On February 25The Wild Hunt reported on a clash between would-be Christian evangelists and Pagans at a public venue called The Market in Pickens, South Carolina. A small number of different Christian ministries were involved, and in the process of trying to “proclaim” the gospel as they saw it, they also used the Bible verse Exodus 22:18: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” The Pagans felt that this was an attack, possibly one that might involve violence, given the particular Bible verse that was used. By contrast, the Christians saw themselves as merely proclaiming their message, and doing so in peaceful fashion. I confirmed this in a series of text message exchanges with one of the leaders of the Christian groups. (Long story short: my attempts at a theological exchange that tried to provide an alternative perspective and approach fell on deaf ears.)

But this wasn’t the only such clash between Christians and Pagans recently. Just today The Wild Hunt reported on evangelical Christian groups targeting two metaphysical shops in Orlando, Florida. Again, an aggressive and confrontational approach was used, with the Christians seeing themselves as faithful messengers opposing evil, and the Pagans feeling like this was an escalation of attacks. (For Pagan perspectives on such encounters see my conversation with Heron Michelle, and Heather Greene.)

This happens repeatedly. In 2021, Heron Michelle’s metaphysical bookstore in Greenville, North Carolina was “evangelized” in aggressive ways similar to the stories above. And it happens with other religious communities as well. Shortly after I first moved to Utah a friend involved in ministry among Latter-day Saints invited me to the Mormon Miracle Pageant in Manti. The LDS Church used to put on outdoor pageants that involved dramatic reenactments of stories in the Book of Mormon and their church’s history. But I wasn’t able to take in much of the pageant as I was distracted by evangelical preachers who cam and stood just outside church property in a public area and held up signs and shouted “sermons”, many times including elements that would be considered derogatory in their criticism of the LDS Church, its founder, and teachings. At one point a young Latter-day Saint got so upset at the preachers that police along the perimeter had to step in.

I’ve done a lot of reflecting on how Christians interact with those in other religions when its done on the sacred turf of others. I’ve written on it quite a bit, particularly on the Moreheads Musings blog I started when I was in seminary. But for the purposes of this post I’ll summarize three points that I hope my fellow evangelicals will consider.

1. It’s really identity reinforcement, not proclamation. Despite how my fellow evangelicals characterize their efforts as evangelism, it’s really a way of reinforcing their own sense of identity against what they see as an evil spiritual other. When Christians go to the sacred space of others and engage in this kind of aggressive encounter, it’s not so much an attempt at persuasion as it is a way of solidifying one’s own religious convictions by using the other as a foil. Pagans, Latter-day Saints and others don’t see this as bridge building. It’s fence or wall building that reinforces the religious structure and identity on the other side of the divide.

2. Others don’t see us as we see ourselves. Closely related to point number 1 is that we might want to consider how other see us. The image included with this post illustrates this well. We may see ourselves as noble messengers of God sharing a life- and soul-saving message, but many times others see as as hateful bigots. We might step back in try some perspective taking as to how our efforts are perceived by those we want to persuade.

3. We are needlessly confrontational. There are all kinds of examples in the Bible and church history that Christians can look to in order to inform the way they share their message. I’m not sure why this aggressive and confrontational way of relating to others, especially on their sacred space, is so popular with some evangelicals. Unless of course there’s an assumption that this is the best and only way to be “biblical,” and along the way they miss the point that the Bible also includes culturally-sensitive forms of engagement as well. We might ask ourselves whether this is really appropriate and effective. As I said in a past blog post on the pageant event: “Are we being needlessly confrontational, and acting in ways which make us feel good as defenders of orthodoxy, and in the process not only losing the argument but also losing the individual?”

There’s much more that could be said, and I’d be happy to interact with anyone who wants to discuss this important topic. I hope that it at least gives some pause before the next headline making clash of religions.

"This weekend, Interfaith America hosts the Interfaith Leadership Summit, the largest gathering of students and educators committed to bridging differences and strengthening our nation’s social fabric. The theme, “Many Plates Make a Feast,” was inspired by Danielle Allen’s assertion that rather than oneness, our nation should strive for wholeness. Wholeness underscores the sacred importance of everyone’s contributions to our diverse nation.

This also includes the idea of a Potluck Nation, which focuses on everyone having something to offer no matter how simple or small, much like a potluck."

I appreciate what Patel and his organization are trying to do, and I'm sympathetic. But in my view this approach will resonate only with the already committed. For those opposed to religious diversity and see it as harmful, with the potluck foods in the metaphor representing a spiritual poison and a threat to the moral and sacred order, a different approach is needed. This is is our audience, and for them we draw upon a religious diplomacy method which seeks to conversations over irreconcilable differences among trusted rivals who can work together despite differences for the common good.

A brief summary of my experience leading me to my present understanding.

For years I thought education and a different theology was sufficient. However, among conservative evangelicals I constantly experienced strong resistance to religious others. So in order to understand the dynamic I pursued a grant through the Louisville Institute that brought social psychology into conversation with an evangelical theology of multifaith engagement. I discovered that evangelicals (and I think this is true for many other Christians and conservative religious adherents), the religious worldview of others is seen as harmful, and as a result there is a perception of intergroup threat. This creates a situation where defensiveness, separation, disgust and anger are often found. With this audience and this context an interfaith approach with an appeal to diversity is a non-starter. Instead, a variation on contact theory that brings religious rivals together to discuss deep differences creates a situation where trust can be developed in spite of differences that are held in a peaceful tension.

My intention here is not superiority or triumphalism, but given the dire need in our polarized times, to ensure the utmost efficacy in the methods we use to try to bring people together.

For more on this here are some links on harm-based morality with a study on the perception of harm through sacrilegious ideas, a recent study on the efficacy of intergroup contact even where strong prejudice exists, and a couple of articles and a video link arguing for the need to test conflict resolution strategies.

https://www.academia.edu/72319964/Harm_Mediates_the_Disgust_Immorality_Link

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369113397_Intergroup_Contact_Is_Reliably_Associated_With_Reduced_Prejudice_Even_in_the_Face_of_Group_Threat_and_Discrimination

https://www.woolf.cam.ac.uk/assets/imported/Beyond-Dialogue-Interfaith-Engagement-in-Delhi-Doha-and-London.pdf https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?id=3275092&url=article

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324154422_Evaluating_inter-faith_initiatives_A_Cambridge_case_study

https://youtu.be/0--EQolDwMU

It seems to me that there is great benefit in seeking grant funding that can be used to specifically examine what methods are effective, and why, rather than continuing to throw large amounts of money and time at approaches that make participants feel good, but really only preach to the choir, or have no effect at all.

"However, especially as belief in Hell is waning, it is time to consider other paths for moral transformation. Indeed, in our increasingly pluralistic and atheistic world, it’s time to consider non-religious paths to moral transformation. But more than that, we need a deeper ethic that what fear can offer us."

In my view it is time for evangelicals to move beyond concerns for eternal punishment for those in other religions. I’ve written previously about my disagreement with soteriology as the primary lens through which understand religious others (so much time has been spent articulating and debating the exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism perspectives), and this includes a mention of the need to reconsider the meaning of the Gospel in narrative-historical perspective, as well as metaphysical interpretations of Hell. Instead, I suggest we need to shift to a virtue ethic where persuasion is one part of engagement, but where we also think more expansively and holistically to also consider neighborly and hospitable encounters. In other words, we relate to religious others not out of fear (both fear of them and possible worldview harm as well as fear for them in regards to Hell), but instead out of a virtue ethic.

I posted some of these thoughts above on Facebook and a HIndu friend and dialogue partner responded, asking whether such a thing was possible for evangelicals. My response is that it certainly is possible for bibliocentric evangelicals, and that I and others have been developing this hermeneutic and theology for some time. For example, consider the promise of cruciformity in multaith engagement.

What might our interactions with religious others look like if we move from fear to virtue?

With this post I want to summarize some reflection of mine that have been swirling in my brain for a few years now as it relates to the implications of the study of the historical Jesus, Pauline studies, and how the gospel is properly defined in light of these studies and its narrative-historical aspects. It seems to me that while we have spent a lot of time and scholarship rethinking our understanding of Jesus and Paul, we haven’t made much progress in rethinking how we define the gospel, and certainly not in applications like what it means for the Christian encounter with other religions in the 21st century. My thoughts here are of a summary and thought provoking nature, and are intended to start a dialogue with theologians, missiologists, pastors and others, not be the final word. My hope is that some will see the merit in stepping back and reflecting anew rather than continuing on with our past assumptions.

A few years ago I was a part of Evangelical and Latter-day Saint dialogues in Portland, and in one of our sessions each side was asked to present a summary of their basic worldview. At the time I presented what was a commonly accepted encapsulation of the biblical story understood as creation, fall, redemption and restoration. At the time this made sense to me, but since that presentation I’ve had an opportunity to continue my reading and reflections on the matter. In light of my study in historical Jesus material, the “new perspective on Paul,” and reassessing the Bible in terms of a narrative-historical approach, I now realize my characterization in the Portland dialogue was off base. To be precise, there was absolutely no mention of Israel, nor was the story of Jesus in relation to Israel’s story grounded in narrative-history, but instead it was founded upon theological assumptions without proper narrative-historical moorings.

One of the best sources for narrative-historical explorations is Andrew Perriman and his blog P.OST. He has spent a lot of time over the years discussing the narrative-historical approach to the Bible and the gospel message. One of the posts listed on his website under “Method+” presents a narrative-historical understanding of the gospel:

“The ‘good news’ at the heart of the story begins as an announcement to Israel that its God is about to act both to punish and to restore his people; but (precisely on this basis) it becomes the announcement to the empire that God is no longer willing to overlook its idolatry, immorality and injustices. Paul’s gospel is that God will sooner or later ‘judge’ (in the characteristic biblical sense) the Greek-Roman world by a man whom he has appointed, and that this historical transformation will finally vindicate the refugees from Judaism and the growing numbers of Gentiles who have attached themselves to this Spirit-driven renewal movement. This moment of vindication, when Christ will receive the nations as his inheritance, will mark the beginning of a new age, when he (and the martyrs) will reign at the right hand of the Father over and on behalf of God’s people.

“The story of Jesus includes and anticipates the story of the early believers who had to follow him along a difficult and narrow path leading to life. The New Testament in the first place, as a set of historical documents, describes the life and vocation of an eschatological community, scattered across the whole oikoumenē, which in its supra-national and ecumenical nature, in its solidarity, in its holiness, in its confession of Christ, in its experience of the eschatological Spirit, in its faithfulness and willingness to endure the most severe opposition, represented the claim of Israel’s God to be sovereign over all the gods of the nations.”

Many evangelical readers will be shocked and scandalized at the idea that the gospel and the mission of the church is not primarily about metaphysical process of saving lost souls from hell. I realize that this challenges sacred assumptions, but we evangelicals talk a lot about taking the Bible as an authority. Perhaps a fresh and deeper reflection on the gospel and faithfulness to it in its narrative-historical context might mean discarding cherished assumptions.

For those who aren’t completely put off by a new understanding of the nature of the gospel, Perriman takes it a step further. In a recent post we find the following:

“From a post-Christendom perspective, therefore, it can no longer be held that the mission of the church is simply to continue the so-called “great commission” of Matthew 28:19-20. That was a mission-within-a-mission—an integral part of the story of the end of the age of second temple Judaism and the beginning of European Christendom. If we are going to make disciples from all nations today, we have first to ask why, to what end. What are they needed for?

“Secondly, the mission of the church is not to participate in a work of redemption primarily, any more than it was of Israel before it. The salvation of lost souls is not the raison d’être of the church, despite the massive prominence given to the task in traditional evangelicalism. It is at most a secondary or subsidiary function. The more recent socially and environmentally sensitive emphasis on the redemption of creation actually has no biblical basis whatsoever. To speak of the transformation of societies as the object of mission has more merit but needs to be qualified historically.”

If Perriman is correct (and I think scholars like N.T. Wright have also reached the same conclusion), then the gospel is properly understood differently than a “get out of hell free card.” This has great implications for how Christians relate to those in other religions. For many years now the church has primarily approached the subject of other religions framed by the perspectives of concern for soteriology and heresiology (which is related to concerns over soteriology as well as boundary maintenance). On the one hand we evangelize their adherents to help them get into heaven, and on the other hand we engage in doctrinal contrast and apologetic refutation because of belief and worldview differences. But if the proper understanding of the gospel isn’t guided by an overriding concern for lost souls and evangelism, what does this mean for how the church should live in a religiously plural world?

I don’t pretend to have much by way of answers on this. I do find some of Perriman’s suggestions in his recent post quoted above of interest where he writes that a particular form of existence in the world is key:

”The church exists, in the first place, as a ‘new creation,’ which means that it exists as a social-religious entity in the midst of the nations and cultures of the world. As such, its purpose, at base level, is to live out the creational ideal of a righteous, flourishing human society in dynamic relationship with the God who made the heavens and the earth. The vocation goes back to the renewal of the creation mandate in the promises made to Abraham and his family: they will be blessed, they will be fruitful, they will multiply, and will fill the land that God will give them. This ideal way of being is often called “shalom,” from the Hebrew word for “peace,” but I think that this is misleading. Shalom is not human flourishing; it is a necessary condition for human flourishing.”

This suggestion has great appeal for me given my work in religious diplomacy and peacemaking. For many years I pursued culturally-sensitive evangelism to adherents of new religious movements, but one day it dawned on me that I had given little thought about how to live as a faithful and loving Christian in the midst of religious pluralism and among those who choose not to embrace the Christian gospel. What does it mean to live in cruciform, hospitable, and neighborly ways among the religions? I’ve spent the last several years trying to discover, explore, and live that out.

I’m quite sure that as a result of this post many readers will question my theology, perhaps even my Evangelical or broader Christian bona fides. So be it. But it seems to me that we haven’t given much thought about the implications of a narrative-historical approach to understanding the gospel in general, let alone what it means for multifaith encounters.

Before I attempt an answer to that question, for those unfamiliar with the idea, cruciformity refers to a cross-shaped spirituality, and it finds its clearest biblical exposition in Philippians 2:1-11 where Paul discusses the need for his listeners and readers to follow Christ’s example on the cross in exercising humility, which in turn resulted in his exaltation for his obedience even to the point of humiliating death. This idea of cruciformity was the focus of a three-volume trilogy by New Testament scholar Michael Gorman in the books Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology, and Becoming the Gospel: Participation, and Mission (The Gospel and Our Culture Series). This series of books has been very influential, and Gorman’s cruciformity scholarship, as well as other aspects of his writing, was the focus of a recent anthology volume titled Cruciform Scripture: Cross, Participation and Mission. (An accessible introduction to Gorman’s work on cruciformity can be downloaded here.)

Returning to my question above, what is a good theological grounding for Christians encountering other religions? I still maintain that cruciformity is the best way forward, and this conclusion is shaped in part because of my experience in the American evangelical context. As it turns out, the contextual aspect is very important. I was reminded of this in a recent blog post on Pete Enns’ website. This is the first part of a series by guest contributor Jennifer Bashaw, who teaches New Testament and Biblical Interpretation, among other things, at Campbell University. Previously, Bashaw was a guest on The Bible for Normal People podcast with Enns and Jared Byas where she discussed the history of atonement theories in the church. This topic is related to her forthcoming book Scapegoats: The Gospel through the Eyes of Victims. .

In the blog post Bashaw is looking at what Jesus’ death accomplished theologically in regards to salvation, and she notes how we often turn to Paul’s writings to answer this question. She suggests, however, “that if we want to understand salvation better, we need to stop constructing our theology of salvation predominantly (much less exclusively!) on Paul’s letters.” She lists three reasons why, including:

• Epistles, or letters, are occasional literature

• Paul provides a gapingly incomplete picture of Jesus’s life

• Salvation vocabulary in the Gospels differs greatly from salvation language in Paul.

Whether the reader thinks Bashaw makes a convincing argument on this point or not in terms of depending less on Paul and more on the Gospels in understanding salvation, the point I want to draw attention to is that Paul’s letters are contextualized, each written with a specific audience and set of concerns in mind, and each crafted so as to best respond to those needs. Bashaw discusses how this contextualizing process took place in Paul’s writings, such as how “he emphasizes the importance of Jesus’s humble obedience on the cross when he writes Philippians (they were struggling with pride and division and needed an example of humility).” In light of this, what better way to make the point than to discuss the example of Jesus in obedience and death on the cross for a divided and prideful congregation? This contextualized theology is perfectly applicable to the situation of American Christianity, particularly evangelicalism, where we have tended to pursue confrontational and polemical ways of engaging those in other religions. Cruciformity and its resulting humility provides a much-needed corrective to American theological hubris. It also seems to be the theological bedrock out of which our other theological concerns can arise, including neighborliness, hospitality, and mission. (We should note at this juncture that the Gospels are contextualized as well, but this only reinforces the need to understand, interpret and apply the New Testament in light of local and contemporary concerns.)

One other thought in relation to Bashaw’s post is helpful. She concludes by suggesting that we need to pay greater attention to the metaphors for salvation in the Gospels that often don’t receive the consideration they should in light of our (over)emphasis on Paul. This suggestion also has application to American Christianity. In addition to practicing cruciformity in light of Paul’s contextualized theology, we can focus in fresh ways on the Gospel stories and the example of Jesus in his encounters with religious outsiders, a point made by Bob Robinson in his book Jesus and the Religions: Retrieving a neglected example for a Multi-cultural World.

As the discussion continues over how we should relate to those in other religions in an increasingly pluralist 21st century, I hope that ideas like these can become an increasing part of the conversation.

For more on Michael Gorman’s cruciformity see my past podcast with him here.

Bob Robinson and I discuss Jesus’ example in multifaith in a podcast episode here.

For a discussion on contextualized or localized theology see my past blog conversation with Robert Schreiter on his book Constructing Local Theologies.

A reposting some revised past thoughts of mine on another blog.

I came across this image (by Seth Hahne) in connection with some blog posts on Christian "street preachers" (website no longer available) who attend the Arab International Festival in Dearborn, and who have created a lot of controversy given their very confrontational ways of engaging Muslims. For me this illustration (not to mention the rhetoric of street preachers like Ruben Israel) symbolizes far more than the Dearborn clash to encompass the problem from Evangelicals in interreligious engagement in general. Evangelicals, consider this image. This is how many Muslims, Mormons, Pagans, Jehovah's Witnesses and others see us.

No matter how well meaning and how convinced that we have the truth that others need to hear, the perception of those we want to persuade is that we are disrespectful bigots engaging in hateful actions rather diplomats engaging in love of neighbor. In addition, I have also come to the conclusion that this is not merely a debate among Evangelicals about differences in doctrine or methodology (confrontation, proclamation, apologetic, missional or dialogical). Instead, it needs to be discussed as a problem of Christian ethics.

Cruciformity and Multifaith Engagement

For some time now theologians, missiologists and Christian scholars of religion have been working out what an encounter with the world’s religions should look like if it is to be understood as truly Christian. Various approaches have been put forward, including convicted civility, dialogical, pneumatological, as well as those rooted in hospitality and neighborliness. While all of these aspects of encounter are important, even essential, is there a broader framework of Christian theology in which they might be rooted?

In 2001 Michael J. Gorman published his book, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Through this volume, and two subsequent works, including Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (2009), and Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission (2015), Gorman set forth an “accidental trilogy” that argues for the centrality of a cross-shaped spirituality on the part of Christian disciples (1 Cor 2:2; Phil. 2:5-8). Participation in cruciformity means that our lives become a living exegesis of the gospel. This body of work has become very influential among Christian scholars in New Testament studies, and recently resulted in the release of an anthology volume titled Cruciform Scripture: Cross, Participation, and Mission (2021) where scholars explored various facets of New Testament themes in light of Gorman’s scholarship.

But while cruciformity has been explored by way of various theological and missiological implications, it has not been applied by way of its import for a Christian encounter with the world’s religions. We believe that cruciform spirituality holds great promise for a theology, praxis, and ethics of multifaith engagement, a broad theological tent under which things like civility, hospitality and neighborliness fit as extensions of the cruciform way.

This call for submissions seeks authors conversant with Gorman’s work who will connect the dots to various facets of multifaith engagement. Potential book divisions and topics within them include:

Cruciform hermeneutics

• Interpretation and application of scripture (love, neighborliness, hospitality rather than boundary maintenance)

• Cruciform Jesus (unfortunately not redundant, but a reconsideration of Jesus in interactions with Gentiles and Samaritans as a contrast to evangelical portraits in apologetics)

• Interpretation of other religious cultures (on their own terms, lived religion and not just doctrine and comparative doctrinal templates

Cruciform virtues and ethics

• Love

• Humility

• Weakness and power (the latter through the former)

• Moral theology of relations with the other (lessons from Roger Williams?)

Cruciform multifaith facets

• From evangelistic “strategy” to attitude and way of life

• Cruciform gospel narrative in story-sharing

• Cruciform conversation: (dia-logos to dia-pathos: complimenting dialogue with an attempt to enter into the emotional terrain of “the other”)

• Neighborliness and hospitality

• Cruciform apologetics: from boundary police to agents of reconciliation balancing the rational and emotional intelligence

Cruciform multifaith engagement examples

• Mormonism

• Islam

• Paganism

• Buddhism

Possible topics are not limited to these volume divisions or subjects, and authors should feel free to submit an abstract of 200-300 words in keeping with the aims outlined above. This volume will be informed by scholarship, but will be written for a popular audience for maximum impact that includes the academy and the pews. Abstracts for consideration should be sent to the attention of John W. Morehead with a deadline for submissions of October 31, 2021. Once a collection of suitable abstracts are collected we will seek a publisher for the volume.

John W. Morehead is the Director of Multifaith Matters. He is the co-editor and contributing author for A Charitable Orthopathy: Christian Perspectives on Emotions in Multifaith Enagement, and Encountering New Religious Movements: A Holistic Evangelical Approach, as well as the editor of Beyond the Burning Times: A Pagan and Christian in Dialogue. John has also provided expertise to the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization issue group on “The Church and the New Spiritualities.” He has been involved for many years in multifaith relationships and conversations.

Add to Your Post

Post

By Rick Love

Paperback: Peace Catalyst International Publications, 2013. [Amazon]

ISBN: 978-1935959502

Evangelical Christians across a spectrum of denominations and political commitments are working together to provide a response to Muslims that is faithful to the best of the Christian tradition in our post-9/11 world. These efforts find their roots in two aspects of the Christian tradition. The first is a desire to emulate the way of Christ in relating to the marginalized and the outsiders that are frequently viewed with suspicion and enmity by members of their own religious tradition. Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman in John 4 is a primary biblical text that exemplifies the model of Jesus that these Christians want to follow in their encounters with Muslims. The second foundation for these efforts is the desire to be obedient to Christ in his call for disciples to be peacemakers.

The late Rick Love, through his organization, Peace Catalyst International, took a leadership role among American Evangelicals in peacekeeping between Christians and Muslims. Grace and Truth was written as a result of Love’s participation in a global meeting of Evangelical leaders who came together to address how relations between Christians, particularly those in the West, and Muslims might be improved, and in ways that resonate with Christian faith. Love served as the main author of this volume, although he acknowledged the input of “more than seventy leaders form around the world” (3-4). As a result, this book “is a consensus document” (5) that brings together “a spectrum of evangelical thinking” (5) and which finds a balance between slight differences of thought on the subject matter. This contributes to the layout and overlap found in the book.

The volume is comprised of an Introduction that provides a summary of helpful information and perspectives for Evangelical readers in understanding the Muslim world, and the perspective in the material that follows. This includes consideration of the diversity of categories and perspectives that make up the Muslim world, a list of the areas of agreement and disagreement in Muslim beliefs in relation to Christianity, and discussion of “significant theological and ideological diversity” (11) among Muslims. The Introduction concludes with the suggestion that Evangelicals “find a middle path between demonization of Islam and naïve political correctness” (13).

The next two major segments of the book include one titled “Toward Christ-like Relationships with Muslims: An Exposition,” and another “Toward Christ-like Relationships with Muslims: An Affirmation.” These two sections are very much alike, with the latter incorporating slight revisions that reflect the specific views of Peace Catalyst International. Both of these segments include a series of guidelines for Christian interaction with Muslims and the Muslim world, with nine in the former, and ten in the latter “reflecting Peace Catalyst’s revised, personalized version of these affirmations” (26). The ten affirmations include:

1. Be Jesus-Centered in our Interaction

2. Be Truthful and Gracious in our Words and Witness

3. Be Wise in our Words and Witness

4. Be Respectful and Bold in our Witness

5. Be Prudent in our Glocalized World

6. Be Persistent in our Call for Religious Freedom

7. Be Peaceable and Uncompromising in our Dialogue

8. Be Loving toward All

9. Differentiate between the Role of Church and State

10. Support and Challenge the State

The chapters that unfold each of these guidelines or affirmations are very helpful, and it is evident that a lot of careful reflection has gone into their formulation. As such, they “describe how we can be agents of peace in a polarized world” (32) as Evangelicals embrace Muslims and share the Gospel of Christ.

The next two sections are study guides that look at each of the preceding major segments of the book. They are designed for small group and Sunday school settings as well as individual study. The volume concludes with a bibliography of materials that will be helpful for further study.

Although this volume is very small, and involves a great deal of overlap and repetition in its layout and subject matter, it provides a concise and accessible study for Evangelicals. The volume might have been strengthened with a few additions, including mention of Islam’s priority of ritual rather than belief, the addition of a few more noteworthy volumes in the bibliography, and the suggestion that the study of Islam be connected to relationships and conversations with Muslims in readers’ neighborhoods. But despite these suggestions, this is a helpful book that has the potential to overcome some of the stereotypes, generalizations, assumptions, and hostility that many Evangelicals have in regards to the Muslim world in the wake of 9/11 and the continuing “War on Terror.”

David P. Gushee, editor: Cascade Books, 2013. 150 pp. $19.00 paper.

ISBN: 978-1-62564-115-1

For many years Evangelicals have been distinguished as a movement that favors evangelism and missions, putting a great deal of energy and financial resources into mobilization, strategy and execution in this regard. But by and large, they have not been known for their interests and activities in peacemaking. However, this has changed in recent years, and now a growing number of Evangelicals across a spectrum from progressive to conservative, are practicing peacemaking, inclusive of what it means to share the gospel, and as a worthy goal in and of itself apart from evangelism and missions.

Evangelical Peacemakers is a volume that is representative of recent activities in this area. It came together as a result of papers presented at the Evangelicals for Peace Summit on Christian Morality and Responsibility in the Twenty-first century, which was held at Georgetown University in September of 2012. Rick Love, the late founder of Peace Catalyst International, was the primary moving force behind the formation of this conference. At the conclusion of the event, Love gathered the resulting collection of papers and asked David Gushee of Mercer University to edit the material into a volume. The result provides an introduction to and overview of varying approaches to peacemaking among Evangelicals, inclusive not only of center-left positions within Evangelicalism, but also those from more conservative views on the right.

Each of the chapters in this volume is brief, reflecting the origins of the material in summit presentations rather than extended written chapters originally intended for publication. The book begins with a Preface and Acknowledgements by Gushee who provides an initial context and orientation for what the reader will encounter in successive chapters.

The first four chapters address issues related to a Christian ethic and theology related to war, particularly Just War Theory and pacifist perspectives. Gushee begins this first section in Chapter 1 with a consideration of the U.S. as “a warfare state with a bloated national security apparatus and a pattern of excessive military engagements” (xi). His chapter concludes with a consideration of Evangelical involvement in foreign and military policy discussions in this context. In the second chapter Lisa Sharon Harper of Sojourners looks at Christ’s example and teachings in the New Testament to argue for a pacifist position brought into engagement with U.S. foreign policy. Eric Patterson of Regent University takes up the third chapter with a consideration of Just War Theory where he provides an exposition and defense of this view and then reflects on how this might be connected to contemporary events in foreign policy and international conflict. Chapter 4 concludes this first section with an offering by Glen Stassen of Fuller Seminary who introduces a just peacemaking concept as an alternative to pacifism and Just War approaches.

In the second half of this volume, eleven chapters discuss peacemaking efforts undertaken by individuals as well as organizations. In Chapter 5 Geoff Tunnicliffe describes the peacemaking work of his World Evangelical Alliance. Similarly, in Chapter 6 Mark Johnson discusses the peacemaking work of his organization, the Fellowship of Reconciliation. The seventh chapter is by Joseph Cumming of Yale University who explores his peacemaking as well as mission work with Muslims. In Chapter 8 Doug Johnston, President Emeritus of the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy, argues that U.S. foreign policy must take religion seriously, particularly in the most pressing international context with Islam. David Shenk provides a discussion in Chapter 9 of the peacemaking in his Christian tradition of the Mennonites who serve in dangerous areas of conflict around the world. In Chapter 10, Lisa Gibson of the Peace and Prosperity Alliance provides an inspiring discussion of her journey of forgiveness and its relationship to peacemaking as a result of the loss of her brother in the Lockerbie terrorist bombing in 1988. Sami Awad shares his thoughts on peace and justice in the Middle East through his Holy Land Trust organization. Pastor Bob Roberts of Northwood Church describes his personal and congregational work with service, missions, and peacemaking in Asia and the Middle East. In Chapter 13 David Beasley speaks as the former governor of South Carolina about loving witness in connection with the National Prayer Breakfast. Jim Wallis of Sojourners shares examples of peacemaking around the world, and how personal relationships and networking have been helpful to this process in Chapter 14. Rick Love helps Evangelicals who emphasize evangelism consider a typology for peacemaking in Chapter 15. Finally, David Gushee completes the volume in Chapter 16 by way of critical interaction with the perspectives provided by the other contributors.

Three areas stand out as especially significant in this volume. First is the recognition of new ways of interreligious engagement among Evangelicals. In the Preface Gushee refers to this as “an emerging new approach to Christian missions and interfaith encounter” (xiii). This is echoed in Love’s perspective where he reminds us that Evangelicals have tended to emphasize evangelism at the expense of peace, and in his view “we are pioneering what it means to be evangelical peacemakers” (107). Cumming also touches on this when he says that people tend to ”think that one either works for peace or bears witness for Christ, but not both” (49). But this dichotomy may become a major problem. Cumming shares his fear that “there is a split developing between two camps” (49) of Evangelicals around the world. Although the challenge of a split exists, a more holistic approach holds great promise as peacemaking is seen as an important part of the Gospel, as well as an essential part of Christian praxis and identity.

The second area of note relates to the tension that arises in sharing differences and disagreements among competing religious traditions. Shenk discusses Christian and Muslim interactions where when evangelism backfires, “the inclination is often to simply avoid the call to witness” (61). He points to a “trust-building friendship” approach of a pastor and imam in Nigeria who feel they must “avoid theological discussions, for that would put a wedge between them” (61). Although they leave space for mutual witness, they avoid discussion of theological differences. Shenk then goes on to contrast this “gingerly approach” (62) with other forms of dialogue and peacemaking where theology and differences are more prominent. Roberts brings the much-needed stance to this context that avoids the elephant in the room and which permits for deep relationships of trust. In his chapter he argues that we must be willing to recognize that “[m]ulti-faith engagement says we have fundamental if not irreconcilable differences between our faiths…So let’s be honest, not compromise what we believe, but treat one another with respect” (89). While dialogue has tended to avoid areas of conflict in seeking common ground, the more promising way forward is found in peacemaking and religious diplomacy approaches wherein irreconcilable differences are acknowledged and discussed, but done so with civility so that authenticity and transparency provides for a transformation of religious enemies into trusted rivals.

Roberts also articulates the third area of significance in this volume in the shift in forms of interreligious engagement. He argues that there needs to be a shift “from dialogue among clerics to engagement between congregations” (90). In his view as a church leader, [t]he greatest power of a pastor is to connect and release his people to engage with people of other faiths” (90). For some time now interreligious dialogue has been pursued by way of religious adherents taking a more passive role as they watch their leaders or religious professionals engage in sophisticated forms of theological exchange. Roberts states that [t]he real power is the people” (90), and there is great untapped potential for grassroots movements if clerics and professionals empower their people to take the lead in peacemaking at congregational, mosque, temple, synagogue, and ward levels with their interreligious counterparts in their communities.

The individuals, organizations, and fledgling movement of Evangelical peacemakers/peacemaking described in this book hold great promise for Evangelicalism and the world in which they live and serve. If these activities continue we agree with Gushee that “it is fascinating to contemplate a future for evangelical Christian leaders as global diplomats (a role long played by Catholic popes), and to see the gradual institutionalization of a vision for Christian engagement that includes grassroots peacemaking and conflict resolution” (126-7). Surely this is something Christ’s disciples should work toward as they seek to be obedient not only to the Great Commission, but also to receive the blessing Christ promised to the peacemakers (Mat. 5:9).

As we begin, we need to understand how the terror of the event shattered the American psyche in ways comparable to Pearl Harbor for generations past. The stark reminder of our mortality had a number of effects, including a desire to emphasize our worldview against all competitors (particularly Muslims) as form of psychological defense.

In the Wake of 9/11: The Psychology of Terror:

It is much simpler and more common to defend against such alternative worldviews. To do so, people respond to others having different worldviews with a series of psychological and behavioral reactions that serve to bolster confidence in their own worldviews. The first line of defense is to belittle people who are different… By disparaging those with different beliefs, the threat posed by those beliefs is diffused and no longer challenges the received wisdom of one’s own cultural worldview.

Related to this, evangelicals found a new cultural crisis that would come to define their posture toward cultural engagement, and various religions within it. Just as the Scopes Trial and evolution dominated evangelical theology for so many years, so too has 9/11 in different theological areas. the This is the argument Walter Ratliff makes in his book Christians and Muslims at the Epicenter: How the Sept. 11th Attacks Shook and Transformed American Evangelicalism. In his words,

At the turn of the millennium, the Sept. 11th attacks forced the Christian world to not only deal with the pressures of modernity, but also a host of new theological, political and cultural challenges. Whereas theologically-conservative Christianity once primarily identified itself against secularism and theologically-liberal movements, the postmodern world presents challenges from other religions, alongside a variety of systems competing for legitimacy and adherents.

As an example of how evangelical approaches shifted after 9/11, consider the research of Richard Cimino. In his insightful essay "‘No God in Common:’ American Evangelical Discourse on Islam after 9/11,” he discovered a dramatic change in the ways evangelicals conceived of and wrote about Islam pre- and post-9/11. As the abstract for his essay summarizes:

After the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., evangelical leaders emerged as strong critics and even antagonists of Islam. This rhetoric is reflected in evangelical books and articles that have been published in the last decade, but particularly since 9/11. Through a content analysis of evangelical books on Islam published before and after 9/11, this article finds that there was a noticeable change of emphasis and perspective on Islam after the attacks. Most of the post-9/11 literature draws sharper boundaries between Islam and Christianity and asserts that Islam is an essentially violent religion. This polemic against Islam takes three forms: apologetics to prove the truth of Christianity against Islam; prophetic literature linking Islam as the main protagonist in end-times scenarios; and charismatic literature applying "spiritual warfare" teachings to Islam. The article concludes that the greater and more visible pluralism in American society is challenging evangelical identity, leading to the erection of new boundary markers between evangelicalism and other religions. Such new boundaries can strain interfaith relations, yet they also function to strengthen evangelical Protestant identity in the U.S.

Finally, the impact of 9/11 not only shaped the way in which evangelicals relate to outsiders, those in other religions, and Islam in particular, but also how we look within. Our emphasis on boundary maintenance and fears of syncretism has also led to problematic ways of assessing those who we fear have gotten too close to our “enemies.” Consider the cases of David Benke and Larycia Hawkins. I’ll just summarize her and encourage you to click the links for more, but Benke participated in an interfaith memorial prayer service just days after 9/11. As a result, his denomination suspended him and he was accused of heresy, only to eventually be reinstated. In the case of Hawkins, she made statements on social media about embodied solidarity with Muslim women, and said that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. This led to a conflict with the leadership at Wheaton College where she taught, and she eventually had to step down. While we can debate the theological details about the actions of Benke and Hawkins, the psychological trauma of 9/11 shaped the way in which they were viewed, with an emphasis on theological fence building versus bridge building.

I’ve discovered that sometimes introspection can be very helpful. I suggest that one way evangelicals can best remember the tragedy of 9/11 is to look at ourselves critically and to come to grips with the ways in which we’ve changed.

A few years ago I was asked by a seminary journal editor to write the lead article that would include respondents, all of us discussing the ways in which Christians should respond to new religious movements (or “cults” in more popular evangelical terminology). I enjoyed reading through the responses to my essay as they all brought different but complimentary perspectives to the topic. All except one, that is. One of the respondents took issue with how I framed the Christian response by way of the biblical text. I won’t mention the name of the journal or the respondent because I don’t want to make this a personal issue, but I’ve continued to reflect on the area of disagreement for a while because it’s an important one. My colleague accused me of “cherry-picking the Bible,” his words, and that I needed to consider the entirety of the scriptural text in addressing the topic at hand. Let me unpack my response to this critique.

Two main elements comprise my response. First, I take issue with the phrase “cherry-picking.” Cherry-picking usually has a negative connotation, implying that the individual engaged in the practice is only selecting what is best for their purposes, while ignoring other important aspects. An application of that label to my handling of scripture in regards to relating to new religionists, or more broadly to multifaith engagement, is neither accurate nor fair. If you want to accuse me of selectivity in my selection of biblical texts, and my hermeneutical emphasis, then I plead guilty. In fact, my critic had to offer a selective approach to Scripture in his disagreement. The reality is that everyone is selective in how they use the Bible. I was reminded of this in a recent post by Old Testament scholar Pete Enns. This practice is not limited to contemporary evangelicals. You can see it in the pages of Scripture itself,, like in the Old Testament where a narrative was written down, later another version is included in the canon, and then in the New Testament Jesus and Paul likewise handle the Hebrew scriptures selectively and creatively as the tradition was engaged in light of new challenges and questions. So the idea of cherry-picking scripture is a false one, but selectivity in biblical interpretation, of course.

The second part of my response deals with the exception my critic seems to have taken to my suggestions for further areas for Christian reflection. One of those suggestions was to use a Christological hermeneutic. In other words, looking at Christ’s example and to draw upon a grace-shaped approach to understanding and applying the text. To some this may seem helpful and straightforward, but for many evangelicals it’s inappropriate. In their understanding of the Bible the best texts to cite about those in other religions are those that call for defending against false teaching, and building barriers of protection. While I recognize the need to have appropriate faith boundaries and not engage in syncretism or compromise, I think this way of interpreting the text is misguided. And I’ve found several breadcrumbs that lead me to this conclusion since I first wrote the journal article.

One of those breadcrumbs comes from N.T. Wright. He addressed this somewhat in his book The New Testament and the People of God, but expanded it quite a bit in his more recent book on natural theology, History and Eschatology: Jesus and the problem of natural theology. In this book Wright argues that Jesus is the starting point for natural theology, and that love should be an essential part of the Christian way of interpreting and relating to the world. More recently I discovered another writer with a similar emphasis. It came from Jonathan L. Walton in his book A Lens of Love: Reading the Bible in Its World for Our World. In the last paragraph of the final chapter he writes:

“A lens of love, however, challenges such religious duplicity and political chicanery. The method outlined in this book keeps us from cherry-picking texts that condone our selfish desires from using our faith to give cover to corruption while wagging the finger of condemnation toward the most vulnerable. A lens of love recalibrates our focus back to the teaching of the gospel. Jesus’ ministry was one of love and compassion. Jesus’ ministry, like that of the Hebrew prophets who informed him, subverted authority and questioned the status quo. It would only be appropriate, then, for us to interpret the Christian faith in this light. It would only be fitting to interpret Scripture with a lens of love.”

In following these bread crumbs I ended up recently back where I was when I wrote the journal article I mentioned previously. In my view Christians like Wright and Walton are on to something, especially with the extreme polarization and mistrust of our time, whatever the social context. What we need is a selective way of interpreting and living out the biblical message, one centered on a hermeneutic and praxis of love.

Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan is one of the most powerful of his illustrations regarding love of neighbor, and it provides an important foundation for how to engage others in a multifaith world. But at the same time, popular interpretations of the story rob it of much of its subversive power.

Rebecca Trotter has written a piece on her blog "The Upside Down World," that steps back to reassess this story in light of a statement that Evangelical often make in relating to others: "You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate." On the surface this sounds good, particularly for those of us working in multifaith contexts where conservative Evangelicals are concerned that such efforts are risky, and leave practitioners open to compromise. But Trotter reminds us that the parable of the Good Samaritan challenges this idea. Sometimes you do have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.

Consider the familiar story again. When the priest and the Levite saw the injured man, they made a conscious choice not to help as acts of faithfulness to their religious convictions, particularly those related to fears about ritual impurity and contamination. But the conclusion of Jesus' story indicates that the one who truly loved neighbor in God's way was the one who ignored these religious convictions and offered aid anyway.

This should give Evangelicals pause for reflection. Our religious convictions concerning how we relate to and engage others in our multifaith world should not be cast aside casually, but there may be times when love of neighbor trumps these convictions. At the very least, we should be willing to engage in more theological self-reflection in such matters.

Read Trotter's piece and give Jesus' parable another look.

Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord's Supper under Roman Domination during the First Century (Pickwick, 2013).

Dinner Church Collective Movement

In addition to Thiessen’s books on this subject, readers will also benefit from reading “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommendations for Conduct,” a document put together after discussions among the World Evangelical Alliance, the World Council of Churches, and the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue. A PDF of that document is available at the bottom of the page at this link.

https://wipfandstock.com/a-charitable-orthopathy.html

https://www.amazon.com/Charitable-Orthopathy-John-W-Morehead/dp/1532654138/

Contents

Contributors

Foreword

—Richard J. Mouw

Acknowledgments

Introduction: Orthopathy, Evangelicals, and Multifaith Engagement

—John W. Morehead and Brandon C. Benziger

Part I—Biblical, Theological, and Social-Psychological Foundations

1. “He Had Compassion for Them”: A Key Biblical Foundation for Interreligious Relations

—Bob Robinson

2. Orthopathy in the Christian Tradition: Promises and Challenges

—Elizabeth Agnew Cochran

3. The Social Psychology of Emotions and Religious Intergroup Relations

—Rosemond Lorona, Thomas Fergus, and Wade C. Rowatt

Part II—From Heteropathy to Orthopathy in Multifaith Engagement

4. Evangelicals and Gross Religions: Disgust and Fear in Multifaith Engagement

—John W. Morehead

5. Courage to Engage: Fear, Hope, Despair, and Daring in Courageous Multifaith Engagement

—W. Scott Cleveland

6. Hope as an Affective/Cognitive Tool for Multireligious Understanding

—Terry C. Muck

7. Emotion, Valuation, Compassion, and Empathy: Engaging Cognitive Science and Theology on Willing Rightly on Account of the Other

—Michael L. Spezio

8. Loving Our Religious Neighbors: Reflections on Scripture and Twenty-Five Years of Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue

—Craig L. Blomberg

Part III—Avenues of Orthopathic Multifaith Engagement

9. The Love of Christ Compels Us: Orthopathy, Evangelism, and Mission in Multifaith Environments

—Karen L. H. Shaw

10. Emotional Evangelism, Affective Apologetics

—Adam C. Pelser

11. Hospitality and Religious Others: An Orthopathic Perspective

—Amos Yong

Afterword: What’s Next?

—Paul Louis Metzger

Appendix: Questions for Reflection and Discussion

Scripture Index

In one instance, someone posted a meme in the comments section of Facebook in response to the Same God film that tells the story of Layricia Hawkins and her conflict with Wheaton College over her actions on social media in relation to embodied solidarity with Muslims. A respondent, likely a conservative evangelical, posted a meme that argues for understanding Islam as a “devil worshipping death cult” that arose out of the deity Allah whose origins allegedly come from an “arabian Moon God, also known as Baal, Hubal, and Molech.” I responded that this approach might not be the best in trying to persuade Muslims to consider a Christian perspective about Islam. What I didn’t go into in my comments was the highly problematic way of understanding Islam that this meme represents. And it’s found not just in memes. This argument has been made by an evangelical apologetics book. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for evangelicals to analyze other religions in a very superficial way, taking complex and diverse groups and boiling them down to simple (simplistic?) doctrines that can be refuted by way of a comparative template.

But it’s not just Christians who can fall prey to superficial religious understandings. In another example, a Muslim dialogue partner recently posted an article on Facebook that he endorsed. It emphasized understanding the “essence of Christianity” as a set of principles free from “theology and doctrines.” This includes things like Jesus’s teachings about the importance of the Great Commandments, and the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. While I appreciate and embrace these teachings, I replied in the comments section that it is inappropriate to separate the teachings and ethics of Jesus from the historical, narrative, and religious context of his time. I also pointed out that this “essence of Christianity” says nothing about the Gospel of the Kingdom that was at the center of his proclamation. I think I know why my Muslim friends finds this understanding of Christianity so agreeable: it results in a Christianity more in keeping with Islam’s understanding of it, and Jesus not as Son of God who dies and rises again, but instead as a prophet preaching a universal message of obedience to God with Muhammed as the final and greatest prophet with a similar message.

The problem with both of these examples is an approach to other religions not on their own terms with their complexity, diversity, and messiness. But instead, by way of a simplified “essence” that makes a given religion either an easy target to be dismissed, or in keeping with one’s own religous assumptions as the superior religion. These examples illustrate the importance of a proper understanding of religions based on careful study. To help with this for Christians I recommend Terry Muck’s book Why Study Religion: Understanding Humanity’s Pursuit of the Divine (Baker Academic, 2016). We desperately need care in our study of religion because it is vitally important for our conversations in a divided world.

I’ve come across a few items over the last few weeks related to religious freedom that I’d like to pass on. First, New Wine, New Wineskins at Multnomah is putting on a religious freedom conference that looks really intriguing, not only because it takes the stance I stated above, but also because the conference involves speakers from a variety of religious perspectives, and Humanist ones as well. Here’s the conference information:

Spring Conference: Religious Liberty - For All - Saturday, March 14, Multnomah University

What does religious liberty for all mean in our increasingly pluralistic society? We explore this and more at our upcoming conference.

Our keynote speaker is Leith Anderson, President Emeritus, National Association of Evangelicals.

We are pleased to announce the following plenary panelists and workshop leaders:
Kevin W. Pearson, Elder, a General Authority Seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Tim Furlow, Reverend/Administrator, St. Patrick Catholic Church, Representative of the Archdiocese of Portland.
Andrea Gyokuko Carlson, Abbot Emeritus, Dharma Rain Zen Center, Portland.
Genko Sylvan Rainwater, Ordained Priest, Dharma Rain Zen Center, Portland.
Harris Zafar, National Spokesperson for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, USA.
Robert Sanford, Member, Humanists of Greater Portland.
Stephen Kral, Member, Humanists of Greater Portland.
Annika Mongan, Leader and writer in the Pagan community, Greater Portland area.
Joseph Zichterman, Instructor, Bible and Theology, Multnomah University, Portland.
Paul Louis Metzger, Director, The Institute for Cultural Engagement: New Wine, New Wineskins, Multnomah University, Portland.

The question of religious liberty is a contentious one in our current culture. Often discussions of religious liberty have the connotation of applying to one religious group, but not others. What would religious liberty for all look like in our pluralistic society?

Our conference hopes to:

1. Explore and consider the historical backdrop of our country’s formation and present-day complexities surrounding advocating for distinctively Christian freedom in an increasingly pluralistic society.

2. Provide a sound biblical and constitutional basis for understanding the proper relation of church and state.

3. Highlight the missional importance of promoting not only Christians’ freedoms, but everyone’s religious freedoms—including freedom from religion for those who desire it in America today.

4. Help all gathered to consider the prospects and problems in our day associated with the “naked public square.”

5. Address these complex ideas in relation to concrete cultural issues facing Christians and our society at large.

Then there are a couple of books I picked up that relate to religious freedom. But what makes them interesting to me is that they are not written by Christians. They are written by non-Christians, and they discuss the increasing work of minority religious traditions to asert their rights for freedoms in the public square as they challenge Christian dominance. These volumes are worth reading for thinking Christians:

Our Non-Christian Nation: How Atheists, Satanists, Pagans, and Others Are Demanding Their Rightful Place in Public Life by Jay Wexler (Redwood Press, 2019).

Less and less Christian demographically, America is now home to an ever-larger number of people who say they identify with no religion at all. These non-Christians have increasingly been demanding their full participation in public life, bringing their arguments all the way to the Supreme Court. The law is on their side, but that doesn't mean that their attempts are not met with suspicion or outright hostility. In Our Non-Christian Nation, Jay Wexler travels the country to engage the non-Christians who have called on us to maintain our ideals of inclusivity and diversity. With his characteristic sympathy and humor, he introduces us to the Summum and their Seven Aphorisms, a Wiccan priestess who would deck her City Hall with a pagan holiday wreath, and other determined champions of free religious expression. As Wexler reminds us, anyone who cares about pluralism, equality, and fairness should support a public square filled with a variety of religious and nonreligious voices. The stakes are nothing short of long-term social peace.

Speak of the Devil: How the Satanic Temple is Changing The Way We Talk About Religion by Joseph P. Laycock (Oxford University Press, 2020).

In 2013, when the state of Oklahoma erected a statue of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state capitol, a group calling themselves The Satanic Temple applied to erect a statue of Baphomet alongside the Judeo-Christian tablets. Since that time, The Satanic Temple has become a regular voice in national conversations about religious freedom, disestablishment, and government overreach. In addition to petitioning for Baphomet to appear alongside another monument of the Ten Commandments in Arkansas, the group has launched campaigns to include Satanic "nativity scenes" on government property in Florida, Michigan, and Indiana, offer Satanic prayers at a high school football game in Seattle, and create "After School Satan" programs in elementary schools that host Christian extracurricular programs. Since their 2012 founding, The Satanic Temple has established 19 chapters and now claims 100,000 supporters. Is this just a political group perpetuating a series of stunts? Or is it a sincere religious movement?

Speak of the Devil is the first book-length study of The Satanic Temple. Joseph Laycock, a scholar of new religious movements, contends that the emergence of "political Satanism" marks a significant moment in American religious history that will have a lasting impact on how Americans frame debates about religious freedom. Though the group gained attention for its strategic deployment of outrage, it claims to have developed beyond politics into a genuine religious movement. Equal parts history and ethnography, Speak of the Devil is Laycock's attempt to take seriously The Satanic Temple's work to redefine religion, the nature of pluralism and religious tolerance, and what "religious freedom" means in America.

If you have an interest in reflecting critically on religious freedom that accounts for the perspectives of those minority religions that Christians strongly disagree with, and maybe even consider revolting, this conference and these books will serve you well.