Three elements are foundational to evangelical perspective and praxis in a pluralistic society. Followers of Jesus are dependent on revelation; they live under authority and they live by faith.

1). In the first place, human sinfulness is pervasive; everything has been affected by it. No one is exempt from the blindness and the bondage occasioned by sin's entry into the world (Rom.3:9-18; 11:32).[i] Revelation from outside the human situation is necessary to restore sight and bring freedom. The coming of Jesus, the living Word into human history is the center of the Creator's self-revelation that brings this restoration and liberation. His story, revealed from Genesis to Revelation in the Bible, is the foundation for knowing and doing God's will in every context, including a pluralistic society.   

2). Secondly, evangelicals live under authority. My life is not my own; Jesus is Lord. Through his Word (the Bible), his Body (the Church) and his Spirit (in me and in the Church), I experience his authority in my personal and corporate life. One common characteristic of evangelical reflections is their frequent citation of Bible texts. This paper will be no exception, for even a praxis-oriented reflection must answer the fundamental question: by what authority are you doing these things?

3). Thirdly, evangelicals live by faith in the biblical vision of 'the world to come' (Heb.2:5)—the Kingdom of God in which Jesus is already enthroned as Lord and King. At the same time they recognize the power exerted on each believer by 'this world' (John 8:23). I was born into 'this world' in a physical body through my parents. Within this world, I grew up in a limited enclosure defined by my twentieth century, Anglo-American culture. In this socio-cultural enclosure I was enculturated into a particular (and limited): worldview, system of values, and system of behavior and communication. When I committed my life to Jesus as an eight-year-old child, I was born, by the Spirit of God, into 'the world to come'. The life of 'the world to come' is already in me, and part of my daily life. Until Jesus returns, both of these worlds will have a strong influence on me, but living by faith means choosing to accept 'the world to come' as the pre-eminent influence in my life.

When the apostle John had a vision of ‘the world to come', he saw, among other things, a pluralistic, urban environment that was multi-ethnic and multi-lingual (Rev.7:9-10).[ii] In this city John saw a gathering place not just for individuals but for peoples (Rev.21:3)—with a place for the glory and honor of every ethnic group (Rev.21:26). God created ethnic diversity for his glory (Ps.86:9). Those who believe in Jesus have already come to this city (Heb.12:22).

Paul called this coming ‘together’ of the nations [Gr. ethne] in ‘the same Body’, ‘the mystery of Christ’ (Eph.3:4-6; 1:9-10 JB). He saw this multi-ethnic gathering (‘church’) [Gr. ekklesia]  as the fulfillment of God's ‘eternal purpose’, making known the wisdom of God ‘in all its different forms’ [Gr. polupoikolos] (Eph.3:10-11 GNB). He spoke of this mystery as humanity's destiny since ‘before time began’ (1 Cor.2:7)—an inheritance for all ethnic groups, something that had been hidden from them until the revelation of the Gospel (Eph.3:4-6; 8-9; Rom.16:25-26).[iii]

The New Testament vision of God's mysterious plan being fulfilled in a multi-ethnic city in the 'world to come' is essential to understanding the relationships of witness and dialogue in 'this world'. Working from this vision, Paul saw his role in the fulfillment of God's eternal purposes for humanity in terms of two activities:

1). preaching the unsearchable riches of Christ to all ethnic groups (Eph.3:8);

2). making all people see [Gr. photizo] the ‘administration [Gr. oikonomia] of the mystery’ (Eph.3:8-9)—the coming together of diverse ethnic groups in one Body as fellow heirs (Eph.3:6).

The former activity centers on witness, the latter is essentially served by dialogue.

Webster's New Revised Dictionary defines a 'witness' as someone ‘who has personally seen, heard or experienced something’, and the 'witness' he gives is the testimony ‘that serves as proof or evidence’ to substantiate that which was heard, seen, or experienced.

Christian witness began with what the apostles personally saw, heard and experienced of ‘everything Jesus did’ (Acts 10:39), his resurrection, his ascension, and his sending the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:32-33). Christian witness is more than information about personal religious experience in one cultural setting; it concerns evidence of how the Life of 'the world to come' has entered 'this world' (1 John 1:1-2).

Jesus commissioned his apostles to be witnesses of this good news throughout the whole world (Acts 1:8)—in partnership with the Holy Spirit (John 15:26-27)—to every ethnic group [Gr. panta ta ethne] (Mat.28:19). They were to teach their disciples to do the same. As their disciples we are under the same orders. Jesus even said that the end of 'this world' would not come until every ethnic group [ethne] had heard this testimony (Mat.24:14). Why? Because human witness to this New Life is an essential part in the process by which people are born as children of God into 'the world to come' (John 1:7,12; Rom.10:13-14).

I have a friend in Amsterdam who comes from Turkey. He grew up in a Muslim family and was for a time a member of a dervish order. He came to Amsterdam alone to find work to support his family. Through gambling he lost large sums of money. Ashamed before God and his family he went to the city center to throw himself into one of the canals. Passing by one building, he heard singing and walked into a Christian meeting. He says he smelled the presence of God there, something he'd experienced once before on a hillside in Turkey. After the meeting two people spoke to him briefly. When he left he no longer wanted to take his own life.

A week later he received a short visit from the two people he had met at the meeting. They offered him a Turkish Incil (New Testament). He took it just to be polite, but he began to read it. A year later, after reading the whole Incil twice, he was ‘convinced that Jesus was God (his words). Then Jesus appeared to him and said, ‘Follow me!’

For several years there was strong resistance from his family and his community to his vocal commitment to follow Jesus. Though he never left his Turkish community, he came under incredible pressure to renounce his faith in Jesus. There were several attempts on his life. Once he experienced being protected by an angel. He went blind and was subsequently healed, an incident in which I was personally involved.

My friend has been born into the Life of 'the world to come'. The evidence he responded to came from people of another ethnic group, from that of the apostles (the New Testament in his own language), from the risen Jesus in person, and from the Holy Spirit working in his own heart. Human witness has played a key role in this process. But it is the powerful evidence he himself has experienced that has kept him faithful to his confession, while he remains a part of his Turkish (Muslim) family and community. For over ten years now, this man has been himself a witness that the Life of 'the world to come' in Jesus is not only for Europeans. 

When human beings give their witness about Jesus (together with the Holy Spirit) much more is involved than mere communication of informational evidence. Their witness is connected to divine power (Acts 1:8)—power to awaken faith in people so they can be set free from bondages related to human sinfulness (Acts 14:8-10). In my friend's life this involved liberation from a suicidal inclination, gambling and physical blindness. However, there was another bondage in his life, an enslavement to powers that Paul called the ‘stoikeia’ (Gal.4:3,9).

Paul likens these powers to the guardians and trustees who care for an heir before he comes of age (Gal.4:1-2). And he connects these stoikeia to the Mosaic Law—the 'guardian' over his own ethnic group: ‘we were in slavery under the stoikeia...under law’ (Gal.4:3,5), also ‘the law was put in charge until Christ came, so we...’ (Gal.3:24). Then he connects the stoikeia to god-like beings over other non-Jewish ethnic groups: ‘Once you... were enslaved to "gods"...to the stoikeia’ (Gal.4:8-9 JB). Finally, he connects the stoicheia with human traditions that try to deprive believers of their inheritance in Christ and draw them back into slavery (Gal.4:9-10; Col.2:8,20ff).

Leslie Newbigin speaks of the stoikeia in terms of ‘norms, roles, and structures’, an ‘ordered structure of power’: designed by God ‘to guide and protect human life’ through ‘law, custom, and tradition’, but which can be ‘absolutized’ and ‘used for tyranny’ (Newbigin,1989: 205-6). Hendrik Berkhof identifies the stoikeia with ‘religio-social structures’ (also in the modern world): of ‘the clan or tribe among primitive peoples or of the respect for ancestors and the family which for centuries gave form and content to Chinese life’ (Berkhof,1977:34). Both Newbigin and Berkhof understand Paul's use of the Greek word stoikeia to be connected to his use of the Greek words arkee and exousia (power and authority, Col.2:8-10,15,20) (Newbigin, 1989: 203; Berkhof, 1977: 20).

It is not within the scope of this paper to develop a theology of guardian powers over ethnic groups. However, it is noteworthy that Paul saw human witness (in partnership with the Holy Spirit) playing an important role in believers receiving the Spirit (Gal.3:2). In Paul's mind receiving the Spirit related directly to people of all ethnic groups becoming ‘heirs of God’ as ‘Father’, and being set free from slavery to the stoikeia (Gal.4:6-7; Eph 2:18; 3:6). However, Paul's primary concern with the ‘stoikeia’ was the effect these guardian powers had on believers (see Med.#28, #30, #31 & #4).

Paul was most concerned about the continuing power of the stoikeia over Jewish believers involved in intercultural witness that caused them to mix their own cultural traditions with the Gospel (Col.2:8-23). In fact, some of the strongest language found in the New Testament is used by Paul to condemn such believers (Gal.1:7-8; 5:12). These were people who supposedly had already entered into the Life of 'the world to come'! He even rebuked Peter publicly for allowing himself to come under such influence (Gal.2:14). And Peter himself knew better.

For at least three years after Jesus gave the Great Commission, up until the death of Stephen, the Jewish believers remained reluctant to witness to people outside their own ethnic group (Acts 11:19; 10:19-20). Why? They had grown up in the small Jewish cultural enclosure where they had learned to regard people of other ethnic groups as ‘inferior’ (Acts 10:28b LB). And if perchance witness might occur, it had better take place according to Jewish customs, which meant not in the home of a non-Jew (Acts 10:28a; 11:2-3). Apparently, theological training, baptism in the Spirit, and experience in leadership had not been enough to free Peter and the other apostles from such an ingrained attitude (see Med.#46).

Anthropologists call this attitude 'ethno-centrism'. Ethno-centrism is to ethnic groups what ego-centrism is to individuals. It involves the assumption that other cultures must surely see the world the same way 'we' do. But this attitude goes beyond mere perception or 'worldview'. Ethnocentric attitudes, usually unconscious, are connected to deep emotional feelings. For this reason, it took a special revelation repeated three times before Peter could say, ‘I now realize ...that God does not show favoritism’ between ethnic groups (Acts 10:34-35).

Two summers ago, several Christian organizations joined together for an evangelistic campaign. Their plan was to bring Christians together to bear witness to the Gospel among Muslims living in Amsterdam. They planned to set up literature stands in various market places, hold children's clubs in various neighborhoods, and run a drop-in center or coffee bar. They wrote a letter to all the churches in the city inviting them to be a part of this effort.

One denominational church group considered this outreach so offensive that they wrote a letter in response. It was not addressed to the Christian organization running the outreach, but rather to every mosque in the city, to make it clear that they were against this witnessing effort and had had nothing to do with it. Although several ministers in this denomination objected to this action, they were overruled. In terms of initial visible results, the outreach led to some interesting discussions, the distribution of some tapes and tracts, an ongoing children's club, and several individual 'enquirers' attending follow-up gatherings.

But why was it that certain church leaders were reluctant to take part in this witness? If they were concerned with the nature of the outreach, why didn't they try to correct their Christian brothers and sisters instead of writing to the mosques?

I suspect that at least some of the church leaders, like Peter, may still be bound by the stoikeia of their own cultural traditions. They grew up in a small western cultural enclosure (be it that of Netherlands or Western Europe) where they learned to see a sharp distinction between what Newbigin calls the world of ‘facts’ and the world of ‘values’. For western Europeans, religion ‘is not perceived as concerned with facts...which finally govern the world—which we shall in the end have to acknowledge whether we like them or not.’ Rather for them, the Gospel belongs to the world of values related to private matters for personal (individual) choice (Newbigin,1989: 7). The Dutch saying: Iedereen heft zijn eigen geloof (Each one has his own religious belief’) not only associates religion with private values, but it illustrates how the individual, not the family or ethnic group, is perceived to be the central unit of society in modern western world-views. Also, religious groupings, not ethnic groupings are in focus because they represent great idea systems and voluntary associations of individual adherents.

Western Europeans have become accustomed to centuries of dominance in the world (currently through commerce, education and technology). Thus, they either assume people of non-western cultures use the same categories that they do (e.g. separating 'facts' from 'values' and dividing humanity into religious groupings), or they are inclined to believe that the Western approach is the most advanced and therefore superior.

On the other hand, some of the church leaders may have been concerned about the ethnocentric approach of the outreach—and not without reason. The organizers, in focusing on ‘Muslims’, demonstrated their own bondage to the same Western divisions of people into religious groupings. And these were evangelicals with strong Pauline theology who claim to be motivated by the Great Commission. Paul, however, was called to preach to the nations, not to some collective, generalized group of Idolaters (Eph.3:8; Acts.9:15; 22:21; 26:17-18). And the focus of the Great Commission reported in Matthew 28:19 is on ethnic groupings (Gr. ethne), not on religious groupings. An outreach focused on Muslims 'en masse' not only reflects subjugation to the power (stoikeia) of a Western worldview, but also suggests a captivity to the spiritual wickedness (Gr. poneeria pnumatikos, Eph.6:12) of our past: such as when European Christian civilization used Crusades to subordinate Arab Islamic civilization by force. No witness can take place in a historical vacuum.

The ethnocentrism of the outreach organizers was apparent not only from their focus, but from their witnessing strategy—an approach to individuals of different age groups. For them salvation is primarily an individual affair. But in Moroccan and Turkish societies (the largest of the Muslim ethnic groups living in Amsterdam), the family is the basic unit of society, not the individual; and religion is connected to family or group honor, not to independent individual choices. My Turkish friend was once warned by his Moroccan neighbor to watch out for Christians because they come around door-to-door trying to convert ‘our children and our wives when we aren't home’. My friend's neighbor perceived Christianity as a threat to his family.

Western communication styles were also dominant in the outreach. A Bible study or discussion is a concept-oriented style of communicating truth that is preferred among western ethnic groups. This differs from the preferred style of receiving truth in the more experience-oriented cultures of the Turkish and Moroccan people I know. The people I have met in these groups are much more impressed by hospitality, prayer, poetry, healings, visions and dreams. In these experience-oriented styles of communication, non-verbal symbol systems—e.g. gestures, pictures, colors, numbers, touch, sound, time, space and smell—are very important.

This was brought home to me when I went with a colleague to a Christian coffee house to talk with some Moroccan men who had been coming there. The coffee house was filled with cigarette smoke, and many of the tables were occupied by an odd assortment of Western street people. The Moroccans appeared to not take discussions in this place very seriously. When some of them came with us the following week to our prayer house for a showing of the video 'Jesus' in Tamazight (the Rif Berber language), several of them went back immediately to the washroom to wash their hands, feet, faces, etc., before they sat down quietly to watch the film. Why? They had noticed the place for shoes by the door, the decorative texts on the walls (in Arabic, Dutch and English), the cream and red colors, and the separate carpeted area for prayer. These non-verbal symbols communicated to them a seriousness about spiritual things that had been lacking at the Western-style coffee house.

Webster's New Revised Dictionary defines 'dialogue' simply as: ‘conversation between two or more persons’. Implied in this definition is the need for the two persons involved to listen to each other. Dialogue has more recently been used to denote a 'conversation' between the representatives of two or more religious groups of people. True dialogue—a two-way conversation—is foundational for building reciprocal human relationships. It can communicate mutual acceptance, good will and respect. Through dialogue, both participants can: gain understanding, ensure accurate feedback and develop mutual trust—all of which are usually in short supply between groups living in a pluralistic society.

Speaking and writing, however, are only two of more than a dozen symbol systems people use in conversation. Two parties code their messages by combining many symbols, such as words, touch, gestures, space, time, etc. The greater the number of symbols used, the richer the dialogue. Each ethno-linguistic group develops a system of symbols to communicate shared meanings, and it enculturates its members into the use of those particular symbols. Each group also has preferred styles of conversation for specific encounters. Consequently, dialogue between different ethno-linguistic groups involves much more than simple verbal or written translation of ideas and words.

Ray Register suggests that ‘Christian dialogue has as its ideal the Incarnation of God in Christ Jesus of Nazareth’ (Register, 1980: vii). For example, Jesus entered the world of first century Galilean Jews; he learned their symbol systems and shared their life with them. His witness among them was founded on relationships built through dialogue. Luke gives us a poignant picture of Jesus at the age of twelve—sitting with religious teachers, listening to them, asking them questions and answering their questions (Luke 2:46-47). Are we prepared to sit with religious teachers of another ethnic group? Are we prepared to listen to them and ask them questions?

I once went with two male colleagues to visit a prayer service at one of the mosques that serves the people of our neighborhood. Our host was a friend of one of my colleagues—a young man who regularly attended that mosque. After the prayer service he introduced us to the imam. We introduced ourselves and our Christian organization. We drank tea together and asked him some questions. He invited us to come back any time to ask questions. We did go back on another occasion, but our appointment with the imam was pre-empted by some of his own people suddenly needing his attention. The religious leader who did meet with us was a totally different character. Much older than the imam, he seemed particularly conscious of his age and status as he tried, surrounded by about six other men, to convince us of the superiority of Islam and the unreliability of the Bible. This dialogue did not build trust. I wondered how often Christians come across the same way using education, age, etc. to convince others—while playing to their own 'galleries'.        

Jesus told his followers that he was sending them into the world ‘in the same way’ that he had been sent (John 20:21). Dialogue is an essential foundation for obeying Jesus' command to bear witness to people of every ethnic group, even if such dialogues are sometimes disappointing. We are to follow his example in accepting people of other cultures, learning and respecting their ways in order to build relationships with them. Through dialogue we build trust and learn how to translate our witness as much as possible, so that it speaks directly into their worldview, their values, their behavior—within their communication systems. The apostle Paul called this ‘becoming all things to all people...for the sake of the gospel’ (1 Cor.9:22-23).

But building relationships through dialogue has even greater significance and deeper value than mere preparation for witness. Relationships between different ethno-linguistic groups are essential to God's goal for humanity. With eyes of faith, Paul saw the ‘mystery of God's purpose’ (Eph.1:9) revealed in one multi-ethnic ‘Body’ (Eph.3:6) where all are ‘heirs-together’, and where all together—in God's ‘assembly’ (Gr. ekklesia)[iv] of ‘fellow-citizens’—make known the ‘many and varied (Gr. polupoikolos) wisdom of God’ (3:10-11; 2:19). The worldview, values, behavior and communication system of any one ethno-linguistic group, even when brought under the Lordship of Jesus, is incapable of reflecting by itself the fullness of God's wisdom and glory. Only the inter-relationships of people from every family and ethno-linguistic group who have been born into 'the world to come'—worshipping together around the Throne—can reflect the full wisdom and glory of God.

My wife and I have had the privilege of becoming friends with several Moroccan families. We are not ashamed to witness to them about Jesus, but it has taken several years of friendship before they began to understand any of our attempts to witness. I see our dialogues over the years, our two-way conversations, as part of building an eternal friendship with them by faith—faith that the Holy Spirit will reveal Jesus to them with the same liberating power that we have known, but in terms of their culture and language so that they and their people can bring their glory and honor to Jesus. We look forward to the day when we can fully share with them as co-heirs in the Father’s kingdom.[a]

Dialogue and friendship with them has already enriched us spiritually in several ways. Through observing the prayer forms of their (Muslim) culture, we have re-discovered the importance of the position of prostration, as reflected in the worship the apostle John saw taking place around God's Throne in heaven (Rev.4:10; 5:8,14). And through considering their objection to Jesus' atoning death on the cross, I received some new light on the nature of sin and redemption. According to them, God doesn't need someone to die for our sins; he is so great he just forgives us. This left me with the question: Do Moroccans consider no sin worthy of death? When I pursued the subject through observation and further questions, I discovered that for Moroccans, sins that bring great dishonor to the family are indeed punishable by death—or at least by expulsion from the family. I asked a Moroccan acquaintance what would happen if a son became so angry with his father that in front of his father’s friends he struck him in the face. He replied, ‘The son could be killed, though he would more likely be sent away to preserve the honor of the father's (family) name.’ Could the father forgive his son and bring him back? ‘He could’ was the response, ‘but he would have to love him a lot; because with the return of the son, the shame would fall back on the father.’ Could the family name ever be cleared? ‘The father would have to die,’ he replied. In Moroccan and other Arabic cultures, the eldest son has the same responsibility for the family name as the father.[b]

Since this dialogue I have begun to see new things in the Bible concerning Jesus as our ‘eldest brother’ (Rom.8:29, Med.#5; Heb.2:10-11, Med.#7) and ‘kinsman-redeemer’ [Heb. goël] (Job 19:25; Is.63:16; see Med.#E & Med.#20). And I have a new appreciation for the first line of the Lord's prayer, 'Our Father, may your name be held holy' (Matt. 6:9, Med.#13).

Not long ago an association of churches sponsored what was billed as 'a dialogue' between Christianity, Islam and Judaism. I attended this meeting, which was held in a church building in Amsterdam. Almost all of the 200 people present were Dutch, including all three men representing Christianity, Islam and Judaism. While the vast majority of Muslims in Amsterdam (+80,000) have come from Morocco, Turkey and Suriname (the latter originally from South Asia), only 5 or 6 men from these ethnic groups were present at 'the dialogue'. Except for a concluding prayer in Arabic spoken by the Dutchman representing Islam, the whole meeting was conducted in Dutch.

The Jewish and Muslim spokesmen did an admirable job representing their religions. However, the man chosen to represent the Christian viewpoint appeared to spend his time representing not Christianity but the idea of religious dialogue itself. He ended not with a Christian prayer, but a prayer drawn from the ancient Mayan religion. If the goal of dialogue is to build reciprocal relationships and to promote mutual respect and understanding between people groups living in Amsterdam, then this goal was not served by this gathering of Dutch people talking to each other in the Dutch language.

As in the case of the summer outreach, so in this 'dialogue': the western European (Dutch) worldview dominated the proceedings. For the organizers of this 'dialogue', there was room for pluralism in the realm of religious concept and affiliation. But in the area of language and in the style of communication there was not. How many Moroccans, Turks, and Surinamese would have felt comfortable with the time-oriented format, the cold church building, the dichotomist-style of discussion, and the possible shame of making comprehension or speaking errors using a second language—especially on such an important subject as religious belief?

Ethnocentrism leads people to assume that everyone approaches a shared situation or event in the same way. It also leads people to initiate encounters on their own 'turf'—using places, values and symbols they consider 'normal'. I wonder if the organizers of the meeting were even aware of the degree to which their Dutch values dominated the event. They may have had the attitude: the Dutch way of doing things is a social 'fact' in Amsterdam—something to which immigrant groups simply need to adjust. While this perspective has some validity on the level of 'this world', it is too narrow a view for Christian leaders who have access to a larger vision. Their primary citizenship is no longer in the ethnic group they grew up in, but in 'the New Jerusalem of ‘the world to come' (Phil.3:20). And the remainder of their lives in 'this world' should no longer be limited to relationships with people of their own ethnic group. The goal of true pluralism can best be served by a practical exercise: of faith in the present reality of 'the world to come'. And this means assuring that all ethno-linguistic groups involved in such a gathering have opportunity to genuinely listen to each other

When I began writing this paper, Amsterdam was just recovering from the worst air disaster here in the Netherlands. Some forty-five people were killed when a cargo jet plane crashed into a high rise building in a multi-ethnic neighborhood. Those who died included: Dutch, Ghanaians, Israelis, Surinamese and Pakistanis. Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews and many others without religious affiliation were all affected.

The week following the disaster, a multi-ethnic memorial service was organized that was attended by thousands, as well as being viewed by hundreds of thousands more on television. People of all the above mentioned ethnic groups and religious affiliation sat side by side, mourning together. There was no obvious dominant culture. In addition to speeches by various political figures, there were musical and poetic presentations by groups and individuals representing the different ethnic groups affected: people from Surinam and Ghana singing Christian hymns, a Moroccan imam chanting from the Koran, a group of Pakistani Muslims chanting in Arabic and Urdu, an Israeli chanting Psalm 23 in Hebrew, a Surinamese woman singing a Hindu song of grief. I had the impression that more was accomplished at that event in terms of listening to one another than in a dozen organized, concept-oriented 'dialogues'. Why? Because each ethno-linguistic group was given the opportunity to choose its own way of expressing grief, while people of other ethno-linguistic groups sat together and listened.

An ancient Javanese proverb reflects the biblical truth that ethnic identity and traditions go deeper than religious ones: ‘Religion comes in from the sea but tradition comes down from the mountains’ (Willis,1976: 39). My Moroccan Muslim friends not only experience tensions with their Dutch Christian neighbors, but also with their Turkish and Surinamese neighbors. Religious 'dialogue' between Dutch adherents to Islam, Judaism and Christianity is of little interest to them. The walls and tensions between groups living in this city are primarily ethnic in nature and not religious. In Newbigin's view, western Europeans are all for pluralism in the world of values, but not in the world of facts (Newbigin 1989: 7). Is this perhaps why the some of the same Europeans who accept diversity of religious denominations within their respective indigenous ethnic groups often vote for right-wing political parities that want to expel foreigners?

When viewed from a 'praxis' point of view, perhaps even the emphasis of this volume on 'religious pluralism' needs to be re-examined. To what degree is this emphasis itself the product of European ethnocentrism? The modern world has been dominated for the past three centuries by European colonialism and rationalism. Perhaps it is time we considered this emphasis on religious groups as another form of European ethnocentrism that brings distortion into certain pluralistic attempts at both 'witness' and 'dialogue'

We certainly need a fresh look at the biblical perspective. God's future involves primarily ethno-linguistic pluralism. The elemental powers [Gr. stoikeia] connected to ethnocentrism are not automatically dealt with at conversion. Peter’s experience in Caesarea (Acts 10 & 11) demonstrates that theological education is not enough in itself to overcome these powers. Neither is a ‘Pentecostal’ experience of baptism in the Spirit, nor years of service in church leadership. Whether we are of an evangelical or ecumenical persuasion, we all need revelation in order to do the Father's will—to be true ambassadors of the urban 'world to come' that has already entered into 'this world'.

[i] Unless otherwise indicated all citations are from the New International Version (NIV)

[ii] Throughout this paper the variations on the Greek word ethne are taken to refer to ethnic groups. Normally the word ethne is translated in a variety of ways in the NIV and other translations: as ‘Gentiles’, 'pagans', 'non-Jews', ‘nations’, or ‘peoples’.

[iii] An inheritance for ethnic groups, prepared since the foundation of the world, can be seen also in Jesus' teaching (Mat.25:31-34 RSV). The words ‘He will separate them’ refers to ‘all the nations’ [Gr. panta ta ethne] gathered before the throne of Jesus (vs.31). For this reason the words ‘Receive your inheritance, prepared for you since the foundation of the world’ is being spoken to nations, or ethnic groups, rather than to individuals (vs.34 NIV).

[iv] In Acts 19:32,39,41, the Greek word, ekklesia, is translated as an ‘assembly’ of citizens.

The following footnotes were not in the article as originally published:

[a] Listen to a contemporary audio impression of how multi-ethnic worship in the New Jerusalem might sound (A Taste of Heaven [11:15]).

[b] For more on how Jesus' witness to the Samaritans helped me apply John's vision to my worship and my witness among my Muslim neighbors in Amsterdam: see my article, 'Learning to Share the Good News in a Muslim Context'. Members of this website can also watch a video lecture on this topic ('Biblical Contextualization') on the following page: 'Video teaching by Jim Mellis'.

Berkhof, H., Christ and the Powers, Scottsdale, Penn., Herald Press, 1977.

Dretke, J., A Christian Approach to Muslims: Reflections from West Africa, South Pasadena,  Cal., WCL, 1979.

Klem, H., Oral Communication of the Scripture: Insights from African Oral Art, South Pasadena, Cal., WCL 1982.

Lingenfelter, S. & Meyers, M., Ministering Cross-Culturally: An Incarnational Model for Personal Relationships, Grand Rapids, Mich., Baker, 1986.

Mellis, J., A Christian Approach to Nationalism, (unpublished paper), 1993.

Newbigin, L., The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, Grand Rapids, Mich., Eerdmans, 1989.

Register, R., Dialogue and Interfaith Witness With Muslims, Toronto, Ont., Fellowship of Faith, 1980.

Stafford, T., The Friendship Gap: Reaching Out Across Cultures, Downers Grove, Ill., IVCF, 1984.

Willis, A. T., Indonesian Revival: Why Two Million Came to Christ, South Pasadena, Cal., WCL 1976.