Does the Bible Support (should Christians embrace) Ethnorelativism?

I think it’s worth asking the question of whether the Bible supports Ethnorelativism, because people of faith tend to be skeptical about “secular” models, and about the concept of “relativism.”

This time, I would like to reflect from a different angle, asking whether New Testament teaching supports Bennett’s Ethnorelative stages of Acceptance and Adaptation.

(1) Acceptance

It seems to me (from personal experience and observation) that there is (or can be) a tension between faith conviction, and accepting those who are different. I suppose the tension comes partly because in talking about faith in God, we are in the realm of seeking to know and live by truth, which connects with the idea of living in the “right” way. But what easily happens, it seems, is that we handle our understanding of truth in an ego-centric and ethno-centric way – i.e., we begin to act as if we are “the people,” we are “right” and everyone else is wrong, we are “better,” etc. I’m not saying that all people of faith act like that toward everyone, or all the time, but that it’s a tendency I’ve noticed, and a danger that we need to be aware of.

My point is, there seems to be some reaction against or tension between having truth convictions, and the idea that we should accept other people.

The Teachings of the New Testament

Which is what leads me to ask, does the New Testament encourage us to accept people who are different?

Consider these verses:

Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you… (Romans 15:7)

Show proper respect to everyone… (1 Peter 2:17)

If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. (Romans 12:18)

Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. (Romans 12:10)

Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not think you are superior. (Romans 12:16)

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. (Romans 14:13)

All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble and oppressed." (1 Peter 5:5)

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. (1 John 4:7)

At the top of this list are commands to accept and to respect others. These are traits that Bennett lists prominently as characterizing the ethnorelative stage of Acceptance.

Note some of the other statements: “honor one another”; “live in harmony”; “do not think you are superior”; “stop passing judgment”; “live in peace”; “bear with each other”; “love one another.” All of these traits are central to accepting others who are different. If we practice them, we will be growing in acceptance. And I would argue that accepting others, in their differences – letting them be themselves, not trying to force them into my mold – would be central to living out what Jesus said is the overarching command, to “love our neighbors as ourselves.”

But a question arises in my mind, as I reflect on these and other New Testament teachings about relationship. Who is the “one another” referring to? Is it referring to others who are members of the family of those who believe in Jesus? Given that much of the New Testament was written to groups of Christians, and is teaching how they should relate to each other in community, it seems reasonable to conclude that this is the main emphasis. But where would this leave us (believers in Jesus) in relationship to outsiders? Do we owe them acceptance and respect, too?

The 1 Peter 2:17 reference exhorts believers to “show proper respect to everyone,” which is broadly inclusive.

In Romans 13:7 we are encouraged to “Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” I would argue that the Bible teaches that all men and women are created in the image of God, and worthy of respect as such.

In 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 it says, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? … God will judge those outside.” The Bible teaches that judgment belongs to God, not to us; and by implication, we should treat others as given freedom of choice by God, with God alone holding them accountable for their choices. Whether we agree with others or not, we owe them respect.

Jesus illustrates the command to “love our neighbor as ourselves” by using the example of a despised Samaritan, who Jews viewed as half-breed idolaters. Not to mention the fact that he even commanded us to “love our enemies.” And given that love includes accepting and respecting others, it seems easy enough to extend this teaching to cover accepting people in their cultural difference.

Finally, Galatians 6:10 exhorts us, “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people…” I hope it is obvious, given what I have previously written on Ethnorelativism, that accepting and adapting to difference is a form of “doing good” to others.

Beyond those specific teachings, I would look to the example of Jesus, and to the Jewish-Gentile issue regarding how to properly follow Jesus.

The Example of Jesus

Did Jesus accept different others? I would say so. Take, for example, his encounter with the Samaritan woman (John 4). Not only did he pass through Samaria (Jews would take the long way around, because they despised the Samaritans); he talked with a woman… Not only did he talk with a woman; he accepted her – talking with her, in itself, was a way of showing acceptance. And in talking with her, he didn’t focus on her culture, ethnicity, or religion (all of which, the Jews of his day looked down upon), or to try to get her to abandon her religion to become Jewish; rather, he sought to draw her attention to God, and how to truly worship. But by truly worshiping God, he did not mean, “do it my way, our way, the Jewish way, and not your corrupt, inadequate Samaritan way” – rather, he changed the focus away from the Jewish way vs. the Samaritan way, regarding the outward form of worship, declaring,

… a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.  … a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.

(John 4:21, 23-24)

Jews and Gentiles

Take, as a final example, the case of Gentiles coming to faith in Jesus (Acts 10 and following). At the time, the Jews who had come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, thought that He was Messiah (life-giver, savior) only for the Jewish people. They still saw the Gentiles as outsiders, far from God, unclean, etc. Then God sent Peter to the house of Cornelius, over his objections; Peter told Cornelius and his household about Jesus; and the Holy Spirit “fell” on them – they were given life, “saved,” if you will, to the amazement of Peter and his fellow Jews.

Immediately, once the Jewish followers of Jesus saw that Gentiles, too, could know Jesus as the Messiah and receive life through him, they decided that to rightly follow Jesus, the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.

There arose a controversy over this, a meeting was held (Acts 15) between the leaders of the church and the apostles (Paul and others), and it was decided that Gentiles did not need to “become Jewish,” i.e., be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses, in order to know life through Jesus.

I would argue that what we see here, among other things, is that God “accepted” the Gentiles, as Gentiles – Peter himself said to Cornelius that he had learned from God that “God does not show favoritism but accepts people from every nation who fear him and do what is right” (Acts 10:34-35) – and commanded his people to do the same, stating that they did not need to outwardly change to become culturally or religiously Jewish, in order to be acceptable to God.

The clear message, in my opinion, is that we also should be people who accept others as they are, who do not try to change them outwardly to conform to our image of being human (including our ways of responding to God), but who embrace them as fellow human beings, created in God’s image and loved by Him (however different they may be).

(2) Adaptation

I would argue that the New Testament commands to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to do good to all people, should lead us to seek to adapt to them in their cultural difference – to enter into their world, seek to see life from their point of view (to empathize), and to live in a way that does not cause unnecessary offense. I see this approach to people rooted in the examples of Jesus and the Apostle Paul.

The Example of Jesus – the Incarnation

Jesus is the supreme example of love in the Bible; and I would characterize the Incarnation as the ultimate example of adaptation.

We are told, about Jesus:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.  (John 1:14)

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! (Philippians 2:5-8)

We are told that Jesus is the Word of God, one with the Father, the source of life and light – and that in the Incarnation the Divine essence took on human flesh, entered into our (human) life, so that we could be touched by the life of God.  Because of love, Jesus left his position, “made himself nothing,” came into the human setting as a Jew in First Century Palestine, was born as a baby, learned language, and grew up in a particular sociocultural setting, adapting the cultural practices and living within the religious and political context of the day.

I cannot think of a greater example of adaptation, than this. And Jesus said to his followers, “as the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21).

The Example of Paul – “all things to all people”

The next great example I see of adaptation is that of the Apostle Paul. Consider his teaching and example:

Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it." If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake—the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

(1 Corinthians 10:23-33)

The key points, in Paul’s teaching (here and elsewhere):

• he, and other followers of Jesus, are free;
• this freedom includes the freedom to eat or drink anything, and by implication, to adapt to different situations and circumstances (Paul taught elsewhere that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” [Galatians 5:6] and “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.” [Galatians 6:15]);
• the principle to not cause anyone to stumble, goes even further – the point of adaptation is to not cause a roadblock to people knowing Jesus, through the outward patterns of living (forms, traditions, etc.) – and the “Jews, Greeks or the church of God” is comprehensive, covering religious people, irreligious people, and other Christians;
• Paul’s motivation is that people would come to know and receive life through Jesus; he advocated any outward adaptation that would facilitate this.

This is taken even further in another passage:

Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

(1 Corinthians 9:19-22)

When Paul is talking about “winning” people, he is not talking about converting them from one religion to another; i.e., he is not talking about “winning” them to “Christianity” (which did not exist as a concept then) or to Judaism. He is clearly talking about “winning” them to Jesus Himself, to life in God (through Jesus). And for this, he felt free to adapt in outward practices (which I would call, “cultural” practices) – eating, drinking, circumcision (or not), following the Jewish religious law (or not), etc.

In a famous example of adaptation, Paul when speaking in Athens at the Areopagus, quoted pagan writers and referred to an altar “to an unknown god,” in looking for ways to make his message about Jesus understandable in their frame of reference (Acts 17:18-34).

There are plenty of New Testament teachings, as well, that clearly state that outward forms are not essential, from God’s perspective – these include circumcision (central to the Jewish law and custom), keeping one day as the/a Sabbath, food and drink, and other practices.

I would conclude, therefore, that we should adapt to others based on the law of love (the highest law binding and guiding followers of Jesus); that we are free to do so, based on the example of Jesus, the example of Paul, and the rest of the New Testament teaching about essence and outward form; and that we are exhorted to, based on Paul’s teaching and example, for the sake of people coming to know Jesus as their life (but not for the sake of converting them in outward form to our way of life, our way of following Jesus, or our religion).

As a follower of Jesus, I not only do not see a problem with embracing a goal of intercultural sensitivity (becoming ethnorelative); for me, my faith demands that I seek to grow in this direction.

Culture Quote of the Day - towards a "meta-ethic"

"And if there is ever to be a 'meta-ethic' (Barnlund 1979) that can restrain the worst excesses of cultural value conflict and guide respectful dialogue, it must come from those whose allegiance is only to life itself."

Milton Bennett, "Towards Ethnorelativism"

For the most part, I like Bennett's model, and think it is full of insight into the process of experiencing cultural difference. At some points, though, I find his worldview falling short. Like in this quote. Bennett is limited by his apparently "secular" worldview, seeing nothing beyond the human, the cultural, dimension.

Developing a "meta-ethic" (i.e., one relevant to people of different cultures) by having an allegiance "only to life itself"? What does this mean? I don't think Bennett knows. This sounds nice, but it seems empty (to me).

To develop a "meta-ethic," applicable across cultures, we're talking about having an ethical framework that people of different cultures can agree to. This means finding something shared, "universal." 

I would find this "meta-ethic" rooted in Jesus. Jesus, in fact, presented himself as "life itself" ("I am the bread of life"; "I am the resurrection and the life"; "I have come that you may have life"; "the person who has the Son, has life"). 

Could Jesus be the source of the "meta-ethic" Bennett refers to? Not the "Christian" Jesus or the "Muslim" Jesus (and are there others?), but the Jesus of history, of the New Testament?

I have found that Muslims and Buddhists and unchurched people, and others (and E. Stanley Jones would say, Indian Hindus), are interested in, fascinated by, the person, life, teachings of Jesus - as long as they can meet him unencumbered by a particular group's way of "packaging" him. Jesus, as a historical figure, you could say, a historical reality, is not a product of human culture (though our images, our "packaging" of him, is, to one degree or another). And if Jesus is who the New Testament presents him as, and who Christians through the past 2000 years have understood he is, the Incarnate Word of God, one with the Father, the source of life, then he certainly exists outside of (as well as within) human sociocultural contexts.

Can we construct a "meta-ethic" that peoples of different cultures agree to? I don't know, the challenge seems daunting. But in my mind (and experience), we'd have a better chance starting with Jesus, than starting in a secular vacuum.

Culture Quote of the Day - how does Jesus impact our religious identity?

"I have learned that when telling this story, I have to explain that I have not converted to Christianity. Yes, Naim Ateek had brought Jesus's message to me, and it was to my Jewish identity that his words spoke. I saw Jesus, in the words of theologian Marcus Borg, as 'a social prophet like the great social prophets of Israel' (1999, 72). After my return from Palestine and Israel that summer, I returned home one Sunday afternoon following a presentation to a church group. It was one of a string of appearances and meetings that month in churches and with Christian groups. My wife turned to me, and, only half joking (after thirty years of marriage she has learned to expect the unexpected), asked, 'Are you becoming Christian?' I had not been prepared for the question. But the answer was right there. I said, 'No, I'm becoming Jewish'."

Mark Braverman, Fatal Embrace: Christians, Jews, and the Search for Peace in the Holy Land

This quote is interesting, and the book is fascinating, the gripping story of an American Jew (the grandson of a fifth-generation Palestinian Jew) and his quest for his personal identity as a Jew, in light of becoming aware first-hand of the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

One of the interesting things about Braverman and his book, is that he has ventured out of the (ethnocentric) Jewish context of his early years, and the corresponding view of Zionism and Israel, to a much broader (ethnorelative) perspective and experience, in which he has gone - in his words - more deeply into his Jewish identity, but in the context of connecting with Arabs, Christians, Muslims, and different perspectives on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In his book, he quotes a wide range of authors and refers to a wide range of friends and acquaintances - a range that could leave the reader not certain of what exactly Braverman's identity is.

And in this particular quote, I find it interesting that time with Christians and exposure to (a Christian perspective on) Jesus, has had the impact in Braverman's life of a new, deeper, more full experience of being Jewish.

Is it ethnocentric to claim that claiming that one religion is right, is ethnocentric?

"Many say that it is ethnocentric to claim that our religion is superior to others. Yet isn't that very statement ethnocentric? Most non-Western cultures have no problem saying that their culture and religion is best. The idea that it is wrong to do so is deeply rooted in Western traditions of self-criticism and individualism. To charge others with the 'sin' of ethnocentrism is really a way of saying, 'Our culture's approach to other cultures is superior to yours.' We are then doing the very thing we forbid others to do."

"It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (name that all are equal) is right."

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

 I have various thoughts about this quote of Keller’s. On the one hand, I respect his reasoning, and I think his book is excellent.

On the other hand, I do not totally agree with this statement about ethnocentrism.

Yes, it is true – and good to think about – that it is impossible to escape our human situation. That is an irony of us trying to “step outside of” our situatedness, to develop a model like Bennett’s DMIS, discussing what it is to be rooted in one way of experiencing and seeing the world (what we call “ethnocentrism”), and what it is like to “grow” or “develop” to a point of knowing our own culture in the context of other cultures and worldviews, etc. (what Bennett calls “ethnorelativism”). Any model, as Keller indicates, is still rooted in a human tradition, a human vantage point, and is subject to critique.

But is Keller rightly using the term “ethnocentric,” and is he accurate in his critique?

Or put another way, might we distinguish between an ethnocentric and a non-ethnocentric way of believing that a religion (or a religious truth, or any truth) is right or true? (And is it the same to claim that your culture is best, as to claim that your religion is right?)

To be “ethnocentric,” at root, is to be bound by the perspective of your ethne, or people, in the “ethnic” / sociocultural sense of people; i.e., the people that one grows up among, lives in the context of, is socialized into. To be ethnocentric is to not realize that there are different cultures and worldviews, or to react against other cultures and worldviews, as we discover them, or to act as if they are basically some kind of subset of our own culture and worldview. It is obviously possible for someone who assumes and proclaims that their religion is true or absolute or best, to be doing so in an ethnocentric way – either ignoring others (Bennett’s Denial), denigrating them (Bennett’s Defense), or somehow seeing other peoples’ religion as subsumed under one’s own (Bennett’s Minimization). It is possible for Christians or Muslims or anyone to be “ethnocentric” (in one of Bennett’s phases) as a Muslim or a Christian in general (toward other religions), or, even toward those in their own broader religious community – e.g., to assume that a particular locally rooted expression of being Christian or Muslim is the only right or true version.

For example, I grew up ethnocentrically Christian. The variety of “Christian” that I was raised in, a Swedish-background Baptist Minnesotan church setting, was all I knew. To me, to be “Christian” was to be Minnesotan Swedish Baptist (though I didn’t think this explicitly). Then in school I became vaguely aware of the existence of “Lutherans” around me. I didn’t know anything about them (i.e., I was in Bennett’s Denial stage of ethnocentrism), except that they were different (e.g., the kids had a “confirmation” class, which I didn’t). Then in 9^th grade “Catholics” flooded into the public school. Again, I knew they were “Christian,” but I didn’t know how they were different, and assumed that they were somehow not exactly “right” as Christians (because we were). Then I went to an evangelical Swedish-Baptist background university, but which had some other Protestant evangelical churches and denominations represented. I remember being shocked by some of the ideas, beliefs, convictions, interpretations (of the Bible, of being Christian, etc.), practices, that I ran into. I remember thinking, “those people aren’t good Christians,” and “those people don’t know what they’re talking about,” and “they don’t read the Bible correctly,” and thoughts like that. Ethnocentric thoughts. I was assuming that “Christian” was universally what it was for me, and that anyone who was different, was wrong. This kind of ethnocentric thinking occurs within every group of people and every religious tradition. But is it inescapable? I would say no.

Setting aside the question of whether the truth claim of a given religion may in fact be right, responding to others from a standpoint of ethnocentrism has at least two problems for us as religious people / people of faith (I will proceed on an assumption that what I am saying may apply to any religious people). First, as I have argued previously, relating to people ethnocentrically is not loving, and thus falls short of what Jesus calls the second greatest commandment (after the command to love God; and I have read Jewish and Muslim authors that say that Judaism and Islam share these two great commandments with Christianity). In addition, living in and from ethnocentrism in our view of and relationship with others, is a crippled sort of living, in many senses – we do not truly know ourselves, we do not truly know others, and we do not have the deepest and most positive relationship with those who differ from us.

But perhaps the bigger question (if you will allow the above reasoning to stand) is whether it is possible for someone to believe in ultimate truth, e.g., the truth of a religious faith, and relate to others in a non-ethnocentric way?

One distinction that would apply at least to Christian faith and Islam, it seems, is that they are not tribal or ethnic religions, rooted in / bound to a particular people or place. Where is ethnocentrism, one might ask, if a mixed group of people from around the world, and who are fully aware of the existence and reality of various cultures and worldviews, and who might even have lived in different cultural settings and experienced the adaptation or integration that Bennett talks about as the final ethnorelative stages of experiencing cultural difference, make a universal truth claim about their religious faith (if by “their” faith we mean, not a locally rooted expression of Christianity or Islam, but what all or most Christians or Muslims might agree upon as the historical essence or heart of the faith)?

Does it make a difference, in regard to ethnocentrism, whether religious people are focused on external forms or on content / substance / essence? Again, it is easy enough to see the ethnocentrism in a particular group of Christians in a specific locale, who have little contact even with other Christians, arguing that a certain way of organizing their worship or doing church government, is the Biblical or Christian way (with the implication that all other Christians around the world and through history are wrong). But what if we “stripped down” the truth claims to content rather than form or structure? What if, looking across the breadth of ways of working out being Christian, through history and across the world, we emphasized what all might agree on, e.g., that it is about receiving life through Jesus and following him; that God is to be worshiped; that there are sacraments to be practiced (with the recognition that we might disagree on the number and on how they should be embodied in practice); etc. What if we practiced our best understanding of Christian faith, without judging other Christians as being wrong or less Christian than we are? Is it possible to imagine being committed Christians without being ethnocentric toward other Christians?

I would suggest that it is.

But what about between religions, then?

Bennett argues, in his model, that ethnorelativism entails adapting to another culture, learning to see the world from a different perspective, and to adapt behavior appropriate to that setting. It involves coming to see another cultural setting as viable, another way of being human. It does not involve assimilation, i.e., giving up one’s own culture for the other. And it does not involve losing one’s own sense of values, giving up value judgments. 

So is it not possible for a Muslim, living in a Christian cultural setting, to remain a fully convinced Muslim, convinced that s/he is on the right path, that the Qur’an is the final revelation from God and that Muhammad is the final Prophet, etc., while at the same time experiencing what it is to accept and adapt to/within the Christian cultural setting? Is it not possible for a Christian, living in a Muslim or some other (Jewish, Hindu, etc.) religious setting, to remain fully convinced that Jesus is the crucified and risen Lord and Savior, the giver of life, the one who reconciles people to God, etc., while at the same time experiencing what it is to accept and adapt to the culture of the other?

It would be ethnocentric for me as a Christian to look at Islam through a Christian framework (which is, I would suggest, where all Christians start out, in looking at Muslims or others). But what if I grow in ethnorelativism, in acceptance and adaptation and integration, entering into the world of Muslims, learning to understand their faith and practice (and broader culture) from within, to see the world from their vantage point, to see how it makes sense, how they interpret and generate behavior, etc.? But what if I still remain convinced that Jesus is the source of life, that he is the incarnate Word of God, that He gave his life to reconcile people to God, that He rose from the dead and will return again, etc.? What if I believe He is relevant to all people, offers life to all? What if I bear witness to that, to Him, to Muslims (without forcing anything on anyone, or condemning or judging anyone)?

Is it necessarily ethnocentric for someone of religious faith to live their faith, even to share it with others (in terms of “this is what I have found – perhaps you will find it relevant”), if done in a way that does not put down or judge the other, if there is respect for the other’s humanity and freedom and choice, if done with the realization that judgment belongs to God alone, and that we people always “see through a glass darkly,” may get one thing or another wrong, etc.?

I would suggest that if Bennett or any non-believing anthropologist claims that to have any sense of anything being ultimately true, is to be ethnocentric, in that case I would agree with Keller that that anthropologist (or whoever) is indeed being ethnocentric, imposing his/her secular social scientific worldview on the rest of us. And I would say, thank you, Dr. Bennett (or whoever), for the model and the concepts, but we are not limited by how you define ethnocentrism (or reality).

This reflection, though long, is just a beginning, just scratching the surface of a complex and I would guess controversial subject. If you have thoughts or questions or insights, feel free to post them. More will come from my side, as well.

And at the end of this long reflection, I’ll leave it to the reader to judge, am I agreeing or disagreeing with Keller’s statement about ethnocentrism?

Culture Poem of the Day - "I Feel Sorry for Jesus"

I'm going to repost this poem, shared by AmelMag in a comment, because it's worth thinking about.


I Feel Sorry for Jesus
By Naomi Shihab Nye

People won’t leave Him alone.
I know He said, wherever two or more
are gathered in my name…
But I bet some days He regrets it.

Cozily they tell you what he wants
and doesn’t want
as if they just got an e-mail.
Remember “Telephone,” that pass-it-on game

where the message changed dramatically
by the time it rounded the circle?
Well.
People blame terrible pieties on Jesus.

They want to be his special pet.
Jesus deserves better.
I think He’s been exhausted
for a very long time.

He went into the desert, friends.
He didn’t go into the pomp.
He didn’t go into
the golden chandeliers

and say, the truth tastes better here.
See? I’m talking like I know.
It’s dangerous talking for Jesus.
You get carried away almost immediately.

I stood in the spot where He was born.
I closed my eyes where He died and didn’t die.
Every twist of the Via Dolorosa
was written on my skin.

And that makes me feel like being silent
for Him, you know? A secret pouch
of listening. You won’t hear me
mention this again.

Culture Quote of the Day - Have we done something to Jesus?

[Rewritten after further reflection]

“We have reduced ourselves to religions, to denominations, to confessions…instead of following my Palestinian compatriot from Galilee, Jesus of Nazareth.” (Elias Chacour)

“Once every hundred years Jesus of Nazareth meets Jesus of the Christians in a garden among the hills of Lebanon. And they talk long; each time Jesus of Nazareth goes away saying to Jesus of the Christians, ‘my friend, I fear we shall never, never agree’.” (Kahlil Gibran)

It is interesting that these two Arab Christians - one a Palestinian (Israeli) Melkite priest, and the other Lebanese - i.e., both from the area where Jesus lived his life on earth - should suggest that "we" (whoever we are, and I think this would include both Christians and Muslims, who have their own "take" on Jesus) have done something to or with Jesus, that has distanced our understanding (and experience?) of him from who he actually is.

To the degree that this might be so, I would suggest that it is at least partially due to the fact that as cultural beings, we understand and define reality in light of our sociocultural setting and existence and historical vantage point. Thus, there are different "Christian" perspectives on Jesus (currently and through history), ranging from Orthodox to Catholic to various Protestant (including evangelicals) to liberals.

I find myself wondering, though, is there really a problem (and what is it)? The New Testament teaching on the Incarnation – that “the word became flesh and dwelt among us” – indicates that Jesus (the word of God) came into this world in a particular cultural context (as a 1^st Century Palestinian Jew); and there is a basis for believing that Jesus continues to enter into different cultural contexts, transforming people and those contexts from within (e.g., E. Stanley Jones’ emphasis on Jesus walking “the Indian Road”; the fact in the New Testament that Gentiles did not have to change to become outwardly Jewish in order to follow Jesus – they could follow him in their cultural context; and the fact that in Revelation it pictures people from “every tribe and tongue and nation worshiping God,” apparently with their cultural distinctives).

I’m not suggesting that Jesus is whoever we define him to be, or that we should not keep reading the New Testament and talking with others who claim to know him, to grow toward a more clear understanding. And I’m not sure that I agree with Gibran that there is such a thing as “Jesus of the Christians.” There definitely is such as thing as Jesus as perceived by and conceived of by Christians (and by others), but this is to say something not about Jesus himself, but about us and our perceptions.

If Jesus does exist, and is who the New Testament pictures him to be (the living and life-giving word of God, come into this world, crucified but risen and alive today, and still present and at work in the world), he is quite capable of “taking care of himself,” manifesting himself in different cultural contexts and working through (and when necessary in spite of) the different ways people conceive of him.

Jesus does not belong to us, and is not contained in any of our boxes (one might say, he is not a Christian). I’m reminded of the statement in C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, that Aslan “is not a tame lion.”

What’s Wrong with Ethnocentrism?

To return once more to the topic of ethnocentrism (i.e., seeing and experiencing and interacting with the world from the perspective of your own culture / your own frame of reference, without an understanding of the different cultures of others, or the ability to enter into their frame of reference and experience), I would like to ask whether ethnocentrism is compatible with faith, and if not, what’s wrong with it?

Here are some of the characteristics of ethnocentrism, with reference to the stages of Bennett’s “Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity”*:

(Denial)

• lack of awareness of cultural difference
• lack of interest in cultural difference
• inability to distinguish cultural difference (e.g., thinking of “Africans” or “Asians” or even “foreigners” as a broad category without internal differentiation)
• isolation or intentional separation from different others

(Defense)

• lack of understanding of cultural difference or others who are different
• a negative experience of difference, and reaction against it – feeling threatened by difference
• one’s own culture experienced as the only viable one
• polarization (“us” / “them”)
• generalizing and positively stereotyping one’s own people and culture
• generalizing and negatively stereotyping other peoples and cultures
• prejudice, denigration, possibly animosity, toward those who are different
• in the extreme, dehumanizing and/or demonizing others

(Minimization)

• trivializing difference, acting as if people are basically the same (i.e., as if others are basically the same as ourselves)
• thus, not relating to others as they truly are, in their uniqueness or fullness
• lack of cultural self-awareness
• generalizing from one’s own experience, principles, practices, to others – assuming that what “works for us” is universal, relevant and applicable anywhere and everywhere and to everyone
• those in a dominant or majority group not being aware of how racial minorities experience race relations, men not being aware of how women experience gender issues, etc.
• assuming we have “the answers” for everyone, not being aware that the questions that others are asking, may be different than our questions

In sum, ethnocentrism is a form of self-centeredness, on a group and cultural level. It ranges from ignorance through defensiveness to a somewhat benign assumption of similarity, but in all cases, one cannot know and relate to others as they are, from any point on the spectrum of ethnocentrism.

There are many reasons why someone might decide that it would be best not to stay in an ethnocentric state.

From a faith perspective, I would argue that ethnocentrism, while “natural” to people, is not compatible with living according to the example and teachings of Jesus.

Take Jesus’ central teachings, to “love our neighbor as ourselves,” and to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” As a starting point, it would seem that these commands would necessitate having an interest in knowing others and relating to them. And both “loving” and “doing unto others” would seem to clearly imply not looking down on them, negatively stereotyping, being biased against, or despising them. Thus, it seems obvious from the beginning that the “denial” and “defense” stages of ethnocentrism do not square with Jesus’ teaching.

To go deeper, in the broader context of the teachings of the New Testament one might define love as encompassing many other relational teachings, e.g., the exhortations to accept one another and to honor one another. To take just those two, it would seem obvious that a depth of accepting and honoring another person requires knowing that person as they are. The more fully I know someone, the more deeply I will be able to (learn to) accept or honor them. And this would be true of the “do unto others” command, which is really a way of summarizing what it means to love someone – what I want of others is that they understand me as I am, and accept and otherwise relate to me as I am, not according to an inadequate or distorted image of me.

It doesn’t take much empathy to imagine that for a person of color, having a white person treat you as if you are the same as them, without any understanding of your personal or group experience of discrimination, etc., is not loving (or even tolerable); or for a woman, to have men blithely proclaim that “we have no problem with gender issues here,” without ever listening to your experience or perspective on the matter, falls short of a positive or even acceptable relationship (to say the least). And anyone who has been on the receiving end of some other person or group coming in with the (“universal”) answers to what they perceive to be your need or problem, knows how obnoxious that approach is. Therefore, “minimization” also falls short of relating well to other people, and thus, to living according to the teachings and example of Jesus.

Ethnocentrism, in one way or another, in one form or another, is at the heart of many of the problems which exist between groups of people in the world today (and throughout history). It seems clear to me, as a follower of Jesus, that living up to the ideals and standards of our faith should lead us to reject, and seek to identify and grow beyond, ethnocentrism in all of its manifestations.

Coming soon: Beyond Ethnocentrism…

* For more details on each of these stages, see:

http://contextualliving.blogspot.com/2011/02/loving-our-neighbor-insights-from.html

http://contextualliving.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-ethnocentrism-hinders-love-of.html

http://contextualliving.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-ethnocentrism-hinders-love-of.html

For full treatment of Bennett’s model, see

Bennett, Milton J., “Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.” In Paige, R.M. (Ed). (1993) Education for the Intercultural Experience (2^nd ed., p. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Bennett, Milton J., “Becoming Interculturally Competent.”  In Wurzel, Jaime S., ed., Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation, 2004.

Can Christianity be Reconciled with Feminism: Further Thoughts

I have been thinking quite a bit about this question of reconciling feminism with Christianity, and decided to write up some further thoughts.

First, about “feminism.” Of course, this term may cover a wide range of phenomena, so to discuss the question in depth would necessitate specifying what exactly one means by feminism. 

My conviction as a follower of Jesus is that his teaching to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, plus Paul’s teaching that “there is in Christ no male or female,” plus the statement at the beginning of Genesis that male and female are created in the image of God, would clearly indicate that men and women have equal value in the sight of God, and should be treated accordingly. My conviction is that Jesus’ teachings should lead us to actively work for human and civil rights for all people, and certainly for women. And that we should decry all mistreatment of women, in history and today, and do our best to put an end to it.

Or as my daughter recently put it, feminism might be defined as meaning that women are human. Full stop.

More can be built on this core, of course, but as I understand both feminism and the teachings of Jesus and the Bible, they are compatible; in fact, feminism defined in this way is an essential element of Christian faith. This is to say that it is not relative, i.e., that it is not okay (though it has happened throughout history), to conceive of a “Christianity” in which women are considered to be of less value than men, can be treated as possessions or sex objects, etc.

I also want to say more about “Christianity.” The heart of things, as I read the Bible, is relationship with God through Jesus – i.e., faith in God, through Jesus, and a life that consists of living out that faith, living according to his teachings. That faith, however, must be lived out in a specific human context – a sociocultural, religious, political, historical context. (This is what some of us refer to as “contextualization” – living out faith in a particular context.)

Those who follow Jesus, and who are generally known as “Christians” (note that there is a range of variation as to what those who self-identify as Christians, mean by that identification, and also a range as to what others take the name to mean), live out their faith in various ways, and differ in their beliefs, convictions, practices, etc. In many respects, those beliefs and practices reflect the sociocultural context in which they find themselves. And of course there are different churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and many variations within those), with different interpretations, beliefs, practices, rituals, and other outworkings of their faith.

One might call all of that, “Christianity”; and one might argue about what is “true” Christianity and what is not, and talk about extrabiblical practices, folk religion, etc. And one cannot always or easily draw boundaries between what is “religious” and what is not (when trying to pin down what exactly is meant by “Christianity”).

It is also worth noting, from an anthropological perspective, that feminism has many more complex variations than simply the view that women are human; that feminism itself, in those more complex outworkings, is a cultural phenomena (and not an absolute, outside of culture set of values or truths); and that having a high view of women does not necessitate being “feminist” (depending on how it is defined in detail). In other words, it is possible to be a true and faithful follower of Jesus, but not be a “feminist” as some people define the term. Being a “feminist” is a possible but not necessary component of being a “Christian” (depending on how that feminism is defined – and again, I am not talking about mistreatment of women, but of culturally different ways of defining the relationship between men and women, their roles, etc.)

I would maintain, for example (as an anthropologist and as a Christian), that it is not against the view that women are human, to believe that there are different roles for men and women in the church. And it is not an essential outworking of the view that women are human (conversely), to say that women should be able to be pastors. Either view and practice could be an outworking of a commitment to treating women as human; i.e., there can be different cultural expressions of being Christian (based on different interpretation of relevant biblical passages) that are compatible with feminism defined as “women are human.” (And there could be outworkings of being Christian, or outworkings of feminism, that are not compatible with each other, with the possibility that incompatibility lies either with the understanding of being Christian being off center to the Gospel, or with the definition of feminism being off center to the Gospel).

At the end of the day, then, I suppose the answer to the question must be, it depends on what you mean by “Christianity,” and it depends on what you mean by “feminism.” And people who claim to be Christian, and people who claim to be feminist, and those who claim to be both, disagree on the essence of those categories. And so the discussion goes on… And this process of definition and expression (both of Christian faith and of feminism) is at the heart of the relationship between faith and culture.

***

P.S. If you are "Christian" or "feminist" or both, I would appreciate your thoughts on this. 

Does Bennett understand the Golden Rule?

In my previous post on the third stage of ethnocentrism, minimization, in Bennett's "Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity," I briefly mentioned that Bennett sees the "Golden Rule" as somehow characterizing this phase (see http://contextualliving.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-ethnocentrism-hinders-love-of.html). (He goes on to say that what he calls the "Platinum Rule" is characteristic of moving into the ethnorelative stages of acceptance and adaptation, learning to "do unto others as they would have you do unto them" - but that's a discussion for a future post.)

The way Bennett discusses the "Golden Rule" may be problematic for people who are used to thinking of Jesus' words as a pinnacle of ethical teaching; and I suppose that some might on that basis reject Bennett as not knowing what he is talking about, if he would suppose that living by Jesus' "Golden Rule" is only a stepping stone toward a deeper and more positive way of relating to others.

Thus I raise the question, does Bennett understand the "Golden Rule"?

To quote Jesus' words,

"Therefore, whatever you want people to do for you, do the same for them, because this summarizes the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

I would argue that Bennett does not rightly characterize the essence of Jesus' teaching here. He does rightly point out that often (and in the stage of minimization in dealing with culturally different others), we ere by doing to others as if they were us, and thus falling short of treating them in the most fully loving way.

But Jesus' intent, I believe, is that our "doing to others as we want them to do for us" would imply, that we understand them and thus do to them as they want us to do to them - for this is what we would all want, is it not? I want people to understand me, to know me, to show me respect in the way that is meaningful to me, etc. And thus, to follow Jesus' teaching, I should seek to relate to others in the depth of knowing them as they are (and not projecting myself onto them, assuming that they are like me).

Thus, although I think Bennett misrepresents the heart of the Golden Rule, I believe his model (the DMIS) and teaching stands, and in fact resonates with, I would even say is built upon, the teaching of Jesus (though I don't think Bennett ever actually refers to Jesus).

My point here is that one can hold to Jesus' teaching as the pinnacle of ethical teaching, and embrace Bennett's model. For me, at least, they are compatible. And to "do unto others as I would have them do unto me" is to be led in the direction of ethnorelativism, growing in understanding and accepting others as they are.

How ethnocentrism hinders love of neighbor (part I) - denial

It is well known that Jesus taught that the two great commandments are to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. (And this is not just for Christians – in recent years, several interfaith initiatives between Muslims, Christians and Jews have emphasized that loving God and loving neighbor are common to the three religions.)

The interesting thing about the account in the Gospel of Luke, of course, is that in response to a lawyer’s question, “who is my neighbor?,” Jesus tells the famous “Parable of the Good Samaritan.” The story is scandalous, really, because the Jews despised Samaritans and would have nothing to do with them, seeing them as “half-breeds” who had married pagans and developed a bastardized form of Judaism as their religion (with their own place of sacrifice, their own rituals, their own priests, etc.). Jews would not even travel through Samaria, if it were at all possible to avoid it.

In Jesus’ story, a Jewish traveler is attacked by bandits, beaten, robbed, and left to die. Religious Jews come across the man, but pass by without aiding him. The person who does aid him, as Jesus tells it, is a Samaritan. At the end of the story, when Jesus asks his questioner, “so who was the neighbor to the man that was attacked?,” the Jewish listener did not even say “the Samaritan” – he simply replied, “the one who showed him mercy.”

Jesus is telling us that our neighbor is any human being, regardless of whether s/he is part of our ethnic or religious group, regardless of whether our people have anything to do with his/her people, regardless of how we regard them (e.g., as “unclean” or otherwise offensive in some way, or even as having a false religion). Given that we all today – whoever we are, wherever we are – have people that are not part of our group, and that we consider unclean or wrong in some way (including having a false religion), perhaps even as being the enemy of our people; people that we will not associate with, who we tell jokes about, who we think perhaps ought to “go back where they came from,” etc. – it seems that Jesus’ parable is still relevant to us.

That said, I would like to present and discuss a model from Intercultural Studies, which I have found to be very helpful in considering how to relate, as a person of faith, to the “different other” – in other words, our “neighbor.”

The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)

One of the most useful intercultural tools that I’ve come across is Milton Bennett’s “Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity” (DMIS), which considers the process of growth that people experience as they encounter cultural difference.

 

In Bennett’s model, people grow from an experience centered in ethnocentrism – seeing and experiencing the world only from the perspective of one’s own people and cultural context – to an experience that he calls ethnorelativism, which involves developing the ability to know one’s own culture and worldview as one among many, and to enter into the world of others, adapt, and live effectively in that other cultural context.

As I consider the challenge of learning to love our neighbor, in a world which increasingly brings all of us into more and more contact with people who are more and more different than our own people, I find myself reflecting on insights from the DMIS to the process of building relationship with the “different other,” i.e., our “neighbor,” whoever that “other” might be.

How Denial hinders loving our neighbor

In Bennett’s model, we must first consider barriers to loving our neighbor. The first phase in the DMIS is denial (ignorance, lack of awareness). We begin by not being aware of (cultural) difference, and avoiding it. The world simply is as we see and experience it. We are “the people” (and any others are beyond our clear vision or understanding). If we are aware of others, they are broadly characterized, e.g., we lump all “Asians” or “Africans” or “Europeans” together, with no real knowledge of any specific characteristics. In other words, we do not know our neighbor.

Denial may be characterized by isolation, simply being out of contact with different others, or by separation, “intentional erection of physical or social barriers to create distance from cultural difference as a means of maintaining a state of denial” (e.g., racial neighborhoods or ghettos). Denial is often accompanied by extreme nationalism (which I would see as a kind of idolatry of one’s own people, as over against the – usually unknown – “other”). The “dangerous underside” of denial, Bennett points out, is the implicit relegation of others to subhuman status (e.g., the Nazi treatment of the Jews).

Good fences do NOT "make good neighbors"

It should be rather obvious that this stage of denial hinders our learning to love our neighbor, because when we live in isolation in our own world, thinking that we are the only real people, and that the world is just as we see it to be, we cannot be living in relationship or harmony with others (at least, not with different others, the “neighbor” of Jesus’ parable). Love involves knowledge. Love involves interaction. Love involves relationship. To love our neighbor, we cannot be content with denial of difference (either isolation or separation).

We cannot stay apart, and follow Jesus’ teaching to love our neighbor. We cannot live as if others do not exist, and love our neighbor. We cannot feed ourselves the myth that we are right, that God is on our side, that we are “the people” and that all others are just vaguely “out there” in the darkness beyond the borders of our world, and love our neighbor.

If we want to follow Jesus’ teaching to love our neighbor, if we as people of (any) faith want to please God in how we relate to others, we must move beyond the ethnocentric stage of denial.

(More to follow…)

* For full treatment of Bennett’s model, see

Bennett, Milton J., “Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.” In Paige, R.M. (Ed). (1993) Education for the Intercultural Experience (2^nd ed., p. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Bennett, Milton J., “Becoming Interculturally Competent.”  In Wurzel, Jaime S., ed., Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation, 2004.

Can people of different faiths agree on Compassion?

I first noticed the "Charter for Compassion" at the Quaker Meeting House in Ramallah (see http://charterforcompassion.org/share/the-charter/):

The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.

We therefore call upon all men and women ~ to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate ~ to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures ~ to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity ~ to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.

We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.

I think this is a beautiful document, a necessary and timely project. And I find myself wondering whether conservatives (those who are deeply committed) of the various religions of the world might somehow be against this? Maybe I’m wrong (I hope so). I have the feeling that evangelical Christians, for example, might react against the idea of agreeing and working with those who signed, who represent various Christian and other religious groups (i.e., “how can we work with liberals and people of different religious faiths? What do we have in common?”); and might be suspicious that the language is not their (evangelical) language, and therefore might be a “watering down” or compromising of their convictions.

I find myself wondering, as a follower of Jesus, what he would think of it. Would he embrace these ideas, this document, the principle of joining hands with others (of any religion or none) to work for compassion, for justice, equity and respect? When I put it this way, it seems so obvious. So why would some of us who associate with Jesus by taking the name “Christian,” react negatively to this initiative? 

Why would religious convictions lead some people to initiate and embrace this kind of initiative, and lead others (in the same religions) to be suspicious or reject it?

Conversations between Christians and Muslims: Jesus, witness and "conversion"

I have recently been part of a fascinating email interchange among a group of people which includes both Christians and Muslims. We have been talking about the issue of conversion, and the fact that within most Muslim contexts, Muslims are not free to change their religion. I would like to pick up on a particular strand of thought that for me has central connection to the issue of faith in context. To quote from our email discussion, from the views of one of the participants:

… several of you… have pointed out that “conversion” is the real issue… No one wants to feel targeted for conversion by another. Here are [some further] thoughts on this....

1. Jesus came full of grace and truth according to the gospel of John (chapter one verse fourteen).  We need both grace (love, compassion, understanding) and truth (integrity with who we are, freedom, directness).  I try to live this way (in the context of this discussion) by saying something like “my religious heritage is Christian, but I’m working at believing in and following Jesus Christ. You are free to believe whatever you like about God and his messengers and books, but I’ve found there to be something very special in Jesus that I think you’d miss if you didn’t explore.”  That feels both graceful and truthful to who I am and who the person is I’m talking to.  

2.  We’re going back and forth in the discussion as to how we use the word “conversion.”  If conversion means – as most think it does – to change your religious identity, then we have problems.  I imagine most of us on this list agree that it’s not about changing your religious identity (although that itself is a hugely controversial topic).  But if by “conversion” we mean that God wants to change (convert) our hearts from the inside out – I think we’re open to that.  Right?  So it’s not that we’re “against conversion” - I need to be converted every day...
Therefore, in a perfect world, we might like the freedom in each country to convert from one religion to the next if someone so desires – we don’t have that and we don’t like to see that happen. What we DO want to see happen in our lives and in the lives of all 6.8 billion people on earth, is a true conversion to God by his spirit.  All of us on this list think Jesus has something to do with that. A classic Evangelical position is that it is by the death and resurrection of Jesus that this sort of conversion is made possible.  Our Muslim friends on this list (and many others among them) would agree that there is something special and unique about Jesus the Christ and that he shouldn’t be ignored.  

And my response:

As an Anthropologist who follows (seeks to follow) Jesus, one perspective I have on the issue of conversion is that we as human beings live in community with others (generally, who are "our people," who are like us). We grow up within a community, learn the culture and ways of life, internalize the "worldview" of that particular people, etc. We are all, naturally, "ethnocentric" - i.e., we see everything from the vantage point of our particular people; and we don't realize that there are other ways of "being human."

All of us tend to think that other people will be better, more fully human, if they become like us. We may not say this out loud, but we act as if it is true. The only way we know of being human, or of being "Christian" or "Muslim" or whatever, is to be like us. And so, if we share our faith, we tend to do it by trying to draw people into our community (and this can be with the best of intentions). But as we all know, most Muslims don't want to become Christians, or vice versa (and you can insert most peoples, most religions - E. Stanley Jones, when he went to India to evangelize the Hindus, found their response to be, "we don't want your religion, we have our own; we don't want your civilization, we have our own," etc. - this had a great impact on how he ended up sharing his faith there, as related in Christ of the Indian Road.)  In fact, Christians do this to each other, too - Protestants try to get Catholics or Orthodox to be Protestant, evangelicals try to get everyone to be evangelical, etc. And again, people don’t appreciate this attempt to change what is (in the deepest sense) their culture, their way of being.

It can be very different though, if rather than trying to get people to become like us, to become part of our community, we acknowledge the fact that they are and have a right to be who they are, part of a different community, and share (mutually, both ways) what we have found to be significant (e.g., in our following of Jesus, our faith in God, our religion) that they can take into their lives in their context, if they so desire.

Another way I think about this is that no one has to become like others to follow Jesus. No one has to follow Jesus, in the way that I do (in fact, that would be impossible, because my following of Jesus is inextricably bound up in my total sociocultural identity – it is only possible to follow Jesus in a specific context). Jesus, rather, enters into any and all human contexts, and walks our roads with us (this became Jones' message in India, that Jesus would "walk the Indian road" with people there). And what it might look like for Muslims to follow Jesus, in their context, could be very different from what it looks like for “Christians” (or any others) to follow him in theirs.

(With Christian groups I often ask, “Do Muslims have to “become ‘Christian’” to follow Jesus?” to which I argue, no, they don’t. What it might mean or look like for Muslims to follow Jesus in their own sociocultural context, is a matter for further discussion.)

Thus, as the author of the above email advocates, conversion is not about changing religion; conversion is about God changing our hearts, so that we can live out his life in the particular sociocultural context in which we find ourselves. And that, to me, is what faith in context (or contextual living) is all about.

In addition to the above, one of the things that makes this discussion and process hard (between Christians and Muslims, or Christians and anybody) is that many of us have come to a personal conviction and experience of Jesus as the source of life (in his own teaching, he said he is the bread of life, the way, the truth and the life, the resurrection and the life, etc.). With that conviction, our call is to bear witness to Jesus as the giver of life. And given our makeup as cultural human beings, that tends to get translated into an invitation to "become Christian," because it is in our context as Christians (for the most part) that we have come to know Jesus as the giver of life. So I want to say, while everyone is free to think what they want of Jesus, and responsible to respond to him (or not) out of their will and choice, we who know him also have an obligation to bear witness to what we have found in him (but need to learn to do so in a way that is good rather than bad “news” to people – this taking off on the fact that the word gospel means “good news”). And I would also maintain that knowing Jesus as the giver of life has nothing to do with being "Christian" (i.e., Muslims or anyone else can know Jesus as the giver of life, within their context).