My last post was too academic and not clear enough. I’m trying to do a blog which boils academic conversation down for the work of missional/emerging church. And the last post didn’t quite cut it. Jerry said it gave him a headache. So here is Take 2. It is less complete. But it’s more to the point. Thanks Jerry!
——————
Most evangelical Christians have considered pluralism a bad thing. For them, pluralism has been a problem that needs to be overcome, defended against and even defeated as part of our evangelism strategy. For evangelicals, the existence of other religions is a threat. Ironically John Howard Yoder thinks pluralism is the opposite. Pluralism is a good thing. It is a necessary thing that God has given us in order that we might better be the living church of Christ in the world.
I contend our evangelical strategies towards engaging pluralism have been defined by what I shall call Political Liberalism (PL). This is the doctrine that says our country shall be governed by only stuff we can all agree on. PL will not allow, for instance, content from specific religions to determine public policy. For PL, religious knowledge is private – science and reason are public. I contend that this founding ideology of democracy influences the way we evangelicals engage other religious as Christians. For like the good Americans that we are, we either engage other religions through rational arguments based in neutral forms of reason, or we are tolerant and encouraging in allowing (implicitly) all religions to find their way. It is either a competitive argument, or a therapeutic conversation to find “your higher power.”
Now, admitting that the discussion of the merits of PC is much deeper than this, and acknowledging that PC has been critiqued by and developed much further by people like Stout, Habermas, Taylor, Rorty, McIntyre, Coles and even Derrida, I wish to contend that John Howard Yoder shows us all the way forward as how to be missional in the tsunami of pluralism we find ourselves in. Yoder tells us we should not seek first one on one arguments based upon a common reason with folk of other religions (especially if they are coercive), neither should we seek tolerant conversation where we encourage the pursuit of each one’s own spirituality (especially if said spiritualities are demonic), rather we seek to be open non-violent, hospitable and humble communities which seek to engage “the other” vulnerably in order to both learn from them and display the gospel before them all the while entrusting the world’s salvation to the Sovereign Lord.
What makes possible such an open community? For Yoder, it is that God has chosen pluralism as the instrument for God to work for His truth in the world. In Yoder’s “Meaning After Babel” (Journal of Religious Ethics 24, no.1 (Spring 1996):125-39) he argues that Babel (Genesis 11) was divinely ordained of God. Instead of a curse brought on by sin, the pluralism that resulted was divinely intended as “a providential occasion for clarification of the gospel.” And so in a stunning way, Yoder tells us that pluralism is not a bad thing for the church. No, in fact pluralism is a good thing for the gospel that we simply cannot do without. For Yoder sees that Babel was the means God ordained to prevent people from taking God’s will into their own hands. Instead God ordained that it would be through vulnerable interaction with other religions and other people that God would reveal His truth to us furthering the gospel in us, through us and in the world. Through the loss of one singular language at Babel, God enabled that we would be able to see something about the gospel that was not visible before. It made us an open community dependent upon each other to learn in submission to His Lordship in mutual vulnerability. Imagine I say! Pluralism is the condition for God to work out His truth in us over time in relation to other religions.
Now you may think that this means Yoder was a raging inclusivist thinking God works in all religions to bring us to Christ. You may think even worse of Yoder, that he is a religious pluralist believing God is bringing all people in all religions to their own god. But this couldn’t be further from the truth. For Yoder actually shows how believing “Jesus is Lord” creates the condition for a non-coercive, faithful witness of the good news of Jesus Christ to the world. For who needs to worry when Jesus is in control. All we need to be at this point is faithful.
Yoder’s writings on pluralism brilliantly combine several themes. He combines a.) what he calls “the epistemological preference of the poor” and vulnerable (THIS IS GENIUS!), b.) the proclamation that THERE IS NO OTHER GOD, c.) the noncoercive witness of the good news and d.) the weak, vulnerable, welcoming, open community living within the contingencies of history, to fashion a marvelous picture of a witnessing community that is vulnerable, hospital yet confident in its own history. It is this open community of Christ that is perfectly situated to bring the good news to the poor and the lost souls of pluralism.
I commend this approach to pluralism. As opposed to hand to hand combat with other religions where we seek to win on the turf of a mystical neutral rationality, as opposed to the ever tolerant conversations that assume everyone is going to the same god eventually, I propose we missional Christians engage in being open communities of Christ, interested and learning about other religions on their own terms so as to learn from them and minister to them in their moments of greatest need. We can do this because we know “Jesus is Lord” sovereign over all things, working for his truth in the very encounters we are vulnerable to. I propose we live boldly the salvation we have been given in Christ through love, justice, prayer, the saving of the innocent. Yet we never engage coercively for we believe all salvation comes at the initiation and work of the Holy Spirit, we are just to be faithful. We never engage in violence, excessive persuasive technique, or trounce on the weak for we believe truth requires no coercion, violence or undue defensiveness. It is in fact our vulnerability which reveals how grounded in truth we are as a community. It makes it safe and attractive for those seeking truth to come. We are called to be witnesses not prosecuting attorneys. This is just some of what I would call an open community of Christ amidst the pluralism of our day.
Hauerwas sums up this approach with some good words. Notice the non-coercion here. The rejection of extraneous judgments towards other religions we cannot possibly know enough to judge. Notice the ground of engagement is the life witnessed by and in the open community.
The command to be a witness does not entail apiori judgments about the beliefs and life of others – e.g. what is right or wrong with Hinduism or Islam – though such judgments after time may be appropriate, but rather witness derives from no other source than that which invites us to “look what manner of life has been made possible among us by the power of the cross and the resurrection of Christ.” The invitation to join such a life is made not on the assumption that there is something wrong with the others’ beliefs, but it is made because we are all sinners and through participation in this community we have the possibility of finding redemption. (Community of Character p. 105)
Sometimes I fear that the work emerging writers have been doing in this area argues too much or seeks to assuage arguments from a neutral plane of reason. Brian McLaren’s Last Word, and Spencer Burke’s Heretic’s Guide help us understand and think through some doctrines we may need to think through. But in order to become the kind of witnesses that effect a society, that bring Christ’s redemption, I believe Yoder is the next place we need to go. In the face of the dominant pluralisms of our day, we need to know how to nurture and lead communities that embody the life Christ has given us to share, the community, the fellowship, the justice, the servanthood, the nurturing and care of children, the reality of God, all He has done in Christ through the Spirit in worship, the hospitality and the invitation to those who are lost to find their way to the Triune God … For Yoder says it is in the presence of this open community in and among the pluralities of religions that all will be invited to look and see “what manner of life has been made possible among us by the power of the cross and the resurrection of Christ.”
When I think of “open communities” I think of some churches I know in Baghdad whose sharing of the peace and love of Christ in the face of constant threats has won many souls in Christ’s Kingdom. I think of some peaceful communities planted in impoverished gang infested territories of cities. I think of safe places planted amidst Mormon towns in Utah. I think in some ways all missional comunities must become open communities in the territories of post-Christendom most of us find ourselves in. We try to do book clubs, theology pubs to make safe third spaces for these kind of conversations.
What do you think about Yoder’s open community approach to pluralism versus other approaches you’ve encountered?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
David, sounds like Don Posterski’s “Principled Pluralism,” a solid and critically reflective position in the anabaptist tradition. Great post, important issue, and would make a good foundation for a book!
David,
This crystallizes the thoughts I’ve been having on this topic. I was thinking that the kenosis ethic must impact our approach to pluralism, but I wasn’t able to articulate it. I agree, I like Yoder’s approach.
Winning arguments seems so opposite of the spirit of the gospel. We don’t need to defend our position because we really believe in Christ’s lordship, enough to live it out in a community of mutual liability.
I like how Richard Hays says in The Moral Vision of the New Testament that our communities “prefigure and embody the reconciliation and healing of the world.” Our mission to the world is to be the people of God, living out servanthood and hospitality.
Now I get it!
Thanks David
Dear David,
Thanks for the fun article. The first cut was too much trade school style jargon but the second was much better for those of us who are non-professional Christians. After all the argument should stand on its merits and side issues such as your affiliation with Northern Seminary should not be an issue. We should for instance be able to consider Heurwas’ pertinent points which out getting into his fall into a heterodox communion and all the other sad thoughts that his name bings to mind. Now if in light of how Jesus taught with authority in the synagogue would your premise hold up if you removed the authority of your citations and instead based it on the Word of God. I think it would.
Best wishes,
Barry O’Connell
Great thoughts. maybe time to write another book?
I know this isn’t hte place for “pop-Christianity”, but this sure sounds like the Alpha Course to me where beligerence and wild spirituality are tolerated with the mantra “that’s interesting”. Those behind it believe that the Word of God and the Holy Spirit are powerful enough to answer questions in God’s time and don’t rely on “expert” teachers and apologists.
Isnt that what the Yoder thing is all about?
I wonder if you do not automatically offend people of other religions when we talk of salvation in christ alone, hell, last judgement etc or we we avoid/water down these doctrines in order to appear tolerant, reasonable etc
A random thought
Rodney
Thanks …Len, Adam … in reponse to the comments concerning how we offend people..or create a fales tolerance … The task here is a true humble vulnerable openess because we actually eblieve we can learn and further what God is doing in us and His truth … through the other religions. No, this is not to say God uses other religions automatically to bring other people, nations to Himself in Christ. But according to Yoder, he does use other religions to clarify and validate the truth that we have in Christ. I could give countless examples … but Yoder already does it in For the Nations, and Bruce Marshall has a good discussion in Trinity and Truth ch. 5,6
blessings … DF
I very much like it, David. Both of Jesus’ statements about the love of the community of God (to the disciples and in prayer) make it clear enough that it is through community of the faithful/believers that God would impact the world. Jesus among us makes the only difference, period. And what a difference it can make.
Just my little thought here. Thanks for sharing that. Excellent food for thought. What books of Yoder would your recommend on this? Thanks.
Just thought I’d chime in and say I really appreciated this too. It’s funny, but I find that as a Christian in a VERY pluralistic culture (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians) I feel much more freedom to share out my faith experience than I did when I lived in the secular Scandinavia. I’m going to re-read this one and ponder it some more because I am always pondering how I can best be faithful to Christ and true in my relationships here without being pushy or a push-over. Thanks.
Hi David,
Are you talking about living in Christian Communities in the USA or in Turkey. I have lived in both and now I live in England.
I do appreciate the nuanced insights of Yoder, 2 Corinthians 5:11 says something maybe a bit different. We do try and persuade and not just inform all men. That we want to persuade is not to be hidden. We must be very open and secure in this aspect of our life.
I find Yoders comment “The invitation to join such a life is made not on the assumption that there is something wrong with the others’ beliefs, “
Of course it is, if it wasn’t on what premise would we ever try to persuade that what they believe is not true. I have never met somone trying to convince me of something that they first didn’t believe.
His approach seems disingenuous or he is trying to hold two totally contradictory positions as equally true.
I believe that living in faith communities with the confidence of Jesus and the trustworthiness of the Bible to be enough of a foundation to engage anyone in any context without capitulating to the tolerance that all beliefs are equal. They are not.
Communicating to a Hindu or Buddhist is very different than with a Moslem.
Hinduism, Buddhism, are not cultures that seek to convert at their core as it is with Islam, or Christianity.
Tim
I find Yoders comment “The invitation to join such a life is made not on the assumption that there is something wrong with the others’ beliefs, “
Of course it is, if it wasn’t on what premise would we ever try to persuade that what they believe is not true. I have never met somone trying to convince me of something that they first didn’t believe.
___________________________________
I think the point is not that I don’t have a point of view that contradicts someone else’s, but that I should approach everyone from a position of humility and friendship, not arrogance and judgement.
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.”
- T. Pacey
Tim,
2 Cor 5.11 … isn’t that about Paul commending his own authority as an apostle to Corinth? All I can really say to you onthis one is this … You said “His approach seems disingenuous, or he is tryiongto hold two totally contradictory positions together as equally true.” Give me an example? For surely Yoder would agree that sometimes that does in fact turn out to be true … but not until you’ve listened and understood what he or she means. We all know that for the 12th century Crusader who cuts off the infidels’ head shouting “Jesus is Lord,” that means something totally different than St Francis among the animals saying the same words. How would we know they are in contradiction or mean the same thing before listening? How much more when we engage totally different languages and cultures. It could be that there frankly is no overlap …
In the end yes .. there are times when there are two totally contradictory statments which both cannot be held to be true .. but there are many other relationships between religious faiths as well. None of this denies the supremacy of Jesus Lordship over the world.
Peace ..
DF
Point Taken, Well said. Thanks. Great website and great book.
Tim
David, I referred to your post today on my blog.
David
First off – good post. I have long viewed pluralism as a good thing and believe that an outright dismissal of pluralism is short sighted. However, I don’t accept Yoder’s view that Babel wasn’t about sin and rebellion when clearly in scripture it’s viewed as such. In fact, my point is that Babel isn’t about pluralism…that’s not the point of the account.
We accept pluralism as a fact of the world we live in and should seek to communicate the gospel confidently in an open, pluralistic community. Confident because we know it’s the truth.
Good post.
David, I was referred through Ted’s blog. Great post. Thank you. I think that to reject pluralism would be to admit fear that Christianity would not hold its own in the marketplace of ideas. I know that I have no such fear. A humble witness that is based in self-examination and a knowledge that God is sovereign is enough for me to be at ease in the world.
Francis Schaeffer’s L’Abri was a model of a place where all were made to feel welcome, but where no compromise in belief was made.