using the fingers of my right hand to eat by my Indian hosts in a nice restaurant in Chennai!
On this more superficial level of eating, we can laugh at our own prejudices as we experience new cuisine and customs. However, there are much deeper levels of our worldview that are not so easily changed. This was vividly brought home to me in a visit to the village of Ferezai in southern Kosovo. During the siege by the Serbs, local Serbian Kosovars had painted the Serbian cross, a symbol of their Eastern Orthodox beliefs, on the doors of their houses. The troops seeing the cross would pass by allowing the residents to stay in the safety of their homes, while they focused their hostilities on driving the Albanian Kosovars from their land. After the return of the Albanian Kosovars from exile, these same houses were the target of merciless reprisals from those who had known the wrath of the Serbs.
Worldview carries not only the customs of social interactions, it also carries the symbols, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors that differentiate one group from another. In short, it is the cultural map of our understanding of the world. For our purposes, it follows that any serious attempt to engage people across cultural or religious barriers should consider their worldview. Initially, a study of the worldview of a people may focus on their language, customs, and literature. However, it is difficult to truly understand others without engaging in conversation to clarify and expand our knowledge.
Being Sent
This relational approach is one of the most powerful missional insights. It is a key ingredient in the Great Commission as stated in the gospel of Matthew, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19a, NRSV). This implies going to people where they are and engaging them for the sake of the Gospel. The going is not limited to geography. My colleague Charles Kraft translates the commission in Mark 16:15 as, “Go into everyone’s world and communicate the good news.” Obedience to going requires willingness to enter the world of others. As is often pointed out, Jesus’ incarnation is the ultimate example of entry into the world of others.
Finding ways to enter the worlds of others is one of the toughest challenges we face today. Globalization has made it is easy to slip into the cultural world of another person at the level of a tourist. But this is hardly what is meant by the concept of going in the record of Jesus’ commission of the disciples. It is better to think of it as being sent rather than as a choice to go. Being sent is more in keeping with the intent of the commission of Christ.
Of the five primary records of the commission of Christ, John 20:21 is the most helpful in focusing on the concept of being sent (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:9-18, Luke 24:44-49, John 20:19-23, and Acts 1:6-8). “Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you” (John 20:21, NRSV). The missional principle which should guide us is based on the sending of Christ. As Beasley-Murray stated it, “The sending of the Son into the world by the Father is a constant theme of this Gospel. It reflects in measure the principle of Jewish authorization ‘One who is sent is as he who sends him’” (Beasley-Murray, George R.: Word Biblical Commentary: John. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002 (Word Biblical Commentary 36), S. 379). Being sent as Christ was sent requires a commitment to enter the actual world of others.
It was 22 years after first being sent as a missionary that the complexity of the challenge really hit me. I was sipping a cup of chai tea while sitting in a tea room in northern Uganda near the Sudan border. I had just finished speaking to the vocational school on the importance of education, when the School Master invited us to join the leaders for tea. The conversation was warm, the weather hot, and the atmosphere was welcoming. Despite this rather idyllic setting, I felt a strong sense of dissonance.
Since this was my first experience in a Muslim compound, I was intellectually laden by exposure to the demonization of Islam. Although it was five years before 9/11 there had been no shortage of disparaging remarks about Islam from the pulpits and pages that shaped my worldview. To make matters worse, I was reminded of the warnings from others about the negative impact of such an evil spiritual stronghold.
Processing these conflicting thoughts was a lot to ask so far from the comforts of my traditions. Yet I was attracted by the tea and open conversation about our very different worlds. We shared a mutual curiosity for our distinctive beliefs that was fed by the continuing cordial atmosphere. To my relief, as my level of understanding deepened, a sense of appreciation for their worldview replaced the anxiety. I realized that simply entering the physical space of others was not enough. I had to move toward understanding, facilitated by the empathy fostered by relationships, in order to truly enter their world.
Overcoming Prejudice
Involvement with people of other faiths is no longer an isolated experience for any of us. Our schools, businesses, and cities are filled with people from many different backgrounds, including a wide range of religious beliefs and unbelief. As was the case in my first experience with Muslims, we tend to have presuppositions about those differences that may or may not reflect accurately the beliefs of others. Given the tendency toward negative stereotypes, it is a challenge for all of us to move from prejudice to insight.
In forming our cultural identity, we tend toward an affirmation of our uniqueness by comparing ourselves favorably toward other groups. For example, I was riding in a small bus with a group of people from a particular tribe in Papua New Guinea. In the traffic we found ourselves behind a truck carrying a group from a different tribe. The truck group were chewing betel nut mixed with lime from ground seashells. The mixture made their mouths red and required frequent spitting. To be sure, it was a nasty habit. However, the group in the bus used this custom to build a case against the truck group. It began as an attack on the habit of chewing betel nut, but turned into a long discussion on why this habit was a symbol of the inferiority of the truck group. Although studies in Melanesian peoples reveals an important tendency toward this type of negative stereotyping as a building block of worldview, it is by no means restricted to peoples of the South Pacific (J. Linikin and L. Poyer, eds, Cultural Identity and Ethnicity in the Pacific. University of Hawaii Press, 1990).
On the individual level, Jesus told the parable of two men praying in the temple based on a similar view (Luke 18:9-14, NRSV). In the parable the Pharisee viewed himself as so much better than others who behaved in ways that were rejected by his sect of Judaism. After rejecting the practices of others, he extolled his own behavior as religiously acceptable. Jesus then provided the twist to the story when he noted that the tax collector who realized his own sinfulness returned home forgiven. The point being that regarding others with contempt masks our own needs and betrays the humility required by God (See 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalm 25:9, Isaiah 66:2, 1 Peter 5:5-7).
While this practice happens on a number of levels, studies in social networks reveal an important explanation of the process. In his work on the formation of personal networks, Berkeley Sociologist Claude Fischer observed that,
“People tend to associate with others like themselves. In that sense, networks are ‘inbred.’ As a consequence of—and as a further cause of—this inwardly turned interaction, people come to share many experiences, attitudes, beliefs, and values… in short, they develop a common culture” (Claude S. Fischer, To Dwell Among Friends. University of Chicago Press, 1982, page 6).
In his research, Fischer observed this trend across a spectrum of geographic and cultural settings from small towns in Northern California to the tenderloin in San Francisco. What applies to individuals in the process of building social networks, also applies to the subcultural groups formed by the networks. The strength of this social phenomenon led to Fischer’s subcultural theory of urbanism (Claude S. Fischer, The Urban Experience, 2nd edition. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich Publishers, 1984). For our purposes, the theory posits that negative intergroup interaction between groups tends to reinforce negative values, while positive intergroup interaction has the opposite affect. As may be predicted, the vast majority of intergroup interaction is more in the category of neutral and does little to change the group values. However, it is most important to note that the strength of positive intergroup interaction leads to an expansion of the acceptable categories for inclusion in the subculture.
This process is part of our social experience. For example, positive intergroup interaction may be seen in the inclusion of new ethnic foods, such as Thai food, after a positive experience when friends dine out at a Thai restaurant. On a more challenging level, negative stereotypes can be reinforced when our residential neighborhoods experience changing demographics. In a study of churches in Aurora, Illinois, we found that if prejudice toward others is not confronted as part of the teaching of the church, it remained a powerful force in shaping the attitudes and actions of the members (C. Douglas McConnell, “Confronting Racism and Prejudice in Our Kind of People.” In Missiology: An International Review, Vol. XXV, No. 4, October 1997). This was particularly difficult for churches as the ethnic makeup of the community changed dramatically over the decade of the 1990s.
Building on the strength of positive interaction, we can identify the potential of interfaith dialogue to reduce the negative stereotypes that foster prejudice. In my own experience, the first encounter with Muslim leaders provided a positive opportunity to learn while replacing prejudice with insight. Although it was an informal dialogue, the outcome was an open exchange of the important tenets of our respective faiths. In the case of more formalized interfaith dialogue, there are even greater opportunities to build understanding through establishing guidelines that foster the free exchange of ideas.
Beyond Appreciation
If understanding was the only goal of interfaith encounters life would be so much simpler. But as an Evangelical Christian my view of interfaith encounter is not limited to creating understanding. There are also the twin issues of obedience to the commission of Christ to be a faithful witness and faithfulness to the truth of the Gospel. So an important question arises, is there a missional purpose for interfaith dialogue?
In missiological thought, we have cultivated the concept of religious encounter to identify the complexities of missional engagement. The study of this process within missiology has become a sophisticated assessment of the impact of cultural conditioning on the worldview of people groups, churches and missionaries. We have also moved toward the use of the term “mission of God” [Latin, mission Dei] to indicate the divine purpose as opposed to the subjectivity of mission strategies. Thus God’s broader redemptive purposes are in focus rather than the more organizational approaches. Religious encounter, therefore, is a means to assess the levels of impact in an individual or group presented with the message of the Gospel.
As we consider religious encounters, there are three levels that are most often cited as significant in the mission of God corresponding to the three levels of worldview; Allegiance Encounters, Power Encounters, and Truth Encounters (The encounter model was first developed by Charles H. Kraft, “Allegiance, Truth, and Power Encounter in Christian Witness,” In Pentecost, Mission, and Ecumenism’s Essays on Intercultural Theology. J.A. B. Jongeneel, ed. Peter Lang, 1990, pages 215-230. See also, R. Daniel Shaw and Charles E. Van Engen, Communicating God’s Word in a Complex World: God’s truth or hocus pocus? Roman and Littlefield, 2003). The first level of allegiance deals with the relationships that are core to the identity of an individual or group. Anyone who has spent time with teenagers realizes that relationships are an important aspect of our identity formation. In studies of worldview, the structures that provide and support our relationships are embedded deeply in the culture. Family, friends, and even leaders, those for whom loyalty is paramount, provide the solidarity required to sustain our identity in order to cope with the worlds we encounter. Much of our capacity to evaluate people and situations is controlled by the implicit expectations that constitute our default operating systems. Allegiance encounters, therefore, challenge the loyalties and meanings that govern our lives, in effect asking the question, “who or what controls our lives?”
The level of power encounter deals primarily with the affective level of emotions, symbols, and our experiences. Power encounter deals with the heartfelt questions of our worlds making it harder to identify and more ambiguous. In their study of folk religion, Hiebert, Shaw and Tiénou demonstrate the significance of these types of encounters in dealing with those areas of explanation that often lack clear answers in formal religious systems (Hiebert, P.G., R.D. Shaw, and T. Tiénou, Understanding Folk Religion: A Christian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices. Baker Book House, 1999). Examples include the question of who we should marry, issues of success in our personal endeavors, and meanings of events that impact us personally. Kraft has taken this concept into the unseen world to identify areas in which people may find freedom from bondage, most often referred to within the framework of spiritual dynamics (Charles H. Kraft, Confronting Powerless Christianity: Evangelicals and the Missing Dimension. Chosen, Baker Books, 2002).
The level of truth encounter is the most readily identifiable since it deals with the cognitive areas of belief and understanding. Truth encounters allow for the concept of unique truth claims as opposed to the relativistic approach of the comparative and explanatory value of a given belief. Truth encounters are predicated on the basis that if something is true, then it will stand up to critical enquiry over time. It is not limited to a given time and context, but rather is universal in nature.
It is this level in which we find the significance of theological dialogue. Because the traditions, texts, and structures of religious systems are accessible to scholars, dialogue at its best invites participants to question and clarify their understandings. Richard Mouw provides a useful clarification with regard to understanding truth in the context of dialogue.
“’All truth is God’s truth’ is a venerable affirmation of the Christian tradition. And the mainstream of that tradition has never meant by this that spiritual truth is limited to what is explicitly taught in the Bible. As God’s Word, the Bible is a direct source of truth. But it also helps us test claims to truth that come to us from other sources” (Richard J. Mouw, Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World. InterVarsity Press, 1992, page 105).
If we consider theological dialogue as an opportunity to understand and test the beliefs of others as well as openly assert the biblical faith, it becomes a valid means of being faithful to the truth of the Gospel. Viewed as a truth encounter, theological dialogue finds its place as part our missional engagement. Along with allegiance encounters that challenge our basic assumptions at the deepest level of worldview and power encounters that confront often excluded areas of the here and now, truth encounters are also an important part of our faithful witness.
Guidelines for Interfaith Dialogue
Drawing on these four missiological perspectives, the following guidelines are offered for consideration as we attempt to establish a missional approach to interfaith dialogue:
- Interfaith dialogue provides a forum in which the claims of various religious traditions, texts and structures may be interactively studied. To achieve this, all participants must be committed to understanding both the context and content of the various viewpoints.
- Recognizing the indigenous nature of faith traditions requires an increased sensitivity to the symbols, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. The goal of dialogue is to identify that which is culturally determined in order to deal with the truth claims of the participants. In so doing prejudice may be identified and at least factored into the discussion.
- To ensure the integrity of both the dialogue and the rationale for involvement, participants should be encouraged to view the process as an important aspect in the cordial, faithful witness of their faith. This entails dealing with one another respectfully, while being honest about our faith based desires to see others come to accept our respective faiths.
- Because relationships carry more than cognitive categories, each participant should be affirmed for who they are and what they believe, while avoiding the desire for universal affirmation of the truth of what they believe. Disagreement must be accepted as a valid response to preserve the integrity of our witness.
- Interfaith dialogue is a process of discovery, not a competition of truth claims. As such, it allows for truth encounters without requiring conversion. As the texts and traditions are studied respectfully, the conflicting claims must be examined as part of the growing understanding. The result will likely be a feeling of ambiguity rather than certainty with regard to the faith of others.
- Interfaith dialogue must also be seen as a public engagement. The attitudes and behavior will inevitably be interpreted differently by insiders and outsiders, antagonists and protagonists. The manner in which the participants conduct themselves and communicate the content of the dialogue should be carefully considered in an attempt to avoid the extremes of triumphalism and accusations of heresy.
Reflections of an Evangelical Christian Missionary
Through the years I spent in the South Pacific, I witnessed wave after wave of young Mormon missionaries coming to our city. To be honest, it was a constant source of concern for me since I was often approached by members of our church who were troubled by their interaction with these young Americans. In Melanesian culture, people from the same place, known locally as wantoks, were seen as equivalent to family. Being from the same family or place meant that you were immediately included into the extended family with all the rights and privileges common in a collective society. At the same time, the behavior and beliefs of wantoks was assimilated into the culture of the group and therefore, accepted as legitimate. Since I was an American and so were the Mormon missionaries, we were seen as wantoks. There were many problems with this association, but none was as frustrating as trying to explain the differences between us and our “wantoks.”
The result of continued exposure to this type of unwanted attention was a growing distrust and disdain for what appeared at times to be an invasion of Mormons. I confess this with some degree of sadness for the many opportunities I could have taken to learn from and witness to them. One of the important lessons learned through the years of missionary service is that I should not avoid any reasonable opportunity to be a faithful witness for Christ. In participating in the Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue over the past couple of years, I have found myself able to be just that, a faithful witness for Christ.
Each person who has participated in the dialogue has been open both to learn and to witness. There are insurmountable differences that separate us. Yet there remain many opportunities to explore truths of Christ as understood by the historical Christian faith in conversation with the teachings of Mormonism. From time to time I wonder if the divide is too great to merit our on-going discussions, but just as that thought settles in I am reminded of the progress we are making in clarifying our use of theological terms and of the real differences we have. Given that my Melanesian friends believe we are family, it is important to be able to articulate the differences with integrity. That is not to mention the countless people of other faith traditions who see no distinction between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Presbyterian Church USA.
Just as I did thirty-three years ago as a new missionary, I still believe that evangelism is central to the missionary task. I long for everyone to know the truth of the gospel, to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, to know the power of the Savior who died that we might have eternal life, by doing what we could not do for ourselves as sinners in need of God’s grace, as revealed in the Bible, the written word of God, which is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. Thankfully, I also realize that our witness depends on the power of the Holy Spirit who leads people to faith in Christ.
So as those sent by Christ, we seek to truly enter the worlds of others since God reaches people as they are. Our calling is to be faithful witnesses, taking every opportunity to share the truth of the Gospel while sincerely seeking to understand the worlds of those with whom we share our faith. In so doing, we must also reject the prejudices and false witness that comes from avoiding interaction with others. And by appropriate encounter with the beliefs, values, and religious affiliations of others, we are more likely to witness in ways that reach others at the point where they are most likely to hear the faithful witness.
