Significant Others

Understanding Our Non-Christian Neighbors

Monte Cox

• Publisher: Leafwood Publishers
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780891124641
• eBook ISBN: 9780891125280
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Comparative Religion

A generation ago, most Americans had little or no contact with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or any other adherents of non- Christian religions. Now our culture is much more pluralistic. In addition to these "others, " many Westerners, disenchanted with Christianity, are more inclined than they were a generation ago to dabble in new spiritual alternatives that were not as readily available here before. Many Christians feel intimidated by these changes.Many Christians don't know how to engage their newest non- Christian neighbors in conversation, partly because they feel ignorant about the religions practiced by others. Significant Others seeks to fill this knowledge gap so readers will become more acquainted with the religious backgrounds of devout non- Christians they are meeting, as well as with the growing number of American people who claim no religious affiliation at all.Each chapter outlines the major world religions according to their significant founders or leading figures, significant beliefs and practices, significant sects and developments, and significant points of contact and points of contrast with Christian faith.

CHAPTER ONE



DOES GOD HEAR THEIR PRAYERS?

On the first day of my undergraduate World Religions class, I read to my class an excerpt from the introduction of a classic textbook first published in 1958 by the renowned comparative religion scholar Huston Smith.¹ Smith was born and raised in China before WWII, the son of Methodist missionaries. His long and deep exposure to the religions of China forced him to ask the question, “How does Heaven hear the prayers of all these God-seekers around the world” as they lift their eyes in his direction? He answers his own question by imagining that in God’s ears the chorus of prayers sounds like a great symphony in which the Buddhists play the strings, the Muslims fill the brass section, the Christians provide the percussion, and so on. I admit, I like that image. I wish I could agree with Smith’s positive appraisal. But as I read Scripture, I get the impression that to God, all these “prayers”—some of which are not prayers at all, if by “prayer” we mean a petition aimed in the direction of a Divine Being—sound not like a symphony, but more like the junior high band warming up. Their impulse to play their instruments is noble, but they, like I do, have a lot to learn.

Respectful, Informed, Persuasive

Paul’s message on Mars’ Hill (along with many other biblical stories and texts) leads me in the “junior high band” direction. Paul’s street preaching won him an invitation to speak to the prestigious philosophy club that took its name from the rocky outcropping attached to the Acropolis in Athens—the Areopagus. His presentation to them was respectful, informed, and persuasive. He meant to challenge, not just affirm, what these educated elite thought they already knew. Paul began by acknowledging their devotion: “I see that in every way you are very religious” (Acts 17:22). I don’t think he’s being sarcastic. Paul is applauding them for their spiritual interest. He then proceeds to compare their objects of worship—including the altar erected to “an Unknown God”—with the Living God revealed in Christ. Not once but twice he quotes pagan poets whom he believes support his main points. “In him we live and move and have our being,” Epimenides wrote in the original poem Paul is quoting, countering the suggestion of his fellow-Cretans that Zeus had died. “We are his offspring,” Aratus (from Paul’s home province of Cilicia) had written; the “his” once again referred to Zeus.

Those two quotations tell us at least three things. First, Paul thought it was right to repurpose pagan poetry that praised Zeus and apply it to the one true Creator God. Second, Paul did not feel compelled to slander Zeus, or Athena, or Nike, or Poseidon, or any other “deities” whose images decorated the Acropolis. I am quite certain that Paul didn’t believe in any of them. From his perspective they did not exist. But to tweak a borrowed phrase that I’ll use again in Chapter Five (on Buddhism), he did not feel like he had to “step on Zeus to lift up Christ.” Third, Paul had obviously done his homework long before he ascended Mars’ Hill that day. According to several ancient history courses, Epimenides—the one who wrote, “In him we live and move and have our being”—was the hero of an ancient story in which the city of Athens was spared worse damage from a plague that struck around 600 BC. Epimenides was invited to Athens from his native Crete by the city fathers to help them find the spiritual source of the disease that ravaged their city. It was Epimenides who speculated that, though the Greeks had prayed to all the gods of Athens, there must be an “unknown god” they had missed. And it was Epimenides who proposed that they confess their ignorance and make sacrifices to this “unknown god.” When they complied, the plague, so say the ancient accounts, ended within a week.² Paul obviously knew the story. He did not have to start at square one with that audience on Mars’ Hill. He could begin at least at square two or three. He started with what they thought they knew and attempted to lead them to Christ.

Paul’s persuasive tone is unmistakable. Of course, we can’t be sure that Paul’s entire speech is recorded in Acts 17. Luke’s account gives the impression that Paul was interrupted when he identified Christ as the one qualified to judge the world because God had raised “him from the dead” (17:31). Paul obviously was convinced that faith in Jesus was a matter of life and death. Sadly, he didn’t seem to persuade many, at least not right then and there. Luke mentions just two converts in Athens (17:34). And no “Letter to the Athenians” shows up in the collection of Paul’s epistles to churches he planted. Despite that disappointing result, Paul models for us that the right kind of engagement with religious “others” (and all others for that matter) is respectful, informed, and persuasive. Of course, Paul is not the ultimate role model. Jesus is. We imitate Paul as Paul imitated Christ, whose interactions with others were also respectful, informed, and persuasive.

Inclusive Demeanor, Exclusive Claims

One of the qualities I find most endearing about Jesus is his inclusive demeanor toward others, even as he makes exclusive claims about himself and his role. He famously (or infamously from the perspective of his critics) hung out with the “wrong people”—tax collectors (collaborators with the Romans), Samaritans (an “impure” mixed race from a Jewish perspective), women caught in adultery, and lepers (perpetually “unclean” because of that awful disfiguring illness). Simon thought Jesus’s warm response to the “sinful woman” who anointed his feet with perfume and wiped them with her hair was a sure sign that Jesus was not a prophet. “He would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner” (Luke 7:39). The problem was not that Jesus did not know this woman’s background. The problem was that Simon did not know what sort of Messiah Jesus was and is.

Simon was a Pharisee, a member of the now-infamous Jewish sect that took its name from a Hebrew word many scholars translate as “separate ones.” The Pharisees’ commitment to ritual purity as defined by the Law meant they had to limit their contact with others who were not likewise committed, even any fellow Jews they deemed too lax in their observance. Their hope was that God would reward them for their faithfulness and send the long-awaited Messiah. By that logic, God should have sent Jesus directly to Qumran by the Dead Sea or to some other community of Essenes, who were way more “separate” than the Pharisees. That ultra-conservative Jewish sect, not mentioned in the Bible, were all about maintaining ritual purity. They took multiple ritual baths each day, wore white clothes as symbols of purity, maintained a strict kosher diet, and practiced celibacy. (That last feature helps explain why there are no Essenes today.) If God had been looking for the purest of people (ritually speaking) to welcome the Messiah, the Essenes would have been good candidates, even better than the Pharisees. But Jesus was not so discriminating in his choice of companions. And for that inclusiveness, he was constantly criticized. He was not “separate” enough to suit the religious establishment.

But Jesus also made claims that seem to violate that inclusive spirit, at least from the standpoint of modern pluralistic sensibilities. What did he mean when he said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)? (We’ll unpack that line below.) Or when he declared that unless they believed in him, they would “die in [their] sins” (John 8:24)? Or when he commissioned his disciples to go and make other disciples as if eternity hung in the balance: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16)?

Exclusivists, Inclusivists, and Pluralists

Diana Eck, a professor of comparative religions at Harvard, poses this question: “Is ‘our God’ listening to the prayers of people of other faiths?” In other words, how does the God of the universe see religious difference? Eck outlines the four most common responses to that important question. First, some believe that “one religion (their own) is true and the others are false.” (This is the “exclusive” position.) God does not hear the prayers of those outside of their faith. Second, some believe that “one religion is true and other religions may be partially true.” (This is labeled “inclusivism.”) Perhaps God hears the prayers of other religious people, but they do not enjoy the same access to him that “insiders do.” A third common answer is that “all religions are true”—that is, all religions attempt to address the divine in one way or another, and all ultimately lead to the same destination. (These days the most popular label for this position is “pluralism.”) So from the pluralist’s perspective, “God” (whatever term may be used for a Supreme Being in a given religion) does hear the “prayers” (or chants or meditations) of others outside their religion, including those who would say they are directing their “prayers” at no one in particular “up there.” Finally, a fourth possible response to the question is that “no religions are true” (atheism). This view has been given new life in the last few decades by astute atheistic or agnostic best-selling authors named Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Sagan, among others. To cling to religious belief in the age of science is to them like maintaining faith in the Olympian gods. Reasonable people, they say, must park their brains to buy into religious faith.³

Those of us who follow Christ have to take all of these possible responses seriously. The fourth answer—that no religion is true—is certainly popular in our secular culture, but it is out of bounds among believers. “Exclusivist,” “Inclusivist,” and “Pluralist” have become fairly standard labels for the first three responses, so we’ll go with them.

Exclusivists

These folks believe that only their religion is true. As Jeff Foxworthy might say, “you might be a Christian exclusivist” if you believe that

1. Jesus is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine, in a way that no other character in history has ever been.
2. Salvation is found only in him.
3. The Bible is the true, unique, authoritative revelation from God.
4. Any claims incompatible with the Bible must be rejected as false.

Of course, it is possible to be more exclusive than that simple four-point outline suggests. Some Christians have longer lists. Not all Christians would agree that anyone who accepts these four propositions is, in fact, a true Christian. But if you said “Amen” to all four of those statements, you are probably an exclusivist. Because of these convictions, exclusivists work to evangelize others who are outside of Christ as if their eternal destiny is at stake.

Inclusivists

People in this category prefer Diana Eck’s second answer to the question, “Is ‘our God’ listening to the prayers of people of other faiths?” Yes, only one religion (Christianity) is true, they say, but other religions may be partially true. Inclusivists would agree with the gist of the four statements that define exclusivism but would modify them. Yes, Jesus is the Son of God, fully human and fully divine in a way that no other character in history ever has been. But other religious figures, from Buddha to Krishna, may prepare the soil in which the gospel of Jesus can be heard and understood.

Second, it is true that salvation is found in no one else but Jesus. But those who die before they learn of Jesus or who are faithful to “God” as they understand him will be saved by Jesus in the end. You should know that inclusivists also quote John 14:6: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” But they point out that Jesus does not say they must come to him before they die. The Muslim who dies a Muslim will not be surprised to find Jesus at the gates of Heaven; the Qur’an teaches that Jesus will be there. They will be surprised to learn that he is, in fact, the Son of God and not merely a prophet. But Jesus will welcome them in based on their faithfulness to what they thought they knew. In the end, in other words, they still get to the Father through Jesus (although, as we shall see in Chapter Three, Muslims do not refer to Allah as “Father”).

Fifty years ago, inclusivist Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner coined the term “anonymous Christian” to describe the faithful non-Christian “believer” who is, in Rahner’s view, a Christian and doesn’t know it.⁴ That means Rajpal, the faithful Hindu, will be accepted on Judgment Day, saved by Jesus whom Rajpal did not know in this life. Likewise, the devout Muslim will be surprised after death to learn Jesus’s true nature, but Jesus will welcome him into Heaven, “reckoning as righteousness” his Muslim faith.

So, do inclusivists feel compelled to evangelize? I know many who do so out of obedience to Jesus’s command to “make disciples of all nations.” They are more likely to evaluate more positively the religion of those they seek to evangelize, often seeing that religion as “preparation for evangelism.” That is, what Sikhs believe about the one true God may actually serve to open their minds to receive the gospel. From that perspective, Sikhism is not so much an enemy of Christian faith as the precursor to it. Could the Sikh Holy Book (Guru Granth Sahib) be to Sikhs what the Old Testament is to Gentile Christians? Exclusivists are suspicious that “inclusivism” takes the urgency out of evangelism, given the possibility (as they perceive it) that devout members of other faiths (at the very least) will be saved in the end, even if they do not know Christ in this life.

Pluralists

Those who hold pluralistic views typically do not accept the uniqueness of Christ. All major world religions, they say, have their own mediator figure or figures. Pluralist Christians (like Eck) hold Jesus in high regard, affirming the unique aspects of his life and work compared to founders of non-Christian religions, but not in a way that would suggest that belief in Jesus is necessary for a meaningful life or for eternal life after death. “Salvation,” pluralists also argue, is defined too narrowly by too many Christians as forgiveness of sin and admission into Heaven. On this point we agree. “Salvation” in the full biblical sense means more than those two wonderful things—forgiveness and eternal life. It is nothing less than the complete well-being God intends for all his creatures, a blessing that comes through reconciliation with God through Christ.

Pluralists would argue that all religions offer a path to “salvation” defined according to their own tradition. For Buddhists, the objective is to escape suffering and reach the “Nothingness” of Nirvana. The escape route would be the Buddhist equivalent to the “way of salvation.” In Hinduism, the Sanskrit word “moksha,” often translated “salvation” in English, means getting off the wheel of birth and rebirth and being absorbed into the Ultimate Reality which is a force known as “Brahman.” Neither Nirvana nor Brahman equates to Heaven, where we who are in Christ expect to experience the fullness of salvation of another kind—to live forever with God.

Third, religious pluralists would not a...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• Chapter One—Does God Hear Their Prayers?
• Chapter Two—Our Jewish Neighbors
• Chapter Three—Our Muslim Neighbors
• Chapter Four—Our Hindu Neighbors
• Chapter Five—Our Buddhist Neighbors
• Chapter Six—Our Sikh Neighbors
• Chapter Seven—Our Bahá’í Neighbors
• Chapter Eight—Our Jain Neighbors
• Chapter Nine—Our Native American Neighbors
• Chapter Ten—Our Chinese Neighbors
• Chapter Eleven—Our Shinto Neighbors
• Chapter Twelve—Bookends: What I Have Learned