Text of an Address to the Committee on Interchurch Relations Luncheon
Church of the Brethren Annual Conference, Cleveland, OH, July 3, 2007

Rev. Dr. Paul D. Numrich
Program in World Religions and Inter-Religious Dialogue
Theological Consortium of Greater Columbus

I. America’s Growing Religious Diversity

First, an abbreviated version of my stock presentation on America’s growing religious diversity, in order to set the context for our topic today.

The United States has always been religiously diverse. [1] Since the 1960s, religious diversity has grown “dramatically [and] exponentially” among non-Christian groups, making contemporary America a “complex religious reality of encyclopedic dimensions,” to quote Diana Eck’s book, A New Religious America. [2] This growth has been fueled by two steadily increasing trends since the 1960s—immigration and interest in non-mainstream religions.

Journalists tend to ask the quantitative question first: “how many” non-Christian Americans are there? We can note that Baha’is, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs each outnumber the 129,000-and-change members of the Church of the Brethren in the US and Puerto Rico. [3] There are more physicians with medical degrees granted outside of the US [4] than there are American Brethren, and many of these physicians adhere to non-Christian faiths.

But in my mind, the quantitative issue is not the most important one. After all, Christians still far outnumber non-Christians in America. More importantly, there has been a qualitative shift in social perception. Americans now see the US as a multi-religious society no matter what the raw statistics might be (which are always debatable).

It takes only one mosque, temple, or gurdwara on a landscape once exclusively Christian to change people’s perception of America’s religious identity. Or one Muslim family moving into the neighborhood, one Muslim parent on the PTA, one Muslim physician on your healthcare team, one Muslim cab driver picking you up at the airport. Driving on Interstate 75 near Toledo and seeing that magnificent mosque answers the question, “How many Muslims are there in America?” However many Muslims there are, it’s enough for America to discuss the implications of their presence and the presence of other new religious residents.

II. Cooperate to What End?

Which brings us to our topic for today: “Living among People of Other Faiths.” The flier elaborates that I will share examples of Christians cooperating with people of other faiths. But cooperating to what end? What is the goal of inter-religious cooperation?

I want to consider a large goal today. I will share examples of Christians cooperating with people of other faiths in order to create a better neighborhood, town, nation, and world. My examples of inter-religious cooperation come in two types: 1) pluralist dialogue and 2) neighborliness and civic-mindedness.

Both types seek to create a better neighborhood, town, nation, and world. They are not mutually exclusive—for instance, pluralist dialoguers can certainly be good neighbors and fellow citizens. But the reverse is not necessary—you don’t have to become a pluralist dialoguer in order to be a good neighbor and fellow citizen.

Pluralist dialoguers want to create a better world through fuller mutual understanding of diverse religious beliefs and practices. I contend that this approach has limited appeal among Christians, despite sometimes being touted as the only viable path to the goal of a better world. Neighborly and civic-minded Christians can create a better world without engaging in pluralist dialogue.

III. Type One Inter-Religious Cooperation: Pluralist Dialogue

Sociologist Robert Wuthnow, in his book America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity, calls this approach “reflective pluralism,” describing it as an appreciative engagement with religious others that includes serious mutual inquiry and “sustained critical reflection” about deeply held religious beliefs. [5]

Diana Eck directs Harvard University’s Pluralism Project, which is all about pluralist dialogue. As she describes it, this approach “requires active positive engagement with the claims of religion and the facts of religious diversity. . . , active effort to understand difference and commonality through dialogue.” [6]

Proponents of pluralist dialogue see this as the best path to a better neighborhood, town, nation, and world. Some think it is the only viable path, our only hope for the multi-religious future. Such dialogue, they contend, will deepen our own Christian faith, but even more importantly it will enhance mutual appreciation and understanding across religions, overcome tensions and hostilities among diverse religious individuals and groups, and promote justice and fairness for all—clearly a better world.

This is the approach of many Vatican II-inspired Catholics. The Focolare Movement, for example, enters into “dialogues of love” about the spirituality of other religions. Their long and amiable relationship with the followers of Imam Warith Deen Mohammed, the largest mainstream group in African-American Islam, is remarkable. A Catholic parish in suburban Chicago that I studied has also been inspired by Vatican II, especially the document Nostra Aetate, offering regular programming that explores the truths and values found in other religions. [7]

Pluralist dialogue is also the approach of most interfaith associations, like the Interfaith Association of Central Ohio. It organizes events to educate the public about the beliefs and practices of diverse American religions. I attended a panel last May at a local public library that featured Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist representatives describing how they practice their religions in a majority Christian society. The majority of attendees were Christians seeking a fuller understanding of these other faiths.

Some non-Christian groups take this approach in educating the larger American public about their beliefs and practices. For instance, Muslim groups around the country sponsor Ramadan Iftar dinners to promote mutual understanding of religious traditions.

It is certainly a better world for all of these pluralist dialogues.

Pluralist dialogue is also encouraged by many Protestant denominations, including the Church of the Brethren. I recall visiting Naperville Church of the Brethren in suburban Chicago exactly two months after 9/11/2001. On the bulletin board was posted the General Board’s “A Resolution on the Events and Aftermath of September 11, 2001” (dated October 22, 2001). It blended denominational emphases on social justice and active peacemaking with a sophisticated sense of neighborliness and civic duty and an appeal for pluralist dialogue. Here’s an excerpt from the resolution:

We seek fuller understanding of the world’s religious diversity. . . . Christians must actively pursue dialog with people of varying faith traditions, build common bonds of friendship, and work together to seek peace. This must begin in our own communities, but should extend outward to the global neighborhood.

The implication here is that a “fuller understanding” of other religions through pluralist dialogue is essential to creating a better neighborhood, town, nation, and world.

I noted what was conspicuously absent from the resolution—it contained no language about missions, evangelization, conversion, or anything of the kind. Of the dozen biblical passages quoted in the resolution, there was no mention of the Great Commission to baptize the nations.

I point this out because there was another posting on that bulletin board at Naperville Church of the Brethren in the weeks after 9/11, a newsletter from an evangelical Christian organization in India called Al-Bashir. (The Naperville congregation has been predominantly Gujarati in membership for more than a decade.)

In Al-Bashir’s view, 9/11 opened a door in India, offering the opportunity to “win many souls together for Christ from among the Muslims who definitely head towards a Christless grave.” This resonated with what I call the “missionary Brethren” identity of most of the immigrant members, who are themselves the fruit of Brethren missionary efforts and who see non-Christians primarily as souls to be won for Christ. Pluralist dialogue, on the other hand, has been favored by many of the congregation’s white pastors and members over the years, and even by many of the American-born Indians nurtured in denominational Brethrenism by their Sunday school teachers, youth group leaders, and summer camp counselors. [8]

IV. Type Two Inter-Religious Cooperation: Neighborliness and Civic-Mindedness

It is my contention that most American Christians are not, and will not become, pluralist dialoguers with adherents of other faiths. I base this contention on my own participation in pluralist dialogue—note that my title at the Theological Consortium of Greater Columbus includes the phrase “Inter-Religious Dialogue”—and enough empirical evidence to make the case (although I don’t have time today to cite this evidence). [9]

Like the majority of the congregation in Naperville, the majority of American Christians simply do not buy into the theology and expectations of pluralist dialogue. Pluralist dialoguers would like all Christians to join their cause in order to create a better neighborhood, town, nation, and world. But I contend that, not only won’t all Christians join the pluralist dialogue cause, they don’t need to in order to create a better neighborhood, town, nation, and world. They can follow the second type of inter-religious cooperation, “neighborliness and civic-mindedness,” in order to reach that goal—without engaging in pluralist dialogue. (By the way, I also contend that engaging in pluralist dialogue is not the only way to deepen one’s own Christian faith.)

It can be as simple as what my sociologist colleague, Fred Kniss, calls “parking lot friendships,” or sharing facilities. One Catholic parish welcomes overflow parking from the ISKCON or “Hare Krishna” Hindu temple down the block, another parish does the same for the Swaminarayan Hindu temple up the road. An Episcopal church has hosted a mosque in its facility for two decades. Why? Because the Muslims needed space and the Episcopalians had unused space. I call this case study “Hosting Muslim Neighbors” because the congregation’s primary motivation is to be neighborly, not to engage in intense pluralist dialogue with Muslims. [10]

This approach can involve serious civic accountability, as in the ongoing cooperative efforts between Minister Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and black Christian pastors since the Million Man March in 1995, including initiatives around voting, prisons, substance abuse, and economic development.

As one Chicago pastor writes, “How do I deal with the theological differences between Christianity and the Nation of Islam?” “Our differences rarely come up unless we are asked to be on opposing sides for a television show.” In other words, faith differences so important to pluralist dialoguers are moot points in a larger discourse in his community: “Within the African-American community, the issue is not the Nation of Islam versus Christianity, but religion versus the lure of the streets. . . . Our common concern has led our congregations to put aside differences in faith and to work together.” [11]

The growing “friendship evangelism” movement is a fascinating example of Christian neighborliness that contributes to a better world—without any interest whatsoever in pluralist dialogue. The evangelical humanitarian organization, World Relief, partners with local churches to resettle immigrants and refugees in the United States, offering practical aid like ESL classes, job referral services, and material assistance. They follow biblical norms of neighbor love and showing kindness to strangers and sojourners in the land.

Of course, this friendship is ultimately motivated by a conversionary theology, but it comes with no conversionary strings attached. “I make it clear that my friendship is not based on anything that they need to do or say, that I will be their friend one way or the other,” explains a former missionary who now devotes himself to friendship evangelism among immigrants and refugees in suburban Chicago.

When asked whether the small number of actual converts resulting from such friendships discourages her, another friendship evangelist said no, “because that’s not my sole motivation. I feel like to be a friend to a stranger is a commandment. I’m commanded to be a light to people. I’m not responsible for their choices.”

The consensus here seems to be that only the Holy Spirit can convict souls of the need for redemption, while the primary Christian calling is to befriend people whether or not they ever convert to Christianity. These evangelicals do not avoid faith-based conversations, but they share their evangelical convictions only when religious topics arise naturally in friendship contexts. [12]

Arthur McPhee, an evangelical seminary professor and author, spoke at one of the seminaries of the Theological Consortium of Greater Columbus, outlining ten priorities for “Rehabilitating Evangelism.” He noted the trend among evangelicals to prioritize the Great Commandment to love God and others (Matthew 22:34-40) over the Great Commission to baptize the nations (Matthew 28:18-20). [13]

My final example comes from a fundamentalist pastor because so many people believe that fundamentalist Christians can’t “behave” around other faiths. I realize that some fundamentalists actually don’t know how to behave, but many do. [14]

The case comes from my home town of Aurora, Illinois, where news of a proposed Hindu temple in the mid-1980s ignited a firestorm of public debate among the Christian residents. Theologically, the fundamentalist pastor of my example saw the Hindu temple as “just another attempt of spiritual forces to manipulate and to maneuver and to oppose some of the free flow of the work of churches.” As to the matter of religious truth claims, he would not compromise with Hinduism: “I must stand in opposition to the teaching and practices the owners of this property will bring to this community. Their teaching and practices produce no real spiritual hope or lasting social redemption.”

But when it came to civic-mindedness, this fundamentalist pastor understood the First Amendment and the laws of the land: “As long as the owners [of the Hindu temple] . . . meet the legal requirements for construction, they should be allowed to build whatever they choose.” Some Christians would not grant even this basic civic right to Hindus. He even expressed openness to the idea of cooperating with the Hindus in some project “for the overall good of the community,” as his church had done in co-sponsoring a food distribution program with the Mormons, whom they also do not recognize as Christians.

This fundamentalist pastor was so well respected by his fellow clergy—conservative, liberal, Christian, Jewish, pluralist dialoguers and not—that they elected him president of the local clergy association. If he could make the distinction between religious truth claims and civic duty, other fundamentalists can do so as well.

Sociologist Wuthnow confirms that, despite their theological misgivings about other religions, Christian “exclusivists” (Wuthnow’s category that includes fundamentalists) tend toward a civic tolerance “rooted both in their understanding of the right to religious freedom and in their implicit norms of civility, nonjudgmentalism, and trying to approach people on a one-to-one basis rather than as members of a social category.” [15]

V. Two Paths to the Goal

If our goal is to create a better neighborhood, town, nation, and world through inter-religious cooperation, two paths can get us there. Pluralist dialogue is only one path, and its proponents should realize that the majority of American Christians will not take it.

The path of neighborliness and civic-mindedness has broader appeal. Pluralist dialoguers can be good neighbors and fellow citizens. But more importantly, the non-pluralist majority of American Christians can be motivated by this approach, even if, in their view, the goal of creating a better world is ultimately served by saving non-Christian souls for Christ.

I must depart from my prepared talk here to share an encounter that sums up my main point. This occurred on my drive across northern Ohio to attend this conference. I pulled into a rest stop along Interstate 80 in the middle of American nowhere, a wilderness of open road. There must have been 1,000 people at that rest stop, a cross section of Americans traveling during the extended Fourth of July holiday.

As I entered the main building, three Theravada Buddhist monks were coming out the door. I could tell who they were by their robes, shaved heads, and other features. I placed my hands together in front of me in the traditional greeting and said to each one in turn, “Hello Bhante,” a title of familiar respect. Their faces lit up with joy.

I knew who they were and what the proper Buddhist greeting was because I’ve studied Buddhism for more than 20 years and I spend a great deal of time in pluralist dialogue with Buddhists. I may have been the only person at that rest stop who knew much at all about Buddhism. I wouldn’t expect the other 999 Americans there to be as informed as I am.

But I do expect every one of those 999 Americans to treat those Buddhist monks in neighborly and civil fashion, to hold the door for them as I did and say, “Hello, how are you today” or something of the kind. Those monks’ faces would have lit up for joy at that greeting as well, I guarantee it.

For pastors and other Christian leaders, the lesson here is to use discernment in mobilizing Christians to reach the desired goal of a better world. Encourage the pluralist dialoguers, to be sure, but also encourage those who don’t buy into pluralist dialogue—all can be good neighbors and fellow citizens.