This originally appeared as an op-ed in the Abilene Reporter News on September 18, 2010.
As the recent headlines about Qur’an burning and mosque building have made clear, Americans are conflicted about religion.
Caught between those who fantasize about a Christian America and those who desire the privatization of religion (and thus its ultimate demise), many of us would like to be part of a solution beyond rancorous sound bites.
To do this, we need to agree on three things. The first is that religious pluralism is a fact of life in a democratic society. It always has been, ever since the founders of the United States chose not to institute a state church and to protect the peaceful exercise of unpopular faiths. Those originally marginal groups included Catholics, and sometimes Baptists and Methodists, as well as Jews and “freethinkers” like Thomas Jefferson. The diversity has only grown in our history, as immigrants during and since the 19th century brought Muslim, Confucian, Taoist, Shinto, Hindu, Bahai, and Buddhist practices. America’s disestablishment of religion has, paradoxically, been the incubator of new denominations and whole new religions since the Revolution. There is no realistic, nonviolent way to reverse the trend toward diversity, even if we wanted to. The real-world choice is not between uniformity (everyone converting to my faith) and plurality, but between a pluralism riven with strife and one marked by mutual respect and the capacity of citizens, as the New Testament epistle of James puts it, to be “swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger.”
A second reality: respect for the other does not mean surrendering cherished values and beliefs. Constructive dialogue among members of different religions can deepen each participant’s engagement with his or her own faith. This is why medieval Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas read Muslim philosophy, why St. Augustine sought a creative synthesis with Neoplatonism, and why the Apostle Paul used Stoic philosophical language in his epistles, even when giving it new meanings in light of the gospel. The greatest Christian thinkers have not been parochial and narrow-minded.
To the contrary, my commitment to Jesus does not shrink because I recognize that my Jewish neighbor seeks to obey God’s revelation in Torah or that Islam’s core ideas (the five pillars of daily prayer, celebration of Ramadan, pilgrimage to Mecca, generosity to the poor, and confession of one God) more closely resemble Christian practices than do the secular obsessions with money, fame, and power that so often mar our public life. We differ in important ways, but our religious commitments overlap, extremists in every religion notwithstanding.
Third, civility and sympathy are not optional in a world of six billion people with myriad cultural practices. It has become easy to dismiss the quest for common decency and respect as “political correctness” and to hide behind caricatures and outright lies that allow us to wallow in hatred and ignorance. For a Christian, such a result is unacceptable because it radically contradicts everything Jesus of Nazareth stands for. His most serious criticisms fell on his disciples and those who read Torah most like he did, the Pharisees. He called men and women to lives of dignity, moral clarity, and love for others. It would be hard to argue that the behavior of American Christians in the public arena has consistently reflected that high standard.
As I reflect on the level of our public conversation, I cannot help but think of the tens of millions of Americans who are no longer religious. For many of them, all religious people, and especially Christians, come across as arrogant, uncaring, and ignorant. Isn’t it time that we who love the church and honor its Lord think about how we represent our faith? Isn’t it time that we seek different headlines?
Dr. Mark W. Hamilton
Associate Professor of Old Testament and
Associate Dean
ACU Graduate School of Theology
Abilene, TX 79699
Editor, The Transforming Word