Recently I came across a very thought provoking article written by Dr Bob Robinson on the website of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue. Dr Robinson lectures at School of Theology at Christchurch campus in New Zealand. He is also the author of the book entitled Christian meeting Hindus. The article I want to discuss this week on my blog is entitled Evangelical Christians at the Inter-faith Dialogue Table? How?If you are interested in reading the article yourself-(which I recommend) this is where you can find it:http://irdialogue.org/journal/evangelical-christians-at-the-inter-faith-dialogue-table-how-by-bob-robinson/
Dr. Robinson has written a very good essay -one that should be studied and given careful thought.
First a brief summary- Dr Robinson has provided reasons why Evangelicals should be singled out –why they need attention in this area of dialogue and then gives six reasons why Evangelicals should consider dialogue with other religions. I must also draw your attention to the endnotes; do not neglect to pay attention to them- they are a rich source of resources and ideas- for example in footnote #1- he discusses the term- evangelical. In America- many have differentiated between the Evangelical and the Fundamentalist. I believe Dr. Robinson would include them both in the term Evangelical.
In paragraph two, he talks about the challenge of religious pluralism and discusses briefly what he calls a “continuum of attitudes: indifference—anxiety—engagement (occasional or intentional)—triumphalism (principled or unreflective)—suspicion (principled or unreflective)—prohibition—fear and denigration—hostility and confrontation. Apart from the response labeled “engagement,” the prevalence of the other attitudes is a major disincentive to an intentional, principled, sustained and mutually beneficial meeting with people of other faiths.”
This continuum of attitudes is a good place to stop and example our own attitudes. Where am I in the continuum in relation to people of other faiths?
Twenty five years ago- as a Fundamentalist preacher- I was hostile and confrontational…and I slowly moved out of that into a suspicious fear to finally engagement and I would add acceptance.
Where are you?
Dr Robinson then gives six reasons why Evangelical should dialogue….Briefly, here are the six:
1. Biblical Precedents for dialogue.
2. A neglected Biblical stream’
3. Jesus as exemplar of dialogue
4. Pragmatic /further theological reasons for dialogue
a. Understanding and the reduction of tension
b. Commitment to common social concern
c. Shared humanity and the ideal of community
d. The dynamics of modernity and post modernity
e. A shared quest for truth
f. Toward a contextual theology and inculturated church
g. Dialogue as fruit of the Gospel
5. Dialogue as one consequence of a post-Christendom context
6. Some reassuring examples of fruitful dialogue.

I do not have time in one blog to go through all the reasons but I would like to stress in this one what impacted me- what I have observed in my life- in my journey out of fundamentalism. My fundamentalist ministry was occupied by an anti-ecumenism, that is an anti-dialogical ministry. Of these six sets of reasons, I believe that at different levels of my journey- seeds were planted from these six reasons. Let me give you an example….the first reason Dr Robinson cites is a Biblical precedent for dialogue– and early in my Fundamentalist ministry- I would not have accepted that reason for I was a black and white- absolutist and believed I only had the truth- all other religions were false and demonic. This reason I would have laughed and scoffed at. Yet later (decade or so)- after other seeds had been planted- I revisited this thought and was more receptive.
The concept that impacted me more than any other thought early in my ministry was the second reason- a neglected Biblical stream. Here is how Dr Robinson describes it:

Conservative Christians are well aware of biblical teaching about the realities of sin and idolatry and about the particularities of the unique revelation and final salvation said to be found in Christ. These starting points provide little incentive for dialogue. But evangelicals are often unaware that alongside this stream runs another in which the biblical narrative offers a rather more positive assessment of the religions. There is a cosmic, universal, inclusive current derived from the assertions that all humanity is made in the divine image and that all human beings are the beneficiaries of God’s providential faithfulness, immense love and ubiquitous wisdom. The divine covenant through Noah is with the entire human family. There is a “general revelation” 14:17) and some non-Israelite believers in the living God clearly acknowledge and are known by God (Melchizedek, Jethro, Ruth, Naaman, the Ninevites, Job and others).Within the New Testament there are some positive implications of logos theology, including the statement in John 1:9a that describes Christ as the true light that enlightens/ shines upon everyone. Acts 17:26f explicitly states that God made the nations so that they would search for God and perhaps find him—but evangelicals are rarely heard asserting that people of other faiths might be on some kind of God-inspired search, and that dialogue (rather than proclamation or monologue) is the obvious means by which they might make contact with this search.

Ever so often, I would meet someone who would plant a seed of the truth that God is love and moves outside my theological box. It took a long time but eventually the seed sprouted and my eyes were open to how hateful I had been.
Dr Robinson mentions Acts 17 in his article- I have in my file cabinet two sermons on this incident of Paul in Athens. One sermon written and given in 1981 and the other in 1995. The 1981 sermon was very condemning and negative- it focused on Paul’s denouncement of idolatry and his declaration of Jesus’s resurrection and their subsequent reject of that message. The 1995 message focused on Paul’s dialogue with the Athenian philosophers and I spent considerable time on verse 26- because an awakening had occurred- an awakening almost as powerful as my conversion experience in 1975 at a Billy Graham-Corrie tan Boom event. It became clear to me that God had placed me in a particular culture (vs26) and nation and because of that I found God- groped for him and found him in Christ. Yet a dear friend of mine- a medical Doctor who was born and raised in Saudi Arabia found God in Allah. The truth is as Paul tells us that “GOD IS NOT FAR FROM EACH ONE OF US.” There is certain equality in that statement. Paul moves beyond the arrogance of a nationalistic religion- and makes a very inclusive proclamation. Note the us.

Since then I have come to realize that all the negative things I said about Moslems were myths that I had propagated out of ignorance and fear. Everything I had said about homosexuals was myths. Now I seek to understand their faith- and I can do that because I am no longer in competition, no longer fear them and no longer demonize them. I have moved away from talking about them to being with them- a relating that was impossible for me twenty five years ago.
Just a few thoughts about an article that impressed me and will require continual reflection.

I just finished reading what I consider to be a great book written by a Muslim whose heart belongs in America. I am speaking of Eboo Patel’s book entitled Sacred Ground: Pluralism, Prejudice, and the Promise of America. I first became acquainted with the book when I was watching Book TV on C-span and there was an interview with the author. I instantly took a liking to this true American- a Muslim American who writes about something that is now very dear to my heart- the idea of religious pluralism in America. In the introduction to this book he writes about the promise of America:
“America’s promise is to guarantee equal rights for all identities. This framework of rights facilitates the contributions of the many communities to this single country. That is America’s genius. The idea is simple: people whose nation gives them dignity will build up that society. When we say we are an immigrant nation, we mean more than just that various religions and ethnic groups settled here in America, bringing with them their Hebrew prayers and Hindu chants. We are recognizing the fact that the institutions they built benefited not just their communities but also the common good of this country. The hyphen between Jewish, Christian, and American is not a barrier, it’s a bridge. Those things that make you a better Catholic, Buddhist, or Sikh-generosity, compassion, service- also make you a better American. America gains when its immigrants bring the inspiration of their particular heritage across the ocean to these shores and plant in this soil. These seeds have grown into Catholic hospitals, Lutheran colleges, Quake high schools, Southern Baptist disaster relief organizations, Jewish philanthropy, and much more, The institutional expressions of religious identity are the engines of American civil society. These were lessons I learned not from a political science seminar in college but from a Muslim imam from Egypt.”

Doesn’t that stir you heart?

The book also captures how the author felt after 9/11 when many ugly voices were heard shouting out many lies and myths about Islam especially in the wake of the Ground Zero-Cordoba House conflict. Eboo Patel tells the inside story of this and the effect it had on his family and on his mission in life. He also tells the history of how when the ugly voices of prejudice arose in this nation- there have been people who stood for justice and equality.

I personally believe now is an important time in our history to stand against the Islamophobia industry– and stand for the truth about Islam! In other words, to stand with our Muslim brothers and sisters whose faith has been distorted and maligned.

One interesting piece of history Patel shares is from 1790 when George Washington responded to a Jew who was concerned about Jews in the new nation:
“The Government of the United States…gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens…May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
One section of the book deals with an important topic- what he refers to as the “art of interfaith leadership.” He spends a great deal of time talking about what he has learned from the Dalai Lama. Patel refers to it has interfaith literacy. Interfaith literacy is about knowing the basics of other religions. A knowing that services a purpose- of “liking one another, learning from each other, building bridges, forming friendships, working together and thriving together.” Interfaith relations begins with an appreciative knowledge of other religions- what we admire in other faiths, – this type of knowledge fosters friendships and facilitates workmg together…

I highly recommend this book- anyone who believes in the values of religious freedom and religious pluralism will find this book inspiring. I do not know about you – but I need to a good kick in the pants once and awhile to keep me on track- Eboo Patel has done just that.

The point of it all is this- Christianity is what it is today because of shifts in thinking…shifts in theology…shifts in how people viewed God and the Church.
The Early Church in Jerusalem- Jewish Christians viewed Jesus not as God who became man but as a man – a servant sent from God who taught a new kind of active faith of love and who died on the cross, whom God rose from the dead and sat him on his right side and given the title Lord. The point is this- the Early Church did not hold to the Trinity. The Trinity was a later development- an evolution in theology that did not completely dominate Christendom until the 4th Century.

What does this mean to me? It means there is a place for dialogue between Jews, Christians and Moslems if we begin at the beginning. The beginning -being that Jesus was a great Jewish prophet and servant- a man sent from God. Even Mohammed believed that Jesus was a man sent from God and who was exalted to heaven and who will return in the end times and slay the antichrist.

What does it mean to me? It means I recognize and accept the limitations that I have as a finite human being- that I do not know all things- especially about God – the supremely unknowing infinite being. Twenty years ago, I claimed to know it all- especially about God. It was the height of my conceited arrogance- thinking I was God’s accountant and had a monopoly on God’s truth. The point is- I am not God’s accountant and I do not have a monopoly on God’s truth.

What it means to me is – our words and theological concepts are inadequate to describe the infinite ultimate reality called God.
What it means to me now is- what is most important – what counts are not concepts like the trinity …
What counts is not dogma but what I do…Am I reaching out in love to those in need, to those suffering under injustice… James, the Pastor of the Church in Jerusalem (40-50AD) explained it this way:
RELIGION THAT IS PURE AND UNDEFILED BEFORE GOD, THE FATHER, IS THIS: TO CARE FOR THE ORPHANS AND WIDOWS IN THEIR DISTRESS, AND TO KEEP ONESELF UNSTAINED BY THE WORLD… (JAMES 1:27)

Someone recently emailed me a question- and I must apply myself to addressing the question.
Are you saying the early disciples/apostles and the first Christians in Jerusalem did not understand Jesus as God- only as a man?

My answer is not simple for the Biblical text is not that simple but complex. There was a time in my life –even 6-7 years ago when my answer would have been very simple and straight forward because of my fundamental approach to life and the Bible. But I have come to the conclusion that the Early Church from 33 CE to 150 CE –things are not as they appear.
To be honest, at this juncture in my studies, I have come to a point where I can say- that the early disciples –the apostles and the first Christians (Palestinians) did not believe that Jesus was God who became man for reasons I addressed in Lecture one. I have given this considerable thought- and I will continue to study the records of the early Church regarding this matter. Now I should point out that I do believe that the Early Church viewed Jesus- because of his work, crucifixion and resurrection as an exalted being.
The crux of the issue and what I will continue to write on is this: that there was an evolutionary development in how the Church viewed Jesus from a very low Christology proceeding to a very high Christology.
The second question as to do with the Biblical text:

WHAT ABOUT THE GOSPEL OF JOHN specifically John 1:1-14 which clearly state that Jesus is God who became man..
This is one of those texts that I quoted every day as a Fundamentalist Pastor…But I have come to realize this was written rather late 96-105 CE…and scholars agree that is not a historical biography but a theological reflection written at a specific time for a specific group of believers. What I will be referring to here is called redaction criticism. Redaction Criticism looks at an author’s editorial changes to the various gospel stories- in the case of John, he writes his Gospel with his community in mind and with his theological reflections to address various community problems. One of the most important events happening at the time was the exclusion of the Jewish Christians from the synagogue. This exclusion leads John to write a very exclusive gospel…only those who receive him (Jesus)are saved…the Jews rejected him- they are lost….Only thru Christ does one have access to the father…
A kind of fortress mentality develops…an “us versus them” mentality. Jews are demonized. It is the beginning of a very long history in the Church of anti-Semitism. A very high Christology hermeneutic develops in the midst of this Jewish-Christian divide which accentuates the division.
One cannot understand the Gospel of John or the ensuing high doctrine of who Jesus is without looking at the historical and sociological history behind the writing of John’s Gospel…John wrote and as Jesus saying: “I am the way, the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father, except through me.” (Jn 14) It is a passage exclaimed in the heat of persecution obviously directed at the Jews who did not believe that Jesus was God.
Did Jesus say it? I will look at that next time.

What are your thoughts? Did Jesus say it?