Evangelizing persons of other faiths, or even committed atheists, agnostics, or freethinkers, is tricky business in our pluralistic and increasingly politicized religious landscape. In Western cultures where tolerance is preeminent among public virtues, such efforts are generally met with scorn, chastisement, and much journalistic gnashing of teeth. In other parts of the world, interfaith gospelers are subject to far worse than a tongue-lashing from the cultural gatekeepers. Such activity may win them spots in jail, or cost them and their families their livelihood, if not their lives.

Recently we have dipped our editorial toes into the chaotic waters of interfaith relations, whether they take the form of a dialog, as touched on in Richard Mouw's piece, or conversion-seeking proclamation, as argued for in Stan Guthrie's recent editorial on evangelizing the Jews. Having read both pieces, it's clear that Mouw shares the evangelistic imperative born of love highlighted by Guthrie, and that Guthrie shares Mouw's firm belief that whatever the form of interfaith communication, it should be marked by "convicted civility," a term Mouw borrows from venerable church historian and cultural commentator Martin Marty.

With regard to the issue of evangelizing the Jews, I'm also pleased that in response to the World Evangelical Alliance's recent statement that ran in The New York Times, "The Gospel and the Jewish People: An Evangelical Statement," we've decided to host an exchange between Stan Guthrie and Rabbi Yehiel E. Poupko, Judaic Scholar at the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, on the very topic of Christian Evangelism and Judaism. Outside of this exchange, WEA's ad has generated very little public comment, except for this critical response from the Anti-Defamation League, and an angry article in The Jerusalem Post.

Yet the kerfuffle surrounding a recent public statement on Christian-Jewish relations from Christianity's largest global communion, namely Pope Benedict's revision of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews, has not abated. For those who have not followed the story, here's the portion of the prayer judged offensive by some:

Let us pray for the Jews. May the Lord our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men...Almighty and everlasting God, you who want all men to be saved and to reach the awareness of the truth, graciously grant that, with the fullness of peoples entering into your church, all Israel may be saved.

Several weeks on from Good Friday, the news is still abuzz today with reports of:

1) Continuing critique from those who thought the revision offensive: Agenzia Italia, AFP, Anti-Defamation League.
2) Vatican response and attempts to mend relations with Jews: Catholic World News, United Press International, Catholic News Agency, JTA, AFP, The Times, Reuters, Catholic News Service.
3) Indications of how this situation is shaping the Pope's upcoming visit to the U.S.: New York Times, Zenit, Catholic News Service.

As the world gets smaller, the challenge of interfaith relations only gets bigger, and the need of wisdom greater still...especially for those who are, by definition, gospel people.

Posted by Derek Keefe at April 4, 2008 | Comments (5)

One scholar's answer makes that question seem like a trick. It can be found in the new issue of the Atlantic Monthly, which follows the November issue of The Economist and asks the question, "Which Religion Will Win?" Inside are articles on "The Contest for Africa," which Rob Moll discussed here, "America's Evangelical Future" and "The Coming Religious Peace."

The last piece is what really caught my attention. I wondered, How could this be? How could we be primed for religious peace after a history of warfare, from David collecting the foreskins of 200 slain Philistines to the 500-year-long and mostly bloody war between Catholics and Protestants to the hatred between Sunnis and Shiites (and Kurds for that matter) preventing Iraq from creating a cohesive society?

The answer, according to scholar and scribe Alan Wolfe, is simple: None.

Consider what is occurring within the growing American evangelical movement. It has built megachurches that meet the needs of time-pressed professionals by offering such things as day-care centers, self-help groups, and networking opportunities. Its music owes more to Janis Joplin than to Johann Sebastian Bach. Its church officials learn more from business-school case studies than from theological texts. And its young people—well, as the children of parents who have gone through a born-again experience, they are not likely to be as obedient as the evangelical leader James Dobson wants them to be. Having opted to grow on secular terms, American evangelicalism is becoming less hostile to liberal ideas such as tolerance and pluralism. New efforts to take it in directions sympathetic to environmentalism and social justice are a direct result of the maturing of the faith, which followed from earlier decisions to make the movement more appealing to large numbers of Americans, especially the young.

Does the pattern hold outside America? After all, it is often said that the promulgation of secular values and lifestyles, one result of globalization, is prompting a reactionary religious backlash. There is some truth to this argument, but it misses the bigger picture. Most of the religious revivals we are seeing throughout the world today complement, and ultimately reinforce, secular developments; they are more likely to encourage moderation than fanaticism.

Agree or disagree with the prediction, there is logic to Wolfe's argument, one he borrows from Marx and Freud and Weber.

Wolfe writes, "When God and Mammon collide, Mammon usually wins," which is a bit too broad but often rings true. Nowhere is there more Mammon for most than in the United States, and religion has responded to the many demands placed on our lives in the pursuit of Mammon by making participation more convenient and more entertaining.

But, at the same time, the churches that are hiring the MBA-carrying applicants, the churches that are growing, are also the churches less tolerant of the tenants of secularism. Whereas the churches that are more traditional, the churches that are dying, are on the liberal end of the Christian spectrum.

If you look at a graph produced by the magazine, based on data from Pew, it's incredibly clear that the United States is anomalous for the religious devotion of its denizens.

But does this mean American religion is destined for a "bubble burst," so to speak? I don't think so. The talk of the U.S. going the way of Europe -- of empty churches and godless worldviews -- is overblown. Especially when considering the fact that right now Mammon is becoming a lot harder to come by.

This article was cross-posted at The God Blog.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at February 22, 2008 | Comments (4)

The Wheaton College student newspaper, The Record, reports today that the influential evangelical college’s president, provost, and chaplain have removed their names from a letter to Muslim leaders that has attracted criticism in some quarters.

“Loving God and Neighbor Together” was published in the November 18, 2007, New York Times as a response to an October statement from 138 Muslim scholars and clerics calling for interfaith cooperation. Wheaton College president Duane Litfin and provost Stanton Jones were among the signatories, along with pastors Rick Warren and Bill Hybels, National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson, Youth With a Mission chairman Lynn Green, Frontiers mission founder Greg Livingstone, theologians Miroslav Volf and John Stott, and Christianity Today Media Group editor-in-chief David Neff.

“I signed the statement because I am committed to the business of peace-making and neighbor-love,” Litfin wrote in The Record. “I did not savor the document’s unnuanced apology section, but swallowed that in order to be a part of reaching out a hand to these Muslim leaders who had courageously taken the initiative. Though the statement was not written in the way I would have written it, it seemed to me that I could sign it without compromising any of my Christian convictions.”

But in the last month, the statement has been sharply criticized by several other evangelical leaders, including Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler, pastor John Piper, and Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink newsletter.

(A Christianity Today news report on the statement and its critics appears in the March issue of the magazine; we’ll post it online shortly.)

Such critiques, Litfin said, prompted him to rethink his signature. “[O]n this occasion my eagerness to support the statement’s strengths caused me to move too quickly,” he wrote. Rereading the statement, he says, he found it was

not carefully enough crafted to avoid encouraging that basic premise of civil religion, i.e., that we are all worshiping the same God, climbing the same mountain, just taking different paths. It appears to me that the statement could have been written so to avoid this problem while still reaching out a gracious hand to these Muslim leaders. … To speak unqualifiedly of “our common love for God,” as if the Quran's Allah and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are one and the same, and as if what it means to “love God” in these two faiths means the same thing, is to say more than I am willing to grant. I do not criticize others who do not share these qualms. But as for me, I needed to back away.

Litfin emphasized that he was not pressured or even encouraged to take his name off the statement. “No one had suggested it or even knew I was taking this step,’ he said. “It was simply a matter of conscience, combined with the fact that I had put the College on the line in a way I was no longer comfortable in defending.”

And in fact Litfin implicitly answered some critics who had argued that interfaith dialogue undercut evangelism:

As to the related question this incident raises of evangelism and inter-faith dialogue, surely the best answer is a balanced one. If we truly believe the Gospel and love our neighbor, evangelism will lie near the core of our relationships without occupying the whole of it. Our friendships with non-Christians transcend evangelism in the sense that those friendships continue even when Christ is not received. In other words, our friendship is not contingent upon that reception. But nor can any genuine friendship with non-Christians exclude an evangelistic concern. Our relationship may be in pre-evangelistic phase, or evangelistic phase, or a post-evangelistic phase, but a desire to see our friend find Christ must never disappear from the frame. If our love is genuine, we will always retain sight of our friend’s deepest need and stand ready to serve it if the opportunity arises.

Jones and Wheaton College chaplain Stephen Kellough said they agreed with Litfin’s conclusions, and similarly withdrew their names to further distance the college from the statement. Roy Oksnevad, director of Muslim Ministries at Wheaton College’s Billy Graham Center, kept his signature on the document, and told the Record, “I still agree [with the statement]. I don’t have reservations.”

Also of note in the Record this week: presidential candidate Mitt Romney had wanted to hold a rally on the campus two days before Super Tuesday, but was turned away. “Only in extraordinary circumstances do we open the college community to Sunday activities,” Jones told the student paper. “Particularly a political event at noon on Sunday is very incongruent with our religious identity.”

More articles on the Muslim statement, “A Common Word Between Us and You” and the Christian statement include:

• An early call from Fuller Seminary’s J. Dudley Woodberry for a Christian response to “A Common Word.”
• NAE president Leith Anderson on why he signed “Loving God and Neighbor Together”
• Mike Edens of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary on why he signed.
• Rick Love, International Director for Frontiers, responding to John Piper’s concerns.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 8, 2008 | Comments (15)

CT received a press release a few minutes ago from the Global Country of World Peace announcing that their leader, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi died Tuesday evening at his headquarters in the Netherlands. The New York Times and other outlets are also reporting the story tonight. The founder of the Transcendental Meditation movement, known as the Giggling Guru, was catapulted to world fame when the Beatles sought his spiritual advice at his ashram in 1968. Other celebrities followed, including Donovan, the Beach Boys, and Mia Farrow.

The Global Country of World Peace press release was headlined "Maharishi Welcomed into Heaven." That, or wherever John Lennon is right now.

That headline reminded me of another entrance into heaven--one created to welcome someone who didn't think world peace could be achieved by meditation or levitation, but who labored diligently to better the lives of the poor and to bring them to Jesus. If you haven't read "General William Booth Enters Heaven," click here to savor the robust American poet Vachel Lindsay's tribute to the founder of the Salvation Army. This is poetry to be read aloud, passionately, to the accompaniment of the bass drum, banjo, flute, and tambourine. And the music isn't "Imagine," but "Are You Washed in the Blood of the Lamb?"

Posted by David Neff at February 5, 2008 | Comments (0)

Hindu nationalists began burning churches and Christian houses in the east Indian state of Orissa on Christmas Eve. The violence continues, although today it seems to have abated somewhat.

Dozens are injured, many buildings have been destroyed, and the death toll is at 4 (three Hindus killed by police as they burned down the police station, and one Christian killed in the riots).

Compass Direct is reporting higher numbers than those confirmed by the police:

Jacob Pradhan, a Christian leader in Kandhamal district, told Compass that at least four Christians have been killed and more than 50 churches and 200 houses razed or damaged.

Telephone outages and VHP roadblocks made confirming reports “extremely difficult.”

The Associated Press reported that,

On Thursday a mob of Hindus defied a curfew and burned down the house of Radhakant Nayak, a member of India's upper house of parliament and a Christian leader in the area, Nayak told the CNN-IBN news channel.

Also, 11 churches were ransacked and burned in Kandhamal district of Orissa state, the Press Trust of India quoted unnamed police officials as saying.

Meanwhile, in the village of Brahmangaon, a group of Christians burned down several Hindu homes in an apparent retaliation for the attack on churches. Angry Hindus then burned down the village police station, complaining of a lack of protection, a local police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

At least 25 people—both Christian and Hindu—have been arrested so far, and the federal government has announced that it will send in paramilitary troops.

The perpetrators claim that they were defending a Hindu leader who heads an anti-conversion campaign; Christians in Orissa say the attacks were to prevent a Christmas Eve performance that could have led to conversions; AP says it boils down to controversy over thousands of conversions to Christianity in the past few years, “Hindu groups have long charged Christian missionaries with trying to lure the poor and those who occupy the lowest rungs of Hinduism's complex caste-system away with promises of money and jobs.”

The Orissa government has ordered a judicial probe into the attacks, in response to claims that the violence was not spontaneous but sponsored by saffron activists.

Time warns against chalking it all up to religion:

As with most communal violence in India, this latest explosion of hatred is the result not only of religious differences but of a tangled intersection of political power, communal prejudice and the injustices of Hinduism's archaic caste system.

However, in a place where religion permeates everything, it’s not helpful to try to separate religion from political power, prejudice, or the caste system—especially as the hard-line Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is gaining power. Orissa is currently governed by a BJP ally.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at December 28, 2007 | Comments (1)

One of the most startling images from the Viet Nam war was the self-immolation of Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc. On June 11, 1963, the monk burned himself to death at a busy Saigon intersection. (You can see Malcolm Brown’s famous news photo here and read part of David Halberstam’s eyewitness report for the New York Times halfway through this Wikipedia article.)

Thich Quang Duc was protesting the anti-Buddhist discrimination of Ngo Dinh Diem’s regime. But the disturbing image of his sacrifice seared itself into the brains of people around the globe. At the time, I didn’t understand the logic of self-immolation, but I was deeply moved.

Today Buddhist monks are once again taking to the streets of a South Asian nation, risking their bodies in nonviolent protest against an oppressive regime. This time the country is Myanmar (or Burma, as most Americans still refer to it).

This morning, the AP reported from Yangon (Rangoon):

Soldiers in Myanmar pounded down on dissenters Friday by swiftly breaking up street gatherings of die-hard activists, occupying key Buddhist monasteries and cutting public Internet access. The moves raised concerns that a crackdown on civilians that has killed at least 10 people this week was set to intensify.

By sealing Buddhist monasteries, the government seemed intent on clearing the streets of monks, who have spearheaded the demonstrations and are revered by most of their Myanmar countrymen. This could embolden troops to lash out harder on remaining protesters.

And in the Washington Post, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson commented on the spiritual power of the Buddhist monks’ protest.

[T]hese protests have ... shown that nonviolence need not be tame or toothless. The upside-down bowls carried by some of the monks signal that they will not accept alms from the leaders of the regime, denying them the ability to atone for bad deeds or to honor their ancestors. These chanting monks are playing spiritual hardball.

Gerson then mentioned the familiar spiritual analogs in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and the spiritual revolutions that helped to bring down Communism in Eastern Europe. “Religious dissidents have the ability not only to organize opposition to tyrants but also to shame them. Political revolutions often begin as revolutions of the spirit.”

Gerson uses the language of spirituality to describe these bold moves against evil and on behalf of freedom. It is ironic that the words spiritual and spirituality have taken on such warm, fuzzy tones in contemporary American speech. They convey the image of spiritual drifters, people who are not anchored to any strong beliefs but are constantly going with the flow as they quest for the next feel-good experience.

Maybe, as these monks face the tear gas and truncheons of the oppressor, they can help us reclaim the hard edge of spirituality in our own culture.

* * *
P.S. Buddhists aren't the only ones resisting the Myanmar government. Christians have also risked their lives in the struggle for freedom. But Christians are largely located in tribal regions away from urban centers like Yangon. For past Christianity Today coverage of tribal Christian resistance see "Burma's Almost Forgotten." And to learn how Christianity came to Burma, you can order Christian History and Biography issue 90, which tells the story of Ann and Adoniram Judson, early missionaries and Bible translators.

Posted by David Neff at September 28, 2007 | Comments (1)

Michael Glatze, former head of Young Gay America, says he's no longer interested in a "gay identity" and has been healed from homosexual desires. He also says he was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) earlier this year.

The Christian Post, a website affiliated with the World Evangelical Alliance, this week published an editorial saying that its rejoicing over the former outweighs its concern over the latter.

"The story of change should be used by believers to open the eyes of others like him and to lead them out of the homosexual lifestyle into a more godly one. And doing so is not an endorsement of the Mormon church," the publication said. "Glatze should be accepted for who he is -- not the result of Mormon conversion, but one of the latest and most prominent examples of former homosexuals who came to acknowledge homosexuality as sin and made the decision to turn away from the sinful lifestyle. And because Glatze's conversion is more likely to pull people away from homosexuality than draw people towards the Mormon church, believers should be more concerned about Glatze returning to homosexuality than him joining the Mormon church."

Ex-Gay Watch's Eugene Wagner says the Christian Post is essentially telling its readers the ends justify the means. "One wonders if ex-gay Scientologists would receive a similarly warm welcome," he writes.

Posted by Ted Olsen at July 19, 2007 | Comments (51)

While tens of thousands of kids head out to Christian camps, Camp Quest is offering an alternative for those who take their summer recreation without God. About 150 young people attend Camp Quest programs in Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, California, and Ontario, according to an article in the Chicago Tribune.

The founder, Edwin Kagin, is legal director for the group American Atheists. He said the atheist camp was founded after the Boy Scouts barred atheists and gays from leadership roles during the 1990s. "We wanted a camp not to preach there is no God," said Kagin, "but as a place where children could learn it's OK not to believe in God."

The Tribune interviewed several young campers in Ohio about their beliefs, or lack thereof. I don't think Christians have a lot to worry about. Here is a sampling:

"[Sophia] Riehemann notes that a secular perspective takes away childhood joys other kids have, such as Christmas. But that doesn't bother her. 'They have Santa Claus,' she said, 'and we have Isaac Newton.'"

Actually, Sophia, I hate to break this to you, but you have Santa Claus, and we have Isaac Newton.

Then there is Allison Page, who is described as a 9-year-old only child. Reflecting on the biblical story of Cain and Abel, Allison opines, "It just doesn't make sense. A brother wouldn't kill his brother."

Ah, the innocence of children. Just wait until you have siblings, Allison.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at June 29, 2007 | Comments (57)

One of the most frequent reader responses to David Neff's article on Knocking, the PBS documentary on Jehovah's Witnesses, is that it did not address the allegations against church officials of abuse and coverups.

It really wasn't relevant to a discussion of this particular documentary, but yes, we are aware of the cases. In fact, we covered them before the rest of the media.

And now there's a big development: silentlambs, a Jehovah's Witness-focused victims rights organization similar to the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), discovered that the Jehovah's Witnesses recently settled 16 abuse lawsuits. The organization says other abuse suits are still pending, but doesn't know how many.

One odd personal anecdote:

A couple of weeks ago, I answered a knock at the door and found two eager young evangelists. I was watching my young son at the time, and was unable to invite them in, but I let them ask their lead-in question: "Do you think that the scandals in the various churches have affected their ability to minister effectively?" (I'm paraphrasing here; knowing a bit of JW theology, it's possible--even likely--that their question may have ended in a slightly different phrase than "minister effectively" and they might have had another word for "churches".)

"I'm not sure what you mean by the scandals," I said, thinking at the time that they were from evangelical and evangelistic church down the street. (They were dressed too casually to be Mormons.)

"You know, like pedophile priests," said the woman evangelist, the only one who talked during our brief conversation.

"Well, if you mean those particular priests, then yes, of course it's going to affect their ability to minister," I said. "If you mean the churches' witness or the witness of the larger body of Christ, I guess my view is that God always works amid man's massive sinfulness, and that when Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, he was talking about the hell of sin in the church as much as he was talking about anything. There are always consequences for sin, and I think we're seeing a lot of that right now, but the church is the Body of Christ and he's bigger than these scandals."

She smiled. "Sounds like you know your Bible," she said, and handed me her literature. "Here are just some items to help you as you read your Bible and look for answers..."

It was then that I saw the Watchtower Society name on the material. I handed it back. "No thanks," I said. They smiled and thanked me for my time, and were starting to turn around when I decided it wouldn't hurt to ask my question. I was curious about whether they had actually planned to use the Jehovah's Witness abuse scandal as an evangelistic tool. If so, that would have made quite an article.

"Um, you do know that one of the biggest abuse scandals right now is in the Jehovah's Witnesses, right?" I asked. It was immediately clear from the woman's expression -- a grimace, then the smile again -- that they had not intended to use their own scandal in their pitch.

"Oh," she said, "you mean that one case where a man followed a boy into the bathroom...?"

"No, actually, not just that. Massive numbers of accusations," I said.

"Well, the difference in our church is that we kick those people out as soon as we learn about the situation," she said.

"Actually, I work for a magazine that has done some reporting on this," I said, "and the big issue for me was that people making the accusations were saying they got kicked out because they didn't have 'two or three witnesses' to the abuse."

I can't remember exactly what she replied, but she said she was sure that I wasn't quite right about that. And by now she was eager to take me up on my earlier goodbye. She had already moved a step or two back.

"Well, anyway," I said, "I'm not interested in arguing about abuse cases. That's my day job and I'm watching my son right now, happily not talking about this kind of thing. But really. You might want to think about another lead-in question."

I'm curious: Did anyone else get a JW visit lately with this opening line? Does anyone know if these opening lines come from a central office, or are they the responsibility of the individual missionaries?

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 24, 2007 | Comments (95)

Wiccans seem to feel discriminated against, despite the fact that in my local bookstore carries as many shelves of books on the subject as it has shelves for mainstream religions. But, The New York Times reports that Wiccans are afraid of even telling their families about their religious beliefs.

Among the most popular religions to have flowered since the 1960s, Wicca — a form of paganism — still faces a struggle for acceptance, experts on the religion and Wiccans themselves said. In April, Wiccans won an important victory when the Department of Veterans Affairs settled a lawsuit and agreed to add the Wiccan pentacle to a list of approved religious symbols that it will engrave on veterans’ headstones.

But Wicca in the civilian world is largely a religion in hiding. Wiccans fear losing their friends and jobs if people find out about their faith.

Interestingly, it seems that one of the fears of those who opposed children reading the Harry Potter books were well founded. "Wiccans face less backlash now than in the past. The Internet provides information about Wicca, and the popularity of the Harry Potter novels has made magic seem a force for good, scholars and Wiccans say. "

Posted by Rob Moll at May 16, 2007 | Comments (27)