A few days ago I finished a study on the Gospel of Mark and realized just how many times Mark notes that Jesus was surrounded by a crowd of people (18 different times from what I saw). Although many rejected Jesus during his three-year ministry, he always attracted crowds because of his teachings, miracles, and lifestyle. I think we can learn from this as we seek to communicate the Gospel to those of other faiths.

One of the most important things we can do is to point others, especially those in other religious traditions, to the life of Jesus. This would include not only encouraging them to read the Gospels, but also for us to fill our thoughts and words with Christ. As we live out a Christ-like life and point others to see the beauty of Christ in the Gospels, others will be drawn to Him.

This past summer I heard the testimony of a sister in Christ who left Hinduism after seeing Jesus’ moral superiority over the Hindu gods she had been worshiping. In a similar way, many Buddhists have been drawn to Christ because of his compassion and selflessness. Many Muslims have been drawn to Christ as they see his love and experience his forgiveness. Also, many animists have been drawn to Christ because of his power to cast out evil spirits and heal the sick. As during his three-year ministry, Jesus continues to draw people to himself.

For example, in China there are now between 50-89 million Christians and some estimate that by 2010 there will be 119.5 million Christians.  Moreover, in 1900 there were only 8.7 million Christians in Africa (8% of the pop.); however, in 2000 there were 346.5 million Christians in Africa (44% of the pop.).

May Christ continue to build up his Church by drawing all the nations to himself!

*Stats come from Disciples of all Nations by Lamin Sanneh.

Last month I went to the annual meeting for the American Academy of Religion. The most interesting session I attended was titled “The Disobedient Prophet? Tensions between Qur’anic Verses and Prophetic Practice.”

The first presenter discussed the tension between minimalism and comprehensiveness in the development of Shariah law. He argued that the early Muslim community took a minimalist approach in which Muslims could choose to do as they wished as long as it was not required or forbidden in the Qur’an. He then argued that in time, the comprehensive position won out in which Shariah Law was understood to encompass all of life, based upon the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the example set by Muhammad). He finished by arguing that the different schools of law in the Islamic world differ due to the way they have chosen to work out the teachings of Qur’an and the Sunnah.

The second presenter gave the example of how the Qur’an (9:5) teaches to “slay pagans wherever you find them,” yet Muhammad chose to ransom prisioners at the end of the battle of Badr.

The third presenter gave the example of the Qur’anic injunction to beat a disobedient wife (4:34), yet some hadiths recount how Muhammad discouraged men from doing so.

The fourth presenter gave the example of how the Qur’an teaches that those guilty of sexual immorality should receive 100 lashes (24:2), yet in a hadith Muhammad says that those guilty of sexual immorality should be stoned instead.

At the end of the session, the panelists came to the conclusion that these contradictions were only apparent. They went into detail describing how Muslims through the centuries have attempted to solve the tensions. Some of the “solutions” were more convincing than others.

In any case, I left the session reminded of the difficulty and complexity of studying other faiths. Those in the Christian tradition who have studied theology, church history, and biblical studies know how complex some issues can be. It is common place for those who have even graduated with an M.Div. to feel like they just began to scratch the surface on so many different areas of study.

Therefore, as Christians who are studying other religions, we should be humble and realize that the various religious traditions we are studying have their own complex history of practices and beliefs, and cannot be “figured out” any more than Christianity can be “figured out” by simply reading a few books.

I recently came across an intriguing concept while reading Encountering New Religious Movements: A Holistic Evangelical Approach (ed. Hexham, Rost, and Morehead II). According to the introduction, the various authors in this book intend to bridge the gap between apologetics and contextual missiology. As part of this project, they contend that Christians should approach those in New Religious Movements (NRM) in the same way as they would approach unreached people groups on the mission field.

On the one hand, this might not be a good idea because it might cause confusion. A “people group” is usually understood as an ethnolinguistic group with a shared identity, language, history, and culture. In missions, a people group is the largest group through which the gospel can flow without encountering significant barriers of understanding and acceptance.

On the other hand, seeing NRMs as unreached people groups might help in evangelism. Many Christians unfortunately tend to see those in NRMs (i.e. LDS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc) as opponents that need to be proven wrong. As would be expected, this approach usually closes the door to evangelism. In contrast, Christians tend to approach unreached people groups around the world with a greater sense of understanding and compassion. Maybe by seeing those in NRMs like we see those in unreached people groups, we will be more likely to encounter them with love rather than with contention.

I just finished writing a paper on Buddhism in Thailand and I wanted to point out 2 ideas that are important in understanding Buddhism. These observations apply specifically to Buddhism in Thailand, but I think they also play a role in other contexts.

1. 2 ways of being Buddhist:

a. Monks:

- Seek to follow the teachings of the Buddha
- Observe a more philosophical and “textbook” form of Buddhism
- Study and follow the Tripitika (Theravada scriptures).
- Keep over 200 rules as part of the sangha.
- Have a strict moral code to follow

b. Laity:
- Unfamiliar with philosophical Buddhism
- Mostly unfamiliar with the Tripitika
- Concerned mainly with gaining karmic merit by giving offerings to the monks
- They worship the Buddha and a variety of gods and spirits
- They have 5 moral commandments to follow

2. Buddhism easily assimilates other religious beliefs:

Buddhism in Thailand is a mix of Theravada Buddhism, Hinduism, and animism. Thais believe in karma and reincarnation, but they also devote much of their time in appeasing and worshipping local gods and spirits. These gods and spirits can bring them either fortune or misfortune in this life. Therefore, having the gods and spirits on one’s side is very important.

The image above is of a shrine on the grounds of a large hotel in Thailand. It is someone’s job at the hotel to go and place offerings at the shrine each day to ensure the prosperity and safety of the hotel. The usual offerings are incense, fruit, flowers, and soda in a bottle. Almost every house and business has a shrine where they place offerings each day.

Remember that…

First, Buddhism tends to have two ways of being Buddhist, one for the monks and one for the laity. “Textbook” Buddhism is often foreign to the average lay practitioner.

Second, Buddhism easily assimilates other religious beliefs. Buddhism in Thailand includes elements from Hinduism and animism. Ch’an (Zen) Buddhism in China is a mix of Buddhism and Taoism. In Japan, Buddhism and Shinto are often intertwined.

In one of his chapters Netland presents what he sees to be some of the problems with religious pluralism. I would like to present a few of them:

1. Pseudopluralisms: some advocates of religious tolerance and what appears to be religious equality are actually “covert inclusivists.”  That is, although they appear to be saying that they accept all religions, they actually believe that their own is superior.  For example, the Dalai Lama is a known proponent of religious tolerance, yet for him “salvation” is ultimately attained within Buddhism.  He does not overtly seek to convert people to Buddhism because of his belief in karma and reincarnation; it is not because he thinks that all religions are equally true.

2. Reinterpretation of beliefs and Reductionism: Religious pluralists in order to make their model “work” are forced to reinterpret religious beliefs in a way that would be unacceptable to orthodox believers of the various traditions.

3. Personae/Impersonae: The problem of whether God/the Real/Ultimate Reality that religious pluralists describe is personal or impersonal is another weakness of religious pluralism.  Pluralists are unable to convincingly explain how “the Real” can be personal for theists like Muslims and Christians and impersonal for others like Zen Buddhists and Advaita Vedantists.  If pluralists end up attributing either a personal or impersonal nature to “the Real” they will be privileging some traditions over others, which is what they are supposedly trying not to do.

4. Ineffability: Religious Pluralists argue that “the Real” is ineffable and has a nature that is beyond the concepts that we have.  Although we are unable to fully comprehend God, this does not mean that literally none of the properties attributed to God actually apply to God. According to Netland, this is “self-referentially incoherent” since at least the property of being ineffable would apply to God.  Thus, God would not be beyond all our categories of thought and language.  Moreover, Netland points out that if no substantial qualities can be properly applied to God then the appropriate response would be “agnostic silence” since we would know nothing about God.      

To conclude, Netland argues that a genuinely pluralistic model must be coherent and must not privilege any particular religious perspective.  When discussing with so-called pluralists remember that pluralists are usually forced to either distort the religious beliefs of others or they unintentionally end up privileging a particular religious tradition (usually it is their own).

As you enter the grounds of the Baha’i Lotus Temple in New Delhi this stone sign is set into a grass incline. Of the temple it states:

“This House is a place for prayer and meditation for the peoples of all religions and races. From within its portals the voice of mankind will ever be raised in praise and glorification of the creator of the universe.”

As you can see, the temple is intended to be a place of worship for people of all religions. You can also see that they tried to get to what they saw as the common denominator of all religions, namely, worship of “the creator of the universe.”

The problem with this is that belief in the creator of the universe, much less the worship of this creator, is not found in all religions. For example, Hindus and Buddhists do not believe in the creator of the universe. They may believe in a deity who formed this age, but the universe has always existed according to Hindus and Buddhists. It is uncreated and eternal.

I point this sign out just as an example of another weakness in the pluralist position.

In my last visit to India I had the opportunity to visit the Baha’i Lotus Temple in Delhi. The temple was built in 1986 and is known as the Taj Mahal of the 20th century.

The Lotus Temple is open to people of all faiths and each day they have a prayer time where representatives from different religions like Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Christianity are invited to come and offer prayers up to God.

This pluralistic outlook is at the heart of the Baha’i faith. Nevertheless, they still claim that they are the closest to the truth since the last prophet that God sent was their own, namely, Bahaullah (1817-1892). He claimed to be “the Supreme Manifestation of God.” Although they take pride in their pluralistic position, they cannot live it out consistently.  This is evident by the fact that they end up claiming superiority over all other religions.

This is an image of the Hindu god, Krishna. Actually, the god is Vishnu and Krishna is one of his avatars. An avatar is a manifestation of a god; literally it is a “down-coming.”

According to Vaishnavites (worshipers of Vishnu), Vishnu has had nine avatars and one is yet to come. He has appeared as a fish, tortoise, boar, man-lion, dwarf, warrior with an axe, Rama (epic hero from the Ramayana), Krishna (as seen in the Bhagavad-Gita), and the Buddha. Finally, he will come as Kalkin, a man riding on a white horse, who will take away all evil. Krishna is by far the most popular of Vishnu’s avatars. Interestingly, some Hindus believe that Jesus Christ is actually an avatar of Krishna.

Often, people incorrectly equate the Hindu doctrine of avatars with the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. Although these doctrines appear similar on the surface (the divine is made manifest in human form), differences abound:

1. Vishnu has manifested himself multiple times while the Son of God took on flesh once for all.
2. Vishnu appeared in animal and human-animal forms.
3. In the incarnation, the Son of God took on the frailty of humanity while avatars retain their divine power.
4. Avatars are triumphant over evil, while Christ did suffer and die because of evil.
5. Avatars pass away after their job is done while the Son of God remains as a man.
6. Avatars come to restore the balance of good and evil, while Christ is understood to have defeated evil once for all.
7. The Son of God’s incarnation is rooted in history while Vishnu’s avatars are loosely connected with history.

These are just some of the differences between the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation and the Hindu doctrine of avatars. This is another example of how religions might seem similar on the surface but when looked at closely are much different than previously thought.

In the first chapter of the book, Esposito and Mogahed introduce the reader to the basic beliefs and practices of Islam.  Unfortunately, a few of their statements reveal an apologetic bias.  For example, they write that “Islam means a strong commitment to God and shares the same Arabic root as the word for peace, or salaam” (7).  Actually, Islam means submission (to God). Thus, a Muslim is one who submits to God.  A couple of pages later they write, “Jesus’ mother, Mary, is mentioned by name more times in the Quran than in the New Testament” (9). I am not sure exactly what point they were trying to make, but they are clearly trying to make their Christian readers feel more comfortable with Islam. This apologetic bias does call into question how the Gallup’s poll data was presented in the book.  Nevertheless, the book is still valuable.

Instead of summarizing the book I just want to list a few of the findings that I found the most interesting:

1. 7% (91 million) of the Muslim world is radicalized (They believe that the 9/11 attacks were “completely” justified) (97).
2. Radicals are not more religious than the general population (98).
3. On average, the radicalized are more educated than moderate Muslims (71), disproving the idea that radicalism comes from the poor and uneducated.
4. The attributes most associated with the U.S. are: ruthless (68%), scientifically and technologically advanced (68%), aggressive (66%), conceited (65%), and morally decadent (64%).

I would recommend this book to those who want to better understand what Muslims believe (just beware of the bias of the authors).