In London people protest when talk of building a ‘super-mosque’ is in the air; in Barcelona they want to ban the burqa; in Switzerland they want to ban minarets. All over Europe, it seems there is a backlash against Islam and so often Christians are to be found among those protesting. Living in a plural society – a society with many faiths and none – is obviously a difficult concept in the 21st century.

In chapter 8 of his Post-Christendom, Stuart Murray tackles the thorny issue of mission in a plural society and how Christians should relate to other faiths now that we are one faith group among many in western Europe (pages 232-239).

Interestingly he rejects the idea of ‘religious tolerance’, preferring instead the ‘religious freedom’ tradition as seen in movements like the Anabaptists. That we should have tolerance towards each other as holders of different faiths is, of course, what the secularists call for in our age – a call that is very difficult to reject, for who wants to be labelled intolerant! However, Murray offers a cutting critique of this concept, tracing its roots to the Enlightenment when it was developed as an alternative to religious conflict. In a powerful sentence he says, ‘Its apparent neutrality masks secular imperialism, imposing its views as powerfully as any religious tradition and intolerant towards any who challenge its assumptions’ (235). Tolerance demands of us to stay silent on any issue where we find ourselves in disagreement with other faiths. It calls on us to keep our faith in the private realm where it cannot upset the equilibrium of society – suggesting that any alternative action would cause tension and division. By doing so it is stating that those things we hold dear in our faith are not important enough to be publicly valued and held and thus it devalues our all our faiths.

The religious freedom concept, however, takes a different view. Here a passionate commitment to our convictions is given freedom to express itself, while at the same time acknowledging the existence of other convictions and their right to exist in the same society. It allows me to freely express my conviction about God’s transforming love in Jesus but insists that I accept that others may have just as much passion about Mohammed. We are both free to believe and express our beliefs – but to do so with a deep sense of respect for each others position and our right to hold them. ‘Religious liberty,’ says Murray, ‘treats convictions seriously, accepts faith communities hold divergent views, encourages exchanges of views … rejects inducement and coercion and develops ways to protect minorities from oppression’ (236).

Here are some suggestions Murray makes in terms of Christian mission in a plural society based on the religious freedom model:

  • Accept that past intolerance has led to disrespect and even violence, the priority now is ‘to build relationships of respect and friendship’ (234);

  • Spend time learning about other faith communities;

  • Reflect on how Jesus invited people to follow him rather than impose his views and learn how to passionately share the Christian story without the past element of compulsion;

  • Campaign for the rights of all faiths to be expressed freely – thus expressing our love for all as called for by Jesus;

  • Work in partnerships with other faiths where there is common ground on issues like the value of community and the need for ethical guidelines for human life – thus making room for the gospel to be shared.

If we are confident that the Christian message is the one that holds the truth and that it is through the death and resurrection of Jesus that this world will be transformed, then we do not need the advantages and privileges offered by the state through the Christendom model. Indeed such privileges have only made people of other faiths suspicious of us and thereby closing the door to witness opportunities.