1
Does ‘evangelism as dialogue’ presuppose that claims to absolute truth are
abandoned?
1.What is ‘evangelism as dialogue’?
Let us start by defining what we mean by dialogue.
Dialogue can be fundamentally understood as “engaging the minds of the
listeners, speaking to them with relevance”(1). According to its advocates, it is a
conversation requiring that both sides have a genuine desire to learn and listen, that
they are open to speak and instruct, but also for new light to be shed on their own
beliefs. Dialogue is not merely to be a “cover up for proselytism”, a “preparation for
witness”, nor merely “convincing people of …things…believed to be true”. Rather it
is the very “means to witness, a sharing of beliefs”(2)(3).
The dialogical approach is based on a particular theological worldview which
contrasts with the exclusivist viewpoint that only Christians have access to God’s
truth. The latter viewpoint tends to favour faithfulness to old truths over openness to
new, and it questions any spiritual validity of other religions, dismissing any hint of
pluralism as mere relativism (4). This contrasts with those such as Balthasar or
Richardson, who see traces of Christ’s gracious revelation among other peoples, and
hence propose that we should build on these rays of God’s light in their culture (5).
Following this same general line, Cragg argues that our very human nature gives hope
for finding common ground and warns against Christians making totalitarian claims
to the possession of truth. He understands this phenomenon as being, at least partially,
a reaction to the general erosion of religious belief, indifferent tolerance and
intermixing of faiths which results from the globalisation trends in our ‘Christian’ part
of the world (6).
According to Nazir-Ali, there “can be no Christian mission without dialogue”, as it
forms the basis in all areas of human community. He sees the need to dialogue not
only with other faiths, but also with science, the arts and other ideologies (7). The
Christian is urged by such writers to talk less and listen more, to exchange
information and seek to understand others’ experiences, to build up community rather
than to emphasize divisions. As we do this there can be a genuine, fresh discovery of
2
new insights on both sides (8). Hunter refers to “the miracle of dialogue, a caring,
intelligent conversation…beginning with active listening… which helps to open more
secular people to the possibility of faith than any other single approach I know of”(9).
Dialogue stands in contrast to the monologue approach traditionally practised
for instance in the form of preaching. Views on such approaches differ even within
evangelicalism. On the one hand, the traditional view is of preaching as a sacred cow,
the modern-day descendant of the gift of prophecy supremely valued by Paul (1 Cor.
14:1), “ the highest and the greatest and the most glorious calling to which anyone can
ever be called”(10). The other extreme is to view it as an outmoded method which
serves to pacify and subjugate the hearers and is “manifestly a failure as a means of
teaching”(11), at least in our post-modern world.
Dialogue also stands in contrast to much of Christian evangelistic strategy
over the centuries. From the legalised enforcement of Christianity in Constantine’s
time through to the crusades or the Inquisition, Christians have used a variety of
evangelistic methods, frequently based on an underlying, unquestioning conviction of
the rightness of their cause, and hence the need for conversion of the hearers, if need
be by force. In modern times similar attitudes or methodology can be found in
frequent examples of insensitive Western mission to “lesser developed” countries. As
Luzbetak observes, Christianity is to be offered, not imposed by force or
manipulation, and we are to respect, which is not to say unquestioningly accept as
unchangeable, the host culture in which we seek to serve (12).
It is often difficult, in these instances, to discern the subtle difference between
the missionary’s genuine desire to help and the pride of his superiority complex, but
once hints of cultural pride or imperialism are sensed, barriers to the effective spread
of the gospel can be raised. Such dynamics have resulted over the centuries in large
sections of society in many nations being resistant to the gospel.
The question and answer format of dialogue can be a very effective form of
teaching and learning, especially in ministering to people who are resistant to more
confrontational approaches and where these have failed to penetrate. Many people are
tired of being preached at by salesmen, wary of being manipulated, defensive against
3
the attacks on their cultural identity and traditions already being made by the
onslaught of globalisation. The dialogical approach can help to ease such fears and
soften hearts. Examples of such people groups where a dialogical approach may be
needed and more effective are people of other faiths, or the working classes, or the
younger, post-modern generation who tend to prefer non-directive methods, or those
with alternative lifestyles. Such people groups can be helped to overcome deep seated
prejudices and resistance if we are willing to take time and approach them in a way
which recognises and acknowledges the good and the true in their lives and faiths.
One such context is the inner cities and working classes. Sheppard underlines the
“urgent need for the Church to listen to what urban man in the inner city is saying”
because “he is not heard in many churches”. Similarly in the context of other faiths,
he suggests that treating people with respect and entering into friendly dialogue
reflects “our common humanity and our common experience of the love of God”(13).
Another specific application of this approach is something I have personally practiced
in Muslim countries- dialogue prayer. This can enable us to learn lessons such as how
our Christian prayer is often lacking in awe, respect or substance. Other advocated
strategies involve inter-religious co-labouring in holistically beneficial projects in
society. Advocates of such approaches believe all this can be done without
abandoning the unique claims and revelation of Christ, that “at the right moment, with
courtesy and respect, we shall bear our witness to Christ”(14).
Proverbs refers to such an approach: “He who answers before listening- that is
his folly and shame”(18:13). This wise advice is frequently neglected by Christian
teachers and evangelists. Indeed God modelled the dialogical approach from the very
beginning of His relationship with man: “Where are you? What have you done?”, or
with Satan: “Where have you come from?”( Job 1:7). Similarly Jesus frequently asked
questions which could be interpreted as indicating his lack of omniscience or spiritual
insight: “What do you want?”(John 1:38). Such questioning does not necessarily
indicate that God didn’t know the truth. More probably the questions are intended to
spur the listeners to analyse themselves and discover, express or confess truth for
themselves. This has been proven to be a very effective form of teaching. In
evangelistic situations Jesus dialogued on many occasions, be it with the Samaritan
woman, Nicodemus, or his opponents (e.g. John 6:61:18:23). Paul and Peter observed,
listened and learned before they spoke in the situations in Caesarea and Athens,
4
reasoning in the synagogues (Acts 17:2; 18:4). Such receiver-oriented evangelism is
very appropriate to the spirit of our own pluralistic, post-modern, questioning and mecentred age.
Stott refers to other benefits of dialogue such as the accompanying hallmarks
of authenticity, humility, integrity and sensitivity (15), all of which he sees as
supplementing rather than supplanting forthright and persuasive gospel preaching
(16). A form of dialogue can also be achieved by incarnation since people in need will
not just listen to our words, but also watch our lifestyles carefully. As we rub
shoulders with them in their reality, addressing and helping them solve their perceived
problems, working together for peace and justice, they are frequently more open to
hear our message. Institutional religion has a problem with such incarnation in its
evangelism, being often dualistic in approach, addressing purely ‘spiritual’ concerns,
by definition materially ‘successful’, and therefore perceived as distant from the
everyday problems of those who are struggling. Hence people today are unlikely to
approach the minister with their problems, as they perceive him as being unable to
understand or help. Samuel and Sugden are among those who recommend that the
most effective approach to bridge such a gap is holistic, addressing the agenda and
concerns of the poor and needy in order to help them see the relevance of the gospel
to their lives (17). This requires us to respect them as valuable people, made in God’s
image and in whom God is already working, revealing some of His light. We will
need to listen to them to understand their concerns, before speaking and suggesting a
solution.
2.Does dialogue infer the abandoning of claims to absolute truth?
Some, however, would infer that dialogue requires compromise or worse.
Attitudes such as “belief cannot reason with unbelief, it can only preach to it”(18), or
that the “light of Asia” is the “devil’s masterpiece” to keep Westerners in their
“luxurious indolence”(19), are common and unapologetically proclaimed. Those who
perceive that the gospel is progressing strongly forward through confrontational
approaches view dialogue as weak, liberal and unnecessarily watering down the truth.
5
They point to church growth numbers as justification for a bold, no-discussion,
confrontational approach. Others, who perceive that the gospel is struggling to
progress, can interpret dialogue as a dangerous compromise in a period of weakness, a
slippery, downward slope to relativism and denial of the truth. Both these groups
would see the answer as ‘getting back to the basics’, trusting in the power of the Word
as it is faithfully, though apparently in places fruitlessly proclaimed. Revivals and
examples of faithful, uncompromising preachers of the past are quoted in support.
Feelings on the other side of the debate are equally intense. Cracknell refers to
the “hope (of an) end to the ill-informed view that ‘dialogue’ is a modern aberration
which represents a loss of self-confidence”. He presents it as a creative and positive
alternative to the “ignorant destroyers of culture, ancient religious habit and
custom”(20).
How are we to position ourselves in this debate? There is a difference between
knowing in part absolute truth on the one hand, and claiming to possess a monopoly
of, or to have complete understanding or experience of truth on the other. Paul warns
against an over-estimation of one’s own knowledge and perceptions (1 Cor.8:2). From
a psychological point of view, the dialogical approach in itself does not necessarily
imply that we are unsure that we are right. Rather it can indicate humility, respect and
an openness to acknowledge that God could be teaching that person something that
we don’t yet understand. It acknowledges our common humanity, that God’s image
and light is revealed in part to them and in the history and traditions of their peoples.
We need also to recognise, particularly in deference to a post-modern mindset,
that the gospel we proclaim is not absolutely provable in rational terms. Newbigin
refers to us as ones who bear witness to the truth, rather than ones who possess it. As
such we need to empty ourselves of pride. He sees no dichotomy between
“confession” and “truth-seeking”, rather he perceives confession as the starting point
of truth seeking (21). This surely requires an attitude of openness which is often
absent in those who claim to “know”.
By contrast, our clear perception and bold proclamation of the truth expressed
in a monologue form can, though it doesn’t necessarily, result from or lead to
6
unconscious pride. It can also lay us open to the charge of pressurising and
manipulation. Often, rather than seek to understand them, we prefer to label and hence
spiritually degrade people as agnostic, Muslim or atheist, which can blind us to that
person’s deep quest for, and partial understanding of spiritual meaning and truth.
Moreover in the post-modern environment in which many of us minister, we need to
be aware that we are going against the wary spirit and mentality of the age if we assert
that we have exclusive possession of objective mega-narratives which are beyond
challenge or question. We can expect resistance to such an approach, and the form of
dialogue undoubtedly allows those who resist such confrontation the opportunity of a
gradual process of acceptance. We are thus able to be sensitive to the degree and
process of God’s revelation to that person, as well as to recognise the person’s
barriers and objections, or our own limitations. The story of single missionary women
drinking lime juice among Mexican Indians for whom this was a sign of their warding
off pregnancy and hence of an immoral life, is but one of a multitude of missionary
blunders which could have been rectified by pursuit of a receiver-oriented, dialogical
approach. At the very least we should adopt Gamble’s strategy of asking questions to
see where someone is spiritually and then graciously moving on if it’s clear they’re
not interested spiritually (22).
However, this is not to say that there is no place for proclamation, nor that
there are no dangers in going too far with the concept of dialogue. While it is
undoubtedly biblically defensible to argue that God is at work in often inexplicable
ways among the nations, not only in Israel (e.g. Dan 4:34-7; Jonah; Luke 4:26-27) or
within the bounds of the church (e.g. Acts 10:14), that is not to say that all religions
are equally valid and true. We need to be aware that they also have their demonic
elements of false teaching of which the early church was warned to beware
(e.g.1 Tim.4:1;Acts 20:29-31)(23). Dialogue can indeed, at times, be a result of lack
of conviction, boldness or knowledge. Courageous speaking of the gospel is to be
encouraged (Acts 4:13,20). Stott regards this as merely proclaiming that we’ve put
our hope in the truth. At the same time he warns about total openness or suspending
our convictions regarding the truth. He views this as compromising our integrity (24).
Cracknell cites Paul’s strategy of discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus, but
points out that this is subsequent to his leaving behind those who were obstinate,
refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way (Acts 19:8-10). Although a firm
7
advocate of dialogue with other religions, he does not view “one religion as good as
another”, and recognises that demonic elements of religion need confrontation (25).
Jesus did not hold back from sharp criticism of false teachers (Matt 23) while
frequently using dialogue with others (e.g. Jn.4). The argument of many advocates of
the dialogical approach to other religions is not that Jesus is not the only way. They
usually acknowledge that all those “acceptable to God outside Christianity have come
to Him through Christ” (26). However, such advocates have moved like CF Andrews
to a position which doesn’t necessarily purely see mission as “quickening the dead in
trespasses” but as “welcoming with joy His radiant presence in those who have seen
from afar His glory”(27). They do not regard the Lord of all nations as the personal
property of Christians, (28) and they echo Peter’s revelation that “God does not show
favouritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right”
( Acts 10:34-35). They argue that the church has become unbiblically exclusivist, that
God-fearing Gentiles were in synagogues, Christian assemblies had non-Christians
present (1Cor 14:23-24), and Christians attended synagogues till the third century,
hence there was a natural intermixing of faiths even within religious institutions.
Undoubtedly certain forms of the dialogical approach can be interpreted as a
sign of lack of conviction or liberal relativism. Sheppard reasons that “it is no proper
concern of the church to defend its own present position in society”, hence we should
gladly offer our facilities when we no longer need them to enrich the community life
of other religions (29). This seems to me to be noble yet naïve and fraught with
resignation. Is this not an over-extreme application of the tolerant spirit of our age,
which Christians of other eras and continents would find extremely strange and
defeatist? Witness the recent discussions in Anglican circles between “liberal”
Western clergy and “conservative” Africans on a variety of issues where sections of
the Western church are seen by many including myself to be “giving way”(e.g. on the
homosexual debate).
Rather than giving up ground to the onslaught of indiscriminate tolerance or
the globalisation of other religions, we should reconsider and redesign our own
strategies, confident, yet humble, bold to proclaim, yet sensitive to need and quick to
listen. As we adjust, we should separate our adherence to relative and temporary
(albeit traditional) religious forms from our commitment to the unchangeable
8
Absolute One. We have no need to be anxious and should avoid being arrogant. We
should beware the extremes of loyalty to that which is changeable on the one hand, or
indiscriminate openness on the other, “rooted in ancient verities, but free and flexible
to respond to new and creative forces”(30). We must know where we stand, since
people will tug us in both directions. This calls for biblical depth of conviction and
breadth of vision. Witness CF Andrews’ unwillingness to relent to Gandhi’s pressure
to renounce the will to convert (31). We are, moreover, sent out as sheep amongst
wolves ( Mt 10:16), and we cannot expect to meet with the same tolerance which
dialogue advocates require us to afford others. We should therefore beware allowing
the hard-won achievements of bygone Christians to be swallowed up and
subsequently distorted and dismissed by the manoeuvrings of political and religious
wolves around us, who, far from reciprocating our acceptance and gracious treatment,
rather bite off our hands. Accommodation, tolerance, grace and dialogue require much
spiritual discernment and wisdom.
Having said that, as innocent doves, we must attempt to replace fear and
mistrust with openness and love (32). “ In order to do so with some measure of
wisdom and grace, it may be helpful to begin by not assuming that we ourselves have
mastered the hidden curriculum”(33). We are “a pilgrim people (who) must maintain
their differentia as pilgrims, but they must belong to the society among whom their
journey is set”(34). Such belonging involves humble dialogue and a recognition that
while we have come a long way and have been given much to offer, we have neither a
complete understanding, nor a monopoly of absolute truth. We should therefore
pursue, however difficult it may be, the alternative of creative tension, a third way
between “a comfortable claim to absoluteness and arbitrary pluralism”(35). We
should remember that ultimately our dialogue is not to be between absolute religious
systems, but between people created in God’s image, fellow seekers and pilgrims.
Hence our uncompromising loyalty should not be to Christianity as a religion, but to
the absolute, universal Lordship of God whose image and creation we share (36).
(3136 words)
9
References:
(1) Stott J,
Christian mission to the modern world ( Falcon, London, 1975)
p.60.
(2) Nazir-Ali
Mission and Dialogue ( SPCK, London, 1995) p.83.
(3) Hume D,
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in Wolheim R, Hume on
Religion ( London, Fantana, 1963).
(4) Barnes M,
Christian Identity and Religious Pluralism ( Abingdon, Nashville,
1989.) pp.12-16.
(5) Balthasar H,
Catholicism and the Religions ( Communio 5, 1978) pp.6-14.
(6) Cragg A,
The Christian and other Religion ( Mowbrays, Oxford, 1977)
pp.8,12.
(7) Nazir-Ali
Mission and Dialogue ( SPCK, London, 1995) pp.58-9.
(8) ibid.
p.81.
(9) Hunter III, G Church for the Unchurched ( Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996)
pp.163-5.
(10) Lloyd-Jones M, Preaching and Preachers ( Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1971)
pp.9,97.
(11) Pearse M & Matthews C, We must stop meeting like this ( Kingsway,
Eastbourne,1999) p.99.
(12) Luzbetak L,
The Church & Cultures ( Orbis, New York, 1988) pp.47-8.
(13) Sheppard D, Bias for the Poor ( Hodder, London, 1983) p. 45.
(14) ibid.
p.85.
(15) Stott J,
Christian mission to the modern world ( Falcon, London, 1975)
pp.71-73.
(16) Stott J,
Christian mission to the modern world ( Falcon, London, 1975)
pp.48-56.
(17) Samuel V & Sugden C, Evangelism & the Poor (OCMS, Oxford, 1983)pp.147-9.
(18) MacIntyre A, quoted in Mitchell B, The Justification of Religious Belief
( Macmillan, London, 1973) p.137.
(19) Pierson A,
The Crisis of Missions (1886) pp. 293-4.
(20) Cracknell K, Justice, Courtesy and Love ( Epworth, London, 1995) pp. xiii-xiv.
(21) Newbigin L in Mission Trends No.5: Faith meets Faith ( Eerdmans, Grand
10
Rapids,1981) p.3.
(22) Gamble R,
The irrelevant church ( Monarch, Eastbourne, 1991) p.162.
(23) Ariarajah,W
The Bible and people of other faiths ( WCC, Geneva, 1985) p.10.
(24) Stott J,
Christian mission to the modern world ( Falcon, London, 1975)
p.60.
(25) Cracknell K, Why dialogue? ( BCC, London, 1980) p.20.
(26) ibid. p.21.
(27) ibid.p.24.
(28) Ariarajah,W
The Bible and people of other faiths ( WCC, Geneva, 1985)
pp.8,11.
(29) Sheppard D, Bias for the Poor ( Hodder, London, 1983) p.85.
(30) Aria T & Ariarajah W, Spirituality in interfaith dialogue ( WCC, Geneva. 1989)
pp. 77-93.
(31) Cragg A,
The Christian and other Religion ( Mowbrays, Oxford, 1977) p99.
(32) Samartha S,
Courage for Dialogue ( WCC, Geneva, 1981) p.9.
(33) Guider M, in Mission in Bold Humility ( Orbis, New York, 1996) p.159.
(34) Niles D,
Upon the Earth ( Lutterworth, London, !962) p.79.
(35) Bosch D,
Transforming Mission ( Orbis, New York, 1998) p.483.
(36) Samartha S,
Courage for Dialogue ( WCC, Geneva, 1981) pp.45,98.
11
Bibliography:
* Accad L,
Building Bridges - Christianity and Islam ( Navpress, Colorado,
1997).
* Aria T & Ariarajah W, Spirituality in interfaith dialogue ( WCC, Geneva. 1989).
* Ariarajah,W
The Bible and people of other faiths ( WCC, Geneva, 1985).
* Balthasar H,
Catholicism and the Religions ( Communio 5, 1978).
* Bosch D,
Transforming Mission ( Orbis, New York, 1998).
* Barnes M,
Christian Identity and Religious Pluralism (Abingdon, Nashville,
1989).
* Cracknell K,
Justice, Courtesy and Love ( Epworth, London, 1995).
* Cracknell K,
Towards a New Relationship ( Epworth, London, 1986).
* Cracknell K,
Why dialogue? (BCC, London, 1980).
* Cragg A,
The Christian and other Religion ( Mowbrays, Oxford, 1977).
* Gamble R,
The irrelevant church ( Monarch, Eastbourne, 1991).
* Guider M, in
Mission in Bold Humility ( Orbis, New York, 1996).
* Hume D,
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion in Wolheim R, Hume on
Religion ( London, Fantana, 1963).
* Kung H,
A Christian Scholar’s Dialogue with Muslims ( The Christian
Century, October 9, 1985).
* Lloyd-Jones M, Preaching and Preachers ( Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1971).
* Luzbetak L,
The Church & Cultures ( Orbis, New York, 1988).
* MacIntyre A,
quoted in Mitchell B, The Justification of Religious Belief
( Macmillan, London,1973) p.137.
* Malek Dr G,
Missiology: An International Review ( Vol.XVI no. 3, July 1988).
* Nazir-Ali,
Mission and Dialogue ( SPCK, London, 1995).
* Newbigin L in Mission Trends No.5 Faith meets Faith ( Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,
1981).
* Niles D,
Upon the Earth ( Lutterworth, London, !962).
* Pearse M & Matthews C, We must stop meeting like this ( Kingsway,
Eastbourne,1999).
* Pierson A,
The Crisis of Missions (1886).
* Richardson D, Eternity in their hearts (Regal, Ventura, 1981).
* Samartha S,
Courage for Dialogue ( WCC, Geneva, 1981).
12
* Samuel V & Sugden C, Evangelism & the Poor ( OCMS, Oxford, 1983).
* Sheppard D,
Bias for the Poor ( Hodder, London, 1983).
* Stott J,
Christian mission to the modern world ( Falcon, London, 1975).
MC.
19th April 2001.