I’m a historian and missiologist by training. I love to remind people about our Christian past, not as a wistful reminder of better days but as a reality check about where we are now and what we should be thinking about the present and the future.

In the period between 1400–1500 Christianity faced the most desperate and dark times it’s history. A major part of the church had spanned Asia but this part had been all but eliminated. In the Middle East, as well as in Northern Africa, Christianity was in steep decline as Islam subjected Christians to second-class status and serious persecution. The total percentage of Christians in terms of the global population was actually less than it had been 1,000 years before! Besides all this, a new Muslim power–the Ottomans–had arisen and were destroying the base of Greek Orthodoxy. They were rapidly conquering Christian countries in both Southeast and Central Europe. One after another nations that had been deeply influenced by the church were now seeing the virtual elimination of the church. (Much the same is happening in some of the same places in the twenty-first century!) The remaining bastion of Christianity was Catholic Europe. But even there the best modern Catholic scholars now admit that this time period was a low point for Catholicism. The papacy was morally and spiritually corrupt. Many popes were more hungry for power than for Christ-like service. Political manipulation was the flavor of the times. And the Inquisition was widely used to stifle spiritual renewal and the exercise of spiritual gifts.

But even in these dark times a new day was dawning and spiritual renewal movements, led by prophets of reform, were rising up to speak to these dark times. These spiritual reformers kept alive the flame of spiritual renewal amidst devastating wars and plagues. During this same time Europe was benefitting from the new found wealth of the Americas and new sea routes were opening to Asia. In the midst of what was likely the darkest moment in church history God stepped in and what we call the Protestant Reformation occurred in the early sixteen century. But all of this was following years of prayer and wide-scale movements of local revival. The Reformation would eventually lead to the greatest mission outreach in church history over the next two centuries. And the Catholic Counter Reformation would also result in the greatest renewal of mission the Catholic Church had ever known. One historian recently said that the greatest impact of the Protestant Reformation was the Catholic Counter Reformation and the result of this impact was the greatest global expansion of Christianity ever.

The trends in formerly Christian Europe are obvious to all to see. The church is now all but irrelevant to the wider culture. Evangelical churches remain small and attendance, even in the older mainstream churches, is almost inconsequential. But history tells us that these negative trends do not necessarily mean that what has happened recently is what will happen for centuries to come. The same could be said for America.

One of the more interesting trends in Europe is immigration. Not only are Muslims moving into formerly Christian lands but immigrant congregations have become the largest and most dynamic churches on the continent. When the night grows darkest, as an old saying goes, the light may not be far behind. A visit to London, for example, reveals that there are now some rather amazing mega-churches, all of them immigrant congregations that are seeing conversions weekly. Immigration works both ways and Christians ought to welcome these patterns and evangelize fervently.

What about America? While every vital statistic I know indicates a clear and obvious  decline in the next generation, and likely far beyond, we have not yet seen what God might do with a generation of millennials (the generation born in 1982 and since). There is growing evidence that this generation will break all the molds but no one knows for sure what this means yet. I think millennials need powerful, incarnational, relational role models if they are to be faithfully orthodox and effective in mission but I also believe they are far more likely to sacrifice themselves, for compelling and convincing causes, than any group that I’ve seen since the Jesus Movement of the late 1960s. It was in this time period that my own life was touched profoundly by the movement of God’s Spirit in revival and mission.

These massive negative trends call for deep and serious change. I think this is so obvious that I am surprised anyone still debates it. (Many still do, especially if they are over 60. They seem to believe that by doubling down on what we have done we can still get better results!) But the ultimately negative trends that we now see do not have to become a centuries long decline. We clearly need a new work of the Holy Spirit and we ought to be earnestly seeking God for this outpouring. One crystal clear mark of the Spirit’s work is his drawing Christians and churches together in dynamic, Christ-centered, unity; cf. John 17:20-24. This part, which I call missional-aecumenism, has to have a major part in the new reformation that many of us know we so desperately need in the coming years. I am working, praying and watching. I hope some of you will join me and thereby give everything you have to this truly worthy purpose.

In the poorest countries people generally have children at the highest rate, believing that their future is in their children. (It is hard for Westerner people to grasp this since our birth rate is declining rapidly and we are not even replacing our own population unless you include immigrants and undocumented workers who have larger families.) Very little of the financial aid that is given to less developed countries addresses the root problems or leads to sustainable, replicable changes.

In 1950 the industrialized nations were the most populous. But in the second half of the century birth rates plunged while those in the least developed world rose to a peak in the 1990s. In 2000 the most populous countries were India and China, now almost equal in population given China’s “one child” policy. Only five developed countries remained on this list in 2000. Generally speaking the fastest live birth rates are among Muslims.

One of the big, thorny, difficult problems we now face is this: “How should governmental, NGO and Christian aid be administered to achieve the best outcomes possible?” Put another way, to those of us who are Christians, “How would Jesus have us respond to the suffering multitudes upon whom he had deep compassion in his own mission?”

The answers offered to these questions vary but the burning issues remain clear. Global stability, even politically, may well depend on how we in the West help the poorer nations to secure a hopeful, workable future. Failure could lead to an ecological disaster (and I am not speaking of the controversial parts of ecology, just the obvious facts on the ground). Failure could also lead to social collapse and the vast migrations of people as we’ve seen in sub-Sahara Africa over recent decades. It is also striking that the “hot spots” for Christians are likely to be in Africa since the church is growing rapidly there and Islam is also growing rapidly right alongside of their Muslim neighbors. Peacemaking is an acquired skill and Africa is short on leaders who seek peace between Christians and Muslims.

Those who deeply study these demographic issues suggest that by 2050 growth will be the highest among Muslims, particularly in Africa. Of the original developed countries only two will remain on the list for live birth rate growth–Mexico and Brazil. It is suggested that by 2050 even these two nations will become more like the rest of the West and their birth rates will likely decline.

Where will we be in 2100? Growth rates are most likely to be highest in Muslim countries in Africa and Asia. It is also likely that severe shortages of food, water and resources will deeply challenge these places in the world where birth rates grow. Will many migrate to Europe? If so what will Europe look like demographically in 2100 given that it is already very different now than it was in 1950?

This much we can be fairly certain about. Over the next sixty-plus years, less than my lifetime already lived, there will be chasmic disparities between those places where birth rates are in decline and those where it is still rising rapidly. Some suggest that by 2100 the birth rate might actually plateau globally. These huge disparities are likely to increase turmoil inside of countries and between countries over the next sixty-plus years. Inadequate education and vast displays of inequality, which people will know about and thus understand better than ever, are likely to become great challenges to infrastructure and peace. One student of this trend concludes, “The deprived poor will either fight to take their share or migrate to earn it.”

Having studied what Jesus says about the poor and marginalized in Luke’s Gospel over the past two weeks I am deeply struck by just how little attention we Christians in the West pay to what our Lord taught about these types of problems. These problems are faced every day by the poorest and weakest people on our planet. I submit that out “older” European ways of reading the Bible and solving such problems will not likely work in many of these new global contexts. If mission is to be truly effective then we need some serious reflection on these distressing issues and how we intend to deal with them. My hope is that millennial leaders, who generally see the world very differently, will be the “great” generation in their sacrificial response to the great need that the world will soon face. This generation tends to “get involved.” If they get involved what will happen? Let us pray for holy wisdom and great courage.

Neal Plantinga told a story in his talk he took from his famous older brother, philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Dr. Alvin Plantinga is the John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame and is also a prolific thinker and writer. Indeed, Alvin Plantinga represents an entire “field/discipline” of Christian apologetics/philosophy known as “Reformed epistemology.” According to Reformed epistemology, belief in God can be rational and justified even without arguments or evidence for the existence of God. More specifically, Alvin Plantinga argues that belief in God is properly basic, and due to a religious externalist epistemology, he then goes on to claim that belief in God could be justified independently of evidence. His externalist epistemology is technically called “proper functionalism.”

Alvin Plantinga lives in the world of “big” ideas and philosophical arguments. His friendships range across a wide personal and academic spectrum. One of his good friends is an equally well-known philosopher who is an avowed atheist. This unbelieving professor asked Plantinga why he believed in God to which Plantinga responded, “Because I cannot believe anything else.” He went on to say that he is convinced of God, and the reality of God’s being and loving nature, because of a work of grace upon his heart without any convincing proofs. The atheist was a bit taken back by this honest answer from the great thinker. Plantinga then asked his friend, “Why do you not believe in God?” The equally famous philosopher said, “I cannot believe in God because I am not prepared to allow anyone to take control of my life and the way I choose to live it.”

I almost shouted “Amen” at this point but this was a lecture, not a highly emotional praise context. In my heart I said, “Of course. This is the bottom line difference between the believer and the unbeliever.” We do not have “proof” (as in final and certain proof) for our faith. But we have been seized by a person who loves us and lives in us. We know this grace and love flowing out of our inner being. We can do no other than worship and follow Christ because we have come to know him so deeply through his grace. The unbeliever refuses to give his mind and heart to such a God precisely because he chooses to remain independent and autonomous. Ultimately the believer has God alone to thank for her faith. The unbeliever has no one to blame but herself since she refuses to give God even a whisper of a real opportunity to crack open the door of her interior being.

Dr. Hans Boersma, professor at Regent College in Vancouver, was invited to respond. Boersma is the James I. Packer Professor of Theology at Regent. His presentation will be posted next week on this site.

After Oakes and Boersma each spoke Fr. Robert Barron and I offered comments and response. Then we opened the discussion up to the gathered audience. The crowd was smaller than we had expected because we had just endured serious storms in the Chicago region the day before the event (April 17).

The first part of our evening is thus the lecture that you can view here as given by Fr. Oakes. You will be able to view the entire presentation in high quality video within two weeks. Next week we will post Hans Boersma’s presentation and the comments of Fr. Barron and myself. Then the week after that we will post the Q & A from the audience. Thus the entire two-plus hours will then be completely available on this site two weeks from today, June 3.

Please encourage your friends to watch this amazing presentation and please consider helping ACT3 Network do more of these kinds of presentations by supporting us financially. We need your support if we are to produce high quality videos of this sort. We function on a very small budget. This production was costly but the end result is very good as I think you will agree after seeing it. Your response is warmly welcomed.

John Paul II answered my question clearly when he wrote: “How many internal tensions, which weaken and divide certain local churches and institutions, would disappear before the firm conviction that the salvation of local communities is procured through cooperation in work for the spread of the Gospel to the farthest bounds of the earth!” I recognize that the pope was primarily writing about local Catholic parishes but when you see his view fully you will soon realize that he embraced ecumenism as a necessary part of the work of global evangelization.

John Paul II believed that this new evangelization is connected with “entering a new missionary age, [one] which will become a radiant day bearing an abundant harvest, if all Christians, and missionaries and young churches in particular, respond with generosity and holiness to the calls and challenges of our time.”

Note that I have italicized the words “all Christians” here. I do this for a very specific reason. John Paul II was the pope and he spoke on behalf of the Catholic Church, both for her witness and her faith. But he was also an ecumenist who longed to solve some of the problems that divided Christian from Christian, and the Catholic Church from other ecclesial communities that are non-Catholic. This is evident to anyone who bothers to really read his work on evangelization with any degree of care.

The church historian Martin Marty suggests that there are three guiding images for a proper historical assessment of evangelism.

The first image, says Marty, is that of a “hurricane. ” This image fits when one thinks of modernity. This image calls some people to be bridge-builders (I see this as my own vocation) while it calls others to fly above the storm in C-130’s so that they can offer perspective and relief. Then some are like remote satellites that broadcast the message in every way that they can into every possible place.

The second image that Marty provides that is helpful is that of exemplum. By this he means we need exemplary leaders and movements which will “clear the woods” by defining, by throwing light on the darkness and by cultivating the soil.

The third image that Marty offers is that of a new landscape which will endure because there is an outline of the major events to be discovered in history. The landscape in the early centuries of the church was one of persecution. The church then became official and then it was divided and further established within culture. After the fourth century evangelism was often subsumed under the form of the established state church. Then after the Reformation it was broken and became captive to the Enlightenment and human reason. But God used the pietists to awaken various churches and people and to thrust the church into the harvest once again. From the 1790s to the present new churches and movements created “young churches” and a vast new gospel witness that expansively reached out to unreached peoples. Now the church has become truly global and ecumenical in the best sense of these two vitally important words.

We do not need to use the exact same words in order to experience and practice the reality that I’ve called evangelism and evangelization. I learned this in my mid-30s when I saw a new kind of disciple-making in South India. Here I truly witnessed how simple preaching campaigns, joined with power encounters of the Spirit, produced an abundant harvest in previously non-Christian villages and towns. This was Christian faith on the frontier where Christendom had never been. There was no great debate about the meaning of words like evangelism or evangelization in rural India but these core ideas that I have written about were clearly present in every expression of the faith that I witnessed firsthand.

Martin Marty suggests that one can pursue the essential core of evangelism/evangelization by seeing several components that are webbed together as a whole when we speak of these ideas.

He lists seven components that he believes are needed to get the whole picture.

1. Receive. Prayer and pneumatic stories abound in every period of history and growth.
2. Go. Pre-evangelism and preparatory evangelism are always needed.
3. Witness. Personal evangelism and presence evangelism are both part of true witness.
4. Proclaim. Preaching evangelism, or proclamation that seeks to make Christ clearly known.
5. Disciple. This involves a proper understanding of persuasion that is not forced but will always include education and formation.
6. Baptize. Pastoral evangelism, planting and establishing new converts in the faith.
7. Train. Programmatic evangelism that becomes pedagogical. We must teach others to go and serve in evangelization.

There are several cautions to be observed in these comments by Marty. He says, “A map is not a territory.” The coach may diagram a play but the game must still be played and things will surely change as the story unfolds. “A musical score is not the music.” Yet these seven components can help us to launch out into faithful action and thus help us to become active agents in the task by calling us to be faithful ambassadors.

4. The New Evangelization is directed to individuals and to whole cultures.

Pope John Paul II taught that evangelization includes not only individuals but whole cultures, cultures that need to be transformed by the influence of the gospel. In the missionary activity of the church we will always encounter different cultures thus the church must become involved in the process of inculturation. By inculturation the pope means, “the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through the integration in Christianity and the insertion of Christianity into the various human cultures.” He adds, “The new evangelization must strive to incarnate Christian values and open the gospel message to human cultures.” In one of his most amazing word choices John Paul II said this transformation should lead us to embrace and establish: “A civilization of love.” This call is to a new kind of civilization, one lost in large measure to the former Christendom cultures of the West. It will be characterized, most centrally, by love. This love is for all people and all cultures but it will always be particularly directed to the poorest and the least in every culture, underscoring what has been called the “preferential option for the poor.”

5. The New Evangelization is not limited to the presentation of the basic Gospel message (kerygma) but is a comprehensive process of Christianization.

Before I explain the pope’s thinking here it is worth noting that these two points (numbers 4 and 5) both sound remarkably like the view of culture, and evangelization, promoted by the great Dutch Reformed theologian Abraham Kuyper (1837–1920). If you want to get into Kuyper’s worldview then read the newly translated work, Wisdom and Wonder: Common Grace in Science and Art,  (Nelson D. Kloosterman, translator, Grand Rapids: Christian’s Library Press, 2011).

Kuyper taught a doctrine called, in the English translation of the original Dutch,  sphere sovereignty. Much, though not all, of the Dutch Reformed tradition has embraced this idea in one form or another. (It often goes under another theological category called common grace.) Sphere sovereignty is the concept that each sphere (or sector) of life has its own distinct responsibilities and authority, or competence. Sphere sovereignty teaches that there is an all encompassing created order, an order designed and governed by God. This created order includes societal communities (such as those for purposes of education, worship, civil justice, agriculture, economy and labor, marriage and family, artistic expression, etc.) which include historical development and abiding norms. This principle of sphere sovereignty seeks to affirm and respect both creational boundaries and historical differentiation.

Sphere sovereignty implies that no single area of life or societal community is sovereign over another. Each sphere has its own created integrity. This type of “Kuyperian-Calvinism” holds that since God created everything “after its own kind,” diversity must be acknowledged and appreciated. For instance, the different God-given norms for family life and economic life should be recognized, such that a family does not properly function like a business. Similarly, neither faith-institutions (e.g. churches) nor an institution of civil justice (i.e. the state) should seek totalitarian control, or any regulation of human activity outside their limited competence. (Read that sentence again very slowly!)

John Paul II believed, as did Abraham Kuyper, that the proclamation of the Gospel is the essential first step. It is also the foundation of a life long process. Evangelization involves more than initial conversion. It also involves catechetical instruction, moral doctrine and the social teaching of the Church. Those who are incorporated into Christ are incorporated into the mystery and communion of his body. All reality is social!

People who are redeemed are joined to God through the sacraments and the church community. Kuyper held a Reformed view of the eucharist (called “real presence”) but I believe  he would have deeply resonated with John Paul II’s basic understanding.

6. The New Evangelization calls for a missionary spirituality.

The basis of sharing the life of Christ with others is living the life that is in Christ. This means that true evangelism must be rooted in a deep and growing spiritual union with Christ focused on self-denial and sacrifice. This is always true because of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

We are all called, as the church together, to know Christ and to make Him known. John Paul II wrote: “It is not possible to bear witness to Christ without reflecting his image, which is made alive in us by grace and the power of the Spirit.” In order to pass on the gospel to others it must have first permeated our lives at the deepest level. We must incarnate divine love if we would be effective evangelists. John Paul II named certain specific elements of a type of spirituality that he believed to be essential for all those who are called to be missionaries. David Nodar writes, “Reception of the gifts of fortitude and discernment are essential.” We must, said the late pontiff, “feel Christ’s burning love for souls, and love the church as Christ did.” And he adds: “Holiness must be called a fundamental presupposition and an irreplaceable condition of everyone in fulfilling the mission of salvation in the Church. The universal call to holiness is closely linked to the universal call to mission. Every member of the faithful is called to holiness and to mission.”

Every evangelical Protestant heart ought to resonate profoundly with such a vision and perspective. What the pope said about this work that is not so widely practiced by evangelical Protestants is expressed in the idea that “the future of mission depends to a great extent on contemplation. Unless the missionary is a contemplative he cannot proclaim Christ in a credible way.” This means God’s people are all called to be “person[s] of the beatitudes (poverty, meekness, acceptance of suffering and persecution, the desire for justice and peace, charity).”

Pope John Paul II rightly noted that mission, “renews the church, revitalizes faith and Christian identity, and offers fresh enthusiasm and new incentive.” We should preach the gospel to the church and to the nations. This is what Jesus meant when he called his first disciples by saying,”Come follow me.” The pope is inviting us to join a journey in, and toward, Christ. What could be more deeply Christian than this call?

In Redemptoris Missio John Paul II gave some of the characteristics of this new evangelization. In reading more on John Paul II’s initiative I came across a magnificent site called ChristLife. ChristLife is a lay Catholic ministry established in 1995 in response to the Church’s call to a new evangelization. The vision of ChristLife is to equip Catholics for the essential work of evangelization so that others might come to know personally the love of God through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, becoming his followers and members of the Church.

David Nodar, who serves as the director of CHRISTLIFE Catholic Evangelization Services, an apostolate of the archdiocese of Baltimore (MD), wrote a fine article in which he lists six major characteristics of the new evangelization that are worthy of our more careful consideration:

1. The New Evangelization is Christocentric. 

The person of Christ is at the center and the focus must always be on Jesus Christ and his gospel. John Paul II said, “The new evangelization is not a matter of merely passing on doctrine but rather of a personal and profound meeting with the Savior.” While these words are not new the emphasis on Christ as the center is a/the vital insight for all the church in the modern world. It is also a profoundly ecumenical insight. This is why I wrote an entire chapter with this title in Your Church Is Too Small: Why Unity in Christ’s Mission Is Vital to the Future of the Church (Zondervan, 2010). This is, therefore, the very center of my entire argument about missional-ecumenism. In Christ alone can we discover our corporate identity and then move into deeper and more fruitful expressions of our unity.

2. The New Evangelization is the responsibility of the entire people of God. 

For most Catholics, and for that matter for many Protestants, evangelization has been perceived to be the work of a special group within the Church; e.g., those with a special vocation, missionaries or ministers/priests. In the new evangelization this call is to the entire people of God. This element is precisely what Protestant missiologists have called “missional church” theology. The whole people of God are “the mission” of God in the world. This is not a fad or a buzz word, missional. It has become this, sadly. But it should not be surrendered to such use.

Redemptoris Missio says, “Missionary activity is a matter for all Christians, for all dioceses, and parishes, Church institutions and associations.” What evangelical could seriously argue with this statement? David Nodar correctly notes, “The message of the Gospel must to be heard, understood, embraced, lived and shared by all members of the Church!” Nodar concludes that the pope is clearly urging that, “The laity must be trained and released into the service of evangelization as missionaries of the new evangelization. The Holy Spirit as the principal agent of evangelization and mission is calling all of God’s people to enter the harvest fields.” Amen!

3. The New Evangelization is not just for the work of foreign missions.

In Redemptoris Missio the pope further said that we should distinguish three unique situations that need to be addressed very differently. The first is the context of the mission itself in terms of the Vatican II decree called Ad Gentes. It was this decree that addressed modern missionary activity. Ad Gentes focused specifically on the factors involved in mission work. It called for the continued development of missionary acculturation. It encourages missionaries to live with the people they are attempting to convert, to absorb their ways and their culture. It also encourages the coordination of mission work through agencies and cooperation with other groups and organizations within the Catholic Church and even other denominations. (This is a good part of what happened in the controversial Evangelicals and Catholics Together initiative, which still continues into the present even though Neuhaus and Colson are both deceased now.) What was in mind here was bringing the gospel to peoples, groups and socio-cultural contexts in which Christ and his Gospel are not known. Notice the respect afforded to “other denominations” in this task. Again, the ecumenism is here what I call missional-ecumenism.

Redemptoris Missio thus sounds a clear note in saying that, “(T)o preach the Gospel and to establish new Churches among peoples or communities where they do not yet exist, . . . this is the first task of the Church.”

Second, there are healthy mature Christian communities that are fervent in their faith. These communities have a sense of Christ’s universal mission, and when these exist the church carries out her activities and pastoral care with focused passion. Here the pope seems to be describing a situation that requires pastoral care and not simply evangelization.

Third, there is what the pope called the intermediate situation. Within countries where entire groups of the baptized have lost a living sense of the faith, or no longer consider themselves members of the Church, a situation exists for “new” evangelization. Here we further read in Redemptoris Missio: “In this case what is needed is a ‘new evangelization’ or a ‘re-evangelization.’” In this third situation the pope believed that people need to be socialized into situations of vibrant faith. Some need their faith to be renewed and enlivened. Others have had little or no training in the Christian faith and essentially need to be evangelized with the basic gospel and receive formation in the faith (catechesis).

Barrett and Johnson make a distinction between evangelism and witness, which I believe to be most helpful. They conclude that evangelism is “the church’s organized activity of spreading the gospel, in circumstances it can control in contrast to witness, which is the normal term for the informal, spontaneous unorganized sharing of the the faith by individual Christians in circumstances they do not control.” Evangelism, by their definition, is an “organized activity” of the church which spreads the gospel. Witness is a “spontaneous unorganized sharing of their faith by individual Christians.” Note also the emphasis on the surrounding circumstances: control/not control. Evangelism is a planned and controlled activity while witness is spontaneous and not so rooted in the life or the congregation. Both activities are needed and desirable based on the biblical narrative.

Barrett and Johnson say that evangelization includes: (1) the whole process of spreading the good news of the kingdom of God; (2) the extent to which the good news has been spread; (3) and, the extent of awareness of Christianity, Christ and the good news.

The second term I introduce here is evangelization. This extremely useful term has developed in Catholic contexts due to the influence given to it by recent popes, beginning with Pope Paul VI but particularly by Pope John Paul II. These popes, and thus many Catholics, often use words like the “new evangelization.” What is this?

In Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals, speeches and other related writings he uses this term, new evangelization, very regularly. Catholics, as well as other Christians, have been intrigued, even inspired, by this term. What are the characteristics of this new evangelization?

According to the pope, “The expression New Evangelization was popularized in the encyclical of Pope Paul VI Evangelization in the Modern World, as a response to the new challenges-that the contemporary world creates for the mission of the Church.” By this use John Paul II, it seems to me, was saying two important things:

1. There is a need for a “great relaunching” of evangelization in the present life of the Church and this needs to happen in a variety of ways.
2. In Redemptoris Missio, a 1990 papal encyclical, John Paul II presents a new synthesis of the Church’s teaching about evangelization in modern times.

The pope was not saying, as we shall see in subsequent posts, that we have a new message, or a new evangel. When he talked about the new evangelization he stated that “evangelization can be new in its ardor, methods and expression.” This is a way of saying that our evangelism, or our proclamation of the good news, must be adapted to the people of our day. This insight is important and it is often misunderstood and misused. We shall consider why and how in future blogs.

Another reason for evangelical mistrust of interreligious dialogue is the common belief that all religions are totally and completely false and thus they are only filled with errors and falsehoods. If this is true listening to what they teach us is a complete waste of time. (It seems to me that even if you believed this was true you could still humble yourself and engage with others without feeling that you must tell them, “You are wrong!”)

Perhaps the most obvious reason evangelicals have not engaged in interreligious dialogue, at least until very recently (and this is mostly at the academic level), is that evangelicals embrace a rather narrow view of proclamation which crowds out all other methods of communicaton and warm relationships with other people. if we do not “preach” to others then we feel we have not responded properly.

I believe we can and should engage in interreligious dialogue for reasons I have yesterday. I have been doing this more and more over the last few years. Some of my dialogue is local; i.e. with my neighbors. On several occassions I have engaged in this sort of interrelgious dialogue in formal and public events, showing what Christians and Muslims, to give but one example, believe about the Word of God and how God reveals himself to us.

Nostra Aetate (Latin: In our Age) is the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions adopted by the Second Vatican Council. It was passed by a vote of 2,221 to 88 of the assembled bishops. The declaration was promulgated on October 28, 1965, by Pope Paul VI. It has formed the basis for Catholic dialogue with non-Christians religions for almost forty-eight years now.

A basic introduction to the thought of Nostra Aetate, which I’ve edited from a Wikipedia entry about the declaration in order to focus on the most basic points, states correctly that the declaration begins by describing the unity of the origin of all people, and the fact that they all return to God; hence their final goal is also one. It describes the eternal questions which have dogged men since the beginning, and how the various religious traditions have tried to answer them. It mentions the answers that (some) Hindus, Buddhists, and members of other faiths have suggested for such philosophical questions. It notes the willingness of the Catholic Church to accept some truths present in other religions in so much as they reflect Catholic teaching and may lead souls to the Christ. Part three goes on to say that the Catholic Church regards Muslims with esteem, and then continues by describing some of the good things that Islam has in common with Christianity and Catholicism; e.g. worship of one God, the creator of heaven and earth, merciful and omnipotent, who has spoken to men; the Muslims’ respect for Abraham and Mary and the great respect they have for Jesus, whom they consider to be a prophet and not God. The synod urged all Catholics and Muslims to forget the hostilities and differences of the past and to work together for mutual understanding and benefit. Part four speaks of the bond that ties the people of the ‘New Covenant’ (Christians) to Abraham’s stock (Jews). It states that even though some Jewish authorities, and those who followed them, called for Jesus’ death, the blame for this cannot be laid at the door of all those Jews present at that time, nor can the Jews in our time be held as guilty, thus repudiating an indiscriminate charge of Jewish deicide; “the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God.” The Declaration also decries all displays of antisemitism made at any time by anyone.

Note very carefully the words that I have highlighted in this very simple overview. The declaration was not saying that all roads are the same or that all religions contain the same truth. It clearly and plainly states that though there are some “common” truths that Christianity shares with other faiths, especially monotheistic faiths, the ultimate goal of all faith is to come to know the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

It is important to note that the declaration also says very clearly that religious hostilities of the past should be acknowledged and forgotten so that we can work together for “mutual understanding and benefit.” The final part, which deals with common errors regarding the Jews, has proven to be extremely important in modern religious conversation and peacemaking.

Catholic doctrine must of course be presented in its entirety, for “nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genine and certain meaning is clouded (Unitatis Redintegratio, 11). With this doctrine I agree, namely that “false irenicism” should be rejected.

It is a colossal category error to understand these developments as being the same thing as Christian ecumenism, a mistake too often made by conservative reactions against interreligious dialogue. Christian ecumenism is what I wrote about on Wednesday (May 8).

Let me be perfectly clear about the central point. Interreligious dialogue is dialogue between the representatives of Christian churches and representatives of non-Christian religions, which has mutual understanding as its primary goal. While this has sometimes been called the “wider ecumenism” this is a category mistake. This mistake has sown some unfortunate seed that has then been promoted through fear and misunderstanding. Interreligious dialogue does not aim for any kind of visible unity between exclusive truth claims that are in obvious contratiction. Because some progressive Christians promote an ecumenism that wrongly connects these two different conversations much confusion has resulted. Properly speaking the goal of John 17 is “intra-Christian rather than interreligious” dialogue and thus the conversation which has as its clear intent the bringing of Christian brothers and sisters closer together in the one faith revealed in Jesus Christ.

Christian ecumenism is the quest for the visible unity of the currently divided church. This ecumenism, as I noted in my post on Wednesday (May 8), seeks to express our real spiritual unity in outward expressions that unite the various members of the body of Christ in mutual love for Christ and one another.

Opinions about both interreligious dialogue and Christian ecumenism clearly differ, even among Catholics. Many conservative Protestants, and some extremely conservative Catholics, act as if nothing was fundamentally changed at Vatican II. I share the opinion of the famous (Protestant) biblical theologian Oscar Cullman who observed of the Council: “This is more than the opening of a door; new ground has been broken. No Catholic document has ever spoken of non-Catholic Christians in this way.” And no previous document spoke of non-Christian religious conversation in the way Nostra Aetate did.

It is time that we evangelicals listened and learned from this history. I am fully persuaded that understanding this would help us do a better job of sharing the good news in the modern world. Besides this missionary purpose this would help us pursue our role as real peacemakers, something we desperately need in these grave and troubling times. 

As an active ecumenist, working from within the evangelical Protestant world, I always understood that interrelgious dialogue was a form of compromise. Over the past decade or so I have been forced to rethink this matter, knowing full well that some extremely conservative Protestants would react to my change of mind.

It was when I  began to read and understand the teaching of Vatican II that my eyes were first opened to seeing this issue differently. This was because of the sound, clear reasoning of the council. What is affirmed by Vatican Council II is not entirely new but it provided a way forward for Christians to think about non-Christian religions and those who adhere to a belief in God but not to a belief as understood by Christians.

When I visited the Vatican in 2011 I met with leaders in the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU). This council exercises a double role. It is entrusted with the promotion, within the Catholic Church, of an authentic ecumenical spirit according to the conciliar decree Unitatis Redintegratio (Vatican II). This council carries out this task in liaison with the various departments of the Roman Curia, whose competence includes areas that can contribute similarly to the task of dialogue between the Catholic Church and other churches and ecclesial communities.

The Pontifical Council for Interrelgious Dialogue (PCID) is not the same entity as the PCPCU. It is the central office of the Catholic Church for the promotion of interreligious dialogue, which is also in accordance with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council. This work is particularly related to a declaration of Vatican II called Nostra Aetate. The Council has three primary responsibilities: (1) to promote mutual understanding, respect and collaboration between Catholics and the followers of others religious traditions; (2) to encourage the study of religions; (3) to promote the formation of persons dedicated to [this] dialogue. The president of the PCID is Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran. (He is the same cardinal who announced the name of the new pope on the famous balcony on March 13.) Cardinal Tauran was in Chicago several weeks after the conclave and did an interview with the Chicago Tribune that caught my interest and led to these blogs on this subject.

Cardinal Tauran clearly stated what the purpose of the Council is in regard to other faiths. There are some important points that Cardinal Tauran made in this interview, points that help to clarify what the purpose of such dialogue is and why it is important. Inter-religious dialogue is not dialogue between religions! It’s dialogue between religious believers. It’s not a theological or philosophical exercise. It’s goals are limited but they are very important, now more so than fifty years ago. A central reason for such dialogue is the modern world itself. Our world is clearly growing more plural. (Indeed, our own country is becoming more and more plural, a fact that far too few Christians are ready to recognize.) This plurality includes culture, scienctific research, religion and education. The assumption of all such interreligious dialogue is that every human being has a relgious dimension. Cardinal Tauran adds, “Between believers we try first of all to know each other.” But doesn’t this necessarily result in religious compromise thus to an open denial of Christ and his gospel? Cardinal Tauran answers, “The first thing you have to do is to proclaim your faith because you cannot build that dialogue on ambiguity.” Read this sentence again very carefully. Cardinal Tauran is not saying that dialogue is best when we deny what is dictinctive and true about our faith in order to have a conversation with others of a different faith, or even of no faith at all. When we begin to understand one another we can better understand what actually separates us and then what unites us. We can put those things that are common to us at the service of the entire society, thereby promoting peace and human flourishing without denying the importance of our core religious convictions.

Further, such dialogue is not for the consumption of the (believing) community but “it’s at the service of society.” All believers, especially in an increasingly secular West, have a role to play in society. What about Islam? Isn’t it the major problem in the world today? Cardinal Tauran says that Islam is problem number one in the world but the reason for this is because “we don’t know each other.” I profoundly agree with this response, which puts me at odds with many political and religious conservatives. He does not deny the existence of radicalism or terrorism (nor do I) but he believes that many of us “fear” Islam without ever knowing a Muslim neighbor through dialogue and love. This is one reason why it is so important to have this kind of dialogue. What does the Koran actually teach? How do we know? What do Muslims really believe? Why? Are all Muslims alike? What difference does this make?

True dialogue recognizes four modalities. (1) There is a dialogue of life, which is what you have when you live in an apartment building with a Muslim family next door or in a neighborhood that (now) may be more Muslim than Christian. Your neighbors invite you to Ramadan, or you invite them to Christmas, and in so doing you discover everyday life together. (2) There is a dialogue of action. You are the member of charitable organizations or civil unions where we serve together. (3) Where possible there is theological dialogue. Here you try to understand one another and differentiate one religious concept from another. (4) Finally, there is an exchange of spiritual experience. This might happen, to cite but one example, between Christian and Buddhist monks. This dialogue recognizes that what is missing in the world today is interior life and through dialogue we can learn more about what this means to others. Inter-religious dialogue creates a climate of friendship for gaining trust. When you cultivate a true human friendship you have the basis for something better.

Vatican II promoted the idea that there is truth, in various forms, in all religions but never suggested that all roads lead to God or that we are all the same in the end. It did not conclude that all non-Christians were [necessarily] doomed to eternal separation from God, something many conservatives have a hard time processing without misunderstanding. At the same time Vatican II clearly stated that in Christ God was fully and finally revealed in the glory of his divine mystery. Through Christ salvation has come to the world and extends into the world through God’s grace alone.

Such dialogue is important because of the mutual concerns that we have around the world for religious freedom. It is a positive thing when we promote freedom together as friends. Are all religious believers equal? They are equal in that they have the same rights, but not they are not equal in the way that they relate to God. We are working toward the truth thus in a limited sense we are equal. But this work does not deny that Jesus is clearly revealed to us “as the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6). Interreligious dialogue helps us to correct our incredible ignorance and to avoid the constant clash of civilizations. Cardinal Tauran concluded: “We should avoid the clash of ignorances.” Amen.