Religious Boundaries and Religious Interaction: Rethinking our Assumptions

Over the last week or so I have interacted with a couple of individuals over the Internet, and these exchanges prompted me to make this post. The first exchange I had came with Don Venoit of Midwest Christian Outreach. Don leads this countercult ministry and is also the current president of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions, a consortium of countercult ministries. On "Crux," the MCO blog, Don wrote a piece titled "Boundary Maintenance," and you can read his article and my responses to it and other reader comments where I tried to respond to misconceptions related to my views.

Related to this is the concept of bounded and centered sets as they relate to ministry approaches. Without going into depth here since I have blogged on this topic previously, I believe that countercult understandings of and responses to new religions represent more of a bounded set approach which, as the illustration accompanying this post states, devotes much of its energy into "maintaining the boundaries, to keep a sense of distinction from other" groups, whether they are similar or not. While I recognize that religious groups have and need boundaries, and these boundaries are constantly reassessed and negotiated in response to the "religious other," I am concerned about those approaches that focus largely or solely on boundary maintenance and bounded set approaches that are often used as if they were a centered set approach. I refer readers interested in this topic to my previous post referenced above for a further analysis of this and its implications for the Christian life and ministry. I hope that Don is able to adjust his understanding of my views on this topic so as to more accurately reflect my position, especially since he is presenting a plenary session at the upcoming EMNR conference on this issue.

Another recent exchange I had is also related to the issues of boundary maintenance and bounded sets. As readers can see from a comment in resonse to my post on the Food, Fellowship, and Faith Dialogue Dinners, it has been asserted that such events which bring traditional Christians and "religious others" together is somehow inappropriate and contrary to biblical teaching. This concern looks at certain biblical passages which touch on the issues of separation and purity for the Christian and their faith, and I think these are important issues that need to be addressed from a perspective that provides for further reflection and a different perspective.

Terry Muck of Asbury Theological Seminary is the author of a number of helpful books, including Those Other Religions In Your Neighborhood: Loving your neighbor when you don't know how (Zondervan, 1992). One chapter in this book is titled "Doesn't the Bible Teach Us to Avoid Personal Contact with Non-Christians?," and Muck wrestles with 2 Corinthians 6:14-17, a passage referenced by the critic of my Evangelical-Latter-day Saint dinner. Muck summarizes the variety of ways in which Christians have interpreted this passage:

"Like many key Scripture passages, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 has been interpreted in a number of ways. One way is to understand the context of the first-century Corinthian church where Christianity was a new, struggling religion needing all the purity it could muster to survive. Since we do not have that situation today, such interpreters insist, the text does not really apply to us. A second way is to distill a foundational principle from the text that works in all cultures and at all times - Don't associate with unbelievers - and appy it as one would apply a law against speeding: Don't ever do this. A third way is to come to the text with a modern need - for example, a reason to emphasize the importance of religion as a factor in successful marriages - and find in it a passage that disallows mixed marriages.

"What does this text mean for us? Nothing? Is it an argument for separation? A warning against mixed marriage?"

As Muck seeks to answer these questions he looks at the context of 2 Corinthians 6, and in his discussion he notes that Paul was writing to a struggling church filled with people experiencing pain and suffering, and in response Paul notes that God will bring consolation. In Muck's view the suffering/consulation dichotomy is essential to understanding this text in context, and everything which follows in the text flows from this perspective. As Paul moves to personal application for the individual it appears that some people were struggling with desires to return to their former ways of life before embracing Christ. In response Paul tells believers that the point of 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 is that Christians look at life from their new perspective in life as "new creatures" in Christ.

Muck then moves to discussion of how this worked out in specific ways in the first century context and he summarizes it in part as follows:

"This is not a call for separation in the legal or physical sense (as a strict rule). There may be times for such separation, but it is not a hard and fast commandment; it is a call for recognition of the metaphysical separation that our commitment to Christ entails."

Muck then moves from interpreting the text in its original context to discussion of its application for Christians in the pluralistic United States. He suggests guidelines that flow from our pluralistic situation in light of Paul's teaching. These guidelines for interreligious engagement include:

1. Does this contact jeopardize my commitment to the new creation?

2. Does this contact jeopardize my brother's or sister's commitment to the new creation?

3. Will Jesus Christ be glorified by this contact?

4. Will the church be glorified by this contact?

5. Will the non-Christian I am involved with be helped by this contact?

Muck devotes brief space to discussion of each of these, and after stating number five he states:

"Some kinds of contact will not reflect positively on others. Overly aggressive or manipulative evangelistic campaigns hurt rather than help those who belong to non-Christian religious traditions. The 'do no harm' principle of physicians regarding medical treatment is a useful one to consider in concert with the other four principles."

As Muck concludes this chapter and summarizes his analysis of this issue he mentions once again Paul's teaching that Christians should look at life in new ways, and this new perspective informs the way in which we interact with others:

"We should evaluate our own contacts in the same way. As long as we are looking at the world through transformed Christian eyes, contacts with those of other religions have great potential. We live in a culture and world where making such contacts [with "religious others"] has never been more important.

"The key to successful contact is belonging to a community of believers where the new way of looking at life, the transformed worldview, is assumed and supported. From such a base, the question of whether or not to have fellowship with non-Christian religions becomes much easier to answer in the affirmative."

I encourage interested readers to seek out Muck's book in order to read this chapter (as well as the entire book), rather than relying solely upon my summary of his thinking. I believe these ideas are worthy of further thought, and that perhaps many of our biblical and theological assumptions about interaction with "religious others" are in need of careful and critical reflection.