Oct

03

2011

Jesus, Samaritans and the New Spirituality

Attachments:

Jesus, Samaritans and the New Spirituality

[ ]

514 Kb

185 Downloads

“Our challenge is to live and speak so that ‘the unknown god,’ whom some Neo-Pagans are genuinely seeking, is shown to be Jesus.”[1]

Christians who refuse to retreat within the walls of the church as plurality increases are forced to wrestle with how they are to engage in today’s world. A tension is raised: how are we to respond to our calling to be simultaneously missional and constructively engaged with people of other faiths.[2] Jesus, Gentiles and Samaritans (JGS, a course and upcoming book by Bob Robinson) has sought to turn missiological attention to Jesus’ encounters with people’s of other faiths

in order to determine whether an exemplary Christology can help us fulfill our duel calling. The insights from JGS have significant implications for those living in the postmodern-west as the New Spirituality (NS) is increasingly influencing our societies. This essay will first, offer an initial summary of JGS’s general conclusions, second, consider some definitions, third, examine Gospel passages related to Samaritans,[3] attempting to balance a standard exegetical approach (including limited discussion of background issues[4]) with "Theological Interpretation of Scripture" (TIS) and conservative "Reader Response Hermeneutic" (RRH) approaches,[5] and finally, conclude by outlining the implications for mission to adherents of NS (hereafter NSers).[6] Much of the third section will be merged into the second by means of TIS/RRH.

Eventually I will offer a modified version of this essay which will be more suitable for this site. The first section of this essay is a summary of a course I did on Jesus' interactions with Gentiles and Samaritans and may not be as useful, while the last two sections will be more immediately relevant and interesting.

Christian discussion of the interreligious encounter has typically failed to recognize that Jesus engaged in such encounters.[7] His world was not culturally/religiously monolithic; encounters with Gentiles/Samaritans would have been likely (s2p32-40), the Gospels offering examples of these interactions. JGS attempts to fill a void in missiological studies by examining these encounters to discern Jesus’ attitude towards Gentiles and Samaritans and then consider the implications for believers today. Such a Christological approach has notable strengths. Most importantly, Christ was not only for us but also with us, offering a model to emulate. Furthermore, “it is the person of Jesus that, more effectively than any other aspect of Christianity, enables the Christian ‘word’ to be acculturated and understood” (s1p10) as “people cross the membranes between different cultures more effectively than ideas or concepts do.”[8] Also, a Christocentric focus enables “the determining measure of Christian belief to take an appropriately central place in the discussion” (s1p11).

The overall conclusion of JGS is that “the example of Jesus models both an appropriately sympathetic and yet not uncritical appraisal of religion and the religions.” JGS advocates a “transformative model” of engagement founded on Jesus’ example (s1p11). While not receiving Gentile/Samaritan belief uncritically, Jesus demonstrated a willingness to bestow upon them God’s Rule. Moreover, Jesus willingly dialogued with ‘outsiders,’ suggesting monological communication is not the end-all of mission. In sum, Jesus’ ministry included turning ‘outsiders’ into ‘insiders.’ For believers this both reassures us in our faith and challenges us to engage constructively with people of other faiths; we can “affirm a christocentric and missional view of the world … that nonetheless takes honest account of the religions of our neighbours and responds with neighbourly love and Christ-like grace” (s9p316).

Some more specific conclusions raised by the course warrant explicit discussion.[9] First, the course is premised on the validity of exemplary Christology (s9p308-313), a topic which has received little scholarly attention (s1p10). However, Jesus, “in his common life with us, gave believers of all time a genuine model for how to live the Christian life … .”[10] Issler offers a pneumatical perspective, stating Jesus’ “supernaturally orientated life … resulted from his predominant dependence on the divine resources of the Father and of the Holy Spirit … .”[11] A robust imitation Christi requires we appreciate the dependence Jesus exercised, enabling us to see Jesus as our genuine example. Even more pertinent is Burridge’s argument that “ancient biographies held together both words and deeds in portraying their central subject,” suggesting the Evangelists expected readers to pay close attention to Jesus’ example. Moreover, “Jews believed that a teacher’s example was as important as his words”[12] to the extent that “the imitation of the master [was] a way of knowing Torah, and thus become an imitation of God.”[13] For us, imitating Jesus means we are to “emulate his open pastoral acceptance of others, especially those whom some may consider to be ‘sinners’”, viz. ‘outsiders’ such as adherents of different religions.[14]

Damon argues exemplary Christology has been neglected because of a “dichotomy between the conservatives’ emphasis on the death of Christ and the liberals’ emphasis on the life of Christ” and calls for a recovery of the “crucial sense of the unity between Jesus’ life and his death … .”[15] Furthermore, “Christians tend to give greater attention to Jesus’ deity than his full humanity, thus tending toward a functionally docetic Christology.”[16] A valuable correction to this is offered by kenotic Christology which enables us to recognize that Christ was simultaneously fully divine and legitimately human, dependant on the Father and the Spirit. Not only can he truly sympathize with us (He. 4:15), but he is our model of true humanity.[17] Kenoticism “might be one way of preserving a non-triumphalistic traditional understanding of incarnation—and enabling it to be related to genuine inter-religious encounter” (s9p310).

Second, the course rightly recognizes that “it is not sufficient to discover how the person and teaching of Jesus Christ was significant in first century Capernaum, or Jerusalem, but how it is consequential today … .”[18] By recognizing the bible is Scripture for the global Church throughout history, the text can accost us in fresh ways and “produce fresh readings … .”[19] This does not mean we disregard historical-critical exegesis and place the reader over the text; by considering the reader in the interpretative process, the text confronts us in ways a mere historical-critical approach cannot.

Third, on a number of occasions Jesus affirms the faith of Gentiles/Samaritans (s3p67-70; s4p85). Though in some cases it is evident that there is content to this faith[20] in contrast to Smith’s vague, existential element of ‘religion,’[21] this does not mean that Jesus was not impressed by the sincere (yet somewhat erroneous) belief of some he encountered. Moreover, in the cases where faith-content is evident, the people undoubtedly possessed only a limited understand of Jesus’ identity. This means there “is no need for … Christians to be embarrassed by or feel we have to downplay … true discernment and genuine faith that we find ‘among the religions’” (s9p311).

Fourth, Jesus’ example points towards the inclusive nature of God’s reign. Jesus was a member of a people who presumed to be included within God’s coming Rule, yet he demonstrated that already God’s reversing Rule was being extended to include Gentiles/Samaritans (s3p71f; s6p187-189). Therefore, our prejudices and ethnocentrism must be set aside lest we dismiss those God desires to include.

Fifth, it can be puzzling how Jesus’ seemingly exclusive mission to Israel could nonetheless occasionally include Gentiles/Samaritans. The best explanation is a restoration theology: Israel was being reconstituted around her Messiah which would result in Gentiles participating in Israel’s blessings (s3p66). By healing those outside the boundaries of Israel, Jesus effectively extended the definition of Israel (s3p67); these miracles reconstituted “those healed as members of the people of Israel’s God.”[22] Thus the people of God—‘true Israel’—has been extended to include ’outsiders’ who respond to Jesus in faith. Put differently, in Jesus’ inaugurated, vengeance-free eschatology the future extension of the Kingdom to embrace Gentiles was already being experienced (s6p183-190). If Jesus was “already opening up the path for Gentiles to join the reconstituted people of God”[23] then believers today ought willingly extend ourselves to ‘outsiders.’

Definitions.

Samaritanism is a “religion that developed from the Israelite tradition” which “shares with Judaism the beliefs and practices of the Torah.”[24] Scholarship recognizes a gradual separation between Jews and Samaritans “that culminated in the formation of two distinct religious only in the second-first century B.C.E,”[25] Samaritans believing they were the true Israelites. There was significant mutual animosity between Jews and Samaritans. While Samaritanism was not monolithic, core elements of belief included monotheism, reverence for Mt. Gerizim (not Mt. Zion), and the acceptance of only a modified Pentateuch.

There are limited parallels between Samaritanism and NS.[26] Just as Judaism and Samaritanism developed from the same religio-cultural heritage, NS has developed from western-culture and western-Christianity as part of the shift towards post-modernity.[27] Likewise, Christians often see NSers as misguided and deviant yet related to the source. Thus, it is possible to see NSers as the ‘Samaritans’ of our Western-Christian culture.

A definition of NS is also necessary. NS is diverse and elusive, having no set leadership, no unifying doctrines/practices and vague terminology. Yet, some estimate that NSers will eventually outnumber Christians in the west.[28] NS is best defined with a polythetic or ‘family resemblance’ definition which both allow for dissimilarity and unitary characteristics. Thus, NS is an “umbrella term for a wide collection of phenomena.”[29] Unitive components include belief in monism, karma and reincarnation; desire for wholeness; relativism; fascination with occultism and eastern-religions; pursuit of spiritual experience. Further complicating definitions is Spangler’s identification of four levels of NS, enabling us to recognize the NS worldview has impacted many who may not be deliberately pursuing NS.[30] For this reason, this essay will speak of NS in a broad sense. Moreover, it will attempt to consider NS from an emic perspective.[31]

This essay will now offer an exegesis of texts related to Samaritans, considering what ‘fresh meanings’ emerge when read as someone desiring to engage in mission to NSers, mission being broadly defined as faithful witness, sincere dialogue and societal influence.[32]

Compassionate Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37).

A lawyer has put Jesus to the test by publically asking a question pertaining to eternal life. Jesus responds in kind, leading the lawyer to answer his own question from two OT passages which speak of sincerely loving God and neighbors. However, the lawyer raises another challenge, seeking to shrink the scope of responsibility; his desire is to turn people into subspecies, creating a category of “non-neighbor” to which Jews had no responsibility.[33] One cannot read this without asking the penetrating question of whether we, secretly in our hearts, have limited our definitions of ‘neighbor’ or have been tempted to see NSers as non-neighbors.

Jesus employs a parable to expound Le. 19:18, failing to disclose the identity of the attacked man (v30).[34] It is not incidental that the condition of the man is specific: as one’s ethnicity could be identified by clothing and accent/dialect, his being naked and unconscious (‘half-dead’) meant all that could be known of the man is that he was a human-being.[35] While being tempting to label NSers as deviant, as rebellious or hedonistic idolaters, this reminds us that we must see them, above all, as humans.[36]

The mention of the priest (v31) opens optimistically, “by chance” suggesting help is coming. Yet, he goes out of his way to avoid the man. A Levite then encounters the man (32). His response parallels the priest’s, though nuances in the Greek perhaps suggest he took a closer look, heightening the lack of help.[37] The text gives no motive to explain these characters’ inaction.[38] Both, with significant knowledge of Torah, appear to have evaluated whether this man was a ‘neighbor’ thus obliging them to offer him assistance.[39] As it was apparently unclear whether he was a fellow-Israelite, they left him alone. Additionally, perhaps at stake was the halakhic question of whether they were to prioritize laws related to corpse impurity or loving neighbors.[40]

This road was renowned for its danger, the travelers fearful of an ambush. Ateek notes one reason “for our lack of response is fear” which leads us to prioritize self-preservation over assisting strangers.[41] Avoidance of NSers because of fear of the unknown and even under the guise of avoiding demonic pollution is invalidated by Jesus’ parable.[42]

The lawyer, pondering whether these characters were justified in neglecting neighborly commitments, would expect the next character to be a lay-Israelite.[43] Instead, Jesus’ climatic figure is a Samaritan; “Jesus springs his trap and simply knocks away the implied framework of the discussion … .”[44] It was this despised Samaritan, regarded as almost sub-human, who ironically recognized the man’s humanity.[45] The position taken by the others’ “is simply not part of his moral universe. … For the Samaritan there was only one response … —when he saw the man ‘he was moved with compassion’… .”[46] NSers often react against the perceived sterility of Christianity, seeing it as devoid of ‘feeling.’ Jesus’ parable reflects their emphasis on pathos driven morality; believers ought learn from NSers that genuine faith is not merely orthodox.[47]

Jesus closes by asking, “Which of these three was a neighbor to the man?” (v36). In doing so he turned the lawyer’s question around. The important issue is not identifying who is my neighbor, but what kind of neighbor will I be to anyone.[48] Perhaps a dynamic-equivalent translation in our context would be “the parable of the pot-smoking, dol-bludging pluralistic New-Ager,” and perhaps Jesus would offer such a person as a challenging model for Christians to emulate. These despised people are capable of fulfilling the ‘law,’ while we ‘insiders’ are capable of failing. In fact, NSers often do demonstrate love and are willing to ‘get their hands dirty’ in order to help others. Christians ought openly affirm that there are positive elements within NS, that NSers do often demonstrate such a love that can put us to shame, that sometimes they have done a better job of ‘being Christian’ than we have!

Elsewhere in Luke.

In 9:51-56 Jesus is rejected by a Samaritan village and his disciples respond in kind. Shockingly, Jesus rebukes his disciples.[49] One reason he was rejected is “because they cannot accept his understanding and embodiment of the divine purpose” (cf. Lk. 4:16-30).[50] Similarly, when NSers misunderstand or misappropriate Jesus’ identity or mission we must disallow any desire to “call down fire.”

In 17:11-19, of the ten healed of leprosy, only a Samaritan returned to thank Jesus.[51] This man was doubly an ‘outsider,’ a social outcast on the margins of society. Likewise, NSers often occupy the fringes and are sometimes written off by society (and the church).[52] When paralleled with Jesus’ willingness to enter the Samaritan village (9:51-56) despite the likelihood of rejection, we are reminded that we must never dismiss the NS community.

Importantly, it appears Jesus had no issue with this ‘foreigner’ returning to his own religious leaders to be declared healed.[53] Similarly, we can expect that God wants to bless NSers before they are Christ’s disciples and that ties with their religious community may not be severed after a genuine encounter with God. Moreover, this leper presumably returned to Jesus without first making a pilgrimage to a sanctuary. Here Luke “presents Jesus in the role of the temple” as the ‘location’ of God’s merciful presence and appropriate worship.[54] NSers often struggle with the notion of institutional religion, emphasizing that one can connect with the divine apart from any prescribed formalities.[55] While not wanting buy into an ecclesiological-fallacy which undermines being connected to the Church, we can affirm NSers’ desire to connect directly with the divine. Just as the goal of both Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim was realized in Jesus,[56] so to can we point NSers to Jesus as the fulfillment of their religious pursuits.

The Samaritan Woman (John 4:4-42).

This pericope opens by noting that Jesus “had to” (edei) pass through Samaria. Though this may speak of geographical convenience, a deeper meaning is tacitly present; Jesus is following a divine imperative.[57] Jesus, tired from his journey, sat down by Jacob’s well (v6). Despite the Evangelist’s high Christology, here we are faced with Jesus’ genuine humanity. Paralleling his journey into Samaria, Jesus entire life constituted a missionary journey into a distant land.[58] In becoming human Christ “emptied himself” (Ph. 2:6f); according to kenosis theory, he divested himself of his divine prerogatives.[59] Furthermore, “the experience of Jesus of Nazareth in Galilee [was] colored by prejudice and rejection.”[60] His incarnational missionary journey included being rejected by his own people. Yet, due to his ‘poverty,’ he was able to journey to the despised Samaritans in order to make them ‘rich’ (2 Cor. 8:9). Likewise, we must too be willing to “empty ourselves” so that we will be able to reach NSers,[61] risking being misunderstood and rejected by fellow believers (cf. Jn. 8:48).[62] Also, if Jesus “showcases the possibilities of a human life completely filled by the Spirit,”[63] by the transforming work of the “Spirit of embrace” the community of disciples can together learn to lovingly interact with NSers. Moreover, kenosis implies that it is due to his dependence on the Father that Jesus followed the divine imperative. We too must learn become attuned to the promptings of God so that he will be able to lead us into encounters with NSers who, paralleling the woman, are open.

Jesus initiates a conversation with a Samaritan woman who approaches the well, requesting water to quench his thirst. It is “as though he were oblivious to the boundaries and barriers that alienate and separate” Jews from Samaritans.[64] The entire scenario breaks cultural conventions: a Jew should not speak with a Samaritan let alone consider drinking from their vessel; a male should not speak with a non-kin female; a woman should not draw water at noon suggesting she may be an outcast.[65] Yet Jesus “simply treats with respect this woman whom others marginalize and ostracize.”[66] Likewise, we ought embody a willingness to accept NSers as people made in God’s image, not merely as “evangelistic targets.” Part of this includes a willingness to receive from them, to allow them the dignity of helping us. “By receiving gifts, the missioner leaves the comfortable zone of helping, comforting, and advising and enters an uncertain realm of receiving and incurring obligation.”[67]

For a while they discuss water, Jesus attempting to move the conversation from “material need to an invitation to receive God’s gift.”[68] In fact, when Jesus mentions a perpetual spring welling up to eternal life (v13f), she still thinks he is speaking about natural (perhaps magical) water.[69] Yet, her inability to understand does not frustrate Jesus. Likewise, we must be patient when dialoguing with NSers when they raise tangent questions, argue inconsistently in circles, or totally misunderstand what we are saying.

Jesus changes the subject, asking her to call her husband (v16). This abrupt transition has been diversely explained, though Ridderbos is probably correct in suggesting that “Jesus wanted to lead the woman to the realization that he knew her past and present life and thus … make her more open to the meaning of his words.”[70] Jesus identification of her relational history has often been understood to suggest she led a loose moral life.[71] Though possible, the text does not stress the woman’s sinfulness; her failed relationships may have been due to bereavement or abandonment, and the man who has currently taken her in may be at fault.[72] Nonetheless, her marriage history would have rendered her an outcast. Jesus’ raising the question of marriage need not be read as an attempt to ‘guilt-trip’ her. Rather, he demonstrates he has intimate knowledge of her deepest hurts and failures; the rejected Jesus can sympathize with this woman. Though social factors undoubtedly differ, NSers too often have broken relational histories.[73] Their desire for fullness of life is often pursued in relationships, yet this can become a source of deep hurt. Christians must be careful how we address what we may perceive as a non-traditional, amoral (even hedonistic) view of relationships lest we come across as harsh and judgmental when talking about an area of deep pain. Perhaps a sympathetic ear and the modeling of healthy relationships will be more beneficial than facilitating conviction.[74] Furthermore, mission may include offering ‘inner-healing’ to NSers in order that they may find emotional healing from past events and discover spiritual wholeness.[75] Also, Jesus demonstrated a supernatural knowledge about the woman. NSers, while being allergic to ‘stale religion,’ are attracted to ‘the supernatural.’[76] When talking with NSers it is profitable to be asking God for divine insight which may open them to go deeper.[77]

The woman then raises the heart of the issue: What did Jesus think about the great stumbling block between Jews and Samaritans, namely the appropriate location for worship (v19f)?[78] Jesus answers by pointing to the inaugurated eschatological reality that worship was no longer bound to any location. ““Spirit and truth” refer to the fellowship thus established in its life-creating and life-giving power, as leading to the fullness of God’s gifts … that is no longer mediated by all sorts of provisional and symbolic forms, but by the Spirit of God himself … .”[79] Thus, all true worshippers, regardless of ethnic/cultural background, form a single fellowship. NSers have often reject ‘institutional Christianity,’ holding that true worship need not be associated with particular buildings or professional clergy.[80] Here Jesus’ makes the inclusivist affirmation that true worship is not geographically, culturally or clerically restricted. Yet, he mitigates this with the particularist reminder that “salvation is from the Jews.” We can therefore affirm NSers’ realization that worship is not geographically restricted while gracefully showing they “worship what they do not know” (v22).

Jesus’ dialogue with the woman reaches a climax when she states how her people are awaiting the coming of the Messiah/Taheb. Jesus now discloses his identity. Amazed, she returns to her town, inviting others to encounter this potential Messiah. As a result many fellow Samaritans came to believe in Jesus, confessing him not merely as Messiah, nor as the savior of the Jews/Samaritans, but as Savior of the world (v42). Jesus’ identity is not fully disclosed until the right moment where she is ready to believe. Similarly, Jesus is present yet concealed in elements of NS, such as the tarot. The most mysterious and potent card of the Rider-Waite deck, ‘the Fool,’ “shows Jesus as the divine prince in our realm whom we fail to recognize.”[81] By carefully talking through the tarot, one may eventually be able to reveal that Jesus is the fulfiller of NSers’ spiritual quests. Moreover, by finding such ways of incarnating the gospel in ways NSers can readily receive, when one NSer discovers Jesus’ identity they may be in a better place to share that discovery with their community; like the Samaritan woman, the best evangelist are insiders who discover Truth for themselves.

Implications.

This essay will now outline some additional implications for Christian mission to NSers. Firstly, we must consider what metaphors for mission are conducive with the exemplary Christology we have examined. This is not merely a semantic issue, since the way we talk about something correlates with how we approach it.[82] Sadly, some currently dominant metaphors—mission as a harvest or battle—are not always beneficial in our pluralistic world.[83] One more conducive option is that of giftive mission. Jesus’ interaction with Samaritans and Gentiles reveals that he approached such outsiders as those to whom he wanted to bestow gifts, not as “targets for ministry.” Just as Christ was offered up as a gift of grace, so too should we offer the Gospel as a gift.[84] A related metaphor is mission as hospitality. Jesus proclaimed and inaugurated “the eschatological banquet of God for all those who [were] willing to receive it,”[85] including Gentiles and Samaritans. “To those who were hospitable to receive Jesus, they are now empowered by the … Spirit to walk in the footsteps of his filial obedience … and to bear witness to the redemptive hospitality of God.”[86]

We must also acknowledge that the ‘religious marketplace’ is a dominant metaphor today. Missioners “must recognize the dominance of the marketplace metaphor and use it to our advantage, rather than act as if we can totally rise above it.”[87] By critically accepting this view we can supersede it, competing against alternative religious options while recognizing we hospitably offer a free gift. Rather than assuming we have a religious monopoly, we need to get engaged in the market. In regards to NS, this could include proactive initiatives such as setting up booths at New-Age festivals.

Secondly, the three-fold paradigm has a limited usefulness when considering NS. Yong is probably right to suggest “exclusivism [or particularism], inclusivism, and pluralism exhaust the spectrum of logical possibilities in response to the soteriological question, “Is there only one true religion … .””[88] Nonetheless, perhaps the paradigm has outlived its usefulness. While answering abstract questions related to eschatological salvation, it is less helpful when considering the historical outworking of salvation. Likewise, the paradigm’s root soteriological question “implicitly asks us to answer a question that only God can answer.”[89] Furthermore, prioritizing soteriological questions “provides no traction in today’s world.”[90]

Yong suggests a way for us to stay “within” while not being “of” the paradigm, arguing that a “pneumatological posture opens up Christians to a more flexible “outworking” of “the paradigm” … .”[91] He reveals that certain practices, while being most coherent within the purview of one position, would nonetheless be affirmed by most Christians.[92] For this reason it is hard to avoid being particularistic in some senses and inclusivistic in others; after all, as JGS reveals, Jesus appears to have embodied both inclusivistic and particularist practices. Additionally, the paradigm focuses on soteriological questions from a bounded-set perspective. While being valid for eschatological discussion, in the present a centered-set which allows for growth and discipleship is more helpful. In regards to NS, NSers have often come, personally and culturally, from Christian backgrounds. Unless one employs a ridged, ecclesiocentric bounded-set to define those “saved,” we are forced to recognize that determining whether some NSers are too far from the center to be considered within the invisible Church becomes impossible. We must accept with humility that only God knows who are truly his, heed Jesus’ warning not to judge, and embrace practices coherent to particularism and inclusivism.

Thirdly, as the West is now largely post-Christian we can no longer approach the task of reaching our own people as we once did. Paralleling Singh’s insight, NSers desire the living water but it can no longer be offered in a modernistic, traditional-western-Christian cup. It is unhelpful to treat NSers as deviant westerners who need correction. Rather, we must approach them as we should any different culture: with respect, patience and sincere understanding. Instead of coming “with the objective of debunking, deconstructing, and demonizing their worldview” we ought “approach seekers using incarnational principles of mission … .”[93] In fact, “they are likely to be more open to a radical life-changing encounter with Christ than are many Christians. But they will not be won … by confrontation.”[94]

Fourthly, as “most modern errors are only ancient heresies … the accumulated wisdom and theological expertise of the apostles, church fathers, and reformers are the best means of fighting ancient occultism in its modern forms.”[95] For thousands of years believers have wrestled with how to combat heresy and present Christ into pluralistic settings; we are not alone, but are “surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses” (He. 12:1) who can offer great wisdom. Likewise, the western church must humbly turn to majority-world Christians for assistance as they have been theologizing over pluralism for generations.[96]

Fifthly, the fact that the Gospels offer us an exemplary and not merely hortatory Christology has implications. A fault with much Christian writing on NS is it “rarely offer[s] any practical suggestions about how to … effectively share the Good News” as writers lack “extensive field experience … .”[97] We must deliberately enter the marketplace lest we propose methods which have no traction, or worse, that substitute talking about reaching them for actually doing it. For this reason this essay has prioritized authors who are practitioners, not merely theorists and academics.[98]

Sixthly, effective mission entails approaching NSers in a spirit of engagement.[99] The Samaritan woman found “herself engaged with Jesus in a genuine and extended conversation in which she holds her own quite well.”[100] Likewise, mission to NSers should include coming alongside them in genuine interaction and even incorporate learning from them; dialogue implies a give-and-take relationship rather than a merely monological and confrontational approach.[101] We cannot push their opinions aside as unfairly critical or demonic. Though sometimes true, in many cases sincere seekers are genuinely struggling with perceived faults within Christianity. Unfairly dismissing their questions as evilly motivated or as proof of spiritual bankruptcy is unhelpful and contradicts the example of Christ! Rather, “we have to be big enough to agree with New Agers when they are right.”[102] Sadly, much Christian writing on the subject focuses on negative elements of the movement; by making criticism our sole focus we only solidify their negative opinion of Christians as bigoted, arrogant and confused.[103]

NS has offered various valid critiques and challenges to the church. For example, “Western Christianity has drifted into a humanized spirituality that is divorced from the rest of creation.”[104] NS attempts to “re-sacralize a world that has been de-supernaturalized by modernity.”[105] Though we must resist divinizing creation, NS rightly challenges an escapist Christianity which undermines ecological concern. We must admit our failure and learn to ‘re-enter’ creation and become eco-conscious.[106]

Seventhly, though faithful Christian dialogue can bracket objections, it cannot permanently overlook them. NSers are “engaged in a serious search for God,”[107] yet their fallenness inevitably leads them to simultaneously run from God. We must find ways of challenging them while standing alongside them. Moreover, following Jesus’ example, our witness ought include challenging them by demonstrating that their religious desires are fulfilled in Christ/Christianity.

For example, Christians rightly reject the NS relativistic view of sin. Yet, it is possible to explain sin in ways which are palatable to NSers. Sometimes a change in vocabulary can make a significant difference, such as substituting “soul-sorrow” for “sin.”[108] Alternatively, one can present sin as sub-human behavior which dehumanizes us and others. This quazi-Irenaen perspective which sees sin as the failure to reach our potential can appeal to the NS desire for personal transformation and enlightenment.

Jesus’ example challenges us to help NSers to discover Jesus in their own innate searching after God in order that they may discover the identity of the ‘fool,’ the One they blindly seek after. “Our challenge is to live and speak so that ‘the unknown god,’ whom some Neo-Pagans are genuinely seeking, is shown to be Jesus.”[109]