Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 105
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 1, Spring 2006
S SP
Dialogue
God’s Fairness to People of All Faiths: A Respectful Proposal to Pentecostals for Discussion Regarding World Religions
Tony Richie
Introductory Testimony and Task
“Mom,” I asked as a teenager, “how do we know that Christianity is right?” “Because the Bible tells us so,” she replied nonplussed, without interrupting her work. “What about people of other religions?” I asked. She looked up from her work now. “What about them?” “Are they all automatically going to hell?” “Well,” she said, fidgeting a bit at this point, “we just need to tell them about Jesus.” “What about the ones who die without hearing? Are they lost without a chance?” I pressed. “Oh, no,” she answered more firmly. “The Lord is not willing that any should perish. God makes sure every- body has a chance to be saved.” “Great!” I replied, really intrigued. “How does God do that?” Without any hesitation now, Mom gave it to me straight… sort of. “Oh, the Lord finds a way somehow. He has ways we don’t always understand. His thoughts are above our thoughts and his ways are above our ways. One thing we know for sure though: God is always fair to every- body.” “How do we know that, Mom?” I asked one more time. “Because the Bible tells us so,” she replied nonplussed, as she went back to her work.1
I am a third-generation Pentecostal. Both my paternal grandparents and my maternal grandmother were baptized in the Holy Spirit before I was born, as were my own parents. My maternal grandfather followed later. My father has been a Pentecostal preacher from the time I was barely a year old until the time of this writing forty-five years later. I have been a Pentecostal preacher, pastor, and teacher for a quarter of a century myself. I find that I have an undiminished desire to be faithful to my Pentecostal experience and heritage.
1
This true-life personal testimony from my own youth illustrates for me what I have since found to be a common attitude among many grassroots Pentecostals regarding other religions: an optimistic ambiguity.
© 2006 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden pp. 105–119
1
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 106
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 1, Spring 2006
I also sincerely believe Pentecostals need to move beyond rehashing our past to readying ourselves for the present and the future. I tend to process and apply these twin impulses according to a dialectical schema of continuity and creativity. For me Pentecostal continuity and creativity in this context signify a bold attempt to build faithfully, on the base of our theology and spirituality, a brave but not brash faith and practice ade- quately addressing the existential needs of the day but keeps an eye on the days to come as well.2 The following represents an attempt to apply this rationale in one important area.
An area of contemporary life that is now much more than a subject of idle curiosity for the young concerns our understanding of other religions and interacting with their adherents. According to some scholars, America has become the most religiously diverse nation in the world.3 When I was invited by the Society for Pentecostal Theology (SPS) to serve as a repre- sentative (with Amos Yong) on the Interfaith Relations Commission (IRC) of the National Council of Churches (NCC), I was thrilled at the oppor- tunity to work hands on, in depth, with an ecumenical group of Christians, and in dialogue with adherents of other religions. Here is an opportunity to address one of the most pressing needs in our contemporary world and to offer unique contributions from our Pentecostal perspective on rela- tions among religions.
Almost immediately the lack of adequate attention by Pentecostals to this topic of relations among the religions became apparent. I find myself asking questions again. Are American Pentecostals, acclaimed for our mis- sionary ability, prepared to deal with the developing diversity of religions right on our doorsteps? Can we do so in a manner faithful to our roots in Scripture and our heritage as a historical movement?4 What do mem- bers of the SPS really think about this serious subject, anyway? What about other Pentecostals? What about our pastors and members on the
2
Could Paul Tillich’s description of progress as a maturing of existing potentiality coupled with a new moment of fresh opportunity, a kairos time, be profitably applied by Pentecostals? Cf. “The Decline and Validity of the Idea of Progress,” in The Future of Religions (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 64–79, esp. 75–79. Cf. Hans Küng, in Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View (New York: Anchor Books, 1990), on a “double movement” involving “centripetal” or “back to the sources” and “centrifugal” or “out to open sea” orientations.
3
Diana Eck, in A New Religious America: How a “Christian Country” Has Become the World’s Most Religiously Diverse Nation (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001). Quoted in James L. Fredericks, Buddhists and Christians: Through Comparative Theology to Solidarity (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2004), x.
4
My own view is generally set forth in “‘The Unity of the Spirit’: Are Pentecostals Inherently Ecumenicists and Inclusivists?” presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the
106
2
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 107
God’s Fairness to People of All Faiths
local church level? I wish to invite dialogue from my fellow Pentecostals regarding world religions. Let us think and talk—and pray—and see where the Spirit leads us.
A Host of Issues
A discussion of world religions is not really a single subject but a com- plex of important interrelated issues. Several significant subjects imme- diately become prominent in any serious discussion regarding religions. Included among them are our theology proper (doctrine of God), Christology, and pneumatology; also important is our doctrine of revelation, as well as our ecclesiology, anthropology, soteriology, and missiology. Our phi- losophy of ethics or morality is vital to the discussion, and prayer and worship are also intimately involved. Our understanding of the role of culture in religion is important too. Even our eschatology is intertwined with our approach to the religions.
Complexity Comes with the Religions Territory
Understandably, the way we view the Ultimate Reality is of major importance among the religions. Is the Ultimate Reality or the Really Real that Christians call God impersonal or personal, transcendent or immanent, or both? Is belief in that Ultimate Reality monotheistic or polytheistic, or, if monotheistic, does that insist on radical unity or allow for some diversity? Again, is Jesus Christ human or divine—or both? Is he the unique and absolute universal savior or one savior among others? And where does our answer on Christ lead us in evaluating or appraising the Buddha or Mohammed? Does either or both of them have something inspired to share? So, what about revelation, especially scriptural revela- tion? Is the Bible exclusively the only inspired Word of God? Or is it the fullest and most copious revelation of God’s Word? If so, then what sta- tus do we attribute to the Qur’an or the Upanishads? Indeed, what about natural or general revelation in creation?
Of course we need to ask about salvation! Is salvation the exclusive right of one religion, or shared in some sense by others? Are other reli- gions even interested in the Christian idea of salvation? Are there, then, alternate experiences of variable versions of “salvation”? How does this
Society for Pentecostal Theology (Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA: March 10–12, 2005). I answer in the affirmative.
107
3
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 108
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 1, Spring 2006
issue affect our approach to evangelism and missions? One could con- tinue to go down the list, but that is not necessary. That the subject of world religions is characterized by extreme complexity will not be con- tested by too many.
In addition to the inescapable complexity of the subject, I suspect that starting with these “in-house” issues further complicates efforts to examine and explore relations between Christians and other religions from an un- biased viewpoint. An unfortunate but perhaps not uncommon example of reactionary response to perceived undesirable outcomes that in turn influence attitudes toward the religions is that of Tite Tiénou.5 This evangelical shows a commendable commitment to evangelism and missions, and he shares a truly touching testimony about the conversion of his parents in an African village through the ministry of missionaries. But Tiénou incor- rectly assumes that a Christian inclusivist approach to religions is syn- onymous with pluralism and syncretism,6 and then on the basis of that somewhat confused consideration he rejects it outright as inherently anti- thetical powerful proclamation of the gospel.7 Such an approach does not at all deal directly with the dilemma of religions. Herein a secondary issue has been allowed to cloud the context of discussion. Completely aside from the fact that such reasoning is an altogether inappropriate a priori rejection of a concept based on an already implicit rejection of its (sup- posed) consequences, inclusivism is, in point of fact, entirely consistent with the missionary mandate of the Church of Jesus Christ so inseparable from evangelical and Pentecostal identity (as the career of evangelistic inclusivist John Wesley amply illustrates).
5
“Does the World Really Need to Hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ?” This We Believe: The Good News of Jesus Christ for the World, ed. John N. Akers, John H. Armstrong, and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 175–85.
6
More correctly, ‘inclusivism’ describes a christocentric and pneumatic openness regarding the present state and eternal fate of the unevangelized or adherents of other reli- gions. By contrast, ‘exclusivism’ or ‘restrictivism’ reflects a more closed attitude, positing that a conscious personal response to the preached gospel is not only normative but actu- ally necessary, and ‘pluralism,’ on the other end of the spectrum, essentially equates all religions while denying superiority to any. In all fairness, a great deal of ambiguity and overlap often exist among these broad categories. See Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, eds., Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), and John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992).
7
Tiénou’s editors tend to set him up for such a misunderstanding. In the “Introduction” they explain incorrectly that, in the inclusivist view, sincere adherents of other religions “do not need to hear the Gospel or call upon Jesus by name” (14). By way of contrast, John Wesley adamantly insists that such people enjoy inestimable advantage from authen- tically hearing the gospel. See Tony Richie, “John Wesley and Mohammed: A Contemporary Inquiry Concerning Islam”, Asbury Theological Journal 58:2 (Fall 2003), 79–99.
108
4
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 109
God’s Fairness to People of All Faiths
Simplicity May Help Clear the Terrain for Talk on Religions
My suggestion, however, is that right from the start, right at the point of departure or rather at the beginning of dialogue, we may need des- perately to simplify.8 While all of the above issues are important, most of them, I believe, are not really the central concern or not the primary issue at stake; in fact, I suspect many of them become quite secondary in com- parison to one overarching area. I say this not because any one of them is negligible or negotiable from the standpoint of dogmatic faith,9 but rather because I think these are discussions we enter into after (or if) we begin dialogue; however, none of these doctrines either justifies entering into such dialogue in the first place or establishes a foundation for dia- logue. In my own mind, only one doctrine does this, and it is that to which I turn now.
The Foremost Issue
The first and foremost issue for me personally when discussing world religions happens to be the character of God.10 I ask myself if God is fair. To define, describe, and defend what I mean by this possibly startling statement, I will draw from one of the most significant shaping sources in the origin and ongoing development of the Pentecostal Movement, John Wesley.11 Often I find that Wesley offers contemporary Pentecostals sound suggestions for our current situations.12 Wesley’s preeminent position as
8
Küng argues that “Peace among the religions is the prerequisite for peace among the nations,” Theology for the Third Millennium, 209 (italics original). Given the temporal and political upheaval of our age, that fact might seem a sufficient motivation for con- fronting the issue of religions. Add the eternal and spiritual wellbeing of humanity to the scenario and the motivation becomes mandatory.
9
In this list are several definitely non-negligible and nonnegotiable issues for my per- sonal faith. For example, I believe Jesus Christ is the universal and absolute Savior and Lord, and that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God.
10
Scott R. Burson and Jerry L. Walls argue that “what is at stake with the issue of human freedom and predestination” is “nothing less than God’s character, human significance and a noncontradictory vision of reality.” C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer: Lessons for a New Century from the Most Influential Apologists of Our Time (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 63. I propose that on the religions we have precisely the same kind of problem.
11
See Laurence W. Wood, The Meaning of Pentecost in Early Methodism: Rediscovering John Fletcher as John Wesley’s Vindicator and Designated Successor, Pietist and Wesleyan Studies 15 (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2002).
12
Regarding Wesley on world religions I draw on Richie, “Mr. Wesley and Mohammed.” Unfortunately, many Pentecostals and others tend to relegate Wesley’s work only to debates over entire sanctification and Christian perfection. Pentecostal appropriation of Wesley
109
5
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 110
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 1, Spring 2006
a major mentor and pioneer figure for the contemporary Pentecostal Movement makes him an especially appropriate example of how Pentecostals might approach issues regarding the religions today.
Father Abraham and God’s Fairness
Before turning to this grandfather of Pentecostal faith, however, I would go further back, to the father of Christian faith and, indeed, of modern monotheistic faith in general, Abraham, because he also thought and even spoke the same question that I have in mind. When Abraham learned that the Lord planned to execute judgment on the heathen populace of Sodom and Gomorrah, including his own nephew Lot and his family, he inter- ceded with God for its inhabitants (Gen 18:16–33). John E. Hartley argues that Abraham had a spiritual and moral obligation to intercede in their behalf that even extended to the point of confronting God on the basis of God’s own character.13 Abraham boldly braces God: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” And then he declares even more dramatically, “Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (vv. 23, 25). The Lord’s patient and positive response to Abraham’s petition teaches that “appealing to God’s essential nature and the funda- mental way he rules” is appropriate for us and acceptable to God then and now.14 Furthermore, I heartily agree with Hartley that this incident indicates the universality of God’s rule and that “he is concerned with and involved in the affairs of all peoples, cities, and nations.”15 An inescapable implication—that God does not automatically condemn or damn such people—is encouraging for the present religious context as well. Abraham discovered that God is indeed fair; so did Sodom and Gomorrah; so will we all.
The question that came to me as a young person first, again as an adult, and even later as a committed Christian was and is, “Is God fair?” Does God allow anyone to be eternally lost without so much as a real chance at salvation? The answer of some, that God can do anything he wants and that makes it right or fair, has never satisfied me.16 I am with Abraham on this one. I do not accept that God holds us to a higher standard than
extends far beyond those issues. See Pentecostal Wesleyan scholar Winfield H. Bevins, Rediscovering John Wesley (Cleveland, TN: Pathway, 2004).
13
New International Biblical Commentary: Genesis (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 180–84.
14
Ibid., 182.
15
Ibid., 183–84.
16
I agree that “To set Scripture against our clearest logical and moral intuitions is to
110
6
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 111
God’s Fairness to People of All Faiths
he does himself. Far be it from God! God gives everybody “a fair shake,” or a chance to choose the righteous way. I find I am also with Wesley on this one, that is, on God’s fairness to all people of faith in the world.
A Grandfather of Pentacostalism: Wesley and God’s Fairness
Wesley’s beliefs concerning the unevangelized and devout non-Christians flow out of his beliefs concerning the character of God and the nature of humankind, especially in regard to human responsibility and divine judg- ment.17 He simply cannot conceive that a good and just God would damn multitudes to everlasting punishment without as much as a chance at sal- vation. Wesley espouses a strong doctrine of original sin coupled with “prevenient” or preceding grace for every human being.18 Even before conversion God graciously gives to all light to understand something of him and ability that they might freely respond (cf. John 1:9, a favorite text for Wesley on this subject). Every person, not merely those born or reared in a “Christian” country or culture, may be recipients of God’s love and mercy if they choose to respond positively.
Wesley’s optimism is grounded in his doctrine of the atonement.19 Original sin means that God’s wrath was directed toward all humankind, but the atonement of Jesus Christ means that God’s wrath toward all humankind has been averted. Christ has radically reversed the effects of the fall that occurred in the first Adam as “[i]n the fullness of time he was made Man, another common Head of mankind, a second general Parent and Representative of the whole human race.”20 All humankind was negatively affected by the fall of Adam, so all humankind is posi- tively affected by the atonement of Jesus Christ. The strength of Wesley’s special understanding of Christ’s atonement adds to the strength of his
promote fideism at best and skepticism at worst.” Burson and Walls, C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer, 267.
17
Michael Lodahl, The Story of God: Wesleyan Theology and Biblical Narrative (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1994), 227–33, and Randy L. Maddox, “Wesley and the Question of Truth or Salvation in Other Religions,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 27 (1992): 9–29.
18
Cf. Colin W. Williams, John Wesley’s Theology Today: A Study of the Wesleyan Tradition in the Light of Current Theological Dialogue (Grand Rapids: Abingdon, 1960), 39–46. Cf. Harold Lindström in Wesley and Sanctification (Wilmore, KY: Francis Asbury, 1946), 46–50.
19
Lindström, Wesley and Sanctification , 74–75, and The Complete Works of John Wesley, vol. 10 (The Wesleyan Heritage Collection; Rio, WI: Ages Software, Inc. 2002), 192–93. Cf. Thomas C. Oden in The Word of Life: Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Prince, 2001), 389–92.
20
The Complete Works of John Wesley, 5:115.
111
7
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 112
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 1, Spring 2006
understanding of the general availability of its benefits. Faith in Jesus Christ expressed in a life of obedient love is nonetheless the essential ele- ment of justification before God in the Christian sense.21 Wesley, basi- cally because of his commitment to the character of God as impeccably fair and just, is simply unwilling to eliminate, from everything God’s grace has to offer, anyone who has not had the opportunity to know and believe in Christ.
Yet, John Wesley never diluted his dedication to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the necessity of Christian faith. He maintained that God’s providential concern and care extend to all peoples but in differing degrees of expression. He therefore quotes with approval “a pious writer” who outlined a “three-fold circle of providence.”22 He contended for a “super- intending providence”23 over the whole of humanity, including not only Christians but Jews, Muslims, and even heathens. The loving concern and compassion of God extends to all. Wesley is compelled to conclude: “And so we may say, Is he the God of the Christians, and not of the Mahometans and Heathens? Yea, doubtless of the Mahometans and Heathens also. His love is not confined.”24 According to this scheme, the “outermost circle” of divine providence includes heathens, Muslims, and Jews; the “interior circle” includes the visible church; and the “inmost circle” includes the invisible church or all true Christians.25 Wesley’s perspective on providence enabled him to affirm simultaneously God’s genuine activity among non- Christians and God’s special activity in Christians. A compelling force behind Wesley’s inclusive faith seems to have been his firm commitment to the character of the God, who is always fair to everyone. Though such a view was not popular in his day, Wesley fought for it anyway, whether in struggles between Calvinists and Arminians or between exclusivists and inclusivists—which often amounts to the same “fight.”26
21
Ibid., 5:120–21. Cf. Lindström, Wesley and Sanctification, 58–59, and Oden, Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology, 3:81, 85 ff., 108 ff.
22
The Complete Works of John Wesley, 6:340–41. Interestingly, Irenaeus in Against Heresies also speaks of “certain of the Gentiles” who call God “Father,” who “from the beginning, according to their capacity… both feared and loved God,” and lived accord- ing to “moral discipline” in a context of divine providence. Ante Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 1:459 and 494.
23
The Complete Works of John Wesley, 6:340–41.
24
Ibid., 6:340–41. As biblical support Wesley quotes Psalm 145:9.
25
Ibid., 6:345. Original italics.
26
See Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). Understandably, Pinnock’s move from Calvinism toward Arminianism has been mirrored in his move from exclusivism to inclusivism. Calvinist Jonathan Edwards, however, may be something of an exception. See
112
8
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 113
God’s Fairness to People of All Faiths
In addition to all the issues mentioned above, other behind-the-scenes issues also arise that are dangerous or perhaps even deadly to Pentecostal development regarding world religions. A few of these stumbling blocks may now be identified and addressed.
Ghost Issues
I have observed that certain issues often seem to lurk shadowlike behind the scenes when religions are discussed, but they nonetheless sometimes have tremendous power to cripple or kill the entire dialogical process. While scholars, it is to be hoped, are less prone to such prejudices, they do unfortunately exist among congregational laity and denominational administration. A few such issues might include various introverted visions of sectarianism, nationalism, or even racism. The fear factor ought to be considered. I am certainly not suggesting, either explicitly or implicitly, that all or even any of those who may disagree with my own inclusivistic stance do so because of these frightening factors. Rather, I simply wish to weigh the possible problems such prejudicial factors might force upon the discussion attempting to get underway. As is so often and so truly said, “Forewarned is forearmed!”
Sectarianism
Sectarianism is an old adversary in religion. Abraham made one of the worst mistakes of his spiritual career in assuming that another group of people associated with Abimelech would be obviously without any fear of God (Gen 20). Jesus roundly rebuked two of his disciples for their antagonistic attitude toward the Samaritans. History is replete with reli- gious wars derived, for the most part, from sectarianism.27 By sectarianism I mean an intrinsic animosity to other faiths simply because they are other; I do not mean to vilify loyalty to one’s own religious faith. Some mis- guidedly assume that any appreciation of another religion is somehow a basic betrayal or at least a lessening of their own. If I admire Buddhist compassion or Muslim discipline, it does not imply that I no longer affirm Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. Of course, sectarianism may be born out of a spirit of religious rivalry. If religion is considered a competitive
Gerald R. McDermott, Can Evangelicals Learn From World Religions: Jesus, Revelation and Religious Traditions (Downers’ Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 96–104.
27
John Wesley actually used this fact as proof of the universal reality of original sin. The Complete Works of John Wesley, 9:238–41.
113
9
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 114
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 1, Spring 2006
race to see which can win the most first, then no sort of cooperation or consideration among the rivals can ever be deemed practical. On the other hand, if true religion is love of God and neighbor, including love of “ene- mies,” then perhaps even relations with so-called rivals should reflect that reality (Matt 5:43–45).28
A fairly mild example of sectarian sleight of hand can be seen in Daniel Strange’s critique of Charismatic Baptist theologian Clark Pinnock’s reli- gious inclusivism.29 According to Strange, Pinnock’s use of Catholic sources such as theologian Karl Rahner or Vatican II documents dis- qualifies him from wearing the label “evangelical.” That approach is no longer valid. Fortunately we are in an age when a flurry of evangelical and Catholic interaction is occurring.30 Some Protestants might even argue that today, at long last, the thrust of the Reformation is being realized in a fresh and vital way in actual partnership with Catholics.31 Many Catholics consider themselves evangelical32 and some are Pentecostal or Charismatic as well.33 Pope John Paul II has continued the Second Vatican Council’s emphasis on openness to religions without compromising commitment to the uniqueness of Christianity.34 For Pentecostals to dismiss Pinnock’s inclusivism or avoid developing our own theology of religions because of Catholic concurrence would be shameful sectarianism. In addition to cutting-edge Charismatic Clark Pinnock, solidly Pentecostal scholars like Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen and Amos Yong are also pushing Pentecostals to
28
I was pleased to discover that common controlling motifs for Christian interaction with other religions expressed on the IRC are love of neighbor and showing hospitality (cf. Rom 12:13; 1 Ti 3:2; Tit 1:8).
29
“Presence, Prevenience, or Providence: Deciphering the Conundrum of Pinnock’s Pnuematological Inclusivism,” in Reconstructing Theology: A Critical Assessment of the Theology of Clark Pinnock, ed. Tony Gray and Christopher Sinkinson (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2000), 220–58 (e.g., 56–58).
30
Cf. Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, ed. Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus (Dallas: Word, 1995).
31
E.g., Mark A. Noll and Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over? An Evangelical Assessment of Contemporary Roman Catholicism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).
32
Cf. Hans Küng, Theology for the Third Millennium, 77–84.
33
Cf. Ralph Del Colle, “Spirit Baptism: A Catholic Perspective,” in Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: Five Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville: Broadman, 2004), 241–79. See also Ralph Del Colle, “Aesthetics and Pathos in the Vision of God,” Pentecostal Theology 26, no. 1 (Fall 2004): 99–117, and Tony Lee Richie, “‘The Unity of the Spirit’: Are Pentecostals Inherently Ecumenicists and Inclusivists?”, presented during the 34th Annual Meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Theology (Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, March 10–12, 2005). SPS also has a regular pre-confer- ence Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue session.
34
John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (ed. Vittorio Messori; New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), 77–100.
114
10
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 115
God’s Fairness to People of All Faiths
advance an articulate theology of religions.35 Should not we respond with energy and quality to this challenge as to others?
Nationalism
Nationalism, in this context, refers to an assumption that some countries are “Christian” while others may be “Muslim” or “Hindu” or some other religion, coupled with a distorted sense of patriotism that implies that any positive assessment or interaction with non-Christians religions is some- how a mark of disloyalty to “God and country.” The seed of this same idea was used against Christians at Ephesus in Acts (19:23–41). As the biblical example indicates, many varied factors (including prosperity as much as piety!) can become involved in this indiscriminate and entangled mingling and merging of religion and state. Even aside from the fact that linking one’s faith in God to politics may be dangerous and even poten- tially idolatrous, and also aside from the all-too-obvious fact that no country really fulfills the ideal of any religion, and furthermore, aside from the fact that the religious populace of political entities is a mixed group of various majorities and minorities rather than a monolithic set, we might also argue that our loyalty to ultimate reality and ultimate values exceeds national or political alliances characterized by temporal qualities. Relating lovingly to Jews does not mean that one agrees with everything the modern State of Israel does, any more than loving other Christians implies agreement with everything some so-called Christian European nations do. Relating lovingly to Muslims does not mean agreeing with the Taliban any more than loving Christians means agreeing with the Ku Klux Klan. Our loyalties are larger than national boundaries. Is not the Christian’s “citizenship… in heaven” (Phil 3:20)?
During a visit to the Middle East before the September 11, 2001 Islamic extremist terrorist attack on the United States, I was told by a Jordanian Christian man that people of the region are often incredulous at the way Americans always seem almost automatically to favor Israelis over
35
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen: An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical, and Contemporary Perspectives (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), and Trinity and Religious Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology of Religions (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004); Amos Yong: “‘Not Knowing Where the Spirit Blows’ . . .: On Envisioning a Pentecostal-Charismatic Theology of Religions,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14 (April 1999): 81–112; Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal- Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); and Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003).
115
11
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 116
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 1, Spring 2006
Palestinians. Apparently for many of them U.S. involvement in the com- plex conflicts between Jews and Muslims in Israel-Palestine had come to be mostly a matter of party politics—along nationalist lines. How many Americans see it the same way from another direction? Once the reli- gious faith and values of any people begin to be totally identified with the political aims or agenda of a certain nation or group, then real reli- gious faith and values will be trampled in the dirt—and sprinkled with blood. That is how Nazism breeds, how terrorism succeeds. Terrorism is an extreme example of how dangerous the mix of religion and politics can become. An incautious convergence of religion and politics has poten- tial for enormous violence.36 And that is true not only for Islam but for the ancient paganism of the Roman Caesars against the cult of the Christians, for later Christian inquisitors infuriated against heretics (whether real or imagined), for Hinduism threatened by the breakdown of the caste sys- tem as multitudes of “untouchables” convert to Christianity. It is true for any religion when that religion is wed to political nationalism. Even if violence does not always immediately erupt from the volcano of religious nationalism, its rumblings of isolationism carry within them an anger that can always end in violence. Mutual understanding and appreciation among religions that transcend the petty politics of nations at war—whether mil- itarily, economically, culturally, or ideologically—are absolutely essential for the survival of the human species and the successful fulfillment of the divine purpose for the human race.
Racism
Religious interaction may be affected by racism when the unspoken impression is that religions are mostly a matter of race. Religion mixed with racism was included in the emotional innuendo that a Samaritan woman hurled at Jesus at Jacob’s well (John 4:19–20). In such a scenario Indians are Hindu, Asians are Buddhist, Arabs are Islamic, and Anglos are Christian. Again, aside from the fact that this does not really reflect reality (e.g., Asia and Africa are currently experiencing tremendous Christian revival),37
36
Cf. John L. Esposito, Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000); and Christopher Catherwood, Why the Nations Rage: Killing in the Name of God (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002).
37
See Lamin Sanneh, Whose Religion is Christianity? The Gospel beyond the West (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003).
116
12
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 117
God’s Fairness to People of All Faiths
certainly all authentically religious people would argue that their religion is not simply an expression of racial identity. Those who allow such an assumption to affect their attitude toward other religions, however, may be tempted to express spiritual solidarity with their own racial heritage by denigrating certain religious traditions or at least denying the value of dialogue. Christians need to expand our horizons regarding religions. Are not the people of God an all-embracing and encompassing reality (Eph 3:14)?
At a February 2005 meeting of the IRC with CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) we were told by an American Muslim of Arabic descent about the difficult situation in which many of these people live every day because of the war of terrorists on America and the American war on terror. To illustrate, the young man told of picking up a newspaper one day in a major Florida city to find an Arab American, complete with a turban, depicted pejoratively in a cartoon about a truck-driving terrorist carrying a bomb. He thought, “I look like this man!” On the one hand, many Muslims from other countries are suspicious of American Muslims because they are loyal Americans. On the other hand, many Americans are suspicious of American Muslims because they are loyal Muslims. That is a form of religious racism! An African American Christian lady minister present when he spoke assured him that she understood his predicament all too well.
As a third-generation Pentecostal Christian I still remember being teased and taunted as a boy at school for my family’s faith. We “Holiness” kids did not dress like the other children; we did not go to the same places they went or act they acted. In short, we were not like them. That invited, no, it incited, animosity. I also remember hearing the war stories told by older members of my family of worse ostracism and real opposition against my grandfather, my father, and my uncle because they were “holy rollers” and “tongue talkers.” Now that we have the admittedly dubious honor of having become a respectable religion, will we Pentecostals return the favor to other faiths? Will we allow some latent prejudice, whether sectarianism, nationalism, racism, or some other “ism,” to color and control our own relations with other religions? Lord, may the Pentecostal faith break the family cycle of abuse! Amen.
All of these “ghost issues” have one thing in common (aside from their shadowlike existence behind the scenes): they promote an “us against them” perception of religions. An “us and them together” approach might more likely be mutually beneficial. In other words, various competitive, combative, or conflictive models of relations between religions perhaps
117
13
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 118
Pentecostal Theology, Volume 28, No. 1, Spring 2006
should be replaced with a cooperative model. Perhaps the main problem I have with the above-mentioned issues is that they all seem to limit the Lord in some way or another. They make God lord of this sect or that, of this nation or that, of this race or that, and so on. Do we need a larger understanding or at least appreciation of divine lordship? Scripture says, “The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he had made” (Ps 145:9). That does not sound to me like a small culturally conditioned and controlled God. A global multicultural understanding of God and of reli- gion is called for today.38 Are we not convinced that our ultimate loyalty to the Kingdom of God trumps less important cultural considerations (Matt 6:33)?
Concluding Invitation to Discussion
As is perhaps clear by now, I think we Pentecostals need to talk more among ourselves about world religions. We need to begin the hard work of doing theology of religions together. The NCC has invited representa- tives from SPS to participate in the IRC, an interdenominational Christian group that actively engages members of non-Christian religions, an invi- tation we appreciate and accept.39 To best represent SPS on the world religions stage seems to require more discussion among ourselves. Now I think it appropriate to ask: What would other Pentecostals think of the preceding? What is needed now is an increased involvement in devel- oping our understanding of religious diversity today. How can we pro- ceed together? What is wrong with this picture? What is right? What other honest options do we have, if any? I have suggested that the character of God is at stake in our concept of the divine attitude and actions toward the unevangelized and toward adherents of other religions. I have gone even further than that, suggesting that God’s character may be the very primary consideration in our discussion of the subject of Christian rela- tions with other religions. Imagining that our good God simply does not give the vast mass of humankind the slightest chance to choose life is for me not only implausible but actually impossible. How about you? What do you think? While my mother may not have been able to argue her case
38
Along this line see The Global God: Multicultural Evangelical Views of God, ed. Aida Besancon Spencer and William David Spencer (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998, 2002).
39
I am grateful for an opportunity to work with Amos Yong in this capacity for SPS on IRC. I also thank Amos for his helpful comments on an initial draft of this paper.
118
14
Pneuma 28,1_f9_104-119II 3/16/06 4:22 PM Page 119
God’s Fairness to People of All Faiths
exegetically or theologically, I’m inclined to agree that her basic instinct as a Pentecostal Christian was accurate nonetheless: God is always fair to everybody.
I walked across the Sinai desert a number of years ago in a somewhat difficult situation. Our small group included two Israeli guides, one quite devout. I noticed that at our night camps or sometimes even during other brief stops, the devout Jew often went out alone to some nearby hill, cov- ering his head with a prayer shawl. He was also especially attentive to needs of less athletic members of our party. The situation became des- perate for a few of them. He and I ended up walking together ahead of our group, which was tiredly trading turns walking and riding on a couple of camels. In such times talk often turns to God. We were talking about the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) when suddenly I told the man, “Ari, I see God in your life. I don’t really understand how it works, but I see God in your life.” He seemed shocked that a Christian would say so. Then he was plainly grateful. He shared with me how painful it can be for a devout Jew to be treated disdainfully as if he is somehow a godless person. I never had really thought about it like that. Is that fair?
119
15
