By John W. Morehead.
A few years ago, I was asked to write the lead essay for a seminary journal focusing on Christian responses to new religions (or “cults” in more popular evangelical terminology). The journal includes essays by respondents, and I enjoyed reading through their reactions to my essay as they all brought different but complementary perspectives to the topic. All except one, that is. One of the respondents took issue with how I framed the Christian response by way of the biblical text. I’ve continued to reflect on the area of disagreement for a while because it’s an important one.
My colleague accused me of “cherry-picking the Bible,” and that I needed to consider the entirety of the scriptural text in addressing the topic at hand. The way he characterized my use of the Bible provides me with an opportunity to offer some general considerations on the Bible and a theology of religions before I move to some more specific considerations.
Let’s consider two general considerations. First, I take issue with the phrase “cherry-picking.” Cherry-picking usually has a negative connotation, implying that the individual engaged in the practice is only selecting what is best for their purposes, while ignoring other important aspects. An application of that label to my handling of scripture relating to new religionists, or more broadly to multifaith engagement, is neither accurate nor fair. If you want to accuse me of selectivity in my selection of biblical texts, and my hermeneutical emphasis, then I plead guilty. In fact, my critic had to offer a selective approach to Scripture in his disagreement. The reality is that everyone is selective in how they use the Bible.
I was reminded of this in a recent post by Old Testament scholar Pete Enns. This practice is not limited to contemporary evangelicals. You can see it in the pages of Scripture itself, like in the Old Testament where a narrative was written down, later another version is included in the canon, and then in the New Testament Jesus and Paul likewise handle the Hebrew scriptures selectively and creatively as the tradition was engaged in light of new challenges and questions. So, while there are times that people do interpret and use the Bible inappropriately, and engage in cherry-picking of the text, this was not the case in my use of it in relation to mission and new religions. I was indeed selective in my use of Scripture, and applying it in fresh ways to meet the challenges of new religions, but not cherry-picking.
The second general consideration is a basic hermeneutical one. My thinking has been shaped in part here by N.T. Wright in his book The New Testament and the People of God and expanded upon in his book on natural theology, History and Eschatology: Jesus and the problem of natural theology. In this book Wright argues that Jesus is the starting point for natural theology, and that love should be an essential part of the Christian way of interpreting and relating to the world.
Moving from the general to the specific I offer the following considerations on a use of the Bible and Christian praxis in relation to those in other religions.
1) Rediscover a Christological hermeneutic. The Apostle Paul handled the Old Testament in a particular way when citing it and writing what would become our New Testament. This has tremendous ramifications for Evangelicals today. Perhaps the best illustration of this comes through a consideration of Paul in Romans 15:8-10 where Paul quotes Psalm 18:41-49 and Deuteronomy 32:43. But Paul does something amazing in Romans in that he changes or at least expands the meaning in application to his context, leaving out the texts that talk about the destruction of Israel’s enemies. In so doing Paul puts forward a pattern of reinterpretation of the Bible in light of Christ. The Christological approach to Scripture should be the model through which we understand the biblical narrative, and as a result, it should also challenge our assumptions. As Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola wrote in their volume Jesus: A Theography, “Let the Bible tell its own story to you.” When this happens, a Christological approach to interpreting Scripture transforms our confrontational ways of engaging other religions into the way of peace.
2) Retrieve the neglected example of Jesus. I will have more to say on this in the next post but let’s consider a few things. It is curious that with the popularity of the phrase “What would Jesus do?” in the evangelicalism of a previous decade, very little attention has been given to the example of Jesus in engaging those of other religions. In his wonderful book Jesus and the Religions, Bob Robinson discusses his own work as a Christian in the context of Hinduism, and he says, “I found the example of Christ to be almost completely absent from the discussion” by Christians. He then quotes Harvey Cox who says, “‘Christians who think of Jesus as a model in other areas of their lives do not look to his example or teaching when meeting people of other faiths.” Robinson addresses this deficit in his study of Jesus and his encounters with Gentiles and Samaritans in the New Testament. Although these texts are few, they provide an important example for those who would imitate Christ, as Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman (Jn. 4:40-42), and his interactions with the Syrophoenician mother (Mk. 7:24-30) make clear.
3) Live the ethic of love for neighbor. When asked the greatest commandments in the Law, Jesus responded by pointing to the need to love God and neighbor with all our hearts, might, mind, and strength. When asked a related follow-up question, “Who is my neighbor?” Jesus told the story of the good or compassionate Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37). Jesus’ teaching here is revolutionary and must have scandalized his audience. The Samaritans were considered religious heretics, and this story would have been received by his listeners much as an updated version would be by Evangelicals if it were retitled “the Parable of the Good Mormon, or the Good Muslim.” Here a member of a despised religious group does what members of the Jewish community wouldn’t do, as the Samaritan exhibits love and compassion for a religious outsider and enemy. Jesus concludes this story by calling his followers to practice this radical ethic of love toward others, even strangers and religious enemies to be embraced as neighbors. A comment by Eric Sharpe, the noted scholar of religion, missions, and dialogue, is applicable to evangelicals in the context of this discussion and the parable: “compassion must always have the upper hand of orthodoxy.” In other words, we shouldn’t let our concerns for sound teaching overshadow the need to engage in right practice toward others, including members of suspect outgroups. Indeed, our compassion for others should lead us to right practices as well as right doctrine, the three elements of orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and orthopathy working in synergism.
4) Practice the art of hospitality. In Hospitality & the Other, Amos Yong says that “[i]n a world of interreligious violence, war, and terrorism, Christians can and should respond with acts of interreligious hospitality.” In his exploration of this idea, he reminds us that Jesus was the “paradigm of hospitality because he represents and embodies the hospitality of God.” In the Gospel of Luke this is especially evident as Jesus was dependent upon hospitality on many occasions from his birth to his life as a “journeying prophet,” as well as various meal scenes that are found throughout Luke where Jesus participates in the hospitality of others. These examples should be understood as living parables where Jesus embodies the hospitality of God. Yong also echoes other commentators who suggest that Jesus’ teaching on hospitality is most especially evident in the parable of the Good Samaritan. By incorporating the Scriptures on hospitality, and practicing this art with those of other religions, Evangelicals have an opportunity to follow the example of Jesus and engage in a performance of the sacred story of the gospel as they embody the virtues of humility, service, and benevolence.
In the 21st century, Evangelicals are faced with a global cultural context of religious pluralism, misunderstanding, and violence. We need to maintain our commitments to sound teaching within our religious community, but the biblical foundations for understanding that responsibility do not serve us well as a foundation for understanding and engaging our religious neighbors. A Christological approach to Scripture, the example of Jesus, love for our neighbors, and the practice of hospitality provide us with a better biblical model and way forward.
John W. Morehead is the Executive Director of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, and the Director of its Evangelical Chapter (Multifaith Matters). You may contact him at johnwmorehead@msn.com.