Sitting at dinner with my wife, in a quiet, romantic moment in a nice, Carmel restaurant, celebrating our anniversary, a loud voice stole the moment. "All religions are the same," began a rather grizzly voice at the table behind me. In tones of absolute confidence, with stories of religious abuses, he declared his lack of confidence in organized religion. The last thing I heard him say, before his beleaguered tablemates steered to a new subject, was this: "The answer is to pray a lot and worship nothing or no one."

That's not an unpopular notion in America today. While not really an organized religion, it's been picking up speed for awhile. It's a kind of spiritual agnosticism. Talk to god, or whoever, for whatever help or calm might be available but don't submit or worship or acknowledge the absolute power or authority of anything or anyone. Organized religions are all the same - they're about power and manipulation.

The other extreme says that all religions are completely different and share nothing in common. Some Christians, for example, believe that only Christians have any truth and that all other religious types are wholly deceived. These spiritual or philosophical imperialists have nothing to learn from others, no reason to listen to others and little curiosity - "Why? We know. They don't. They're the ones who need to listen."

The truth, of course, is that the world's major religions (and a host of minor ones) have a lot in common - shared ideas, shared holy places, similar concepts of the human dilemma, rituals, especially for stages of life and faith. These religions give structure for social organization and codes to control particular behavior and ethics to affect sweeping behaviors.

And yes, the world's religions have differences - distinctive understanding of history and God and truth. Most of us are ill-equipped to describe those differences. Our comparative religion classes in school have a few days or a week to the major religions and some passing attention to smaller sects. We did well to remember enough to get a decent grade and move on toward blissful forgetfulness.

After 9/11, most of us stepped up our study of Islam, wondering how such atrocity could be visited on innocent people in the name of a God (Allah). But how do we really understand fourteen centuries of Muhammedism sitting smack in the middle of our American worldviews and Judeo-Christian my oculars

There have always been diverse religions, but not always knocking on our door; or thrusting their views into our reality with such violence.

Our increasingly diverse culture and a world united by emerging technologies require a new effort at understanding. And, yes, out of our understanding, we make value judgments - a comparison of the relative merit of religious ideas and the behaviors that those ideas elicit. The weird, shallow American notion that all religions are the same and all ideas have equal merit is silly. Some ideas wreak havoc and destruction and bring out the worst in people. Other ideas evoke the best in people. Some notions of God and religion foster great civilizations (by that I mean civil ones). Other notions of God enslave and abuse and breed violence.

Making things even more complicated, virtually all the major religions have bad seasons when things went sour, or bad apples who distort and abuse religious truth to manipulate people and do violence. For Islamic suicide bombers to Jim Jones to those who gassed the subways of Japan with passion, horrific things are done in the name of god or gods, and no religion is exempt from examples. Sadly, not ours.

Still, as Kimball points out, we not only do make comparisons between religions and render value judgments, but "Events in our world today suggest that value judgments are sorely needed." He sets out to identify the criteria by which we can identify good and bad religion, even among our own types. He suggests healthy comparisons are good as long as those comparisons are well-informed and not prone toward our common, biased approach - comparing "my ideal version to others' flawed versions." In other words, I might tend to compare the ideals of Christianity with the flaws of Islam, instead of comparing ideals with ideals, and flaws with flaws. (Christ with Bin Laden, vs. Christ with Mohammed).

Let me pause and make a statement that should be obvious. I believe that Christianity stand up tall and strong in any conversation about relative merit and comparative value. Today, I'm not going to argue that case. If I didn't believe that Christ's ways are the best ways, I can't imagine that I could be a Christian. I suppose it is possible to believe vehemently that a god or a religious system is true even if it's cruel and brings out the worst in me. That's not how I view the God of the Bible or the effects of Christ's teachings on me. If God were evil, I like to hope that I'd fight him to the end, however futile fighting god might be. But that's a strange notion for those of us who've been taught that God is love. I have fought our good God too often to ill effect. God's love has never ceased.

So what are the marks of bad religion, or religion that tends to bring out the worst in people? Kimball has a list:

1.  The first is his most controversial. He says that absolute truth claims are dangerous. While it appears that Kimball believes in the tenets of Christianity, he is cautious about a tone of rhetoric that refuses to listen, learn, dialogue and respect. He points to extreme literalism and militant fundamentalism in almost every religion as being a kind of tinderbox of inflammatory attitudes. Most of us Christians would agree that many of the outrages and aggressions that embarrass us most are carried out by fringe groups calling themselves Christian who make absolutists statements about issues that most of us are more humble about. [For example, violence against doctors who perform abortions].

Of course, Christianity involves absolute truth. If it didn't, what real comfort does it give? If our faith give purpose and meaning in life, that purpose finds form in real assurance around a definition of God. We suggest that while God is not completely understandable, He is knowable. Absolutely knowable, through Christ. But how heavily do we wield our absolutes?

2.  A second problem is blind obedience. Seductive, charismatic personalities that lead people down anti-intellectual alleys that discourage honest, critical questioning - that's dangerous religion. Blind faith is a bad idea. Yes, "blessed are those who have not seen but still believe." But that doesn't mean we can't ask a lot of questions and keep our minds engaged along with our hearts.

3.  "Ideal time" theologies that predict the end of the age and tend to coerce people into extreme behaviors in order to validate years of preparation for the unfolding crisis.

4.  "The end justifies the means." This notion, that for God's sake evil can be rationalized or justified, is the stuff of bad religion.

5.  Declaring holy wars. It was bad in the days of the crusades. It's bad in the days of jihad. Holy war rhetoric can be a mark of bad religion.

In Richard Mouw's book, he takes the positive angle. What does thoughtful religion look like? It conveys respect. It finds common ground. It shows intellectual courtesy. It exhibits authentic open-mindedness. "What do I truly have to learn from this person, even from our differences?" He suggests critical questioning in a good spirit. As I do, Mouw points toward Acts 17 as a marvelous example of how Paul was both respectful and effective.

So what is Paul's method of interacting with a multi-religious world?

1.  He chose centers of Greek civilization, which was a prevailing culture known for its open-minded dialogue.

2.  He chose cities where his Roman citizenship granted protection.

3.  He chose communities with a Jewish element, so that (as a Jew) he had community and some influence.

4.  He chose commercial centers.

5.  He studied his host culture. In Athens, he entered into dialogue with the crowd, "listening and responding." He observed their shrines, studied their inscriptions, read their poets and learned their system for exchanging ideas.

6.  He probed for evidence of a shared spiritual quest. Instead of highlighting their differences he saw people as fellow spiritual pilgrims.

7.  He looked for positive points of agreement. He found some religious common ground. "I see that you are a religious people."

8.  He invited them to turn to Christ in true repentance. He shared the truth as he knew it. Some believed. Others didn't. The work went on.

My own Mars Hill? Wedding receptions. This is what I do:

1.  Assume the best. Speak to people as if they are religious beings and spiritually alert; as if they agree with most of what I said and prayed in the wedding.

2.  Ask questions. People don't care what I know until they know that I care. Listening to the other person's story usually earns the opportunity to tell my own.

3.  Convey respect. This requires that we actually have it. Scorn gets us nowhere and it poisons our souls. People have been shaped by their journeys, for better or worse. We need to respect people and where they are.

4.  Pray for crucial moments: obviously divine appointments - those extraordinary convergences of conversation or experience that open the door to declare God's goodness.

5.  Build on common ground. Many non-Christians pray. So do we. Many non-Christians believe in love and commitment and marriage. So do I. Start there and build…

6.  Stay off hot issues, unless we really believe we can represent God's gracious spirit in the debate. Are we looking to share our Lord or with a fight? If we do debate, listen and try to understand. It never hurts and only helps.

7.  Offer further interaction. Make a friend. I might be a momentary blip on that person's life screen - just sowing some seeds of truth or faith. Or it might be a divine appointment that begins our everlasting friendship.

8.  This is good news, not bad news.

9.  Remember the Golden Rule.

10.  If it's true and if it's good, it's not offensive to share it with a friend, even if they disagree. If Christ has changed my life, why withhold?

References:

• When Religion Becomes Evil by Charles Kimball
• Distorted Truth by Richard Mouw
• Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours? By Roland Allen, Anglican missionary to China from 1895-1903