March/April 1997

David Lindsey examines the

Attractions and Pitfalls of the Interfaith Movement

‘He who marries the spirit of the age soon becomes a widower’

Most Christians will be aware of the way the church has become more open to the interfaith movement and pluralism. Indeed, many church members are involved in such activity, believing that religious dialogue makes for improved mutual understanding, although it is unclear how this is the case, nor is fruitful evidence in Christians immediately obvious.

Given the prominence of these two movements, this article seeks to outline their origins, looks at some of the issues they raise, and reviews the rise of the global ethic, as a precursor to a One World Religion.

Like interfaithism, pluralism has been around for a long time. On one level, it simply means diversity, whether of cultural norms or political opinions, religious practice or interpre­tations of scripture: it is important to remember that the Catholic Emancipation Act and repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts enabled Roman Catholics, non-Conformists and others to worship freely in the UK, and that the religious freedoms which we now enjoy are a manifestation of pluralism. Within western culture generally, there is a growing diversity in all aspects of life. Opinion-formers, in the media and parts of the establish­ment, consider this diversity to be a ‘good thing’.

This has arisen in part because of an increased tolerance, reflecting the belief that absolute truth not only does not, but cannot exist; a view which is linked to another form of pluralism. This holds that exclusive claims are necessarily mistaken, but it is often brutally intoler­ant of opposing views.

Whereas pluralism is a philosophical concept, interfaithism is essentially a particular type of worship. Although some people see the Interfaith Movement as new, it should be seen as the continuation of a style of worship that has been practiced since time immemorial. While the Bible relates how the Israelites worshipped false gods, it was only in the last century, with the introduction of Buddhist and Hindu texts, that the UK became exposed to Eastern religions. This was mirrored internationally with the first World Parliament of Religions, which took place in 1893 in Chicago, to show the contribution of religion to humanity. The then Archbishop of Canterbury refused to go, arguing that it compro­mised the uniqueness of Christianity, implying as it did that all religions were equal.

This meeting of the World Parliament of Religions set in motion the World Congress of Faith which held its first congress in 1933, again in Chicago, with its aim being ‘to promote the spirit of fellowship among mankind and to do so through religion… in its universal and widest sense’.

Since then, there have been many interfaith meetings, including the Vatican-organised World Day of Prayer for Peace in 1986, a second meeting of the World Parliament of Religions in 1993, various celebrations for Commonwealth Observance Day and other occasions in Westminster Abbey and elsewhere.

Arguably, as we approach the third millennium, the issues of interfaithism and pluralism present Christianity with her biggest challenge. While Islam, with its record of antagonism to Christianity, the New Age and some forms of inner healing with their Hindu roots, and sec­ularism, with its rejection of the Judaeo-Christian ethic, pose serious threats to Christianity, they are already acknowledged - unlike philosophical pluralism, at the heart of which lies post-modernity. Post-modernity is characterised by an uncertainty that there is any objective truth to be discovered: all interpretations are thus deemed to be culturally conditioned and equally valid, a line of argument taken further by deconstructionists who believe meaning lies with the interpreter, rather than with the text.

One effect of philosophical pluralism has been the growth of religious pluralism, in which not only has the number of religions multiplied, but also the notion that all religions are trying to achieve the same thing - and all result in salvation. In Lord Runcie’s 1986 Francis Younghusband Lecture, he argued that while the revelation of God in Christ was primary and not nego­tiable, it was nevertheless incomplete. Such has been the grip of pluralism on both an intellectual and on a practical level, with interfaith services led by many clergy, that the idea that biblical Christianity has a monopoly of religious truth is now deemed as chauvinism. Yet if it is challenged, perhaps by Christianity’s exclusive claims, philo­sophical pluralism will retaliate in whatever way it can, showing itself in its true colours, rather than in the tolerance that it claims to espouse.

At its heart, the Interfaith Movement seeks to separate Jesus from God, and to minimise the need for personal repen­tance from sin. Interfaith apologists argue that all religions, including Christianity, are historically condi­tioned, being for a particular culture at a particular time, and that a true relation­ship to the divine is to be found in all religions equally. This view necessarily challenges the unique status of Jesus: if he is not unique, then neither Christianity nor Christian values are absolute.

In rejecting the uniqueness of Christianity, the Interfaith Movement not surprisingly rejects the Bible as the inspired Word of God, the sinful nature of the human condition and the judgment to come. Interfaithism, then, rejects grace and faith in Jesus as being the sole means of salvation, and in common with all other religions, emphasises works. This again is not sur­prising, as Interfaith apologists, assisted by ecumenists and others who have changed the meaning of the word beyond recognition, assume that the same god is behind all religions. In one sense they are right, except that it is not God, but rather the devil masquerading as an angel of light, who is the spiritual source of all religions other than Christianity and Judaism.

One of the ways in which the Interfaith Movement works is by fostering dialogue between believers of different faiths. Dialogue aimed at iden­tifying better ways to deal with society’s ills, such as education, health, race and discrimination may be valid, since religions should be working to ensure better societies, and to minimise conflict. However, if such cooperation and working together leads to a com­promise of what Christianity stands for and its unique claims, a denial of truth, and in particular a failure to fulfil the Great Commission, then it should be rejected. While it behoves Christian leaders to build relations with other religious leaders on biblical principles, so that on occasion they can be effective as coalition cobelligerents, where there is agreement on certain issues, it is important that Christians appreciate that Christian-Jewish dialogue is different to dialogue with other religions. There is a sense in which believing Jews can know God, although they must be born again, and need salvation which comes from Jesus alone. Sensitive Jewish-Christian dialogue may be an appropriate place to continue the process of breaking down these barriers and thereby to help restore the church to her Jewish roots, and Jews to faith in their Messiah.

The compromise that the church has displayed towards interfaithism is epitomised in the recent Communities and Buildings booklet, published by the General Synod of the Church of England, which lays down guidelines on the circumstances under which churches should allow believers of other faiths to use their buildings, and in the recent setting up of the Intemational Interfaith Congress (JIC), to be based at Westminster College in Oxford, with a hoped for endowment of £4 million, ‘to be a meeting place for people of influence in the different religious tradi­tions to come together’. As such, the JIC will be well-financed, at the centre of the religious debate, and able to set an agenda which may challenge biblical Christianity. The Bishop of Oxford, who presented the JIC Appeal Brochure, is also Executive Committee Chairman of the Council for Christians and Jews, (CCJ) which has recently threatened to evict members linked with missionary activity.

This is an interesting manifestation of pluralism in practice, as it seems to deny the interfaith principle that people may choose their own religion: it certainly limits the opportunity of Jews to hear the Gospel, and embrace Jesus. The refusal by the Archbishop of Canterbury to be patron of the Church’s Mission to the Jews (CMJ) should perhaps be similarly viewed, but it is of concern that there is an historical parallel: German Christians did not evangelise Jews in the 1930s, albeit for slightly different reasons. If Jesus is not the Messiah for the Jews, then it is unclear how he can be the Messiah for the Gentiles either, and the whole edifice of Christianity crumbles.

Christian-Muslim relations are likely to be another area of increased tension in the next few years. Some at CCJ are wondering whether it might be appro­priate to evolve and become a focus for the three so-called Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Others discuss how to involve Muslims at the National Prayer Breakfast. This raises the issue of how Islam’s record of perse­cution of Christians and Jews, dhimmi status, and Islam’s laws on blasphemy and conversion will impact. In the West, much policy towards Muslims has been based on the notion of tolerance, with the implicit expectation that if Islam is treated in a tolerant way, it will treat others likewise.

The reality is different. Rather than accepting their rights and privileges as British subjects, Muslims have sought special status, first, with religious education, and education more generally and on other issues - from food, to holidays. Many Muslims would like to change the blasphemy law, so that any challenge to the status of Muhammad as a prophet would be illegal and defining Islam as a race under the Race Relations Act. This runs the risk that anything supposedly anti-Islamic, including bona fide questioning of Muhammad’s prophethood, would be subject to the Act and hence deemed incitement to racial hatred. Muslims may in future want to censor “derogatory” Christian literature, and restrict Christian evangelism, without these restrictions applying to them. Failure to stand up to these demands will result in further and more ambitious demands.

While the IIC is perhaps the pinnacle of the interfaith movement in the UK, its world leadership is rather more diffuse. There are a plethora of such bodies, including the World Parliament of Religions, and the World Fellowship of Faiths. A deep-rooted desire for justice and especially peace is a major force behind bodies, such as the World Council of Churches (WCC), which, while ostensibly Christian, have­ been actively involved in advocating pluralistic forms of worship for many years. This peace is to be delivered by man-created mechanisms, probably the UN in some adapted form, possibly a One World Government, which may demand adherence to a One World Religion, or a convergence of the major religions, led by the Vatican.

One cannot but be impressed at the diversity of output at the 1993 World Parliament of Religions, much of which is mutually contradictory. The fact that no-one dares to point this out, is ignored. While there is much agreement on issues such as global ecology, the environment and unemployment, linked with a call to truthfulness and tolerance, there is little truly religious about it: the word “God” does not appear. There is no mention of, let alone common position on, such ethical issues as abortion, euthanasia, and medical research. This is not surpris­ing given the desire for a positive outcome, and that Hans Kung, the leading Catholic theologian, and intellec­tual driving force behind the idea of global responsibility, believes that all religions have shortcomings, and all thus need to compromise.

While some Christians are convinced that the world is entering into end times, others point out that claims of impending doom have been made since time immemorial. The secular world, too, is unclear as to the times in which we live: while technolog­ical progress is championed, the worsening problems of population growth, environmental degradation, water shortages, natural disasters, societal breakdown and war, all of which affect long-term global sustain-ability, are also acknowledged. While much of what is currently happening, not least the restoration of Israel, is con­sistent with the books of Daniel, Revelation and Jesus’ own prophecies concerning the end of the age, it is difficult to state categorically that we are living in such times, when Jesus said that God alone knows the time of the end. Nevertheless, it would appear likely that things are going to get tougher, and that conflict will increase. In such circumstances, the pressures on governments to try to bring about peace will be immense, even if it is neither genuine nor enduring.

In such circumstances, and particularly if ethnic conflicts are at least partly religious, it is quite possible that the authorities, whether regional or global, will seek to marginalise Christianity and other proselytising religions, arguing that there can be no peace with such religious practice. But the evangelisation of all nations is part of the Great Commission. If such views become widespread, and then implemented into ‘guidelines’, believers will have to decide on their response. It is likely that the church would split, with an apostate majority, and a faithful remnant. Such splits would be in a real sense divine judgment. In due course, much of the believing church might be driven underground.

While it is likely that we will feel great pressure in the coming years, even greater pressure will be exerted on Israel, because of the ethnic conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the religious conflict between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and the spiritual conflict centred on Jerusalem, with demands for a Palestinian state, Jerusalem to be split, and East Jerusalem its capital. It is important for the survival of both the church and Israel, that relations are fully repaired, so that under pressure they can stand together.

David Lindsay is a chartered accountant. He attends St Barnabas in London.