Dialogue with people of other faiths in New Zealand

Written by Bob Robinson

Are there persuasive biblical and theological reasons for it?

The recently issued ‘National Statement on Religious Diversity’ concludes with a call for New Zealand’s faith communities “to promote mutual respect and understanding” and to “build and maintain positive relationships with each other.” Theologically conservative Christians are, however, little interested in inter-religious dialogue. They are either indifferent to such dialogue or are even found – because of belief in the message of the Bible, especially its message about the uniqueness and finality of Christ – holding negative views about the religions, and with no time or taste for dialogue. Such Christians seem to prefer monologue to dialogue, especially in public. Now there is quasi-official pressure (in the form of this ‘National Statement,’ and presumably for pragmatic reasons such as the avoidance of social conflict) for religions to be less confrontational and more accommodating in their attitudes towards each another. And, with varying degrees of thoughtfulness, exasperation and factual knowledge, there is the often-heard question from members of the public, “Why can’t the religions get along better and stop their arguing and fighting?”

How should NZ Christians respond to such appeals to ‘get along better’ and to ‘start talking to one another’? In this writer’s experience some good reasons can be advanced to help Christians at least understand or consider dialogue and without compromising the Christocentric faith that is vital to their Christian self-understanding. In fact, these reasons could be summed up in the following suggestions and affirmations taken from the Bible and from some theological and pragmatic reasons and examples.

1. Remember our own ‘alien’ status

In the first five books of the Bible there are more than fifty references to ‘aliens’ or ‘strangers’ and how the people of God are to treat them (all followers of ‘pagan’ religions, of course) with respect and even a generous welcome. The reason: because you too were once aliens and strangers; you remember what it is like to feel strange and culture-shocked and for that very reason you are to be generous and hospitable. The label ‘alien’ or ‘foreigner’ is then repeated in the New Testament (eg 1 Peter 2.11) and applied to us as Christians – which implies that we too should treat newcomers with welcoming respect.

2. Notice that the Bible is more generous than we sometimes recall

Christians are usually well aware of the Bible’s teaching about the realities of sin and idolatry and about the unique revelation and final salvation found in Christ alone. But they often seem unaware that alongside this stream runs another that offers a rather more positive assessment of the religions. This stream points out that all humanity is made in God’s image and all human beings are the beneficiaries of God’s providential faithfulness and immense love. God’s creation and care of the whole universe (Gen 1), God’s universal presence in every corner of reality (Ps 139), God’s universally present wisdom working within human personalities and structures (Prov 8; Rom 2), God’s covenant through Noah with the entire human family (Gen 9) – all these impact on every single person in the world. There is a ‘general revelation’ available to all (God not having left himself without a witness anywhere: Acts 14.17; see also Rom 1 and Acts chapters 10 and 17) and some non-Israelite believers in the living God acknowledge and are known by him (Melchizedek (Gen 14), Jethro (Exod 18), Ruth, Naaman, the Ninevites, Job and others). In other words, even in the Bible itself there is far more recognition of universal or general revelation than conservative Christians are usually able or willing to admit. That is, there is some real knowledge of God among those who cannot be called God’s people in the Biblical (meaning covenantal) sense. From the New Testament as well one could argue (along with the early church) for 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. And attention should also be given to Acts 10 (Cornelius), eg verses 34f and Paul’s statements in Acts 17.22-31 (especially 26f) that God has planted the human search for God within all people. It is also God’s plan to re-create and restore all of creation (1 Cor 15:22-28; Eph 1:9f; Phil 1:10f). So, from this cosmic – universal – inclusive stream a case can be made for religion as including a search, even a divinely inspired search for God. Searching is not the same as finding, of course; but think of the dialogue opportunities if and when we realise that our friends of other faiths might be on some kind of God-inspired search!

3. Note that ‘dialogue’ is a Biblical idea

There are a number of clear biblical precedents for at least some kinds of dialogue. The Bible has many examples of genuine conversations in which the prophets, Jesus, Paul and even God communicate in ways that can be called dialogue in the sense of communication that moves well beyond monologue and confrontation. This is what Jesus is reported as doing in his question and answer sessions with his contemporaries, not least in the portrayal of his encounters with the relatively few non-Jewish people that he met (such as the Samaritan woman and the Syro-Phoenician woman) – as we shall see. If the Bible affirms dialogue, so should we!

4. Note further that ‘dialogue’ is even a Biblical word

In the Septuagint ( the Greek version of the Old Testament), and in the New Testament we find: dialegomai (to converse, confer), dialogizomai (to reflect on, discuss), dialogismos (consideration, discussion) which makes clear that dialogue certainly has some place in the biblical repertoire – alongside communication understood as monologue or proclamation. Some kind of ‘dialogue’ is what Paul is reported as doing in his encounters with both Jews and gentiles. In fact, the Greek verbs (from which the word ‘dialogue’ is derived) are used some ten times in the New Testament (mainly in Acts 17-24, but also elsewhere) in the sense of ponder, consider, converse, discuss or argue. For example:
“Jesus dialogued with them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?’” (Luke 24:38)
“As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he dialogued with them from the Scriptures.” (Acts 17:2)
See also examples from Athens (Acts 17:7), Corinth (Acts 18:4), Ephesus (Acts 18:19; 19: 8f; 20:7, 9), in court (Acts 24:12, 25).
Care must be taken not to exaggerate the place of dialogue as a means of communicating the Gospel in the NT. But at the same time, we can question the assumption that proclamation - in the sense of monologue - is the only Biblically-based or Biblically-approved means of communication.

5. Consider the personal example of Jesus

It is not certain whether Jesus actually met few or many people of other religions; after all, he rarely moved beyond the ancient borders of Israel. But based on an understanding of the demographics of the Israel of his time, there is as one scholar puts it, “every possibility that Jesus was in frequent contact with non-Jews …. In Jerusalem, Judea, and the countryside surrounding the Sea of Galilee, it would be almost impossible for him to avoid them.” It is true that these encounters as recorded in the Gospels are few in number: for example, the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7.24-30 // Matt 15.21-28), the centurion whose servant was healed (Matt 8.5-12 // Luke 7.1-10). But each of them is significant because of the way in which they do involve real dialogue and even appear to have Jesus changing his mind or, at least, stretching the traditional understanding of the possibility and place of gentiles within the growing Kingdom.

There are also teaching passages in the Gospels that seem to be relevant. There are, for example, parables in which Jesus refers to gentile participation in the Kingdom of God (Mark 4.30-32; Matthew 22.1-14; 25.31-36; Luke 11.29-32). There are also occasions on which Jesus praises the faith of pagan gentiles and urges his Jewish hearers to learn from them. Such gentile faith seems commendatory to Jesus – which is why a contemporary evangelical scholar can write of the examples in Luke 4, and that of the centurion whose servant is healed, that “the Gospel writers imply that we Christians can also learn from these pagans.” And, over against the attitude and actions of a priest and a Levite, Jesus also commends the attitude and the actions of the ‘good Samaritan’ (Luke 10) a phrase that is a virtual oxymoron in the minds of his hearers. Jesus also points out that it is “foreigner” - a Samaritan - who was the only leper among the ten who was “found to return and give praise to God” (Luke 17.18). Again, if Jesus engaged in genuine dialogue, so should his followers too.

6. Weigh the theological impact of Jesus’ example

Among the characteristics of these dialogue-based encounters the following might be noted as relevant.

(a) Jesus is surprised and affirms the faith of the gentiles in most of the stories examined – and this is in addition to stories where other gentiles exercise faith (eg the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5).
(b) An eschatological note is sounded, especially in the teaching passages that often follow the encounters. That is, the new age has begun in Jesus – and the gentile response is proof of this! For example, immediately after the healing of the centurion’s servant and Jesus’ commendation of the centurion’s faith, Jesus announces that “Many will come from the East and the West to feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matt 8.11f). The discussion with the Samaritan woman clearly sounds an eschatological note and the arrival of the Greeks in John 12 prompts Jesus to say that “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12.23). This same eschatological note is also heard in the Temple cleansing (which is in itself a highly significant challenge to Jewish nationalism) where, according to Mark 11, Jesus echoes the Isaianic hope that God’s house “shall be called a house of prayer for all nations (Isaiah 56.7). Also relevant is the parable of the great banquet (Matt 22.1-14; Luke 14.15-24).
(c) But at the same time – and in sharp contrast with most of the Jewish belief of his time – this is an eschatology without vengeance on gentiles as the further teaching of Jesus makes clear, for example in the highly significant Nazareth sermon in Luke 4.
(d) The disciples are surprised (as well as being made anxious) by the gentile response.
(e) The presence of the Kingdom is affirmed in these encounters between Jesus and the gentiles. As one writer points out, “the miracles worked by Jesus for ‘foreigners’ have the very same meaning that he gives to all of his other miracles. They mean that the Reign of God is already present and at work (cf. Mt 11.4-6; Lk 4.16-22; Mt 12.25-28).”
(f) And this leads to an even more profound point: Jesus – the fully human as well as the truly divine Son – does seem to learn from his encounters. This is the Christ who had “made himself nothing” (literally: ‘emptied’ himself (Phil 2.7)) who learns what he previously did not know in his humanity (cf Luke 2.52; and Heb 5.8).

It is not unreasonable to apply the example of Christ to our situation today: if Jesus is found to enter into genuine dialogue from which he learns, then so might his followers today.

7. Dialogue will help understanding and reduce tension

The simplest reason for entering into dialogue is the need to understand clearly why others believe and act in the ways they do, and to offer explanations in turn. This enables misunderstandings to be removed and positive understanding to be deepened. (In fact, it includes what someone has called “the art of avoiding misunderstanding.”) Division and opposition between religious communities often seem to be an unnecessary burden to add to a nation (or world) already and painfully divided by other issues. Interreligious understanding is especially important where ignorance, social isolation and prejudice can and do breed misunderstanding, fear and alienation – and dialogue can help overcome these. At the very least, the way of dialogue seems to offer a means towards a more positive coexistence in place of the self contented passivity or insecure suspicion that can be found in religious communities. No compromise is entailed in allowing and even promoting such increased understanding.

8. Common social concern is a form of dialogue

When urgent human needs are tackled together by Christians and others rather than separately this might be called a kind of ‘dialogue in action.’ Such dialogue that arises out of mutually agreed social concerns enables Christians to meet with their neighbours as national citizens and not simply as members of different religious groups. Such action adds a practical and visible dimension to a dialogue which may otherwise become both empty and unrewarding if attempts are made to confine it to discussion of religious matters alone. Whereas religion might separate, common action for social justice might unite in some way (however limited and temporary that might be). Again, no compromise is implied in allowing and even promoting such shared social concern (whether it’s helping refuges with housing or homework or any other need) - and, as agencies such as World Vision have found, people never forget those who help them in their times of need.

9. Common humanity and the ideal of community are reasons for dialogue

Another starting point for dialogue can be the common humanity that is shared by people of different faiths. Common humanity, not common religion or religious experience, is the common denominator in the meeting of people of different faiths. This is a basis for dialogue that may be of particular interest or appeal to those Christians who hesitate to pursue the inter-faith encounter because of a distaste for the seemingly inevitable interreligious disputations that so quickly arise. The Christian appeal to a common humanity has a theological as well as a pragmatic basis. For example, there are the Biblical statements about humanity made in the image of God (Genesis 1.26a, 27a) and about the unity of humankind (Acts 17.26a). The idea of a shared and inter-dependent humanity also points to the distinctly personal basis of dialogue in which meetings are not meetings between, say, Christianity and Islam, or even between representatives of Christianity and Islam but, rather, an encounter of human beings - of individual Christians and individual Muslims. Dialogue is, in fact, the movement from thinking and talking about ‘them’ to thinking and talking in some way about ‘us’. This need not imply a unity between religions; perhaps the notion of potential harmony – which is less static and abstract and implies the continuing recognition of religious differences – may be a better basis for dialogue.

10. Dialogue can become a means of mission

Some have seen dialogue as a means of implementing the Christian mission in general including evangelism. Such dialogue will, of course, raise concerns for those who might be unhappy to be seen as the targets of Christian missionary interest but Christians have always wanted to share their faith and every example of such witnessing to gentiles in the NT involves dialogue. This is not the only reason for dialogue – as this paper has been arguing. But it is significant that two of the three opening paragraphs of the ‘National Statement on Religious Diversity’ strongly affirm the past and present significance of Christianity in NZ and so people of other faith will not be surprised to meet vocal and witnessing Christians. In fact, they are usually surprised not to meet more of us – and they are invariably (in this writer’s experience) open to talking about spiritual issues and even to being prayed with. Dialogue will confirm that this is true!

11. Consider some notable personal examples

In this writer’s experience, it can also be helpful and reassuring to some Christians to consider a few actual lived-out examples of the inter-religious encounter. Two examples from the meeting of Christians and Hindus come to mind. There is, for example, Sadhu Sundar Singh (1889 1929) who is said to be “perhaps the most famous Indian Christian who has yet lived, and whose influence has been widespread and prolonged.” He combined a deeply Christ-centred faith with a quite positive and creative adaptation and use of Hindu terminology. After his dramatic conversion, his life’s work was to “offer the water of life in an Indian cup.” Books, films and videos are available about this remarkable Christian. Then there is the American missionary, E Stanley Jones (1884 1973) who spoke and wrote widely on ‘The Indian Christ’ and whose ‘Round Table’ conferences enabled an unprecedented series of meetings of people of different faiths (and some of his highly readable books are still in print). The encounter between Hinduism and Christianity in these two examples can continue to inspire and challenge. They might be seen as examples of a commitment to one’s own faith that does not require the denigrating of other faiths. In a postmodern context a narrative retelling of these lived examples of a fruitful and intentional encounter across religious boundaries may be helpfully reassuring – and even inspiring – to some. Readers may know of other examples, including some notable Kiwi stories, about missionaries and others who have live on the boundaries.

12. Loving friendship is the usual (and best) place to start

Sustained ordinary friendship is both a means of and one of many conditions for fruitful dialogue. One of the simplest means of healing suspicions between religions is to take the simple step of forming and cultivating genuine friendships. Whenever there is co-operative endeavour for the common good, or joint participation in gatherings and organizations, or respectful attendance at one another’s weddings or funerals, or a serious attempt to understand (or even study in some way) the beliefs of another, then a kind of dialogue (perhaps what might be called an ‘interior’ or silent dialogue) is occurring. In other words, the most common forms of interreligious encounter are, then, the most prosaic: the everyday meetings and the often unavoidable cultural immersions of life of which conversation itself is perhaps the most basic. Too often inter-faith discussion is confined to the meeting of what might be called the elite and articulate traditions of the faiths. At least from a Christian perspective, attention is well drawn to the potential value of the simple but important casual encounters of everyday life and the importance of preparing members of congregations to make sensitive use of them in fostering understanding and co-operation when that is possible. Moreover, to start with friendship is to start with the common humanity that all people share – and not with the religious beliefs that, if begun with, may lead to disagreement.

Another way of understanding dialogue is to see it as a fruit of the Gospel. Thoughtful friendship is a witness to the love of Christ, and an expression of Christian neighbourliness. God loves every person in the world and that includes each of our neighbours. In fact, alongside love of God, this is the next great commandment according to Jesus: that we love our neighbours as ourselves. We can’t be said to love our neighbours if we don’t talk with them – and that’s dialogue!

Conclusion

Despite some problems, there are substantial reasons why Christians should enter into dialogue with others. The reasons offered are numerous. Beginning with the Bible, we have noted the use of the ‘dialogue’ word-group and the example of the apostle Paul. There is the perhaps surprisingly positive example of Jesus towards the Gentiles he met and spoke about. And then there are the pragmatic and theological reasons that have been discussed. Not all the reasons advanced will persuade all those who hesitate to engage in dialogue but, in this writer’s experience, at least some reluctant Christians are willing to consider dialogue on the basis of the biblical examples and the substantial theological and pragmatic reasons that can be given for a principled engagement with people of other faiths – reasons that do not compromise Christian beliefs about the uniqueness and finality of Christ but, in fact, build on his example.