Acts 17:22-31: Doing Interfaith Dialogue Faithfully
Short answer: Interfaith dialogue is faithful when it follows the pattern of Acts 17:22-31. Paul entered a pagan setting, began with genuine observation rather than insult, quoted a pagan poet without endorsing the poet's religion, announced the one Creator God, and ended by calling for repentance and warning of judgment. He did not pretend all faiths were equal, and he did not sneer at his hearers. So a Christian can sit with a Muslim, a Hindu, a Jew, or a skeptic, ask real questions, honour what is true in their tradition, and still say plainly that God commands all people everywhere to repent and that he has fixed a day of judgment. Dialogue is not the negotiation away of the gospel; it is the setting in which the gospel is spoken clearly and kindly, with the hope that some will believe, and some, like Paul's audience, will mock, and some will want to hear more.
Paul did not begin with a lecture on Athenian error
Luke places Paul in a specific kind of room. He stood up in the middle of the Areopagus, a venue where ideas were tested before people who cared about argument. Acts 17:22 says, "You men of Athens, I perceive that you are very religious in all things." Notice the opening move. Paul does not start by naming the twelve errors of Greek religion. He starts with what he has observed about his hearers. He had walked their city, looked at their objects of worship, and formed a judgement. Then he addressed them as people, not as a category.
This matters for interfaith conversations today. Many Christians arrive at dialogue already armed, waiting for the first opening to dismantle the other person's position. Paul's example suggests a different posture: patient observation first. What does this person actually believe? How do they pray? What do they fear? What do they hope for? A Muslim who prays five times a day is not the same as a secular colleague who has never prayed. A Hindu family mourning a death is not the same as a university lecturer defending relativism. Paul looked before he spoke, and he spoke to what he found.
Observation is not agreement. Paul will go on to speak of ignorance and to call for repentance. But he earns the right to be heard because he has first taken his hearers seriously as human beings made in the image of God. If we enter dialogue without that basic curiosity, we will not be trusted, and the gospel we carry will be heard as a slogan rather than as news. The Areopagus speech begins in the street and ends at the resurrection, and the first step is simply to see what is there.
The altar to an unknown god and the use of genuine common ground
Paul finds an object of worship and uses it. He tells the Athenians that as he passed by and observed their objects of worship, he found an altar with the inscription "to an unknown god" (Acts 17:23). Then comes the pivot: what they worship in ignorance, he proclaims to them. This is a remarkable move. Paul does not say their religious instinct was pure superstition to be wiped away. He says there was a real question underneath the altar, and the answer to that question is the God he serves. He takes a piece of pagan piety and uses it as a doorway, not as a foundation.
Interfaith dialogue needs the same discipline. There is a difference between common ground and a common faith. Common ground is a real shared question: who made this world, what does it mean to live rightly, how do we face death. Common faith would mean claiming we already agree on who God is and what he has done, which Paul never claims in this speech. He uses their altar, but he does not bless their gods. He fills the word god with new content, the Creator who made the world and everything in it (Acts 17:24).
So a Christian can say to a Sikh friend, we both believe there is one God and that we should live honestly and care for our neighbour. That is real common ground, and it is good to name it. But the Christian is not permitted to leave it there as though the disagreement is cosmetic. The God of the Bible is not an impersonal force; he is the Father of Jesus Christ. The common ground is real; the difference is decisive. Paul keeps both in the same speech.
Quoting the poets without becoming a pagan
Paul then does something many modern Christians find surprising. He quotes Greek poets. Acts 17:28 records him saying that some of their own poets had said, "For we are also his offspring." He cites their literature to make a theological point about human dependence on God. He does not endorse the poets' worldview, and he does not pretend that Aratus was a believer. He uses a true fragment of pagan observation as a witness to a biblical truth. This is a model for reading widely and listening carefully.
Christians often fear that citing a non-Christian writer or thinker is compromise. Paul did not think so. He knew that all truth is God's truth, and that a pagan poet could stumble onto something real about the human condition. In dialogue, this means we can honestly acknowledge when a Muslim writer describes the majesty of God accurately, when a Buddhist teacher speaks wisely about the danger of craving, when a secular philosopher defends the dignity of the weak. We do not have to pretend that everything outside the Bible is false. We simply do not treat those true fragments as a sufficient basis for salvation.
At the same time, Paul does not quote the poets and then stop. He moves immediately to the larger claim: since we are God's offspring, we should not think the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by human art (Acts 17:29). The quote serves the argument. It is a bridge, not a house. In interfaith dialogue, borrowed truth must always lead somewhere. The goal is not to display how broad-minded we are; it is to bring people to the living God.
The claim that all nations are one race and one accountability
The heart of Paul's speech is a doctrine of God and a doctrine of humanity. God made the world and everything in it; he is Lord of heaven and earth; he does not live in temples made with hands (Acts 17:24-25). He made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth (Acts 17:26). Every religion, every culture, every ethnic group traces back to one Creator. This is why interfaith dialogue is possible at all: we are speaking to fellow creatures, not to aliens. It is also why it is urgent: the same God who made all nations has appointed a day to judge the world.
Paul's anthropology rules out two opposite errors. One is the error of contempt, which treats the other person's religion as simply subhuman nonsense and the other person as beneath argument. The other is the error of indifference, which treats all religions as equally valid paths to the same God. Paul affirms neither. He says the Athenians are ignorant and need to repent, and he also says they are God's offspring and share a common humanity with him. The same man who says, "we are also his offspring" says God now commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).
The one-blood claim also has practical consequences. Interfaith dialogue is not a luxury for specialists. It happens in schools, hospitals, neighbourhoods, and workplaces, wherever Christians live alongside Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, and secular people. Because we share one humanity, we can work together on food banks, refugee housing, and peacemaking without pretending we share one faith. And because we share one accountability, we cannot stop at shared projects. The God who made us all has spoken, and he has spoken most clearly in his Son.
Repentance and resurrection: the non-negotiables Paul would not drop
If there is a place where modern interfaith dialogue most often goes soft, it is here. Paul does not end with an invitation to interfaith understanding. He ends with repentance and resurrection. Acts 17:30-31 records him saying that God overlooked the times of ignorance, but now commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man he has ordained, and he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. That is not a vague spiritual invitation. It is a summons with a date attached.
The resurrection is the hinge. In the New Testament, the resurrection is not a private religious experience but a public event that establishes Jesus as the coming judge. That is why Paul's speech draws mockery from some and interest from others, and it is why the Areopagus is not merely a model of civility. The Athenians could tolerate one more god and one more altar. They could not quietly accept that a crucified man had risen and would judge them. The offensiveness is not incidental. If we remove the resurrection from our dialogue, we remove the reason anyone should repent.
This is also why interfaith dialogue is not the same as religious pluralism. Pluralism says all paths lead up the same mountain. Paul says there is one God, one Creator, one appointed judge, one resurrection. Faithful dialogue holds both gentleness and this sharpness. We can be the kind of person who listens well and asks good questions; we cannot be the kind of person who leaves the other person comfortable in unbelief if we truly believe the resurrection happened. The most loving thing we can do is to say what Paul said, with the tone of 1 Peter 3:15-16: with humility and fear.
Answering with humility and fear, not with aggression or silence
1 Peter 3:15-16 tells Christians to be ready always to give an answer to everyone who asks a reason concerning the hope in them, and to do it with humility and fear, keeping a good conscience. This is the manner that fits the Areopagus content. The reason for the hope is objective: the resurrection of Jesus. The manner is humble: we are not superior beings, we are forgiven sinners. Humility does not mean uncertainty about the truth. It means we hold the truth without contempt for those who do not yet see it, remembering how we came to see it ourselves.
In practice, this looks like asking what a person actually means before answering, repeating back their view accurately, conceding where they are right, and refusing to fake agreement where there is none. It looks like noticing when a conversation is not ready for the resurrection and deciding, like Paul, to say it anyway, because that is the message we were given. It also looks like letting the other person respond without coercion. Paul was mocked and did not retaliate. He did not organise a riot or manipulate a crowd. He reasoned, and he let the message do its work.
Humility also means we can learn something in a dialogue without surrendering the gospel. We might learn how a Muslim's view of God's sovereignty differs from ours, and in describing it accurately we may understand our own doctrine better. We might learn from a Jewish friend how deeply the Psalms were prayed in Jesus' own tradition. We might learn where our own presentation of the faith has been careless or unloving. A good dialogue partner is a careful listener, and a careful listener is often a better witness, because they speak to the person in front of them rather than to a caricature.
How to do this in ordinary life without compromising
Most Christians will never stand on the Areopagus, but the pattern is transferable. Start by praying for the people you actually know. Then ask real questions about what they believe and why, and listen long enough to be able to explain their view back to them accurately. Look for genuine points of contact, the way Paul looked for the altar. Use your own words, not slogans. Be honest about where you disagree, especially about Jesus, the cross, and the resurrection. And let your life match your message, so that your conduct does not contradict what you say about a holy God.
When you are asked a hard question, do not panic and do not bluff. If you do not know, say so, and come back. That kind of honesty builds more trust than a manufactured answer. When a friend attacks the church, acknowledge the real failures you know of and then explain what the gospel actually claims. When a colleague says all religions are the same, ask them to describe what they mean and then show gently, with Acts 17 as your guide, that they are not. Do not withdraw into silence; do not slide into toothless agreement. Stay in the conversation.
Finally, remember that results are not in your hands. Some of Paul's hearers mocked, some said they would hear him again, and some believed, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris (Acts 17:32-34). The outcome varied, and the outcome was God's. Our job is to speak the truth in love, with humility and fear, and to leave the harvest to the Lord of the harvest. That is what faithful interfaith dialogue looks like, and it is possible today because the same risen Christ still saves.
Biblical fidelity check
Acts 17:22-31 establishes several things. It establishes that Christians may address non-Christian audiences directly and respectfully. It establishes that God is Creator of all, that he is near and not served by human hands, that all nations share one blood, and that he now commands repentance in light of a coming judgment and the resurrection of Jesus. It establishes a pattern of reasoning from common ground toward the gospel without merging the gospel into the surrounding religion. What it does not establish is that all religions are valid or that the Athenians already worshipped the true God under a pagan name. Paul says they worshipped in ignorance and needed to be told what they were actually relating to.
One common misreading says Paul was a pluralist who treated the unknown god as a stepping stone to a broader spirituality. That cannot be right, because Paul goes on to say that God commands all people everywhere to repent and has fixed a day of judgment by the man he raised from the dead. Another misreading says Acts 17 is a failure, because Paul's preaching there did not produce a church. But Acts 17:34 records conversions, and Acts 18 shows Paul reasoning in Corinth for a year and a half. Scripture does not license either the watered-down dialogue that denies judgment or the harsh monologue that despises the hearer. The passage itself corrects both.
Other passages that speak to Acts 17:22-31
Several passages shed light on Paul's speech and on what faithfulness in interfaith settings requires. John 14:6 records Jesus saying that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through him, which rules out the idea that all paths lead to God. 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 supplies the doctrine of one God that Paul also articulated at Athens, and it shows how early Christians handled food offered to idols and the knowledge that idols are nothing. Acts 4:12 states that there is salvation in no one else, no other name given among men by which we must be saved. 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 warns against being unequally yoked with unbelievers, which sets a boundary on how far shared worship can go. For further study, see What Does 1 Corinthians 1:10 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application, What Does 1 Corinthians 1:9 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application, 1 Corinthians 1: Called, United, and Boasting in the Lord, and 1 Corinthians 10: Warnings and Freedom. Together these passages call for both conviction and courtesy.
Frequently asked questions
Is interfaith dialogue a betrayal of the gospel?
No, if it is done in the pattern of Acts 17. Paul entered the Areopagus, quoted pagan poets, and still called his hearers to repent and warned of a coming judgment. Dialogue becomes a betrayal only when it denies that Jesus is the only way, when it treats other religions as equally saving, or when it keeps silent about sin and the resurrection. Faithful dialogue keeps the content of John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 while adopting the tone of 1 Peter 3:15-16. It risked the mockery of the audience, and Paul accepted that rather than trim the message.
Does Acts 17 teach that other religions contain partial truth that saves?
No. Paul says the Athenians worshipped in ignorance, and he tells them what they did not know. He acknowledges a genuine human instinct toward God and even quotes a pagan poet, but he never says the altar to an unknown god was an acceptable path. He says God now commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has appointed a day of judgment. Common ground is real and worth naming, but it is a doorway to the gospel, not an alternative to it, and it never removes the need for repentance and faith in the risen Christ.
How should I start a conversation with someone of another faith?
Begin with prayer and with patient observation, the way Paul walked Athens before he spoke. Learn what the person actually believes by asking and listening, and be able to summarise their view accurately before you critique it. Look for honest common ground: a shared concern for family, honesty, or the poor. Then be ready to give a reason for your hope, with humility and fear, as 1 Peter 3:15-16 says. Do not force a decision in one conversation, and do not hide what you believe. Expect varied results; Paul saw mockery, delay, and belief in the same room.
