For nearly 19 years, I have defended the relevance of courses about religion in a college curriculum by maintaining that no human culture at any time in history can be fully understood without understanding its religion. Until recently, this remark has been met with looks of skepticism from college sophomores, especially the ones majoring in business or a natural science.
But the skepticism is fading. Today, globalization refers not just to global economic markets or Internet access to different cultures. Our own society is more diverse than ever. Understanding religion helps us relate to people in our own neighborhoods. Furthermore, religious prejudice, rooted in fear born of ignorance, is more prevalent today than ever. Substantive religious dialogue, therefore, is more critical than ever.
U.S. colleges and universities have been stressing “multiculturalism” for the last twenty years. But as Eboo Patel, founder and president of Interfaith Youth Core, points out, multicultural curricula and programming has focused almost entirely on racial and ethnic differences and has largely ignored religious diversity. In his book Sacred Ground: Pluralism, Prejudice, and the Promise of America, Patel calls for robust interfaith dialogue, which he says “is not about religions being the same, or even an agreement that everyone is going to heaven,” but instead focuses on “building bridges with people of different faiths.”
Patel cites texts from different spiritual traditions that emphasize the importance of welcoming and caring for those who are different – even those who have different belief systems. As an Arab-American Muslim, Patel has much more facility with the Quran than with other sacred texts, and that is to be expected. His sole reference in Christian scripture is Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan. He rightly points out that the hero in Jesus’ story was different from his audience in both ethnicity and religion. But there is a much more compelling biblical case to be made in favor of a “theology of interfaith cooperation” (to use Patel’s term).
The place to start is Genesis 12:3, where God establishes a covenant with Abraham for the purpose of blessing “all the families of the earth.” Then, in Exodus, God frees the Hebrew slaves from Egyptian bondage in order to make of them a “priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6). As a priestly kingdom, their purpose is to mediate between God and the rest of the world. As a “holy nation,” they are to set themselves apart in order to demonstrate to the rest of the world what living in covenant with God looks like. One of the ways the Israelites are commanded to be different is by welcoming the “strangers” or “resident aliens” in their midst. They are not to shun those of different tribes who live by different beliefs. Rather, they are to feed, house, and care for them (Exodus 23:9; Deuteronomy 24:17, 19).
The universal purpose of God’s covenant is championed by many of the prophets, most notably those who belong to the tradition of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah, in fact, closes with an image of Jerusalem as a place for all people to gather in peace. In this idyllic picture, the worship of God is no longer mediated exclusively by the people of Israel. Even Gentiles serve as priests in the temple (Isaiah 66:21).
In the New Testament, Jesus frequently travels into Gentile territory, where he preaches, casts out demons, and heals people of various diseases. While ministering among those who do not practice his religion, he refrains from proselytizing. Never once does Jesus tell the Gentiles that, unless they convert to Judaism or choose to follow him, they are outside the presence of God. Indeed, his works among them testify to the contrary.
In John 5:19-29, Jesus discusses two phases of God’s final judgment. In the first, “anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life” (5:24). Then he says that the Son of man will execute judgment by raising up “those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (5:29). So while followers of Christ are spared judgment, all others will be judged according to their works. The book of Revelation also speaks of two resurrections, one for followers of Christ (Rev. 21:5-6) and another for everyone else to be judged “according to their works, as recorded in the books” (Rev. 21:12). Similarly, the apostle Paul writes in Romans 2:14-16 that those who are outside of either the Law of Moses or Christ will be judged by the “law written upon their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness” and which will “accuse” or “excuse” them on the day of final judgment. It is simply wrong to say, on the basis of Christian scripture, that all non-Christians are condemned to hell. Both Testaments of the scripture witness to a God who judges people finally not by what they believe but by what they do (or, in the case of followers of Christ, what Christ does through us). The names of many who are not followers of Christ are written in the “book of life.” The ultimate purpose of God’s covenantal relationship with humanity is not to determine eternal winners and losers, but to lead all humanity toward justice, righteousness, and peace.
In the context of this inclusive covenantal theology, Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan is not merely a morality tale about how we as his followers should be helpful to people who are different from us. It is a story of how God is present in those different people, who may in fact be in a position to help us.
Both the Scriptures and the urgency of our times require that people of faith – all faiths – learn how to dialogue with each other. This seems to be particularly challenging for Christians for two reasons. First, many Christians have been taught that the only reason for contact with non-Christians is to proselytize them, rather than to welcome them or try to understand them. Second, many Christians are so accustomed to being part of the dominant culture that they have never had to articulate their faith. Interfaith dialogue, therefore, is often one-sided. The Christian learns all about another faith tradition, but does not have the facility to notice points of convergence and divergence with her own tradition so that she may engage in meaningful dialogue. In one formal interfaith dialogue I attended, a rather frustrated Buddhist asked why the Christians were always shying away from – even apologizing for – the tenets of their faith. “We want you advocate for your beliefs, just as we are doing,” he said.
A professor of missions from my seminary once remarked, “the threat of dialoguing with a Hindu is not that I will become a Hindu, but that I will become a more committed Christian.” An honest sharing of religious differences will lead us to recognize how God is at work in other traditions, but also make us more aware of the distinctive features of our own. So we promote not only peaceful co-existence, but also more robust faith commitment. Indeed, a successful dialogue among people of different religious convictions will not lead to a bland agreement that “all religions teach basically the same thing.” Rather, we will learn to disagree, even argue over those points where we diverge theologically, but do so with civility and love for one another.
I stand by the claim I’ve been making to college students for nearly two decades. We cannot understand each other without appreciating how religion influences who we are. Patel believes that, just as multiculturalism first developed on college campuses in the 1990’s, so now those same campuses will be the natural incubators of interfaith dialogue. He’s probably right, but I don’t know how long we can wait for college experiences to spill over into the wider culture. Today, there’s a good chance that one of your neighbors is a practicing Muslim, Sikh or Hindu. If they are to be your neighbors, and not just people who happen to live near you, then you will have to learn what’s important to them. That doesn’t just foster a relationship; it also clarifies what’s important to you. And this kind of dialogue is the only way to combat the religious prejudice that plagues our world.
Copyright 2013 by J. Mark Lawson
Comments