How Can We Engage In Cross-Worldview Communication?

There is a second assumption the apostle makes: a rigorous religion can be conceived and nurtured in ignorance by the masses. Paul communicated that the Athenians’ yearning for the divine was a positive trait, but their systems of worship were not good enough if their truths were untested. He applauded their search for God. That positive lead-in is commendable as it is self-defeating to trample underfoot everything others hold dear before giving them the message of Christ. My mother used to say, “There is no point cutting off a person’s nose and then giving them a rose to smell.” Cultures carry huge connections to the past. Respect must be given to that, but the driving point in conversations with those of different faiths must always be toward the truth. Like Paul, Christians must gently present the gap between what is believed and what is true.

Notably, while maintaining sensitivity, Paul also capitalized on his listeners’ lack of understanding with regard to their own beliefs. One of the most shocking lessons one learns in countries where culture is interwoven with religion is that living within a certain framework all the time is, in a sense, the surest way to be detached from it. As a Chinese proverb says, “If you want to know what water is, don’t ask the fish.” Most Hindus, for example, know little about Hinduism’s scriptures or its development in dogma. Most Buddhists know little about Buddhism. Religion is much more a culture to most people than it is a carefully thought-through system of truth. Even Islam faces this type of ignorance. And dare I say that most Christians know little about the teachings and history of their own beliefs.

Paul had before him a group of people who were seekers after God, but their understanding of truth was scanty. He met the challenge by wisely alluding to one of their poets; the usage helped him create a legitimate bridge with his hearers. In similar ways, we must direct people so as to open them up within their own assumptions, moving them from what they know and believe to what they don’t know and what they disbelieve. When that happens, the conclusion is inescapable: “What you now believe may be good, but it’s not good enough.” There always has to be a persuasive element, and that comes from their familiarity with some authority and the ability to identify with that.

Importantly, Christianity is not a religion or perspective; it is God’s self-disclosure in Christ. It is built on and built through a relationship. Paul strove ardently to drive this point home. The crowd had gathered to hear what this “babbler” was saying, but his message pointed—as ours must—to the Person and work of Jesus Christ. The ultimate question, then, is not “What is the answer?” It is “Who will answer?” The cry of everyone’s heart is for a Savior, a champion, a personal Redeemer. It was this Redeemer that Paul presented.

At great personal cost, Paul took the gospel to Athens. His sensitivities, his knowledge, his finding common ground, and his presentation of the unique answers of Jesus built the framework of his message. It is little wonder that he changed history by carrying the message with such effectiveness to the known world. He used both the Greek language and the Roman road, literally and figuratively, to do it. Our approach must be as thoughtful.

Ultimately, however, the change of a person’s heart is God’s work. And in doing our part, we must rest in that conviction.