Evangelism, other faiths and universalism
The debate following the Ann Holmes Redding story has prompted a number of posts (see, for example here, here and here) moving the discussion about Christianity and other faiths onto different territory. In a recent post Iyov has further developed his views in relation especially to Messianic Jews.
At the same time Chris Tilling has started discussing universalism, and David Congdon has posted a listing of the last two years’ discussions on universalism.
There is some room for synergy and interaction between these two questions, and I hope to interact again with this later. For now, I simply set out some of the points that tend to approximate to what I think (and that’s as tentative as it gets).
I’m an “almost universalist”. That is, I hope God will, and believe God can bring all that he has made to a complete perfection, and looking at this renewed creation finally see that it is very good. I am unable to state this dogmatically, at present, because I see theologically, the potential that God has withdrawn his absolute will to create space for our free will.
(I also think we have to take seriously a long biblical tradition of prophetic warning which receives some of its strongest expressions in the gospel sayings of Jesus, even when that stands alongside some very theological passages affirming a perfect consummation. How those two relate is something I am hoping to be helped with in my thinking by some of the posts I noted above.)
So what does that do for any kind of evangelism, never mind the issue of evangelising people of other faiths? I think that it removes any sense of breathless urgency from it. Salvation depends on what God does in Christ, not on what the church does or I do now. Then evangelism is about sharing, in real relationships, through a common life, and in various social, charitable and political activities, a vision of what truth, human potential, and the world’s future might be shaped by what we understand to be God’s loving purposes as refracted through Christ.
When I find myself in conversation with friends of any religion or none, I do not expect my conversation to revolve around any kind of “Do you know Jesus?” question. I do expect that from time to time questions of truth, faith, meaning and ethics may arise amongst the normal talk, laughter, worry, pleasure, sorrow, food, drink, film-watching, walks, jokes, pain and aimless nonsense that form the stuff of many and varied friendships. Then I hope to speak as I see it.
There are more formal dialogues and processes than these “stuff of life” relationships. It seems to me that if we enter into these seeing others as some kind of “evangelism fodder”, not only are they dead before they start, but that we have left behind any of that real engagement with people that seems to figure so highly in Jesus’ relationships.
I think the lessons of history, whether of Christian persecution of Jews, or crusades against Islam, should chasten us in how we speak of what we believe with friends of those faiths, and in any formal dialogues or processes involving Jewish or Muslim participants.
But equally, I think we must say that our vision of life before God, as seen in and experienced through Christ, is a universal vision. I respect Iyov’s view that Jews can see Christ as God’s way of reaching out to Gentiles, and see it as a very positive way of Jewish thought engaging with Jesus. I cannot, I think, accept it as the right view for Christians, for whom Jesus remains the Messiah, an understanding reached by a Jesus-experience-shaped reading of the Jewish Scriptures. Christians are, I think, compelled to hold to the specific locus of the incarnate, crucified and risen man from Nazareth as the universal sources and revelation of salvation, by whatever mysterious means God will work that out.
I do not think that means we target Jews for proselytism. In fact, I don’t think we should target any groups. You can’t have a relationship with targets, except a deadly one. But I do think that all possibilities are open in real dialogue. That may mean a Jewish person (or an atheist, or a Muslim) will end up persuading me that my vision of life through Christ is wrong. I don’t expect it to. It may mean I will persuade them that vision of life in Christ is right, though they won’t expect that to happen either.
But if neither of those changes happen, we will still be about forging real relationships and respectful dialogues that are rooted in common humanity as much as in different visions, and what we share is bound up with who we are. And hopefully, even if neither of us changes our views on such key matters, in knowing each other we will have something better than if we had not forged these relationships. Believing what we do is part of who we are. Sharing those beliefs is part of sharing who we are. Holding back from that says as much about the shallowness of the relationship as forcing them on one another.
The almost-universalism I mentioned seems to me to not only a realistic hope, but one that enables us to actually form real relationships across traditional boundaries of faith or no-faith, that are not burdened with the guilt of “evangelistic” duty, that are not deformed by treating people as targets, but that are full of trust in the friendship of God, and so allow a fuller trust in the friendship of people.
July 4th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Doug, I can only agree with you that universalism “removes any sense of breathless urgency from” evangelism. But since the apostles did in fact show breathless urgency for evangelism of both Jews and Gentiles, even at risk to their lives, does that not imply that universalism is no part of apostolic doctrine? Of course this is also clear from their teaching and that of Jesus. The position I take, following Jesus and the apostles as I understand them, is that indeed “God has withdrawn his absolute will to create space for our free will”, and sadly very many humans use their free will to reject God’s salvation.
But I agree with you that we should build real relationships of dialogue with others, rather than artificial ones where people are seen as “evangelism fodder”. Not the least reason for that is that artificial relationships don’t work! But if out of God’s love we share openly and honestly with people of other religions or none, and pray for them, we can expect our lives and theirs to be enriched, and to see them attracted to our faith.
July 4th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
I just spotted this comment from Ruth Gledhill’s latest article, about Peter Akinola:
July 5th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Doug, thank you for a beautiful post!
July 5th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Doug,
Very nice post. My only question would be with your comment that universalism “removes any sense of breathless urgency from” evangelism. I’m not so sure that this is in fact the case, depending on what you mean by that phrase. If you simply mean that universalism keeps us from thinking that unless WE give the message and THEY do something in response, they are all doomed to hell, then I agree.
But if you mean that evangelism itself no longer has any urgency to it, then I would disagree. Why? Well, I cannot say it better than John Stackhouse in a recent article for Books&Culture. I summarized it in this post. In short, this article seeks to change, expand, and narrow our view of evangelism in important ways.
But in addition to Stackhouse’s excellent article, I think it is also important to remember than the church seeks to be the embodied witness to Jesus Christ here and now. The church is called to be the concrete realization of the eschatological kingdom of God, and that means we have work to do; the church has a mission, not one that infringes upon the unique mission of Christ to redeem humanity, but one that follows from this prior and constitutive reality. There is still a missional urgency for the church, but as Paul says, the sting of death is no more. I might add, the threat of hell has been eradicated. We now evangelize with a confident hope (that also despairs at our own sinfulness); we no longer hold the threat of hell over people’s heads. Evangelism is not lessened, but it is rather relocated and recentered.
July 5th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Just wondering: if (as suggested by D W Congdon) “the threat of hell has been eradicated”, what did Paul mean when he said he could wish himself cursed and cut-off from Christ for the sake of his fellow-Jews? What danger were they in? Was he simply thinking of their present lack of knowing God’s true blessing in Christ but not an ultimate lack? Would that have evoked the depth of feeling he displays for their welfare? I find it hard to think so.
July 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Just to clarify one thing: by “breathless urgency” I mean that “all depends on me” rush that is so fixated on what might happen that it never stops to enjoy God, or what (creation) and whom (friends) God has given to us.
July 5th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Doug, I certainly agree that we should avoid the “all depends on me” syndrome. So much of it depends on God, and if we never stop rushing around doing what we think is God’s work, we will never have that close relationship to him out of which he leads us into the work he is really calling us to. Instead of striving to reap where there is no fruit, we need God to guide us to where the harvest is plentiful. Or, to shift the metaphor a little, remember the miraculous catch of fish.