The importance of developing strategies, understandings, and competence among Christians as they encounter historic world religions and newer belief systems is undisputed.  Not only does the Christian church continue to be challenged with the need for overseas ministry and evangelism but also with the need to minister within the continental United States to sizeable contingents of previously "overseas" religions.  Many adherents of these world religions have immigrated to the United States and now represent sizable populations in our communities.  Mosques and temples of other religions add to the mix of Protestant, Jewish, and Roman Catholic houses of worship already familiar to us.  The religious freedom of this nation allows for this open diversity.

Developing understandings of the current "mix" in the United States and the changes in the religious climate overseas is crucial to living in community and to being effective in fulfilling the mission of the Church, whether here or abroad.  Many places in the world experience fear, hatred, or suspicion among religious groups that can lead to repression, persecution, or violence.  It is significant that November is the month in which the Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church is lifted up as a model of Christian unity and concern - the same month that the Women's Division featured the "Interfaith Challenges, Interfaith Understanding" issue.  Christians are often the target of much of the religious persecution reported around the world.  Reducing the level of violence by better understanding and more open dialogue offers much to the Christian community.  It is surprising that none of the articles or editorials in this issue of the magazine reflected the concern about persecution of Christians experienced by most of the Christian world.

Forming interfaith understandings to equip Christians to respond in love to those of other religious traditions is certainly a worthwhile activity.  Interfaith exchanges are susceptible to a variety of problematic responses that include ignorance and a lack of a loving spirit on the part of those involved in such an exchange, whether Christian or non-Christian.  A systematic plan for developing competence and understanding in such exchanges must include, from the Christian viewpoint, the following principles:

1. Jesus Christ is the only Savior of the World.  Interfaith dialogue must never compromise or renounce the fact that Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) or that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)  Compromise in this area totally negates the "Christian" character of any message of understanding and acceptance that we may promote.

2. Genuine understanding is achieved only by full knowledge of each individual religion.  Surface characterizations often disguise harmful or destructive social practices which are inherent in the totality of the religion.  It is important to recognize that the public face some religions reveal in the cultural context of the United States differs greatly from the full outworking of that religion as practiced in countries in which they are the majority, dominant, and legal religion.  While there are elements to be appreciated in other religions, honesty about shortcomings is essential.

3.   Use of the word "Faith" to refer to other religions confuses the uniqueness of the Christian experience of salvation through faith in Christ.  "Religion" is a more accurate term to refer to belief systems whose outworking is not transforming faith in Christ.  A "Faith Relationship" with a personal God is not a component of religions which deny the possibility of a personal God, or whose major component is adherence to a particular set of rules or practices designed to manipulate a particular deity or produce acceptance or reward based on personal performance.

4. Religious freedom and tolerance should allow for "peaceful competition" among religions for the hearts and souls of humankind.  The Christian Church renounces any and all efforts to force conversions or to repress other religions.  It is the Christian's belief that the Gospel of Jesus Christ shared in the power of the Holy Spirit is sufficient to meet the challenge of evangelization in all cultures and nations of the world.  Not all religions hold this view.

5. Preparation for sharing the Christian faith should be at the heart of any effort toward education for interfaith activities.  Fulfilling the Great Commission, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations," (Matthew 28:19) must be the intentional end result that we promote as the model for the Church. 

These principles aid us in evaluating the articles in the November issue of Response magazine.  There are a wide variety of concerns that arise in the reading of this issue.  These concerns will be addressed under the sequential article headings below.

A Day of Interfaith Prayer - Dana E. Jones, Editor

Ms. Jones gives a moving account of the August 6 ceremony at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum 55 years, to the day, after the atomic bomb was dropped in WWII.  Participants represented a variety of religions and nationalities.  Here we have the use of the phrase "faith traditions" - "They prayed from various faith traditions - some Christian, more Buddhist and Shinto."  This usage sets the tone for the whole edition of Response, and it is fleshed out in even greater range than one would expect.  A whole range of religions are thus equated, in essence, with Christian faith.

Ms. Jones also wrote, "It taught me that in meeting those of other faith traditions, I will gain insight into knowing God that will strengthen my Christian faith."  A more responsible approach would be to proclaim that in meeting those of other religious traditions one would expect to have the uniqueness of Christian faith highlighted by comparison and contrast.  Instead, Ms. Jones relates that she expects to gain additional "insight into knowing God."  If Jesus Christ is the full and complete revelation of God and the Scriptures are the written record of that revelation, how can other world religions provide additional insight into a process and a relationship which they all reject?  If, on the other hand, God is conceived in general (non-Christian) terms and knowing Him is open to human speculation and experiment then that might well be the case.  Acceptance of the Scriptures and their revelation of Jesus Christ as the Incarnate God precludes Ms. Jones' statement.

Building Community Across Faiths - Joyce D. Sohl, Deputy General Secretary

Ms. Sohl has written an insightful article highlighting the religious diversity within our communities.  She offers questions and potential activities to encourage contact and knowledge of other religious traditions.  There are major difficulties in developing relationships across religious lines and the article does provide some help in understanding approaches that may be taken.  There are, however, three points of concern in the overall tenor of the article that need to be identified.  They are:

1. The supreme emphasis upon “Community” - Ms. Sohl’s article is correctly titled based on the content.  A more appropriate emphasis would include the concept of “Witness Through Relationship.”  The ultimate message of the salvation available only through Jesus Christ must never be weakened by an approach which places “community” or some other value ahead of that purpose in the mind of the Christian. 

2. Lack of Intentionality in Faith Sharing - Ms. Sohls statements, “if there are to be theological discussions” and, “you may be asked to share the convictions of your faith” presuppose a reluctance to share one’s faith or a decision to wait until one is asked to do so. 

3. Acceptance of Faith Equivalency - Ms. Sohl seems to equate the value or efficacy of other religions with Christian faith.  Evidence of this is the frequent use of the word “faith(s).”   There is a repeated  call to “respect each other’s opinions” and “be tolerant of each other, and…respect and understand each other.”  Ms. Sohl’s statement about being “open to God’s message whether it comes from another Christian or from a person of another faith, for God does work in mysterious and awesome ways to bring about God’s reign” is totally foreign to the Christian understanding that God speaks through His Word and that the Word of God is incomparably superior to other religious writings.  Ms. Sohl’s concluding statement about building community, “so all God’s children can live in a peaceful, just society,” amply illustrates the validity of this concern. 

Canaanite Neighbors in a Roman Context - R. Grace Imathiu

Ms. Imathiu’s article raises many objections and requires clarifying statements.  It seems clear that her article is based on several misunderstandings and omissions of fact which, when clarified, weaken the emphasis of her article.  Ms. Imathiu’s article uses the incident of the healing of the Canaanite woman’s daughter as the springboard for making assumptions and statements that are not justified by history or the accounts themselves.

Identifying the woman as actually Canaanite is most likely in error.  The text of Matthew indicates that Jesus and the disciples had journeyed to the “region of Tyre and Sidon.”  Emphasis seems to be on the geographical region in this text.  Matthew continues to recount that “a woman of Canaan came from that region.”  A second account of this encounter is given in Mark 7:24-30.  Once again the text indicates that Jesus (and the disciples) “went to the region of Tyre and Sidon.”  The text also indicates that the woman encountered “was a Greek (or Gentile), a Syro-Phoenician (a Syrian of Phoenicia) by birth.”  It is clear from combining these two passages that the woman was encountered in the area that could be referred to historically as Canaan and that she was a Gentile, a Syro-Phoenician.  It appears that Ms. Imathiu may have a particular reason for ignoring this clarifying information in order to make a case based only on the abbreviated account in Matthew.  Even so, the points developed do not bear up in a more complete investigation.  The Syro-Phoenician woman will be referred to as Canaanite in the rest of these comments in order to comply with the author's identification as we examine the implications made in the article.

The article infers that the Canaanite woman was the first non-Israelite person who received Jesus’ ministry of healing and compassion. Ms. Imathiu writes, “after meeting with her, he expands his mission statement to minister to a non-Israelite.”  The healing of the Centurion’s servant is an example of a prior instance of ministry to a non-Israelite.  There may have been other instances of ministry to non-Israelites that are not highlighted in the accounts.  Matthew 8:5-13 records the complete story of the Centurion and Luke 7:1-10 adds more detail.  The Centurion has been traditionally understood to be of non-Israelite origins.  The “elders of the Jews” whom the Centurion sent to Jesus to beg His compassion and healing said that the Centurion “loves our nation, and has built for us a synagogue.”  Strange statements, indeed, if he were an Israelite.  The traditional understanding of both the Canaanite woman and the male Centurion is that Jesus responded to the observed and/or tested faith of both.  Being fully human and fully divine, neither encounter added to Jesus’ understanding of His ministry or contributed to any “personal growth” on His part.  His ministry was primarily to the people of Israel in preparation for His death, resurrection, and sending of the Holy Spirit to empower the Church to then minister to the world.

Ms. Imathiu also glosses over important details about what it meant to truly be a “Canaanite” in her attempt to add legitimacy to her interpretation and application of the story.  Notes in the New King James Woman’s Study Bible indicate that “The Canaanites were Israel’s ancient enemies.  They were a perverse people who were in the land when Abraham arrived.  Because of the atrocities they practiced in their religion, such as temple prostitution and child sacrifice, and because of their refusal to repent and to turn to Him, God had ordered their destruction.”   This kind of historical understanding provides a more substantive rationale than “theological grounds for this genocide” as stated by Ms. Imathiu.  If the Canaanite religion had not been suppressed or eliminated, this very child could have been sacrificed in the fires of uncompassionate idolatry.

The Canaanite woman’s faith in Jesus Christ and probable rejection of Canaanite religion is shown in her intreaty to Jesus.  “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David” can legitimately be interpreted as worship and acknowledgement of the God of Israel.  Rather than having “her identify affirmed” and Jesus finding “an ally in matters of faith,” as alleged by Ms. Imathiu, it seems that all the affirmation is directed toward Jesus Christ and the power of healing and compassion which is at work in Him.

Ms. Imathiu seems to understand the history of religious interaction between Christians and members of other religions as being one-sided with Christians being the primary instigators of religious violence.  Casual reading of history and today’s newspapers will dispel that notion rather quickly.  Her reference to being “jaded by cruel jokes and innuendoes about Jews as lovers of money, movies that depict Muslims as mercenary and fundamentalist, and propaganda about Hindus as idol-worshipers” seems to deny reality by mixing traditional stereotypes with news stories and pretending not to know the difference.  There must be clear understanding that there are negative components in world religions that create common knowledge of basic facts.  After all, unbiased reporting of acts of terrorism committed by some Islamic sects (and others as well) and pictures of Hindu temples adorned with idols are contemporary reality.

Ms. Imathiu’s conclusion requires comment.  Jesus was not “confronted” by the Canaanite woman in the sense of being reprimanded or enlightened.  Her “confrontation” was an insistent plea for help from the only source she knew she could receive it - and it wasn’t from Canaanite religion!  The implication is made in a “straw man” kind of argument that the church, without this particular incident to inform it, would conclude that its mission statement would only allow evangelism and interaction with a limited number of people.  The truth of the matter is that the Great Commission and the working of the Holy Spirit impels a faithful church to “make disciples of all the nations.”  All incidents of ministry in the Gospels or the Book of Acts are records of the outworking of the compassion of Christ and the Holy Spirit’s leading to ministry and faithful witness.

It certainly is important to keep the “main thing the main thing”!  Is it respectful to Ms. Imathiu to suggest a revision to her statement?  Could we say “All people are beloved of God regardless of their race, gender, or ethnicity who wants them to come to faith in His Son Jesus Christ” rather than “regardless...of their ways of faith”?  Ms. Imathiu also includes the statement, “Mothers of sick children are not targets for conversion.”  Does being the mother of a sick child exempt a person from the necessity of trusting in Christ, and Christ alone, for salvation?  Crisis times are often conversion times, for need is more acutely felt.

Ms. Imathiu is correct in that we share many things with adherents of other religions and those can be used as a basis of communication.  Today we will, indeed, encounter many more people of other religions than was the case in the past.  Central to a truly Christian understanding and preparation for these encounters is a proactive stance toward sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ.  Our old language may be ethnocentric and offensive if it is not grounded in the love and purpose of the Gospel, but let us never renounce the “offense” of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  That is the only real hope for reconciliation between different people groups.  The reality of being one in Christ!

The Mosque Next Door - Diana L. Eck, Ph. D. Harvard University

Dr. Eck’s article highlights the enormity of the changes taking place in the United States in the religious world.    As “The Mosque Next Door” illustrates so well, the presence of other religious traditions in the United States is increasing.  What is the appropriate response to the presence of these religions?  Is it to ignore? To combat with anger and hatred? To aid in accommodation?  To educate the church about them with the purpose of aiding the unquestioned acceptance of a supposed equivalency of religions?  To understand with the purpose of evangelizing?  Ms. Eck’s article promotes the kind of understanding which intentionally leaves no room for evangelism and no statement about the uniqueness of Christ as the Savior of the World.  Dr. Eck has achieved great recognition for her writings which include Encountering God:  A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banares, Banares:  City of Light, Darsan:  Seeing the Divine Image in India, among others.  She is also the director of the Pluralism Project. 

The selection of Ms. Eck to write this article is troubling for several reasons. These reasons are highlighted in Mark Tooley’s article “Apostasy at 2000” from Touchstone, December 2000.   Mr. Tooley is on the staff of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C.  The report is about the Trinity Episcopal Church (Wall Street, New York City) Trinity Institute.  Mr. Tooley writes about one of the speakers, Marcus Borg, and Dr. Eck’s response to his comments:

One of the most celebrated speakers was (Marcus) Borg, who is Episcopalian, but who advocates a brand of “panentheism” that rejects notions of a personal God in favor of a broader universal spirit.

“I grew up in a time and place where it was taken for granted that Christianity was the only true religion and Jesus the only way of salvation,” Borg recalled with distaste, “That’s why we had missionaries....  I find it literally incredible to think that the God of the whole universe has chosen to be known in only one religious tradition, which just fortunately happens to be our own.”

Diana Eck heartily agreed.  She is director of the Pluralism Project, which analyses and advocates religious diversity in America.  Eck and her female companion (who teaches religion and psychology at Drew University) are also the first lesbian dorm parents at Harvard University, where she teaches comparative religion.  Eck, who is United Methodist, has served as a consultant to the World and National Councils of Churches.  And she has received the National Humanities Medal for her work from President Clinton.

“Today if we open our eyes and our ears, there are many ways of theological conception other than the ones we have known as Christians,” Eck said.  “It is our task, and our joy, to re-imagine what we know about God.”  She is convinced that “it is time for all of our theisms to be held in a context of global multi-theism.”

It appears that Dr. Eck’s appreciation for pluralism and diversity extends from religious pluralism to her personal life as well.  The end result seems to be a mix which rejects the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation and the moral requirements of the Old and New Testaments.  Dr. Eck’s article contains thinly veiled encouragement toward “pluralism” as an advance over the mere toleration of diversity (the factual presence of other religious traditions).  This “pluralism” is understood as “energetic engagement,” “active seeking of understanding,” rejection of “tolerance” as a goal, and “the encounter of commitments.” 

Dr. Eck’s personal commitment to “global multi-theism” is certainly reflected in this article in her concluding statement, “Whether in India or the United States, the challenge for all of us today is how to shape societies, nations and neighborhoods, that replicate and potentially may reconfigure the differences that have long divided humankind.”  One suspects that this “reconfiguring” includes the abandonment of the Christian understanding of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the Church’s commitment to enable every person to “encounter” Jesus Christ.

It is disappointing that the Response magazine staff could not, or did not, try to find a writer with an adequate understanding of our religious environment in the United States and in the world whose encounter with other religions left them convinced of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the Scriptures as the Word of God.  Such a person would have included some measure of concern for the task of sharing the Good News.  Such a person would also reflect the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ in a personal life that conforms to the Scripture and the teaching of the United Methodist Church.

A Journey of Spirit:  India to Indiana - Kanwal Prakash Singh

This article is quite parallel to Dr. Eck’s in two ways.  His article refers to a reverse journey in relation to her book Encountering God:  A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras.  His article describes the reverse journey from India to the United States.  His article reaches the same conclusion that Dr. Eck has reached in her article, books, and speeches.  That conclusion is, “God’s light has traveled to earth through many divine messengers,” and, “God is the fountainhead of all knowledge, languages, and is the inspiration of all faiths.” 

Mr. K. P. Singh writes a very informative article about the transition that he made from his native countries (Pakistan and India) to assimilation into the culture of the United States.  Such transitions are very hard for any person to make and he is to be commended for the perseverance and work which made it possible for him to achieve success.  Mr. Singh writes of the violence between groups in his native lands that caused the loss of so much life in the partition of India in 1947.  That violence had happened many times before and has happened several times since the partition.  The great animosity between Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh continues to this day.  One must reluctantly point out that the very religious insights that are core to these beliefs, and create these divisions, are those that are often held up as exemplary by devotees of “eastern” religions as producing peace, tranquility, and universal understanding.  The bloodshed experienced in the wars between these religions makes historic “Christian” transgressions pale in comparison.  One must also point to the outright persecution and repression of Christians in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.  Evidently, the appreciation of all religions as having “traveled to earth through many divine messengers” doesn’t seem to be a popular understanding there.  It may be that we can all give thanks for the unprecedented religious freedom that is ours in a historically “Christian” United States.

It is troubling that Response magazine has provided a platform for the clear presentation of other religions without providing hope for evangelism in the form of testimonies from Christians who were once adherents of those religions.  It would be helpful to have a more balanced viewpoint from a former Sikh, Hindu, or Moslem who came to believe in Jesus as the Savior of the World.  Unfortunately, Mr. K. P. Singh’s native religion appears more intact after encounter with Christians than many of the beliefs of “Christian” authors featured in this issue who have encountered world religions.

Empowered by Christ - Sunita Charles

The struggle to be a “Christian college” in a decidedly non-Christian environment is obvious in this article.  The information in the article is as disquieting as it is informative.  Is Isabella Thoburn College trying to be “distinctively Christian” by design or syncretistic in practice?  In what ways are the unique claims of Jesus Christ presented or made available to adherents of other religions?  Clear answers to these and other questions are not presented in the article.

The religious program at Isabella Thoburn seems designed to produce admixture with the object of “enabling all to strive to bridge diverse faiths.”  The roles of the faculty and the Christian students seems to be greatly compromised in the area of evangelism by the official program and activities of the college.  The statement, “They sing praises to God in unison with more than 1,000 women of other faiths,”  makes one wonder what God is the object of this worship.  It is difficult to believe that Hindus, Christians, and Buddhists join knowingly in singing praises to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Further concern is raised by the fact that this singing of praises is conjoined with “a non-Christian student who [does] an Indian (read Hindu) dance praising the Lord of Lords (read Krishna).”  One may question the syncretism of the statement, “Students and faculty celebrate each others’ festivals in each others’ homes.”

While being understanding of the difficulties associated with faith-sharing in a culture that is decidedly not Christian, one searches in vain for an indication in this article that Isabella Thoburn has found methods or practices that are authentically Christian in a higher education setting.  The absolute reticence to make any statements that indicate an intentionally evangelistic approach in any part of the life of the college is demonstrated by the guarded manner of referring to the mission of the college as, “to sensitize the faculty and students.”  The closing reference to the two great commandments (“Love the Lord your God...Love your neighbor as yourself”) should always be understood in the context of the Great Commission to “make disciples of all the nations.”

Prayers, Not Firebombs - Stanley Campbell

Mr. Campbell recounts the efforts of the Rockford Urban Ministries, a joint effort of 18 United Methodist churches, to promote religious tolerance and counter the unwise and totally unloving actions and attitudes of some members of the community who resorted to violence and destructive acts toward other religious presences and practices.  The actions taken by the Rockford Urban Ministries are commendable.  The programs may need to be emulated in essence in other locations to promote tolerance and understanding.  However, there are two concerns that need to be raised in relation to the article:

1. The joy of welcoming Buddhists, Muslims, and other world religions to our communities needs to be tempered by the realization that success in their religious activities means failure for the Church.  If Jesus Christ is the Light of the World and “the way, the truth, and the life,” religions that deny His lordship are not avenues to eternal life. 

2. Those who receive such welcome and open support in establishing a new religious presence in the United States of America should be encouraged to communicate with adherents of their religion in their countries of origin to demand reciprocal freedoms for Christians there.  Christian communities around the world would greatly appreciate greater freedom to fulfill the Great Commission without repression or persecution. 

Christian Mission In An Age of Religious Pluralism - Rev. Dr. M. Thomas Thangaraj, Candler School of Theology, Emory University

This article by Dr. Thangaraj is perhaps the most troubling article in the magazine from a Christian perspective.  Dr. Thangaraj brings a unique background to his position as the D. W. and Ruth Brooks Associate Professor of World Christianity at United Methodist Candler School of Theology at Emory University.   His written works include:  Preaching as Communication,  The Crucified Guru:  An Experiment Cross-Cultural Christology, Relating to People of Other Religions:  What Every Christian Needs to Know, and The Common Task:  A Theology of Christian Mission.  He briefly describes his religious development in a Christian village in India in “What Difference Does Religious Plurality Make?”, an article prepared for the World Council of Churches (WCC).  In the WCC article he describes his beginning awareness of Hindu and Muslim religions at Madras Christian College.  He writes, “I was beginning to appreciate religious plurality in ways in which I had not done before precisely due to the friendships that I had with Hindus and Muslims.”   He also relates in the WCC article that he, “began to experience an existential anxiety about my own faith.  The universality of my faith was challenged in significant ways.  Is the Christ the only way to God?  This question began to haunt me from then on.”

He indicates in the WCC article that when he began teaching at Tamilnadu Theological Seminary, “religious plurality became an important element in my teaching and research. This had its impact on the way my own personal faith in Christ was shaped.  I began to see more clearly my need to be in dialogue with Hindus, especially the Saivites, to make sense of my own faith.  The spirituality of the Saivite saints, especially their hymnic writings, became part of my spiritual heritage.”  (The Saivite Saints are generally understood to be 63 individuals of the 7th to 9th centuries, or earlier, whose writings are hymnic in nature.   They were found in the south India region known as the Tamil area.  Numerous temples are associated with their influence.  They are also known as the Nayanmar Saints and are considered to be a branch of Hinduism.)

Dr. Thangaraj’s WCC article includes the following information:

My research over the years and my publications indicate the inclusion of religious plurality into every aspect of thinking.  My book, The Crucified Guru: An Experiment in Cross-Cultural Christology, is an attempt to understand and articulate one’s faith in Christ through the category of “Guru” in the Tamil Saivite tradition.  The awareness of religious plurality and an appreciation of it have led me in this book to come up with a functional understanding of Christology and a reconstruction of the exclusive claims of Christ…. The next major project I am dreaming of is to write a one-volume systematic theology, which takes interreligious, especially the Hindu-Christian, conversation as its system.

Dr. Thangaraj's Response article and his other writings show us clearly what the end result is of the "religious pluralism" that he and some other writers in this issue espouse.  Their understanding of "religious pluralism" results in:

1. The rejection of the claims of Jesus Christ to be the “way, the truth, and the life.”  The Church has historically understood this claim in the context of Acts 4:12, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

2. The relegation of Christian faith to being only one option among the religions of the world.

3. The abandonment of evangelism as the obedient response of the Church to the Great Commission.

These points are clearly illustrated by Dr. Thangaraj’s statements in the article.  He indicates that encounters with other religions, “reveals validity in religious traditions other than Christianity.  This means the Christian faith must see itself as one of the religious options for the Peoples of the world, and thus lose its hegemonic status in the marketplace of religious traditions.”  A belief in Hell as the eternal destiny of non-believers (non-Christians) must also be jettisoned because developing “reverence” for other traditions “makes it difficult for Christians to claim without qualification that people of other faiths are going to Hell for eternal damnation.”   This is a particularly charitable position because Muslims have no such qualms and Hindus have no problem asserting that individuals are subject to the “Hell” of endless reincarnations as progressively lower beings if you don’t “get it right” this time.

Dr. Thangaraj includes a discussion of “mission” and “evangelism” which can be summarized quite easily.  If you subsume “evangelism” under the heading of “mission” (which is supposedly a much more important thing to do) you can feel quite noble if you don’t do any evangelism.

Dr. Thangaraj’s “theology of mission” can be summarized also in the categories that he uses:

1. Cruciform Responsibility - It’s all God’s problem anyway so you don’t have to be particularly intense about the whole matter of evangelism and the eternal destiny of others.  This approach is quite effective in stifling any interest in evangelism.

2. Liberative Solidarity - Get wrapped up in others and espouse the modern version of Liberation Theology.

3. Eschatological Mutuality - Exquisite choice of words that means “We’re all going to be saved in the end so let’s celebrate with our friends of other religions.”

Dr. Thangaraj’s conclusion includes the quote “quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger” from James 1:19.  It is rather easy for one to hear a disquieting emphasis on the “slow to speak” part in view of his earlier conclusions.  The emphasis on “neighbors as fellow travelers” is quite clear when one understands neighbors to be adherents of non-Christian world religions and “fellow travelers” to mean that, no matter what our religious persuasion, our destinations are all the same.  It is quite disappointing that we see here an absolute rejection of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, who needs no reinterpreting as a “Saivite Guru,” and a substitution of a “journey toward the wholeness of Creation,” when our neighbors need to be invited to experience “wholeness in Jesus Christ.”

A Ministry of Presence in Nepal - Norma Kehrberg

This brief article is a clear illustration of the tensions and problems of ministry and evangelism in many parts of the world.  There are many countries in the world where a “ministry of presence” is all that is allowed by official policy and demanded by non-pluralistic religions.  “We are a Hindu country” is a statement that inadvertently reflects the repression of Christian witness.  The statements that Nepal is the only official Hindu country in the world conflicts with the author’s statement that it is a multi-faith country. The following excerpt from a publication by Voice of the Martyrs clarifies the religious repression in Nepal:

Nepal is the world’s only Hindu nation;  89 percent of the people are Hindu, and Hinduism is the state religion.  Christians form only 0.58 percent of the population.  Civil unrest in 1990 led to extensive liberalization of government controls, including freedom to profess and practice any religion, but not to proselytize.  In practice, local persecution of Christians is common, especially those who witness to Hindus.  In March of 1999, police attacked a crowd of Christians preparing for an Easter service, beating Christians and injuring more than 200.  In 1998, Rev. Gopal Kam Magar and Rev. Sukha Kham Magar were killed by policemen.  The government claimed the two had been mistaken for Communist activists, but other Christian pastors have also been killed in similar “mistakes.”

 We understand why Ms. Kehrberg appreciates the opportunity to work without the label of “missionary.”   The conversations related in the article reveal the heart of the women who want to live in a society that is “Christian” as opposed to the repressive society of which they are a part.  Let us pray for the time when those who work in this area do not have to restrict their activities to women’s concerns in a circumspect manner, but can address the whole message of Christ’s freedom to the people of Nepal openly.  When the author writes, “We do not have to speak the words,” we understand the real meaning to be, “We cannot speak the words!”  Let us pray for the time when the Words of Life can be openly spoken in Nepal and every place in the world!

Maya Spirituality in Postwar Guatemala - Paul Jeffrey

Paul Jeffrey is listed with the General Board of Global Ministries as a United Methodist missionary.  GBGM information indicates that Paul’s “award-winning writing and photos focus on how Christians and Christian communities struggle for justice and peace in the midst of repression, violence, and rapid economic social change.”  Paul says of himself:

“My job is to help people in the U.S. and Europe understand what Christians in Latin America are doing, why they’re doing it, and what the consequence of that work may be both for those in the south as well as those in the north. When I do that well, people in the north begin to understand how they are intrinsically linked to their sisters and brothers here, not just because they share the same Gospel, but also because they share an international economic system that manufactures poverty and injustice for the majority.”

Mr. Jeffrey assists the Christian Commission for Development by writing reports on its work and doing political analysis.   Paul is a clergy member of the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference and served two rural churches in western Washington State before moving to Central America in 1984.  Paul’s work since being in Central America has been primarily that of a journalist and political analyst.

Mr. Jeffrey’s article broaches concerns in an area of the world where the availability of accurate and unbiased information has been hard to verify.  There is an unquestioned history of repression and ethnocide going back to the time of the initial conquest by European colonizers.  The present situation in Guatemala is difficult to unravel because the competing groups have very different agendas for the future.

Mr. Jeffrey’s article poses some difficult problems because of the following:

1. Promoting the Mayan Religion - The overall tenor of the article seems to be a one-sided presentation of “Mayan spirituality.”  One could wonder why there is this promotion of an ancient pagan religion. Use of the term “spirituality” can not legitimize the religion in the eyes of the Christian public.  The ancient Mayan religion differed little, in essence, from other non-Christian religions.  There was the same pantheism and “shamanism” shared with other religions.  One must not forget that one of the features of Mayan, Incan, and Aztec religions was human sacrifice.  The author doesn’t mention that aspect of “Mayan spirituality” or that it was one of the rites that “practitioners of Indigenous spirituality had to celebrate in secret.”

2. Glossing Over Objections to “Mayan Spirituality” - The article mentions the objections of many observers of  “Mayan spirituality” who are native Guatemalan or active in the country.  Some quotes from the article which identify the concerns of observers include:  “neo-Pentecostal preachers brand practitioners of Maya religion as devil worshipers,” “they still consider the Indigenous Peoples diabolical,” “some Methodists have scolded her for ‘fraternizing with witches’,” and “People say we’re diabolical, that we have a lot of gods.”  Do these accusations voice a legitimate concern about “Mayan Spirituality”?

3. Admission and Celebration of Syncretism - Syncretism can be defined as the mixing of religions, sometimes of antithetical concepts.  The history of Guatemala is a history of syncretism as reported in the Response article:

Imposing Christian beliefs produced generations of Maya who became Christians to survive, who went to mass but in their hearts still felt the presence of the sacred altars below the cathedral floor, who practiced what became a syncretic faith mixing their ancestors’ faith with elements of the colonial master’s religion.

Mr. Jeffrey relates that the Catholic Church is “resorting to some Catholic-animist forms that will allow the church to continue to have influence within the Indigenous population.”  A quote from Mr. Diego Chicoj, a Methodist pastor, relates, “There are people who practice Maya spirituality who are much more respectful toward everything around them than are we Christians.  Whether they really worship the trees or the mountains, it’s obvious that they have respect for nature and feel deep love for God and their neighbor,  So what can I say?  I don’t think I can say anything.”  Evidently Mr. Chicoj sees the primary purpose of Christian faith as having “respect” for nature, etc.  A quote from Dennis Smith, an analyst at the Central American Evangelical Center for Pastoral Studies, relating to people mixing diverse forms of religious practice and worship indicates that he knows “people who attend Catholic mass, charismatic services, mass neo-Pentecostal religious spectacles, and in a moment of profound personal crisis, consult a spiritist.  There’s no sense of needing to divide their spirituality into separate boxes.”

4. Lack of A Clear Witness to Christ - If the article by Mr. Jeffrey presents an accurate and complete picture of the religious world in Guatemala, there would appear to be no ethnically Mayan individuals who have renounced the paganism, syncretism, and “Mayan spirituality” of their environment in favor of faith in Jesus Christ.  That is a picture difficult to believe.  In the absence of such a witness, one would have to conclude that “Mayan spirituality” is in essence more powerful and spiritually meaningful than an experience of new birth in Jesus Christ.  However, the article does indicate that several Evangelical religious groups are conducting successful evangelism and church-planting activities in Guatemala among the Maya indigenous people. This would seem to contradict the aforementioned concept of genuine and complete conversions.  A balanced approach would have presented testimonies from Mayan peoples who have experienced the life-changing power of Jesus Christ.

5. Promotion of Interreligious Cooperation as the Ultimate Good - A beginning statement from thearticle, “an authentic process of evangelization that seeks to express Gospel values within a culture” must be understood in conjunction with, “No social or economic project will get off the ground here unless it takes into account the deep variants in the religiosity of the Guatemalan people.”  It appears to be Mr. Jeffrey’s conclusion that accommodation must be made for, and acceptance given for, the  continuation of pagan/syncretistic practices before there can be real understanding of mission and evangelism in Guatemala or to Mayan or other native peoples.  We must respectfully disagree!

Interfaith Marriage:  Faiths, Journeys, Lessons - Kelly C. Martini

Ms. Martini has written a mostly informative article about the difficulties inherent in interfaith marriages and some of the methods used to smooth out the difficulties.  The first paragraph sets up a classic good-guy/bad-guy scenario with, unfortunately, the “Christian” playing the part of the “heavy.”  Too bad the absolute refusal of  the Jewish groom to give in and raise the children as Christian isn’t highlighted as well.  Maybe there is some “prejudice” directed at Christian faith which makes it impossible for a Jewish person to acknowledge the “supposed equivalency” of all religions and just “get along.”   Is it possible that only Christians should be held in a bad light for having strong beliefs?

The article contains continuous allusions to Christians being informed or strengthened in their faith by studying the religion of their partner.  One could wonder why the other partner did not receive such divine illuminations about Christ from their respective religions that would lead them to saving faith.  Ms. Pitterson is portrayed as finding “revelations of the love of Christ, a reverence for God and what she wants in a church” in her exploration of Islam.  This is, most decidedly, a surprising statement to those who are seeking to share their faith with Muslims and to Muslims as well.  If Ms. Pitterson could share exactly where that information may be found it would certainly be helpful to them.  It is important to acknowledge that many born-again Christians experience order in their Christian faith, rise early to seek God, and are empowered by God’s Spirit for service throughout the week.  Evidently, Ms. Pitterson may not have had the good fortune of making the acquaintance of any of them. 

The difficulties of interreligious marriages are well-illustrated in the article.  One of the problems is the possibility of inherently dismissing the possibility of there being real “truth” in any religion.  “As long as our children pray and have faith, that’s what’s important,” illustrates the tendency to dismiss “truth claims” and settle on the “lowest common denominator.”  Another option is to let children make up their own minds later, which they will anyway if they have the freedom to do so.  However, Christians are admonished to, "Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." (Proverbs 22:6)

Sympathetic portrayals of non-Christian religions continue in this article as well as the others.  Muslim, Jewish, and Baha’i are presented favorably in this article.  For example, Ms. Raspberry is quoted, “In the Baha’i faith, we believe there is one God, and we are supposed to consort with all religions with harmony, friendship, and love. We are all followers of God who find God through different messages.”  Mr. Raspberry also offers the platitude, “followers of Baha’i work hard at living their faith and work diligently at keeping moral standards.” 

The increasing incidence of interreligious marriages causes Mr. Davis to offer, “Religious leaders are going to have to come to terms with it.  They cannot overlook the personal pain caused when the Church or religion denies a person because of their choice of a marriage partner.”   The Protestant Christian church does not have the history of rejecting a person of another religion or an interreligious marriage in the same manner that other religious groups have demonstrated.  However, while the incidence of interreligious marriage may be increasing, that does nothing to ease the personal difficulties encountered by those in the marriage relationship. 

Although not taught strongly in Christian circles, the Scriptures are clear in the prohibition of marriage between a believer and a non-believer.  II Corinthians 6:14, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers,” is clear in its intent to spare believers the difficulties to be encountered in an interreligious marriage.  The fact that some do not know about the prohibition, or ignore it, does not cause its wisdom to be lessened.

The article concludes  with an example of a support group which ministers to  people in interreligious marriages.  This is certainly a viable area of ministry for Christians and the Church.

Jewish-Christian Dialogue Today - Erica R. Jenkins

Ms. Jenkins has written an excellent article that provides extremely helpful information and approaches to Jewish-Christian dialogue.  The “Ten Points of Seelisburg” which give points to avoid offense to Jewish persons are especially helpful.  The excellence continues in the sub-article “United Methodists Can Get Involved” which lists some typical joint activities and programs.

The only concern identified in the article appears in the fifth of the six goals of Jewish-Christian dialogue, “To open the dialogue to the next neighbor - Muslim sisters and brothers.”  This language is repeated in the final sentence in the article.  Ms. Jenkins refers to “fellow Christians and Jewish sisters and brothers.”  It is questionable whether Muslims or Jewish persons would consent to be referred to as brothers and sisters of Christians as a matter of course.  It is also questionable whether it is appropriate for Christians to refer to non-Christians in a manner that implies a shared faith with those who make no profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

Loving Your Neighbor As Yourself - Gwyn Stetler

This article describes the work of the Interfaith Hospitality Network in Columbus, Ohio.  The ministries of compassion and communication are commendable and serve as a model for Christian service and love.

Emory University Models Interfaith Dialogue - Brenda Webber

This article heralds the work of the Rev. Susan Henry-Crowe, the Dean of the Chapel at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.  Ms. Henry Crowe is a clergy member of the South Carolina Annual Conference.  She has been honored in many ways for her work at Emory University.  She was awarded  Chaplain of the Year 2000 for the United Methodist Higher Education Foundation among other awards.  She was a member of the Judicial Council from 1996-2000.  She is active in the Reconciling Congregations Program and participated in their activities at General Conference 2000. She has also been recognized by being named in a petition to the Southeastern Jurisdiction’s 2000 Conference in a motion that demanded her removal from her position.  The petition states,  “Reverend Henry-Crowe has demonstrated a disregard for the doctrines of the United Methodist Church in her role as  University Chaplain.  ...She was instrumental in formulating the present university policy allowing, under specific circumstances, for same-sex unions to be conducted in Emory University (United Methodist) facilities.”  Ms. Henry-Crowe also testified in deliberations which resulted in Duke University lifting its ban on same-sex unions.

The Religious Life Program at Emory University bears a strong resemblance to the program described at Isabella Thoburn College in Lucknow, India.  This is surprising considering the extreme difference in environment of the two institutions.  The program at Emory University features the coming together of 27 religious groups for discussion and planning.  Interfaith equality and access to facilities and support from the University is routine.

Emory is historically a United Methodist-related institution, but Emory has moved consistently to downplay the importance and influence of its church relationship.   Except for the presence on campus of Candler School of Theology and a majority of “Christian” students,  Emory seems to make no effort to be known as a “Christian” institution.  The Religious Life program reflects the institution’s commitment to diversity and pluralism.  United Methodists have every right to expect an exemplary program that embodies Christian standards in the institutions that they support.

Dennis W. Short holds the B.A. from Southeastern College, the M.Div. from Columbia Theological Seminary, and the Ed. S. from the University of Georgia.  He recently retired from a career in secondary and post-secondary education as the Dean of Academic Support Services at Gwinnett Technical College in Lawrenceville, Georgia.  He has served over seventeen years as a part-time local pastor in the United Methodist Church.  He currently pastors Bethel United Methodist Church, Clermont, Georgia.  He has been married to Faye Short, President of the Renew Network, for over 34 years.  They have one daughter, Denise, who is married to Wayne Weimer, and one grand-daughter, Emily Kate. 

PREAMBLE

The Preamble begins well with the linkage of women's rights to human rights. The international community reflects various levels of equality for women, and the need to address discriminatory practices against women goes without question. How best to do this can be open to debate. In a document such as CEDAW, it is important to discern if a broad perspective is given and to assure that clarity prevents any hidden social agendas.

A reference is made in the preamble about "the establishment of the new international economic order based on equity and justice." This order is not defined and leaves one wondering what is meant.

The preamble calls for "general and complete disarmament, and in particular nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control." Not everyone would agree that the world is ready for "general and complete disarmament," regardless of how much that might be desired. And, one would question whether nation states would submit to "strict and effective international control" of their national security measures.

The preamble also advocates for the "maximum participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields." Does this assure a woman's choice, or mandate the choice of many women? Are we talking quota, in all fields?

While earlier UN documents supported particular protection for mothers, thereby acknowledging the importance of their role upon society, this document stresses that"the role of women in procreation should not be a basis of discrimination but the upbringing of children requires a sharing of responsibility between men and women and society as a whole." While the paragraph containing this statement begins by mentioning the importance of the contribution of the mother to the welfare of the family and the development of society-it ends by implying that it really isn't all that significant after all, and another social construct will do just as well.

The preamble concludes by emphasizing that "change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed." Who defines those changed roles? Not everyone would think they are needed.

PART 1 - ARTICLE I

Article I identifies "discrimination against women" as anything that curtails the "enjoyment" of women's rights in all arenas, on an equal basis with men. But, in actuality, both men and women are deprived of some measure of enjoyment by the necessity, and privilege, of responsibility. Accepting curtailment of personal enjoyment for friends, family and society creates a personal fulfillment that selfserving will never bring.

ARTICLE 2

The various points under Article 2 advocate for legislation, sanctions (when deemed appropriate) and for other measures to assure the complete elimination of any discrimination against women. Such strong enforcement from an outside source may prove more invasive than acceptable by most member states. While discrimination against women should most certainly be ended, total violation of national sovereignty is a high price to pay.

ARTICLE 3
Article 3 unabashedly moves the enforcement of this treaty beyond just member states and its agencies into enforcement againstpersons, organizations or enterprises. This is incredibly intrusive! Only countries who do not follow the rule of law anyway would want to sign onto this type of agreement.

ARTICLE 4
Allows for temporary legislative action to accelerate equality for women. Qualification, either physical or ability-based, does not appear to be a factor here.

ARTICLE 5
Advocates for a new social construct of the family-"modifying the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women." By whom? To what? This article also categorizes maternity as a "social function."

ARTICLE 6
This is a good article-advocating the elimination of sex trafficking.

PART I I

ARTICLE 7
Presses for involvement of women in all arenas of political and public life of the country.

ARTICLE 8
Addresses women's participation at international levels.

ARTICLE 9
Deals with nationality rights.

PART III

ARTICLE 10
Pertains to the right of women to equality in education. A good article.

ARTICLE 11
This article deals with the woman's right to employment, and the protection of employment privileges. While there are no glaring problems in this article, for member countries who already have existing human rights and work rights in place, this seems intrusive.

ARTICLE 12
This article speaks to the elimination of discrimination in the area of health care and maternity care.

ARTICLE 13
Covers such areas as family benefits, loans and participation in sports and cultural events.

ARTICAL 14
This article addresses the rights of women in rural areas. The ensured rights are so far-reaching they translate out into privileges that farmers would envy.

PART IV

ARTICLE 15
Women's rights under the law are addressed in this article. No doubt, the rights of women under the law should be the same as that of men.

ARTICLE 16
This article addresses the rights of the women in marriage and family relations. The reference to reproductive choice and spacing of children should take into consideration the cultural and religious practices of member states.

PART V

ARTICLE 17
Addresses the formula for the creation of the 23-member CEDAW committee. Considering the formation of an international committee to monitor member-nations on any issue (women's rights or other) is rather alarming for those who are accustomed to national sovereignty and to those who live under a democratic, representative government. Those under distatorships might sign on, but would continue to act in autonomy.

ARTICLE 18
This addresses the requirements of the member states to report to the Committee regarding compliance.

ARTICLE 19
The Committee adopts its own rules of procedure and elects its officers.

ARTICLE 20-22
Additional guidelines for the Committee.

PART VI

ARTICLE 23-30This section deals with general legislative process.