Evangelical FRD Podcast Conversation with Paul Louis Metzger and Kyogen Carlson on Christian-Buddhist Relationships

The latest podcast for the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy is now available. It is a conversation with Paul Louis Metzger and Kyogen Carlson on Christian-Buddhist relationships. Metzger is Professor of Christian Theology and Theology of Culture at Multnomah University and Multnomah Biblical Seminary. Carlson is a Soto Zen priest and abbot of Dharma Rain Zen Center.

This conversation was recorded on September 17. Kyogen Carlson passed away the following day. This was his last work in multifaith engagement. We are privileged to have known him, to have had him as a friend, and to have worked with him in religious diplomacy.

Portland and Fledgling Buddhist Chapter of FRD

I recently returned from a very productive trip to Portland, Oregon for the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. In my work with the Evangelical Chapter, I have not only been building that up as chapter custodian, but also serving as a master custodian, providing help to people of goodwill in other religious traditions who are as deeply committed to their religion as I am to Christianity. I am helping them build their chapters so they can prepare their religious communities for interreligious engagement in the best way possible.

One of the ways this took shape recently was with a trip to Portland. The trip, symbolized by the picture above, was like the opening line to a joke: “Three Buddhists, two Evangelicals, and one Mormon walk into a bar.” Only this story was not a joke. Instead, it is an example of a new and promising way of engaging those in other religions.

We traveled to Portland to visit Kyogen Carlson (pictured above, third from the right), a resident teacher who leads the Dharma Rain Zen (Buddhist) Center. Kyogen and his wife and co-abbot Gyokuko (second from right), will be working with a growing network of Buddhists to form the Buddhist chapter of FRD. I traveled with FRD founder and president, Charles Randall Paul (in the center of the picture), and we stayed at the monastery and discussed various aspects of chapter formation and interreligious relationships with the key elements of civility without compromise. Ejo McMullen of Eugene (first on the left of the picture) was another Buddhist and part of this discussion. We finished the day with a lunch, and Paul Louis Metzger (first on the right), who is a professor at Multnomah Biblical Seminary, and who is a charter member of the Evangelical chapter and a Senior Fellow for FRD. During lunch we had an amazing discussion about our mutual desires to see greater religious freedoms in the public square for religious discourse, but without the animosity we often aim at each other. We also discussed our mutual desires to see the others embrace our faith perspectives.

Interview with Dr. Terry Muck

Terry Muck teaches in world religions at the E. Stanley Jones School of World Mission and Evangelism at Asbury Theological Seminary. He is the author of a number of books including A Pocket Guide to American Religion (Doubleday, forthcoming), Buddhists Talk About Jesus, Christians Talk About Jesus (Continuum, 2000), Ministry and Theology in Global Perspective: Contemporary Challenges for the Church (Eerdmans, 1996), and How to Study Religion (Wood Hill Books, 1993, 2005). He is also the author of a number of articles that have appeared in various periodicals, and he serves as the editor of Missiology: An International Review, the journal of the American Society of Missiology.

Terry has been actively involved in Buddhist-Christian dialogue for a number of years.Terry recently taught an intensive course in world religions at Salt Lake Theological Seminary last semester. The emphasis of the course was a look at folk religious aspects of world religions. Terry graciously made some time in his schedule to share some thoughts.

Moreheads Musings: Terry, it is a pleasure to engage you in this dialogue. Thanks for taking the time to share some insights. I enjoyed your course last semester. Can you briefly share some of your background in education, experience and theological reflection that helped your current perspectives and approaches to world religions?

Terry Muck: After my divinity degree at Bethel Theological Seminary, I did a Ph.D. at Northwestern University in the history of religion. My focus was on Buddhism, specifically Theravada Buddhism. I lived a couple of years in Sri Lanka doing field research for my dissertation, a study of Theravada Buddhist monasticism. Since then I have worked in publishing (as editor of Christianity Today Magazine) and in theological education, first at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary and then at Asbury Theological Seminary. The study of religion and religions has never been more important for the Christian church. The theological and practical questions raised by the growth of the non-Christian religion may be the ecclesial challenge of the 21st century—to say nothing of the impact of religious pluralism on human cultures in general.

MM: You wrote an article in 1997 for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society exploring whether there is common ground among religions. Can you summarize your conclusions, and if you did find some kind of common ground, why is it important for Christians to emphasize this aspect as well as differences (which seems to be the preference among evangelicals)?

Terry Muck: Of course there is no end to the common ground one finds among the religions of the world. As a Christian I believe this common ground is a result of creation—all human beings were created in the image of God, with a strong desire to know God. Human beings have expressed that essential nature in literally hundreds of ways and thousands of different religions. Anyone who seriously studies the other religions of the world and does not see the commonalities is really not looking for them. On the other hand, anyone who seriously studies the non-Christian religions and does not see that they are different from Christianity is simply not paying attention. The other religions ask us to do different things for different reasons than does Christianity. A faithful study of the non-Christian religions should result in the discovery of both similarities and differences.

MM: In this article you summarize possible points of common ground, and I found one especially intriguing. You quote Hendrik Kraemer who said: "There really is only one point of contact...The attitude and disposition of the missionary." Why might this be especially important for Christians to consider in the post-Christendom, post-modern, post-9/11 Western world?

Terry Muck: Too often Christian mission has resulted in a strong disconnect between what Christianity teaches (the command to the best of our ability imitate the love and grace that God shows toward us to other people) with the manipulative and dishonest mission methods sometimes used. People of other religions have the same full range of emotions that we as Christians have, including love, hate, anger, joy. Whatever attitude we as Christian witnesses use when we tell the gospel story will connect with that same attitude in non-Christians. And they will associate that attitude with the story we are telling. It becomes a part of the Christian story. Of course, Kraemer was advocating that the attitude and disposition we have toward other people match the attitude and disposition of the gospel—love and grace and peace.

MM: In some of your other writing, such as a recent contribution you made to the journal Interpretation, you touch on the issue of a theology of religions in light of religious pluralism, specifically one that moves beyond the exclusivist-inclusivist-pluralist paradigms. Can you summarize some of your thinking here, and why is this important for us to think about in terms of theology, methodology, and missiology, as well as daily living amidst religious pluralism?

Terry Muck: The exclusivist-inclusivist-pluralist paradigm focuses on a question that only God has an answer to, the question of salvation. We are not called to judge the eternal destinies of other individuals—God does that. We are called to witness to the truth of the story of God acting through Jesus Christ to restore our relationship with God. Basing our theology of other religions on a question to which only God has an answer means the theology runs out of meaning pretty quickly. Better to base our theology of religions on things we have some control over—loving our neighbors in every way by making life better for them. And telling them what difference the truth of the gospel has made in our lives in the hopes that they will learn to see their stories as a part of this much larger story.

MM: You have been involved in Buddhist-Christian dialogue for some time. How did you get involved in this process, what kinds of things have you learned, and how has it helped you reflect on Christian theology and praxis?

Terry Muck: My studies of Theravada Buddhism created associations with scholars of Buddhism worldwide. Some of those scholars are not just students of Buddhism, but practitioners of Buddhism also. I found that scholars have a desire to go beyond their scholarship at a certain point and talk about faith, commitment, meaning, and destiny in a very personal way. These topics are not a part of academic discourse—for good reasons, by the way. But they are a part of every person’s total life, and as we discovered this about each other we realized we had a common desire to talk to one another about these extra-curricular activities. So some of us created the Society of Buddhist-Christian Studies. We have been meeting annually for almost 30 years now. For ten of those years I edited the journal of the society, Buddhist-Christian Studies. The friendships I formed there have been an important part of my life, both professional and personal.

MM: Given your involvement in interreligious dialogue, do you see this as an essential and valuable aspect of the Christian life in a religiously plural world? What about it's value to Christian ministry? And would you have any thoughts about the various forms of the evangelical-Mormon dialogues taking place?

Terry Muck: Yes, of course it is essential. Without dialogue, any kind of mission becomes a caricature of itself, a one-way conversation where we are simply shouting into the darkness with no hope of really connecting with 21st century non-Christians. Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Mormons are too sophisticated religiously to seriously entertain the teachings of Christianity if they are presented without acknowledging the value of their religious traditions, and without any attempts to connect the grand Christian story with these other religious stories. It is not really a question of truth, although truth must play a part. It goes way beyond truth. It is a matter of effectiveness--and a matter of treating other people with the respect they deserve as children of God.

MM: The intensive course you taught for Salt Lake Theological Seminary last semester included a special emphasis on folk religion as it relates to world religions. Why is this aspect of understanding and study so important? Do you think we have a tendency to reify religions that may not always reflect our "textbook" understandings of them? And why might folk religious understandings of new religious movements be important for evangelicals?

Terry Muck: Every so-called world religion uses a “folk religion” as a cultural carrier. If we look for pure Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and others, we never will find them. Knowledge of pure Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam is essential of course. But understanding Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims will not take place unless we learn how these world religions are expressed in local contexts, as they are associated with discrete cultures and their attendant folk religions. And of course knowing another person and what they believe is essential to making the most effective presentation of the gospel story.

MM: Terry, you have been a valuable contributor to the Lausanne issue group on postmodern and alternative spiritualities, and a helpful force in shaping my own thinking on religious pluralism, theology, missiology, and interreligious dialogue. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview.

Amos Yong Interview: Pneumatology, Hospitality and Religious Pluralism

Amos Yong is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Regent University. He is a prolific author, having contributed to a number of scholarly journals and published a number of books. Some of the more intriguing as it relates to new religions, alternative spiritualties, and missions in the post-modern, post-Christendom, and post-9/11 West include Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Baker Academic, 2003), and the forthcoming The Spirit of Hospitality: Pentecost and Christian Practices in a World of Many Faiths (Orbis Books, 2008). Amos is also involved in Buddhist-Christian dialogue, and his combined interests, background, and scholarly pursuits make for important contributions to theology, religious studies, and questions surrounding religious pluralism.

Amos has made some time in a busy schedule to participate in an interview in order to share some of his thoughts.

MoreheadsMusings: Amos, can you tell us a little about your background? I only discovered recently that you and I grew up in the same town and attended the same high school in northern California. Can you tell us more about where you grew up, and what influences, personal and theological, shaped your current perspectives and work in theology?

Amos Yong: I was born a PK [preacher's kid] into an Assemblies of God minister’s home in Taiping, W. Malaysia; we moved to California when I was ten, when my father was called to a pastorate among first generation Chinese-speaking immigrants, making me a MK (“missionary kid”) to the USA. I went to Bethany College (Assemblies of God liberal arts school in Santa Cruz, California), where I completed a BA in pastoral ministry, then went to Western Evangelical Seminary (WES), where courses in modern theology and church history rocked my preconceptions that modern pentecostalism fell “suddenly from heaven,” to use the phrase of a popular pentecostal history text written in the 1950s. From WES, I completed a second MA in history of philosophy at Portland State University (PSU), and then a PhD in religious studies at Boston University (BU). At PSU I studied for the first time Kant and Whitehead, felt attracted to process philosophy, but uncomfortable with process theology. I found in Robert Cummings Neville at BU a doctoral advisor who helped me work through process philosophy while gaining critical leverage on its theological aspects. The other part of the PhD program at BU which really shaped my work was its commitment to doing theology in the public context of the encounter between world religious traditions. We read core texts from the major world religions and had to develop Christian theological perspectives in dialogue with – not adopting, but not ignoring either – the major religious traditions of the world.

MM: The work you have done in pneumatology of religions first attracted my attention. At the risk of oversimplifying your thinking, can you summarize your ideas in this area?

Amos Yong: My work in this area can be seen as emerging out of a) the intuition that pneumatology is a neglected theological perspective, and that if pursued and given an opportunity, it might illuminate our theological reflections – thus it could be said that pneumatology is the frontier of theological reflection in the 21st century; b) the conviction that as a pentecostal Christian, pneumatology is a central experience, even a set of practices, which hence gives shape to a robust hermeneutical and methodological key that can be in principle applied to all theological questions, so why not this one – thus it could be said that a pneumatological theology may be one of pentecostal Christianity’s gifts to the wider church and academic conversation; and c) the sense that the question of the religions was one of the most important theological matters that we need to attend to in our time – thus it could be said, for me, that the intra-Christian ecumenical question opened up unavoidably to the inter-religious ecumenical question: if folk such as Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc., who I had been raised to think were non-Christians were now understood as possibly being saved, then where does one draw the line between who is and is not a Christian?

MM: Some of us in the Lausanne issue group addressing postmodern and alternative spiritualities have suggested that Western Protestantism's overemphasis on God's transcendance and a de-valuing of the work of the Spirit in creation may contribute to the growth and popularity of Neo-Pagan and nature-based spiritualities. Why do you think a fresh consideration of the Spirit in relation to creation is significant, particularly for our place historically and culturally in the West?

Amos Yong: As I have pursued this pneumatological research initiative, I have come to be convinced that there is nothing beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit – indeed, all creation is nurtured by the holy breath of God. At some level, I think that Neo-Pagan and nature-based spiritualities reflect both the hungering after an encounter with God that is both immanent and yet transcendental, and a sense that God is to be found in some significant way in such practices and within such arenas. However, since this has not been a distinct area of research of mine, I’m not sure what kinds of theological conclusions to draw yet about these matters. In these areas, I’m actually very much learning as I listen in on the discussions such as those you are having on this blog site and elsewhere. But I do think that pneumatological perspectives open up for us the tension between understanding the Spirit as in some ways intimately tied in with the work of the church of Jesus Christ on the one hand, and yet also being the Spirit of the wider created world on the other hand. I don’t think we can resolve this tension, although to collapse this tension to either side would be to deny the truth of the other side. Hence for me it is so important that Christians wrestle together among themselves, while remaining in engaging dialogue with others who are “outside” the (visible) church, on these things.

MM: You are involved in interreligious dialogue, particularly Buddhist-Christian dialogue. How did you get involved in this, and what you have learned as a result?

Amos Yong: I have been a member of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies for a number of years. I was first introduced to Buddhism during a graduate course at PSU on process philosophy, during which time my theological research curiosity led me to the work of Hartshorne, Cobb, Griffin, and others at the Claremont Center for East-West Studies, which involved a fair bit of Christian-Buddhist dialogue. When I first learned about Buddhism and Chinese religious traditions, there were a few “aha” moments when I recognized how simply being raised in a Chinese home imbibed Buddhist notions like the “moderation of the middle way” without calling such “maxims of the Buddha.” As I have continued to study the various Buddhist traditions, I’ve been challenged: of all the world religious traditions, arguably Buddhism is the most foreign to Christianity in terms of its agnosticism about God’s existence. But perhaps also for the same reason, its very radical differences from Christian faith make it an important dialogue partner to stretch, test, and open up other perspectives on my Christian self-understanding. I think the biggest challenge remains, as I’ve come recently to acknowledge, that of the interrelationship between beliefs and practices: if Christian beliefs are as interconnected with and even emergent from Christian practices, are not Buddhist beliefs similarly dependent on certain kinds of practices, and if so, what are the implications for my own ongoing engagement with the Christian-Buddhist dialogue? I’m not sure how to respond to this question – so I can only say, for those interested, “stay tuned…”

MM: Evangelical theologies tend to be strongly influenced by European and American perspectives. Is there something valuable to be learned by engaging a broader, global perspective on theology, particularly theological reflection from Asia and the Two-Thirds World?

Amos Yong: Of course; we can’t avoid globalization; we can’t be parochial; we can’t be in denial that we live in what I’ve called the “post-al age”: post-western, post-colonial, post-patriarchal, post-Enlightenment, post-Christendom (in terms of Christianity being at the center of political power as in the age of Constantine), etc. In this “post-al” time zone, then, to ignore the scholarship, etc., coming from the rest of the world is to be left behind the times and to become increasingly irrelevant. Of course, there is much out there that is immaterial – and we must be discerning about which voices and perspectives we engage – but that goes for whatever is being produced in the “western world” as well.

MM: Your forthcoming book deals with the issue of hospitality in a religiously plural world. Can you tell us a little more about this book and what it will discuss?

Amos Yong: I am trying to do three things in this book: 1) given the connection between beliefs and practices, I am proposing a pneumatological perspective that I think will further our reflection on this matter, centered on the maxim, “many tongues, many practices”; 2) from this, I am trying to tease out the interconnections between exclusivistic, inclusivistic, and pluralistic theologies of religions and their concomitant or correlative practices; and 3) I am trying to salvage what I feel are important practices across the exclusivist-inclusivist-pluralist spectrum – e.g., kerygmatic proclamation of Jesus Christ, reciprocal and mutual dialogue, and social engagement – without having to buy into all of their theological positions – and I think the best way to do so is via a theology of hospitality; so, I am proposing a pneumatological theology of guests and hosts by which I attempt to get “beyond the impasse” of exclusivism-inclusivism-pluralism toward a holistic posture of beliefs-virtues-practices that will allow us to engage people of other faiths in a dialogical manner, being open to being transformed by the Holy Spirit through such encounters, even while believing that these same encounters will be opportunities through which the same Spirit will work transformatively in the lives of our non-Christian friends. This is the double and paradoxical bet.

MM: Why do you think hospitality is important in our world of many faiths, and how can this compliment dialogue and other forms of religious engagement?

Amos Yong: The interesting thing about hospitality is that there are guests and hosts, and Christians sometimes find themselves as the former, other times as the latter, and on occasions, as both simultaneously. I argue in my book that Jesus is the paradigmatic exemplar of guest, journeying into the far country (to echo Barth), even while representing and offering the redemptive hospitality of God, and that Christians also follow in Jesus’ footsteps as aliens and strangers into far countries, being guests of those who might welcome them, even while embodying and representing the eschatological hospitality of God’s redemptive banquet. Hospitality thus opens up to dialogue, but also requires works of love and mercy (witness the parable of the Good Samaritan). And of course, hospitality also provides, at the right moments and occasions, for a sharing of the truth in love. There is give and take, but there is also honesty, compassion, and genuine interpersonal interaction. I think the notion of hospitality bursts the categories of exclusivism-inclusivism-pluralism because it registers affections, postures, and sensibilities so important to the chief virtues and practices of our contemporary world, instead of staying only at the level of doctrinal abstractions or moral projects (and this is not to say that we should neglect these).

MM: Some aspects of evangelicalism, particularly those associated with a counter-cult or heresy-rationalist approach to new religions as well as boundary definition and maintenance approaches to Christian theology have expressed concern about your theological views in regards to pluralism and inclusivism, even going so far as to label them "dangerous." What would you say in response, and how might we move our theological and missiological reflection further in positive ways in evangelicalism?

Amos Yong: Well I do hope that my new book will dispel any lingering doubts about my commitments as a follower of Jesus Christ the Messiah, about my convictions regarding the essential aspect of bearing witness to Jesus in the power of the Spirit, and about my views regarding the Great Commission as the church’s raison d’etre. But I am also convinced that any new theological ideas are in some sense “dangerous” since they are new and hence will always be resisted – so I expect disagreements with new ideas will continue to the end of time. I do learn from my detractors, to the point that this book itself has been written with some of these previous criticisms in mind. Without critics, the weaknesses of one’s position can be realized only with much greater difficulty – so in a sense, I am grateful for them. Yet I do feel strongly that not all of us are called to do similar things. And given that pentecostalism has in some ways always been relegated to the Christian margins, perhaps that may also be where my views remain for the time being, being effective, if at all, from that location. I’m OK with that, so long as my most immediate circle of dialogue partners – those of my colleagues in the Society of Pentecostal Studies – both encourage me on as well as engage with me in the common task of bearing witness to Christ in the power of the Spirit in the complex world we call “our time.”

For example, my colleague at Regent, Prof. Wolfgang Vondey, wrote a critical review of my book The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Baker Academic, 2005) in one of the recent issues of PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies; but since then, he’s been motivated to the point that he’s now writing a book (which I hope will appear in the next two years) not at all refuting my work, but trying to do what I attempted there, although better! That is precisely what I had hoped my work would produce, so in that sense, I take that as confirmation that God is in what I do at least in some way.

MM: Amos, thanks for making time to share your thoughts with us. Your thinking provides a lot for us to interact with and reflect on carefully.

Amos Yong: Thanks for inviting my thoughts; I honored that you’ve paid enough attention to my work to invite this exchange, and can only say that if there is anything useful in what I’ve done, the credit belongs fully to God. Meanwhile, if criticisms must be lodged, I invite responses; know I pay attention to these, even if I might not be able to engage in a running discussion. Honestly, I am unsure how much interaction I can be involved in, if only because my work with the new PhD program in Renewal Studies at Regent University School of Divinity (where I teach) takes up much of my time now. Might I add that if any of you feel called to doing a PhD in this area – whether with a historical, theological, or biblical focus – please pray about coming to Regent to study with us. I have a wonderful set of colleagues and we are committed to the renewing work of the Spirit, in the church, the academy (essential for the PhD), and the whole world.