It seems clear that we need a new paradigm for dealing with religion in the post-modern socio-political order. The missionary movement of the 19th and 20th centuries has assumed the Enlightenment paradigm of "toleration" for religion within an overarching secular order. In that model the political society is to be secular, and morals are to be regulated by empirical and pragmatic factors. Religion is reduced to the private sector. Clearly, this model is under attack both in the western democracies and in traditional religious states like India and Iran. The fall of secular communism in the Soviet empire and the less dramatic, but fully as significant, revisionist shift toward religious tolerance in China, Cambodia, and Vietnam -- all this signals the need for some careful rethinking.

Christianity must find some approach other than that of "culture wars" -- one "fundamentalism" versus another! The older religious imperialism must become a thing of the past. On the other hand, toleration based upon the secularizing of public culture also seems to be unsatisfactory except in the post-communist societies. From the experience of Europe and America it seems inevitable that secular interests cancel out public religious values in the long run.

What might toleration based upon mutual respect and cooperation among the religious groups look like? We do not yet know how a genuinely pluralistic mix of religions in a single society would work; but it is clear that it would require a more cooperative, consensus model than the fifty-one per cent winner take all model which we have championed in the United States. And how might the church give an authentic witness to the unique and universal revelation of God in Christ in such a political order? Would it rule out all competitive proselytizing? If both neutrality and imperialistic competition are out, what stance shall we take?

We cannot solve all these questions in this brief paper, but merely raising them frames the context in which we are asking the question of our relation to people of other faiths.

Perhaps no government has attempted a more pluralistic stance than ancient Rome with its Pantheon of gods for the empire. And it was precisely in this cultural climate that Christianity was born. This suggests that we might get some strategic insight from the New Testament itself. How did the men and women of first generation Christianity bear witness to Jesus as the Christ? What were their attitudes toward those of other religions? After examining the biblical material briefly for leads, I will suggest some theological ABCs that can give us direction, and then call attention to some practical guidelines.

Strategy Suggestions from the New Testament

First, I would call your attention to the fact that the apostle Paul faced much the same kind of problem that we do today as we cross cultures. He could not, indeed, chose not to, go into the various cultures of West Asia without a predetermined religious identity. He was automatically identified with the culture religion of Judaism just as we are identified with a cultural model of Christianity.

However, he did not require his listeners to become Jewish. Indeed, Paul refused to perpetuate the central cultural symbol of pharisaic biblicism as a necessary expression of faith in Christ, and dealt with the mores of the Jerusalem Council contextually (Acts 15:28-29, cf. 1 Cor. 8). He taught that Christ has inaugurated a new reality which requires a radically new approach to cultural religions. Thus he could write to the Galatian Christians, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6, NEB; cf. 1 Cor. 7:19). He called both his Jewish compatriots as well as pagans to the same new social-spiritual reality. In the same sense we are not to proselytize our listeners into cultural Christianity, but to call them to a new identity "in Christ" -- an identity to be lived out in their own culture (Gal. 3:26-28).

Second, Paul did not condemn pagan religions as demonic in their totality. He recognized the values and spiritual insights in some of their religious teachings and practices. On Mars Hill in Athens he commended his hearers for their religious devotion and identified his message with their image to an "unknown god" (Acts 17:5ff). He was concerned to point to the true source and authentic pattern of these values, namely, the disclosure of God in Christ; and he was particularly careful not to take credit to himself as a new religious guru (Acts 10:14-18).

He plainly acknowledged that the sincere virtues of pagans who keep the spirit of God's law are valid in God's sight. Their virtues are not "splendid vices," as Augustine put it! Further, they will be judged by their actions ("works"), not their profession, just as will Jews and Christians (Rom. 2:4-7, 14-16). Then he adds that God is God of both Jews and Gentiles, and both will be saved "by faith," i.e., not by observance of religious codes, either Mosaic or pagan, but by a sincere will to do God's will (3:28-29). This is quite a contrast to conservative Jewish proselytizers among the pagans.

The risen Christ establishes a new criterion by which to evaluate religious cultures. They are not subject to the relativities of any other religious culture. Rather, they are under the judgment of God as He has made himself known in Christ. While this may give the biblical religions some historical tactical advantage, he wrote, it does not mean that they are God's favorites (Rom. 3:1-2). All people of the earth have the same access to God through the true and living way which has been disclosed in Jesus Christ.

Finally, Paul and the other apostolic missioners focused their criticism on those social-spiritual values and practices that were dehumanizing. Thus they addressed such cultural practices as slavery, violence, poverty and economic injustice, sexual promiscuity, prostitution, pederasty, wife and child abuse, and idolatry. The latter had to do, not so much with theological concepts of God, but with superstitious delusion, and the political and social domination of the "powers" which destroyed the "image of God."

This certainly is not the pattern of cultural or religious imperialism. Paul self-consciously identified himself as a "servant" of Christ and those to whom he was sent, and made his appeal "in weakness." If this is imperialistic, it is an imperialism of the cross.

Some Theological ABCs

Many of our old mission rubrics were formulated when "crusading" Christianity was at its height. They have, in fact, become restrictive like "old wine skins" which have lost their elasticity. We need to reexamine the fundamental theological definitions which carry the message of the cross, and reformulate them so that they do not carry imperialistic implications. During this time of shifting cultural paradigms there are a number of basic theological principles that can give us direction.

First, there is only one God, who is God of all humankind. This one God is the Creator-Savior of the human race from the beginning of time. Indeed, the creation story of Genesis is told as a salvation story. The earth in chaos and darkness is given light and order. This God is the source of all life, light and order in the universe. Jesus said that God sends his blessings to the "evil and the good," the "just and unjust," and by the same token he judges everyone by the same covenant law given in the first instance to all humankind (adam).

This one God has "revealed" himself universally for the life of all humankind. In fact, God's revelation is equated with the acts of creation and salvation. As the Psalmist wrote, if God hides his face from us we die (104:29). This self-disclosure is spoken of as God "speaking" to us. God "spoke" and the worlds were created. And the Gospel of John begins by telling us that God has spoken the word of light and life from the beginning.

Throughout the history of humankind God has spoken in "many and various ways" (Heb. 1:2-3), and finally this "Word" was definitively embodied in the life and message of Jesus Christ (John 1:14). Thus the light that shines in Jesus is identified with the universal light "which enlightens everyone coming into the world" (John 1:9). This is the biblical basis for the concept of the "cosmic Christ." We need to reexamine the implications of this universal note in God's self-communication.

Second, salvation is by grace, not by religion. No one is saved by religious practices such as going to church, offering sacrifices, making donations to temples, which are identified in Scripture as "works of the flesh." No matter what religious culture one is socialized in, one is saved only by the Creator-Savior God who is revealed in Jesus Christ. This certainly suggests that participation or non-participation in religious ritual is not of the essence. As Paul put it, "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, but the new creation" (Gal. 6:15). Or again, "Do everything for the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews, or to Greeks or to the church of God" (1 Cor. 10:31-33).

The only way to life (salvation) is the way of agape, that is, love as it was defined in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. By formal definition agape, or chesed in the Hebrew, is God's relation to us described as his covenant law of "life and peace" (Mal. 2:5). Substantively it is the kind of relation displayed in Jesus Christ and described by him as the "reign of God." Thus the prayer, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as in heaven," is a prayer for salvation. This salvation from the human side is attained by a positive response to the life, light and love (the Word) which comes from God. To put this negatively, there are not many different ways of salvation, or many different "saviors."

We need to understand salvation as healing, and not as an instantaneous rescue from perdition. (The New Testament word sodzo means to heal or save.) Salvation is both a process (healing) and goal (health), and it describes both individuals and societies. (Revelation 22:2 speaks of the healing of the nations.) Further, we must understand healing as a holistic concept. The goal of individual salvation is personal wholeness, i.e., spiritual, social, and physical health. The goal of social salvation is shalom, or the peace of God -- both material, social and spiritual well being. Both of these kinds of healing are included in the prayer, "Thy kingdom come."

When we think of God as the Creator-Savior continuously involved in the life of the world, and salvation as the process of healing and being healed, then we can understand how our "presence" can be truly a "working together with God" to reconcile and rehabilitate the world.

Third, religions are relative human responses to the "light" of God which has shone in human darkness. Religions are cultural, human expressions. While they are responses to revelation, we should not speak of them as revealed. This is true of all religions including Christianity. The old teaching that Christianity is a "revealed religion" and the others are "natural religions" gives us a false lead in relating to those of other religious faiths. The ritual, moral and theological response of the Christian church to God's revelation in Christ is imperfect and relative like those of other religions. We need to keep this in mind when we engage in comparative dialogue or attempt to give witness to Christ.

Unfortunately, most human responses have been relatively negative -- a phenomenon which is referred to as "original sin" in theology. These negative as well as the positive responses have been institutionalized in the religions of the world. Thus while one must always deal sensitively and with respect in matters of religious conviction, one does not assume that a "religious" response is ipso facto a life enhancing response. As the old spiritual suggests, there is "good religion" and "bad religion." Our concern for ourselves and others is to "have good religion."

Fourth, when light is refused, it becomes exposure and judgment (John 3:19-21). Such a negative response usually takes the form of psychological denial, or, in theological terms, self-justification. Cultures have a bias for the authority of tradition, and initial reaction is to give it precedence over the "light" -- "We are okay. This is our way. Nothing is wrong. You have no right to interfere with our culture."

The tobacco industry's reaction to recent disclosures about the effects of cigarette smoking is an excellent example of such denial. While they argue vehemently that cigarettes are not deadly, and smokers in denial insist on continuing, people keep dying from smoking (the "judgment"). But those who listen and abstain/quit become relatively more healthy ("salvation").

The reality of this kind of reaction should caution us against naivete in our relations to people of other faiths, and especially in our relations to the institutionalized system. We must be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves." At the same time it should greatly humble us and open our eyes to the denial in our own culture. We must not try to clean the speck of dust from their eye when we have a log in our own.

We must be very careful not to promote our religion in competition with their religion. The light of which we have spoken is not the prerogative of any one religion. We must appeal to a self-authenticating authority in life as Jesus himself did, and not to religion. The promise of Jesus to his disciples is that his holy Spirit, the Paraclete, will give such authentication (John 16:8-11).

Finally, in our review of theological fundamentals, we need to face the question so often raised whether one can be "saved" without knowledge of the earthly Jesus. I am quite confident that from a biblical perspective the answer is "yes." Here we must make a theological distinction between "Jesus," the historical person, and "Christ," or the "Word," which is the active principle of God's self-disclosure. We have a good example of this distinction in 1 Corinthians 10:4 where Paul identifies the "spiritual rock" from which Israel drank in the wilderness with "Christ." And John, in a figurative utterance, represents Jesus as saying, "Before Abraham was I am" (8:58).

According to the biblical story God has made covenants of salvation with humankind from the beginning of creation. As a common noun "adam" means humankind, and when it is used as the name for the father of the race, it represents the race. Noah represents a new beginning of the human race, and again God made a covenant with his family for the salvation of humanity. Then at a later date we read of Melchesidek, priest of the Most High God, whom Abraham recognized as God's priest. All of these characters represent humankind outside the Abrahamic tradition, but, of course, not outside the scope of God's saving self-disclosure. None of them knew about the earthly Jesus or even worshipped Yahweh as God, yet all of these "pleased God" (Heb. 11: 5).

Abraham represents the beginning of the historical tradition which culminates in the coming of Jesus, and became the prototype of "salvation by faith" because he anticipated the fulfillment of God's promised salvation. Jesus referred to this anticipatory faith as "seeing my day," but this does not mean that he knew the earthly Jesus. It is significant for our question that Paul makes Abraham the progenitor of the faithful, rather than Moses, the prophet of institutionalized Israelite religion.

One should note also that the prophets and apostles are not nearly so "exclusive" in their assessment of God's saving exploits as are many modern Christians. Amos challenged Israel's presumption that they were God's favorites (9:7). Jonah was called to warn the Ninevites, and to his own dismay witnessed their salvation. Paul criticized the Jews for assuming that God's goodness meant God's exclusive approval, and warned them that judgment would be according to deeds, not preferential standing (Rom. 2:4-7). Peter was shown that "God shows no partiality" in his saving concern (Acts 10:34).

Thus one should not conclude that God is not at work for the salvation of humankind in other cultures and religions. Neither should one assume that no one is "saved" in these cultures until the story of Jesus is told. Indeed, one should go to these cultures with the presumption that God is already there and effectively at work, and that the story of Jesus will be self-authenticating when it is told because there are those like Noah, Melchesidek, Abraham and Cornelius who have anticipated the message of a saving God.

Practical Considerations

People's religion is part of their cultural self-identity. Thus our relationships to individuals of other cultures and faiths inevitably involve us in relations with their culture religions. One cannot, for example, relate with integrity to individual Hindus in any depth without taking their Hindu religion seriously. To ignore their religious culture is to not take them seriously. To simply reject their religion as "heathen" or demonic, inevitably means rejection of the people whose identity is bound up with it.

I remember how sensitive Indian Christians refused to sing the hymn, "From Greenland's Icy Mountains to India's Coral Strands," because of the words ". . . the heathen in their blindness bow down to wood and stone." While they did not necessarily agree with their Hindu friends, they deemed this to be a prejudiced judgment. Or the Japanese lass studying at a Christian college in America who asked me, "Do you think that Japanese people are bad (because they are Buddhists)?" When I asked her why she asked, she told me that some classmates thought that Buddhism is a heathen religion.

Further, to reject a religious culture in toto as evil implies that individuals must leave it in order to follow Christ. When 19th century missionaries presumed that heathen cultures with their religions were simply the work of the devil, they assumed that those cultures were incapable of becoming vehicles to carry the gospel. Converts were expected to reject their own culture and join the culture of the western compound in order to be Christian. This implies, for example, that a self-sacrificing act of love by a committed Hindu cannot be an act of true agape. Or that such a Hindu's adoration of Christ as his/her Istadevi (own personal god) cannot be pleasing to God.

The principles of contextualization, or enculturation, of the gospel, and a holistic approach to mission demand a revision of such assumptions. To contextualize means to communicate the gospel from within a given culture and in terms relevant to that culture. And if we are to be holistic, we must approach individuals-in-their-culture, and search for ways in which the gospel can be a catalyst for change, both in the life of individuals and in the society.

This holistic approach to other cultures (religions) may be threatening for those of us in a Believers Church tradition with a sectarian bias that assumes the separation of religious faith and societal culture. We may be unaware how much our own identities are bound up with particular forms of moral and religious practice, and how much we have read our own religious (cultural) expressions into the Bible. But if we are to effectively relate our faith to people of other faiths, we will have to become more self-aware along these lines.

We must learn to distinguish between the meaning we project on to the foreign cultural forms and the inner meaning these practices have for people to whom the culture is native. It is also our responsibility to learn what our cultural practices may convey to them. While we want to avoid mere eclecticism and syncretism, we must open ourselves to the possibility that their cultural practices do convey meanings compatible with the gospel.

It is important to remember that we are dealing with people and not ideologies. Christian witness is not an argument, but an act of genuine caring for the other person. Thus in all our relationships and decisions we must be flexible and concerned for the other person's welfare. We must be open and honest in our responses to them. That will mean that we confess that we do not have all the answers, and that our religion is not always better in every way!

For the sake both of the community and the individual we must take care not to unnecessarily alienate individuals from their cultural settings. Both Jesus and Paul warn about the seriousness of unwarranted offenses (Mat. 18:7; 1 Cor. 10:32). On the other hand, we want to motivate and enable individuals and local groups to achieve their highest God-given destiny. The line between alienation and enablement is often tough to call, as, for example, in cultures where the local customs denigrate women.

Finally, in our relationships with those of other cultures we must be aware of our own cultural identity as Americans. America is assumed to be a "Christian culture." They will presume that we as American Christians share the attitudes, values, politics, etc. of our national society. The burden of proof otherwise is upon us.

It is our responsibility to distinguish for them between our faith in Christ and American religion. And we will have to learn how to introduce Christ, not American religion, so that he will impact their way of life. In this task the institutional identity of Mennonite Central Committee as a "Christian resource for meeting human need" can be a great advantage. Of course, each of us must show genuine respect for the culture as we embody the Spirit/spirit of Christ in genuine servanthood, but the institutional reputation of MCC will help to cover a multitude of individual failings!