I received a comment on some of my previous posts that deserves a specific response and generates an important discussion to do with our relationship to other faiths. Timothy responded to my Patrick Sookhdeo post and made the statement, "I believe that as an evangelical Christian I have nothing to learn from Islam"..."to agree with anything takes away from the proclamation of Jesus as Lord of the universe". Now Timothy raises very genuine concerns for those of us committed to mission, evangelism and the ultimate significance of Jesus. Being able to see what we can learn whilst holding to our Christian identity, I believe, is vital for our relationship with all faiths and none. In fact, it is part and parcel of us staying true to what we believe.
The parable of the Good Samaritan is instructive on this. Coming as it does in Luke after a series of encounters between Jesus and a roll-call of the dodgy and excluded (tax collectors, demonised, the dead, dubious women, Roman centurions, leprosy sufferers), the question from the "expert in the law" is not without its baggage. He asks, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (read that as "be included in the realisation of Israel's redemption by Yahweh in a return to the glory days of King David"). Jesus then responds with a story with the most provocative and outrageous twist in the tail. The cultural and religious outsider, (the Muslim?), as opposed to the priest (the vicar, pastor, missionary) and the Levite (worship leader, Bible teacher), helped the man who was left for dead.
The parable is not the tidy ethic we learn at school, "be nice to people not like you" (good though that sentiment is) but rather, "be careful what boundaries you set up because you will find God's grace demonstrated in some of the most unlikely people and places". Can we get so concerned with "who's in/who's out", so determined to keep our cordon sanitaires that we fail to be what we are called to be in Christ, and miss what God is doing in those we may not believe have access to his grace?
Another account just before this in Luke 9 is helpful. After the disciples have seen Jesus transfigured, with Moses and Elijah at either side of him, revealed in all his glory, they have to go through a Samaritan village. The disciples go on ahead to ask permission to go through across land with their rabbi (relations not cordial: cultural, religious, ethnic and territorial divisions abounded...sound familiar?). The Samaritans give them short shrift and what is the response of James and John: "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?"
We might smile at the ignorance and naivety of the disciples: "Let's call the F15's in!" But I wonder how close their reaction is to ours. The thing is, Jesus had been transfigured, Elijah alongside him (that prophet with great kick-butt potential); Jesus had been described as a "type of Elijah". What's more, if you go to 2 Kings 1, Elijah called down "the fire of heaven" on the king of Samaria's soldiers because their king consults a false god rather than God's prophet. Put it another way, James and John had good biblical, evangelical precedent for their reaction to the Samaritans' rejection of Jesus! Jesus' reply was to rebuke them; take the long way round.
What's the small-print in this brief cameo in the gospels? A suggestion: we can be so determined that we have all the truth, be utterly convinced of our "rightness" that we actually miss the heart of God. The disciples knew the hope of the whole universe; they had a privilege to the truth of what God was doing; that hadn't altered in their wayward suggestion. What had altered was how that truth shaped their engagement with the stranger, the outsider and the excluded.
So, take these two stories together and ask again, "can we learn from other religions?" For the church's sake, I hope so.
