Transcript Interfaith Communication

Interfaith
Communication
Common Ground
or
Enemy Territory
Drawn From:
Paradigms in Conflict by David Hesslegrave, 2005
Christian Mission in the Modern World by John Stott, 1975
How to Engage?

Missional Challenges
• Relativism / No absolutes / Tolerance
• Multiple approaches

Hesselgrave
• Exclusivism
• Adversarial Posture
Background to the Issue

First World Parliament of Religion
• “…we accept all religions to be true.”

Subsequent developments
• Liberal emphases
• Edinburgh Missionary Conference (1910)
• Layman’s Missionary Inquiry

Kraemer’s “The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World”
• WWII and the WCC
• Evangelicals focus on evangelism macro-strategies

Second World Parliament of Religion
• Goal: “mystical experience of pluralism”
Religion & religions

Definition of Religion
• That which links (reconnects) people to the
divine, supernatural, or transcendent

Definition of particular religions
• Various systems of thought/worship that
attempt to make this reconnection possible.
Religion & religions

Distinguishing true & false religions
• Exclusivists:

Only one religion is true (or superior)
• Inclusivists:

Truth may (or is to) be found in all religions
• Pluralists:

Subsume all religions under common overarching
truth/reality of which all religions are reflections and
to which all aspire
Encounters as “Invasions”?

The tenor of scripture

The Kraemer factor

Anecdotal arguments

Conclusions:
• Christianity has little or nothing in common
with religious enemies of the gospel
Problematic
Approaches to Interfaith Encounters
1.
Common Search
• Humanity’s common “God-quest”
• John Hick

Religions are complimentary
• Hesselgrave

God seeks man, not man seeking God
(not earnest pursuit)
Problematic
Approaches to Interfaith Encounters
2.
Religious Similarities
•
Popular – Problematic Bridges
•
Various scholars

•
Sharpe / Swidler / Richardson
Greater understanding = greater fulfillment
of mission
•
Hesselgrave

Dissimilarities may prove more useful to mission
Plausible
Approaches to Interfaith Encounters
3.
Points of Contact
(Identification)
•
Meet others from their perspective of reality
•
Empathetic and prudent approach
•
Hesselgrave’s Warnings:

Ambiguities – misunderstanding/misinterpretation

Limitations – only one actual point of contact
•
Disposition / attitude of the missionary
Plausible
Approaches to Interfaith Encounters
4.
Inter-religious Dialog
•
Typical missionary: monologue trumps dialog
•
Hesselgrave’s Contrasts

Liberal – discovering common ground

Conservative – means of gospel dissemination
John Stott
An Objective Look at Dialog

Extreme Views
• Evangelical

Emphasis on necessity of proclamation
• Liberal-Modernist

Disdain for authoritative/dogmatic proclamation
• Balanced View of “dialog”

Conversation in which each party is serious in
approach, both to the subject and to the other person,
and desires to listen and learn as well as to speak
and instruct.
(Stott, p.61)
John Stott
An Objective Look at Dialog

Scriptural Examples of Dialog
• God himself in dialog with man

Eden / Job / Prophets
• Jesus

Boy in temple / Nicodemus / Samaritan
• Paul

Integral to 2nd and 3rd missionary journeys

Dialog integral, but subordinate to preaching
John Stott
An Objective Look at Dialog

Arguments against dialog
• Liberalizing historical developments

Emergence of “anonymous Christianity”
• Controversial current evangelical expressions

Christ present in all religions

Do not strictly bring Christ, but unveil him
John Stott
An Objective Look at Dialog
• Stott’s Conclusions

Vestiges of general revelation

Insufficient for salvation
• Role of elenctics

(Gk – elengchein = to convict/rebuke)
Science that “unmasks to heathendom all false
religions as sin against God…and calls heathendom to
a knowledge of the only true God.”
[J.H. Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions, 1954]
John Stott
An Objective Look at Dialog

Arguments for dialog
• Mark of authenticity

Proclamation w/o engagement is arrogant and
irrelevant
• Mark of humility

Listening increases respect

Cannot easily sweep away cherished convictions

Confusion may be our fault
John Stott
An Objective Look at Dialog

Arguments for dialog
• Mark of integrity

Listen for real beliefs/problems in order to seek final
truth for all
• Mark of sensitivity

Avoids stereotyping and fixed formulae
(failures in faith & love)
Positive
Approaches to Interfaith Encounters
5.
Christian Rational Presuppositionalism
•
Single truth and logic common to all,
required of all
•
Trans-religious presuppositions should inform
all interfaith discussion
6.
Biblical Theology
•
Special revelation (unfolding of God’s
purposes) as common ground
Positive
Approaches to Interfaith Encounters
Missional Theology
7.
•
Assuming position of indigenous perspective in
presenting Christian truths
•
Understanding why others believe as they do
Missionary Self-Exposure
8.
•
Efficacy of humble revealing of sinfulness



World needs to “see a sinner” in order to understand
Christianity
Deny others privilege of witnessing operation of “grace” if
we disguise or hide our human sinfulness
We can identify with world because worldliness remains a
part of us (p. 112)
Conclusions:
Hesselgrave or Stott?

Hesselgrave’s “Common Ground”
• Sinful humanity – missionary fallibility

Stott’s “Evangelical Dialog”
• Sanctified common ground

Hinduism: E. Stanley Jones’ Round Tables

Islam: Kenneth Cragg’s “Call of the Minaret”
• Ambition for understanding
• Work of retrieval/restitution
• Work of interpretation/consideration
Resolution?
Inter-religious dialog is “sanctified” in the sense
that the presence of the Holy exists within flawed
humanity and thus within our best attempts at
authentic understanding of each other and of our
innate desire for reconciliation with God.
A token of genuine Christian love
through incarnational engagement
INTER-FAITH COMMUNICATION
THE SPECTRUM
Non-Christian
Truth links
Stott
Hesselgrave
Why?
Let’s talk
Hey!
Let me tell you
Christian
Proclamation lassos
DIALOGICAL ENCOUNTER ASSUMPTION
Non-Christian cannot hear the Gospel from our side of the spectrum alone.
We must listen from within their side, bring truth in context of mutual understanding.