« On These Commandments | Main | Winslow Lectures »
April 19, 2005
"Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out. . ." or not.
There’s a bit of internet “wisdom” I’ve read several times over the years, written by someone eager to point out the ties between Islam and the recent world history of terrorist activity. I do not recall the entire content of the article; but it concludes with a succinct summation of the author’s approach to Islam, and proposed solution to the problem of determining which Muslims might be involved in fomenting terrorism : “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.” This method of addressing the issue of interfaith relations has been employed by many traditions over the course of human history (including all three of the great monotheistic religions), and possible to justify scripturally if one is leaning on the old testament passages containing God’s instructions to decimate the enemies of Israel. The vengeance taken against the Midianites (Numbers 31), and Joshua’s annihilation of the populations of Jericho (Joshua 6:15-21) and Ai (Joshua 8:1-29) are but a few notable examples of complete devastation done at God’s behest. However, this is not the only biblical precedent for dealing with people of other faith traditions. Nor, I would suggest, is it the preferred Christian approach. In this essay, I hope to offer an alternative for consideration, and to propose a biblically-grounded theology for intentional, respectful interfaith interaction.
One of the first questions one might ask, of course, is “Why bother?” After all, John 14:6 quotes Jesus as saying “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except by me.” Why then should a committed Christian bother to spend any effort learning of other faiths, or have any but cursory contact with non-Christians? Some of the more fundamentalist sects do in fact teach precisely this approach: avoiding (and even fearing) contact with nonbelievers (except possibly for direct conversion efforts), and warning against the dangers of pagan influence. They base their strict exclusivism on the above and other passages (Acts 4:12, or 1 Tim 2:5-6), and seem to have a dread that listening to or learning about other faith traditions will jeopardize their faith, and their salvation.
However, both of these ways of dealing with other religious traditions (disregarding them on one hand, or persecuting them on the other) repudiate the teaching from the foundations of our own faith (In the first chapter of Genesis, literally, “in the beginning”) that all human beings claim a common ancestry, each and every one a precious part of God’s good creation. This is, in part, the basis of our baptismal covenant injunction to “respect the dignity of every human being.” To threaten others, or to fear or belittle their beliefs without taking the time to listen and learn and respectfully consider, seems to deny this inherent personal worth.
In Luke’s recounting of the commissioning of the twelve (Luke 9:1-6) , he instructs the disciples to shake the dust off their feet “as a testimony” against those communities that would not welcome them. Some see this also as further justification for not engaging in interfaith conversation. But this is a reaction to which Jesus encourages them, not an initial approach. First, the disciples were to enter that community, to live in households there, and in fact to be utterly dependent on local generosity while they taught and healed . This would have necessitated coming to know people with a certain intimacy, the sort fostered only by respectful exchange; it is a far cry from the “arm’s length” standard mentioned earlier.
On the other hand, acknowledging the vitality and strengths of another faith does not necessitate a move toward some sort of religious pluralism-- a stance that all religions are equally “true” paths to knowing God. While many traditions may contain some measure of truth, and awareness of the nature of God, a Christian disciple maintains that the truest expression of God is found in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and that God’s love for humanity is most clearly shown through the salvation offered there to all people. This, then, becomes the lens through which we as Christians filter all that we see and learn-- including the writings, practices and beliefs of other religious traditions. As Clooney notes,
. . . a Christian must always in some way “read” the world in Christ, finding its meaning only in his death and resurrection, and must in some way venture the claim that this meaning pertains to every single human being as the single, all-embracing horizon for human experience.1
In other words, we can and should hold tightly to the foundational truths of the Christian faith. “Perfect love casts out fear,” and communication and consideration does not necessitate compromise of one’s fundamental belief system.
One fine example of a better way to approach interfaith relations may be found in the retelling of Paul’s interaction with the Athenians, in Acts 17:16-34. In this pericope, Paul begins his address to the local crowd by showing he has spent some time learning about the community, about their beliefs and practices and culture. Far from denigrating pagan religion and rituals, he acknowledges the virtue he finds there. Scripture says he “reasoned with them.” He does not burst forth with critical commentary (at least, not this time!), but establishes common ground with the “unknown god” he finds them worshipping. Further, he illuminates his teachings about God, and Jesus, by quoting their own poets and writers, as well as the Hebrew scriptures of his own tradition. He cares about them enough to learn from and about them; and then he offers respectful acknowledgment of their religious traditions, without compromising integrity of his own beliefs. In this way, he exhibits the strength of Christianity’s truth in all its fullness, without denying the possibility for virtue in the local tradition.
This is a fine example of the way we can live into the two imperatives of our faith: the Great Commandment (Luke 10:27), and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). This passage shows Paul loving God and neighbor, caring for those around them and treating them and their religion with due regard. At the same time, he is secure in his own faith-- able to communicate the gospel message, without casting aspersions upon pagan practices (however much they may have disturbed him!).
Therefore, I would maintain that it is incumbent upon Christians to walk a middle path between maintaining strict exclusivism and validating amorphous pluralism. Tt is acceptable to acknowledge the good in other religious traditions. They are not inherently and wholly wrong, to be ignored or persecuted, as some might claim. Indeed, some of their wisdom may be worth knowing. However, If Jesus is indeed "the Way, truth, life," then truth and life found elsewhere, even if incomplete, will reflect and dovetail with Christian teaching. And being willing to hear that truth, that life, is not only an acceptable option, but is an imperative for one who intends to live into Jesus’ call to discipleship.
Posted by Jane Schmoetzer at April 19, 2005 05:00 PM
Comments
I like this; of course, I'm not responsible for grading it. It puts forth a calm and reasonable approach to fundamental idolatry. The problem though, is that only reasonable people will recognize and use this approach.
My question/problem though, is this: How do we get radically fundamental religious zealots to walk that middle ground? I don't have an answer for that, because it's much easier to ask it than provide answers.
Maybe if we worked on being Christians, instead of staking our whole lives on being "right," we wouldn't have this problem. Gawd, I don't know.
Did someone say I could do this job?? Who said I could do this job?? The service continues on page 358 . . .
Posted by: Todd Young at April 25, 2005 10:33 PM
I'm not sure we can "get" anyone to do anything. Like Paul, we can only reason, and try to persuade; attempt to live out this understanding of discipleship. And like Paul experienced, some will listen, while others will not.
The catch is that we do need to be about the business of reasoning and persuading; generally trying to behave in the manner to which we would like "fundamental religious zealots" to become accustomed. In the terms my bishop uses, we need to try to be bridge builders, not bridge burners.
Of course, the same could be said about the various camps (liberal vs. conservative, AngloCatholic vs. Evangelical, etc.) even in our own denomination, let alone ranging farther afield. And that, my brother, is where your last suggestion comes into play.
God give us ears to hear. . .
Posted by: Jane Schmoetzer at May 2, 2005 07:39 PM
First off, I particularly enjoyed your brief. It gave me a fresh insight into a topic with which I seem to constantly struggle. In my personal struggles with the question of how to interact with persons of other faith (which has been primarily academic as opposed to entailing real-life interaction), I have tended to arrive at a similar position as the one you state in your concluding paragraph. Your thoughts helped me more fully articulate my own position.
I also agree with your response to Todd's comment that I don't think we can get anybody to do anything -- despite the fact that our human tendency is to try to convice others that our way is right. I think we can learn a lot about how to deal with the various camps from Paul and his dealings with the Athenians. This was a clear example of being open to observing what's going on with others and then responding from within their context. It also seems clear to me that Paul was not so much trying to persuade the Athenians, but teaching by example. If anything, I feel that is how we are called to respond. Trying to argue and persuade only serves to alienate. Truly living the faith we believe provides an example. That example serves as an unpressured, nonjudgmental invitation to walk with us. That can at least provide an opening for conversation.
Posted by: Michael F at May 10, 2005 04:10 PM