Introduction to the Theology of Religions : Biblical, Historical & Contemporary Perspectives. 9780830874408, 0830874402

Table of contents :
Cover
Title page
Copyright
Contents
Outline
Introduction
PART ONE
1:Overview of Biblical Testimony
2: The Old Testament
3: The New Testament
4: Religion(s) in the Bible
PART TWO
5: Limited Openness to Other Religions Among Some Early Church Fathers
6: ""Outside the Church No Salvation""
7: The Meaning of ""Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"" for the Contemporary Church
8: Positive Attitudes Toward Other Religions After the Early Fathers
9: The Radical Challenge of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism
10: The Fulfillment Theory of Religions
PART THREE. 11: The Response of the Roman Catholic Church12: The Response of Anglican and Episcopalian Churches
13: The Response of Mainline Protestant Churches
14: The Response of the Free Churches
15: The Response of the Evangelical Movement
The Response of the Ecumenical Movement
PART FOUR
17: Orientation to the Study of Theologians of Religions
ECLESIOCENTRISM: Early Approaches
18: Karl Barth
19: Hendrik Kraemer
20: Paul Althaus
CHRISTOCENTRISM 1
21: Karl Rahner
22: Hans Küng
23: Jacques Dupuis
24: Gavin D'Costa
CHRISTOCENTRISM 2
25: Paul Tillich
26: Wolfhart Pannenberg. 27: Lesslie NewbiginM. M. Thomas
CHRISTOCENTRISM 3
29: Sir Norman Anderson
30: Clark Pinnock
31: Amos Yong
THEOCENTRISM
32: John Hick
33: Stanley J. Samartha
34: Raimundo Panikkar
35: Paul F. Knitter
ECCLESIOCENTRISM
36: Millard J. Erickson
37: Harold Netland
38: Vinoth Ramachandra
39: The Current Scene
Epilogue
Bibliography
Author Index
Subject Index
Finding the Textbook You Need.

Citation preview

An Introduction to the

T HE O L O G Y of RE L I G I O N S Biblical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

InterVarsity Press P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515-1426 World Wide Web: www.ivpress.com E-mail: [email protected] ©2003 by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without written permission from InterVarsity Press. InterVarsity Press ® is the book-publishing division of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA ® , a student movement active on campus at hundreds of universities, colleges and schools of nursing in the United States of America, and a member movement of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. For information about local and regional activities, write Public Relations Dept., InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, 6400 Schroeder Rd., P.O. Box 7895, Madison, WI 53707-7895, or visit the IVCF website at . All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version ®. NIV ®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. Cover design: Kathleen Lay Burrows Cover image: Roberta Polfus ISBN 978-0-8308-7440-8 (digital) ISBN 978-0-8308-2572-1 (print)

Contents

Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Introduction: Christian Theology of Religions as a Theological Discipline . . .

17

PART ONE—BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES: The Ambiguity and Promise of the Biblical Testimony 1 Overview of Biblical Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

2 The Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36

3 The New Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

4 Religion(s) in the Bible. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

PART TWO—HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS 5 Limited Openness to Other Religions Among Some Early Church Fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

6 “Outside the Church No Salvation”: The Consolidation of the Exclusive Attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

7 The Meaning of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for the Contemporary Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78

8 Positive Attitudes Toward Other Religions After the Early Fathers . .

82

9 The Radical Challenge of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90

10 The Fulfillment Theory of Religions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

PART THREE—THE CURRENT SCENE: Ecclesiastical Approaches 11 The Response of the Roman Catholic Church. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 12 The Response of the Anglican and Episcopalian Churches . . . . . . . 123 13 The Response of Mainline Protestant Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 14 The Response of the Free Churches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 15 The Response of the Evangelical Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 16 The Response of the Ecumenical Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

PART FOUR—THE CURRENT SCENE: Theologians’ Interpretations 17 Orientation to the Study of Theologians of Religion . . . . . . . . . . . 165 ECCLESIOCENTRISM: E ARLY A PPROACHES 18 Karl Barth: Religion as Unbelief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 19 Hendrik Kraemer: Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life . . . . . 181 20 Paul Althaus: “Original Revelation” in Religions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 CHRISTOCENTRISM 1: R OMAN C ATHOLICS 21 Karl Rahner: “Anonymous Christians” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 22 Hans Küng: Religions as the “Ordinary Way of Salvation” . . . . . . . . . 197 23 Jacques Dupuis: “Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism” . . 205 24 Gavin D’Costa: Trinitarian Theology of Religions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 CHRISTOCENTRISM 2: M AINLINE P ROTESTANTS 25 Paul Tillich: The Dynamic-Typological Approach to Religions . . . . . . . 224

26 Wolfhart Pannenberg: Religions Competing for the Universal Truth. . . . 235 27 Lesslie Newbigin: The Gospel as Public Truth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 28 M. M. Thomas: “Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 CHRISTOCENTRISM 3: E VANGELICALS 29 Sir Norman Anderson: Unique Savior but Nonexclusive Salvation . . . . 261 30 Clark Pinnock: A Wideness in God’s Mercy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 31 Amos Yong: A Pneumatological Theology of Religions . . . . . . . . . . . 277 THEOCENTRISM 32 John Hick: The Copernican Revolution of Religions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 33 Stanley J. Samartha: One Christ, Many Religions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 34 Raimundo Panikkar: The Unknown Christ of Hinduism . . . . . . . . . . 302 35 Paul F. Knitter: Jesus and the Other Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 ECCLESIOCENTRISM: C ONTEMPORARY (E VANGELICAL ) A PPROACHES 36 Millard J. Erickson: No Other Name. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 37 Harold Netland: The Enigma of Pluralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 38 Vinoth Ramachandra: The Recovery of Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 39 The Current Scene: Critical Reflections and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . 342

Epilogue: The Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 Indexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

Outline

INTRODUCTION: Christian Theology of Religions as a Theological Discipline The Presence of Other Faiths Among Us The Challenge of Pluralism What Is Theology of Religions? In Search of a Paradigm Theological Parameters How to Use This Book

PART ONE BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES: The Ambiguity and Promise of the Biblical Testimony 1

Overview of Biblical Testimony

2

The Old Testament The Universal History and “Cosmic” Covenants The Verdict on the Gods of the Nations The Tension Between Particularism and Universalism

3

The New Testament Jesus and the Gentiles The Early Church and the Gentiles Paul and the Gentiles

4

Religion(s) in the Bible Judgment on Religions True Religion Critical Reflections and Questions

10

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

PART TWO HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS 5

Limited Openness to Other Religions Among Some Early Church Fathers The Significance and Limits of Early Testimonies Justin Martyr: Logos Spermatikos St. Irenaeus: Theology of History Origen: Universal Salvation Clement of Alexandria: The Knowledge of God in Pagan Philosophy

6

“Outside the Church No Salvation”: The Consolidation of the Exclusive Attitude The Fathers Before Augustine The Augustinian Heritage The Post-Augustinian Catholic Church The Protestant Reformation

7

The Meaning of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for the Contemporary Church Catholic Reflections Protestant Reflections

8

Positive Attitudes Toward Other Religions After the Early Fathers Catholic Testimonies Protestant Testimonies

9

The Radical Challenge of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism Christianity Reconsidered The Christ of Classical Liberalism Ernst Troeltsch: The Historical Relativity of All Religions Arnold Toynbee: The Oneness of Religions

10 The Fulfillment Theory of Religions The Crown of Hinduism

Outline

Christianity as a “Single Axis” Critical Reflections and Questions

PART THREE THE CURRENT SCENE: Ecclesiastical Approaches Christian Churches Respond to World Religions 11 The Response of the Roman Catholic Church The Transformative Significance of Vatican II The Church and Salvation Salvation Outside the Church The Role of Other Religions with Regard to Salvation Various Catholic Theologians’ Assessments of Vatican II Postconciliar Developments 12 The Response of Anglican and Episcopalian Churches Lambeth Conferences on Other Religions Some Theological Orientations 13 The Response of Mainline Protestant Churches Lutheran Churches The Reformed Family of Churches Methodist Churches 14 The Response of the Free Churches Who Are the Free Churches? Mennonites and Anabaptists Baptists Pentecostals The Charismatic Movements 15 The Response of the Evangelical Movement Who Are the Evangelicals?

11

12

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Frankfurt and Lausanne Manila The Intra-Evangelical Debate 16 The Response of the Ecumenical Movement Ecumenism, Mission and Other Religions The World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh in 1910 Subsequent Missionary Conferences The Emergence of Dialogue Since the 1960s “Dialogue with Men of Living Faiths and Ideologies” An Inclusive Missio Dei Critical Reflections and Questions

PART FOUR THE CURRENT SCENE: Theologians’ Interpretations 17 Orientation to the Study of Theologians of Religions In Search of a Typology Ecclesiocentrism Christocentrism Theocentrism and Realitycentrism The Use and Limits of Classifications ECCLESIOCENTRISM: E ARLY A PPROACHES 18 Karl Barth: Religion as Unbelief The Theology of the “Wholly Other” The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the Christian God “The Revelation of God as the Abolition of Religions” Christianity as the True Religion 19 Hendrik Kraemer: Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth and the Life The Person of Christ as the Norm of Religions The Holistic Nature of Religions

Outline

13

Biblical Realism The Dynamic of Continuity and Discontinuity 20 Paul Althaus: “Original Revelation” in Religions A “Middle Way” Between Barth and Troeltsch “Original Revelation” CHRISTOCENTRISM 1: R OMAN C ATHOLICS 21 Karl Rahner: “Anonymous Christians” Universal Transcendental Revelation in the Spirit Absolute Savior The Universality of the Spirit and the Normativity of Christ 22 Hans Küng: Religions as the “Ordinary Way of Salvation” The Church Among the World Religions “Outside the Church No Salvation”? An “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” Way of Salvation “What Is True Religion?” 23 Jacques Dupuis: “Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism” Theology of Religious Pluralism “One God—One Christ—Convergent Paths” Christianity, Judaism and Other Religions Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions Trinitarian Pneumatocentrism A Kingdom-Centered Model of Salvation 24 Gavin D’Costa: Trinitarian Theology of Religions Pluralisms That Fail Openness, Tolerance and Equality Refined Spirit, Trinity and the Church “The Holy Spirit’s Invitation to Relational Engagement” CHRISTOCENTRISM 2: M AINLINE P ROTESTANTS 25 Paul Tillich: The Dynamic-Typological Approach to Religions

14

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

The Kairos of Christ and the Kairoi of Other Religious Manifestations Christ, the “New Being” Christianity and the Encounter of World Religions “The Religion of the Concrete Spirit” Buddhist-Christian Dialogue 26 Wolfhart Pannenberg: Religions Competing for the Universal Truth Religion and Theology in the Service of the Truth Religion, God(s) and Anthropology The Christian Conception of God and the History of Religions The Universality of the Spirit and the Particularity of Jesus Christ Mission, Ecumenism and the Unity of All Humankind The Potential and Challenge of Interreligious Dialogue 27 Lesslie Newbigin: The Gospel as Public Truth The Challenge of the Pluralist West Two Stories Leading Up to the Enlightenment The Failure of Protestant Theology and Christianity to Respond to Modernism A Missionary Encounter with the (Post)Modern Western Culture The Gospel as Public Truth The Legitimacy and Purpose of Christian Mission Among World Religions 28 M. M. Thomas: “Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake” Salvation, Humanization and Nation Building The Cosmic Christ of History Christology, Pluralistic Consciousness and Syncretism CHRISTOCENTRISM 3: E VANGELICALS 29 Sir Norman Anderson: Unique Savior but Nonexclusive Salvation The Historical Basis of Christian Faith as the “Divide Between Religions” “The Scandal of Particularity” A Unique Savior, but Not an Exclusive Salvation Knowledge of God Among Religions

Outline

30 Clark Pinnock: A Wideness in God’s Mercy The Perils of Relativism and Restrictivism Optimism of Salvation and the Uniqueness of Christ The Spirit in the World The Potential of Religions and Religious Experience The Faith Principle 31 Amos Yong: A Pneumatological Theology of Religions Discerning the Spirit(s) The Spirit as the Divine Presence Criteria for Discernment THEOCENTRISM 32 John Hick: The Copernican Revolution of Religions A Pilgrimage with Changing Landscapes The Copernican Revolution of Religions Myth and the Nature of Religious Language “Christology at the Crossroads” Degree Christology: Jesus Christ Among Other Savior Figures The Ultimate Reality 33 Stanley J. Samartha: One Christ, Many Religions “The Unbound Christ” A Revised Christology The Sense of Mystery Theocentric Pluralism Buddha, Rama and Krishna 34 Raimundo Panikkar: The Unknown Christ of Hinduism “Ecumenical Ecumenism” Christic Theandrism The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man The Universal Christ and the Particular Jesus

15

16

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

35 Paul F. Knitter: Jesus and the Other Names A Spiritual Odyssey Theocentric Christology “Toward a Liberation Theology of Religions” Eco-liberation as the Goal “Uniqueness Revised” ECCLESIOCENTRISM: C ONTEMPORARY (E VANGELICAL ) A PPROACHES 36 Millard J. Erickson: No Other Name Varieties of Ecclesiocentric Views How Much Does One Have to Know and Believe to Be Saved? How Many Will Be Saved? 37 Harold Netland: The Enigma of Pluralism An Ideology of Pluralism as a Challenge The “Culture of Modernity” as the Bedrock of Religious Pluralism Religions and Truth “Toward an Evangelical Theology of Religions” 38 Vinoth Ramachandra: The Recovery of Mission A Dialogue with Asian Pluralism Trinity and Pluralism “The Scandal of Particularity” in Perspective The Scandal of Jesus and the Principle of Universality 39 The Current Scene: Critical Reflections and Questions Revisiting Typology Ecclesiocentric Positions Christocentric Positions Theocentric Positions Epilogue: The Way Forward

Introduction C HR IS T IA N T HE OL O GY OF RELIGIONS A S A T HE OL O GICA L DISC IPLINE

The Presence of Other Faiths Among Us John Habgood, archbishop of York, in his introduction to a recent compilation of essays titled Many Mansions: Interfaith and Religious Tolerance, illustrates aptly the changed situation of religions in our world in the third millennium. He writes: Other faiths used to belong to other lands. At home rival religious claims could safely be ignored. Or, if not ignored, patronized. The superiority of one’s own faith was so evident that the alternatives could somehow be brought within its purview without posing any real theological or social threat. Today things are 1 different. Different faiths are practiced cheek by jowl in most parts of the world.

Other religions, which used to be distant, exotic topics for enjoyable conversation, if not a vague reality that could be totally ignored, have come much closer to us whether we live in the West or elsewhere. No doubt the existence of and communication among world religions is the most significant challenge to and opportunity for the Christian church in the new millennium. With regard to theology, it is no longer possible to limit the consideration of theological topics to the Christian sphere; we must take into account the questions and answers posed by other religions. This state of affairs naturally raises a host of questions that are not totally new (for Christianity emerged in a polytheistic, multireligious environment and continued to flourish side by side with other confessions) but that have gained a new urgency because of globalization. Alan Race writes, Can Christianity maintain its traditional hold on being the one true absolute re-

1

John Habgood, preface to Many Mansions: Interfaith and Religious Tolerance, ed. Dan CohnSherbok (London: Bellew, 1992), p. vii.

18

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

ligion, intended for all mankind, if it also recognizes authentic and sincere faith in other guises? If Christ represents the only true way to God, then what do Christians say of other faiths, many of which are older than Christianity itself? How do Sikhs or Buddhists accord with the purposes of God viewed through Christian eyes? Are Hindus saved? Is there a real difference between revelation and religions? It is questions like these which force themselves on the Christian 2 mind if the cacophony of religious pluralism is taken seriously.

In a very real sense, the religious East has come to the West. The significance of this shift has been more pervasive than often realized; we have witnessed the introduction of Eastern religions to the West. Western missionaries had gone to the East centuries ago, in large numbers, especially after the great missionary awakening at the turn of the nineteenth century; but only after the mid twentieth century did Eastern religions begin to invade the West. Harold Netland’s comment may be—purposefully—an overstatement, but it is worth hearing: he argues that by the 1990s, the symbols of Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist spirituality were so prevalent that it was increasingly difficult to distin3 guish “the East” from “the West.”

The Challenge of Pluralism In itself, the challenge of pluralism is, of course, not new. The great Christian novelist John Bunyan already in the seventeenth century struggled with this challenge as the devil assailed him with painful questions about the truth among religions: How can you tell but that the Turks had as good Scriptures to prove their Mahomet the Saviour, as we have to prove our Jesus is; and could I think that so many ten thousands in so many Countreys and Kingdoms, should be without the knowledge of the right way to Heaven . . . and that we onely, who live but in a corner of the Earth, should alone be blessed therewith? Everyone doth think his own Religion rightest, both Jews, and Moors, and Pagans; and how if all our 4 Faith, and Christ, and Scriptures, should be but a thinks-so too?

Add the claims of atheism to the picture, and you have the full force of the 2

Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1982), p. ix. 3 Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 106. 4 John Bunyan, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, ed. Robert Sharrock (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 31, quoted in Daniel B. Clendenin, Many Gods, Many Lords: Christianity Encounters World Religions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995), p. 13.

Introduction

19

challenge posed to the Christian church: addressing both those who do not believe and those who do believe but who believe differently from us. Not only did the early church find itself proclaiming salvation in Christ among competing religions, but already in the Old Testament the faith of the people of God was threatened constantly by the faiths of the surrounding peoples. The Shema, the confession of Israel’s faith, was fashioned among pressures from a legion of gods and goddesses: “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” (Deut 6:4 NASB). There are a host of reasons why pluralism poses a major challenge to all Christians, not only those living in traditional polytheistic contexts such as 5 many Asian and African countries. In recent decades the population of the world has witnessed an unprecedented access to other people and their cultures with the help of rapid technological and communication advances. In our world, people of other cultures and faiths simply have much more to do with each other, whether they want to or not, in schools, markets and workplaces, even in families through intermarriage. As a result, since the 1960s or so many religions that used to be quite reluctant to communicate their message to outsiders have shown a new vitality in evangelization and reaching out. This is true with regard to both Islam, with millions of Islamic families moving to the West, and several Eastern religions that were discovered by Western youth of the sixties and many others since. With regard to a more positive and tolerant attitude toward other religions, we should not ignore the radical transformation of intellectual climate brought 6 about by the Enlightenment. Before the Enlightenment and the rise of classical liberalism that followed, most people took it for granted that an exclusive claim to the superiority of Christianity needed no extensive justification. The Enlightenment eradicated major pillars of orthodoxy, however, and left theology and the church to rethink major doctrines and convictions. Even those who followed orthodoxy could not go back to the pre-Enlightenment homogenous culture but had to give their testimonies in an intellectually more tolerant and permissive cultural milieu. There was a shift from dogmatic definitions to a new appreciation of the ethical life and love of neighbor as the essence of reli5 6

See further Clendenin, Many Gods, pp. 18-29. While it is possible—and even helpful—to make a distinction between Christian thinking about religions and Christian attitudes toward other religions and their followers, in this book that distinction is not followed since it would unnecessarily complicate expressions. I take it for granted that all Christians, regardless of their particular theology or religious persuasion, attempt to show understanding and love to people of other (and no) faiths.

20

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

gion. In his book What Is Christianity (1901), the great liberal church historian Adolf von Harnack defined the essence of Christianity around three affirmations: the fatherhood of God, the infinite value of the human soul, and the brotherhood of men and women. This kind of revised Christianity has much more in common with other religions than with the pre-Enlightenment dogmatism, according to which salvation can only be found in the Christian church and in a strict adherence to a set of narrowly defined dogmas. Scholarly study of religions has tried to keep up with this changed situation and has helped us to see the differences and similarities among religions. Any college student nowadays, regardless of his or her major, may take a course or two in world religions. What all of these and many related factors have brought about is a radically new context for Christianity. Not inappropriately, this change has been labeled a “monstrous shift” (Langdon Gilkey), a “fundamental revision” (Gordon Kaufman), a “genetic-like mutation” (Raimundo Panikkar), a “momentous kairos” (Paul Knitter), a “Copernican revolution” and “radical transformation” (John Hick) and a “crossing of a theological Rubicon” (Claremont Grad7 uate School Conference of March 1986). It is to this context that Christian theology of religions speaks.

What Is Theology of Religions? Theology of religions is that discipline of theological studies which attempts to account theologically for the meaning and value of other religions. Christian theology of religions attempts to think theologically about what it means for Christians to live with people of other faiths and about the relationship of Christianity to other religions. Recently some authors have proposed the label “theology of religious pluralism,” as is evident in the monumental work of the Roman Catholic Jacques Du8 puis, S.J., Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. An earlier book by Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism, shows the same orientation in the way he defines theology of pluralism: “The Christian theology of religions has come to be the name for that area of Christian studies which aims to give some definition and shape to Christian reflection on the theological implications of living in a re9 ligiously plural world.” The focus on pluralism in defining the content of theol7

I am indebted to Clendenin, Many Gods, p. 31. Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997). 9 Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism, p. ix. 8

Introduction

21

ogy of religions is appropriate in that it highlights the most significant challenge to theology of religions. Nevertheless, the phrase “theology of religions” most probably has gained an established status as a general title for this field of study. A distinction should be made between theology of religion (singular) and theology of religions (plural). The theology of religion asks what religion is and seeks, in the light of Christian faith, to interpret the universal religious experience of humankind; it further studies the relationship between revelation and faith, faith and religion, and faith 10 and salvation.

Eventually the theology of religion becomes a theology of religions, which studies the various religious traditions from the perspective of Christian faith and its foundational affirmation concerning Jesus Christ. Consequently, a general theology of religions treats all different religions as a whole, as the reality of human culture embedded in cultures and worldviews, whereas theologies of particular religious traditions focus on the relationship between Christianity and a particular religion. The Christian-Jewish dialogue provides an example. These particular theologies of religions are also called local theologies of religions: African theology of religions, Asian theology of religions and, for ex11 ample, Indian theology of religions. An African theology of religions inquires into the continuity between African traditional religions and the Christian message. The same principle applies to an Asian or Latin American theology. The goal of the present book is to introduce Christian theology of religions. In principle—even though not much work has yet been done—there also could be a theology of religions from the perspective of other religions, such as a Buddhist or Hindu theology of religions. The goal of each of these theologies would be to reflect on the meaning of other religions in relation to its own convictions and underlying foundations. Christian theology of religions is by far the most developed type of theology of religions. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, the famous Islamic expert, has suggested a “world theology” instead of a particular Christian or other theology of religions. According to him, this type of theology is the only one that does justice to the new global awareness of religious pluralism. A world theology would be one “for which the ‘religions’ are the subject, not the object; a theology that emerges out 10 11

Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 7. See further Mariasusai Dhavamony, Christian Theology of Religions: A Systematic Reflection on the Christian Understanding of World Religions, Studien zur Interkulturellen Geschichte Des Christentums 108 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998), pp. 10-11.

22

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

of ‘all the religions of the world.’ ” In Smith’s mind, that kind of world theology would mean not diluting Christian faith but rather transcending it, in the sense that it would become “the faith of all of us.”12 However, it is doubtful whether that kind of theology would ever account for the distinctive nature of each religion; rather than giving space for each particular religion, it would probably end up being reductionist and lead to a new kind of “general religion” apart from all existing religions. Therefore, Smith’s proposal has met with reservation and criticism. As a separate field of study, theology of religions is a rather recent phenomenon. It emerged first in the Catholic circles beginning with the radical reorientation of Catholic theology as a result of the Second Vatican Council (1962) and soon spread to the Protestant sphere as well. In the wake of these dramatic Catholic changes, the World Council of Churches, under the leadership of Stanley Samartha of India, published The Living Faiths and Ultimate Goals in 1974, followed the next year by Towards World Community: Resources and Responsibilities for Living Together. Currently, theology of religions is one of the most (if not the most) rapidly growing branch of theological studies. Beginning in the late 1980s, there has been a steady flow of publications that intensified at the turn of the millennium. Although theology of religions did not have a prominent place in theological curriculum until the 1960s or so, some influential voices had been speaking decades earlier. The great German liberal thinker Ernst Troeltsch, sometimes called the “father of pluralism,” published the essay “The Place of Christianity Among the World Religions,” and the American philosopher William Hocking wrote his widely read Rethinking Missions a few years later, in 1932. Both of these works argued for historical relativism and a nonexclusive attitude toward other religions. Even earlier, in the beginning of the century, John Farquhar, a Scottish Protestant missionary to India, argued that Christ is The Crown of Hinduism (1913). Even though theology of religions is a fairly new discipline in theology, the questions it asks are not new. In the past, they were treated as part of other theological loci. The main question is, naturally, that of salvation: Is salvation to be found only in Christianity, and more specifically only in the church? Is salvation tied to the person and work of Christ? What is the lot of those who have never heard of the Christian message? Several related questions have also been raised as part of theological studies: Is revelation to be found only in 12

Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Towards a World Theology (London: Macmillan, 1981), pp. 124-25.

Introduction

23

Christ, or are other religions revelatory, too? What is the relation of the Christian conception of God to other religions’ views? A path was paved for the emergence of theology of religions from the beginning of the twentieth century by the rise of the study of comparative religions. Christian theologians became aware of the nature and distinctive features and beliefs of other religions in a new way. Implied in the emergence of Christian theology of religions is the realization that Christian theology can no longer develop in isolation from the opinions and views of other religions. Consequently, an encounter with religions also contributes to the growth of Christian self-identity. When challenged to define one’s own convictions visà-vis other alternatives, one always receives an opportunity to see more clearly what is different from and similar to other worldviews. Alan Race comments that some now believe that the future of Christian theology lies in the encounter between Christianity and other faiths. If they are correct in this, then the Christian theology of religions needs present no apologia for adding one more specialism to the Christian theological enterprise as a whole. Rather, it ought to rejoice at being at the frontiers of 13 the next phase in Christian history.

The late theological giant Paul Tillich already saw this when, in his last published lecture, he predicted that the future of theology lies in the “interpenetration of systematic theological study and religious historical studies.” As a result, in contact with the history of religions “every individual doctrinal state14 ment or ritual expression of Christianity receives a new intensity of meaning.”

In Search of a Paradigm Being a fairly recent development in Christian theology, theology of religions has not yet established its canons. Several kinds of classifications are offered to organize and make sense of various approaches taken by Christian theolo15 16 gians with regard to other religions. The book No Other Name? by Catholic 13

Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism, p. xi. Paul Tillich, “The Significance of the History of Religions for the Systematic Theologian,” in The Future of Religions (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), p. 91. 15 One of the most elaborate outlines can be found in Owen C. Thomas’s Attitudes Toward Other Religions: Some Christian Interpretations (New York: Harper & Row, 1969): Rationalism, Romanticism, Relativism, Exclusivism, Dialectic, Reconception, Tolerance, Dialogue, Catholicism, and Presence. Thomas’s method was to introduce various theologians’ opinions and illustrate how each of them viewed Christianity’s relation to other religions. 16 Paul Knitter, No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985). 14

24

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

writer Paul Knitter distinguishes the following options: • the conservative evangelical model that argues for Christianity as the one true religion • the mainline Protestant model, which argues for salvation in Christ, but not exclusively • the Catholic model, according to which there are various paths to salvation, yet one norm, Jesus Christ • the theocentric model, which regards God, not Christ, as the center and is open to salvation in various religions The limitation of Knitter’s otherwise helpful classification is that opinions of theology of religions cannot be distinguished on the basis of confessional boundaries, which even Knitter himself notices. Another Catholic writer, Hans Küng, distinguishes similarly four categories: • No religion is true. • Only one religion is true. • Every religion is true. • One religion is the true one in whose truth all religions participate.17 Among many proposals, one type of classification seems to have gained the most widespread hearing and is currently used in many different kinds of treatments of theology of religions: exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. This has the potential of becoming the typology of theology of religions. Exclusivists hold that salvation is available only in Jesus Christ to the extent that those who have never heard the gospel are eternally lost. Exclusivists claim that salvation can be found only in the Christian church. In this scheme, nonChristian religions play no role in the history of salvation. For pluralists, other religions are legitimate means of salvation. Pluralism involves both a positive and a negative element: Negatively, pluralism categorically rejects exclusivism (and often also inclusivism); positively, it affirms that people can find salvation in various religions and in many ways. John Hick’s citation from the Bhagavad Gita is illustrative of pluralism: “Howsoever men may approach me, even so 18 do I accept them; for, on all sides, whatever path they may choose is mine.” Raimundo Panikkar calls this category “parallelism”: all religions run parallel 17

Hans Küng, “What Is True Religion? Toward an Ecumenical Criteriology,” in Toward a Universal Theology of Religion, ed. L. Swidler (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987), pp. 231-50. 18 John Hick, God Has Many Names (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), p. 78.

Introduction

25

and meet only in the Ultimate, at the end of the time.19 The mediating group, inclusivists, hold that while salvation is ontologically founded on the person of Christ, its benefits have been made universally available by the revelation of God. This is the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church after the Vatican II Council. This mediating position currently has the largest group of followers, and it cuts across confessional and denominational boundaries; many theologians—from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism to mainline Protestantism to evangelicalism—see it as the most viable option. The present book follows a typology akin to the last one, the one taken, for example, by Jacques Dupuis in his Toward a Christian Theology of Pluralism: 1. Ecclesiocentrism. This is the exclusive attitude, according to which religions are not salvific or even necessarily conducive to the search for God, and salvation can be found only in the Christian church, the locus of faith in Christ. 2. Christocentrism. This is the inclusive approach, according to which Christ is the Savior but the benefits of his saving work may be found outside the Christian church and Christian religion. However, whoever is saved is only saved through the work of Christ. 3. Theocentrism. This is the pluralistic paradigm, according to which Christ is one savior among other savior figures and not an exclusive one. In this view, God alone stands at the center. The various religions, Christianity in20 cluded, represent many ways leading to God. To this threefold typology yet another category needs to be added in light of the future of theology of religions: 4. Realitycentrism. This is yet another step from theocentrism, the route taken recently by Hick, among others, according to which the center of religions is not a God or gods but an ultimate reality (however that is named). Some extreme pluralists seem to shift to this orientation, but at this moment the shape and content of this option are still quite vague and undefined. The gain of this typology is that it also indicates the dynamic that has char19 20

Raimundo Panikkar, The Intra-Religious Dialogue (New York: Paulist, 1978). Earlier, in 1976, J. P. Schineller (“Christ and Church: A Spectrum of Views,” Theological Studies 37 [1976]: 545-66) distributed the theological opinions under four categories that resemble the typology used here, yet have some difference: (1) ecclesiocentric universe, exclusive Christology; (2) Christocentric universe, inclusive Christology; (3) theocentric universe, normative Christology; and (4) theocentric universe, non-normative Christology. In this typology, the first three are parallel to those employed in this book; however, the theocentric worldview comprises alternative positions according to whether a “normative” function is or is not attributed to Jesus Christ with regard to humanity’s relation to God.

26

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

acterized thinking about theology of religions. In recent decades, especially under the tutelage of the postconciliar Roman Catholic Church, there has been a definite shift from ecclesiocentrism to Christocentrism. Not that the exclusive ecclesiocentrism has died out—it still retains its stronghold among the most conservative sides of Christianity and gains wide hearing because of the aggressive and rapidly growing missionary activity of that segment of the church. But generally speaking, among theologians, the shift from ecclesiocentrism to Christocentrism has been both swift and irrevocable. This shift means a radical “decentering” of the church, which now finds itself “recentered” on the mystery of Jesus Christ. “He, indeed, not the Church, stands at the center of the Christian mystery; the Church, by contrast, is a derived, related mystery, which finds in him its raison d’être.”21 At the same time, there is also a slower shift from Christocentrism to theocentrism as more and more theologians and confessions are adopting more or less pluralistic attitudes in theology of religions.

Theological Parameters The main question of the theology of religions culminates simply in two basic affirmations that can be seen as guidelines for any biblical theology of religions. The first is this: God desires all men and women to be saved. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (Jn 3:16). “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him” (1 Jn 4:9). The most pointed passage is 1 Timothy 2:4, which affirms that God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” These passages and a host of others make it clear that it is the heartbeat of a loving, caring Father to save all of his creation into an eternal communion. This is rightly called the “optimism of salvation.” In addition to this first axiom, which consists of the boundless mercy of God that makes possible salvation for all, there is another equally strong biblical conviction, namely, that only in Jesus Christ can salvation be found. This means that universality (salvation for the world) is reached by way of particularity (salvation through the mediation of Jesus Christ). A host of biblical passages also makes this clear: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn 14:6). How one puts these two affirmations together and accounts for the built-in 21

Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 185.

Introduction

27

tension between them largely determines one’s theology of religions. If one emphasizes the first affirmation, one will lean toward inclusivism and pluralism. If one takes the second affirmation as the main guide, then one leans toward exclusivism or moderate inclusivism. One could also, as extreme pluralists or the emerging Reality centrists seem to do, move beyond these two biblical affirmations and just think that neither Jesus Christ nor God is determinative of salvation (whatever that term then would mean). However, various approaches taken in the theology of religions in general reflect a sorting out and struggling with these two foundational affirmations.

How to Use This Book The plan of the present book is simply to look more closely at this pilgrimage of the Christian church. The first part delves briefly into the biblical material and inquires into the problematic nature of the biblical testimony. The second part traces the milestones and highlights representative examples of various opinions on the theology of religions during church history. The third part, the main section of the book, will then offer a detailed survey of major confessional movements and theologians’ opinions with regard to the current state of the theology of religions. In this book, I am not presenting my own or any particular view of theology 22 of religions. This is meant to be a “neutral” introduction to the topic and does not advocate any particular persuasion. (I apoligize if I have unconsciously given preference to one view over another.) Yet theology is never a sterile, disinterested enterprise; rather it has as its goal a critical dialogue and advancement of the argument even when learning is the main goal. Thus, as will be explained in what follows, comparisons, questions and critical observations are offered throughout the book to help the beginning student especially to tackle the issues and learn how to “theologize.” In fact, any serious theological learning always leads to a redefining and deepening of one’s own views; one of the tasks of theological studies is to make that process more transparent and to supply tools for it. When used as a textbook in the classroom, this book gives the professor the opportunity, in critical dialogue with the students, to argue for particular views and orientations. Written in the form of a quite comprehensive survey, the present book con-

22

I have elsewhere offered my current understanding of some main issues in theology of religions. See esp. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Religious Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology of Religions (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2004).

28

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

tains a great deal of materials: biblical, historical and contemporary. By the time the reader has reached the latter part of the book, he or she may feel totally lost and overwhelmed with various views, approaches and innumerable facts. To help orient the reader and show the bigger picture, I have included at the end of each major section critical observations that both offer a brief summary and try to put various views in perspective. While the nature of a survey book like this is not to argue for any specific theological persuasion, these sections offer criticism, comparisons and evaluations. Finally, it is left to the discernment of the reader to determine whether the author has succeeded in offering a survey that is balanced and even-handed and yet advances the critical quest as theology at its best always does. When reading the sections, try to get an overview of the ideas presented and begin to discern their similarities and differences. By doing so, you will find the critical observations at the end of each section even more helpful because they give you, the reader, an opportunity to test whether you have captured the main argument. After the critical observations, some study questions are offered to inspire further thinking and encourage the reader to personally assess the various views. The following questions may help orient the reader to the wealth of materials and perspectives and begin to guide assessment of the merits and problems of various approaches: • In what way, if any, is Christian faith presented as unique and different from other faiths? What are the theological grounds for affirming the uniqueness or denying it? • What kind of continuity might there be between Christian faith and other faiths? • How does the particular view under consideration deal with the challenge of pluralism? • How does the particular view understand the value or other religions? What are the presented or implied reasons for that assessment of value? • In what way, if any, are other religions related to Christian faith? • How does the particular view translate into interfaith dialogue? How does the view understand and affect evangelism and mission? • What are the potential contributions of other religions to Christian faith, and vice versa? • In light of all you have learned here, how would you defend your own cur-

Introduction

29

rent understanding of Christianity’s relation to other faiths? What are the biggest challenges for your view? I have provided a bibliography at the end of the book. It is not meant to be exhaustive but rather a basic tool for students who are beginning their orientation to the topic (which even in most theological seminaries and faculties is still quite meagerly represented in the curriculum). It also serves advanced students, as well as theologians and pastors who want to focus on some specific aspects in the field. The bibliography is limited to currently available English sources for the obvious reason that the main audience of this book comprises English speakers.

P A R T

O N E

B IBLICAL P ERSPECTIVES The Ambiguity and Promise of the Biblical Testimony

1 Overview of Biblical Testimony

In Search of Biblical “Leads” What is Christianity’s relationship to other religions? What can we find of value in other religions? To questions such as these, Christians commonly respond by saying, Let us study the Bible and make our conclusions on the basis of the biblical teaching. This is a valuable response, since for all Christians the Bible is the foundation of faith and the normative source of theology and practice. Unfortunately, resolving the main issue of theology of religions on the basis of the biblical teaching is a more complicated issue than one may assume. Various kinds of materials with regard to the value and role of other religions can be found in the Bible. In fact, we have to agree with what a major study on the topic determined after a careful survey of the biblical data: “No comprehensive solution to this issue [Christianity’s relationship to non-Christian reli1 gions] can be found in the Bible, but it does offer some leads.” What are the “leads” that the authors of that study—Catholic theologians Donald Senior, C.P., and Carroll Stuhlmueller, C.P.—suggested? On the one hand, biblical religion was deeply rooted in the religions of the cultures surrounding Israel. Judaism did not begin as a fixed and autonomous religion but borrowed from “pagan” religions. On the other hand, as Israel’s self-consciousness sharpened, other religions were judged during the Old Testament times as worthless idolatries and challenges to the worship of Yahweh. In the New Testament, the context changes in that it does not explicitly address the challenge of other religions. There are only some passing references to some Greco-Roman religions. Overall, however, when the New Testament refers to other religions, the verdict is usually negative; other religions are regarded as futile. What complicates the picture is that, especially in the Old Testament, we find varying assessments of individual Gentiles, non-Jewish people who were outside the covenant community. For sure, there are hostile attitudes toward 1

Donald Senior and Carroll Stuhlmueller, The Biblical Foundations for Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1983), p. 345.

34

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

and even ridicule of their worship of idols. But there are also positive, even admiring, appraisals. Yet another “lead” that Senior and Stuhlmueller mention on the basis of their extensive study on the Bible’s relation to other religions concerns how the New Testament, especially Paul’s writings, regards even pagan religions as potential sources of a general kind of knowledge of God. In the history of theology this is called “natural religion,” whereby “the true God could be detect2 ed in the order and beauty of his creation.” But even then it was inconceivable for a biblical writer to give too much credit to a full-blown cult or nonbiblical religion. Senior and Stuhlmueller acknowledge that during the two thousand years since the time of the New Testament church, something significant has happened in the Christian consciousness because the gospel has been preached in the whole world: These and other experiences have resulted in a profound evolution in Christian attitudes to non-Christian religions. Instead of seeing “pagan” religions as aberrations, many Christians now acknowledge that for millions of people these systems provide genuine experiences of salvation. Instead of dismissing them as temporary obstructions to the triumph of the gospel, Christians may have to con3 sider the proper role of other religions in the global history of humanity.

But does not that kind of change of attitude clearly run against the biblical testimony? What about the integrity of Christianity and its faithfulness to the tradition and to the normative source of doctrine? Rightly, the authors acknowledge this and wonder, How can the story of Israel and the church be uniquely revealing if another genuinely sacred story can be found in the parallel history of other religions? How can Jesus Christ be claimed as cosmic Lord and sole Redeemer if people find sal4 vation in a religious tradition that has not even heard of Jesus?

A way to respond to this legitimate question is to point to the stories and comments in the Bible that seem to offer a more positive assessment of other religions. While it is true that in general the Bible offers a quite consistent negative judgment of other religions and as a consequence seems to support an exclusive attitude, a range of biblical passages point to the relative value of

2

Ibid., pp. 345-46. Ibid., p. 346. 4 Ibid., p. 346. 3

Overview of Biblical Testimony

35

religions and to God’s power in transforming religions and cultures to acknowledge the truth. It is the continuing task of Christian theology—under changed circumstances, yet in faithfulness to the tradition—to try to make sense of the church’s calling on the basis of biblical teaching and theological reflection. Therefore, in what follows, I will attempt to present a brief survey of the Old Testament and the New to find out what kind of perspectives are offered as raw material to the theology of religions.

2 The Old Testament

The Universal History and “Cosmic” Covenants The earliest chapters of the Bible provide a foundation for an optimistic view of salvation in the global or “cosmic” covenant. The first eleven chapters of Genesis, the very beginning of both the Bible and the Pentateuch, display a universal orientation. The significant division between Genesis 1—11 and the rest of the Bible should not be missed. The first chapters are an account of the universal history of humankind before God elected a nation to further his purposes for the world. Significantly enough, the election of Abraham in Genesis 12 is situated in the context of universal human history. And God’s choice of Abraham to be the father of God’s people is not for Abraham’s or his own people’s sake but for the blessing of the whole world (Gen 12:3). This is the beginning of the pattern so prevalent in the Old Testament: a person or nation is set apart for God’s purposes for the rest of the world. Particularity is put in the service of universality. The first chapter of the Bible depicts God as the creator not only of heaven and earth but of all peoples. All peoples therefore have the same origin and destiny. Here theologians talk about a “covenant of creation,” which indicates that God’s concern embraces the whole of humanity, not just the people of God. Even if it might not be relevant to talk about the covenant with Adam (as many Bible expositors have done, beginning with the church fathers) for the obvious reason that the Bible does not use that terminology with regard to Adam, it is clear that God already strikes a covenant with Noah (Gen 9) even before an election took place. A universal sign was given to this covenant: the rainbow. The Catholic writer Jean Daniélou, one of the pioneers of the theolo1 gy of religions, made much use of this idea of a “cosmic covenant.” He emphasized that even though this covenant is made before the election of God’s people, it still is a “supernatural” covenant, which means that it belongs to the same order as the Mosaic covenant or the covenant brought about by Christ. The early church fathers paid attention to the fact that those two early cov1

Jean Daniélou, Holy Pagans of the Old Testament (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1957).

The Old Testament

37

enants, with Adam and Noah, were predecessors of the covenant with the people of God in the Old Testament (Abraham and Moses) and in the New Testament (Jesus Christ). The Eastern church father Irenaeus says, Four covenants were given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge; the third, the giving of the Law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates the human being, and sums up all things in itself by means of the Gospel, raising and bearing human beings upon its 2 wings into the heavenly Kingdom.

The universal orientation of the biblical prologue continues in the genealogies of Genesis 10, indicating that God is concerned not only about men and women in his own flock but about all men and women. Here God is not depicted as a narrow-minded tribal God, even though later in the biblical history that often seems to be the case. Daniélou, who highlighted the value of the cosmic covenant, wrote a book with a telling title: Holy Pagans of the Old Testament. The book pays attention to the fact that a host of non-Jewish, non-covenant individuals in the pages of the Old Testament, both before and after the first covenant with the people of God, are lifted up as examples of faith. Reading Hebrews 11 in the New Testament gives a running commentary on the virtues of people such as Abel, Enoch and Rahab. On the basis of Hebrews 11:5, according to which “by faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death,” Augustine traced membership in “the city of God” back to Abel. “The Apostolic Constitution,” a compilation of early Christian traditions, continued to give honor to these “pagan-saints”: “From the beginning God raised up priests to take care of his 3 people, Abel first, then Seth, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek and Job (8:3, 5).” Job represents a “pagan saint”: he is set forth as a model of justice and piety. Melchizedek, the mysterious king and “priest of the God Most High” gives Abraham a blessing (Gen 14). Later Melchizedek was instituted as an “eternal priest” (Ps 110:4). Many others could be added to the list, from the Queen of Sheba to Lot. Clark H. Pinnock, an evangelical theologian, summarizes the early part of the Old Testament as follows: From the earliest chapters of the Bible we learn a fundamental (if neglected) truth, that salvation history is coextensive with world history and its goal is the 2

Irenaeus Adversus haereses 3.11.8, quoted in Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997), p. 33. 3 Augustine The City of God 15.1, quoted in Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992), p. 22.

38

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

healing of all the nations. This is a testimony which stands as a corrective to so much Western theology, which has not been universal in its orientation but rather has narrowed God’s saving purposes to a tiny thread of history and limited participation in salvation to the adherents of church and synagogue. These witnesses tell us that God has in his heart to bless the race and does not want only to rescue 4 a few brands plucked from the burning.

The Verdict on the Gods of the Nations The purpose of this survey of the biblical theology of religions is not to try to 5 argue for a more positive attitude than is evident in the Bible. Rather, our goal is to offer to the student of the theology of religions a balanced judgment of how the Bible approaches the topic. In doing so, we need to highlight also the uncompromising judgment of all other gods besides the Yahweh of Israel. This is the main thrust of the Old Testament’s attitude toward other religions. The more positive elements with regard to other religions mentioned above should be taken into consideration when the meaning of this irrevocable exclusivism for today is assessed, but neither side should be ignored or watered down. The foundational affirmation for everything the Old Testament says about gods is the Shema, Israel’s confession of faith, in Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” The people of Israel struggled for a long time to come to the acknowledgment that this God is the God of all, not only the God of Israel, a sort of tribal God. In the beginning stages of the history of the people of God, it was hard enough to acknowledge that for Israel Yahweh was the only God. “You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20:3). At this stage, the existence of other gods is not rejected in principal; they are just put in their proper place, as inferior to Yahweh: Who among the gods is like you, O LORD? Who is like you— majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders? (Ex 15:11)

4 5

Pinnock, Wideness, p. 23. That kind of tendency is evident in some recent treatments, which attempt to argue for a more inclusive or pluralistic attitude toward other religions (see, e.g., ibid.). The challenging task of Christian theology of religions is not to try to read the Bible in a more “positive” light, but to take an honest look at the biblical data and then reflect on their meaning in light of current challenges and the development of Christian tradition.

The Old Testament

39

Along the way, Yahweh’s universal power, which extends to the whole earth, came to be acknowledged and embraced by the people of God. But it was not until after the exile that Israel finally understood that not only is Yahweh more powerful than other gods but that in fact no other gods exist. Any appeal to other gods was a reference to an idle, futile human construction: Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; they make no sound in their throats. (Ps 115:3-7 NRSV)

And so, “Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them” (Ps 115:8). In the second part of the book of Isaiah, derogative sayings about other gods abound (Is 43:10-11; 44:6-9; 45:6-22, etc.).

The Tension Between Particularism and Universalism Against the background of this extremely negative attitude, first downplaying other gods and finally denying their whole existence, the stories indicating a more positive attitude toward the adherents of other religions gain their full force. Stories such as the leadership of Cyrus, the pagan king who acted as the Yahweh’s “anointed” (literally, “Messiah”; Is 44—45), and the conversion of Nineveh, a pagan city judged by the prophet Jonah, indicate that even with its misgivings about and opposition to false gods, Old Testament theology still occasionally acknowledged and reached out to other faiths. Remarkable also are those many passages that celebrate Yahweh as the universal king of the universe and that even invite other nations—those worshippers of idols that do not even exist!—to join in the praise of God. Many psalms provide illustrative examples (e.g., Ps 44, 93, 97—99), and Isaiah’s hymn invites all the nations to “sing to the LORD a new song” (Is 42:10-12). Similarly, the Servant of Yahweh is to be “a covenant to the people, a light to the nations” (Is 42:6 NRSV; 49:8). In light of the extremely uncompromising verdict condemning the other nations’ gods, perhaps the most striking example of the universalism of the Old Testament is the prophecy concerning the future of Egypt: “So the Lord

40

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

will make himself known to the Egyptians, and in that day they will acknowledge the Lord. They will worship with sacrifices and grain offerings; they will make vows to the Lord and keep them” (Is 19:21). Egypt even becomes the “people of God.” Equally universal is the passage from Malachi 1:11: “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts” (NRSV). Many passages in the Prophets are unambiguous about the universal power and purposes of Yahweh; his dealings are not limited to his chosen people. The pagan king Nebuchadnezzar confessed to have “blessed the Most High, and praised and honored the one who lives forever” (Dan 4:34 NRSV). Darius likewise acknowledged that Yahweh is the living God and decreed that all his people “should tremble and fear before” this God (Dan 6:26-27 NRSV). In reading the prophetic books of the Old Testament we often miss the point that whole sections are meant for people outside the covenant community, such as Isaiah 13:1—23:18, Jeremiah 46—51, Ezekiel 25—32 and Amos 1:3—2:3. Yes, they contain harsh judgments, but still, behind them is Yahweh’s concern for all his children. In fact, entire books, such as Obadiah, Jonah and Nahum, deal extensively with pagan nations. In addition to the judging pagan nations, the Major Prophets especially also announce salvation and peace: in Isaiah to Egypt; in Jeremiah to Moab, Ammon and Elam (Jer 48—49); and in Ezekiel to nations that “will know that I am the LORD” (Ezek 36:23). Clearly, Yahweh’s saving purposes are directed not just to Israel or even to the nations surrounding it, but to “all nations” of the earth (Ps 67:2). There is thus a built-in tension between particularism (election) and universalism. One can feel the rub in deciding whether Israel should eradicate the nations that are opposing the purposes of their God, or open their arms and welcome the nations to join in worship of their God. Daniel B. Clendenin’s comments point to the Israelites’ daily struggle as they dealt with other nations amid the pressures of particularism and universalism: It stands to reason, then, that although Israel was commanded to seek the Lord in unique, normative, and exclusive ways, they were to be especially careful, even inclusive we might say, in their treatment of foreigners. Since God was impartial and had a special love for the alien, Israel too was to be impartial and lov6 ing (Deut 1:17; 10:17-18). 6

Daniel B. Clendenin, Many Gods, Many Lords: Christianity Encounters World Religions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995), p. 135.

3 The New Testament

Jesus and the Gentiles There is no doubt about the mission of Jesus of Nazareth: he was sent “only to the lost sheep of Israel”(Mt 15:24). When Jesus sent his disciples out on a mission, he charged them to stay within the confines of the people of God (Mt 10:5-6). However theology accounts for the meaning of these instances for our view of Jesus’ attitude toward other religions and the Gentiles, there is no denying that the Jesus of history limited his mission mainly to the Jewish people. He was also critical of the proselytizing activity of the Pharisees (Mt 23:15). Before the cross and resurrection, “there is very little evidence that Jesus set out on a conscious program of preaching to Gentiles, even though such evidence would have been highly useful for the later evangelists who were writing to 1 an increasingly Gentile church.” In his classic study Jesus’ Promise to the Nations, Joachim Jeremias has tried to resolve theologically this limitation of Jesus by arguing that it has to do with 2 two successive time periods. During his lifetime, Jesus limited his activity to Israel and subsequently promised to the Gentiles their incorporation in the kingdom of God. That inclusion would take place in the eschaton: “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness” (Mt 8:11). In this passage we see how God’s kingdom, once open only to the chosen people, is now open to all nations. Jeremias’s proposal, however, has to be balanced with the observation that in Jesus of Nazareth’s preaching, the inclusion of the Gentiles does not seem to be delayed until the eschaton, even though the end time would bring their 1

Donald Senior and Carroll Stuhlmueller, The Biblical Foundations for Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1983), p. 142. 2 Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations (London: SCM Press, 1958). For various positions in addition to that of Jeremias, see Senior and Stuhlmueller, Biblical Foundations, pp. 143-44.

42

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

final inclusion. This is brought home in the way Jesus preached the kingdom of God and worked miracles and proclaimed forgiveness of sins—and his invitations to sinners and others outside the covenant community to table fellowship. All of these acts of mercy functioned as “signs” of the coming of the kingdom. That Jesus worked miracles also on behalf of those outside the covenant community—people who were not Jews—implies that the reign of God, his righteous will, was also reaching out to the Gentiles. Jesus’ emerging inclusive attitude toward the Gentiles is evident in his occasional excursions to the areas outside the borders and religion of the Jewish people, such as when he healed the Syro-Phoenician woman. His message of repentance as a prerequisite to the entry to the kingdom (Mk 1:15) was targeted to the Jews as well as to the Gentiles, even though Jesus himself mainly concentrated his ministry within the covenant community. Occasionally, Jesus also praised the faith of the “pagan”: In Matthew 15:28 (“Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted”) Jesus expresses admiration for the faith of a Canaanite woman. Even more astonishing is the way Jesus praises the Roman centurion’s faith: “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith” (Mt 8:10). At the end of Jesus’ life, the confession of faith, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mk 15:39), came from the lips of a Gentile soldier. Though Jesus of Nazareth definitely limited his ministry to the covenant community, he reached out at times to the people outside the household of Israel’s God, as Jacques Dupuis summarizes: Clearly, then, for Jesus, saving faith is not only remotely accessible to pagans and foreigners; it is actually operative among them. So too foreigners may already belong to the Kingdom of God, the call to which extends beyond the limits of Israel’s chosen people. This attitude seems to contrast sharply with Jesus’ professed admission—recorded earlier—of having been sent “only for the lost sheep of the 3 house of Israel” (Mt 15:24).

After Jesus’ death and resurrection, all the Evangelists record missionary commandments: the disciples were to go and preach the gospel of the Christian message to the whole world. But with regard to our responsibility toward those of other faiths we do not have any material from the teaching of Jesus. “From the Gospel tradition we can surmise Jesus of Nazareth did not speak speculatively about the nature of God. He drew on his great Jewish 3

Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997), p. 47.

The New Testament

43

heritage.” It is also clear that “none of the content in Jesus’ image of God is an addition to his Jewish heritage.”4 Therefore, any reflection on Jesus’ attitude toward other religions has to be based on the indirect materials briefly summarized above.

The Early Church and the Gentiles According to Donald Senior and Carroll Stuhlmueller, the question of “boundaries” remained a central concern of the early church, as it had been for Jesus himself. The struggle of the early church to move beyond the confines of Israel, to be open to the Gentiles, was a major theme of the Pauline letters and of much of the Gospel tradition. The interaction of the church with the uncharted religious waters of the Hellenistic world . . . echoes a similar thrust. . . . This centrifugal movement of the early community prevented it from ever becoming purely sectarian, and this spirit, too, finds its origin in the shape of Jesus’ own 5 perspective.

It was a painful struggle for the early church to embrace an inclusive, welcoming attitude toward the Gentiles. Peter, as the spokesperson, finally came to this conclusion: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right” (Acts 10:34-35). In order to say this, Peter had to be given a vision and encouraged by God. Later in Acts, we find several signs that the church is opening up to the idea of a God who takes care of all, not only of his own people. “In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony” (Acts 14:16-17) was Paul’s insight at Lystra. The culmination of a new kind of inclusive attitude comes in Paul’s famous speech at Athens, in which he acknowledges the piety of other nations in their search for God and sees it as preparation for the encounter with the true God (Acts 17:22-31). Here is a classic example of a “fulfillment theory”: “Evidently Paul thought of these people as believers in a certain sense, in a way that could be and 6 should be fulfilled in Jesus Christ.” The biblical materials concerning the early church’s view of other religions and other gods are as scarce as those concerning Jesus of Nazareth’s views. What can be said safely is that as followers of Jesus, the early church adopted

4

Senior and Stuhlmueller, Biblical Foundations, p. 151. Ibid., p. 157. 6 Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992), p. 32. 5

44

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Jewish monotheism and held to the universality of God’s person and nature. At the same time, it is also evident that the church valued an intensive, aggressive evangelization of all people, both Jews and Gentiles. For example, according to Luke, Philip the evangelist preached Christ among the Samaritans, to an Ethiopian and “in all the towns, until he reached Caesarea” (Acts 8:40). Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, sought to preach the gospel of Christ until “all nations might believe and obey” (Rom 16:26). The apostolic message went from Jerusalem to Samaria to the ends of the earth, as indicated by the structure of the book of Acts, the primary missionary document of the New Testament. This proclamation was made in the context of Greco-Roman polytheism and mystery religions. However, almost all of the hostile encounters between these Christian evangelists and their audience took place between Christians and Jews rather than between Christians and followers of other faiths.

Paul and the Gentiles Paul had the most extensive exposure to other religions and adherents of other religions, but even his engagement is primarily with the Jews. There are clearly two orientations in his writings, which constitute the most extensive corpus in the New Testament. Well-known is the pessimism concerning other religions and their devotees, found in the first three chapters of Romans. Paul’s harsh judgment of pagans and their futile gods, however, has to be read in light of his equally stern verdict of the Jews who live apart from faith in Christ (Rom 2—3). The Jews’ special status as the elected people is not guaranteed. In fact, God is just in his dealings with both classes of people: “When gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts” (Rom 2:14-15). The value of faith, clearly, is in proportion to the light received. The privileged state of those who believe in Christ is certain in Paul’s theology, as Dupuis comments: “Faith, once offered to Christians, abolishes, by virtue of a divine decree, the value of all religions (Rom 6:6; 2 Cor 5:17; Eph 4:22; Col 3:9).” Dupuis incisively continues, Yet what we are dealing with in Paul here is a reflection on the privileged situation of whoever has found Jesus Christ and has shared in him in the new life of these last times (Rom 6:4; 7:6; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 2:15; 4:8-11). It is no declaration of 7 principle, no absolute denial of any value in other religious traditions. 7

Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, pp. 48-49.

The New Testament

45

This balancing perspective is apparent in Paul’s sermons in Acts referred to above. For Paul, the religions of the nations are not bereft of value but find in Jesus Christ the fulfillment of their aspirations. In comparison with what is offered in Jesus Christ, they seem very spare, but this does not prevent them from being a positive prep8 aration for Christian faith.

In fact, Paul believes that God “is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27), perhaps implying that religions do have their value as mediations for God’s hidden presence, which is shown clearly in Christ. And there is no doubt in Paul’s mind about the common roots of all people; with approval he quotes a Gentile writer, the poet Aratus from the third century B.C.E.: “We are his [God’s] offspring” (Acts 17:28). There is both a continuity and discontinuity with regard to (other) religions between Romans 1 and Acts 17: Discontinuity places the stress on the radical newness of Christ and his resurrection and by contrast sees the ancient world as darkness and sin. That is the viewpoint of Rom[ans] 1. The continuity, on the contrary, underlines the homogeneity of salvation unfolding according to God’s plan. It is the viewpoint of Acts 17, which, where the religion of gentiles is concerned, presents a Greek world wait9 ing for the unknown God and prepared by its poet-theologians to meet him.

Two letters in the Pauline corpus shed some more light on the theology of 10 Paul regarding our topic, namely Colossians and Ephesians, where the cosmic scope of Pauline theology comes into focus. The hymnic passage in Colossians 1:15-20 tells us that Christ is the image of the unseen God and the beginning of all creation since all things were created in him. This passage also identifies Christ as the origin (the Greek term arche means also “beginning”) and “firstborn” from the dead, in whom the fullness of God dwells. Through Jesus’ blood, God has reconciled the world, the whole universe. So this hymn associates Christ with creation, preservation, redemption, the church and the whole purpose of the world. One of the most distinctive christological claims is found in Colossians 2:6-23, in which Paul intends to show the less than per8

Ibid., p. 49. Ibid., p. 50, on the basis of what Herve Legrand has argued; see, e.g., his “The Unknown God of Athens,” Vidyajyoti 45 (1981): 222-31. 10 For a careful discussion, see Senior and Stuhlmueller, Biblical Foundations, pp. 191-210. The authorship of Ephesians and Colossians is disputed, but all scholars agree that they belong to the Pauline corpus. For the present argument, the judgment concerning authorship does not matter so much; even a non-Pauline origin would still demonstrate the normative New Testament nature of these writings. 9

46

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

fect nature of all human wisdom and traditions in light of the fullness of Christ. Paul states that “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” in Christ (Col 2:9; see also Col 1:19). These passages push the christological boundaries beyond the questions of individual salvation or even the salvation of Israel and the nations to the final consummation and purpose of everything that exists, unseen powers included. A distinctive cosmic scope is also evident in Ephesians. In a remarkable prayer at the end of the first chapter, Paul expands on the role of Christ “in the heavenly realm.” He talks about Christ as raised from the dead and seated at the right hand of God, “far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given,” both in this age and in the age to come (Eph 1:21). Christ has been put in charge and given authority over everything. The reference to Christ’s dominion includes the cosmic victory over all resisting spiritual powers (see also Eph 2:1-2). According to Ephesians 2:14, Christ is “our peace,” referring to a new kind of union between the Gentiles and Jews. Christ not only brings peace but is in his person peace. This is the great “mystery” of God kept secret in the past (Eph 3:4). According to God’s plan, the Gentiles have become “heirs together with Israel” to the promises of the gospel (Eph 3:6). As a result, God has effected in Christ a reconciliation, the eradication of the enmity between God and human beings; not only that, but he has also reconciled the two contrasting groups of people, namely the Jews and Gentiles. Now these two groups form a new person in Christ (Eph 2:15). A cosmic orientation of Christology, akin to what can be found in Pauline writings such as these, is also evident in the opening verses of Hebrews. Clearly, what Paul had in mind in these two letters was a tendency to universalize the work of Christ to encompass all creation and humanity. But how this relates to other religions and their savior figures is not discussed here. All that can be said safely is that whatever the role of other saviors and religions, they find their fulfillment in Christ.

4 Religion(s) in the Bible

Judgment on Religions “I see that in every way you are very religious” was Paul’s observation at Athens (Acts 17:22). A crucial question of the theology of religions naturally inquires into the Bible’s view concerning religion in general and religions (including Christianity). The survey above has, of course, touched on the issue, but for the purposes of a systematic analysis we need to summarize and pull together various perspectives. Let us do this simply by looking first at negative judgments of religions that abound in the Bible and then at some pos1 itive assessments. The Old Testament judges Canaanite religion as false and destructive: it deserved to be wiped out from the face of the earth. The Old Testament does not give us many details, but we can gather from other sources that the many Canaanite, Ugaritic, Moabite, Hittite, Philistine and Phoenecian religions were guilty of all kinds of perverse acts such as child sacrifices, sacred prostitution and magic. How much of the judgment of religions goes back to these kinds of less than honorable features and how much is due to the whole notion of (other) religion(s) is not clear from the biblical data. This uncompromising critique addressed not only the religions of the surrounding nations but also the religion of Israel. The Old Testament prophets often spoke out against the failures of the religion of their own people, and Jesus harshly criticized the excesses and misinterpretations of the contemporary religion of the Jews. However, one wonders whether these two examples of the Bible’s attitude toward religion(s) is not so much a general principle but rather a desire to purify religions and focus on their major task, that is, the worship of the true God of Israel. 1

I am indebted here to the lucid exposition of Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992), pp. 85-106.

48

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Paul did not compromise in his pointing to the negative aspects of religions. In his mind the conversion of the Thessalonians meant a turning from idols to serve the true and living God (1 Thess 1:9). The Colossians, in Paul’s judgment, had been transferred from the dominion of darkness to the light (Col 1:13), implying that their former religion was not only devoid of truth but also oppressive. Acts, which records Paul’s admiration for the zeal of the adherents of other gods, also tells us that Paul’s preaching was aimed having the Gentiles open their eyes to the true God and coming out of darkness to light (Acts 26:18). Many other similar passages can be found in the Pauline writings (2 Cor 11:3-4, among others). Clark Pinnock, who has a well-balanced view of religions, gives an accurate summary of the Bible’s assessment of the negative aspects of religions: The conclusion to be drawn is that religion may be dark, deceptive, and cruel. It harbors ugliness, pride, error, hypocrisy, darkness, cruelty, demons, hardheartedness, blindness, fanaticism, and deception. The idea that world religions ordinarily function as paths to salvation is dangerous nonsense and wishful 2 thinking.

True Religion Pinnock’s just-quoted summary is but one part of the biblical teaching on religion(s), even if it is undoubtedly the mainline view. Another summary from Pinnock is also just as appropriate as the previous one: According to the Bible, there also exists among the nations religious faith which lies at the other end of the spectrum. It recognizes faith, neither Jewish nor Christian, which is nonetheless noble, uplifting, and sound. We came across this faith earlier in the category of pagan saints, believers like Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Daniel, Melchizedek, Lot, Abimelech, Jethro, Rahab, Ruth, Naaman, the Queen of Sheba, the Roman soldier, Cornelius, and others. These were believing men and women who enjoyed a right relationship with God and lived saintly lives, under the terms of the wider covenant God made with 3 Noah.

An indication of a more positive assessment of religions in the Bible is the willingness of the Jewish religion to borrow extensively from Mesopotamian, Egyptian and even Zoroastrian sources for its literature and laws. The Wisdom literature of the Old Testament (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, among others) shows a 2 3

Ibid., p. 90. Ibid., p. 92.

Religion(s) in the Bible

49

surprisingly affirmative attitude toward the wisdom found in the surrounding nations.4 In addition to the Old Testament passages mentioned, in which the Jewish community receives or admires the faith of someone from an outside religion, one can also point to other Old Testament examples, such as the contribution of Balaam, the pagan soothsayer (Num 23—24), and to other New Testament instances, such as the visit of the Magi to the newborn baby (Mt 2:1-12). For Matthew, this visit symbolizes theologically the gathering of all nations to Zion to worship the one God. Whatever problems contained in the magical and idolatrous faith of those men, the Magi’s visit was received by the child Jesus and his Jewish family as a token of honor. Significant also is the admiration of the religion of Cornelius, a “God-fearing” believer outside the Christian flock who deserved special reward from God (Acts 10). It seems like the criterion for the value of religions in the Bible is whether the person fears God. “Obviously, Abraham came to the conclusion that Melchizedek and Abimelech feared God truly (though under another name), 5 and Moses concluded the same thing about Jethro.” Another criterion seems to be the pursuing of righteous behavior. Talking about the value of Gentile religion, in the midst of accusations against religions (including Judaism) and religious people in the first part of Romans, Paul says, “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life” (Rom 2:6-8). For Irenaeus, the pursuit of righteous behavior was a crucial principle in his assessment of other religions: “The Lord did not abrogate the natural precepts of the law by which man is justified, which those who were justified by faith and pleased God did observe previous to the giving of 6 the law.” With regard to our brief survey of the biblical perspectives on the theology of religions, the historical development of which will occupy us in the next section, the summary by Heinz R. Schlette, another pioneer of the field, seems appropriate: Obviously we have no right to exaggerate the theological implications of the account of Noah, or of the discourse in the Areopagus. But neither may we allow

4

For a helpful presentation, see Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997), pp. 41-45. 5 Pinnock, Wideness, p. 96. 6 Irenaeus Adversus haereses 4.13.1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), ed. A. Cleveland Coxe (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1981), 1:477.

50

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

ourselves to underrate such declarations. They furnish a basis for judging religions from a frankly positive standpoint, since they are seen as constituting a real relationship with God. On the other hand, neither must we forget that, for scripture, one cannot adhere to the Christian faith without a “decision” in which we 7 take our distance from the “past.”

Critical Reflections and Questions The survey of the biblical materials has shown us that merely referring to “the biblical view” concerning other religions is highly problematic. One cannot deny that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, boldly presents Yahweh as the true and only God and that it demands an unreserved devotion to Yahweh. The Bible also presents the one God as the God of all and Lord over his creation. Furthermore, it is also true that other religions are assessed in light of the Jewish-Christian religious standards. Yet at the same time, a universal orientation also forms a strong strand of thought, especially in the beginning chapters of the Bible, as well as in some Old Testament prophetic passages and elsewhere. This universal orientation affirms that all peoples have their origin in one and the same God. Particularism, which begins in the critical junction of Genesis 12 by the election of a special people to Yahweh’s name, serves the purposes of the universal reach of Yahweh’s love and standards to the rest of the earth. With all its uncompromising criticism of pagan religions and practices, the Bible also here and there engages some noble representatives of these religions and even occasionally holds them up as examples of piety. Neither is the Bible ashamed of attributing God’s presence to the lives and activities of some of these people, be they soothsayers or rulers. The New Testament, though written in a highly polytheistic environment, does not offer as much theological guidance on the topic of other religions as we might wish. This is surprising in light of the fact that so much of its writings serve the purposes of forming the identity of a new community in a hostile minority position and of proclaiming the mission in the early church’s attempt to reach to the nations. Questions for engaging the biblical text in all its variety—and wide variety there is!—regarding the relation of Jewish-Christian faith to other religions include, for example, 7

Heinz R. Schlette, “Religions,” in Encyclopédie de la foi, ed. H. Fries (Paris: Cerf, 1967), p. 64, quoted in Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 52.

Religion(s) in the Bible

51

• How do we reconcile the apparent exclusivism with the universality of the concept of the biblical God? • What does the lordship and unique meditorial role of Jesus in salvation mean to those who have never heard the gospel? • What is the meaning of the reconciliation brought about by the cross and resurrection of Jesus for the world that is alienated from God and yet has its origin in the creator God? Questions such as these have led Christian theologians to approach the topic of other religions from various viewpoints, as the historical survey that follows shows.

P A R T

T W O

H ISTORICAL D EVELOPMENTS

5 Limited Openness to Other Religions Among Some Early Church Fathers

The Significance and Limits of Early Testimonies It is appropriate not only chronologically but also thematically to begin this brief survey of historical developments of Christian attitudes toward other religions and their potential value by considering some representative early church fathers. Even though, on the basis of the ambiguity of the biblical data as was noted above, a variety of interpretations emerged even among the mainline orthodox theologians and churches, the historical material points clearly to a fairly positive attitude among the earliest fathers. It was only later, under the tutelage of Augustine, that the exclusive attitude gained the major1 ity position. This is not to say that all the early fathers looked at other religions positively nor that they were always consistent; there are theologians and shepherds of the church such as Origen whose opinions about other religions have both negative and positive leanings. The title of this section, “Limited Openness to Other Religions Among Some Early Church Fathers,” seeks to do justice to this diversity. Furthermore, it is crucial to notice that there were several features in the beliefs and practices of the surrounding nations that were totally alien to early Christian theologians. The fathers never accepted polytheism, since it was antithetical to Old Testament teaching. In general the fathers were extremely skeptical of and often hostile to mystery religions, pagan mythologies and many pagan rituals. Astrology as a means of gaining secret knowledge, so prevalent among mystery religions and elsewhere, was a constant target of criticism. The fathers also opposed those Eastern cults, such as Manichaeism, 1

An account of historical views of Christian theology of religions that ignores the rich testimony of these early fathers (as is the approach of, e.g., Millard J. Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved? The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1996]) implies that openness is a much later development among theologians, usually associated with post-Enlightenment liberalism and more recent Catholicism.

56

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

that found gateways to the West in the early centuries C.E. Even with all these qualifications, however, a significant group of the first theologians and pastors of the church interpreted the ambiguous biblical data concerning other religions in a way that led them to a rather accepting position. These fathers lived amidst other religions and constantly faced the challenge of showing not only the compatibility but also the distinctive nature of Christianity as a new religion.

Justin Martyr: Logos Spermatikos According to the opening verses of the Gospel of John, the Word, Logos, who was with God and was indeed God (Jn 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14). This Logos is “the true light, which enlightens everyone” (Jn 1:9 NRSV), and in him we can see the truth of God. He was in the “bosom” of the Father and has shown us the Father (Jn 1:18 RSV). This teaching of John, which borrows from the common Greek philosophy going back several centuries, also has its roots in the Old Testament idea of the Word (davar) of God as Wisdom, evident in, for example, the classic passage of Proverbs 8:22. (This passage caught the attention of biblical expositors early on.) In the Old Testament, the world is created by God’s davar (Gen 1; Ps 33:6). According to the Wisdom literature, Wisdom was before the world (Wis 7:26), was the agent of creation (Wis 9:9) and is the means for knowing God’s secrets (Wis 9:10-11). Justin Martyr, one of the most important second-century Apologists (Christian thinkers who wanted to offer a reasonable defense for Christian faith vis-àvis contemporary culture and philosophy), had a desire to establish a correlation between Greek philosophy and Judaism and, by inference, between Greek and Christian thought. Many others followed Justin’s lead, theologians such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, and Athenagoras. The common ground could be found in the idea of Logos. Notably, Philo, a contemporary of Jesus who lived in Alexandria in Egypt, and an influential thinker and historian, knew about Jewish writers who talked about the connection between the Logos and the Old Testament Word or Wisdom of God. The Apologists also found in the Old Testament stories indications of the existence of the Logos in human forms; an example of this kind of theophany (from two Greek terms, theos, “God,” and phaino, “ to appear, be manifest”) is the mysterious angel of Yahweh in Genesis 18 who appeared to Abraham and his wife, Sarah. By creatively making use of contemporary intellectual elements, especially those in Stoic and Platonic philosophies, for the purposes of apologetics, Justin took John 1:14 as the key text. He argued that the same Logos that was known

Limited Openness to Other Religions Among Some Early Church Fathers

57

by pagan philosophers had now appeared in the form of Jesus of Nazareth. According to Justin, philosophers taught us that the reason in every human being participates in the universal Logos; Justin argues also that in the Gospel of John we learn that in Jesus Christ the Logos became flesh. Therefore, whenever people use their reason, Christ, the Logos, is already at work. “We have been taught that Christ is the First-born of God, and we have declared . . . that he is the Word of whom every race of men were partaken, and those who lived reasonably [by reason] are Christians, even though they have been thought athe2 ists.” In Jesus, Christians have full access to the meaning of the Logos, while the pagans have only partial access to it. The technical term these early Apologists used to describe this was logos spermatikos: the divine Logos sowed seeds throughout human history; therefore, Christ is known to some extent by non-Christians. According to Justin and other Apologists, access to salvation, at least in some form—perhaps a not-yet-perfect form—was available through the Logos that was “sown” in all human cultures and religions. They entertained the idea that the seminal word or reason in which all humankind partakes gives access to God even for those who have never heard of Christ. But of course, the purpose of Christian mission is to make explicit what was implicit. So Christ represents the fullness and perfection of “seeds of logos.” Clement of Alexandria concurs by saying that just as the law was given to the Jews as a tutor to lead them to Christ, so too philosophy was given to the 3 Greeks for the same purpose. In his Second Apology, Justin explains the fullness of the Christian doctrine of Christ: Our doctrine surpasses all human teaching, because we have the Word in his entirety in Christ, who has been manifested for us, body, reason (logos) and soul. All the right principles that philosophers and lawgivers have discovered and expressed they owe to whatever of the Word they have found and contemplated in part. The reason why they have contradicted each other is that they have not 4 known the entire Word, which is Christ. 2

Justin Martyr First Apology 46.1-4 (ANF 1:178). Some evangelical scholars have questioned the value of this and similar passages from the Apologists for the purposes of showing their positive attitude; see, e.g., James Sigountos, “Did Early Christians Believe Pagan Religions Could Save?” in Through No Fault of Their Own? The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1991), pp. 229-41. 3 Clement of Alexandria Stromata 6.5 (ANF 2:307). 4 Justin Martyr Second Apology 10.1-3, quoted in Jean Danielou, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973), p. 41.

58

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

St. Irenaeus: Theology of History The major work of Irenaeus, the second-century bishop of Lyons and, like Justin, a martyr for the faith, was against the Gnostic heretics. In that work, Adversus haereses, Irenaeus spoke about the hope for those who lived before the coming of Christ: For it was not merely for those who believed on Him in the time of Tiberius Caesar that Christ came, nor did the Father exercise His providence for the men only who are not alive, but for all men altogether, who from the beginning, according to their capacity, in their generation have both feared and loved God, and practiced justice and piety towards their neighbours, and have earnestly desired to 5 see Christ, and to hear His voice.

The last phrase (“hear His voice”) obviously refers to the people of Israel who looked for the coming of the Messiah. But it can also be taken, as Francis A. Sullivan mentions, as a reference to Gentiles who had come to believe in God as 6 savior and thus could be said to have longed implicitly for the coming of Christ. According to Oscar Cullman’s classic study Christ and Time, Irenaeus is the first Christian theologian who developed a definite theology of history in which Christ stands at the center of the Old Testament expectation and the 7 New Testament hope for the coming of the kingdom. By doing so, Irenaeus not only found value in the Israelite religion but also made room for salvific value in prebiblical religions. And he did this by his idea of the revealing Word, the Logos. According to Irenaeus, “through his Word [Logos], all learn that there is one sole God and Father who contains all things, who gives being to all things.” The Son has not only made known the Father, but “moreover, the Word was made the dispenser of his Father’s grace for the benefit of the people, for whose sake he carried out such great divine plans, showing God to people.” And, he adds, “For if that manifestation of God which comes through the creation gives life to all who live on the earth, how much more does the manifestation of the Father which is performed by the Word give life to those 8 who see God.” Jacques Dupuis rightly summarizes the meaning of this text: This is a truly admirable text, where the whole theology of Irenaeus is contained

5

Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.22.2 (ANF 1:494). Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church? (New York: Paulist, 1992), p. 16. 7 Oscar Cullman, Christ and Time: The Christian Conception of Time and History (London: SCM Press, 1952), esp. pp. 56-57. 8 Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.20.6-7, quoted in Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997), p. 61. 6

Limited Openness to Other Religions Among Some Early Church Fathers

59

in compact form: the divine philanthropy which creates human beings, that they 9 may live, present to creation from the beginning, reveals the Father progressively.

As is clear from that text, creation itself is one of the divine manifestations. Like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus believes that the Logos thus exercises a cosmological function: “The knowledge of God which humans can reach through the cosmos is already on their part a response to a revelation of the Logos, for cre10 ation is itself a divine manifestation.” In other words, what we are used to calling “natural knowledge of God” (knowledge from the created cosmos) and the personal knowledge of God on the basis of the revelation of the Word are not necessarily to be distinguished but instead belong to one and the same category. Irenaeus firmly believed that “by means of the creation itself, the Word reveals God the Creator; and by means of the world the Lord, the Maker of the world” and that “these things do indeed address all humans in the same man11 ner, but all do not in the same way believe them.” Appropriately then, Dupuis titles his treatment of the early fathers’ views on other religions “The 12 Cosmic Christ in the Early Fathers.” In his theology of history, Irenaeus became convinced that what began in creation—the revelation of God through the Logos—was fulfilled in the revelation of the Father by the Son. The Jewish and finally Christian dispensations followed the order of creation. There is both continuity and discontinuity between the coming of Christ and what was before: “What then did the Lord bring when he came? Know this, that he brought something completely new, for he brought 13 himself.” The incarnation of Christ is the newness brought by Christianity.

Origen: Universal Salvation Origen, a third-century church father from Alexandria, Egypt, which at that time was an important center for Christian thought, brought Logos Christology to its fullest development. To know Origen’s view of Christ with certainty is not so easy, since his ideas are subject to various interpretations and some of his views also raised serious concerns; yet Origen is highly appreciated in the Eastern Church. Origen was highly trained in Greek philosophy, and his mission was to make contact between Greek and Christian views. He replied to the objections of a pagan named Celsus, whose question had to do with the 9

Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 61. Ibid., with reference to Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.20.7. 11 Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.6.6 (ANF 1:469). 12 Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, chap. 2. 13 Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.34.1, quoted in Danielou, Gospel Message, p. 172. 10

60

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

problem of the delay of the coming of Christ: And yet, after making such a statement, he [Celsus] raises a new objection, saying: “After so long a period of time, then, did God now bethink himself of making men live righteous lives, but neglect to do so before?” To which we answer, that there never was a time when God did not wish to make men live righteous lives but He continually evinced His care for the improvement of the rational animal, by affording him occasion for the exercise of virtue. For in every generation the wisdom of God, passing into those souls which it ascertains to be holy, converts 14 them into friends and prophets of God.

Remarkably, in this text Origen says he believes that even before the time of Christ, God wanted people to be “just.” And not only did God so desire, but he also gave them reason and ability to practice virtue. To us, this kind of admission might not sound so revolutionary, but for people like Origen, who regarded any non-Greek speaker as “barbarian,” it was. Furthermore, Origen even believed that the Wisdom of God is poured out to human souls of all ages to make them friends of God. This emphasis is quite different from the later developments of Christian theology that narrowed salvation to the response of faith mediated by the church. Origen has become famous for his restorationist ideas, which he developed against another critic, Candidus, the Valentinian who accused Christianity of dualism. Origen responded that in Christianity there is no dualism since God is all-powerful and so Satan is subject to him. To support this idea, Origen came to embrace universalism, according to which all will be saved at the end—perhaps even Satan, the archenemy of God. According to Origen, the goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end, even His enemies being conquered and subdued. For thus says holy Scripture, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine ene15 mies Thy footstool.”

A key idea in this restoration view is that “the end is always like the beginning,” and so since all creation was originally subject to God, all creation will 16 return to its original adoration of God. Hell, for Origen, was a place for instruction for the purposes of redemption. The fire of God will purify the 17 souls. John Sanders aptly summarizes Origen’s view, saying, 14

Origen Against Celsus 4.7 (ANF 4:500). Origen De principiis 1.6.1 (ANF 4:260). 16 Ibid., 1.6.2 (ANF 4:260-61). 17 Ibid., 2.5.3, 2.10.6 (ANF 4:279-80, 295-96). 15

Limited Openness to Other Religions Among Some Early Church Fathers

61

In the end, however, all people will freely be brought to perfection, and then there will no longer be any need of purgations. Then, “when death shall no longer anywhere exist, nor the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then verily God will be ‘all in all’ ” (De Princ., 3.6.3). According to Origen, individuals can attain personal salvation anytime in this life or after death, but the apokatastasis (restoration) is the time when salvation is realized cosmically and collectively, when all creatures are 18 united with God.

Clement of Alexandria: The Knowledge of God in Pagan Philosophy Substantially, however, Origen was not saying something unique among the early fathers. His colleague Clement of Alexandria, another teacher of the church well-versed in Greek thought, also affirmed that God has care for all, since he is the Lord of all, and that he is “the Savior of all.” It was Clement’s firm conviction that “it cannot be said that he is Savior of these, and not of others”: he is the Savior of all. God has distributed “his blessings both to Greeks and to barbarians, and in their own time those were called who were predes19 tined to be among the elect.” No wonder, then, the divine Logos was also known beyond the boundaries of the Judeo-Christian tradition: “By reflection and direct vision, those among 20 the Greeks who have philosophized accurately see God.” So strong was Clement’s trust in human philosophy that he could say, “To the ones he [the Lord] gave the commandments, to the others philosophy, that the unbeliever may have no excuse. For, by two different processes of advancement, both 21 Greek and barbarian, he leads to perfection which is by faith.” Clement obviously thinks that the way of human philosophy before Christ and the revelation of God in Christ are not set in opposition but rather are complementary. Even more, they both point to the final goal of God with regard to human beings—faith! One could easily find many similar passages in Clement’s Stromata 22 to make this argument. Clement goes so far as to call philosophy a covenant made by God with 18

John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), p. 101. 19 Clement Stromata 7:2 (ANF 2:524-25). 20 Ibid., 1:19 (ANF 2:322). 21 Ibid., 7:2 (ANF 2:526). 22 See ibid., 6.17 and 6.6 (ANF 2:517-18, 490), among others. For details, see Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 67. I am indebted to Dupuis for helping me find the passages from Clement.

62

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

people. For all those Christians versed in the Old Testament, calling philosophy a covenant must have brought home Clement’s message: God has given knowledge of himself through pagan philosophy and holds people accountable for acting on it. “All things necessary and profitable for life came to us from God, and . . . philosophy more especially was given to the Greeks, as a covenant peculiar to them—being, as it is, a stepping-stone to the philosophy 23 which is according to Christ.” It goes without saying that human philosophy at its best is only preparation, though valuable as such, for the final revelation of God in Christ. So all are invited, both “barbarians and Greeks,” to entrust themselves to Jesus Christ. If they do so, “the Word of God will be [their] pilot, 24 and the Holy Spirit will bring [them] to anchor in the haven of heaven.” Clement of Alexandria is unique in that not only does he include Greek philosophers in his list of “teachers and leaders” of the nations, but he also mentions positive things about ancient Eastern philosophers: The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other non-Greek philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them called Sarmanae, and others Brahmins. . . . Some, too, of the Indians obey the precepts of Buddha; 25 whom, on account of his extraordinary sanctity, they have raised to divine honor.

Dupuis rightly notes that this amounts to affirming both a positive significance of these traditions in the history of salvation and the presence of partial 26 Christian truth in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. With all the qualifications noted in the beginning of this section, Dupuis’s summary of the attitude of the early fathers toward other religions and their value appears warranted: In the view of the Church Fathers, salvation history . . . extends beyond the JudeoChristian dispensation to the surrounding cultures which they encountered—indeed, in some cases, to the ancient wisdom of the East of which they had but a scanty knowledge. . . . There exists in the early tradition an awareness of the universal and active presence of God through his Word, which is not without bear27 ing on a theological evaluation of the religious traditions of the world.

23

Clement Stromata 6:8 (ANF 2:495). Clement Exhortation to the Heathen 11: 116 (ANF 2:204). 25 Clement Stromata 1:15 (ANF 2:316). 26 Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 68. 27 Ibid., p. 53. 24

6 “Outside the Church No Salvation” T HE CONS O L IDA T IO N OF THE EXC LUSIV E A TTITUDE

The Fathers Before Augustine “Be not deceived, my brethren: if anyone follows a maker of schism, he does not inherit the Kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine he has 1 no part in the passion.” These words from Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in Syria, reflect a mindset that tends to limit salvation to the confines of the visible church. True, the context of this saying is not a missionary confrontation with followers of other religions but rather an intra-Christian dispute between the mainstream orthodox and the deviating heretical groups. So it is the “maker of schism” rather than a devotee of another religion who is condemned here. Yet this principle began to establish itself: only in the catholic church, the yet undivided community of God, is salvation to be found. Thus, extra ecclesiam nulla salus: no salvation could be found outside the church. Even Irenaeus, whose otherwise quite tolerant ideas were studied in the previous section, affirmed against the separatists that it is only “where the church is” that the “Spirit of God” is and, consequently, the “the church and 2 all grace.” Similarly, Origen maintained that only those in the “house of Rahab, the prostitute,” could be saved (based on his allegorical exegesis of the 3 story told in Joshua 2). The classic, often-quoted pronouncement comes from Cyprian, bishop of Carthage in North Africa and the great writer of The Unity of the Catholic Church. Referring to the schismatics, he says bluntly, “For they cannot live out-

1

Ignatius To the Philadelphians 3:3 (K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965], 2:242-43). 2 Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.24.1 (ANF 1:458). 3 Origen In Jesu Nave homiliae xxvi 3.5 (Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Graeca [PG] [Paris: J.-P. Migne, n.d.], 12:841-42; translated in Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Perspective [Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist, 1992], p. 48).

64

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

side, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the church.”4 To repeat what was already said: the context here is not the encounter between Christianity and other religions but rather a concern for the unity of the church. However, the same mindset began to be adopted with regard to other religions. Cyprian and other church fathers mentioned above still lived under circumstances in which Christianity was a minority religion; adherents were faced with intensifying persecution and the threat of martyrdom. Things changed completely with the edicts of the emperors Galerius and Constantine (311 and 313 C.E., respectively) that brought the persecution to an end and elevated Christianity to the status of a state religion with privileges. With this unprecedented positive attitude on the part of the state, whole masses of common people embraced Christian faith and became church members. Those who did not—and who now found themselves to be in the minority position—were looked upon as outsiders by the church majority. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, expressed this mindset: “If someone does not believe in Christ he defrauds himself of this universal benefit, just as if some5 one were to shut out the rays of the sun by closing his windows.” Many other bishops and church leaders concurred with Ambrose. According to the great Eastern theologian and preacher John Chrysostom, the pagans have no right to use ignorance as an excuse; the reason being simply that currently all people had the chance to hear the gospel. Yes, Christ had died for them, but if they wished to remain in unbelief, they have only them6 selves to blame. To make sense of that kind of attitude from leading Christian teachers, one has to take into consideration the fact that according to the contemporary worldview, the known inhabited world was all that existed for the people of the fourth century; all of their world had the chance of hearing the Christian message. The world outside that sphere, if there was any, did not bother the people of that time. Francis A. Sullivan neatly summarizes the attitude of the church fathers before Augustine, to whose ideas we turn next: 4

Cyprian Letter 4.4, in Letters (1-81), trans. Rose B. Donna, Fathers of the Church 51 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1964), p. 70. For a more detailed treatment of this and other related texts, see Sullivan, Salvation, pp. 18-24. 5 Ambrose Psalm 118, Sermon 8:57 (Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Latina [PL] [Paris: J. P. Migne, n.d.], 15:1318; translated in Sullivan, Salvation, p. 25). 6 For details, see Sullivan, Salvation, pp. 25-27.

“Outside the Church No Salvation”

65

• Among the fathers, there was often a more positive attitude about the possibility of salvation for both Jews and Gentiles who had lived before Christ than is evident among later theologians. • Yet the fathers denied the possibility of salvation for those Christians who caused schisms in the catholic church. • It was only toward the end of the fourth century, when Christianity had become the official state religion, that the axiom “no salvation outside the church” was applied to pagans and Jews.7

The Augustinian Heritage Those who wanted to limit salvation to the church could make a good case for their claim on the basis of the biblical teaching. After all, according to the Bible, Jesus Christ is the only savior (Acts 4:12) and therefore faith and baptism are necessary for salvation (Mk 16:15-16; Jn 3:5). If sacraments are also necessary for salvation, as a majority of Christian churches believe, then the church is necessary, since it is only in the church that sacraments may be received. And even an individual’s faith is received from the community, the church. Had there not been a church, how could the people hear the gospel? Augustine took notice of these biblical guidelines and the part of earlier tradition cited above, which had already started moving toward exclusivism. It is difficult to discern Augustine’s exact views because his literary career is immense, spanning over forty years (390-430 C.E.), with two major phases: the first occupied with the controversy with the Donatists (who argued for a separatist, “pure” church) and the latter occupied with the Pelagians (who wanted to qualify Augustine’s view of predestination, emphasizing the freedom and power of human will). Augustine addressed the question of those who have never heard the gospel in a letter to Deogratius, who asks some hard questions from pagans with regard to the fairness of God in light of the existence of so many people who never heard the gospel. Porphyry, one of the pagans, asks, “Why did he who is called the Savior hide himself for so many ages? What became of the souls of the Romans or Latins who were deprived 8 of the grace of Christ until the time of the Caesars, when he finally came?” Augustine replies that “Christ is the Word of God, through whom all things were 7 8

Sullivan, Salvation, p. 27. Augustine Letter 102.8 (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum [CSEL] 34, 2:551-52, translated in Sullivan, Salvation, p. 29). My exposition on Augustine here is heavily indebted to the detailed and careful discussion in Sullivan, Salvation, pp. 28-43.

66

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

made,” coeternal with the Father; and so “from the beginning of the human race, all those who believed in him and knew him and lived a good and devout life according to his commands, whenever and wherever they lived, undoubtedly were saved by him.”9 Obviously, Augustine believed that salvation has always been through faith in Christ and that this religion has always been available to those who were worthy of it. Therefore, the body of Christ consists of all the faithful: “All together we are members of Christ and are his body; and not we who are in this place only, but throughout the world; and not at this time only, but—what shall I say—from Abel the just man until the end of 10 time.” Significant for our discussion of the origins and development of the rule extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Augustine’s revision of the earlier view held by Origen and others, who also had spoken of the church as existing prior to the coming of Christ. What was new with Augustine’s interpretation was that he saw Gentiles as well as Jews, before the coming of Christ, as members of the church. At the same time we need to notice the built-in tension in Augustine’s view. On the one hand, he does not doubt the availability of salvation of those who are “just,” whether Jews or Gentiles, before Christ; on the other hand, he allowed for salvation only through faith in Christ, the only mediator. But how could one think Gentiles could have arrived at such faith without having any 11 knowledge of Christ? Clearly, Augustine is not able to solve this problem. Thus far, with regard to Augustine’s theology of religions, we have been talking about the people, Jews and Gentiles alike, who lived before the coming of Christ. The picture changes dramatically when we begin to discuss the fate of those who live after Christ has come. First of all, Augustine follows his predecessors by denying salvation for Christian heretics and schismatics. Whoever sins against the unity of the catholic church separates himself or herself 12 completely from salvation. (The term catholic derives from two Greek terms, meaning literally “according to the whole,” implying something that is complete, without breach.) Second, according to Augustine, there is no salvation available for Jews and pagans apart from Christ after his coming into the world. As we have seen, faith is necessary for salvation, and now that the gospel has been preached and the church established, unbelievers are without excuse. As Sullivan explains, 9

Augustine Letter 102.11-12 (CSEL 34, 2:553-54, translated in Sullivan, Salvation, p. 29). Augustine Homily 341.9, 11 (PL 39:1499-1500, translated in Sullivan, Salvation, p. 30). 11 See further Sullivan, Salvation, pp. 30-31. 12 For example, Augustine Letter 141.5 (CSEL 44:238) and On Baptism 3.16, 2 (CSEL 51:205). 10

“Outside the Church No Salvation”

67

Augustine was convinced that those who had heard the message of the gospel and had not become Christians must be guilty of sinful rejection of the faith, and of the church in which alone salvation could be found. Their damnation would 13 be the result of their misuse of their free will.

Furthermore, after the coming of Christ there is no salvation for unbelievers, not even for those who had no chance to hear the gospel preached. In assessing this stance, we have to take into account the fact that by the time of Augustine, Christians in general believed that by now everyone had had a chance to hear the gospel. However, later in his career, Augustine obviously became aware of the existence of large numbers of people who had never heard Christian preaching. He refers to “countless barbarian tribes among 14 whom the gospel has not been preached.” Nevertheless, he insisted that to every person worthy of it God either had given an opportunity to hear the gospel or, in his foreknowledge, had known that that person would not respond after all. In his earlier career, Augustine tended to blame the individual for the lack of the opportunity to hear the gospel; but later on, in light of Pelagian arguments, he came to think that the universally contracted guilt of original sin was sufficient to justify God’s condemning not only infants who died without baptism, but also adults who died without hearing the gospel. As Sullivan puts it, “St. Augustine was firmly convinced that those who were outside the church though lack of faith and baptism could not be saved, and he knew of no alter15 native between salvation and condemnation to hell.” For example, the doctrine of limbo (a place for unbaptized infants who have died) had not yet been invented. In Augustine’s view, even infants without Christian baptism would end up consigned to hell, though they would receive the mildest punishment. One may wonder, what would justify God’s doing so? Augustine’s answer is original guilt. In principle, the whole human race deserves damnation, but in his mercy God chooses to save some from hell—those whom he foreknows. Furthermore, for Augustine, God’s will is efficacious; in other words, it effects what it wills. If God had wanted to save all, they would be saved. So biblical passages such as 1 Timothy 2:4 would have to be reinterpreted in a way that does not allow for God’s willingness to save those that are to be sent to hell.

13

Sullivan, Salvation, p. 35, with reference to Augustine On the Spirit and the Letter 33.58 (PL 44:238). 14 Augustine Letter 199.12, 46 (CSEL 57:284, translated in Sullivan, Salvation, p. 36). 15 Sullivan, Salvation, p. 37.

68

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Yet there is no injustice in God, Augustine firmly believed.16 Millard Erickson accurately summarizes the various categories of persons with respect to salvation in light of Augustine’s theology, which was based on the idea of divine foreknowledge and efficacious will: There are those to whom the gospel was not preached, because God foreknew that they would not believe. Second, there were those to whom the gospel was preached, even though God foreknew that they would not believe, so that they might serve as examples for condemnation. Third, there were those to whom the gospel was revealed and who believed. Only those in this third category were 17 saved, but this was not unjust.

Augustine’s stern exclusivism soon established itself as the majority view and was later ratified by the church councils even though it also elicited counterreactions, such as semi-Pelagianism’s criticism of the Augustinian view as 18 totally nullifying human will and responsibility. In what follows, I will briefly trace the further development and reception of the axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Post-Augustinian Catholic Church The first authoritative ratification of the Augustinian rule of exclusivism comes from Pope Innocent III, who wrote a letter to the archbishop of Terraco in 1208. Even though the context of this pronouncement was not an encounter between Christianity and other religions but rather a dispute between the Catholic hierarchy and Waldensians who at that time sought reconciliation, it still faithfully reflects the final form of the Augustinian development: “We believe in our hearts and confess with our lips that there is one church, not that of the heretics, but the holy Roman Catholic and apostolic church, outside of 19 which we believe that no one is saved.” The next authoritative pronouncement on behalf of the Augustinian axiom was made at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Again, targeting a schismatic group, in this case the Albigensians, the Catholic Church decided, “One in16

See, e.g., Augustine Against Julian 4.8, 44-45 (PL 44:760-61, translated in Sullivan, Salvation, p. 39). 17 Millard J. Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved? The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1996), p. 37, with reference to Augustine The City of God 18.47. 18 For details, see Sullivan, Salvation, pp. 39-43. 19 Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum (Barcinone: Herder, 1963), para. 792 (translated in Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism [Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997], p. 93).

“Outside the Church No Salvation”

69

deed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” The council also affirmed that no priest other than one consecrated by the church is eligible to conduct the sacramental sacrifice, the mass.20 This affirmation is a reflection of Cyprian’s statement that “there is no salvation out21 side the Church.” Thomas Aquinas, the greatest medieval systematician of the Catholic faith, firmly endorsed the teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council and the principle of salvation in the church alone. Making use of the fathers’ ancient allegorical exegesis, Aquinas affirmed that “outside the Church there is no salvation; it is 22 like Noah’s ark at the time of the flood.” Like Augustine, Aquinas insisted on the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation. However, Aquinas also believed that there could be an implicit faith as described in Hebrews 11:6—in other words, belief in God’s existence and his reward for those who seek him. That kind of implicit faith certainly sufficed for those Gentiles who lived before Christ. The case of Cornelius in the Bible is another example: he lived after the coming of Christ but had not yet heard of him. But as a general rule, Aquinas was adamant about the necessity of explicit, not only implicit, faith for all those who live after the coming of Christ: After the time of grace revealed[,] both the leaders and the simple people are bound to have an explicit faith in Christ’s mysteries. This belief mainly regards those points that are universally celebrated and publicly taught in the church, 23 e.g., the articles of the Creed on the Incarnation.

So absolute was Aquinas’s conviction that he was sure that if somebody were saved in his day without hearing the preaching of the gospel, God would grant this person a special way of revelation; consequently, even a person like that would be saved only through faith in Christ. Aquinas went so far as to imagine the case of a person brought up in the wilderness to whom God 24 would, through some mysterious means, reveal salvation. But after all, Aquinas, like most medieval theologians, presumed that practically everyone had already been given an adequate opportunity to hear the Christian message. Consequently, the fate of those who were absolutely outside of hearing the gospel was not at all a burning issue. 20

Ibid., para. 802 (translated in Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 93). Cyprian Letter 73.21 (CSEL 3, 2:795). 22 Thomas Aquinas Summa theologiae III, Q.73.A.3 (translated in Sullivan, Salvation, p. 48). For a detailed discussion of Aquinas, see Sullivan, Salvation, pp. 44-62. 23 Aquinas Summa theologiae II-II, Q.2.A.7. 24 See Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 115, for quotations from Aquinas. 21

70

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Undoubtedly the weightiest document in this series ratifying the Augustinian exclusivism is that of Pope Boniface VIII, in his bull Unam Sanctam (“One and Holy”) in 1302, which declared, We are obliged by our faith to believe and to hold that there is one holy catholic and apostolic church; indeed, we firmly believe and sincerely confess this, and that outside of this church there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins. . . . Moreover, we declare, state and define that for every human creature it is a mat25 ter of strict necessity for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Obviously this concept of the church is more narrow than the view of Augustine. For Augustine, the church included all the faithful “beginning from Abel,” whereas here the church is only the visible church. Furthermore, in Boniface VIII’s bull, the Augustinian axiom had come to be used also as a means of securing the recently ratified power of the pope. The Council of Florence in the following century (1431-1445), on the eve of Reformation, was explicit about the fate of the followers of other religions, not only the fate of schismatics and those who were not willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the head of the Catholic Church: It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Mt 25:41] unless before the end of life 26 the same have been added to the flock.

Even one who sheds blood in martyrdom is not saved unless he or she has been brought back to the unity of the church. The Jesuits of the sixteenth and seventeenth century continued the tradition of extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the great theologians and teachers of the church such as Francis Xavier and 27 Robert Bellarmine. Several subsequent papal and council declarations could be added to the long list affirming the rule according to which there is no salvation outside the church, from Pope Pius IV’s “Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent” (1564), to Pope Pius IX’s Singulari quadam (1854), to Leo XII’s encyclical Ubi Pri28 mum (1824). Leo XII, Gregory XVI (1831-1846) and Pius IX (1846-1878) harshly condemned the spirit of “indifferentism” with regard to holding the 25

Denzinger Enchiridion nos. 870, 875 (translated in Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 94). Ibid., no. 1351 (translated in Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, pp. 95-96). 27 See further Sullivan, Salvation, pp. 82-102. 28 Denzinger Enchiridion nos. 1870 and 2865, respectively. 26

“Outside the Church No Salvation”

71

traditional doctrine of exclusivism as a result of the emerging liberalism.29 Vatican Council I (1869-1870) gave the final authoritative and irrevocable endorsement of the Augustinian axiom by affirming again that no one can be saved outside the church.30 Even as recently as in 1943 Pope Pius XII, in his influential ecclesiological encyclical Mystici corporis (“The Mystical Body”), taught that salvation is to be found in the Catholic Church, which is the mystical body. However, he opened the possibility of salvation for those outside the Catholic Church: either Christians from other churches or perhaps pagans who had a “certain unconscious 31 desire and longing” to be united with the true church.

The Protestant Reformation Luther. Despite all their disputes with the church of Rome, both wings of the Protestant Reformation affirmed the Augustinian axiom. After all, Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, and in his theology he was deeply indebted to the bishop of Hippo. Even the Council of Trent, in response to Lutheran theology, did not see it necessary to take up the issue of other religions, since that was not an issue of contention. Luther’s essay of 1543 titled “On the Jews and Their Lies,” combined with his less than commending words about the Turks (Muslims), makes it clear that in general Luther either was hostile in his attitude toward other religions or at best downplayed their value. The Lutheran Confessions do not have much to say about the theology of religions. In his widely read Large Catechism, Luther declared, For where Christ is not preached, there is no Holy Spirit to create, call and gather the Christian Church, and outside it no one can come to the Lord Christ. . . . But outside the Christian Church (that is, where the Gospel is not) there is no forgive32 ness, and hence no holiness.

And he said, “Those who remain outside Christianity, be they heathens, Turks, Jews or false Christians [Roman Catholics], although they believe on only one true God, yet remain in eternal wrath and perdition.” Luther was also of the opin33 ion that “all worship and religions outside Christ are the worship of idols.” 29

Ibid., nos. 2720, 2730 and 2785, respectively. See further Sullivan, Salvation, pp. 119-22. 31 Denzinger Enchiridion no. 3821. 32 Martin Luther, Large Catechism, trans. Robert H. Fischer (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), pt. 2.45, 56. 33 Ibid., 2.3. 30

72

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Luther’s colleague Philipp Melanchthon, who actually penned significant sections of the Lutheran Confessions, similarly stated, “It is certainly true that outside the Church, where there is no gospel, no sacrament, and no true invocation of God, there is no forgiveness of sins, grace, or salvation, as among the Turks, Jews, and heathen.”34 Luther never denied the general knowledge of God from creation. That God exists is universally acknowledged, and all peoples are aware of this. All people, even the Gentiles, who have received the special revelation of God, have a mental concept of God. Certain attributes of God such as God’s divinity, im35 mortality and goodness—can even be known by means of natural religion. Luther had no doubt about even idolaters’ belief in God. They must have some concept of God, else they would not attribute to their gods the characteristics that belong to God alone. “It follows most certainly that they [idolaters] 36 were endowed with a knowledge or notion of the divine nature.” An indication of at least some kind of knowledge of God among the pagans is the fact that the Decalogue is universally accepted as a valid moral guide. However, for Luther, there is a definite difference between being conscious that there is a God and knowing God. All men and women can become conscious of God through nature, but they can only come to know God by revelation. Luther’s insistence on the necessity of revelation for the true knowledge of God stems from his controlling theological idea, namely the theology of the cross, which he outlines first in the Heidelberg Disputation (1518). According to Luther, men and women by nature look for God in majesty and glory, through the “theology of the glory.” In contrast, God has revealed himself in the weakness and shame of the cross of Christ. God is to be found exactly where he is hidden. A natural mind, not even philosophy—even though philosophy has some value for Luther as an intellectual enterprise—never finds, or even looks for, a hidden God, a God who is concealed under his opposites. It takes Christ and divine revelation to lead a person to the true knowledge of God. Luther did not doubt that, whatever their amount of knowledge of God, the Gentiles had virtues. But he also affirmed that without the Holy Spirit, men 34

Philipp Melanchthon, On Christian Doctrine (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 212. 35 For detailed documentation, see Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), esp. pp. 15-16. For some of the references I am indebted to E. Earl Carver, “An Inquiry into the Spiritual Status of the Unevangelized” (Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, May 1988), pp. 105-17. 36 Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, trans. and ed. Wilhelm Pauch (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961), p. 23.

“Outside the Church No Salvation”

73

and women are “completely ungodly.”37 A person like that is not able to fulfill the law because in herself she does not love the law of God. For Luther, faith is the only way for salvation, and here “there will be no difference between the Turks, the papists, the Jews, and us, who have the Word.”38 Faith, as already mentioned, is the medium for getting to know God. In fact, Luther thinks that all people, pagans included, have some kind of worship and have learned that the essence of worship is trust and belief. This much is right. However, the error of pagans is that they have placed their trust in that which is not God. “But, by worshipping things other than the true God, the heathen have committed the worst of sins, and are thus totally without God in 39 their lives.” Luther was strict about the impossibility of salvation outside the people who had heard the preaching of the Word. “There is no saving doctrine except 40 the Gospel; everything else is night and darkness.” It is only through God’s Word that we can know God and come to saving faith. Saving faith in Christ comes from the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit is always bound to the Word. This means that apart from the preaching of the Word and the activity of the Spirit, no salvation is available: The activity of the Holy Spirit in the heart is therefore always dependent on the previous hearing of the “external word.” . . . If God would speak without means, as the spiritualists thought he should, and if the Spirit were free from the word, he could inspire anything that one might think of. That would mean, however, that some way of salvation other than the gospel of Jesus Christ would have been opened and that God would encounter sinful humanity in some way other than through the humanity and historicity of Jesus, to which the word witnesses. The fact that the Spirit is bound to the word means that our salvation is bound to the 41 human life of Jesus Christ.

Christ is the true Light of the Gentiles. The light came through Adam, Noah and the patriarchs, and if the world remained in darkness, it was because the light shed by those preachers of the Word went unheeded. Those who lived

37

Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis, in vol. 2 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1960), p. 42. 38 Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis, in vol. 8 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966), p. 136. 39 Carver, “An Inquiry,” p. 108. 40 Ewald M. Plass, ed., What Luther Says: An Anthology (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), p. 563. 41 Althaus, Theology of Martin Luther, pp. 36-37.

74

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

before Christ had to receive their light from him, and those who live after Christ must also receive their light from him, Luther said.42 In that sense, Luther believed that Adam and Moses were “Christians.” People in the Old Testament were justified just as Christians are today, through faith in Christ; those in the past in anticipation, those living presently by putting their faith in Christ who came before them. Even though the light is known among God’s people and is to be found in Christ, God has wanted other nations to see the light. Jonah was sent to preach to the Ninevites, because “whenever God’s wrath is about to be kindled, He 43 usually first sends His Word to save a few.” God never confined his light to the Hebrews alone, even though some preachers such as Jonah were reluctant to spread the light. What did Luther know about other religions? Did he have any meaningful contact with them? Luther obviously shared with his contemporaries the assumption that most everybody in the world had already been exposed to the message of Christ. That Christ was totally unknown or very imperfectly understood did not enter into his thinking. The proof that God wants all people to be saved is that “He comes to all by the Word of salvation. . . . Thus, the person who does not receive Christ is at fault, not God, nor the Church, nor the person’s ignorance, but the individual himself, who is accountable for him44 self.” Luther’s only contacts with other religions were limited to Islam and Judaism. According to Paul Althaus, Luther’s view of religions was twofold: One includes all the religions outside the gospel—including the Roman distortion of the gospel and even the God-commanded sacrificial system as the Jews understood it; the other includes only the gospel, the religion of faith. . . . Luther places Judaism, Islam, the papacy, monasticism, the enthusiasts and the Swiss all in the same category as encouraging presumptuous human pride, idolatry, and 45 contradicting genuine fear of God.

Thus, Luther completely discards the value of the religions of “Turks and Jews” and believes that they cannot have a true faith since they do not have Christ and faith in Christ. Even if they believe in God, that belief is not saving faith. He often uses harsh language of other religions and their adherents, such 42

Martin Luther, The Gospel of St. John, in vol. 4 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1957), pp. 32-33, 68-70. 43 Martin Luther, Lectures on the Minor Prophets II: Jonah, Habakkuk, in vol. 19 of Luther’s Works, ed. Hilton C. Oswald (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1974), p. 40. 44 Carver, “An Inquiry,” p. 108; the quotation is from Plass, What Luther Says, p. 455. 45 Althaus, Theology of Martin Luther, p. 128.

“Outside the Church No Salvation”

75

as “destroyers,” “enemies,” “blasphemers of the Lord Jesus,” “murderers” and so on.46 Even with his strict exclusivism, though, Luther also knew some concessions to pagans who had not received the gospel. He used the term accidental mercy to refer to God’s grace toward those who were outside of the covenant of God with the Jews. Even though he insisted on the impossibility of salvation apart from the hearing of the Word, he also was open to an exception for those who never heard but would have responded had they heard: “In this manner Naaman, the King of Nineveh, Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, and others 47 from among the Gentiles were saved by accidental mercy.” Luther also wondered whether some of the philosophers and thinkers would, at the end, receive a favorable treatment from God: Cicero was an excellent philosopher; he felt that the soul is immortal. . . . He was a precious man, a man who had read and passed judgment on many things and then could also speak. He wrote about his subject in earnest, did not play so [sic] and Grecize (graecissavit) as did Aristotle and Plato. . . . I hope our Lord God will be gracious to him and his like, though it is not for us to judge and determine 48 this matter.

Calvin. In the main, Calvin shared Luther’s exclusive attitude, and they both shared the Augustinian heritage. It was Ulrich Zwingli, Calvin’s colleague, who departed from both Luther and Calvin in his more open attitude toward and appreciation of other religions. The starting point for Calvin’s theology of religions is his view concerning general revelation. Calvin admits that God’s original plan was for people to learn the truth about God from general revelation and thus gain eternal life. But, because of sin, general revelation is ineffective. Since all humans are condemned in Adam, the knowledge of God as Creator is useless for salvation unless they also learn about Christ. “Surely, after the fall of the first man no knowledge of God apart from the Mediator has 49 had power unto salvation.” Since the Fall, persons apart from Christ are unable to make anything of the knowledge of God the Creator from observing the creation. Humans are unable to gather the knowledge of God from the created order—“the school in which we might learn piety”—not only because of 46

Carver, “An Inquiry,” p. 113. Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis, in vol. 1 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), p. 302. 48 Plass, What Luther Says, p. 1050. 49 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 2.6.1. 47

76

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

their sin but also because of their sloth and ingratitude. Sloth means that our minds are so blinded they cannot perceive the truth of God; ingratitude means that our senses are so corrupted that we wickedly rob God of his glory.50 On the basis of this, Calvin also firmly denies salvation for those who never hear of the gospel. Referring to biblical passages such as 1 John 2:23 (which he renders, “He that does not have the Son does not have the Father”), Calvin concluded that all those in other religions, especially the Turks (Muslims), “although they proclaim at the top of their lungs that the Creator of heaven and earth is God, still, while repudiating Christ, substitute an idol in place of the true God.” All such 51 people, the Turks and the unevangelized alike, will be damned to hell. God has chosen to make them reprobates, and “they have been given over to this depravity because they have been raised up by the just but inscrutable judg52 ment of God to show forth his glory in their condemnation.” What, then, is the value, if any, of other religions for Calvin? “The Scripture, in order to direct us to the true God, distinctly excludes and rejects all the gods of the heathen, because religion was universally adulterated in almost every age.” Therefore, the only value of general revelation with regard to religions is negative, to make those people guilty and without any kind of excuse. “But all the heathen, to a man, by their own vanity either were dragged or slipped back into false inventions, and thus their perceptions so vanished that whatever they had naturally sensed concerning the sole God had no value beyond mak53 ing them inexcusable.” Calvin has no patience with Zwingli’s belief that pagans such as Socrates, Aristides and Cato will be in heaven: All the more vile is the stupidity of those persons who open heaven to all the impious and unbelieving without the grace of him who Scripture commonly teaches to be the only door whereby we enter into salvation. . . . Christ answered the Samaritan woman: “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know; for salvation is from the Jews.” In these words he . . . condemns all pagan religions as false. . . . No worship has ever pleased God except that which looked to Christ. On this basis, also, Paul declares that all heathen were “without God 54 and bereft of hope of life.” 50

Ibid. Ibid., 2.6.4. 52 Ibid., 3.24.14. 53 Ibid., 1.10.3. 54 Ibid., 2.6.1. 51

“Outside the Church No Salvation”

77

With Augustine and Luther, Calvin held that it is only through faith in Christ that a person may be saved. Those who lived in the Old Testament times were also saved through Christ, the Mediator. “It is an indubitable doctrine of Scripture, that we obtain not salvation in Christ except by faith; then there is no hope left for those who continue to death unbelieving.”55 One of the leading ideas of Calvin’s theology is an uncompromising doctrine of predestination. It includes the idea that if some people have not been given the opportunity to hear the gospel message, this is rightly seen as a sign that God has predestined them to eternal damnation. Predestination means “the eternal decree of God, which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man.” According to Calvin’s view, “some are preor56 dained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation.” In Calvin’s view, this predestination is based on God’s free mercy, “without any respect to human 57 worth.” Sullivan’s summary is illustrative of Calvin’s doctrine: It is clear that for Calvin the mere fact that the newly discovered peoples had not, until now, had a chance to hear the gospel preached is a manifest sign that all their ancestors were among the reprobate, for if God had willed their salvation, he would have made it possible for them to come to the knowledge of the truth, and thus to faith in Christ, without which there was no possibility of their salvation. Even now, when they have a chance to hear the gospel, it is God’s intention, with regard to those whom he has predestined to damnation, that it should blind 58 them and make them all the more guilty.

Calvin so believed in the effective will of God that whatever God wills shall happen. Therefore, even if he held that preaching is the “ordinary dispensation” or means of bringing saving faith, Calvin held as well that God also knows how to save a person he had foreordained for salvation. If God wanted to save someone, God would miraculously send the message of Christ to that person.

55

John Calvin, Commentary on the Catholic Epistles, trans. William Pringle (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1948), p. 113. 56 Calvin Institutes 3.21.5. 57 Ibid., 3.21.7. 58 Sullivan, Salvation, p. 78.

7 The Meaning of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for the Contemporary Church

Catholic Reflections Roman Catholic theology of religions has recently engaged in a lot of intense theological reflection on the meaning of the axiom: There remains to ask what meaning the axiom “Outside the Church no salvation” can retain for the Church today, in vastly changed circumstances. Does its universal exclusion from salvation of entire groups of people, who find themselves outside the church, either by leaving it or by failing to join it, still have any value for the Christian faith today? And what is there to say about the often fallacious reasons on which such persuasion is based, such as the conviction that the Gospel 1 had been promulgated throughout the world?

This reflection is understandable for two reasons. On the one hand, the current Roman Catholic standpoint, as will become evident, affirms the possibility of salvation to those outside the Christian church. On the other hand, it is the conviction of Catholic theology that the views sanctioned by the ecumenical councils or the infallible teaching office of the pope are in principle irrevocable; at least, they carry supreme authority. Pope Pius XII expresses this tension succinctly: “The infallible dictum which teaches us that outside the Church there is no salvation, is among the truths that the Church has always taught and will always teach. But this dogma is to be understood as the 2 Church itself understands it.” When assessing the meaning of the axiom, according to Jacques Dupuis, 3 one has to take into consideration several perspectives. First, there is a long

1

Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997), p. 99. 2 Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum (Barcinone: Herder, 1963), no. 3866 (translated in Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 100).

The Meaning of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for the Contemporary Church

79

historical process, under changing circumstances, during which the rule that originally mainly argued for the necessity and unity of the church (yet not necessarily claimed exclusivity for it) became the rigid interpretation applied to other religions. It began during the third century and did not establish its final authoritative status until the Council of Florence more than one thousand years later (1431-1445). Second, the exact meaning of the axiom greatly depends on how the term church is understood. If, as with Augustine, it is identified with all persons who are saved in Jesus Christ, including those who lived before him, beginning from Abel, then the meaning of the axiom is quite different from the one that claims salvation for the visible church of the time. The official Catholic ecclesiology argues for a larger concept of the church, whereas conservative evangelicalism tends to limit the meaning of church. How one defines the church finally depends on several issues that have to do not only with ecclesiology, but also with the understanding of salvation, among other issues. Third, one must consider how, historically, the church fathers could reach the rigid position on the necessity of the church for salvation, and how this rule came to be sanctioned by the highest teaching office of the Catholic 4 Church. One way the Christian church attempted to deal with the rule—especially after the discovery of the New World in the fifteenth century with millions of people who had never heard of the gospel—was to create substitutes such as evangelization beyond death (based on 1 Pet 3:18-20), limbo (the destination of those who do not have the full capacity to respond to the gospel, 5 such as infants), an “implicit faith” and so forth. The emergence of a number of these substitutes reminds us of the difficulty with which the church has handled the rule it had confirmed for itself. Even now Catholic theologians entertain different, to a large extent contradictory, opinions. For some it is currently unthinkable to adhere to the long6 standing rule. For the majority, the rule still remains valid as something the church has long cherished, but it cannot be taken literally any more. What Dupuis, a Catholic, suggests in his theology of religions represents a moderate

3

See further Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, pp. 84-86, 96-102; and Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church? (New York: Paulist, 1992), esp. pp. 3-11. 4 For details on this question, see Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, pp. 97-99. 5 A detailed discussion of the substitutes can be found in ibid., pp. 110-29. 6 Hans Küng, “The World Religions in God’s Plan of Salvation,” in Christian Revelation and World Religions, ed. J. Neuner (London: Burns & Oates, 1967), pp. 25-37, is an influential example here.

80

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

view and finds a lot of appeal at least in Catholic circles: We in turn may conclude that the abiding value of the axiom consists in the affirmation made by Vatican II—which, this time, is formulated positively—according to which the Church is “necessary for salvation” (LG 14); or is constituted as the “general instrument of salvation” (UR 3); or, again, is the “instrument of sal7 vation for all” (LG 9).

Protestant Reflections Protestant theology in general and theology of religions in particular does not have an official magisterium, a teaching office authorized to make determinations on controversial questions. Therefore, there is nothing like a consensus on the meaning of the axiom. Often there is a growing gulf between more conservatively oriented Protestants who ardently oppose any question of the necessity of the church for salvation and more liberally oriented inclusivists or pluralists. The latter group usually offers various criticisms of the rule, but unlike Catholic theologians, they do not offer a theological explanation as to the value of the axiom. As an example of how the axiom is handled currently by a mainline Protestant theology of religions, let us look at John 8 Sanders’s book No Other Name. It represents a cautious, moderate inclusivistic position. Sanders begins with a few words of commendation with regard to the traditional view, which he prefers to call restrictivism. It has some strengths, such as a solid defense of the particularity of salvation in Jesus Christ “against all forms of latitudinarianism and relativism.” Furthermore, a vibrant Christocentrism and emphasis on the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ are essential to the Christian faith, “especially in light of the modern temptation to accede to a vague theocentrism.” And finally, restrictivism provides a strong 9 argument for the importance of evangelism and mission. But the limitations of the axiom are evident and many: • Most people of the world have limited access to salvation. • Restrictivism confuses the “ontological necessity of Christ for salvation with our human epistemological necessity of knowing about it.” In other 7

Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 101. LG stands for Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church; UR stands for Unitatis Redintegratio, the Vatican II document on Christian Unity. 8 John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992). 9 Ibid., p. 60.

The Meaning of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for the Contemporary Church

81

words, for Christ to be our Savior, we need to know him personally. • “It regards general revelation as sufficient for condemnation but insufficient for salvation.” • “The person’s final destiny is irrevocably sealed at death and there is no hope beyond death.” • The axiom may imply a limited atonement.10 The difference between Sanders’s treatment and that of leading Catholics is that Sanders does not feel bound to follow the axiom any more, implying that the church was wrong when affirming it. Thus, it looks like currently the axiom does not have much validity at all. This reflects a different kind of understanding of tradition. In Catholic theology, the living tradition of the church, affirmed under the guidance of the Spirit, is both guiding and binding even though it has to be applied to concrete life situations in ever-changing circumstances. In Protestant theology, at least in principle, it is possible to go against the tradition; that is, opinion may change. There are also some individual Catholic theologians who have argued that not only is the axiom problematic nowadays, but it is worth discarding right away. Luis M. Bermejo contends that the rule extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a result of a fallible reception, and thus 11 can be left behind, since “ecclesial reception is not always irreversible.” Having briefly surveyed the origins and development of the rule of exclusivism, we will now take another look at the more positive attitude toward and appreciation of other religions that began among some early fathers. What I will attempt to do here is trace through church history that minority position that kept doors open to the value of other religions. This is to complement our brief historical survey and remind us that even if in both Catholic and Protestant theology the idea of exclusivism became normative, it was never without challengers. My goal here is not to be comprehensive, any more than in the account of exclusivism, but rather to highlight some representative voices both from the Catholic and Protestant camps.

10 11

Ibid., pp. 60-72. Luis M. Bermejo, Church Conciliarity and Communion, Jesuit Theological Forum Studies 4 (Anand, Gujarat: Gujarat Sahitya Prakash, 1990), p. 242, quoted in Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 101.

8 Positive Attitudes Toward Other Religions After the Early Fathers

Catholic Testimonies A document worth highlighting first is a letter of Pope Gregory VII (1076) to the Muslim King Anzir of Mauritania. The occasion of this letter was a gift received from the foreign king, including freeing some prisoners. The pope also sent the king a delegation as a token of his generous and friendly spirit. What is remarkable about this letter is the correlation of the Muslim worship of God with Christian worship: God, the Creator of all, without whom we cannot do or even think anything that is good, has inspired to your heart this act of kindness. He who enlightens all people coming in to the world [Jn 1:9] has enlightened your mind for this purpose. Almighty God, who desires all people to be saved [1 Tim 2:4] and none to perish, is well pleased to approve in us most of all that besides loving God people love others, and do not do to others anything they do not want to be done unto themselves [Mt 7:12]. We and you must show in a special way to the other nations an example of this charity, for we believe and confess one God, although in different ways, and praise and worship him daily as the creator of all ages and the ruler of this world. For the apostle says: “He is our peace who has made us but one” [Eph 2:14]. Many among the Roman nobility, informed by us of this grace granted to you by God, greatly admire and praise your goodness and virtue. . . . God knows that we love you purely for his honor and that we desire your salvation and glory, both in the present and in the future life. And we pray in our hearts and with our lips that God may lead you to the abode of happiness, to the bosom of the holy patriarch Abraham, after long 1 years of life here on earth.

Amazingly, not only does Gregory acknowledge the worship of the Muslims as one form of the worship of the Christian God, but he even invites the 1

Quoted in Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997), pp. 102-3. Scripture references inserted by Dupuis.

Positive Attitudes Toward Other Religions After the Early Fathers

83

pagan king to join him in a common witness before the world and exemplify the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount. The great twelfth-century theologian Peter Abelard, in his massive Christian Theology, proposed that the Trinity was revealed not only in the Old Testament but also to pagan poets and philosophers, though, of course, not yet in precise Christian terms. This was important, since medieval theologians held generally that belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation, and many believed that it takes a special revelation to know the Trinity (whereas the existence of one God may come as a result of general revelation). In reference to Paul’s address to the Athenians, Abelard asks, “How shall 2 we dismiss these men to the realms of infidelity and damnation?” It becomes clear that Abelard believed God had given enough revelation for the salvation of the pagans and even those who never heard the gospel may attain to salvation. With regard to noble persons among the pagans, he had this to say: Notable as they were in faith and life we cannot doubt that they obtained indulgence of God, or that their conduct and worship of the One God which they both held and made known by writing acquired for them the divine favor in the present existence 3 and in the world to come, along with the things necessary for their salvation.

Another work of Abelard, A Dialogue of a Philosopher and a Jew and a Chris4 tian, focused more on other religions. In a dream, dialogues between the representatives of these three worldviews take place. The philosopher notes that in the Bible God hears the prayers of non-Jewish people and wonders, if virtues such as faith and love were sufficient for salvation then, should anything more be required now? The philosopher thus comes to the conclusion that the widely held view, according to which there is no salvation outside the church, is problematic. Then, anticipating much of the mindset of contemporary pluralism, the philosopher says to the Christian, However, what does it matter by what name it is called as long as the reality remains the same and the beatitude is not diverse, and the intention of living justly for the philosophers is not different from that of the Christians? For both you and 5 we arrange to live here in justice in order to be glorified there.

2

Peter Abelard, Christian Theology, trans. J. Ramsey McCallum (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1948), p. 59. 3 Ibid., p. 66. 4 Peter Abelard, A Dialogue of a Philosopher and a Jew and a Christian, trans. P. J. Payer (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1979). 5 Ibid., p. 97, quoted in Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 103.

84

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Even though Abelard makes the Christian raise counterarguments to support the supremacy of Christianity, the main message of Abelard’s Dialogue clearly leans toward acknowledging the value of philosophy and Judaism as complementary ways to God. Famous also is the acknowledgment of other religions by yet another medieval missionary theologian, Ramon Llull (1232-1316). His apologetical work The Book of the Gentile and the Three Wise Men attempts to discuss together three main religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. It is cast as a narrative between a Gentile and three wise men, each one of them speaking for their respective religions. Most probably Llull wished to model a fruitful, polite form of interreligious dialogue here. As a result of the conversations, the agnostic Gentile comes to believe in God and his goodness. Before the converted pagan is given an opportunity to decide which religion he is going to follow, however, the religious men depart, leaving the Gentile to make his own choice independently. Theologically, the most significant contribution of the book is that the three men look for a common religion and faith in one God. Llull—as likewise Nicholas of Cusa a couple of centuries later, to whose ideas we turn next—also supported the idea that the search for God pro6 motes unity and peace. Nicholas of Cusa’s De pace fidei (“The Peace of Faith”) has come to epitomize endeavors promoting peace and unity through religion. Published in 1454 in the aftermath of the Council of Florence, which ratified in a conclusive way the extra ecclesiam nulla salus rule, this work is a shining example of an inclusivist stance. The positive tone of the book is even more astonishing in light of the fact that this was also the time when the Turks had just conquered Constantinople, an event that shook the whole Western world and posed a real threat to the European continent. In total contrast to the spirit of the crusaders, Nicholas sought peace between faiths. Again cast in a dialogue form, the book wonders—from the perspective of the narrator taken up to heaven—whether men and women on earth could find religion that would be one, yet with different expressions (Una religio in rituum varetate, “one religion with various rites”). Representatives of various religions are invited to participate in the discussion in the presence of Christ and his leading disciples, Paul and Peter. Upon hearing about the differences between religions and different approaches to unity, it is left for Paul to communicate the decision: he allows different peoples to preserve “their own 6

See further Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, pp. 105-7.

Positive Attitudes Toward Other Religions After the Early Fathers

85

devotions and ceremonies, provided faith and peace are preserved.” God affirms the decision and urges people of different faiths to work for one true worship of God after which in Jerusalem they would meet again to formally profess the one faith.7 Undoubtedly, other voices could be added to this list: for example, the testimony of Francis of Assisi from the thirteenth century or the medieval Catholic humanist Erasmus of Rotterdam, who were both open to the possibility of knowledge of God in other religions. But suffice it to say here, before continuing our historical survey of more open-minded attitudes toward other religions, that the simultaneous existence of two kinds of opinions among orthodox theologians indicates the difficulty with which Christian theology has handled the issue of other religions. Perhaps this tension, to some extent contradistinction, should not be too easily eased nor dismissed when considering the contemporary options.

Protestant Testimonies As became clear in our survey of Luther and Calvin, the mainstream Protestant Reformers affirmed the Augustinian exclusivism. Among the disputed questions between the Catholic Church and emerging Protestantism, relations with other religions was never an issue of contention at that time. Nevertheless, just as there were dissenting voices in the Catholic camp, there were also among the Reformation and post-Reformation theologians those who sought for a more positive standpoint. Mention has already been made of Ulrich Zwingli, Calvin’s Reformed colleague whose views concerning other religions were significantly more open than those of other Reformers. Luther had a hard time swallowing the more tolerant attitude of Zwingli, expressed in his Exposition of the Christian Faith to the Christian King. So serious were Luther’s concerns that he even wondered whether Zwingli and his followers would be saved for entertaining these kinds of errors. Luther accused Zwingli of becoming a “full-blown heathen.” What really annoyed Luther was the teaching in that book according to which in heaven you will see in the same fellowship all holy, godly, wise, brave, honorable people, the redeemed and the Redeemer, Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Moses, Joshua . . . also Isaiah and the Virgin Mother of God of whom he prophesied, David . . . and Paul; Hercules, Thesus, Socrates, Aristides, Antigo7

For details and discussion , see ibid., pp. 107-9.

86

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

nus, Numa, Camillus, the Catos and Scipios and all your ancestors who have de8 parted in the faith.

Luther added in the same context that if “such godless heathen, Socrates, Aristides, yes, the cruel Numa” are to be saved along with the true believers, then one has a good reason to doubt whether Christianity differs from other faiths at all and whether anyone will be saved by faith. Luther also wondered whether Christ’s death had in that case been unnecessary. Even if Zwingli expressed a much more open attitude toward religions than did other Reformers, he never dealt extensively with other religions as such. Even the title of one of his works, Commentary on True and False Religion, is a bit misleading in that it inquires into the conditions of a true Christian religion rather than religions in general. He wants rather to correct some of the wrongs with the Christianity of his own time. Zwingli believed that the people of the Old Testament were saved before 9 Christ by faith in Christ just as we are saved now by Christ. In this he agreed with Luther. Understandably Zwingli had no difficulty in believing that children of Christian parents who die will be saved, contrary to the Augustinian teaching that was still a disputed issue among the Protestant Reformers. Zwingli thought it probable that God’s electing grace extends to all infants, not only those of Christian parents. Church historians generally attribute to Zwingli the outcome that in Reformed faith this opinion became the majority 10 view, even against Calvin. What about the salvation of pagans in general? How did he view it theologically? One wonders whether the principle that Zwingli applied to children regarding their salvation was also applied to pagans: “When I find no unfaith in 11 anyone, I have no reason to condemn that person.” We cannot be sure, however, how extensively he was willing to apply this principle. He upheld the possibility of salvation in pre-Christian times outside of Israel. Zwingli also showed some limited appreciation of the value of some non-Christian writings, such as the Sibylline Poems. Undoubtedly his most controversial inquiry

8

Martin Luther, Word and Sacrament IV, in vol. 38 of Luther’s Works, ed. Martin E. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), p. 290. 9 Ulrich Zwingli, Selected Works, ed. Samuel M. Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972), p. 234. 10 For example, the very conservative Calvinist B. B. Warfield took notice of this change among the Calvinists and endorsed this more open view. See his Studies in Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1932), pp. 411-44. 11 Zwingli, Selected Works, pp. 243-44.

Positive Attitudes Toward Other Religions After the Early Fathers

87

into the destiny of pagans is the one quoted above by Luther, which clearly lets people other than Christians and Old Testament saints enter heaven. Having said all of this concerning Zwingli’s openness to other religions, it has to be added that in many respects he was also a faithful follower of mainstream Protestantism in that faith is generally needed for salvation and that salvation comes from Christ. One needs only to look at “The Sixty-seven Arti12 cles of 19 January 1523” to see this. So both perspectives are evident within his own theology; he was not always fully coherent, at least no more so than were other Reformers. Jacob Arminius, the main challenger of Calvin’s more extreme doctrine of grace and predestination, steered a middle course in his theology of religions. Based on his less severe view of the effects of original sin, he believed that all infants who die will be saved. He was also cautiously open to the idea of salvation for those who did not have an opportunity to hear the gospel, as is evident in his careful consideration of the following accusation against him: God undoubtedly converts, without the external preaching of the Gospel, great numbers of persons to the saving knowledge of Christ, among those who have no outward preaching; and he effects such conversions either by the inward rev13 elation of the Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of angels.

Arminius objected primarily to the phrase great numbers of persons, but otherwise he seemed to affirm the view, even though he explained that hearing the gospel is the normal way since the Holy Spirit is sovereign. The eighteenth-century revivalist John Wesley continued the minority view among those who stood in the Protestant Reformation heritage with a limited openness to other religions. Wesley never gave a systematic treatment of theology of religions, but in his writings there are undoubtedly indications that 14 he was open to the possibility of salvation outside the church. Wesley claimed that he did not “conceive that nay man living has a right to sentence all the heathen and Mahometan world to damnation.” Rather, it is better to “leave them to Him that made them, and who ‘is the Father of the spirits of all flesh,’ who is the God of the Heathens as well as the Christians, and who 15 hateth nothing that he hath made.” Wesley seemed to believe that the exclu12

Ulrich Zwingli, “The Sixty-Seven Articles of 19 January 1523,” in Luther’s and Zwingli’s Propositions for Debate, trans. Carl S. Meyer (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1963), pp. 37-57. 13 The Writings of James Arminius, trans. and ed. James Nichols and W. R. Bagnal (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1956), 1:329. 14 See further Sanders, No Other Name, pp. 249-51. 15 The Works of John Wesley, ed. Albert Outler (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984-), 4:174.

88

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

sive passages in the New Testament were not addressed to the Gentiles but rather to Christians. Wesley believed that God had given all peoples general revelation and that some had retained traditions handed down from the time of Noah. He also thought that the unevangelized cannot be blamed for failing to believe in Christ, since they were not in a place to hear the gospel. Here the principle of “to whom little is given, of them little will be required” is to be applied. It is also significant that in his consideration the unchanged Christians and heathens are on the same level with regard to salvation. The term heathen for Wesley could also denote a Christian not living up to her calling. Early in his career, Wesley had some limited foreign mission experience in Georgia with Native Americans. This disappointing experience led him to describe Native Americans in less than flattering terms. He also believed that in general pagans are still without God in the world, even though, as already mentioned, there is general revelation among them. Wesley’s relation to other religions has been appropriately described as 16 “not an outright rejection but a nonjudgmental critical reflection.” For exam17 ple, he refused to condemn the Jews, but rather left them to God. However, his attitude toward Judaism was more open than toward other faiths; even with regard to Islam, as noted above, he refused any kind of categorical judgment. At the same time, he showed adoration for the search for holiness in Hinduism, and he was willing to give equal standing to those who experience the holy regardless of their religion: “I believe the merciful God regards the lives and tempers of men more than their idols. I believe He respects the good18 ness of the heart rather than the clearness of the head.” Consequently, he could speak of the “noble savage,” free from the distorting sophistications and ambitions of advanced culture. Nehemiah Thompson summarizes the various facets of Wesley’s theology of religions: • He did not reject world religions as unacceptable. • He was willing to learn from other faiths and appreciate the religiosity of people of other faiths.

16

Nehemiah Thompson, “The Search for a Methodist Theology of Religious Pluralism,” in Grounds for Understanding: Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism, ed. S. Mark Heim (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 98. 17 Works of John Wesley, 3:495. 18 Ibid., 4:175.

Positive Attitudes Toward Other Religions After the Early Fathers

89

• He was willing to adopt the best teachings of other faiths. • He saw Christianity and other faiths as equal as far as the pursuit of holiness was concerned. • He was open to acknowledge the moral integrity of people of other faiths and place them even on a higher ground than Christians. • He did not see religions as rivals. • He would have approved dialogue between religions as far as moral and religious issues were concerned, and the issue of holiness especially would have 19 been a common agenda.

Thompson also reminds us that Wesley was not a universalist; he was an evangelist who was passionate about the necessity of proclaiming the Word. Wesley was adamant about faith and holiness. As a result, Wesley’s teachings concerning his limited openness to other religions cannot be interpreted in a way that would compromise his standing in the mainstream Protestant tradition among Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans, all of whom contributed to his spiritual and theological heritage. By the time of Wesley’s death at the end of the eighteenth century, Europe had come to a decisive watershed intellectually and culturally—the heyday of the Enlightenment and the emerging classical liberalism. The horizons of not only sciences and philosophy in general but Christian theology in particular experienced an irrevocable transformation with the Enlightenment. Nothing was left untouched. The reverberations are still felt even in the beginning of the third millennium, even though modernism has already given way to postmodernism and a host of other challengers of the Enlightenment. These developments also transformed the ethos of the theology of religions, especially with regard to Christology, the focus of the relationship between Christianity and other religions.

19

Thompson, “Search for a Methodist Theology,” p. 100.

9 The Radical Challenge of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism

Christianity Reconsidered It is both surprising and confusing that textbooks and monographs, almost without exception, fail to acknowledge the all-important role of the Enlightenment with regard to the development of Christian theology of religions. In tracing the major outline of the historical development of Christian theology of religions, no other period of time has brought about such a radical shift. Even though much of the naiveté and unfounded optimism of the Enlightenment, especially with regard to the power of human reason, has since been left behind, this new outlook left nothing untouched. The Enlightenment has often been called the Age of Reason, a label emphasizing the ability of human reason to understand the mysteries of the world. This term is ambiguous in that many earlier times in history, especially the Middle Ages, were just as much times of reason. In fact, the great scholastic systems of Christian doctrine written by Thomas Aquinas and others were grand examples of the use of reason in explicating Christian faith. The main difference is the independent use of reason free from church authorities, divine revelation and other peoples’ tutelage. That is the essence of the Enlightenment. By replacing ancient superstitions, traditional religious convictions, and authorities, whether secular or ecclesiastical, the new methods of science promised to reveal the mysteries of the world and to better the conditions of ignorance, poverty and perhaps even war. The Enlightenment and other related philosophical developments encouraged people to question inherited beliefs, even those that in the past had been taken for granted as divinely sanctioned. Influential Enlightenment philosophers such as the English philosopher John Locke argued that reason must be our “best judge and guide” in everything. One natural result of this new openness to using human reason independently was biblical criticism. Whereas in the past the biblical text was taken as a trustworthy historical account, doubts and denials began to mount. People began to study the Bible as a historical

The Radical Challenge of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism

91

document using the same methods and principles as with any other historical work. It was not left to the Holy Spirit but to human spirit and reason to judge whether the text was convincing. Much of what had been comfortable in the earlier approaches to religion was reevaluated.1 Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695) argued for a religion that could be defined within the limits of reason and common sense. When Locke looked at the Bible he found a simple faith and a call to a moral life, with nothing much contrary to reason. In Locke’s reading of the Bible, Jesus exposed the errors of polytheism and idolatry, established a clear and rational morality, and reformed the worship of this time, freeing it of superstition. In 1730, M. Tindal, in his book Christianity as Old as Creation, or, the Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature (the title of which reveals its basic thesis), put Christianity on par with natural or “rational religion” and argued that there is no need for divine revelation. The Enlightenment found no place for the miracle stories of the Evangelists and the rest of the New Testament. David Hume’s Essay on Miracles (1748) was seen by many as repudiating any possibility of miracles, since one cannot provide evidence for them because there are no contemporary analogues. How could one, for example, convince the doubter of the certainty of Jesus’ resurrection when we lack any historical or scientific evidence? Hermann Samuel Reimarus and Gotthold E. Lessing, the pioneers of the “Quest of the Historical Jesus,” reminded their contemporaries of the simple fact that human testimony about a past event cannot be regarded as convincing. And the great French thinker Denis Diderot went so far as to claim that even if the entire population of Paris were to assure him that a dead man had just been raised from the dead, he would not believe a word of it. Traditional theology and Christology had operated with the concept of original sin that went back at least to Augustine in the fourth century. Now, in the wake of the Enlightenment, the whole idea of human nature corrupted by sin was vigorously opposed. The famous French pedagogue and philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau found the idea of original sin not only educationally most pessimistic but totally foreign to his idea of Romanticism, in which the idea of the beauty and harmony of nature, including human nature, was the leading motif.

1

This section is heavily indebted to the excellent survey in Alister E. McGrath, The Making of Modern German Christology 1750-1990, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), pp. 23-28.

92

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

A host of traditional Christian, especially christological, doctrines came to be reconsidered and reshaped in light of this new outlook: the two natures of Christ, especially his divinity; the possibility of miracles, including the resurrection of Christ; original sin; the Trinity; divine revelation and so on. The Christianity that emerged out of this process looked quite different from the Christianity of the past and had to reconsider its relation to other religions, too. Moreover, not only Christianity but also other religions came under the scrutiny of this new independent reason.

The Christ of Classical Liberalism Of all the tenets of Christian faith, this kind of radical shift most immediately 2 affected Christology. As a result, a new style of christological study emerged: the “Quest of the Historical Jesus,” based on the title of the book by its later 3 interpreter Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1910). The idea of a superhuman redeemer was unacceptable to Enlightenment thinkers, whereas the idea of an ethical teacher was not. This meant focusing on the earthly life of Jesus, especially his role as teacher, and at the same time downplaying the role of his death and resurrection; both the idea of atonement and the possibility of resurrection were utterly impossible for the Enlightenment thinking. For many, this reorientation of Christology opened whole new vistas for interreligious dialogue. Lessing, a German playwright and philosopher, in his play Nathan the Wise, had the Muslim emperor Saladin ask the Jew Nathan which religion is the true religion. In reply, Nathan tells a story of a father who loved equally all three of his sons and at his death gave them each a valuable ring. The sons knew that one of the rings was magical and made its wearer beloved by God and other people. Consulting a judge, the sons were advised to live as if each of the rings were the magic one. The lesson of Lessing’s play is simple: each religion is of equal value; even if no one single faith contains the ultimate truth, they all point in the same direction. For Lessing, Christianity had a lot to contribute to humanity’s religious search even if there were serious historical inaccuracies in the Gospel stories about Jesus. In opposition to the older dogmatic consensus concerning the special status of Jesus among founders of religions, Lessing’s view leans toward relativity and pluralism. This was the direction the 2

See further Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Christology: A Global Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003), especially chaps. 7-9. 3 For an excellent survey, see Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997).

The Radical Challenge of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism

93

Enlightenment had to take in its denial of supernatural divine revelation. But not only were they skeptical of the possibility of divine revelation, serious doubts also arose with regard to the possibility of gaining the kind of historical data that would lead us from considering the Jesus of history to having faith in Christ, the divine-human being. Among the host of liberal theologians’ attempts to write a life of Jesus, Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher’s work The Life of Jesus (1820) was transformative. Schleiermacher, the “father of modern theology” and one of the founding fathers of classical liberalism, located religion in human experience and “feeling.” (It has to be noted that the German Gefühl is a broader term than the English feeling; it denotes also “intuitive” and “pre-reflexive,” and has to do with piety.) For Schleiermacher, the central component in theology and religion is our experience of “God-consciousness” or the “feeling of absolute dependence.” In Jesus Christ, this God-consciousness has reached its zenith. Schleiermacher understandably recommended openness to other religions; this was based on his general idea of religion as depicted in his famous On Religion: Addresses in Response to Its Cultured Critics: “Each person must be open to the fact that perceptions and feelings belong to other forms of reli4 gion for which he may well lack any sensitivity at all.” Schleiermacher regarded Christianity as the “absolute religion” but not as an exclusive one. As one of the commentators of Schleiermacher put it, “[Christianity’s] Bible is 5 not opposed to new Bibles, nor is its religion opposed to new religions.” Similarly, Schleiermacher did not consider Jesus Christ to be the only mediator. Other individuals might also become conscious of their role as media6 tor. Schleiermacher also came to embrace a kind of universalism: at the end, all will be saved. He believed that “through the power of redemption there 7 will one day be a universal restoration of all souls.” Schleiermacher held that if there were a hell, the blessed would be prevented from enjoying their bliss in heaven, since they would be concerned about the fate of their un8 saved loved ones and others. So Schleiermacher argued that all people would be finally saved by the grace of God. Since Jesus died for all and there 4

Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, On Religion: Addresses in Response to Its Cultured Critics, trans. Torrence N. Tice (Richmond, Va.: John Knox, 1969), p. 100. 5 Attributed to Edmund Cramaussel in E. Earl Carver, “An Inquiry into the Spiritual Status of the Unevangelized” (Ph.D. thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary, May 1988), p. 148. 6 See, e.g., Schleiermacher, On Religion, p. 353. 7 Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, trans. and ed. H. R. Mackintosh and O. S. Steward (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 722. 8 Ibid., p. 721.

94

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

can be no favoritism on God’s part, all have to be included. Views such as these agree well with the mindset of the Enlightenment and liberalism and express their leading motifs. Whereas the older orthodoxy had posited a radical discontinuity between the natural and supernatural, between God and human beings, liberalism suggested continuity. This also implied continuity among religions. Yet another major difference from the classical approach was the dynamism of liberalism: religious truths, rather than being conceived of as fixed doctrines to be believed, were developmental and evolutionary in nature and were interpretations of reality by the persons perceiving them. When it came to the doctrine of revelation, which in orthodoxy focused on the words of Christ, liberalism maintained that the focus should be placed rather on the person of Christ, on encounter with him. The Bible is not the “pure” word of God but instead an interpretation of the religious experiences of the authors. Adolf von Harnack, church historian from the University of Berlin, has left his mark on the recent history of theology with his widely acclaimed book What Is Christianity? originally published in 1900. In that work he wanted to respond to the basic question of what Christianity was originally. Harnack argued that Jesus desired no other belief in his person than that of keeping his commandments. His consciousness of himself as Son of God was nothing but the practical consequence of knowing God as the divine Father. Harnack came to the conclusion that there were three basic principles in Jesus’ teaching: namely, the (ethical) kingdom of God, the fatherhood of God and the infinite value of the human soul. In Harnack’s view, Jesus’ preaching was exclusively concerned with the individual and summoned followers to repentance. All Christian dogmas, especially trinitarian and christological, were later Hellenizations of the simple gospel of Christ. In this sense, he talked about the “deterioration of dogma”; he regarded the development of dogma as a sort of chronic illness. The notion of dogma owes nothing to Jesus but is a result of the transition of the gospel from a Jewish to a Hellenistic milieu. Harnack’s most famous statement, often quoted and often misinterpreted, says “the Gospel, as Jesus proclaimed it, has to do with the Father only and not with the Son as its personal realization and its strength, and this he 9 is felt to be still.” It does not mean that Jesus was not conscious of his calling; rather it means that the whole thrust of Jesus’ message and life was to serve 9

Adolf von Harnack, What Is Christianity? trans. Thomas Bailey Saunders (New York: Harper, 1957), p. 144.

The Radical Challenge of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism

95

the kingdom of his Father. Herein lies the seeds of the currently popular theocentric pluralism, which turns attention to the Father rather than to Christ himself. Central to Harnack’s project was thus the rejection of both the classical Christologies and the assurance that exegetes can reach the historical Jesus, the image of the ethical kingdom. In line with liberalism, apocalyptic elements in the Gospels are dismissed. And whatever doctrines there are, they are always secondary to the person of Jesus. The gospel is not a doctrine about Jesus but an interpretation of his person. When we move to consider Ernst Troeltsch, one of the giants of the liberal agenda and the “father of religious pluralism,” we come to the zenith of the developments brought about by the Enlightenment.

Ernst Troeltsch: The Historical Relativity of All Religions One of the stepchildren of the Enlightenment was the so-called History of Religions School, whose ablest proponent was Ernst Troeltsch. According to the Catholic Paul F. Knitter, Troeltsch’s influence on the development of the theology of religions is formative and significant: Whatever the final and tested verdict on Troeltsch may be, he cannot be overlooked in a study of the development of Protestant thinking on the religions during this century. . . . Positively or negatively, Troeltsch was a shattering catalyst 10 for a Protestant theology of religions.

The heyday of the history of religions approach was the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. It sought to understand Jesus Christ in the context of the religious and cultural setting of the surrounding nations and emphasized the continuity between the Bible and ancient Near Eastern cultures and the discontinuity between the Bible and modern times. Troeltsch was a radical champion of historical research, and he completely discredited supernaturalism in favor of history, arguing that Christology has to be based on solid historical research. In Troeltsch’s view, historicalcritical research discredited the dogmatic approach to Christianity. Troeltsch therefore rejected the idea of an “absolute” revelation in Jesus; he also rejected the idea of an incarnation in history. This modernized version of Christianity also had no place for sin, miracles or redemption. 10

Paul F. Knitter, Towards a Protestant Theology of Religions: A Case Study of Paul Althaus and Contemporary Attitudes, Marburger Theologische Studien 11 (Marburg, Germany: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1974), pp. 5-6.

96

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

In the spirit of his school, Troeltsch thought that everything human beings produce is historical, the result of historical development, including religions. Christianity is a historical phenomenon, an outcome of social and national conditions.11 As such, Christianity and the rest of religions have to be studied from a “neutral,” historical perspective: Nowhere is Christianity the absolute religion, an utterly unique species free of the historical conditions that comprise its environment at any given time. Nowhere is it the changeless, exhaustive, and unconditioned realization of that which is conceived as the universal principle of religion. . . . The Christian religion is in every moment of its history a purely historical phenomenon, subject to all the limitations to which any individual historical phenomenon is exposed, 12 just like the other great religions.

Comparing Troeltsch’s radical shift with the views of his predecessors, even those who were already influenced by the Enlightenment and subsequent liberalism, Knitter has this to say: Yet their “vantage point” for surveying the world of religions remained essentially that of traditional Christian theology; in a sense, they were not looking at the religions but down to them. Here is where Troeltsch attempted to “refocus” the Christian theologian’s point of view. As a theologian himself, he wanted other Christian thinkers to step out of their own “theological skins”—their own traditional categories—in order to understand the religions—and Christianity itself!—from the viewpoint of modern science and according to the mentality of modern man. . . . He did feel that for Christianity to truly encounter and understand the religions, it must remodel its system of thought and its own self-image; it must enter a “new phase”; its “traditional form” must change—not be destroyed or thrown overboard, but radically overhauled. Only by daring to open itself to the age’s new “Weltanschauung” and by letting itself change and adapt accordingly, can Christianity arrive at a true evaluation of the religions and of itself as a religion; only then is a true reconciliation of the Christian and non-Chris13 tian worlds possible.

Troeltsch championed a sort of “immanent transcendence” according to which the Absolute is both beyond and within the finite world: “There is a 11

Ernst Troeltsch, “The Place of Christianity Among the World Religions,” in Attitudes Toward Other Religions: Some Christian Interpretations, ed. Owen C. Thomas (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 84. 12 Ernst Troeltsch, The Absoluteness of Christianity (Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1971), pp. 71, 85. 13 Knitter, Towards a Protestant Theology, pp. 6-7.

The Radical Challenge of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism

97

form of participation, of continuity, of sharing between the finite and the infinite.”14 For him, religion was participation in the divine presence and union between the human spirit and absolute Spirit; this union is a sort of metaphysical reality within the human psyche, a “transcendental subjectivity.” This is open to all people everywhere. Troeltsch’s understanding of general revelation is based on this insight: namely, that all people in all religions have the capacity to experience God. Of course, for him, this revelation is also historical, not absolute. Therefore, both the Old Testament and the New are also phases in revelatory history. Jesus was not God, but he was still a mediator between God and human beings—psychologically and morally, not ontologically (in the sense of being of the same essence as God). The specific way we can appropriate the special significance of Jesus is the Christ-mystique in which we encounter Jesus. The nature of this kind of universal revelation does not allow it to have, at any point in history, an absolute expression. This, writes Knitter, would contradict the metaphysical nature of the Absolute which can never be encompassed and fully expressed in a limited, finite form. Even more so, it would go against the basic and all pervading principle of Troeltsch’s method: of scien15 tific historicism and evolutionism.

History, and historical revelation with it, is moving progressively toward the Absolute and can never attain it. In this sense, Troeltsch held to a “progressive revelation” in the best sense of the term. As already mentioned, Troeltsch is often regarded as the first religious pluralist, which he was indeed. But his pluralism had a distinctive flavor when compared to the contemporary pluralisms. Troeltsch believed that each religion has its own particular nature. All religions share something in common: the divine presence or revelation. Yet he also accounts for their genuine differences, for each is a different, particular historical manifestation of that presence. Therefore, all religions, as bearers of the divine, are also relative, limited. Although each religion is a manifestation of the Absolute, there can be no absolute religion. This is the very nature of historical process. 16 Religion is historical. Consequently, other religions cannot be brought closer to Christianity. Even though Christianity is the highest religion because it is the most univer14

Ibid., p. 10. Ibid., pp. 11-12. 16 Troeltsch, Absoluteness of Christianity, pp. 98-106. 15

98

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

sal and is not directly tied to any culture or society, it still does not have the right to “convert” others to Jesus Christ.17 Each religion has its own specific idea of how to experience God; each is valid in its own way in its particular context. Only those called the most primitive religions could be targets of missionary outreach, but even those more in pedagogical than proselytizing 18 sense. The title of Troeltsch’s main work, The Absoluteness of Christianity, is somewhat misleading in that it does not champion absoluteness in the sense that traditional theology attributes to Christianity. Troeltsch’s “absoluteness” is qualified and provisional. Troeltsch, of course, was well aware that individual religious experiences may mislead the person to imagine that he or she has finally attained the absolute, true God. But according to him, this kind of experience is naive in that the person does not ask further questions concerning the plurality of religions, 19 the immensity of God and the historical quality of human life. So all is relative in Troeltsch’s historically conditioned view of religion: Troeltsch’s principles for studying religious reality led him to draw the same conclusion for religion that he did for revelation: there can be no absolute religion; all religions are relative. History not only embraces all religions in a common movement towards a common goal, it also confines them within a universal relativity. This is an iron-clad law of history: it allows no absolutes; it admits only individual, concrete and therefore relative realities. No religion can affirm that it stands above this all-embracing relativity; no religion can claim to be the full and final realization of the general concept of religion. No religion can step outside of history! Every religious phenomenon is always an individual, factual piece in the entire mosaic of history; only as a part of the mosaic can it find its meaning and 20 its value.

Arnold Toynbee: The Oneness of Religions “Deep down, all religions are the same—different paths leading to the same goal.” This is another of the deeply entrenched popular attitudes toward religious pluralism in our contemporary society—an attitude by which Christians, wittingly or unwittingly, are very much influenced. This viewpoint seems to 17

Troeltsch, “Place of Christianity,” p. 83. Ibid., pp. 86-88. 19 Troeltsch, Absoluteness of Christianity, pp. 131-63; for a careful discussion, see Paul Knitter, No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985), pp. 27-28. The whole treatment of Troeltsch in Knitter is most helpful (pp. 23-33). 20 Knitter, Towards a Protestant Theology, p. 14. 18

The Radical Challenge of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism

99

make such eminent sense, especially for persons who believe in one God who is a God of love. Naturally this God wills to draw all peoples to salvation. Naturally God will have to do this according to the differing cultures and contexts of geography and time. So differences between the religions are merely accidental, cultural, time-conditioned. Behind all these cultural accidentals, there is the one God, the common essence. The familiar image of the different paths leading up to the sublime summit of Mt. Fuji represents for many today the world of differ21 ing religions all twisting their way to the same goal.

This vivid description of the popular mindset according to which all religions are essentially the same is a sort of logical conclusion of the liberal agenda that looks at Jesus of Nazareth as one savior among others and at Christianity as one of the ways to God. This kind of “common essence” of religions was most aptly and vocally heralded by the eminent historian Arnold Toynbee whose work—though he himself was no theologian—has had unprecedented religious repercussions. Even though Toynbee, who died in the middle of the 1970s, cannot be categorized as one of the liberals as such (and in this sense his placement at the end of this section is a bit misleading), his view of religions, however, can be seen as the culmination of much of liberalism’s agenda, going back to the ideas brought about by the new christological style of the Enlightenment. So discussing Toynbee here is not meant to connect him with liberalism as such. Instead, I seek to illustrate the logical end of liberalism’s view of religions in general and Christianity in particular through the lens of his work. Strangely enough, most books on theology of religions are content with either ignoring his contribution or just giving it a 22 passing reference. The basic thesis of Toynbee’s approach to history is that “religion is the 23 heart of human life.” Civilizations for him are the handmaids of religion. In other words, the history of civilization has a religious purpose: “the manifes24 tation of the true religion and the salvation of mankind.” As a commentator of Toynbee’s work aptly notes, for Toynbee “history has almost an apostolic, certainly a salvific function in society: Salvation history is the only true history there is, for history saves man from the immoral and untrue presump21

Knitter, No Other Name? p. 37 (italics in the original). Ibid., pp. 37-44, is a delightful exception. 23 Arnold Toynbee, Change and Habit (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 184, quoted in Knitter, No Other Name? p. 38. 24 Owen C. Thomas, ed., Attitudes Toward Other Religions: Some Christian Interpretations (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 8. 22

100

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

tion that he, or his clan, is the ‘center of the Universe.’ ”25 To support his main thesis, Toynbee travels through more than twenty civilizations looking for a common core. He comes to the conclusion that in all major religions the common essence is “spiritual presence.” Toynbee claims that this is what unites all religions; whatever differences exist have to do with nonessentials such as religious practices. The spiritual presence that can be found in major religions—Buddhism (both Theravada and Mahayana), Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and Christianity—shares these common features: First, it flows from the experience that the universe is ultimately mysterious. Second, the Absolute Reality is to be found in the universe, though it cannot be identified with it. Third, this presence of the spiritual contains all the good that humans search for. Fourth, the prerequisite to the good 26 life and harmony is freedom from human self-centeredness. As a historian of religion, Toynbee did not disregard differences between religions even though he saw much similarity as well. Here is an obvious example: while most major religions approach the god/God/Absolute as personal, Theravada Buddhism has no concept of a personal god. Also, whereas Theravada Buddhists look for the cessation of existence, most other major religions search for final union with god/God. There are also telling differences 27 with regard to the concept of evil, the future of the world and so on. For Toynbee, three religions especially posed a challenge in terms of their built-in claim for exclusiveness: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. In his estimation, Christianity had the worst record of intolerance and too often displayed an attitude of superiority over other religions. In fact, he regarded this self-centeredness as “sin,” even original sin. Therefore, he demanded that we should try to “purge our Christianity of the traditional Christian belief that Christian28 ity is unique.” Toynbee believed that all major religions should not regard one another as competitors but rather as complementary to each other. Therefore he urged all the world religions to adopt the attitude of tolerance: All the living higher religions ought to subordinate their traditional rivalries and

25

Stafford Betty, “The Radical Pluralism of Arnold Toynbee: Its Implications for Religions,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 9, no. 4 (1972): 821, with reference to Toynbee, An Historian’s Approach to Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956). 26 Knitter, No Other Name? pp. 38-39, with reference to Toynbee, An Historian’s Approach, esp. pp. 262-73. 27 For details, see Betty, “Radical Pluralism,” pp. 827-29. 28 Arnold Toynbee, “What Should Be the Christian Approach to the Contemporary NonChristian Faiths,” in Thomas, ed., Attitudes Toward Other Religions, p. 160.

The Radical Challenge of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism

101

make a new approach toward one another in face of a fearful common adversary: a revival of the worship of collective human power, armed with new weapons, 29 both material and spiritual.

Not insignificantly, Toynbee worked as a professor of history as well as for the British Foreign Office during the two world wars and was a member of the British delegations to the peace conferences after both wars. He was firmly convinced that religions could contribute to the peace of the world—if an attitude of tolerance would emerge. Was Toynbee, then, wanting to compromise religious confidence and commitment? No, he was not. He explained that it does not necessarily take an exclusive attitude toward other faiths to be convinced of the essential truth and rightness of one’s own religion. He contended that one “can believe that these tenets have been received by one as a revelation from God— and at the same time not believe that I, my church, my people, have the sole 30 and unique revelation.” He firmly believed that the attitude of Christians toward the other higher religions and their followers should be one of respect and a contrite spirit. It is possible for us, while holding that our own convictions are true and right, to recognize that, in some measure, all the higher religions are also revelations of what is true and right. They also come from God, and each presents some facet 31 of God’s truth.

He recognized that other religions are “light radiating from the same source from which our own religion derives its spiritual light.” The reason is simple: “This must be so if God is the god of all men and is also another name 32 for love.” Since Toynbee was an untiring proponent of tolerance with regard to religions and worldviews, he was very critical of dogmatic definitions that he saw as divisive. For him dogma was “an ill-conceived attempt to express religious truth in scientific terms,” whereas “open-mindedness and independent-mind33 edness are manifestly the right responses to our specific human condition.” The mature Toynbee seemed to take the attitude of tolerance, based on his firm conviction of the sameness of all religions, to its logical end. Few if any Chris29

Ibid., p. 152. Ibid., p. 161 (italics in the original). 31 Ibid., p. 163. 32 Ibid. 33 Toynbee, Change and Habit, pp. 194, 181, respectively. 30

102

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

tian writers—or writers from other religious backgrounds, for that matter— have dared to draw such a radical conclusion as Toynbee did: In the gods who have made their epiphany in the new religions, we are at last in the presence of divinities to whom we can devote ourselves with all our heart and mind and strength. Mithras will lead us as our captain. Isis will nurse us as our mother. Christ has emptied Himself of His divine power and glory to become incarnate as a man and to suffer death upon the cross for our sake. And for our sake likewise a bodhisattva who has reached the threshold of Nirvana has re34 frained from taking the last step into bliss.

To attain this state Christianity has to acknowledge its true essence: namely, a God who is not a God of superiority but of self-sacrifice, the God of love. In this sense, Christianity has to be ready to sacrifice its inherent exclusivism and turn to other religions and their followers as representatives of the same faith under the one God, Toynbee maintained. Otherwise Christianity will easily fall into the trap of “man worship,” the cultivation of self-centeredness so prevalent in Christian lands. This refusal of self-sacrifice in Toynbee’s opinion has been one reason, for example, that so few Japanese have responded to the Christian gospel. Christianity that has been presented in a spirit of arrogance 35 has been rejected “in the name of the sacredness of human personalities.” The summary by Stafford Betty of Toynbee’s radical pluralism and his view of the sameness of all religions is accurate: Toynbee does not look forward to the day that any one religion, Christianity or otherwise, will hold the field. He is a religious pluralist in the fullest sense. Even in a utopian society he would not envision, or desire, that there be only one religion. He believes that as long as human beings are genetically, not to mention culturally, diverse, religions must likewise be diverse. His ecumenism, however, goes far beyond a mere plea for tolerance of those of other faiths. For just as truly it can be said that his position calls for, not just one religion, but a plurality of religions, it can be said that this same position recognizes that all religions are di36 mensions of each other.

34

Arnold Toynbee, The World and the West (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953), p. 96. Toynbee, “What Should Be the Christian Approach,” p. 163. 36 Betty, “Radical Pluralism,” p. 824. 35

10 The Fulfillment Theory of Religions

The Crown of Hinduism To conclude our historical survey of the varying responses of the Christian church to other religions and in preparation for a more detailed survey of contemporary approaches, it is helpful to look at one emerging theme that has shaped the religious landscape from the end of nineteenth century into the middle of the twentieth, when the pervasive influence of pluralism had taken the lead. This is often called a “fulfillment theory.” It simply means that since Christianity is considered to be the highest religion, other religions’ search for truth and salvation can find fulfillment in Christ and Christian religion. Harold Netland gives a helpful background to the growing proliferation of ideas about other religions beginning in the nineteenth century: Ironically, even while the modern missionary movement was enjoying unprecedented success and the gospel of Jesus Christ was spreading to all parts of the globe, dramatic changes were occurring in Europe that were to alter forever the Christian community’s understanding of itself and its mission in the world. The crucial assumption that God had revealed himself uniquely in the Bible, and thus that the Bible was absolutely trustworthy in all it says, was being eroded by higher critical views of Scripture and the conclusions of Darwinian science. The distinctiveness of Jesus Christ was being challenged by the developing discipline of the history of religions. Common prejudices about non-Europeans as savages were being undermined through extensive contact with the impressive cultures 1 of China, Japan, India and Latin America.

As a result, first Protestant missions and then Catholic missions became influenced by more open-minded attitudes toward other religions. The Anglican theologian F. D. Maurice, in his The Religions of the World and Their Relations to Christianity (1847), expressed a remarkably positive view of non1

Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 32.

104

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Christian religions. He argued for the presence of God among other religions, be they Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam.2 In the introduction to the present book I already referred to the groundbreaking work of John Farquhar, who worked in India at the turn of the twentieth century and produced the landmark book The Crown of Hinduism (1913). He challenged his fellow missionaries to develop a positive appreciation for Indian culture and religion, and he presented a case for Christianity as something complementary to rather than exclusive of Hinduism. Hinduism for him was not so much wrong as it was not yet fulfilled. Yet Farquhar was not, of course, a pluralist: there was no question about the supremacy and the absoluteness of Christianity. On the other hand, gone was the exclusivism of his forefathers. The conclusion to his book is illustrative of his approach to religions: We have already seen how Christ provides the fulfillment of each of the highest aspirations and aims of Hinduism. . . . Every line of light which is visible in the grossest part of the religion reappears in Him set in healthy institutions and spiritual worship. Every true motive which in Hinduism has found expression in unclean, debasing, or unhealthy practices finds in Him fullest exercise in work for the downtrodden, the ignorant, the sick, and the sinful. In Him is focused every 3 ray of light that shines in Hinduism. He is the Crown of the faith of India.

As can be expected, a counterargument to such a fulfillment theory was expressed by those on the more conservative side of Christian theology. In 1899, Samuel Henry Kellogg published his widely read A Handbook of Comparative Religion to combat the fulfillment theory, but nothing could stop its growing influence. We see an indication of the fulfillment view’s influence in the comment by Kenneth Cracknell concerning the highly influential missionary conference at Edinburgh in 1910. In preparation for the conference nearly two hundred missionaries sent responses to a question that dealt with the relationship between Christian mission and other religions. “Most of the missionaries responded to the Commissioners in terms of fulfillment, and indeed Edinburgh 1910 was the 4 moment of apotheosis of this idea.” This is quite significant in light of the fact 2

For details, see ibid., pp. 32-33. The basic guide here is Kenneth Cracknell, Justice, Courtesy and Love: Theologians and Missionaries Encountering World Religions, 1846-1914 (London: Epworth, 1995). 3 John N. Farquhar, The Crown of Hinduism (1913; reprint, New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1971), pp. 457-58; I am indebted to Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism, p. 35, for this quotation. 4 Cracknell, Justice, Courtesy and Love, p. 221 (italics in the original).

The Fulfillment Theory of Religions

105

that the Edinburgh conference, of course, was still dominated by the idea of absoluteness and superiority over other religions. (We will study below in more detail Edinburgh’s role in ecumenical mission thinking.) A culmination of the fulfillment theory in the Protestant camp came with the publication of a highly influential book, Re-thinking Missions: A Laymen’s Inquiry After One Hundred Years (1932) by William Hocking, professor at Harvard University. The book was the result of a massive study funded by John D. Rockefeller Jr. In the book, Hocking argued for a new kind of religion that would address the needs of the modern world. He still held to the importance of Christian mission, but in a form that would be much more liberal than in the traditional notion of mission. The real challenge of mission was no longer other religions but atheism and growing agnosticism. Christian mission and evangelism were to be “ministry to secular needs of men in the spirit of 5 Christ.” Clearly, Hocking had also interpreted the fulfillment theory in a way that was unacceptable to many more moderate champions of the view, and so a heavy debate emerged. Hendrik Kraemer’s The Christian Message in a NonChristian World (1938) was a conservative response to Hocking and those likeminded. (We will look at this response below.)

Christianity as a “Single Axis” So far we have looked at Protestant views of the fulfillment theory. Catholics had their own versions, which were not introduced on a full scale until the mid twentieth century, and they paved the way for Vatican II (1962-1965), to be studied later. Jean Daniélou, a prolific writer known for groundbreaking books such as his Holy Pagans of the Old Testament (1957), held theology of history as a 6 progressive divine manifestation to humankind. However, salvation history proper is limited to the Judeo-Christian tradition. All others are “prehistory,” a preparation for the gospel. In this scheme there is a distinction between nature and the supernatural. Non-Christian religions belong to the realm of nature, Christianity to the supernatural. These are based on two covenants, cosmic and historical. “The cosmic covenant is equivalent to God’s manifestation through

5

William E. Hocking, Re-thinking Missions: A Laymen’s Inquiry After One Hundred Years (New York: Harper and Bros., 1932), p. 68. 6 Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997), p. 134, makes the strange comment that “Daniélou may be considered the first Western exponent of the fulfillment theory.” What he must mean is Daniélou was the first Catholic representative. My treatment of Catholic fulfillment theory is indebted to his detailed discussion on pp. 130-43.

106

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

nature, even while in the concrete (supernatural) order of reality it is already oriented toward God’s personal manifestation in history.”7 Based on Romans 1:19-21, Daniélou believes that the knowledge of God is available to people in correspondence to the natural order. Those who did not know the God as Creator were those whose minds were darkened. Consequently, the religions of the world consist of both truth and error. But even at their best, religions are but human developments, ways of trying to know God. Thus they lack saving power, even though they are not useless. It is only 8 in Christ, the final revelation, that true salvation and revelation can be found. For Henri de Lubac, another Catholic writer, the discrepancy between Buddhism and Christianity has to do with a different understanding of attaining liberation because of different worldviews. For him, Christianity brought into the world something absolutely new. Its concept of salvation is not only original in relation to that of the religions that surrounded its birth; it constitutes a unique event in the religious history of humankind. . . . In this universal symphony Christianity alone affirms, at once and indissolubly, a transcendent destiny of the human person and for the whole of humankind a 9 common destiny.

Therefore, for Lubac, Christianity is the “single axis,” a true fulfillment of hu10 man religiosity. Other Catholic voices, prior to Vatican II, could be added to the list of those who saw the relationship between Christian faith and other religions in terms of fulfillment. One such voice was Hans Urs von Balthasar, one of the most creative theologians of all. For him also, “ ‘Non-Christian’ and the Christian religion stand to each other as nature and the supernatural. One assumes and 11 fulfills what is good in the other; it purifies it in order to transform it.” After studying biblical perspectives on other religions and the dynamic of historical developments—the oscillation between an exclusive and a more open-minded attitude—we are ready to engage in a detailed discussion of contemporary options. This we will do in two movements. First, we will discuss ecclesiastical views; second, we will inquire into individual theologians’ opinions. This will give us an opportunity to become familiar with the richness of

7

Ibid., p. 134. For details, see ibid., pp. 135-37. 9 Quoted (and translated) in ibid., p. 137. 10 See further ibid., p. 139. 11 Ibid., p. 143. 8

The Fulfillment Theory of Religions

107

and dialogue among competing and, to a large extent, contradictory views. As one can imagine, nothing like a consensus can be found; rather, what we have is a smorgasbord of different tastes and orientations.

Critical Reflections and Questions A bird’s eye view of the history of Christian theology of religions gives us a picture more diverse than often thought. Now that we live amidst a plurality of religions and a growing pluralistic ethos, it is often assumed that any kind of openness to other religions and their theological meaning is a new phenomenon and something unanticipated. That is not the case. In general terms, Christian churches and their theologians have followed the main thread of the biblical teaching according to which Christian faith is the only true religion and the gods of the other religions are idols. Much of Christianity’s expansion was based on an unqualified dismissal or denial of other religions. In that light, the growing pluralistic ethos is a new thing. Yet the picture is more complicated: from the very beginnings of Christian history, there have been influential voices building on those voices in the diverse biblical canon that have either left open the possibility salvation among those who have never heard the gospel, or affirmed some relative value of non-Christian traditions. To set the record straight: there have not been (at least to my knowledge) any selfpronounced “pluralists” among Christian theologians before the time of the Enlightenment—even universalists such as Origen attributed the salvation of all to the purposes of the Christian God, the only God. But neither is it the case that a more inclusivist attitude has not existed all through the history. Wolfhart Pannenberg contends that an inclusivist position (in the sense of either leaving open the destiny of non-Christians or even entertaining the possibility of salvation, yet related to the work of Christ) has the claim of being the oldest among Christian theologians, based on the New Testament teaching; in his opinion, it took some time for Christian theology to narrow down to exclusiv12 ism. Be that as it may, there is no denying that it was not until the emergence of the Christian church as a state religion that the dictum “no salvation outside the church” was almost unanimously applied to Jews and pagans. The Augustinian heritage—with its focus on the election of individuals either for salvation or perdition—helped to consolidate the force of the extra ec-

12

Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Religious Pluralism and Conflicting Truth Claims: The Problem of a Theology of the World Religions,” in Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990), pp. 98-100.

108

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

clesiam nulla salus principle so much that the more positive voice of fathers such as the Apologists, Irenaeus and Origen became more marginal. With the consolidation of the power of the Christian church through the Middle Ages, there was very little positive appreciation of the value of other religions with the exception of lonely voices such as Peter Abelard or Nicholas of Cusa. The Reformers in general—with the exception of Philipp Melanchthon, who had a more open attitude—continued the Augustinian heritage. The momentous shift in thinking and the beginning of radical polarization happened with the advent of modernism in the aftermath of the Enlightenment. Nothing has been the same since this transformative period, and we still feel its repercussions. As already mentioned, it is surprising that surveys of the history of theology of religions pay so little attention to this turning point. While churches in general held on to virtual exclusivism, the seeds of pluralism were sown among scholarly communities—seeds that would pose a lasting challenge to Christian religion and all other religions. Even with the collapse of the Quest of the Historical Jesus, the person and work of Jesus Christ have been set into a new context; even those who continue affirming orthodox faith have to tackle unprecedented historical and philosophical challenges. In general, the particularity of the person of Jesus Christ and the religion founded on him have been scaled down. Our historical survey took us to the beginning of the twentieth century with three different voices from Christian theologians—the traditional exclusivism in various forms, an idea of Christianity as the “fulfillment” of religions, and a growing pluralistic ethos—and the questions we must ponder are many and challenging: Can the principle of extra ecclesiam nulla salus be supported on exegetical grounds? What, if any, difference would it have made if Christianity did not gain political power in the fourth century and following? Would such an exclusion have kept the more open-minded patristic heritage closer to the center of the theological assessment of other religions? Why do the Reformers and Catholics, with their widely differing theological and ecclesiastical frameworks, still basically agree regarding other religions? What would be the most appropriate and theologically fruitful way to honor the orthodox heritage of pre-Enlightenment Christianity after the advent of modernity and our changed intellectual context? What are the lessons learned from history regarding the encounter with other religions?

P A R T

T H R E E

T HE C URRENT S CENE Ecclesiastical Approaches

Christian Churches Respond to World Religions The purpose of the present section is to give an overview of Christian denominational responses to the theology of religions and religious pluralism. A term used in this section, ecclesiastical, simply means “churchly” or “church related,” denoting how various Christian families have defined their understanding of the relation of Christian faith to other religions. While the survey does not aim to be exhaustive, it is representative, seeking to give the reader an up-to-date account of where the major Christian traditions stand in their responses to other religions. But do we have to look at various churches’ views separately from individual theologians’ understandings? While these two do overlap somewhat, they are in no way to be considered identical. Especially since the twentieth century, the loyalty of individual theologians to their respective traditions has become more elusive than earlier. More importantly, dividing our topic will help the reader grasp the over1 whelming ecumenical variety among Christian churches. That in itself is one of the major lessons to be learned from this section. The grouping of the traditions calls for explanation. The Roman Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian traditions are each treated separately (in chapters ten and eleven), since neither one of them is easily categorized with any other tradition. What I identify as the Mainline Protestant tradition (chapter twelve) lumps together denominations such as Lutherans, Presbyterians and Method-

1

A helpful guide (though some of its articles are better than others) is S. Mark Heim, ed., Grounds for Understanding: Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998).

110

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

ists; the Free Churches category (chapter thirteen) includes Anabaptists/Mennonites, Baptists and Pentecostal/Charismatics. I do not discuss either of these two categories exhaustively; the selection of the particular subgroups, however, gives a fair account of differing, yet complementary voices. I have employed two more categories here that are less self-evident and that use criteria other than that of denominations. The term evangelical (chapter fourteen) refers to a transdenominational theological movement, which is currently very influential, especially in the English-speaking world, though visible elsewhere also. It purports to uphold some of the main emphases of classical orthodoxy, such as the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. It is to be noted that there is some overlap here between the evangelical movement and Free Churches: the Baptists and Pentecostals, for example, can be categorized as Free Churches and as evangelical. In addition, the evangelical movement has in its ranks a number of mainline Protestants. The last category, the ecumenical movement (chapter fifteen), refers to the transdenominational efforts of Christian churches to define in concert their understanding of Christian unity and related issues. The World Council of Churches and Faith and Order, including the World Missionary Conferences, are the most visible forums for those efforts. The discussion of these Christian traditions and of their understandings of the theology of religions in this section is based, as far as possible, on more or less official church documents and confessional pronouncements rather than on the opinions of individual theologians. The opinions of individual theologians will be treated in the last—and largest—part of this book.

11 The Response of the Roman Catholic Church

The Transformative Significance of Vatican II In the long history of the development of Catholic theology, no other single event is of such transformative significance as the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Composed of over three thousand bishops from all over the world, the Second Vatican Council reformed Catholic doctrine in an unprecedented fashion. Several documents from that council have bearing on the question of Christianity’s relation to other religions. The two most important are (using their Latin names) Nostra Aetate, the theology of religions document proper, and Ad Gentes, the document on the missionary task of the church. Two others should also be noticed: namely, Gaudium et Spes, which spoke to the challenges of modern life for the church, and Lumen Gentium, one of the most significant documents on the doctrine of the church, ecclesi1 ology, ever issued. Before going into a discussion of the Vatican II documents, we should note two perspectives that have direct bearing on the nature of the conciliar documents. One is the idea that non-Catholics—and non-Christians—can be “related” in some way to the Catholic Church while not yet being members of it. So, on the one hand, pre-Vatican II official documents held firmly to the necessity of the church for salvation but in a way that left the door open for those with sincere desire. As late as 1943, the highly acclaimed papal encyclical entitled Mystici Corporis (“The Mystical Body”) by Pius XII still held to the view that only “true” Catholics are saved: Only those are to be accounted as members of the Church in reality who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not had the misfortune of withdrawing from the body or for grave faults been cut off by legitimate author1

Vatican Council II. The Conciliar & Post Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery (Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources Inc., 1975).

112

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

ity. . . . And so, if a person refuses to listen to the Church, that person should be 2 considered, so the Lord commands, as a heathen and publican.

But then, in the often-quoted passage of that same encyclical, a door is left open to those who desire salvation even though they may not have access to the gospel: From a heart overflowing with love we ask each and every one of them to be quick and ready to follow the interior movements of grace, and to seek earnestly to rescue themselves from a state in which they cannot be secure about their salvation. For even though, by a certain unconscious desire and longing, they are ordained to the mystical Body of the Redeemer, they lack so many great gifts and 3 helps from God, which they can enjoy only in the Catholic Church.

According to Francis A. Sullivan, the document does not say that non-Catholics would not be saved but rather that they cannot be sure about their salvation. Furthermore, the pope explains how the salvation of non-Catholics can be reconciled with the principle that there is no salvation outside the church: although such people are not really members of the Catholic Church, they can be related to the mystical body “by a certain unconscious desire and longing.” 4 As we will see, Vatican II both adopted and refined this idea. The other note important for understanding the conciliar pronouncements concerning other religions has to do with the general background of Catholic theology. Although Vatican II was in many ways a theological and ecclesiological reorientation, the Thomistic doctrine of nature elevated by the grace of God was still an influential idea behind much of its missionary thinking. On the basis of the mystery of incarnation, “nature” and “grace”—the natural and the supernatural—belong together. The grace of God purifies, liberates and fulfills what is in created nature. “God has willed to gather together all that 5 was natural, all that was supernatural, into a single whole in Christ.” All peoples have natural rational knowledge both of the existence of God and of his will. And whatever is worthwhile in human cultures and religions is not to be rejected but to be brought under the healing power of grace. An unprecedented openness on the part of the Catholic Church to other 2

Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum (Barcinone: Herder, 1963), no. 3802. Ibid., no. 3821. 4 Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church? (New York: Paulist, 1992), p. 133. 5 Apostolicam Actuositatem 7. The idea of perfection is illustrated, e.g., in LG 17 and AG 9. See further Miikka Ruokanen, The Catholic Doctrine on Non-Christian Religions According to the Second Vatican Council (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1992), pp. 13-16, 106-10, with ample bibliographical references. 3

The Response of the Roman Catholic Church

113

Christians and other religions was promoted not only by the council itself, but also by several other developments around Vatican II. In 1964, Pope Paul VI established the Secretariat for Non-Christians. The same year saw the publication of the encyclical Ecclesiam Suam (“His Church”), which included under the rubric of dialogue relations to non-Christians. The pope also visited India the same year and addressed the followers of other religions in a warm spirit.6

The Church and Salvation According to Lumen Gentium 8, “The Church of Christ subsists in the Roman Catholic Church.” This was to correct the earlier version that worded the idea in this form: “The Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church.” This is a momentous ecumenical shift. It does imply that the church of Christ is wider than the (visible) Catholic Church. The other momentous shift was the dropping of the statement that only Roman Catholics are really members of the church; rather, Lumen Gentium says that only those Catholics who are living 7 in the state of grace are fully incorporated in the church. A corollary shift— in contrast to the long tradition, Mystici Corporis of Pius XII included—no longer requires non-Catholics to have a desire to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved. They may enjoy various spiritual goods in their 8 own communities. The ecumenical decree Unitatis Redintegratio elaborated on the meaning of other churches and the various “degrees of fullness” found in them. Even though other churches apart from the sacramental and episcopal communion with Rome lack fullness of ecclesiality, they still are ecclesial in nature: In these communities the one sole Church of Christ is present, albeit imperfectly, in a way that is somewhat like its presence in particular churches, and by means of their ecclesiastical elements the Church of Christ is in some way op9 erative in them.

The most important passage for our consideration is Lumen Gentium 14, which affirms the necessity of the church for salvation and consequently the necessity of faith and baptism. The standpoint of the document seems quite uncompromising: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church 6

Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997), pp. 159-60. 7 Lumen Gentium 14. 8 Ibid., 15. 9 Unitatis Redintegratio 22.

114

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her, could not be saved.” A closer look at the passage, however, shows that this is not to be read in a way that excludes salvation for non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians as such. This passage rather “reaffirmed what had been official Catholic doctrine since the time of Pius IV: that it is only those who are culpably outside the Catholic Church who are thereby excluded from salvation.”10 In other words, according to Vatican II, the condemnation of those outside the Catholic Church applies to those who turned their back on the church and faith, not to those who never heard the gospel. With this introduction to the role of the church with regard to salvation, we move to consider the most important issue for our purposes: the role of other religions in the economy of God’s salvation.

Salvation Outside the Church In order for us to grasp the significance of the turn taken at Vatican II, it is helpful to look briefly at the development and emergence of the most important council document concerning other religions, namely Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Church’s Relations to Non-Christian Religions. Initially, the council wanted to address the question of the relation of the Catholic Church to the Jews as a part of the Decree on Ecumenism. But because of the presence of bishops from areas of the world in which they found themselves struggling with challenges from other religions, and because of the uneasiness in the minds of those bishops who came from the areas surrounding the Jewish state, it was de11 cided that the scope of the document should be significantly enlarged. The council documents leave ambiguous the possibility of the salvation of all people with good will and the desire to live according to the light given them. The missionary document Ad Gentes teaches that God can lead to faith (without which it is impossible to please him) those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the gospel (AG 7). This affirmation is not so radical in Catholic theology, as our survey of history has shown, though the idea has not been emphasized much in the past. However, Vatican II was not satisfied with simply stating the possibility of salvation for those without the gospel; it even offered a kind of explanation as to how it happens. The council fathers appealed especially to the universal working of the Spirit in making the paschal mystery of Christ available to all people. The clearest statement comes 10 11

Sullivan, Salvation, pp. 150-51. For the history of the document, see, e.g., Ruokanen, Catholic Doctrine, pp. 33-45.

The Response of the Roman Catholic Church

115

from Gaudium et Spes, which speaks about Christians coming in contact with the paschal mystery of Christ’s cross and resurrection: All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.

Thus, it is an axiom of postconciliar Catholic theology that salvation is available to people of good will. The Catholic Gavin D’Costa’s recent comment is illustrative. In answer to the question “Can it be said that according to Vatican II non-Christian religions are mediators of supernatural revelation to their followers?” he replies, “This question absolutely takes for granted, following both pre-Conciliar and post-Conciliar teachings, that there is no 12 doubt the non-Christian may be saved.” These are the conditions for the salvation of non-Christians: that it is through “no fault of their own” that they are not able to hear the gospel, and that they have a sincere striving to live a good life. That “good life” is usually referred to as conscience and natural law 13 written in the hearts of all men and women. Here again we see the influence of the Thomistic doctrine of grace.

The Role of Other Religions with Regard to Salvation The question of the role of other religions with regard to salvation is, in fact, twofold: First, can followers of other religions be saved? And second, are other religions salvific in themselves—in other words, do they possess salvific structures? The first question has already been definitively answered yes. The second question is much more complicated and is debated among Catholic specialists. The official interpretation is that other religions are not salvific, but a loud minority speaks to the contrary. The reason for the division of opinions is that, at least in the judgment of most Catholic theologians, Nostra Aetate and other documents leave the latter question open and, hence, allow for various possible readings. While it is not the task of this textbook to solve the problem, we will look at the data. Three foundational perspectives emerge out of the main council document 14 on other religions. First, the religions are in various ways related to the 12

Gavin D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2000), p. 102. Gaudium et Spes 16. 14 I am indebted to D’Costa, Meeting of Religions, pp. 102-5. 13

116

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

church; there is a kind of “hierarchy of religions.” Judaism is the closest religion to Christianity, and after which comes Islam with its monotheism. Hinduism, because of its polytheism, is next in the descending order; and then comes Buddhism, a religion without a clear concept of God, and finally “other religions to be found everywhere.”15 Only with regard to Judaism is the term revelation used, which is quite understandable since the reference is to the Old Testament: “The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in his inexpress16 ible mercy designed to establish the Ancient Covenant.” Second, there is a real acknowledgment of all good in other religions: there 17 is a “ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” Lumen Gentium’s appreciation of other religions is put into the church’s missionary context: “By her activity whatever good is found sown in the minds and hearts of human beings, or in the rites and customs proper to various peoples, is not only saved from 18 destruction, but is also healed, ennobled, and brought to perfection.” And the previous paragraph affirms that whatever good is found in other religions, it serves as preparation for the gospel. The missionary document Ad Gentes follows the ecclesiological document: But whatever truth and grace are to be found among the nations, as a sort of secret presence of God, this [missionary] activity [of the Church] frees from all taint of evil and restores to Christ its maker, who overthrows the devil’s domain and wards off the manifold malice of vice. And so, whatever good is found to be sown in the hearts and minds of men, or in the rites and cultures peculiar to various peoples, is not lost. More than that, it is healed, ennobled, and perfected for the 19 glory of God, the shame of the demon, and the bliss of men.

There is, then, both continuity and discontinuity between Christianity and other religions. Perhaps the most affirmative passage comes from Nostra Aetate 2: The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. With sincere respect she looks on those ways of conduct and life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing on many points from what she herself holds and teaches, yet not rarely reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all human beings.

15

Nostra Aetate 2. Ibid., 4. 17 Ibid., 13. 18 Ibid., 17. 19 Ad Gentes 9. 16

The Response of the Roman Catholic Church

117

Therefore, the same paragraph continues, the church is called to be in dialogue and to collaborate with the followers of other religions, as well as to witness to the Christian faith and life in the spirit of acknowledging, preserving and promoting the spiritual and moral good and sociocultural values. Third, even though it acknowledges good things in other religions, Nostra Aetate clearly holds to the superiority of Christian faith. It says of the church, “Indeed, she proclaims and must ever proclaim Christ, ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6), in whom men find the fullness of religious life, and in 20 whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.” Whatever good there is in other religions serves as preparatio evangelica, a preparation for the fullness of the gospel. It is in the spirit of appreciation and humility that Christian mission is to be carried on, as Lumen Gentium teaches: In order to be able to witness to Christ fruitfully, Christians must be united to those people in esteem and love. They must regard themselves as real members of the groups in which they live. They must take part in the cultural and social life through the various dealings and occupations of human life. They must be familiar with their national and religious traditions; with joy and reverence they must discover the seeds of the Word hidden in these traditions. . . . Just as Christ searched the hearts of people and led them to the divine by truly human contacts, so his disciples, deeply imbued with the Spirit, should know the human persons among whom they live and associate with them. . . . At the same time they should strive to illumine those riches [of other peoples and religions] with the light of the 21 Gospel, to liberate them and bring them under the dominion of God the Savior.

Various Catholic Theologians’ Assessments of Vatican II In light of the already mentioned fact that the conciliar documents leave open the question of other religions’ role in the economy of salvation—apart from the question that was definitively addressed, namely, the affirmation of the possibility of salvation for followers of other religions—it is no wonder that Catholic theologians currently express various opinions. The official postconciliar documents, as we will notice in the next section, usually hold the more restrictive view according to which followers of other religions may be saved but other religions as such do not have salvific structure, even though they may contain many good things as a preparation for the gospel. To demonstrate the existence of various opinions, I will refer here to three representative Cath-

20 21

Nostra Aetate 2. Lumen Gentium 11.

118

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

olic theologians: Karl Rahner, Paul Knitter and Gavin D’Costa. (We will study their theologies of religions in the last part of this book.) Rahner’s idea of an “anonymous Christian” leans toward acknowledging the possibility of the salvific structure of other religions. In his influential writing “On the Importance of the Non-Christian Religions for Salvation,” he agrees that the council texts are silent on this very point. He mentions that this “essential problem” has “been left open” and that even the most significant council document, Nostra Aetate, does not address the problem in any unam22 biguous way. The pluralist Knitter represents one extreme by maintaining that the “majority of Catholic thinkers interpret the Conciliar statements to affirm, implic23 itly but clearly, that the religions are ways of salvation.” The inclusivist D’Costa questions Knitter’s judgment and asks whether his own findings and opinion more accurately reflect the view of the majority of Catholic interpreters. In reality, it is probably D’Costa’s opinion that represents the majority of current Catholic theologians’ opinions: It is difficult to read the Conciliar documents as giving a positive answer to the question: can other religions, per se, in their structures be mediators of supernatural revelation and salvific grace? While it is true that there is no explicit answer, there is certainly no positive answer. . . . It may well be the case that the documents’ silences are intentional and could be read, as I would suggest, as prohibiting any unqualified positive affirmation of other religions as salvific structures, or as containing divine revelation. This is all held, while holding at the same time, without contradiction, that supernatural saving grace is operative in other religions and that in those other religions there is much that is true, good, and holy, 24 and much to be admired and learned by the church.

D’Costa adds that there was an intentional silence in the council documents in order to secure the truth of the gospel. Apart from the Catholic interpreters of Vatican II, it is interesting to note that the Lutheran Miikka Ruokanen, in his study The Catholic Doctrine on Non-Christian Religions According to the Second 22

Karl Rahner, “On the Importance of the Non-Christian Religions for Salvation,” in vol. 18 of Theological Investigations (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983), pp. 290-91. 23 Paul F. Knitter, “Roman Catholic Approaches to Other Religions: Developments and Tensions,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 8 (1984): 50. Knitter is, of course, not the only one who champions this kind of interpretation; he is supported by, e.g., P. Rossano, “Christ’s Lordship and Religious Pluralism in Roman Catholic Perspective,” in Christ’s Lordship and Religious Pluralism, ed. Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1981), pp. 96-110. 24 D’Costa, Meeting of Religions, p. 105.

The Response of the Roman Catholic Church

119

Vatican Council, strongly supports the kind of interpretation presented by D’Costa.25

Postconciliar Developments The rebirth of the missionary movement in the Catholic Church after the mid 1970s is marked at its beginning by the publication of perhaps the most influential Catholic document on mission after the council: Evangelii Nuntiandi by Pope Paul VI (1975). It has often been remarked that Evangelii Nuntiandi is the document that Ad Gentes was intended to have been. The pope wondered what had happened to the “hidden energy” of the good news. He was convinced that the duty to evangelize is incumbent by the command of the Lord Jesus, so that people can believe and be saved. This message is indeed necessary. It is unique. It cannot be replaced. It does not permit either indifference, syncretism or accommodation. It is a ques26 tion of people’s salvation. . . . It is truth.

The pope called Jesus, who himself is the Good News of God, the first and greatest evangelizer, the one who proclaimed salvation as God’s gift, which is liberation from everything that oppresses people but which is above all liber27 ation from sin and the Evil One. In bold terms, the pope affirmed the Christcentered approach to evangelism: “There is no true evangelization if the name, the teaching, the life, the promises, the Kingdom and the mystery of Jesus of 28 Nazareth, the Son of God, are not proclaimed.” Another statement ran counter to this missionary spirit, though. The socalled Venice Statement of 1977, although not having official status, rejects 29 “any action aimed at changing the religious faith of Jews.” This was the first time that the Catholic Church abdicated any right to evangelization among a given group. The second document, however, “The Attitude of the Church Toward the Followers of Other Religions” by the Secretariat for Non-Christians (1984), reaffirms the Christian’s right to proclaim the gospel and to seek the 25

An appendix in Ruokanen’s Catholic Doctrine includes the debate between Ruokanen, Knitter and some other parties involved in the issue. The debate was conducted in The International Bulletin of Missionary Research in 1994-1995. 26 Evangelii Nuntiandi 5. 27 Ibid., 7, 9. 28 Ibid., 22. 29 It was originally a paper presented by Prof. Tommaso, “The Mission and Witness of the Church,”at the sixth meeting of the Liaison Committee between the Roman Catholic Church and the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, Venice, Italy, March 1977.

120

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

conversion of others, as long as this is not forced upon the unbeliever. In the same breath, it reaffirms also the primacy of conscience, especially in religious matters. It seeks a balance between mission and dialogue. Mission is a complex reality that includes the presence of the Christian life, the service of humanity, liturgical life and prayer, dialogue in which Christians meet the followers of other religious traditions, and catechesis (para. 188-89). Given that the universe and history are filled with God’s gifts, that Christ is the Word who enlightens every person, “the redeemer present with grace in every human encounter,” and that the Spirit acts “in the depths of people’s consciences and accompanies them on the secret path of hearts towards the truth,” the church is committed to dialogue (para. 190). After the appearance of Evangelii Nuntiandi by Pope Paul VI, perhaps the next major missiological document to come out is the massive Redemptoris Missio by John Paul II (1990). The document, which in Latin runs over two hundred pages, commemorates the twenty-fifth anniversary of Ad Gentes. The pope was clear about the ministry of the Spirit outside the confines of the Christian church, affirming that the Spirit’s “presence and activity are universal, limited neither by space nor time” and that the Spirit is “at the very source of the human person’s existential and religious questioning.”30 Yet in general the pope’s intention in this encyclical was to counter various movements in the church that, in his view, were deemphasizing Christ and the church’s central role in the history of salvation. Among these were alleged theologies that emphasized a theocentric theology of creation at the 31 expense of a Christocentric theology of redemption, theologies that fo32 cused on the kingdom rather than on the church, and practices of interreligious dialogue that stressed the commonalities among religions rather 33 than Christian uniqueness. According to the pope, followers of other religions can find salvation, but such salvation is found finally and fully in Christ and his church. Dialogue is nevertheless commended by the pope as 34 “part of the Church’s evangelizing mission.” In his later (1994) encyclical Tertio Millennio Adveniente, Pope John Paul reaffirmed the uniqueness of Christ and Christian faith among world religions. He saw the theocentric approach to other religions as undervaluing the role of Christ. This, for the 30

Redemptoris Misso 28. Ibid., 19. 32 Ibid., 20. 33 Ibid., 55-57. 34 Ibid., 55. 31

The Response of the Roman Catholic Church

121

pope, is “the essential point by which Christianity differs from all the other religions, by which human search for God has been expressed from earliest times.”35 Undoubtedly John Paul II has wanted to shift the Catholic theology of religions to the more conservative side and has not tired of warning of the dangers of that kind of pluralism which threatens the uniqueness of Christ. At the same time, as already noted above, perhaps the main contribution of Pope John Paul II to a theology of religions “consists in the emphasis with which he affirms the operative presence of the Spirit of God in the religious life of non36 Christians and the religious traditions to which they belong.” The role of the Spirit in other religions is especially highlighted in his Redemptoris Hominis (1979) in which he also affirms the idea of the “seeds of the Word” sown in oth37 er religions. Missionary activity of the church should, therefore, appreciate 38 that which has “been brought about in one by the Spirit.” The pope’s Dominum et Vivificantem, an encyclical on the Holy Spirit from 1986, was an occasion to elaborate on the role of the Holy Spirit among other religions. The universal activity of the Spirit is acknowledged before the time of Christianity and today outside the church. Perhaps the most ambitious recent attempt to define (definitively?) the Roman Catholic Church’s view on mission and evangelization is the document “Dialogue and Proclamation.” Many see this document as a response to the previous year’s Redemptoris Missio. “Dialogue and Proclamation” attempts to find a balance between proclamation and dialogue. When treating dialogue, it cites with approval Gaudium et Spes 22, which is perhaps the most explicit statement in official Catholic doctrine regarding the possibility of salvation in other religions: This holds true not for Christians only but also for all persons of good will in whose hearts grace is active invisibly. For since Christ died for all, and since all are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way 39 known to God, in the Paschal mystery.

35

Tertio Millennio Adveniente 6. Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 173. 37 Redemptoris Hominis 11. 38 Ibid., 12. 39 “Dialogue and Proclamation” 15 (August 25, 2003), . 36

122

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

The theological basis for a positive approach to other religions and the practice of interreligious dialogue is found in the fact that the whole of humankind forms one family, for we share a common origin and are all created by God in his own image. Correspondingly, all are called to a common destiny: the fullness of life in God. There is one plan of salvation for all since Christ, in his incarnation, “has united himself in a certain manner to every person.”40 And finally, the Holy Spirit is actively present in the spiritual life of the members of 41 other religious traditions. Regardless of the means of their salvation, all men and women who are saved share, each uniquely, in the same mystery of salva42 tion in Jesus Christ through his Spirit. To say that the other religions include elements of grace does not imply that everything in them is the result of grace, 43 for sin has been at work. As already mentioned, the approval of dialogue does not imply any weakening of the proclamation of Jesus Christ. Proclaiming the gospel is mandated 44 from the risen Lord for the whole church, the “the sign and instrument of the 45 divine plan of salvation.” Quoting Evangelii Nuntiandi, the document makes it clear that “evangelization will always entail as the simultaneous foundation, core and summit of its dynamism a clear proclamation that in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, who died and rose from the dead, salvation is offered 46 to all as a gift of God’s kindness and mercy.”

40

Ibid., 13. Ibid., 27, 28. 42 Ibid., 29. 43 Ibid., 31. 44 Ibid., 55-58. 45 Ibid., 33. 46 Ibid., 27. 41

12 The Response of Anglican and Episcopalian Churches

Lambeth Conferences on Other Religions Anglicans and Episcopalians like to be seen as incorporating the best of the Protestant and Catholic traditions in churchmanship and as being historically akin to the Orthodox in theology. Anchored in the classical creeds, Anglicanism expresses theological and ecclesiastical variety and focuses on sacraments, liturgy and prayer. Interfaith issues are widely discussed currently since there are more Anglicans in Kenya than in Canada, more in sub-Saharan Africa than 1 in all of England or the United States. Within the worldwide Anglican Communion, the Lambeth Conferences of Bishops since 1897 have considered the question of relations with people of other faiths. Sometimes their concern has been the preparation of churches for the fulfillment of their missionary obligations. At other times it has been to uphold some principle of freedom of religions or of access to holy places. In more recent years, the conferences have given particular attention to the question of dialogue between people of different faiths. In 1988 the Lambeth Conference not only agreed on a resolution regarding interfaith dialogue that reflected the concerns of various ecumenical statements on the subject, but also commended a document, “Jews, Christians and Muslims: The Way of Dialogue,” written during the Conference, for study and 2 action in the churches of the Anglican Communion. Resolution 20, in “Inter-faith Dialogue,” offers some more concrete guidelines. Dialogue with people of other faiths as part of Christian discipleship and 1

See further Peter Slater, “An Anglican Perspective on Our Interreligious Situation,” in Grounds for Understanding: Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism, ed. S. Mark Heim (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 137-38. 2 These resolutions can be found at and , respectively.

124

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

mission is to be conducted with the following understandings: (1) dialogue begins when people meet each other; (2) dialogue depends upon mutual understanding, mutual respect and mutual trust; (3) dialogue makes it possible to share in service to the community; (4) dialogue becomes a medium of 3 authentic witness.

“Acknowledging that such dialogue (which is not a substitute for evangelism) may help people of different faiths to work on common causes in peacemaking, social justice and religious liberty,” Resolution 20 further commends each province to initiate such dialogue in partnership with other Christian churches where appropriate. The document “Jews, Christians and Muslims: The Way of Dialogue” encourages the churches of the Anglican Communion to engage in dialogue with Jews and Muslims on the basis of understanding and sharing, as illustrated in the document itself. The document also recommends that the Anglican Consultative Council consider setting up an interfaith committee that would work in close cooperation with the Inter-faith Dialogue Committee of the World Council of Churches and establish a common approach to people of other faiths. The authors of the document also issued a recommendation to support those institutions that are helping Christians toward a more informed understanding of Judaism and Islam. Along with many others, the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. refers its interfaith concerns to its Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations of the General Convention. In 1979, it adopted a statement regarding Jewish-Christian relations. This culminated in 1994 with the adoption of guidelines on dialogue, drafted by a committee that included experts on Buddhism and Islam. Both the statement and the guidelines reflect earlier initiatives by the British 4 Council of Churches.

Some Theological Orientations Michael Nazir-Ali, bishop of Rochester, was invited in 1988 to prepare a preconference study paper on the topic of other religions.5 He says that Christians should engage in dialogue with people of other faiths since both Scripture and 3

Resolution 20 . See further Slater, “Anglican Perspective,” p. 139. 5 Michael Nazir-Ali, “Embassy, Hospitality and Dialogue: Christians and People of Other Faiths,” Pre-Conference [Lambeth Conference, 1998] papers at . 4

The Response of Anglican and Episcopalian Churches

125

our experience provide evidence that God is working in the cultures and histories of all people: In different ways, people respond to this divine impulse[,] and the Bible, as the inspired record of God’s saving acts, provides us with a means of discerning how God has been working in the history, the culture and the spirituality of a particular people. Awareness of the divine need not be confined to the structures of in6 stitutional religion.

According to Nazir-Ali, the basis for dialogue should be trinitarian. Christians enter into dialogue because they believe that all men and women have been made in God’s image (Gen 1:26-27). While the image has been distorted by human sin and rebellion, it has not been destroyed. “It is possible for people to recall something of God’s intention for them and for the world.” God has not left human beings on their own in their efforts to interpret the universe. “The Logos, the Eternal Word of God, who provides coherence to the universe (makes it a universe), and who is incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, also enlightens the hearts and minds of all human beings (John 1:9).” Furthermore, the ubiquity of the Holy Spirit also makes dialogue possible. “The Holy Spirit is not only the point of connection between God and the human being; it is also the medium in whom and through whom human beings can communicate with one another regarding matters of ultimate 7 concern.” According to Anglican theologian Peter Slater, who was recently asked to give an account of the distinctive features of the Anglican stance toward other religions, Anglicans used to emphasize the common mind of the churches up through the first four ecumenical councils before the drift between the East and West. The result was generally a Logos Christology and Neoplatonic orientation open to finding glimpses of eternity in the faith of others. Anglican divines were confident that we may know, or are known by, absolute truth, without confusing this with provisional statements intended to warn us against untruth, such as the 8 Chalcedonian definitions.

However, with the recent rise of global and contextual theologies, Christians must express sensitivity toward alternative ways of seeing God’s pres-

6

Ibid. Ibid. 8 Slater, “Anglican Perspective,” p. 140. 7

126

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

ence among people and their religions. Slater summarizes the emerging openness like this: From our perspective, continuing the Jesus movement is the ordinary way “home.” But this does not preclude others having saving knowledge engendering ways which to us seem extraordinary. A “christomorphic”—as contrasted with a “christocentric”—sense of mission invites us to celebrate deeds done in a Christlike spirit, wherever and whenever we encounter them. We do not use our traditions to build a fence around but to provide guidelines for discerning the disclosure of enliv9 ening truth.

He furthermore notes that the contrast between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” ways of salvation seems a more fruitful model for Christian relationships with other religions than that “between consciously professing and unconsciously reflecting followers of what is asserted to be at bottom the same faith with the same ends in view.” Then he adds, “The same Spirit and the same Logos need not translate into the same letters or ‘logoi’ of faith. But tak10 ing history seriously means looking into how others embody living truth.”

9

Ibid., p. 152 (italics in the original). Ibid.

10

13 The Response of Mainline Protestant Churches

Lutheran Churches The historical section in chapter six already discussed Martin Luther’s views of other religions. In this section, we will look at the official statements from Lutheran churches as to the theology of religions. Our task, however, is more complicated than it appears since the authoritative Lutheran Confessions have 1 virtually nothing directly to say about the matter. So we need to rely on more recent church pronouncements whose doctrinal value is less binding than that of the Confessional books. We also need to take into account the fact that, as in other mainline Protestant churches, there is no general consensus among Lutheran theologians concerning theology of religions. Nevertheless, most of them embrace some type of Christocentric/inclusivist position. Daniel F. Martensen, a Lutheran theologian, writes, [It] must be stated at the outset that even with the significant authorship of people like Wolfhart Pannenberg, Paul Tillich, Paul Althaus, and Nathan Söderblom, Lutherans have played a rather unimportant role in the lively theological discussion on interfaith issues which has taken place in the last few decades.

Martensen also notes that often Lutherans react to the prospect of interfaith dialogue “with quiet reservation if not fear and anxiety.” Playing into this reaction is a fear of loss of Lutheran identity, an expectation of a compromise of doctrine, worry about syncretism and suspicion that there will be a loss of the 2 missionary imperative or the ecumenical theological focus. In response to Luther’s 1543 essay entitled “On the Jews and Their Lies,” 1

A helpful source for Lutheran orientations on the topic is Daniel F. Martensen, “Lutheranism and Interfaith Dialogue,” in Grounds for Understanding: Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism, ed. S. Mark Heim (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 175-87. A more extensive source is Frank Klos, Lynn Nakamura and Daniel F. Martensen, eds., Lutheranism and the Challenge of Religious Pluralism (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990). 2 Martensen, “Lutheranism and Interfaith Dialogue,” pp. 175-76.

128

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

the Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) released a “Declaration to the Jewish Community” in 1994. In it the church officially repudiated the anti-Judaic writings of Martin Luther, explicitly mentioning Luther’s essay. Perhaps the most significant contemporary Lutheran pronouncement, which comes close to being an official one, is the report Religious Pluralism and Lutheran Theology, produced by the Lutheran World Federation.3 The LWF includes most Lutheran churches. (It does not include, for example, the Missouri Synod, USA.) Carl E. Braaten, a leading American Lutheran theologian, in his contribution to this report, maintains that a basic element in a set of Lutheran theological resources is the first article of the creed: the doctrine of creation. Lutherans affirm in the religious experience of humankind an original and continuing revelation that may even be called a kind of natural theology. Lutherans have always spoken of a twofold revelation of God—through creation and gospel. The soteriological core of Lutheran theology consists of the necessity of Christ and the relationship between the law and gospel. Because of the necessity of Christ, Lutherans see the gospel of Christ as the “final medium of revelation and the critical norm in the development of any theology of religions.” When it comes to the role of religion itself, both other religions and Christianity as a religion are relativized “when placed in the context of the absolute future of the kingdom that Chris4 tianity is to serve.” One of the challenges Lutherans face is engaging in dialogue with followers of other religions in a way that both honors their own theology and remains open to others. At a consultation on Islam held in 1991 in Bangkok, Thailand (cosponsored by the LWF and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches), Charles Amjad-Ali lamented that the Western way of entering dialogue is to defer conversation until one has defined one’s theology in a definitive way. Doing so minimizes the identity of people and their communal religious life. 5 Dialogue easily becomes a monologue. Another LWF Consultation held in São Leopoldo, Brazil, at the end of 1999

3

J. Paul Rajashakar, ed. Religious Pluralism and Lutheran Theology (Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1988). 4 Martensen, “Lutheranism and Interfaith Dialogue,” pp. 176-77, based on Carl E. Braaten’s presentation in Religious Pluralism and Lutheran Theology. 5 Charles Amjad-Ali, “Theological and Historical Rationality Behind Christian-Muslim Relations,” in Islam in Asia, ed. J. Paul Rajashakar and H. W. Wilson (Geneva: Lutheran World Federation and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, 1991).

The Response of Mainline Protestant Churches

129

issued a call to Lutheran churches to enter into a dialogue with peoples of other faiths. On the one hand, there should be commitment to Christ; but on the other hand, there should be an honest acknowledgment of other faiths and their contributions in a spirit of honest dialogue. Even though Lutherans have had, until recently, very few interfaith dialogues, things are changing. The LWF has initiated a number of study projects on how the church should relate to Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism and traditional African religions. A more general LWF study process deals with the challenge of religious pluralism as it relates to theological education and training in a multifaith context. The 1997 Hong Kong Assembly with the title “In Christ: Called to Witness” devoted time to those issues and decided to continue its exploration. The statement on other faiths, titled “In the Midst of Religious Plurality: Mission and Dialogue,” acknowledged that “in our current religiously and culturally plural world we recognize that living together with people of different faiths is an unavoidable challenge to Christians and churches, engendering interfaith dialogue.” Christian witness “should be an invitation to faith in Christ and to the experience of his transforming presence and power.” The guidelines to dialogue are the following: Interreligious dialogue is a creative engagement with people of other faiths. It takes place in various forms and is characterized by listening and sharing in a manner of mutual respect. With a spirit of humility and honesty, dialogue allows the possibility of working together as people of different faiths for the common good. We acknowledge that all are created by the one God, at work in the whole world. Such dialogue can also help us to be clearer about the expressions of our own faith. It should lead us to recognize others as they understand themselves. It helps find solutions to conflicts between different groups. It occurs through reflection as well as through practical approaches within everyday life. This does not diminish the truth claim of our faith in Jesus Christ, to whom we have been 6 called to witness over against other religions.

The Reformed Family of Churches In chapters six and eight (respectively) I presented the views on the theology of religions held by the founders of the Reformed tradition (John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli). Therefore, it will suffice here to look at the more or less official Reformed Church documents on the topic. The Reformed Confessional Books

6

The Lutheran World Federation General Assembly—Hong Kong 1997 (April, 2002) .

130

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

offer very little, if anything, on the topic of other religions, so we have to look for later church pronouncements. According to Jay T. Rock, the Presbyterian codirector for Interfaith Relations of the National Council of the Churches of Christ (USA), two guidelines shape the Reformed orientation to the theology of religions: christological focus and conversational openness to dialogue. There is an acknowledgment of a plurality of theological approaches within the Reformed family of churches, yet they avoid relativism. Even with this plurality of opinion, Rock maintains, the Reformed family of churches “does not give up its essential legacy” but 7 continues its commitment to Reformed tradition. According to the recent Presbyterian Church (USA) document entitled “Presbyterian Principles for Interfaith Dialogue,” In our pluralistic world, we confess that Jesus is the truth and the way; through him God gives life. Jesus does not point to truth but is the truth, in his person. Jesus’ life showed the limits of religious words and propositions as objects of our 8 loyalties. Jesus made us aware of the truth found in knowing God relationally.

Furthermore, the document elaborates on the principles of dialogue in the following way: God’s Spirit works in surprising places throughout creation and is found even among people who are unaware of the Spirit’s presence. The Creator endows all persons with God’s own image and has pronounced the world “good” in its wholeness and integrity. God wills that, in newness of life, the world and its inhabitants live according to the intent of their Creator. Even when we have failed or have not affirmed God’s presence, God continues to be present in the world. We are called to attend to God’s work not only in our own lives but also throughout creation and in all God’s creatures. [pt. 2] We are called to work with others in our pluralistic societies for the well-being of our world and for justice, peace, and the sustainability of creation. We do so in the faith that, through God’s Spirit, the church is a sign and means of God’s intention for the wholeness and unity of humankind and of all creation. [pt. 3] • When we seek to discern God’s presence in the world, we look to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as the unique and sufficient revelation of God’s love, 7

Jay T. Rock, “Resources in the Reformed Tradition for Responding to Religious Plurality,” in Grounds for Understanding: Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism, ed. S. Mark Heim (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 49. 8 Presbyterian Principles for Interfaith Dialogue (August 2003) .

The Response of Mainline Protestant Churches

131

grace, truth, power, and righteousness. Jesus is Lord and Savior. • When God gives us courage to engage in the giving and receiving—the listening and speaking—of dialogue, Jesus is present. Through the power of his Spirit, we are enabled to be truly ourselves in authentic relationships. [pt. 4]

Furthermore, according to the “Presbyterian Principles for Interfaith Dialogue,” Christians are “called to relate to people of other faiths in full humility, openness, honesty, and respect” (pt. 5). But what about the destiny of those who do not believe? According to question 49 in the Study Catechism of the PC (USA), The limits to salvation, whatever they may be, are known only to God. Three truths above all are certain. God is a holy God who is not to be trifled with. No one will be saved except by grace alone. And no judge could possibly be more 9 gracious than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

A contemporary statement expressive of the Reformed tradition provides further insight into how various churches in that family have lived out the challenge of dialogue and relation to other faiths. The study paper of the PC (USA) from 1987 entitled “The Nature of Revelation in the Christian Tradition from a Reformed Perspective” was adopted along with documents on Christian-Jewish and Christian-Muslim relations by the General Assembly. Section IX, on “Revelation and the Mission of the Church in a Pluralistic World,” identifies aspects of a Reformed understanding of revelation that provide “theological reasons for a more positive view of other religions”: The legitimate motive for this mission and this evangelistic witness is God’s love for all people. . . . Christians . . . are impelled by faith to relate to all aspects of God’s creation with love and respect and with expectation of seeing the Creator’s hand in what we meet. . . . In this witness our approach can only be confessional. That is, we can only express and share what we have experienced and what we have learned . . . through the historical particularity of God’s self-revelation in Jesus. . . . The beliefs and practices of other faiths are strikingly similar in various ways to our own. . . . This makes it hard to dismiss the teaching and practice of other religions as entirely wrong. Adherence to other faiths is grounded largely in an experience of religious life in which people feel themselves to be in touch with an ultimate reality, just as our acceptance of Christianity is largely grounded 10 in experience of God’s gifts in Christ.

9 10

The Study Catechism (August 2003) < http://www.pcusa.org/catech/studycat.htm>. Quoted in Rock, “Resources in the Reformed Tradition,” pp. 51-52.

132

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Then the document makes a very significant statement: From a Christian point of view, the reality of relationship between God and people is what matters most . . . and all people must be presumed to stand in relationship to God. . . . God, “who desires all human beings to be saved and come to knowledge of truth” (1 Tim 2:4) has surely been at work in the lives of all peo11 ple, seeking to establish fellowship with them.

Furthermore, the document insists that being open to acknowledging light in other religions does not mean compromising the Christian message or diminishing the church’s calling to share the good news. Whether there are salvific elements in other religions is “currently being de12 bated by individual theologians within the Reformed family.” While many Reformed believers find it impossible to accept the idea that salvation might be found outside Jesus Christ, some agree with this ecumenical observation made at the 1989 world conference on mission and evangelism in San Antonio, Texas: “We cannot point to any other way of salvation than Jesus Christ, at the 13 same time, we cannot set limits to the saving power of God” (cf. Acts 17:28).

Methodist Churches John Wesley’s own views on the topic of other religions were studied in the historical part of this book. Here we ask instead what the Methodist tradition currently has to say about the theology of religions. According to Nehemiah Thompson from the General Commission on Christian Unity and Interreligious Concerns of the United Methodist Church (USA), “There are ample evidences in the Methodist tradition, particularly in the teachings of John Wesley, 14 that would challenge Methodists to engage in interfaith dialogue.” Thompson further notes that the Wesleyan heritage, with its idea of prevenient grace, and Wesley’s refusal to polarize grace and nature as Reformation theology tended to do, provide fruitful perspectives on other religions. What further complicates—and makes richer—the Methodist interpretation is the fact that Methodism comes from a variety of sources, including ecumenical Methodism, the evangelical movement, high-church (Anglicanism especially) and 11

Ibid. “Word and Spirit, Church and World,” Final Report of the International Pentecostal-Reformed Dialogue (Geneva: World Alliance of Reformed Churches, 2000), p. 12. 13 “Reports of the Sections: Section I: Turning to the Living God,” International Review of Mission 78 (July-October 1989): 351. 14 Nehemiah Thompson, “The Search for a Methodist Theology of Religious Pluralism,” in Grounds for Understanding, ed. S. Mark Heim (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 93. 12

The Response of Mainline Protestant Churches

133

low-church circles, the holiness movement and so on. And like many Christian denominations, it is currently spreading in various cultural and religious contexts from Europe to Latin America to Africa to Asia. “This nature of Wesleyan tradition has forced Methodists to be sympathetic to the theological pluralism of their religious tradition.”15 Drawing on the multiform Wesleyan heritage, as expressed in various Methodist forms, Thompson summarizes the core convictions of the theology of religions in this way: The realm of grace reaches to all people in all religions. This understanding has come to Christians because of Jesus Christ. Religions, including Christian faith, are preparations to receiving the gospel, and the partial light that exists in all religions is a sign of God’s prevenient grace. This understanding must impel Methodist Christians to engage in dialogue with other faiths in order to determine how those lights in other faiths are significant, first, to the salvation of the adherents of those faiths, and secondly, to the full understanding of the gospel that has 16 come to Christians through Jesus Christ.

Methodism thus embraces a plurality of approaches to other religions: from revivalist evangelical insistence on the need to hear and respond to gospel as a way to salvation, to mainline Protestant inclusivism, to cautious pluralism. The United Methodist Church, often considered a left-wing Methodist body, has pioneered in the area of creating guidelines for interfaith dialogue. Already in 1980, the United Methodist Church adopted those guiding principles, beginning with the primacy of Scripture, in line with Wesley’s own teaching. The New Testament image of a community is depicted as a model for interfaith community—a community that includes the stranger in its midst (Lk 10:29-37). The basis for living in community, even among those who have differing religious views, is love and compassion. God’s work is not limited to any particular community: “The God to whom we point in Jesus Christ is the God who is at work in every society in ways we do not fully understand and 17 who has not left himself without witness in any human community.” The document further calls for dialogue with people of other faiths precisely because God does work in other religions graciously and lovingly and because other religions have truth to share with Christians. Through dialogue, Christians are open to receiving new insights to faith. 15

Ibid., p. 95. Ibid., p. 104. 17 Ibid., p. 105. 16

134

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Clearly this kind of statement, coming from the United Methodist sources, reflects a shift in the Christian understanding of other faiths. As Thompson reflects, The earlier missionary theology that existed in the Western churches, including the churches of the Wesleyan heritage, professed superiority to other religions, which in fact turned away the people of other faiths in many parts of the world from considering Jesus Christ as an option for their lives.

Thompson argues that the 1980 United Methodist statement on interreligious relations is a significant step toward incorporating the Wesleyan stance on oth18 er religions. The following orientations reflect pan-Methodist principles guiding the approach to other religions while still allowing a lot of variety on specific issues: • “Religious pluralism is not an enemy of the gospel.” Other religions can be complementary to Christianity. • “God has left God’s light in all religions. All people have access to God through their religious practices.” • “Prevenient grace is available to all equally through God’s creation.” Grace is present in creation. • Creation is groaning for perfection and awaits the final consummation. • “There is no truth outside God. Other religions also have truth, and God works in other religions.” • Interfaith dialogue can be the most effective way of knowing the truth that exists in other religions. “It can also be a channel to recognize the fundamental Christian confession that God was in Christ reconciling the world to 19 God.”

18 19

Ibid., p. 105. Ibid., p. 106.

14 The Response of the Free Churches

Who Are the Free Churches? The expression “Free churches” involves two primary meanings. It designates, first, those churches with a congregationalist church constitution and, second, 1 those churches affirming a consistent separation of church and state. Here the term “Free churches” denotes the heritage of the Radical Reformation, indicating groups such as Anabaptists, Quakers and Baptists. The largest segment of Christian churches currently, apart from the Roman Catholic Church, comprises the Pentecostal/Charismatics, who are also included in this category here, even though many would argue they form a separate category theologically and ec2 clesiologically. Even though each of these Free churches displays distinctive features, they share enough common foundations to justify treating them together. A radical transformation of the Christian church is underway as the majority of Christianity moves to the Two-Thirds World where most Christian churches are either Free churches or are in the process of adopting ecclesiological characteristics similar to those in the Free church. Given today’s global developments it appears that the Protestant Christendom of the future will exhibit largely a Free church form. The Free church model is emerging as a powerful global force: “The continuing global expansion of the Free Church model is without a doubt being borne by irreversible social changes of global proportions.”3 What all this means to the future of Christian theology in general and the theology of religions in particular is that no contemporary presentation can afford to miss the contribution and distinctive features of Free churches. Christian theologies are, of course, still most often written from the perspective of traditional churches and their long, established theological heritage; but 1

Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 9 n. 2. 2 In my recent textbook on ecclesiology, I did, in fact, make a distinction between Free churches and Pentecostal/Charismatic churches. See Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002). 3 Volf, After Our Likeness, p. 13.

136

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

things are changing rapidly. A good example of how Free church voices are being included as equal partners in the discussion of Christian theology of religions is a recent conference titled “Theological Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism” (in Newark, New Jersey, in October 1994), which was organized by the Faith and Order and some other ecumenical organizations. This conference included voices from Baptist, Mennonite, Pentecostal and Wesleyan/Holiness (Nazarene) churches. In this section, Mennonite/Anabaptist, Baptist and Pentecostal/Charismatic testimonies are recorded. In regard to Pentecostal/Charismatics, a further clarification is in order. The term Pentecostal in theological literature refers to the spiritual movement that began at the turn of the twentieth century at the Azusa Street Mission in Los Angeles, California, in connection with the Charismatic events a few years earlier in Topeka, Kansas. The movement soon spread all over the world and has grown to become the largest Protestant family of the Christian church, with several hundred millions of adherents. The term “Charismatic movements” refers to those Pentecostal-type movements that took root in the older churches beginning from the 1960s, first in the Episcopalian church in Van Nuys, California, soon in the Roman Catholic Church as a result of the new openness of Vatican II, and then in others such as Lutheran and Presbyterian churches.

Mennonites and Anabaptists According to Thomas Finger, a leading Mennonite theologian, the twin themes of “religious normativity” and “cultural normativity” shape the self-consciousness of the Mennonites, the direct descendants of the Radical Reformation. This is because “at the heart of the Anabaptist impulse one finds a radical critique of cultural normativity—yet one which is not opposed to, but is actually rooted in, an understanding of religious normativity.” Mennonites, like many other Free church Christians, have been more doers than thinkers. Not only is this so for historical reasons, such as inadequate access to education in the past, but also because of the insistence that affirmations of faith and theologies are empty 4 “and often blasphemous, unless the faith which they express is lived.”

4

Thomas Finger, “A Mennonite Theology for Interfaith Relations,” in Grounds for Understanding: Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism, ed. S. Mark Heim (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 71-72. My exposition on Mennonite/Anabaptist theology of religions depends heavily on Finger’s presentation, which can be taken as representative of that movement’s current self-understanding in that it was prepared as an official voice for the above-mentioned conference in Newark, New Jersey, in 1994. His presentation is largely based on the first-ever Mennonite consultation on religious pluralism.

The Response of the Free Churches

137

It may be significant that Anabaptism arose at a time when Christian absoluteness had long been connected with imperialism and had been used to buttress the church’s superior social status. For Anabaptists, who were often persecuted by both Catholics and colleague Reformers, the theme of religious freedom became one of the key emphases. It is against this background that Finger, based on a recent Mennonite consultation on other religions (1994), outlines four general Anabaptist affirmations that shape their understanding of religion and the Christian way of life: • “Jesus Christ, including his specific teachings, example and way of life, proves the ultimate norm for all human living.” Rather than dualistically separating norms for Christians and non-Christians—as both Catholics and Protestants have tended to do—Anabaptists insisted on the same norms for all people. • “Peace, sharing and justice are at the heart of this normative way.” The Anabaptist vision opposed all injustice and promoted the well-being of all. • There was an acknowledgment of the fact that Jesus’ way generally appeals more to the oppressed, marginalized and poor than to others. • “The greatest opposition to Jesus’ normative way comes not from nonChristian religions but from perverted forms of Christianity.”5 What then are the specific affirmations regarding theology of religions for the Anabaptists and Mennonites? First, the approach to other religions should be one of openness and a willingness to learn. “While Mennonites generally believe that ultimate truth has been revealed in Christ, most do not 6 assume that other religions know nothing at all about it.” The major motives for this openness are christological. Love, sharing and embrace, rather than coercion and oppression of the other, should be the guiding principles. Therefore, Jesus is seen not as God’s sole revelation but as revelation’s norm. According to Earl Martin, the Mennonite Central Committee’s cosecretary for Asia, before the missionary enters a new culture, “God is present there. Hence we walk on Holy Ground.” Thus, Christians should “be attentive if God should want to speak to us through the persons of faith and life traditions dif7 ferent from our own.” The second affirmation in relation to other religions among Anabaptists 5

Ibid., pp. 73-77. Ibid., p. 77. 7 Ibid., p. 78. 6

138

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

and Mennonites calls one to emphasize and embody chiefly Jesus’ story and his way. Mennonite “dialogue” is above all interpersonal involvement. It is about following Christ more than preaching about him. The third affirmation is this: “Place the main emphasis on witness and respectful, open relationships in particular settings, not on discerning and hastening history’s overall course.”8 Critical of contemporary pluralistic approaches claiming that because of recent changes in our world and interreligious consciousness, pluralism has to be adopted by all Christians to save the world from self-catastrophe, Mennonites entertain doubts about the possibility of humans saving the world. Rather than focusing on history’s overall course, Mennonites emphasize faithful listening and witness in local situations. This entails both genuine vulnerability and openness to the future of the relationship. These general principles are embraced by the majority of Anabaptists and Mennonites, but as in any Christian family, there are also dissonant voices. One of the four main presenters to the Mennonite conference on interreligious relations in 1994 was Gordon Kaufman, a contributor to the Myth of Christian Uniqueness and a pronounced theological and religious pluralist.

Baptists Numerically, apart from Pentecostals (to be treated in the next section), the largest Free church family currently is the Baptists. Even though we have relatively little material presenting any official Baptist standpoint on other religions, it is more than appropriate to take notice of their contribution. Baptists have been in international dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church since the 1980s. While the main topics treated in the conversations were mainly outside the sphere of interreligious relations, the topic of the the9 ology of religions was taken up in relation to mission and common witness. Having emphasized the importance of witness to Christ as the guiding principle in Christian evangelism and mission—and this was, of course, something that the Catholic counterpart affirmed (para. 5)—and the Scriptures as the primary source for the revelation of God in Jesus Christ (para. 11), Baptists delineated how their view differed from the Catholics with regard to other religions (para. 28):

8 9

Ibid., p. 80. “The Baptist-Roman Catholic International Conversations 1984-1988,” Information Service 72 (1990): I:5-13. The quotations in this subsection all come from this document; numbers refer to paragraphs.

The Response of the Free Churches

139

Baptists and Roman Catholics differ among themselves about salvation within non-Christian religions. . . . Baptists have issued no major statements on salvation through other religions, but must construe the biblical pronouncement, “for there is no other name under heaven given among humankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), in a rather strict fashion. They frequently cite also: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6), and apply it in a narrow sense. Some Baptists, nevertheless, have engaged in dialogue or conversations with representatives of the other major world religions. Similarly, they discern the need for cooperation among world religions to solve urgent human problems.

A more recent source concerning the Baptist understanding of the theology of religions comes from the above-mentioned 1994 Newark consultation in which James Deotis Roberts presented the Baptist standpoint. He noted that Baptists are an extremely diverse group and that unity was not easily achieved even within that family. Along with Anabaptists, they have been strong advocates of religious liberty. At the same time, there has been a fervent commitment to personal evangelism and the missionary mandate. While most Baptists tend to be exclusive in their approach to other religions, Roberts also notes that there has been more openness among the African American Baptists. This is based on the fact that black Baptists—like some other predominantly African American denominations such as the American Episcopalian Missionary Zion Church—have reached out readily to Jews and Muslims, participating in secular or interfaith alliances for the common cause of social change. These alliances are grounded in a profound sense that liberation and deliverance are God’s work, to which all people are called. Realistically, Roberts notes, the relations between this interfaith social gospel and their “biblical 10 fundamentalism” are rarely worked out among Baptists.

Pentecostals This section looks at how classical Pentecostals view the challenge of other religions. Testimonies of some of the representatives of the Charismatic movements will be discussed in the following section. A word of warning is needed concerning the Pentecostal testimonies: the Pentecostal movement comprises such variety and heterogeneity that any general statement about the movement has to be taken very cautiously, especially in light of the fact that most of 10

Unfortunately, J. D. Roberts’s presentation was not included in the published conference papers; my summary of Roberts is based on S. Mark Heim, “Accounts of Hope,” in Grounds for Understanding, ed. S. Mark Heim, pp. 17-18.

140

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

the movement’s growth is happening outside the West. We simply do not have enough up-to-date information to even begin a comprehensive picture of Pentecostalism worldwide. Therefore, we need to rely almost exclusively on Western (North American) voices; and, in general, they represent the more conservative, even fundamentalist, segment of Pentecostalism. However, they are also the most prominent voices and have access to resources. The question posed by Canadian evangelical theologian Clark Pinnock to Pentecostals sounds relevant and timely: One might expect the Pentecostals to develop a Spirit-oriented theology of mission and world religions, because of their openness to religious experience, their sensitivity to the oppressed of the Third World where they have experienced much of their growth, and their awareness of the ways of the Spirit as 11 well as dogma.

The fact that this has not indeed happened can be easily ascertained by looking at some documents in the Pentecostal constituency. Aligning themselves with fundamentalists and other conservative Christians, Pentecostals adopted a very restrictive stance toward other religions early on and have discouraged openness toward them. A case in point is the recent warning from an official of the Assemblies of God, the largest white Pentecostal denomination in the United States. According to this statement, a pluralistic approach poses a threefold problem: it is contrary to Scripture; it replaces the obligation for world evangelism; and those who fail to fulfill the 12 Great Commission are ultimately not living under the lordship of Christ. Pentecostals have held international dialogues with the Roman Catholic Church since 1972 (which are ongoing) and more recently with the World Alli13 ance of Reformed Churches (WARC) beginning in 1996. During the second quinquennium (1978-1982) of the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal dialogue, there was a tentative discussion on the possibility of salvation for those outside the church; no unanimity was reached. Although both Catholics and Pentecostals believe that “ever since the creation of the world, the visible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding 11

Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p. 274. 12 Harold Carpenter, “Tolerance or Irresponsibility: The Problem of Pluralism in Missions,” Advance 31, no. 2 (1995): 19. 13 See further Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Ad Ultimum Terrae: Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness in the Roman Catholic-Pentecostal Dialogue 1990-1997, Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity 117 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1999).

The Response of the Free Churches

141

of created things” (cf. Rom 1:20; Ps 19:1-4), their perspectives diverged over the existence or meaning of salvific elements found in non-Christian religions.14 Pentecostals insisted that there cannot be salvation outside the church.15 Most Pentecostals limit the saving work of the Spirit to the church and its proclamation of the gospel, although they acknowledge the work of the Holy 16 Spirit in the world, convincing people of sin. The rationale for this more exclusivist attitude is found in the fallen state of humankind and in a literal reading of the New Testament, which for Pentecostals does not give much hope for 17 non-Christians. Furthermore, Pentecostals, like many of the early Christians, tend to point out the demonic elements in other religions rather than the com18 mon denominators. However, there are some Pentecostals who would see a convergence toward the Catholic position that the Holy Spirit is at work in non-Christian religions, preparing individual hearts for an eventual exposure to the gospel of Jesus 19 Christ. Unfortunately, neither the reports resulting from this dialogue nor the Pentecostal position paper elaborate on what this convergence might mean. In the Reformed-Pentecostal dialogue, the problem concerning the existence of salvific elements in other religions and the role of the Spirit here was left an open question, but in general Pentecostals expressed serious reservations. The Pentecostals’ exclusivism is based on their interpretation of the biblical teaching. Furthermore, they also emphasize the need for spiritual discernment: On the whole, Pentecostals do not acknowledge the presence of salvific elements in non-Christian religions because they view this as contrary to the teaching of the Bible. The church is called to discern the spirits through the charism of the Holy Spirit informed by the Word of God (1 Corinthians 12:10, 14:29; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21; 1 John 4:2-3). Pentecostals, like many of the early Christians, are sensitive to the elements in other religions that oppose biblical teaching. They 20 are, therefore, encouraged to received the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

14

“Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness: The Report from the Fourth Phase of the International Dialogue 1990-1997 Between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders,” One in Christ 35, no. 2 (1999), para. 20. 15 “Final Report from the Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churchs and Leaders, 1978-1982,” Pneuma 12 (Fall 1990): para. 14. 16 “Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness,” para. 20. 17 “Final Report,” para. 14. 18 “Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness,” para. 21. 19 Ibid. 20 “Word and Spirit, Church and World,” Final Report of the International Pentecostal-Reformed Dialogue (Geneva: World Alliance of Reformed Churches, 2000), p. 12.

142

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

It is clear that as a whole Pentecostalism is extremely reserved about any kind of salvific ministry of the Spirit outside the church. What are the potential reasons for this reservation? In addition to Pentecostalism’s close links with fundamentalism and conservativism, reasons include literal Bible reading and suspicion toward the ecumenical movement, which it sees as a champion of 21 non-restrictive views. However, some Pentecostals have also been open to those in other faiths, evident in their appreciation of the high morality and devotion among followers of other religions and, in some cases, even a willing22 ness to learn from them.

The Charismatic Movements It is appropriate to treat the testimonies of the Charismatic movements separately from those of the Pentecostals, since Charismatics are ecclesiastically separate from Pentecostals. In that sense, this treatment also has an integral relation to other categories in this part of the book: Catholic Charismatics, for example, also represent their own primary tradition (and, therefore, confuse the categories here since they are not, of course, part of the Free churches!). With these qualifications in mind, let us look at some Charismatic orientations to other religions. In general, they are more open to the possibility of salvific elements in other religions and less reserved about confining the Spirit’s ministry to the church than are Pentecostals. The South African Charismatic theologian Henry I. Lederle strikes a note challenging his Pentecostal counterparts who have been slower to reflect on the wider ministry of the Spirit in the world: For too long the Spirit and his work has been conceived of in too limited a sense. There was a capitulation at the beginning of the modern era in which faith became restricted to the private devotional life and the latter was then described as “spiritual.” The Spirit should not be limited to spiritual experiences and charisms—even though it needs to be recognized that this element still awaits acknowledgment in much of Christianity. We need, however, to set our sights much higher. Not only the reality discovered by Pentecostalism needs to

21

For details see Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 185-87. 22 For details, see ibid., pp. 187-97. For interesting perspectives on Asian Pentecostalism and its attempts to appreciate cultural and religious elements of other faiths, see Julie Ma, “A Comparison of Two Worldviews: Kankana-Ey and Pentecostals,” in Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William M. Menzies, ed. W. Ma and R. P. Menzies (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 265-90.

The Response of the Free Churches

143

be reclaimed but also the cosmic dimensions of the Spirit’s work. The Spirit is 23 at work in the world and should not be degraded to an ornament of piety.

One of the main differences between Pentecostals and Charismatics is that the latter are more open to embrace the sacramental principle as part of their own church tradition. Furthermore, many Charismatics are also more open to the possibility of the Spirit’s ministering outside the church. Charismatics refer to a cosmological approach to the Spirit, which clearly reveals this orientation. The range of the Spirit’s ministry is far wider than the church and personal salvation. Human beings as physical and social creatures are the “object” of the Spirit’s work, as is the creation. The same Spirit of God who was instrumental in creation will also re-create the world. In line with this more comprehensive orientation to the role of the Spirit, a document produced by a consultation of the World Council of Churches with some leading Charismatic theologians in 1981 titled The Church Is Charismatic opens up the possibility for the Spirit to 24 minister in “unknown” ways in the world. In the Two-Thirds World pneumatologies, the holistic, cosmic orientation is even more evident, of which African Independent Church pneumatologies are an excellent case study. The African Independent churches are all thoroughly Charismatic in their worship and Christian life. Therefore, I believe, the church catholic needs to hear their distinctive testimony as they live out their Spiritfilled life on African soil, even though some of their practices raise legitimate concerns among many other Christians. According to M. L. Daneel, there are four basic orientations to the role of the Spirit in this understanding: the Holy Spirit as Savior of humankind; the Spirit as Healer and Protector; the Spirit of justice and liberation; and the earthkeeping Spirit. Even though the question of the theology of religions is not explicitly addressed here, it is clear that this “cosmic pneumatology” is far more inclusive than the doctrine of most of their Western counterparts. The Spirit’s role is affirmed both with regard to individ25 ual salvation, the healing of the earth and justice.

23

Henry I. Lederle, Treasures Old and New: Interpretations of Spirit-Baptism in the Charismatic Renewal Movement (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988), p. 338. 24 Arnold Bittlinger, ed., The Church Is Charismatic (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1981). 25 M. L. Daneel, “African Independent Church Pneumatology and the Salvation of All Creation,” and Derek B. Mutungu, “A Response to M. L. Daneel,” in All Together in One Place: Theological Papers from the Brighton Conference on World Evangelization, ed. P. Hocken and H. D. Hunter (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), pp. 96-126 and pp. 127-31, respectively. Both articles give basic bibliographical guidance for further research.

15 The Response of the Evangelical Movement

Who Are the Evangelicals? The question posed by the title of a fairly recent book by Derek J. Tidball should be answered first before we survey the evangelical movement’s views 1 on theology of religions. Unlike standard denominational titles, such as Catholic or Lutheran, the term evangelical lacks clarity. At its best, the term evangelical in its current usage possesses several different meanings; at its worst, it is being used as an almost sectarian defensive weapon. In its original meaning, the term evangelical denoted Protestant theology as opposed to Catholic theology: thus, for example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church or evangelical theological faculty. Another meaning was added in the twentieth-century English-speaking world, mainly in the United States of America but also in Great Britain. Then it came to denote those Protestants who adhered to the more orthodox version of Christianity as opposed to the liberal left wing. There arose an “evangelical doctrine of Scripture,” which held the Word of God as divine in its origin and trustworthy in all regards. In recent decades, the evangelical movement, which is transdenominational and global—representing not only all sorts of Protestants from Lutherans to Presbyterians to Baptists to Pentecostals but also Anglicans—has distanced itself from the more reactionary fundamentalism, even though most fundamentalists regard themselves as “true evangelicals.” Lately, the evangelical move2 ment has expanded into the Two-Thirds World. The latest development of the term evangelical has been the emergence of “evangelical Catholics,” a group of Christians who decided to stay in their mother church but adopted several doctrinal convictions not unlike those of their Protestant counterparts. 1

Derek J. Tidball, Who Are the Evangelicals? Tracing the Roots of Today’s Movement (London: Marshall Pickering, 1994). 2 The World Evangelical Alliance represents about 160 million evangelical Christians, the majority of whom come from outside the U.S.A. and Great Britain.

The Response of the Evangelical Movement

145

My use of the term “evangelical theology” here follows the main usage in the English-speaking world: various (mainly Protestant) Christian traditions that are open to the dialogue with all other Christians and want to cherish classical Christianity as explicated in the creeds and mainstream confessions, and yet also remain open to recent developments in theology and other academic fields. In the field of theology of religions, we are fortunate to have several international statements made by the evangelical movement. We will look at the three most significant: the Frankfurt Declaration (1970), the Lausanne Covenant (1974) and the Manila Manifesto (1992).

Frankfurt and Lausanne The instrumental figure in the drafting of the Frankfurt Declaration in 1970 was the German theologian Peter Beyerhaus. His proposal was approved by a theological convention of evangelicals and soon gathered enthusiastic support among the more conservative Christians. After Christianity Today, the prominent voice of evangelicalism in the U.S.A., published it and hailed it as “a most heartening missionary document,” it soon established itself as the evangelical 3 statement on other religions. Beyerhaus drafted the document as a counterposition to a “fundamental crisis” and “an insidious falsification” of the perceived liberalism of the theologies of religions of the World Council of Churches. The declaration stated that only the Bible is the proper frame of reference and criterion for Christianity’s relation to other religions. Salvation can be found only through the cross of Christ and is available only through “participation in faith.” On the basis of these convictions, the proponents of the Frankfurt Declaration “reject the false teaching that the nonchristian [sic] religions and worldviews are also ways of salvation similar to belief in Christ.” This means that there is “an essential difference in nature” between Christianity and other religions and that dialogue with other religions may not be seen as a substitute for proclamation. The declaration issues a powerful call for con4 tinuing missionary work in the form the Christian church has understood it. What may be called the most significant evangelical gathering of all took place in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1974—the International Congress on World Evangelization initiated by the world-renowned evangelist Billy Graham. Overall, it advocated the views of Frankfurt, but it sought to do so in a more 3 4

“Frankfurt Declaration,” Christianity Today, June 19, 1970, p. 843. The full text, from which these quotation are drawn, can be found in ibid., pp. 844-46.

146

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

conciliar way. The Lausanne meeting, with almost 2,500 participants from 150 countries, including a significant number of those from outside the West, also wanted to combat the liberalism of the World Council of Churches and its diminishing missions agenda. For those who drafted the Lausanne Covenant, the concerns were syncretism, universalism and a de-emphasis on evangelism.5 Under the rubric of “The Uniqueness and Universality of Christ,” paragraph 3 states: We affirm that there is only one Savior and only one gospel, although there is a wide diversity of evangelistic approaches. We recognize that everyone has some knowledge of God through his general revelation in nature. But we deny that this can save, for people suppress the truth by their unrighteousness. We also reject as derogatory to Christ and the gospel every kind of syncretism and dialogue which implies that Christ speaks equally through all religions and ideologies. Jesus Christ, being himself the only God-man, who gave himself as the only ransom for sinners, is the only mediator between God and people. There is no other name by which we must be saved. All men and women are perishing because of sin, but God loves everyone, not wishing that any should perish but that all should repent. Yet those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn themselves to eternal separation from God. To proclaim Jesus as “the Savior of the world” is not to affirm that all people are either automatically or ultimately saved, still less to affirm that all religions offer salvation in Christ. Rather it is to proclaim God’s love for a world of sinners and to invite everyone to respond to him as Savior and Lord in the wholehearted personal commitment of repentance and faith. Jesus Christ has been exalted above every other name; we long for the day when every 6 knee shall bow to him and every tongue shall confess him Lord.

What made Lausanne’s approach to other religions and Christian mission more conciliar was its strong support for social concern (para. 5), along with proclamation and its acknowledgment of the value of dialogue as part of Christian mission. But, in contrast to its more liberal counterparts’ understanding of dialogue, Lausanne’s view of dialogue was as a means of building contacts with the followers of other religions, not as an end in itself (para. 4). It is interesting to note that whereas the document speaks of the role of the Holy Spirit in relation to mission (para. 14), it does not (in contrast to the Roman Catholic documents) mention the presence of the Spirit in other religions. 5

The text can be found, e.g., in “Lausanne Congress, 1974,” in Mission Trends No. 2: Evangelization, ed. Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky (New York: Paulist, 1975), pp. 239-48. 6 The biblical passages attached to para. 3 are as follows: Mt 11:28; Jn 3:16-19; 4:42; Acts 4:12; Rom 1:18-32; Gal 1:6-9; Eph 1:20, 21; Phil 2:9-11; 2 Thess 1:7-9; 1 Tim 2:5, 6; 2 Pet 3:9.

The Response of the Evangelical Movement

147

Manila Another significant evangelical statement on mission at the international level is the so-called Manila Declaration. In 1992, under the auspices of the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Fellowship(now World Evangelical Alliance), eighty-five theologians from twenty-eight countries met in Manila, Philippines, to discuss the issues of “The Unique Christ in Our Pluralistic World.” The declaration wanted to combat the challenge of pluralism and respond theologically to the question even asked by many Christians: “Is it not possible that there might be salvation in other religions?” The declaration says that this question is misleading in that it implies religions have power to save us. “This is not true. Only God saves. All people have sinned, all people deserve condemnation, all salvation stems solely from the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ, and this salvation can be appropriated solely through trust in God’s mercy.” Prior to this statement, the declaration affirms that God has acted decisively, supremely, and normatively in the historical Jesus of Nazareth. In his person and work, Jesus is unique such that no one comes to the Father except through him. All salvation in the biblical sense of eternal life, life in the kingdom, reconciliation with God and forgiveness of sins comes solely from 7 the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The Manila Declaration is significant in that it wants to make a distinction between two kinds of “particularisms” with regard to other religions: the more exclusive version, according to which only those who hear the gospel and respond to it in faith may be saved, is distinguished from a more generic particularism that, while not necessarily defining definitively the doctrine of salvation, upholds the uniqueness of Christ among other savior figures of world religions. Those who hold the latter version of particularism may have differing views about the salvation of those who have never heard of Christ. While holding uncompromisingly to the uniqueness of Christ, evangelical theologians say that the question above should be rephrased: Can those who have never heard of Jesus Christ be saved? Old Testament saints, who did not know the name of Jesus, nevertheless found salvation. Is it possible that others also might find salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ although they do not consciously know the name of Jesus? We did not achieve a consensus 8 on how to answer this question. More study is needed. 7

“The WEF Manila Declaration,” in The Unique Christ in Our Pluralistic World, ed. Bruce J. Nicholls (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1994), p. 14. 8 Ibid., p. 15.

148

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

In other words, the evangelical movement, for the first time at the international level, in the form of an official statement, acknowledged the existence of a variety of opinions about what I have called ecclesiocentrism and Christocentrism. This brings to focus the fact that indeed, among evangelicals, there are different orientations to the question of salvation even though all evangelicals affirm the uniqueness of Christ. Whatever polarity exists among evangelical theologians, there is, however, the consensus expressed by Manila: We did agree that salvation is to be found nowhere else than in Jesus Christ. The truth to be found in other religious teachings is not sufficient, in and of itself, to provide salvation. We further agreed that universalism (that all people without exception will be saved) is not biblical. Lastly, we agreed that our discussion of this issue must not in any way undercut the passion to proclaim, without waver9 ing, faltering or tiring, the good news of salvation through trust in Jesus Christ.

The Intra-Evangelical Debate Until the 1990s most evangelicals—apart from the influential voice of the British evangelical Sir Norman Anderson (whose views we will study in the next part of the book) and another Englishman, the literary critic C. S. Lewis—had been slow to rethink the traditional exclusivistic and ecclesiocentric position. Evangelicals such as Louis Berkhof (whose widely used Systematic Theology served for decades as the main guide to evangelical theology), R. C. Sproul, Carl F. H. Henry, Millard J. Erickson, D. A. Carson and host of others have taken it for granted that evangelicalism is synonymous with particularism, often with the limited view that does not allow the possibility of salvation outside the preached gospel and conscious faith (perhaps apart from the Old Testa10 ment saints and infants). 9 10

Ibid. For a representative literature of exclusive evangelicalism, see, e.g., Ronald J. Blue, “Untold Billions: Are They Really Lost?” Biblioteca Sacra 138 (1981): 338-50; Arthur Glasser, “A Paradigm Shift? Evangelicals and Interreligious Dialogue,” Missiology 9 (October 1981): 392-408; Ajith Fernando, The Christian’s Attitude Toward World Religions (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1987); Ramseh Richard, The Population of Heaven: A Biblical Response to the Inclusivist Position on Who Will Be Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994); John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad! (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1993); Ronald Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994); Douglas R. Geivett and W. Gary Phillips, “A Particularist View: An Evidentialist Approach,” in More Than One Way: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Ockholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), pp. 211-45, 259-70; D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996). Among those evangelicals who are

The Response of the Evangelical Movement

149

More recently, stirred by the earlier work of Anderson and especially by the writings of Canadian evangelical Clark Pinnock (who will be studied in more detail later), theologians such as John Sanders and Stanley Grenz have challenged evangelicals to think in more inclusivistic terms.11 Sanders’s book No Other Name presents five reasons why we should be more hopeful about the salvation of the unevangelized. (The subtitle of the book is An Investigation into the Destiny of the to Unevangelized.) In doing so, the book challenges the traditional exclusivism. Appealing to some well-known evangelical forefathers such as John Wesley and contemporary writers such as C. S. Lewis, Sanders argues for inclusivism with regard to those who did not have a chance to re12 spond to the preaching of the Christian gospel: • While Christians will be saved through their faith in Jesus Christ, others may have access to salvation by responding faithfully to the light given them, even apart from proclamation. • General revelation in the Bible not only serves the purpose of preparing people to receive the gospel but also has “salvific meaning.” • The Spirit of the Triune God can reach salvifically even to those who have not received the gospel. • The uniqueness of Christ as the manifestation of God (through the incarnation) does not render meaningless other manifestations of the Logos. • The church, through biblical teaching and missionary experience, has encountered evidence of God’s redemptive work in cultures not previously exposed to the preaching of the Christian messsage. Indications of an implicit knowledge of God can be found in many cultures at numerous times. In the 1990s, many evangelicals became more ready to consider arguments 10

particularists/exclusivists but yet are more open on the question of the unevangelized are the following: John Stott, The Authentic Jesus (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1985); J. I. Packer, “Evangelicals and the Way of Salvation,” in Evangelical Affirmations, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1990), pp. 121-23; Klaas Runia, “The Gospel and Religious Pluralism,” Evangelical Review of Theology 14 (October 1990): 341-79; Alister McGrath, “A Particularist View: A Post-Enlightenment Approach,” in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (cited above); Daniel B. Clendenin, Many Gods, Many Lords: Christianity Encounters World Religions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995) and, possibly, Millard J. Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved? The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1996). 11 Stanley J. Grenz, “Toward an Evangelical Theology of the Religions,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994): 49-65; John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992). 12 Sanders, No Other Name, pp. 239-40.

150

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

such as these championed by Sanders, but unsurprisingly much criticism and even rejection have also emerged among evangelicals. The inclusivist evangelical Amos Yong summarizes these typical criticisms. He says that the conservative evangelical reaction to Sanders and to moderate evangelical inclusivism has been sizable, and the responses have been fairly predicable. Some responses argue that the inclusivist argument fails exegetically; that the authority of Scripture has been compromised; that the historic Christian stance of Augustine, Calvin and others in the Reformed tradition has been betrayed; that natural revelation is damning rather than salvific; that the missionary mandate of the Church is jeop13 ardized; that moderate evangelicals have conceded far too much to modernity.

Not all evangelicals who oppose inclusivism or pluralism appeal to standard conservative views such as those referred to above. Writers such as Vinoth Ramachandra of Sri Lanka and philosopher-theologian Harold Netland (both of whose views will be studied later) advocate a type of ecclesiocentrism that is more open-minded and yet critical of both pluralism and (at least more open) inclusivism. The kind of particularism argued by writers such as these looks quite different from that of the more conservative wing. So it seems that debate continues and no consensus is likely. Our survey of individual theologians’ opinions in the next part of the book will illustrate that currently there are influential evangelical voices in both main categories—ecclesiocentrism and Christocentrism.

13

Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 55-56.

16 The Response of the Ecumenical Movement

Ecumenism, Mission and Other Religions The Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order, a sister organization of the World Council of Churches, held at Santiago de Compostela in 1993, reminded us of the obvious fact that Christian churches “are part of a global community marked by religious pluralism.” This pluralism faces all Christian churches and poses both a challenge and an opportunity: “Christian koinonia has been and is diminished by mutual rejection among Christians because of different 1 understandings of dialogue.” Therefore, it is no wonder that one of the hot topics discussed in various ecumenical venues, especially in the General Assemblies of the WCC, is the relationship of Christianity with other religions. Currently there is a sharp disagreement among the members of the WCC over how best to relate to other religions. In general, the Eastern Orthodox churches and many more conservative Protestant churches are expressing serious concerns about the kind of dialogue the WCC champions, whereas the mainline Protestant churches often think the WCC is not open enough to dialogue. Many churches stand between these two extremes. The term ecumenical comes from the Greek word oikonomia, whose basic meaning was originally “the inhabited world.” Even though currently ecumenism is related most often to intra-Christian relations (despite some instances in which it also denotes the relations between Christianity and other religions), it is significant that the original meaning goes beyond any given religion and embraces all citizens and peoples of the globe. S. Mark Heim, one of the leading ecumenists on the American scene, points 1

“Common Witness in Dialogue with People of Other Living Faiths,” subsection IV.C of On the Way to Fuller Koinonia: Official Report of the Fifth World Conference on Faith and Order, ed. Thomas F. Best and Günther Gassman (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1994), p. 258.

152

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

to the ironic developments within the Christian ecumenical movement. The origins of the formal ecumenical movement go back to the common missionary task of the Christian churches. As soon as the modern missionary movement expanded, it became clear that the existing denominational and theological divisions hinder a common Christian witness before non-Christian communities. This gave impetus to the birth of the WCC and other related ecumenical forums. Currently, however, the very question of how—or whether —to do Christian mission and give a distinctively Christian witness to nonChristians has the potential of dividing the ecumenical movement! Disagreements concerning the relation to other religions and religious pluralism are so serious that they have the potential to paralyze the ecumenical advancements that have been made in areas of Christian doctrine such as justification, sacraments and church ministries.2 This chapter traces the beginning of the World Missionary Conferences, which played a critical role in the emergence of the ecumenical movement and paved the way for how the churches’ responses to other religions took shape during the twentieth century.

The World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh in 1910 As already mentioned, the origin of the official ecumenical movement—that is, the founding of the WCC and sister organizations such as Faith and Order—go back to the missionary movements of the late nineteenth century, when some churches perceived a strong need to work for the unity of all Christians as a precondition for fulfilling the task of world evangelization. The establishment of the WCC in 1948 goes back directly to the missionary conferences beginning from the famous Edinburgh World Missionary Conference in 1910. The Edinburgh Conference stands as the apex of a number of missionary conferences held on various continents to further the evangelization of the world. In India at least nine Protestant missionary conferences had been held since the mid-nineteenth century; in Japan four were held during the three last decades of that century and in China two; in Africa three confer3 ences were held in the beginning of the twentieth century; and so on. Truly, Edinburgh was a landmark signaling the beginning of an era in which long2

See further S. Mark Heim, ed., Grounds for Understanding: Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 1-2. 3 See further William Richey Hogg, Ecumenical Foundations (New York: Harper & Bros., 1952), pp. 17-48.

The Response of the Ecumenical Movement

153

desired unity was set as a goal for all Christian churches.4 The Edinburgh Conference was clear about the goal of Christian mission, as exemplified in this statement by one of the speakers in the conference: “Christian religion is superior to every other religion that exists or has existed upon earth, and . . . consequently we are both entitled and bound to try to persuade every tribe or nation which has not already become Christian to ex5 change its ancestral faith for our own.” The uniqueness of Christianity was confessed in no ambiguous terms: Christianity claims to be, for all ages and peoples, the all sufficient and the only sufficient religion. A moral obligation attaches itself to such a claim. If Christianity be the only sufficient religion for all the world, it should be given to all the world. Christ’s command also lays upon the Church an obligation for nothing 6 less than a world-wide promulgation of the Gospel.

However, there was also an acknowledgment of some goodness and truth in various non-Christian religions, but not at the expense of the superiority of Christianity. Missionaries were recommended to express true understanding 7 and sympathy in their work in propagating the gospel. Furthermore, it was noted—in line with the then-prevailing fulfillment theory—that “non-Christian religions,” as they were called at that time, do serve as a preparation for 8 the gospel.

Subsequent Missionary Conferences The Edinburgh meeting was such a success and catalyst for missions and ecumenism that it was to be succeeded by later conferences. The Jerusalem Meeting of the International Missionary Council in 1928, though smaller in terms of the number attending (231 compared to 1,200 at Edinburgh) was, however, moving toward a more globalized concept of mission and church. All churches were regarded as sending and receiving churches. There was less optimism in Jerusalem due to the recent World War I. There was a widespread fear that Christianity had fallen under the shadow of the criticism 4

Ibid., p. 98. W. P. Paterson, “Christianity, the Final and Universal Religion,” in The History and Records of the Conference Together with Addresses Delivered at the Evening Meetings, World Missionary Conference, 1910 (New York: Revell, 1910), p. 156. 6 World Missionary Conference, 1910, Report of Commission IV: The Missionary Message in Relation to Non-Christian Religions (New York: Revell, 1910), p. 268. 7 Ibid., p. 267. 8 Ibid., p. 24. 5

154

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

against Western civilization. In the words of a prominent theologian of that time, Karl Heim, “Since the war we cannot say any longer to the non-Christians: Become Christians because Christianity brought to the nations of the West their historic greatness, their superior civilization, their advanced political institutions.”9 The most heated topic for the Jerusalem meeting was the relation of Christianity to other religions. A sincere effort was made to inquire into the potential positive values of other religions. One of the presenters summarized much of the sentiment when commenting on Christianity’s relation to Hinduism: “the Christ whom we preach does not destroy anything gracious and beautiful in the character of the Hindu, or deprive him of anything of which he is justly 10 proud in his cultural inheritance.” The conference analyzed in various sections all the major religions and their relations to Christianity, but curiously, Judaism was not discussed. At the end of the conference, however, the participants had not reached consensus as to the central question of the relation of Christian faith to other living faiths. A rift began to develop between the Continental thinking, which tended to be more conservative, and the American position, which tended to focus on the continuity between religions. The Continental view was influenced by the dialectical theology of Karl Barth and the conservative voice of 11 Hendrik Kraemer and others. The International Missionary Council met next in Tambara, Madras, in 1938 on the eve of World War II. Two differing, even conflicting voices were heard. On the one hand, there was an openness to other religions as expressed in Rethinking Missions: A Layman’s Inquiry, a study conducted by the leading American pluralist William Ernest Hocking. On the other hand, there was the influential exclusivist voice of Kraemer, who criticized the conciliar mission thinking for its tendency toward syncretism and who issued a powerful call to reacknowledge the uniqueness of Christ. (Kraemer’s ideas will be studied in chapter nineteen.) Reactions to Kraemer’s conservative presentation were mixed. According to Rodger Bassham, most delegates at

9

Karl Heim, “What Is It in the Gospel Which Commands Us?” in vol. 8 of Addresses on General Subjects (New York: International Missionary Council, 1928), p. 82. 10 Nichol Manichol, “Christianity and Hinduism,” in vol. 1 of The Christian Life and Message in Relation to Non-Christian Systems of Thought and Life (New York: International Missionary Council, 1928), p. 11. 11 See further James Cox, “Jerusalem 1928: Its Message for Today,” Missiology 9 (April 1981): esp. 139-53.

The Response of the Ecumenical Movement

155

Madras, though appreciative of Kraemer’s contribution, did not endorse his views and affirmed a position, similar to that adopted at Jerusalem, of sympathy for the best in other faiths, coupled with a determination to witness for Christ to all people.12 The first postwar IMC meeting—held in Whitby, Ontario, in 1947—did not bring about anything new; it sufficed to endorse the statements of Madras. The emerging theme was the relationship between the IMC and the WCC, which 13 was coming into being. The founding meeting of the WCC in Amsterdam in 1948 was significant in that from the beginning, mission and ecumenism were tied together officially, as the case had been for decades at an informal level. The study Man’s Disorder and God’s Design, prepared specifically for the first assembly, wanted to both reaffirm and correct earlier statements made in Jerusalem and Madras. The Indian S. W. Savarimuthu strongly argued for a more open-minded and appreciative attitude toward other religions since “there is not only seeking but also 14 finding, the joy and exultation of having been found of the Lord.” Other voices supported this call.

The Emergence of Dialogue Since the 1960s In the 1963 meeting in Mexico City—after Willingen (1952) and Ghana (1957)—a historic merger took place: the WCC and the IMC integrated, and the IMC became the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME), which is still in existence. The newly established CWME confirmed its missionary mandate but, at the same time, began a study process concerning the role and value of other religions in God’s economy of salvation and in regards 15 to Christianity. The Mexico City meeting concluded that “it is important to recognize that a follower of another religion has his reason for believing in it. . . . These reasons may be part of the preparation for his understanding of the Gospel.” Furthermore, many followers of other faiths “today find satisfaction 12

Rodger C. Bassham, “Seeking a Deeper Theological Basis for Mission,” International Review of Mission 67 (1978): 25. 13 See further Feliciano V. Carino, “Partnership in Obedience,” International Review of Mission 67 (1978): 316-28. 14 S. W. Savarimuthu, “Aspects of the Modern Situation in India,” in vol. 2 of Man’s Disorder and God’s Design: The Amsterdam Series (New York: Harper & Bros., 1949), p. 174. 15 For a history of the concept, see Carl F. Hallencreutz, “A Long-Standing Concern: Dialogue in Ecumenical History 1910-1971,” in Living Faiths and the Ecumenical Movement, ed. Stanley J. Samartha (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1971).

156

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

and inspiration in the ways their faiths are being reinterpreted to lend added meaning to individual, social, and national life.”16 The General Assembly of the WCC in Uppsala (1968) continued to inquire into the nature of dialogue with other religions instead of taking the older missionary approach, which tended to take for granted the superiority of Christian faith. However, the Assembly took care to make it clear that dialogue does not imply “either a denial of the uniqueness of Christ, nor any loss of [the Christian’s] commitment to Christ.” Nor does dialogue mean doing away with proc17 lamation. The CWME meeting in Bangkok (1973) continued discussion about dialogue. It was acknowledged not only that dialogue is the most appropriate way of sharing Christian faith, but also that it may be enriching and enlightening to Christians themselves. Through dialogue the participant can “discover what God is doing among people of other faiths.” In dialogue, the participants 18 “share common human aspirations.” The Nairobi General Assembly of the WCC in 1975 ratified the earlier pronouncements on dialogue: We believe that in addition to listening to one another, we need to know what people of other faiths and no faith are saying about Jesus Christ and his followers. While we cannot agree on whether or how Christ is present in other religions, we do believe that God has not left himself without witness in any generation or any society. Nor can we exclude the possibility that God speaks to Christians from outside the Church. While we oppose any form of syncretism, we affirm the necessity for dialogue with men and women of other faiths and ideologies as a 19 means of mutual understanding and practical cooperation.

Even with all the reservations over the danger of syncretism, the meeting acknowledged the existence of pluralism and sought to build “community” with the help of dialogue. The Melbourne CWME meeting in 1980 took up one issue that subsequently 16

Ronald Orchard, Witness in Six Continents: Records of the Meeting of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches Held in Mexico City, December 8th to 19th, 1963 (London: Edinburgh House, 1964), p. 15. 17 Norman Goodall, ed., The Uppsala Report 1968: Official Report of the Fourth Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Uppsala July 4-10, 1968 (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1968), p. 28. 18 Commission on World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches, Bangkok Assembly 1973: Minutes and Report of the Assembly of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches, December 31, 1972 and January 9-12, 1973 (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1973), pp. 78-79. 19 David M. Paton, ed., Breaking Barriers: Nairobi 1975: The Official Report of the Fifth Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Nairobi, 23 November−10 December 1975 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 46.

The Response of the Ecumenical Movement

157

has come to play a crucial role with regard to other faiths: namely, the poor. The poor were identified as objects of God’s special love and care, transcending cultural, political and religious boundaries.20

“Dialogue with Men of Living Faiths and Ideologies” Before updating the CWME meetings to the present, it is appropriate for us to take a look at the most important document of the WCC with regard to other religions—the widely discussed and debated project “Dialogue with Men of Living Faiths and Ideologies.” A subunit of the WCC under this name was formed in 1971 to collect data from previous meetings and consultations and to develop guidelines for member churches. The Chiang Mai meeting in Thailand in 1977 was very influential in forming the document Guidelines on Dia21 logue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies, published in 1979. The theological basis for dialogue is “our common humanity” and “our increasing contemporary human inter-relatedness.” These should drive “the communion of saints” to reach all human beings on its way to the kingdom of 22 God. According to S. Wesley Ariarajah, dialogue may “provide fresh criteria for new human relationships which preserve the values of personal life and 23 also promote life in community.” Stanley J. Samartha, the head of the subunit, sees in the coming of Jesus Christ part of “God’s dialogue with humanity.” Our dialogue with people of other faiths is part of our participation in God’s dialogue with humanity. And since Jesus Christ came to create a new kind of community “through forgiveness, reconciliation, and a new creation,” dialogue is necessary to incorporate others into that community. Participants in the dialogue can trust the Holy 24 Spirit to lead all into truth. Dialogue, as the subunit came to define it, is based on certain assumptions 20

See further Commission on World Mission and Evangelism of the World Council of Churches, Your Kingdom Come: Mission Perspectives; Report on the World Conference on Mission and Evangelism, Melbourne, Australia, 12-15 May 1980 (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1980). 21 Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1979). 22 See further John Deschner, “Aspects of ‘Community’ as Christians Could Understand It in Dialogue with People of Other Faiths and Ideologies,” in Faith in the Midst of Faiths, ed. Stanley J. Samartha (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1977), pp. 39-44. 23 S. Wesley Ariarajah, “The Understanding and Practice of Dialogue: Its Nature, Purpose and Variations,” in Faith in the Midst of Faiths, p. 55. 24 Stanley J. Samartha, Courage for Dialogue: Ecumenical Issues in Inter-religious Relationships (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1982), p. 11.

158

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

about God and his dealings with the world, as explicated by one of the drafters of the document, Heinrich Ott: • God is omnipresent. The Christian is free to enter into dialogue since God is with both partners of the dialogue. • The liberating gospel is the basic contribution to the dialogue. • The Spirit is blowing everywhere, without limits; therefore, the dialogue may lead to unexpected results. • Each partner should anticipate a greater understanding of his or her own as well as of the other’s faith.25

An Inclusive Missio Dei In 1982, the central committee of the WCC adopted the document “Mission and Evangelism: An Ecumenical Affirmation,” which still is the official text of the WCC on the matter. It was updated but not substantially changed in 2000 26 under the title “Mission and Evangelism in Unity Today” (MEUT). Its main concept is the widely used idea of missio Dei. Jacques Matthey, the current secretary of the CWME, explains the meaning of missio Dei: It affirms that God is active in the secular, political and social events of the world, through people of good will, whether Christians, people of other religious convictions or atheists. The church’s mission is to discern the signs of the times and join God (or Christ) where God is active to transform the world towards shalom.

He further notes that a statement was added to affirm that “the world 27 must be allowed to provide the agenda for the churches.” This kind of understanding of missio Dei has been predominant since the early 1980s among the WCC churches. According to MEUT, a trinitarian approach to the missio Dei concept promotes a more inclusive understanding of God’s presence and work in the whole world and among all people (para. 12). The 1991 “Statement on Religious Plurality” (also known as “Baar I”), inspired by the San Antonio World 25

Heinrich Ott, “The Horizons of Understanding and Interpretative Possibilities,” in Faith in the Midst of Faiths, pp. 85-86. 26 World Council of Churches Central Committee, “Mission and Evangelism in Unity Today,” International Review of Mission 80, nos. 348/349 (1999): 109-27. 27 Jacques Matthey, “Missiology in the World Council of Churches: Update,” International Review of Mission 90, 359 (2001): 429. There are also other interpretations of missio Dei, ones more in line with what was originally presented by Karl Barth and others at Willingen in 1952. This view is often called the “classical view.”

The Response of the Ecumenical Movement

159

Mission Conference two years earlier, insisted on the freedom of the Spirit to give inspiration and guidance to all people in their universal longing and seeking for truth, peace and justice. Activities of the Spirit are “beyond our definitions.” Everything belonging to love, joy, peace, patience, kindness and goodness is the fruit of the Spirit. The document affirms “unequivocally that God the Holy Spirit has been at work in the life and traditions of peoples of living faiths.” The same Spirit also leads Christians to unexpected discoveries in dialogue with people of other faiths.28 The openness and ambiguity of the recent WCC stance toward other religions is best illustrated in the often-quoted statement from San Antonio and more recently from the 1996 Salvador World Mission Conference: “We cannot point to any other way of salvation than Jesus Christ; at the same time, we cannot set limits to the saving power of God.” This is also reaffirmed in the MEUT (para. 58). The issue is intentionally left open since there is no unanimity among member churches yet. To make the WCC opinion more coherent, several member churches invited the CWME and Dialogue with Other Living Faith units to work toward a theology of religions. Even in the 1997 Harare General Assembly a theology did not yet materialize, and so it is still open, apart from the general guidelines as expressed in the MEUT and Baar I. In fact, Baar I moves further toward openness by saying, “We find ourselves recognizing a need to move beyond a theology which confines salvation to the explicit personal commitment to Jesus Christ.” Yet the same document also insists on the Christ29 event as the clearest expression of the salvific will of God in human history. Clearly, the most recent WCC affirmations concerning other religions are 30 very close to the official standpoint of the Roman Catholic Church.

Critical Reflections and Questions The views of the main groups of Christian churches, as reflected in their more or less official ecclesiastical documents (as distinct from the opinions of individual theologians), have been studied in this section. The rationale for this procedure, quite unknown in textbooks like this, is that while the opinions of individual theologians are not unrelated to their respective churches’ views, neither are they bound to represent their own or necessarily only one church’s 28

World Council of Churches Sub-Unit Dialogue with People of Living Faiths, “Statement on Religious Plurality: Theological Perspectives and Affirmations,” in Current Dialogue 19 (1991): 47-51. 29 Ibid., pp. 48-50. 30 See further Matthey, “Missiology,” pp. 433-34.

160

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

understanding. Ecclesiastical loyalty is a quite relative concept among contemporary theologians, even for those who remain loyal members in their church contexts. This kind of treatment of ecclesiastical views is also necessary for highlighting the ecumenical variety and diversity among Christian families. The whole concept of a Christian theology of religions is an elusive concept since among Christian traditions there is no single definitive voice. Therefore, the views of all major Christian families—with the exclusion of the Eastern Orthodox Church, for its simple lack of ecclesiastical pronouncements on the topic—were exposited here. What the survey clearly showed is that there is a bifurcation among Christian churches regarding the relation to other religions. An inclusivistic view is by far the most widely held, ranging from Roman Catholics to Anglicans to mainline Protestants. Even with differing nuances, all the “mainline” churches basically believe that while Christ is the theological norm as well as source of salvation, access to salvation is not limited to only those who confess the name of Christ. Yet the church is to proclaim Christ as the Savior. The other main understanding among Christian churches is some kind of exclusivistic interpretation that emphasizes the need for evangelization and mission in order to bring the people into saving faith. In fact, though this voice is heard much less in scholarly circles, the number of Christians adhering to this traditional view is surprisingly large in view of the fact that with the shift of Christianity to the southern hemisphere, the growth of Christianity is happening mainly in conservative churches. Interestingly, numerically there are two giants among ecclesiastical opinions: the Roman Catholic Church’s inclusivism and the quite exclusivistic stance held by evangelical, Pentecostal/Charismatic and (other) independent churches. Pluralism governs the academy, but in the pews these two other views predominate. The momentous shift in the official Roman Catholic Church’s stance toward other religions from a quite exclusivistic to a full-fledged inclusivistic view reflects the changing mindset of the twentieth century. On the one hand, this is radical for the church that before Vatican II in the 1960s could hardly acknowledge other Christian churches. On the other hand, it is quite understandable in light of its Thomistic understanding of grace’s fulfilling what is lacking in nature, thus opening up the relative value of religions in God’s economy. Significantly, the Roman Catholic inclusivism is unabashedly Christocentric and related to the church, especially to the Catholic Church. The inclusivism among mainline Protestant churches seems to be often more pluralistically oriented and more hesitant about highlighting the unique

The Response of the Ecumenical Movement

161

role of Jesus Christ. Clearly, mainline Protestantism drinks from the wells of modernism and classical liberalism and seems to be shifting more easily toward pluralism. The Anglican Church, despite its affinity with the Catholic Church, appears to be very close to the mainline Protestantism agenda in this regard. All of these churches currently face the painful division of opinion among their churches, especially between the more liberal Western churches and conservative Third World congregations. The most rapidly growing segment of the Christian church is represented by newer churches, here gathered under the loose umbrella of evangelicalism. The various kinds of Pentecostal/Charismatic churches are growing especially rapidly and among all cultures and societies. Most, if not all, of these churches staunchly support a conservative approach to religions. They engage the scholarly debate very little and major in aggressive evangelization and mission. Against all the odds of pluralistic prophets, they are going to be—and numerically already are—the other main pole of the Christian churches’ attitude toward other religions. It is well known that while the theological academy is sounding quite unanimously pluralistic tones, almost none of the churches are. What, then, are the implications of this reality for Christian theology of religions? To put it another way, what does it mean that theological faculties envision the future as being increasingly tolerant of religious pluralism, whereas most of the churches are radically opposed either to the whole idea of pluralism or to the belief in a Christocentric inclusivistic interpretation? Other questions to ponder include these: Are there really significant differences between the Catholic and the (mainline) Protestant inclusivisms? If so, what could they be and what are the reasons for these differences? If not, what might be the ecumenical implications? Is it possible, as the Roman Catholic Church claims, to preserve missionary fervor while being open to the possibility of salvation apart from hearing the gospel? Might there be a change of opinion toward more openness to other religions among those rapidly growing Third World churches when they affirm their independence from the Western missionary movement from which they emerged? In other words, might those churches that live in the midst of other living religions begin to think about those religions differently than did those who developed their theologies of religions in the West, with little or no firsthand exposure to other religions?

P A R T

F O U R

T HE C URRENT S CENE Theologians’ Interpretations

17 Orientation to the Study of Theologians of Religions

In Search of a Typology In the introduction I noted several types of classifications concerning various current approaches to the theology of religions. I decided to use basically a threefold approach—ecclesiocentrism, Christocentrism and theocentrism— supplemented by the most recent approach, which can perhaps be most appropriately labeled Realitycentrism. Before going on to a more sophisticated analysis of various approaches, it might be helpful to sharpen the definitions of each of these categories and their main orientations. Since this categorization, like any other, is at its best heuristic and serves mainly pedagogical purposes, it must be noted not only that the overall schematization should be considered flexible, but also that a legitimate variety can be found within each existing category. Thus, for example, there are several kinds of Christocentric approaches. These approaches have enough in common to warrant treating as a group the theologians who champion them, but in doing so I do not intend to place boundaries on their theologies. But why choose this particular typology? I offered some reasons in the introduction, but many other theologians also note that the older threefold typology (exclusivism, inclusivism, pluralism) has some quite serious weaknesses. The most serious theological problem is its one-sided focus on the question of who is going to be saved: Exclusivism holds that only those in the church, with the exception of a few others related to the church, such as unbaptized infants, will be saved. Inclusivism adds to these the faithful followers of other religions, but only because of Christ’s saving work. Pluralism says all will be saved. Salvation, of course, is a key issue, but it is not the only one. Theology of religions inquires first into the theological meaning and significance of religion, religiosity and particular religions—Christianity included—and into how Christianity theologically relates to other religions. The older terminology, as

166

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

will become evident, also tends to be pejorative, especially with regard to exclusivism. The typology adopted here helps widen the focus of the theology of religions: rather than seeing various approaches (ecclesiocentrism, Christocentrism, theocentrism) only in opposition to one another, it also depicts them in a sort of continuity. Their relation can be illustrated in terms of concentric circles: in ecclesiocentrism, God’s dealings with humanity, while mediated through Christ, are focused on the church; in Christocentrism, God works through the church but in a inclusive way, reaching out to people outside the Christian community; in theocentrism, Christ is only one mediator, and the church, if given any significant role, is just one community among other religious communities. By saying this, I am not implying that there is a kind of “development” from one approach to another (certainly not in any kind of normative sense), but rather I am trying to make more evident what this heuristic typology implies. Furthermore, by highlighting continuity, I do not intend to downplay the fact that, especially between ecclesiocentrism and theocentrism, there is a wide—to many even irreconcilable—divide.

Ecclesiocentrism Ecclesiocentrism is the traditional position which maintains that God has revealed himself in a unique manner in the Scriptures and preeminently in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that apart from the gospel preached by the Christian church there is no salvation available. This has been the mainstream view of the Christian church until the dawn of modernism, and it still is widely held in the more conservative wing of the Christian church. As Harold Netland puts it, Other religions were regarded by Western Christians largely in negative terms as idolatrous “domains of darkness,” and adherents of other religions were thought of as “the heathen” who were “spiritually lost” and in desperate need of the sav1 ing gospel of Jesus Christ.

The statement that this exclusivistic attitude with regard to other religions has been the mainstream of Christian theology has to be supplemented by the acknowledgement that Christianity is not the only religion for which this is true. All the major religions of the world, even those Eastern religions such as

1

Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 24.

Orientation to the Study of Theologians of Religions

167

Hinduism and Buddhism—which are often (especially in Western discourse, both academic and popular) considered to be more open-minded—tend to claim exclusivity over others. Logically speaking, if a religion did not regard itself as either the only or at least the most fulfilled religion, why would anybody bother to align oneself with that particular religion? Without some exclusive claim, why should a religion’s writings, religious cult and heritage be preserved in such a reverent way as is the rule in the world religions? The main tenets of Christian ecclesiocentrism, as it is being advocated by various theologians in that camp and with their distinctive emphases, may be summarized as follows: • The Scripture is God’s unique revelation and as such is capable of transmitting divine revelation. • Jesus Christ, the center of the Scriptures and Christian faith, is the unique incarnation of God, fully God and fully human. It is only through Jesus Christ that salvation and revelation are available to humanity. • God’s saving grace is available and operative in the Christian church and its proclamation of the gospel to all nations. Jesus Christ is the source and mediator of salvation, and that salvation is to be found in the community bearing his name. Hence all forms of ecclesiocentrism appeal to the absolute truth of Christianity, which is necessarily incompatible with at least some foundational claims of other religions. John Hick, an ardent critic of exclusivism, specifically objects to these truth claims, seeing them as unnecessary cause for disagreement and regarding this as “an obvious problem” when compared to what he 2 considers a more open-minded approach. The title of an article by the inclusivist Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Religious Pluralism and Conflicting Truth 3 Claims,” illustrates well the importance of the truth question here. The term ecclesiocentrism may sound ambiguous, especially to most Protestants, implying that the church, its structures and its sacraments are the mediators of salvation in Christ. In popular opinion, that kind of view is often dubbed “Catholic.” Nothing of that is in view in my typology. (I leave it to ecumenical theology to assess how much theological truth that conception has.) The only meaning of the ecclesiocentrism intended here is that salvation in 2 3

John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 362. Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Religious Pluralism and Conflicting Truth Claims: The Problem of a Theology of the World Religions,” in Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990), pp. 96-106.

168

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Christ is to be found in the Christian church and that the church has been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to all people. Even when exceptions (e.g., the salvation of the unbaptized) are part of ecclesiocentrism, they are to be seen as exceptions confirming the rule; for even the unbaptized or mentally disabled are related in one way or another to the church. It has been rightly noted that exclusivism, the preferred term for ecclesiocentrism, was introduced into the discussion not by adherents of the traditional perspective but rather by those who rejected this view and wished to cast it in a negative light. Often it is a pejorative term: “Exclusivists are typically branded as dogmatic, narrow-minded, intolerant, ignorant, arrogant and so on, and those rejecting exclusivism for more accommodating perspectives are regard4 ed as exemplifying the virtues believed deficient in exclusivists.” That this is not the ethos of the present book has hopefully become clear by now. As a descriptive, and therefore not prescriptive, introduction to the field, the only task of this part of the book is to present the case of each theologian as accurately and fairly as our sources and the competency of the author allows. Even when emerging or dominant orientations are noted, such as the apparent majority status of inclusivism currently, my treatment is not meant to be a value judgment indicating that this view is therefore the “right” one (and others less right) but rather a hopefully objective analysis of the current situation.

Christocentrism Christocentrism is an ambiguous name for a particular category, but it is also a helpful one. In one sense, what is here called “ecclesiocentrist” is of course totally Christocentric. But, obviously, there are various kinds of Christocentrism. As a classification in the theology of religions, Christocentrism means that salvation is available in and through Christ in such a way that it is not necessarily tied to the church, even though for most, if not all, representatives of this view, salvation and the church are still integrally connected. In other words, Christocentrism is a wider category in that it goes beyond the more limited view that it considers ecclesiocentrism to hold. A more precise, yet unduly complicated, way of labeling the first category might be ecclesiocentric Christocentrism (which denotes ecclesiocentrism in this book) in contrast to Christocentrism (without any qualifications). The basic tenets of Christocentrism can be outlined as follows: • There is a sense in which Jesus Christ is unique, normative or superior to 4

Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism, p. 46.

Orientation to the Study of Theologians of Religions

169

other religious figures, and so salvation always comes in and through Christ. • God’s grace and salvation are not limited to the Christian church even though the church is the main instrument of salvation. • Thus other religions with all their weaknesses and faults (which also pertain to Christianity itself) do play some positive role in God’s overall plan of salvation, even though as such they are not the “ordinary” means of salvation. As with other categories, there is surprisingly great variety among various kinds of Christocentrism; yet, as the other preferred term for this category, inclusivism, denotes, the basic idea is that even though salvation can only come through Christ (so this view is exclusive with regard to the role of Christ), it is not necessarily limited to the sphere of the church. God’s saving actions also include other religions or at least adherents of other religions. Here is revealed one of the main differences within this category: Roman Catholic inclusivists, in light of the normative teaching of the postconciliar church, tend to regard the salvation of the followers of other religions (those who seek the truth and live according to the light received) more or less sure. However, other theologians in this camp, especially evangelicals, leave the question open; in other words, they remain open to the possibility of salvation in other religions and at least are not ready to deny it.

Theocentrism and Realitycentrism In recent decades, the international and ecumenical discussion concerning theology of religions has shifted dramatically. A number of influential theologians have rejected not only the more restrictive view of ecclesiocentrism, but also the more open inclusivism of Christocentrism. This view—most often called pluralism, but in this book labeled theocentrism—in principle denies any claim for the superiority of this or that religion over others. There is no normative religion as such according to this opinion. In Christian theology of religions the 1987 publication of an anthology of essays entitled The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, edited by two leading pluralists, the Catholic Paul Knitter and the Protestant (Reformed) John Hick, serves as a watershed in that this was the first time a number of theologians across the theological and ecumenical spectrum made a convincing case for theological pluralism with regard to other religions. According to Knitter, the purpose of the essays was “to show that such a pluralist turn is taking shape, that it is being proposed by a variety of reputable Christian thinkers, and that therefore it represents a vi-

170

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

able, though still inchoate and controversial, option for Christian believers.”5 With regard to terminology, it is important to note that theological pluralism goes beyond simply acknowledging the plurality of religions. That there are various religions and worldviews is a fact noted long ago by Christian theology, from the beginning of the church. What pluralism means here in the discourse of the theology of religions is “an egalitarian and democratized perspective that 6 maintains a rough parity among religions concerning religious truth” and salvation. Pluralism then maintains not only that salvation is not limited to the church (ecclesiocentrism) but also that it goes beyond any particular savior figure of religions, be it Christ (Christocentrism) or any other. Adherents of any particular religion may claim unique and normative significance for their savior figure—thus Christians for Christ—but at the same time they need to acknowledge that this claim for normativity does not apply to followers of other religions. The reason I have adopted the term theocentrism instead of the term pluralism is that it indicates most clearly the main orientation of Christian pluralism: namely, the rejection of the uniqueness and normativity of Christ for all religions in favor of God. Theocentrism literally means “God-centered.” Religious pluralists—quite accurately—argue that as long as Christ, or any other particular savior figure, is held as normative, one cannot be fully pluralist; as soon as one gives up insistence on the final normativity of any particular savior figure and instead points to God as the source of revelation and salvation, then pluralism is possible. Netland’s description of the rise of pluralism and the many forms it takes is worth noting: The trend toward more pluralistic ways of understanding the relation between Christianity and other religions is not confined to the West. The issues of pluralism have long been of special interest to Christian thinkers in Asia, and pluralistic models have been advanced by leading Asian thinkers. . . . Pluralistic views on the religions are deeply entrenched in certain academic circles, especially in religious studies. But it is not merely the latest academic fad; pluralistic themes are common among ordinary people who have never heard of John Hick or the academic debates on other religions. Although pluralism finds increasingly sophisticated expression among scholars, it is also a perspective that is widely accepted in rudimentary form throughout popular culture, and its influence is increas7 ingly felt within the church as well. 5

Paul F. Knitter, preface to The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. John Hick and Paul F. Knitter (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987), p. viii. 6 Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism, p. 53. 7 Ibid., p. 54.

Orientation to the Study of Theologians of Religions

171

A logical step beyond pluralism that still in a sense maintains its basic ethos is what is here called Realitycentrism. This is the view according to which one cannot even dare to limit oneself to talking about God; one instead speaks of “Reality” as the ultimate something. In a sense, then, this is pluralism brought to its logical end. There are many reasons why the pluralist could argue for giving up any notion of God and talk about Reality instead. One obvious reason is that the term God usually refers to theistic religions, those that posit a more or less personal God. But this ignores those religions, preeminently Buddhism, without a clear god-concept. The term reality as used in this model is more elastic and does not require a specific god-concept. Several radical pluralists, especially Hick, have moved in this direction in the course of developing a religious pluralism. In this book, the term theocentrism is thus used in a widest possible way and includes the views of Hick and others who have left behind the particular God of the Bible and prefer a more generic term. The reason for such a wide usage is that despite all the differences between the term’s meaning for one such as Hick and the meaning of a more Christian theocentrism, the theological rationale is similar: an attempt not to limit access to God (or the Ultimate) to any particular savior figure, be it Christ or that of other religions.

The Use and Limits of Classifications In this present major part of this book, I will inquire into opinions of representative theologians in each of these categories. However, once again, we need to acknowledge the difficulty of placing all theologians into this kind of neat classification. Netland’s comment below is illustrative of the growing ambiguity. He first notes that even though in very broad terms we can distinguish three basic paradigms for understanding the relation of Christianity to other relations, the classification used is not without problems: I am increasingly unhappy with this taxonomy as it tends to obscure subtle, but significant, differences among positions and thinkers. . . . We should not think of these as three clear-cut categories so much as three points on a broader continuum of perspectives, with both continuities and discontinuities on various issues across the paradigms, depending upon the particular question under consideration. Within each paradigm there is considerable diversity on subsidiary issues, and we must recognize that, as the discussions become increasingly sophisticated and nuanced, it is often quite difficult to locate particular thinkers in terms of 8 the three categories. 8

Ibid., p. 47.

172

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

A good case in point is, of course, Karl Barth. On the one hand, he attacked violently all religions in general and their salvific and revelational value in particular. On the other hand, because of his extreme “Christomonism,” Barth ended up with a kind of soteriology that either is universalistic or at least theologically leans toward it. To complicate the picture, the later Barth in many respects modified his earlier views and so makes it extremely complicated to identify even his own stance. Other examples—less complicated with regard to their own theological profile yet still challenging for the standard typology —are Wolfhart Pannenberg and Lesslie Newbigin. Pannenberg, whose distinctive contributions I have placed under the label Christocentrism, will be studied below. With regard to the first category, ecclesiocentrism, the present book divides the discussion into two parts (“Ecclesiocentrism: Early Approaches” in chapters eighteen through twenty and “Ecclesiocentrism: Contemporary Approaches” in chapters thirty-seven through thirty-nine). This division is mainly for pedagogical reasons, but to a lesser extent also for theological ones. The early twentieth-century figures Barth, Hendrik Kraemer and Paul Althaus created their theologies before the widespread challenge of pluralism of our day. So they were not so much reacting to pluralism as such (even though that was a growing concern) but rather wanting to defend the uniqueness of Christianity vis-à-vis the growing realization of the presence and effect of other religions. The three other representative theologians in that category, Netland, Millard Erickson and Vinoth Ramachandra, all of them contemporary thinkers, derive much of their theological energy from the response to pluralism. Therefore, to inquire into their idea of ecclesiocentrism only makes sense pedagogically after the reader has been presented with the case of pluralism in order to avoid unnecessary redundancy in the text. For Netland, the main discussion partner is Hick; Ramachandra carries on extensive dialogue with the pluralist Christologies of Asian theologians Stanley Samartha and Raimundo Panikkar, among others. At the same time, these three contemporary theologians happen to belong to the same theological camp, namely the evangelical movement, whereas the earlier theologians in this category all represent mainline Protestantism. This is the theological rationale for dividing the more restrictive approach to other religions into two sections. Barth and Erickson, to take the most obvious examples, are very far from each other with regard to various theological issues, such as the doctrine of revelation (Erickson championing conservative inerrantism, Barth a historical-critical stance that allows Scripture’s text an “erroneous” nature as a human document). Thus,

Orientation to the Study of Theologians of Religions

173

even though they happen to think of other religions similarly enough to be in the same category, their placement together otherwise is highly problematic. The second category (Christocentrism) is by far the largest one—indicating that Christocentrism or inclusivism, as it is most often called, represents the major and “mainline” view of the Christian theology of religions currently. This category is divided into three subcategories according to denominational and theological nuances: Roman Catholics (chapters twenty-one through twenty-four), mainline Protestants (chapters twenty-five through twentyeight) and evangelicals (chapters twenty-nine through thirty-one). The main point here is not to revisit the topic of “ecclesiastical approaches” studied in part three of this book, but rather to make the presentation pedagogically more lucid and understandable. It happens to be that these three heuristic subcategories seem also to make sense theologically—Roman Catholic inclusivism has a distinctive flavor when compared to, say, evangelicalism—even though that is not the main focus of that section.

ECCLESIOCENTRISM: Early Approaches

18 Karl Barth R E L IGION A S UNB E L IE F

The Theology of the “Wholly Other” Karl Barth, who has been hailed as the “church father” for the twentieth century and who is undoubtedly one of the most significant voices of modern Christian theology, targeted his criticism toward liberal teachers under whose tutelage he had received his theological training. His main problem with liberalism was that it blurred the radical boundary line between God and humanity and made religion a matter of this world: To speak about God meant to speak about humanity, no doubt in elevated tone, but . . . about human faith and works. Without doubt human beings were magnified at the expense of God—the God who is sovereign Other standing over against humanity. . . . This God who is the free partner in a history which he himself inaugurated and in a dialogue ruled by him—this divine God was in danger of being reduced to a pious notion: the mythical expression and symbol of human excitation oscillating between its own psychic heights or depths, whose 1 truth could only be that of a monologue and its own graspable content.

Hence Barth condemns liberal theology as effectively left without God and 1

Karl Barth, “The Humanity of God,” in Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom, ed. Clifford Green (London: Collins, 1979), p. 48.

Karl Barth

175

thus replacing the traditional starting point of theology “from above” with an approach “from below.” It was Barth’s intention to rehabilitate religion first and foremost as something that has to do with humankind’s relation to the transcendent God or, better yet, to highlight God’s own initiative in reaching out to humankind. Religion for Barth is not something human beings accomplish; it is the reception of and obedience to what God has done in Christ. To use classical language, Barth replaced the “analogy of being” with an “analogy of faith.” For medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, who otherwise shared Barth’s exclusive claim for the superiority of Christianity, knowledge of God is an innate capacity within human experience or human nature; this view, then, could be developed into a more affirming attitude toward the possibility of knowledge of God outside Christian revelation (but Aquinas and medieval theology in the main did not do this, as the historical survey above has shown). Barth chose rather the principle of an “analogy of faith”: faith is possible only because God graciously gives it in Jesus Christ, who is both God and human; either one sees it or one does not. Every attempt to prove it is almost idolatry. Therefore, religions are of no use for the knowledge of God, who is “Totally Other,” beyond the capacities of human knowledge. Appropriately, then, Barth’s approach can also be labeled a theology of “crisis”: there is no contact point between us and God; there is instead total discontinuity. So the only way to know about God is based on God’s selfrevelation. God and humanity, rather than standing in continuity as liberalism posited, stand in opposition to each other. In fact, God stands over and against humanity and everything human in an “infinite qualitative distinction” and is never identical with anything humanity and religions assume. It is only the event of Jesus Christ in human history that makes possible the miracle of the knowledge of God. It is only God who is able to reveal God: Revelation is God’s self-offering and self-manifestation. Revelation encounters man on the presupposition and in confirmation of the fact that man’s attempts to know God from his own standpoint are wholly and entirely futile. . . . In revelation God tells man that he is God, and that as such he is his Lord. In telling him this, revelation tells him something new, something which apart from revelation 2 he does not know and cannot tell either himself or others. 2

Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 1/2, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956), p. 301.

176

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

For Barth, Jesus Christ is the final and ultimate revelation of God and the focus of revelation. The Word of God appears in three related forms: in the person of Christ; in the written Word, Scripture; and in the Word preached. The Bible in itself is not yet God’s Word but it becomes the Word to the extent that God causes it to be his word in an encounter between God and human beings. The Word of God is an event rather than a collection of doctrines. The Bible is a witness: it points beyond itself to another, to Jesus Christ. The event of Jesus Christ in human history makes possible the miracle of knowledge of God. In the process of revelation, Jesus Christ reveals himself, not information about himself.

The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ and the Christian God The whole theology of Barth is Christ-centered. Barth saw that this was the emphasis of the Bible: When Holy Scripture speaks of God, it concentrates our attention and thoughts upon one single point. . . . And if we look closer, and ask: who and what is at this point upon which our attention and thoughts are concentrated, which we are to recognize as God? . . . then from its beginning to its end the Bible directs us to the 3 name of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic interpreter of Barth, Hans Urs von Balthasar, described Barth’s theology as an intellectual hourglass “where God and man meet in the center through Jesus Christ. There is no other point of encounter between the top and 4 bottom portions of the glass.” Another interpreter of Barth, Alister E. McGrath says, “Every theological proposition in the Church Dogmatics may be regarded as Christological, in the sense that it has its point of departure in 5 Jesus Christ.” It is in the dual emphasis on the necessity of divine revelation and the person of Christ as the instrument and embodiment of divine revelation that Barth’s view of God also comes into focus—his accent on the trinitarian nature of God as the distinctive feature of Christianity. In fact, for Barth, the doctrine of the Trinity is that which makes a theology distinctively Christian: The doctrine of the Trinity is what basically distinguishes the Christian doctrine 3

Barth, Dogmatics 2/2, pp. 52-54. Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971), p. 170. 5 Alister E. McGrath, The Making of Modern German Christology 1750-1990, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), p. 131. 4

Karl Barth

177

of God as Christian, and therefore what already distinguishes the Christian concept of revelation as Christian, in contrast to all other possible doctrines of God 6 or concepts of revelation.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the only possible Christian answer to the question “who is the self-revealing God the Bible talks about?” God’s revelation is God himself. God is who he reveals himself to be. Consequently, Jesus Christ is identical with God: “The reality of Jesus Christ is that God Himself in person is actively present in the flesh. God Himself in person is the Subject of a real 7 human being and acting.” The role of Christ as the Mediator between the totally transcendent God and humankind comes to focus in Christ’s dual role as the agent of revelation and of reconciliation. By virtue of the incarnation, God and humanity are in union. In his divinity, Jesus represents God to us, and in his humanity, Jesus represents humanity to God. Again, by virtue of the incarnation, human beings can be made participants in the covenant to which God has obliged himself. In this covenant, God acts on behalf of us through and in Christ. For Barth, Jesus stands between God and humankind as the mediator who brings redemption and salvation. He became human to plead our case. Through his passion and death he reestablished the covenant between God and humanity that had been broken—broken not only by the first human pair, but by all of us. As the Son of God he had the authority to make this substitution and to permit this to happen to him.

“The Revelation of God as the Abolition of Religions” The sharpest critique of religions comes from Barth’s famous section “The Revelation of God as the Abolition of Religions” (known as “paragraph” 17, though it runs over eighty pages!) in volume one, part two, of his Church 8 Dogmatics, “The Doctrine of the Word of God.” This volume of Church Dogmatics was written at the end of the 1930s and so represents Barth’s more radical phase. Yet even though later on he became somewhat less polemical and occasionally gave some credit to other religions, as a whole his theology 6

Barth, Dogmatics 1/1, p. 301. Barth, Dogmatics 1/2, p. 151. 8 A fine, balanced exposition of Barth’s theology of religions is offered by the Catholic Paul F. Knitter, No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985), pp. 80-87. A more technical treatment is Knitter’s Towards a Protestant Theology of Religions: A Case Study of Paul Althaus and Contemporary Attitudes, Marburger Theologische Studien (Marburg, Germany: N. G. Elwert, 1974), pp. 20-36. 7

178

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

of religions did not change considerably.9 In the previous section, “The Problem of Religion in Theology,” Barth presents a radical criticism of the way in which liberal theology had placed the concept of religion rather than divine revelation at the center of theology. Barth, of course, affirms the fact that revelation is an event in human experience, and thus in the realm of religion; but in sharp contrast with his liberal teachers, he rejects the “this-worldly” interpretation of revelation and religion. In Barth’s view, liberals, especially Ernst Troeltsch, had made human religion the criterion by which to assess the revelation of God. Thus liberal theology attempted to understand revelation in the light of religion, rather 10 than vice versa. This, Barth asserts, is heresy and unbelief. Barth’s main thesis in this section is that religion, including Christianity, is unbelief, the manifestation of human rebellion against God. But what about the value of general revelation? After all, there are passages in the Bible (such as Acts 14:15-17; 17:22-31; Rom 1:18-20) that seem to affirm the existence of the knowledge of God apart from the divine revelation in Christ. Barth’s response is stern: these passages only speak of potential that never became actual; even worse, not only did it never attain its goal but it was even misused by sinful humanity. In reference to Acts 17:29, Barth explains that the temples and statues made of gold were signs of idolatry, a futile attempt to know God through human effort. So this “knowledge” of God lead human beings deeper into un11 belief. A corollary argument is that the only kind of revelation that can be called revelation in the proper sense of the term is salvific. To speak of “general” revelation without reference to the salvation brought about by God is to speak of something totally different from divine revelation. For Barth, it was crucial 9

Barth has this to say in a somewhat more positive tone about other religions: “We recognize that the fact that Jesus Christ is the one Word of God does not mean that in the Bible, the Church and the world there are not other words which are quite notable in their way, other lights which are quite clear and other revelations which are quite real. . . . Nor does it follow from our statement that every word spoken outside the circle of the Bible and the Church is a word of false prophecy and therefore valueless, empty and corrupt, that all the lights which rise and shine in this outer sphere are misleading and all the revelations are necessarily untrue.” Church Dogmatics 4/3, p. 97. See also Carl Braaten, No Other Gospel? Christianity Among the World’s Religions (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1992), pp. 53-59, where this quotation can be found. 10 See further Owen C. Thomas, “Exclusivism,” preface to Karl Barth in Attitudes Towards Other Religions: Some Christian Interpretations, ed. Owen C. Thomas (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 95. 11 Barth, Dogmatics 1/2, esp. pp. 306-7.

Karl Barth

179

that the purpose of revelation was to tell us not only who God is but also how helpless we are. Divine revelation tells us that the human being “is unable to help himself either in whole or even in part.”12 Therefore, as a whole, Barth’s assessment of religions was hopeless. First he states bluntly that “religion is unbelief” and that it has to do with the concerns of “godless man.” Then he continues: From the standpoint of revelation religion is clearly seen to be a human attempt to anticipate what God in His revelation wills to do and does do. It is the attempted replacement of the divine work by a human manufacture. The divine reality offered and manifested to us in revelation is replaced by a concept of God arbitrarily and willfully evolved by man. “Arbitrarily and willfully” means here by his own means, by his own human insight and constructiveness 13 and energy.

Christianity as the True Religion In light of his harsh criticism of all religions, including Christianity, which 14 also “stands under the judgment that religion is unbelief,” it might come as a surprise to see that Barth still regards Christianity as the true religion. In fact, Barth admits, on the one hand, that his harsh judgment of other religions is not based on anthropological or psychological studies of those reli15 gions and, on the other hand, that phenomenologically the Christian faith does not appear to be any better than the worship, prayers, morality and other 16 religious features of other faiths. Barth’s reason for regarding Christianity as the true religion is based on the central Reformation doctrine—justification by faith: “We can speak of ‘true re17 ligion’ only in the sense in which we speak of a ‘justified sinner.’ ” Nothing in religion itself is valuable, but insofar as the religion allows itself to be taken over by God’s judgment and grace, it can be true. Religion in itself, in fact, cannot be true. “It can only become true, i.e., according to that which it purports to be and for which it is upheld,” and that is justification of the sinner. And this has happened in Christianity notwithstanding the many weak and faulty ways it is being lived out by Christians. And, therefore, “we need have no hes12

Ibid., p. 307. Ibid., pp. 299-300. 14 Ibid., p. 327. 15 Ibid., p. 299. 16 Ibid., pp. 352-54. 17 Ibid., p. 325. 13

180

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

itation in saying that the Christian religion is the true religion.”18 Paul Knitter puts this dynamic, somewhat complex view of Barth’s in the right perspective by summarizing it with two affirmations: “(1) The reason there can be only one true religion is that revelation and salvation are offered only in Jesus Christ. (2) This one religion is justified in such a way that nothing 19 is really affirmed or answered in the world of religions.” As we saw above, Barth tied his evaluation of other religions to his Christology. If divine revelation can happen and has happened only in Christ, the God incarnate, it means that all other appeals to true revelation and thus to true religion must be unfounded. Also, since the truthfulness of the Christian religion is based on nothing other than the person of Christ, Barth has no problem acknowledging the apparent similarities between the phenomenological nature of other religions and Christianity, with all its weaknesses, even its “idolatry,” and yet regard it as the “absolute” religion. Barth illustrates his extreme exclusive attitude toward other religions with his famous analogy: just as the light of the sun falls on one part of the earth and not on another, enlightening one part and leaving the other in darkness, without really changing anything on the earth, so Christ’s light falls on the world of religions; it makes one religion, Christianity, to shine its light into the world, 20 and the others to remain in darkness.

18

Ibid., p. 338. Knitter, No Other Name? p. 85. 20 Barth, Dogmatics 1/2, p. 388. 19

19 Hendrik Kraemer JE S US CHR IS T AS T HE WA Y, THE TRUTH A ND THE LIFE

The Person of Christ as the Norm of Religions The theology of religions of Hendrik Kraemer, the Dutch missiologist of the generation preceding Karl Barth’s, in many ways echoes the dialectical theology of Karl Barth, but it also bears the marks of a distinctive, in some ways more open-minded exclusivism than that of Barth’s—mainly because of Kraemer’s extensive exposure to other religions through a long missionary career. Born in 1888, Kraemer was trained as an Orientalist and missionary for the Dutch Bible Society and subsequently went to Java, Indonesia. Beginning in the 1920s, he became actively involved with ecumenical efforts in missiology. In particular, his contribution to the International Missionary Conference in Tambara in 1938 was highly significant. Following his career as professor of history and phenomenology of religions at Leiden, Kraemer became an ecumenical officer in the World Council of Churches toward the end of his career. Kraemer’s first main work on the theology of religions was the highly influential The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World (1938), a volume prepared for the Tambara conference, the main purpose of which was to “state the fundamental position of the Christian church as a witness-bearing body in the modern world,” relating this specifically to the “attitude to be taken by Chris1 tians towards other faiths.” In this 450-page work (written in seven weeks!) he propounded a dialectical theology that stressed Christ’s relationship to the religions as one of discontinuity and judgment rather than fulfillment. Kraemer’s leading idea was the biblical affirmation that “God has revealed the Way and the Life and the Truth 2 in Jesus Christ and wills this to be known through all the world.” For Krae1

Hendrik Kraemer, The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World (New York: Harper & Row, 1938), p. v. 2 Ibid., p. 107.

182

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

mer, there is no doubt about the normative, unique role of Christ among religions and religious figures: I propose to set the religions, including Christianity, in light of the Person of Jesus Christ, who is the Revelation of God and alone has the authority to criticize—I mean, to judge discriminately and with complete understanding—every religion 3 and everything that is in man or proceeds from him.

Christian religion as the religion of incarnation is different from other religions even though many commonalities exist at the surface level. He was also critical of the growing tendency in ecumenical circles to reduce mission to social service. While not insensitive to cultural issues and the need for contextualization, Kraemer was fully convinced of the uniqueness of “the religion of revelation” and what he called “biblical realism,” according to which salvation is available only in Christ. For him, conversion was a vital goal of Christian mission. Christian religion, with all its weaknesses—which did not escape Kraemer’s incisive analysis—was yet the highest religion and Christ the highest norm for all religions. For Kraemer, as for other ecclesiocentrists, the goal of mission is to “persuade the non-Christian world to surrender 4 to Christ as the sole Lord of Life.” Another major work of Kraemer’s is Religion and the Christian Faith (1956), which is a more nuanced statement of his ecclesiocentric position. Some scholars have wondered whether in this work Kraemer had changed his exclusive attitude, or at least softened it, in a way that allows us to speak of “two Kraemers,” not unlike the “early and later” Barth. This is not, however, the case. A careful reading of this massive work gives no evidence of any major changes in his position; the only difference is that this book is ecumenically more nuanced and less polemic for the simple reason that it was not written, unlike the first major work, for specific apologetic purposes. That he did not change his position toward the end of his life is also indicated by the publication of another work at the end of the 1950s: Why Christianity of All Religions? (1959).

The Holistic Nature of Religions We must keep several factors in mind when we inquire into the main themes and emphases of Kraemer’s position:

3

Hendrik Kraemer, Why Christianity of All Religions? (1959; reprint, London: Lutterworth, 1962), p. 15. 4 Kraemer, Christian Message, p. 444.

Hendrik Kraemer

183

his practical, scholarly and experiential contact with the major world religions; his training as a historian of religions and phenomenologist, linguist and theologian; his constant fear of relativizing influences of liberal theology; and his prac5 tical and evangelistic commitment to the ecumenical movement.

On the basis of his extensive missionary experience and his exposure to other religions’ ideas and rites, Kraemer had no problem affirming the existence of myriad commonalities among religions. He freely acknowledged that the same kinds of longings, ideas, institutions, symbols and intuitions found in the Christian religion are found in other religions. However, what was crucial for Kraemer was the indivisibility of religion as an entity. In other words, one cannot take individual features out of the context of a particular religion and, on the basis of these individual common features, posit a fundamental sameness of two (or more) religions. Individual features have to be looked at in the context of the wholeness of each of the religions. Given this insistence on the holistic nature of religions, Kraemer was extremely cautious in concluding, on the basis of similarities at the surface level, a continuity at the deep level, as the phenomenology of religions often tends to do. A case in point is the notion of “transience” found in both Buddhism and Christianity: Buddhist transience has meaning only against the background of a “God-less universe,” whereas the Christian notion is part of a theistic 6 worldview. Even though, as mentioned above, he owed much to Barth with regard to his exclusive attitude toward other religions, Kraemer also remained critical of the extremes of Barth’s position. He was not happy with Barth’s extreme “intellectualism” and “striving for logic,” as he saw it, with regard to religions. Also, Kraemer blamed Barth for failing to see that God works everywhere in the world, even among other religions. God reveals himself by radiating through creation, truth, beauty and conscience. God’s handiwork may be seen also in human reason, science and history of the nations. However, Kraemer contends it is not possible to specify where in other religions general revelation is to be seen, since that is, in the final analysis, an 7 object of faith grasped only in light of special revelation in Christ.

5

Gavin D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism: The Challenge of Other Religions (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), p. 54. 6 Kraemer, Christian Message, pp. 128-39. 7 Ibid., esp. pp. 120-27.

184

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Biblical Realism Kraemer shares Barth’s dialectical theology and foundational commitment to the priority of the revelation of God in Christ. Apart from the revelation in Christ, whatever value there is in other religions, no final knowledge of God is available to humanity. Kraemer took seriously the biblical passages (such as Jn 14:6 and Acts 4:12) which teach that only through Jesus Christ is God known. For Kraemer, the pluralistic tendency to compromise the value of special revelation is totally unacceptable. Even though Kraemer’s attitude toward religions is more appreciative than is Barth’s, Kraemer is still convinced of the sinful tendency of human nature evident in religions—namely, striving for self-justification. All people try to justify themselves by means of human-made systems, which can right away be called idolatry. While Christianity has its own forms of idolatry, such as the absolute authority of the church (a reference to Roman Catholic theology?), it is evident in non-Christian religions that even the “highest flights, the sincerest contrition, remain in the sphere of a lofty moralism or spirituality” in the 8 “man-made spiritual world.” The tendency toward self-justification found in all religions is what the Bible calls the desire to be like God, Kraemer concludes. It is this tendency that makes religions as such totally incapable of offering true knowledge of God in a salvific sense. Consequently, for Kraemer the notion of natural theology does not carry potential. In his opinion, natural theology implies that the incarnation would not be necessary. In other words, Kraemer is not willing to identify general revelation with natural theology. The former he affirms, the latter he 9 highly suspects. However, Kraemer does not stop here, as did at least the early Barth, but opens a window of hope: Kraemer contends that if Christ brings judgment upon a fallen humankind, he also brings mercy and forgiveness to a humanity seeking for God. Kraemer contends that if these poles are not kept together, we get, on the one hand, a harsh and undialectical exclusivism like that of the early Barth, and on the other hand, an indiscriminate pluralism which compromises the question of truth. . . . Complementing the “No” of judgment against all religions as forms of self-justification, is a “Yes,” because of God’s faithfulness and humankind’s constant,

8 9

Hendrik Kraemer, Religion and Christian Faith (London: Lutterworth, 1956), p. 334. See further Glyn Richards, Towards a Theology of Religions (New York: Routledge, 1989), pp. 22-23.

Hendrik Kraemer

185

although misdirected, search. Kraemer succinctly characterizes this dialectical evaluation when he writes: “By ‘dialectical’ is meant this condition, inherent in man, of saying at the same time yes and no to his true destiny and his relatedness 10 to the eternal.”

The Dynamic of Continuity and Discontinuity In fact, a dynamic tension between continuity and discontinuity in Kraemer comes to light in the following statement: “The religious and moral life of man is man’s achievement, but also God’s wrestling with him; it manifests a receptivity to God, but at the same time an inexcusable disobedience and blindness to God.” He added that even though human beings seek God, they also flee “from Him in his seeking.” This happens because of “self-assertive self-cen11 teredness of will,” which is the root-sin, as Kraemer puts it. Glyn Richards succinctly brings to light the dynamic of Kraemer’s theology of religions: He does not believe . . . that it is permissible to picture the relationship between Christianity and other religions in black and white terms. Neither does he believe that it is good enough to state simply that it all comes to the same thing in the end. Yet at the same time he is careful to distinguish between Christianity as a religion and Christ, whom he regards as the critic of all religions, and the criterion 12 whereby all religions are to be judged.

Kraemer maintained throughout his life that the question of the plurality of religions is problematic and that syncretism has its appeal. As an Orientalist Kraemer was, of course, fully knowledgeable about Eastern religions, and he did not fail to give credit to their achievements. However, in light of the growing influence of Eastern religions in the West, he penned these words in his book World Cultures and World Religions: The Coming Dialogue: It is not only in the East that there has been, and still is, an “Invasion” with its ensuing reactions and responses, full of disturbance and renewed vigor. There is also an Eastern Invasion in the West, more hidden and less spectacular than the 13 Western Invasion, but truly significant.

In other words, as missionary and missiologist, Kraemer was not happy to

10

D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism, p. 59; the quotation is taken from Kraemer, Christian Message, p. 113. 11 Kraemer, Christian Message, pp. 126-27. 12 Richards, Towards a Theology of Religions, p. 23. 13 Hendrik Kraemer, World Cultures and World Religions: The Coming Dialogue (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), p. 228.

186

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

see the development that would lead to the ever-growing influence of Eastern religiosity on the West. Many significant contributions to the Christian theology of religions are found in Kraemer’s thinking, such as his stress on the value of a scientific study of non-Christian religions, the desire to avoid cultural prejudice and a feeling of superiority, and the acknowledgement of the holistic nature of reli14 gion and the real differences between various religions.

14

D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism, pp. 60-61.

20 Paul Althaus “ O R IGINAL R E V E L AT ION” IN RELIGIONS

A “Middle Way” Between Barth and Troeltsch There is a continuum of “right to left” from Karl Barth to Hendrik Kraemer to Paul Althaus, a Lutheran theologian from Germany (and a contemporary of both Barth and Kraemer) concerning their understanding of Christian revelation. For (the early) Barth, not only are other religions not a medium of revelation, but they actually stand in the way of revelation. For Kraemer, general revelation, and thus knowledge of God, is available to a certain extent, but only as preparation for the coming of the fullness of revelation in Christ. For Althaus, what Paul speaks of in Romans 1—2 is an “original revelation”(Uroffenbarung). This kind of revelation—in the terminology of Barth’s dissonant 1 colleague Emil Brunner, “creation revelation” —is not to be confused with natural theology or natural revelation, something to be discovered by human beings on their own; rather, it is the work of God, due to “the stirrings of the 2 divine Spirit.” With regard to the question of the salvific role of religions, however, all three of these twentieth-century Protestant writers stand on the same ground. Whatever the role of general revelation, salvation is limited to Christ and hearing the gospel. There are nuances, but there is no material disagreement. What makes the case of Althaus so interesting is that he also mediates between two extreme attitudes, that of Barthian exclusivism and Troeltschian pluralism. His is the middle way, an attempt to avoid both the Scylla and the Charybdis of either denying all value of religions or making all religions a matter of historical relativity. While he may not have been able to solve the 1

See Emil Brunner, “Revelation and Religion,” in Attitudes Toward Other Religions: Some Christian Interpretations, ed. Owen C. Thomas (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), pp. 120-22. 2 Paul F. Knitter, No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985), p. 98.

188

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

problem and seemed to end up in an internal dynamic, even contradiction,3 his desire to advance the discussion on a new level receives applause. On the one hand, Althaus endorsed Ernst Troeltsch’s efforts to overcome an all too narrow and restrictive concept of revelation, even though he saw the approach taken by the History of Religions School as seriously problematic in that it divests revelation of all “divine” quality. On the other hand, Althaus was opposed to the Barthian limited view of revelation. Among other things, that view seemed to go against Martin Luther and other Reformers whose ideas of the Law preparing the human being for an encounter with the gospel rested on the idea of some kind of general knowledge of God and his will. Consequently, Troeltsch’s view of religion as a totally historical event led but to relativism in Althaus’s estimation, and that he wanted to avoid. Yet Barth’s confinement of religion to a purely human attempt to reach God was not a fruitful a starting point either. With regard to the question of the uniqueness of Christianity, Althaus was then left with the Scylla of Troeltsch’s universalism and the Charybdis of Barth’s extreme restrictivism, and neither of those seemed to be of much help for the theologian who wanted to build on the Reformation foun4 dation and yet speak to the concerns of the contemporary situation.

“Original Revelation” Althaus’s most distinctive contribution to Christian theology of religions is his idea of an “original revelation.” What does it denote? The reality of God can be discerned behind religions by virtue of God’s self-witnessing. Original revelation is the origin and creative force of the religions, and the religions are the expression of original revelation. Thus religions, rather than being obstacles to knowing God, are willed by God and used as vehicles, albeit less than perfect, on the way to true knowledge of God. By considering religions, one is impressed by the manifold expressions of Uroffenbarung: Althaus hears the clear voice of an original revelation in our experience of ex3

This is the conclusion of the most thorough study on Althaus’s theology of religions, the doctoral dissertation of the Catholic Paul F. Knitter, Towards a Protestant Theology of Religions: A Case Study of Paul Althaus and Contemporary Attitudes, Marburger Theologische Studien 11 (Marburg, Germany: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1974), esp. pp. 141-45. The following discussion on Althaus is heavily indebted to Knitter; instead of giving detailed references to Althaus’s works written in German (and thus inaccessible to most readers of this book), apart from direct quotations, references are given to Knitter. A brief introduction to Althaus’s views in relation to other leading Protestant theologians of the time can be found in Knitter, No Other Name? chap. 6. 4 See further Knitter, Towards a Protestant Theology, pp. 37-44.

Paul Althaus

189

istence as “given” and yet incomplete, the proddings of conscience, the “call of history” and the responsibility we feel for our neighbor’s welfare, the beauty and order of nature, the hidden depth of interpersonal relationships. Such experiences, available to all, attest to a divine revelation given in the very stuff of 5 human existence.

There is no doubt whatsoever that for Althaus original revelation is God’s revelation; it is much more than a human ability to arrive at a knowledge of God. The biblical basis for such a view is to be found in passages such as Romans 1:18-20; 2:14-15; Acts 14:15-17; 17:23-31; and John 1:1-18. For Althaus it is also crucial to show evidence that this view is a proper interpretation of the 6 Reformation tradition. There is a connection, even though not an identity, between original revelation and special revelation in Christ. Faith in Christ is possible only if it is the response to and fulfillment of a person’s previous knowledge of God in general revelation. “To encounter the God of Jesus Christ is not to meet a strang7 er.” On the other hand, this Uroffenbarung impresses itself on the human being and creates a kind of pressure from above. On the basis of this idea of original revelation, Althaus comes to a more positive appreciation of religions than did either Barth or Kraemer. This is Althaus’s “yes” to religions that qualifies his “no” to religions, thus leaving his theology in an irreconcilable tension.

5

Knitter, No Other Name? p. 98. See further Knitter, Towards a Protestant Theology, chap. 3. 7 Knitter, No Other Name? p. 100. 6

C H R I S T O C E N T R I S M 1: Roman Catholics

21 Karl Rahner “ ANONY M OUS CHR IS T IA NS”

Universal Transcendental Revelation in the Spirit Undoubtedly, the late Karl Rahner is the main figure in contemporary Roman Catholic theology. No other twentieth-century Catholic theologian has exercised such a universal influence as he, not only within the confines of the largest church of the world—about one-half of all Christians belong to the Roman Church—but also ecumenically. Rahner’s contribution to the Second Vatican Council (19621965), the most formative council of all that decisively set the Roman Catholic Church on the path of aggiornamento, renewal and modernization, is unsurpassed. Rahner set for himself the ambitious task of holding together two premises that appear contradictory: on the one hand, the universal saving action of the Spirit and, on the other hand, the necessity of supernatural revelation and faith. In order for these two premises to hold, revelation and faith must occur at a universal, transcendental level. His basic thesis is that God reveals himself to every human person in the very experience of one’s own finite, yet absolutely open-ended transcendence. God is the Holy Mystery who is the ground and horizon of human subjectivity.1 1

Karl Rahner, “Experience of Self,” in vol. 13 of Theological Investigations (New York: Seabury, 1975), pp. 122-32; John R. Sachs, “ ‘Do Not Stifle the Spirit’: Karl Rahner, the Legacy of Vati-

Karl Rahner

191

The background for this universal orientation is in his “transcendental method” and “transcendental experience.” Transcendental experiences show that humans are naturally oriented toward the Holy Mystery, called God. The human being is by nature “spirit,” which means it is open to receive revelation. God is not alien to human nature but an intrinsic part of it as the necessary condition for human subjectivity.2 It is the task of “transcendental reflection” to seek to discover the necessary preconditions for human experience. Human beings are not only part of nature, they are also oriented toward an infinite, mysterious horizon of being that Christians know as God. For Rahner, Not only are humans always by nature open to God (potentia oboedientalis), they are also always supernaturally elevated by God in that transcendental openness so that such elevation becomes an actual experience of God in every human life. God actually communicates himself to every human person in a gracious offer of free grace, so that God’s presence becomes an existential, a constitutive element, 3 in every person’s humanity.

The human person, therefore, is “the event of a free, unmerited and forgiv4 ing, and absolute self-communication of God.” God’s self-communication means that God makes his very own self the innermost constitutive element of the human person; this is the mystery of the Spirit for Rahner: “God . . . has already communicated himself in his Holy Spirit always and everywhere and 5 to every person as the innermost center of his existence.” The spirited experience of self and God is never an individualistic experience but rather something taking place in relation to others: “The act of personal love for another human being is therefore the all-embracing basic act . . . 6 which gives meaning, direction and measure to everything else.” In other words, at its most basic level, our encounter with God takes place precisely in our encounters with others. Genuine human transcendence in love is only pos7 sible because of the gracious self-communication of God in the Spirit. 1

can II and Its Urgency for Theology Today,” in E. Dreyer, ed., Catholic Theological Society Proceedings 51 (1996): 20-21. I am heavily indebted to Sachs in my summary of Rahner’s key ideas. 2 Here Rahner agrees with Wolfhart Pannenberg. 3 Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, Twentieth-Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 245. 4 Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982), p. 116. 5 Rahner, Foundations, p. 139; Sachs, “Do Not Stifle the Spirit,” p. 21. 6 Karl Rahner, “Reflections on the Unity of the Love of Neighbour and the Love of God,” in vol. 6 of Theological Investigations (Baltimore: Helicon, 1969), p. 241. 7 Ibid., pp. 237-39.

192

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

What about the need for special revelation in Rahner’s theology? His answer is that “categorical revelation”—specific revelation in history through events, words and symbols—is needed to fulfill what the “transcendental,” implicit, unthematic revelation reveals about God. These two are distinct, yet interdependent. The categorical revelation discloses the inner reality of God that cannot be discovered through transcendental revelation alone: the personal character of God and his free relationship to spiritual creatures. So universal, transcendental experience of God in the Spirit does not make void the necessity of historical, special revelation. This Spirit is always, everywhere, and from the outset the entelechy, the determining principle, of the history of revelation and salvation; and its communication and acceptance, by its very nature, never takes place in a merely abstract, 8 transcendental form. It always comes about through the mediation of history.

In soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, Rahner develops his transcendental, pneumatological approach. For him, grace is first and foremost God’s self9 communication and presence through his Spirit to human existence. In opposition to the Neo-Scholastic position, according to which grace cannot be experienced (because it is supernatural), he holds that people do experience grace. Rahner is of course not the first theologian to identify grace and God’s Spirit as the quintessence of the experience of salvation, but his impact on the modern Catholic theology of grace has been unsurpassed. Following Rahner, several leading Catholic theologians have come to describe the essence of grace and salvation in pneumatological terms, where the experience of salvation is “captured by the symbol of God as Spirit being poured out anew in the 10 world through the mediation of Jesus.” These considerations bring us to the heart of Rahner’s theology of religions and to the dynamic that gives it specific flavor. Rahner wants to underline the fact that the starting point for reflecting on other religions is “out of the self-understanding of Christianity itself,” rather than from a phenomenological re11 search on alleged similarities between religions. His is theology of religions in 8

Karl Rahner, “Jesus Christ in the Non-Christian Religions,” in vol. 17 of Theological Investigations (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 46; Sachs, “Do Not Stifle the Spirit,” p. 22. 9 Rahner, Foundations, esp. pp. 116-26, but also the whole chapter on salvation. See also Roger Haight, “Sin and Grace,” in vol. 2 of Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, ed. F. S. Fiorenza and J. P. Galvin (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), pp. 109-10. 10 Haight, “Sin and Grace,” p. 113. 11 Karl Rahner, “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions,” in vol. 5 of Theological Investigations (New York: Crossroad, 1966), pp. 117-18.

Karl Rahner

193

the very true sense of the term. Before we look in more detail at his theology of religions, a brief reflection on his ideas on the role of Christ is in order, especially his view of Christ as the “Absolute Savior” and the meaning of incarnation.

Absolute Savior On the basis of Rahner’s view of humanity and God, it will not come as a surprise that he names also his Christology “transcendental.” His main task is to inquire into the possibility of the idea of an absolute God-man, an absolute savior. In fact, on the basis of his transcendental reflection on the openness of humanity to receive revelation from God, the idea of a God-man within history 12 is not a foreign idea. The core of the Christology for Rahner is the role of Jesus in his mediation of 13 the “new and unsurpassable closeness of God” to humanity. In his person, Christ is the historical presence of God’s disclosure to us. This was validated for Rahner in Christ’s resurrection. Before the cross and resurrection Jesus claimed to be the bearer of this disclosure, and the raising of him from the dead validates his claims. It is in this sense that Christ is the absolute savior. If Christ is the absolute savior, it follows necessarily that he must be divine. Only a divine savior is able to mediate in his own person the self-disclosure of God. Rahner’s larger soteriological vision accentuates Christ’s divinity. He maintained that salvation encompasses not only our “divinization,” but the beginning of the process of the divinization of the whole world. For this to happen, nothing less than a savior who is divine would be needed. How could a figure less than fully divine communicate to us and to the world the saving grace of God? Rahner’s Christology is not only transcendental; it is also firmly anchored in his anthropology, his doctrine of humanity. Human beings, as we have already seen, while finite, are also able to transcend themselves as “spirit.” For Rahner, this is a crucial christological affirmation, too. It was God who willed this transcendental nature of humanity to make room for a genuine self-expression of God in the form of humanity. If God is the aim of humanity, then unless humanity is able to participate in God, humanity remains less than perfect. Salvation for Rahner means participation in the divine life to which the whole structure of the human being is naturally oriented, over and above that which human nature is able to ascend to on its own. To use Rahner’s own expression, humanity is the “ci-

12

The main outline of Rahner’s mature Christology can be found in his Foundations of Christian Faith. 13 Ibid., p. 279.

194

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

pher of God” by virtue of being created by God for potential participation in God. Theologically, in view of the incarnation, one must say that our human Godopenness is intended by God as the potential for divine self-expression. In other words, the human person is the creature that is incomplete without Incarnation. God is the mystery of humanity, and humanity is the cipher of God. Humanity is the question; God is the answer. Just as the question participates in the answer and the answer participates in the question while transcending it, so God and hu14 manity belong essentially together. God has decided it will be so.

From this perspective it becomes clear that for Rahner incarnation also means an assumption of part of creation, the human nature, into the inner life of God. Christ is God. As such we could say that for Rahner incarnation in itself is salvific. Here Rahner borrows core christological and soteriological ideas of the Christian East, even though he rarely if ever makes this connection explicit.

The Universality of the Spirit and the Normativity of Christ By now, it should come as no surprise that Rahner’s approach15 to the urgent question of theology of religions is distinctively pneumatological in that it is the Spirit who enables human reception of divine grace and the self’s experi16 ence of existential transcendence. Transcendental experience of the Spirit is oriented toward explicit awareness of something beyond. For Rahner, this orientation is expressed in the religious traditions of the world and reaches its apex in the final self-revelation of God in Christ. Other religions also have “individual moments” of this kind, which makes followers of other religions “anonymous Christians.” However, because of human depravity, every such event of revelation remains partial and intermixed with error. The value of religions is in the mediation of these experiences of the Spirit, even when it is less 17 than perfect. In that sense, all religious traditions have the potential to express truth about God’s self-communication in the Spirit and therefore are part of the his14

Grenz and Olsen, Twentieth-Century Theology, p. 252. The title is taken from Sachs, “Do Not Stifle the Spirit,” p. 23. A fine succinct introduction to Rahner’s theology of religions is to be found in Gavin D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism: The Challenge of Other Religions (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), chap. 4. 16 Gary Badcock, “Karl Rahner, the Trinity and Pluralism,” in The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age: Theological Essays on Culture and Religion, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997), p. 149. 17 Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 42-44, 72-76; Sachs, “‘Do Not Stifle the Spirit’,” pp. 22-23. 15

Karl Rahner

195

tory of revelation. This does not, of course, mean that all religions express equally valid expressions of divine self-revelation: there is error in any religion. Through Christ’s death and resurrection, God’s gracious self-communication in the Spirit has become manifest in history: the “world is drawn to its spiritual fulfillment by the Spirit of God, who directs the whole history of the world in all its length and breadth towards its proper goal.”18 In other words, Rahner does not consider other religions as merely “preparations for the Gospel” in Jesus Christ but sees them also as ways of communicating God’s revelation, albeit in a mixed form of truth and error. A lengthy quotation of his speaks to this issue: Until the moment when the gospel really enters into the historical situation of an individual, a non-Christian religion (even outside the Mosaic religion) does not merely contain elements of a natural knowledge of God, elements, moreover mixed up with human depravity which is the result of original sin and later aberrations. It contains also supernatural elements arising out of grace which is given to men as a gratuitous gift on account of Christ. For this reason, a nonChristian religion can be recognized as a lawful religion (although only in differ19 ent degrees) without thereby denying the error and depravity contained in it.

Rahner builds on the view of Yves Congar—another of his influential Catholic colleagues—of the “mystical body of Christ,” according to which there is a state of being in which a person can respond positively to the grace of God even before hearing the gospel, which has the purpose of evoking explicit faith. A person in this state qualifies himself or herself as an “anonymous Christian” insofar as this acceptance of grace is “present in an implicit form whereby [the] person undertakes and lives the duty of each day in the quiet sincerity of patience, in devotion to his material duties and the demands made 20 upon him by the person under his care.” According to Rahner, Christ is present and efficacious in the non-Christian believer (and therefore in the non21 Christian religions) through his Spirit. And furthermore, anonymous Christians are “justified by God’s grace and possess the Holy Spirit.” In other words, if a non-Christian has responded positively to God’s grace, for example, through selfless love for another, then, even though it is not known objec18

Karl Rahner, “The One Christ and the Universality of Salvation,” in vol. 16 of Theological Investigations (New York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 203. 19 Rahner, “Christianity,” p. 121. 20 Karl Rahner, “Anonymous Christians,” in vol. 6 of Theological Investigations (Baltimore: Helicon, 1969), p. 394. 21 Rahner, “Jesus Christ,” p. 43.

196

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

tively, that person has accepted the God revealed in Christ. But since salvation cannot be divorced from Christ, the term “anonymous” Christian is more appropriate than “anonymous theist.”22 Joseph Wong adequately summarizes Rahner’s pneumatological theology of religions: Wherever persons surrender themselves to God or the ultimate reality, under whatever name, and dedicate themselves to the cause of justice, peace, fraternity, and solidarity with other people, they have implicitly accepted Christ and, to some degree, entered into this Christic existence. Just as it was through the Spirit that Christ established this new sphere of existence, in the same way, anyone who enters into this Christic existence of love and freedom is acting under the guid23 ance of the Spirit of Christ.

In line with the Catholic standpoint, rather than seeing the “anonymous Christians” thesis as undermining the validity of the church or mission, Rahner argues that the individual should be brought to the fullness of faith by 24 the church obediently carrying out its evangelistic mandate. The proclamation of the gospel turns an anonymous Christian “into someone who also knows about his Christian belief in the depths of his grace-endowed being by objective reflection and in the profession of faith which is given social 25 form in the Church.” Rahner’s idea of “anonymous Christians,” while unbelievably influential not only in his own tradition but also beyond, has understandably also re26 ceived criticism. Many think it is offensive to non-Christians. What would a Christian think if he or she were labeled an anonymous Hindu or Buddhist? Apart from this criticism and others (some of which we will have occasion to look at in the course of our discussion), no one is willing to undermine the role of Rahner’s creative theology as a catalyst for further debates and developments in the field of theology of religions.

22

See further D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism, p. 87. Joseph H. Wong, “Anonymous Christians: Karl Rahner’s Pneuma-Christocentrism and an East-West Dialogue,” Theological Studies 55 (1994): 630. See also Karl Rahner, “Observations on the Problem of the ‘Anonymous Christian,’ ” in vol. 10 of Theological Investigations (New York: Seabury, 1976), p. 291. 24 Karl Rahner, “Anonymous Christianity and the Missionary Task of the Church,” in vol. 12 of Theological Investigations (New York: Seabury, 1974), pp. 161-80. 25 Rahner, “Christianity,” p. 132. 26 The pluralist John Hick has especially stressed this: God Has Many Names (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), p. 68. 23

22 Hans Küng R E L IGIONS AS T HE “ O RDINA RY WA Y OF SA LV A TION”

The Church Among the World Religions Karl Rahner and Hans Küng are not only contemporaries (even though Rahner is now dead); their work also shows many parallels. They both came to international fame as a result of their productive work in the Second Vatican Council. Following the council, Rahner became the “normal” theologian of the postconciliar Roman Church, while Küng soon fell into disfavor, especially 1 with his critical stance toward the pope. While officially he was stripped of his teaching credentials as a Roman Catholic theologian, Küng was able to retain his post at the University of Tübingen, Germany, until his retirement, and his relentless voice for renewal of the church and Christian faith has been heard both within and outside his own faith community. Küng’s monumental The Church marks a watershed not only in Catholic but also in all of contemporary ecumenical ecclesiology. Although in his later theological career Küng has moved to interreligious dialogue and related issues, his continuing interest in various aspects of ecclesiology has never died. Three interrelated themes, the church, unity and other religions, and a fourth one that emerged during the last decade, global ethics, all have bearing on the question of theology of religions. For example, Küng has been one of the first theologians to expand the concept of ecumenism to encompass both ad intra, 2 relation to other churches, and ad extra, relation to other world religions. Also, Küng’s view of the church as a gathering of all people under one God leans toward interreligious implications: But the essential difference and superiority of the Christian message, when com-

1 2

Hans Küng, Infallible? An Inquiry (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1971). Hans Küng, Theologie in Aufbruch: Eine Ökumenische Grundlegung (Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1987), p. 246.

198

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

pared to other oriental religions of redemption, is that its aim is not the salvation of the individual alone and the freeing of the individual soul from suffering, sin and death. The essential part of the Christian message is the idea of salvation for 3 the whole community of people, of which the individual is a member.

Since Küng’s writing career spans over four decades—he still is an active writer of works focusing mainly on global ethics, and he is actively involved with the Parliament of the World Religions—it is helpful to look at the development of his theology of religions. Basically, he has not altered his main opinions, even though new perspectives have come to enrich and challenge them.

“Outside the Church No Salvation”? During Vatican II, Küng wrote a programmatic article, originally a communication at a conference entitled “Christian Revelation and Non-Christian Reli4 gions,” held in Bombay, India, in 1964. To illustrate the changing religious situation in the world, he made a reference to Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan’s story that relates to the Asian context: Once upon a time, Buddha relates, a certain king of Benares, desiring to divert himself, gathered together a number of beggars blind from birth, and offered a prize to the one who should give him the best account of an elephant. The first beggar who examined the elephant chanced to lay hold on a leg, reported that an elephant was a tree-trunk; the second, laying hold of the tail, declared that an elephant was like a rope; another, who seized an ear, insisted that an elephant was like a palm-leaf; and so on. The beggars fell to quarrelling with one another, and the king was greatly amused. Ordinary teachers who have grasped this or that aspect of the truth quarrel with one another, while only a Buddha knows the whole. In theological discussions we are at best blind beggars fighting with one another. The complete vision is difficult and the Buddhas are rare. Asoka’s dictum represents the Buddhist view. “He who does reverence to his own sect while disparaging the sects of others wholly from attachment to his own, with intent to enhance the splendour of his own sect, in reality, by such conduct inflicts the se5 verest injury on his own sect.”

3

Hans Küng, The Church (1967; New York: Image, 1976), p. 172. This was first published under the title “The World Religions in God’s Plan of Salvation,” in Christian Revelation and World Religions, ed. J. Neuner (London: Burns & Oates, 1967), pp. 2566; I am following the text in the retitled article “The Freedom of Religions,” in Attitudes Toward Other Religions: Some Christian Interpretations, ed. Owen C. Thomas (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), pp. 193-217. 5 Küng, “Freedom of Religions,” pp. 193-94. 4

Hans Küng

199

Küng warns his fellow Christians not to label this kind of tolerant attitude “relativism” or “indifferentism.” Rather, he goes on to ask, “Does not this view perhaps rest upon a vision of God that is greater, more exalted, more reverent than the vision of those for whom God is allowed to be only the God of one party, one religious party?” How much more, Küng asks further, might this kind of embracing attitude reflect the nature of a loving God than, say, the exclusivism of Pope Boniface VIII, who demanded that all believe in the one and holy Catholic Church to attain salvation.6 The ancient rule of extra ecclesiam nulla salus clearly is a problem to anyone who looks at what is happening in the present world, Küng laments. The minority position of Christianity, the revitalization of other religions, the rapid growth of the non-Christian population and many similar reasons should make the confession of that rule highly suspect. Furthermore, the assumed superiority of Western culture of the “modern age” is being left behind as the changing mindset comes to regard and value non-Western countries and cultures on their own terms. With the discovery of new continents and new cultures, the Christian church, centuries ago, should have faced the impasse of that axiom; however, the rule was followed in official church pronouncements until Vatican II. Currently, Küng boldly states that the “fact that men can be 7 saved outside the Catholic Church is no longer disputed by anybody.” In light of these considerations, Küng concludes that the rule “outside the church no salvation” contradicts the teaching of both the New Testament and Christian tradition and that it also makes Christian mission unnecessarily difficult. On the other hand, Küng is not at all happy with the confusing idea that expands the concept of the “church” so much that it includes most everybody. That kind of “non-boundary” concept of the church loses its meaning. Theologically it is unnecessary, and for many thinking Christians, and non-Christians as well, it is an anomaly. What Küng calls for is a “basic theological solution” that rests on the idea of a “positive assessment of the significance of the world religions in relation to God’s universal plan of salvation.” In contrast to the statement that “outside the church there is no salvation,” this entails “the working out not of the Church’s claims upon the world and dominion over it but her service of the 8 world.”

6

Ibid., pp. 194-95. Ibid., p. 202. 8 Ibid., p. 203. 7

200

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

An “Ordinary” and “Extraordinary” Way of Salvation The key to considering the value of religions in God’s economy of salvation for 9 Küng is found in his theocentric approach: the destiny of non-Christian humankind is not looked at from the perspective of the church but rather from the perspective of God. This kind of view, Küng contends, is in line with the Bible; even though the Bible is not indifferent to other religions, there are enough universalist testimonies to challenge the standard exclusive stance. “It is perfectly clear that the God of the Bible is not only the God of Jews and Christians but the God of all men.” The negative statements concerning the “error, darkness, lies, and sin of the pagan world” refer to religions as far as they set themselves against the saving will of God. These statements are to be understood as a call to conversion; they are not a blatant judgment of religions. Many positive statements about other religions show that there exists a “primitive, original communication of God to the whole of humankind.” This knowledge of God is not only “a self-sufficient human activity of ‘natural theology,’ but a response to the basic revelation of God of grace in creation, of which man is himself, in the first instance, a part.” Therefore, even before their encounter with the gospel of Christ, there “is already a history of God’s presence to the pagan peoples, a history in which decisions are taken.” Yet Küng reminds us that the Bible contains no unambiguous answer to the question of who among “those pagans untouched by the Gospel” are saved. But he contends that certainly “even in the darkness of paganism,” God is near to every 10 human being. With the help of a concept that Küng names “Christian universalism,” he is able to include not only theistic (both mono- and polytheistic) but also nontheistic, even “quasi-religions” (following Paul Tillich), in the concept of “religion.” Based on this inclusive understanding of religion, which I have exposited above, Küng puts forth basic theses on Christianity’s relation to world religions: First, he confesses right from the start that his approach comes from a Christian standpoint, yet it is not to be labeled dogmatic or intolerant. However, Küng notes that in one sense, all religions and religious standpoints are dogmatic in that they all issue some kind of truth claim or a claim to what is basic to religious experience. Küng takes as an example Radhakrishnan’s in-

9

The way Küng uses the term theocentric is different from my usage with regard to pluralists. Küng is not suggesting bypassing the centrality of Jesus Christ as pluralists do; rather he suggests not focusing on the church as the criterion for the value of religions. 10 Ibid., pp. 205-6.

Hans Küng

201

sistence that, in the midst of the endless multiplicity of religions, an underlying identity which makes possible a profound spiritual communion between the various religions is the absolute starting point. This is a dogmatic statement, Küng contends. The Christian call for the decision of faith for Christ is no more dogmatic a statement than Radhakrishnan’s mystical experience of identity as the basis of all religions. Second, despite whatever truth they do possess concerning the true God, in the Christian and biblical perspective the world religions are in error. Hence, the gospel of Jesus Christ demands “not the fulfillment of the world religions but a metanoia, a conversion and return from false gods to the true God in Jesus Christ.” Yet, even in their error, the world religions proclaim the truth of God. “Though they are far from God, God is not far from them.” Küng expresses this truth succinctly: “By him they are made able, in the midst of all their errors, to speak truly of him. The grace of the true God can witness to itself even through false gods, and can trace the image of the true God even 11 through its misplaced and dissociated features.” And here Küng comes to his main point, the most well-known part of his understanding of world religions: As against the “extraordinary” way of salvation which is the Church, the world religions can be called the “ordinary” way of salvation for non-Christian humanity. God is the Lord not only of the special salvation history of the Church but also of that other salvation history: the universal salvation history of all mankind. This universal salvation history is bound up with special salvation history in a common origin, meaning, and goal, and is subject to the same grace of God. Every historical situation, outside the Church as well as inside, is thus included in advance within his grace. Since, as a matter of Christian faith, the true God seriously and effectively wills that all men should be saved and none lost unless by his own fault, every 12 man is intended to find his salvation within his own historical condition.

However, Küng argues that even though God seriously and effectively wills the universal salvation of the whole of humankind, God does not legitimize every element in religions, since they also contain much error. In fact, God does not sanction the religions as such, even though in their own way 13 they are “legitimate religions.” In that sense, the religion of any individual and society (Küng underlines the social nature of religions) is nothing external

11

Ibid., pp. 210-11. Ibid., p. 211 (italics in the original). 13 Here Küng gives reference to Karl Rahner, “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions,” in vol. 5 of Theological Investigations (Baltimore: Helicon, 1966), pp. 125-31. 12

202

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

to human beings but rather forms a genuine part of being human. Hence, it is his or her right and duty to seek God within that religion in which the “hidden God has already found” the person. But Christian proclamation comes to focus right here: men and women are to seek God in their religion until such time as they are “confronted in a existential way with the revelation of Jesus Christ.” In other words, religions have relative validity. Through the grace of God they can be—though not necessarily—the way of salvation within universal salvation history. But the “way of the Church can be seen as the high and excellent and ‘extraordinary’ way of salvation.”14 Third and consequently, the world religions teach truth about the gospel of Christ, which, in their error, they do not know as that which it really is—the Truth. This truth includes the need for salvation and the grace of God. The religions hear this truth when they listen to the voice of the prophets. It is the task of the Christian gospel to liberate the truth of the world religions from their entanglement in error and sin. Religions are light and darkness at the same time. Therefore, it is only the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ that is able to bring the sufficient light to religions. Fourth, Küng tries to find a synthesis for his dynamic—and contradictory to some extent—orientations to the theology of religions: “Christian faith represents radical universalism, but one grounded and made concrete in, and centered upon, Jesus Christ.” Every human being is under God’s grace and can be saved, he believes, and every world religion is under God’s grace and can be a way of salvation. But this is not on the basis of any religion itself, but on the basis of the message and history of Jesus Christ. Küng wants to disassociate Christian universalism, on the one hand, from “a narrow, limited, exclusive particularism” and, on the other hand, from “an enfeebling, disintegrating, ag15 nostic, relativistic indifferentism.”

“What Is True Religion?” One can see the influence of Rahner on Küng’s early thinking even though Küng has always been critical of the idea of “anonymous Christians” for the obvious reason that no Christian would like to be called an “anonymous Hindu” by Hindus. The idea of God’s grace communicated to the structure of human being and in the social structures of existing religions is a clear parallel to Rahner. Also, Küng’s early theology of religions echoes the mainstream of Vat14 15

Küng, “Freedom of Religions,” pp. 212-13. Ibid., p. 216.

Hans Küng

203

ican II; he was, as we have noted, one of the main architects of its pronouncements on other religions. Küng, however, goes beyond Rahner in that for him religions are indeed the “ordinary” way of salvation.16 In his celebrated On Being a Christian (1977), Küng comes back to the theology of religions and reaffirms the idea of “ordinary” and “extraordinary” 17 ways of salvation and the relative validity of religions. Interestingly though, his assessment of other religions, under the title “The Challenge of World Religions,” became more negative in this work. He piles up less than glowing comments about the world religions, such as “unhistoricity, circular thinking, fatalism, unworldliness, passivity, social disinterestedness” and others. However, even with these negative assessments he is not recommending to fellow Christians a hasty judgment on the superiority of Christianity but rather en18 couraging an attitude of openness and honest confrontation. As already mentioned, while Küng has not radically changed his position with regard to world religions, he has moved to consider theology in general 19 and theology of religions in particular from the perspective of global ethics. His frame of reference since the end of the 1980s has been the questions of whether and to what extent religions, Christianity included, contribute to ethics and positive conditions of human life. Under the label “What Is True Religion?” he distinguishes three general categories of criteria with which we can assess the value of religions. At the outermost level, there is the criterion of humanization: that which is humanitarian is genuinely religious; that which is not is false or bad religion. At the middle level, the criterion of faithfulness to canonical origins is applied to each tradition: a religious tradition is true to the extent that it remains faithful to its authentic essence as defined by its own scriptures. At the innermost level, the specifically Christian criterion is directly applicable only to Christians: one must have faith in and commitment to Jesus Christ. Christians cannot but share this with other people. This criterion, then, is only indirectly applicable to non-Christians, to the extent that Christians 20 faithfully apply it to themselves first. Therefore, Küng is not ashamed of con16

Here can one easily see the influence of another Catholic theologian of the former generation, Heinz R. Schlette; see especially his Towards a Theology of Religions, trans. W. J. O’Hara (New York: Herder & Herder, 1966). 17 Hans Küng, On Being a Christian (New York: Doubleday, 1977), p. 91. 18 Ibid., p. 155. 19 See further Hans Küng, Theology for the Third Millennium (New York: Doubleday, 1988) and Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic (London: SCM Press, 1991). 20 Hans Küng, “What Is True Religion? Toward an Ecumenical Criteriology,” in Toward a Universal Theology of Religion, ed. by L. Swidler (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987), pp. 231-50.

204

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

fessing that for Christians, Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life!” and that “Jesus Christ is for Christians the decisively regulative norm.”21 These affirmations Küng has recently tested, in collaboration with the Chi22 nese theologian J. Ching, in the book Christianity and Chinese Religions. Most recently, in addition to continuing the development of global ethics, he has been active in the Parliament of the World Religions.

21 22

Ibid., pp. 246-47. Hans Küng and J. Ching, Christianity and Chinese Religions (New York: Doubleday, 1989).

23 Jacques Dupuis “ TO W A R D A CHR IS T IAN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS PLURA LISM ”

Theology of Religious Pluralism Recently the Belgian Jesuit Jacques Dupuis was called for a theological examination by his ecclesiastical superiors at the Vatican. The leadership of the Catholic Church had become increasingly concerned about Dupuis’s views of the relationship between Christianity and other religions. This happened around the same time the much-disputed ecclesiastical letter Dominus Iesus was published; that document openly criticized Catholic theology of increasing “relativism,” “subjectivism,” “Eastern mysticism” and other orientations seen as compromising the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Dupuis had already been writing on the topic of the theology of religions for several decades, drawing from his extensive experience as a missionary in Asia. The interest of the church hierarchy was triggered by the publication of his magnum opus, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (1997). That book brings to maturity Dupuis’s lifelong reflection on the challenge of other religions from a distinctively Christian perspective. His earlier book Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions (1991) already contained in embryonic form many of the basic ideas of the more recent book. Placing Dupuis here in the Christocentric/inclusivist camp, especially in light of the title of his book, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, may seem unwarranted. That he has been questioned because of an alleged pluralism also speaks to classifying him under the theocentric/pluralist category. However, in my reading of Dupuis, I find a definite christological/ trinitarian foundation that, while open to the salvific value of religious history and other religions in God’s economy, holds Christ as the ultimate criterion. Even where he attempts to construct a theology of religious pluralism, he does so from a distinctively Christian perspective. Dupuis himself notes regarding his own approach that “openness does not gain from

206

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

syncretism any more than commitment to faith does from isolation.”1 Dupuis’s approach to the theology of religions is distinctively theological and trinitarian. In his earlier work, he responded to the challenge of other religions by developing what may be called a ‘theocentric Christocentrism.’ The aim was to open up a theological perspective which, while holding fast to faith in Jesus Christ as traditionally understood by mainstream Christianity and church tradition, would at the same time integrate, in their differences, the religious experiences of the living religious traditions and assign to those traditions a positive role and significance in the overall plan of God for humankind, as it unfolds 2 through salvation history.

In his more recent work, Dupuis still holds to the same basic approach, but the aim is broader and the scope more comprehensive. His aim is the development of a genuinely Christian theology of pluralism, which Dupuis attempts from an explicitly trinitarian perspective. Theocentric Christocentrism is still there, but Dupuis also highlights the role of the Spirit and so attempts a balanced pneumato-Christocentric theology. In this sense, he moves in the same direction as his younger Catholic colleague Gavin D’Costa, to be studied in the following section. But why a theology of religious pluralism? Why not simply a theology of religions? Dupuis responds that there is a new awareness of pluralism evident everywhere and it calls for an appropriate response from theologians. According to Dupuis, the change in terminology from theology of religions to theology of religious pluralism indicates a change in theological perspective: The new perspective is no longer limited to the problem of “salvation” for members of the other religious traditions or even to the role of those traditions in the salvation of their members. It searches more deeply, in the light of Christian faith, for the meaning of God’s design for humankind of the plurality of living faiths and religious traditions with which we are surrounded. Are all the religious tradi3 tions of the world destined, in God’s plan, to converge? Where, when, and how?

In Dupuis’s estimation, a theology of religious pluralism finds its place beyond the inclusivist and the pluralist paradigms conceived as mutually 4 contradictory and excluding each other. As was mentioned in the beginning 1

Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997), p. 203. 2 Ibid., p. 1. 3 Ibid., p. 10. 4 See further ibid., p. 203.

Jacques Dupuis

207

of this book, it is yet to be seen whether the terminology proposed by Dupuis and some others will prevail over the established usage of the phrase theology of religions.

“One God—One Christ—Convergent Paths” The title of part two of Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, “One God—One Christ—Convergent Paths,” encapsulates Dupuis’s approach to the theology of religions. His is an integrative approach. (Dupuis himself does not use the term integrative; it is, rather, my term to describe his theology.) As already mentioned, he envisions a theology of pluralism that transcends the existing either-or categories of exclusivism/inclusivism/pluralism or theocentrism/Christocentrism/ecclesiocentrism, and others. Theocentrism must not be viewed as contradicting Christocentrism any more than Christocentrism contradicts pneumatocentrism. All these “are and ought to be viewed as interrelated aspects and complementary elements of the indivisible, whole, 5 and entire reality.” Dupuis’s trinitarian approach maintains that the theocentrism of Jesus Christ—the fact that Jesus was entirely “God-centered”—cannot be put in antithesis with the equally valid biblical insistence that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life (Jn 14:6). Therefore, pluralistic theocentrism, while pointing to an essential aspect of biblical theology, is one-sided in divorcing the Son from the Father. There is distinction yet integral connection. “While it is true that Jesus the man is uniquely the Son of God, it is equally true that God stands beyond Jesus.” The role of the Spirit comes to focus in that Jesus was related to the Spirit. A trinitarian Spirit-Christology “shows the influence of the Holy Spirit throughout the earthly life of Jesus, from his conception through the power of the Spirit (see Lk 1:35) to his resurrection at the hands of 6 God by the power of the same Spirit (see Rom 8:11).” “One God” refers to the Absolute Mystery of the Divine as it has been made known to us in Jesus Christ: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the interpersonal communion of the Godhead, a communion of love. “One Christ” refers to Jesus-the-Christ of the Christian kerygma (proclamation) as witnessed to in the New Testament (Acts 2:36), not to a mythical Christ divested of the earthly Jesus. These two, one God and one Christ, belong together as preface to Du-

5 6

Ibid., p. 205. Ibid., p. 206. For Dupuis’s Spirit-Christology, see further Who Do You Say I Am? Introduction to Christology (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1994).

208

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

puis’s recognition of “Divergent Paths.” If Dupuis’s label read “One God— Convergent Paths,” it would lead to the kind of pluralistic theocentrism of John Hick and others, according to which the various traditions revolve around the one Divine Absolute, the “Ultimate Reality.” If, on the other hand, the title of part two read, “One God—One Christ,” that would result in the exclusivism that recognizes the possibility of salvation only in the explicit Christian faith in Jesus Christ. Dupuis’s approach, “One God—One Christ— Convergent Paths,” on the contrary, evokes at once the foundational character of the Christ-event as the guarantee of God’s manifold way of self-manifestation, self-revelation, and self-gift to humankind in a multifaceted yet organically structured economy of salvation through which the diverse paths tend toward a mutual convergence in the absolute Di7 vine Mystery which constitutes the common final end of them all.

Consequently, Dupuis is convinced that the affirmation of Christian identity is compatible with a genuine recognition of the identity of other faith communities as representing in their own right distinct facets of the “selfdisclosure of the Absolute Mystery in a single, but complex and articulated 8 divine economy.”

Christianity, Judaism and Other Religions In his program of developing a Christian theology of pluralism that would account positively for the value of other religions in the economy of salvation, Dupuis draws a parallel between Judaism (Old Testament) and Christianity (New Testament) as an analogy for Christianity’s relation to all other religions. 9 The concept of covenant is crucial here. Dupuis maintains that the Christian view of salvation history, based on the covenant, allows for a more positive appraisal of other religious traditions than has often been held. God struck several covenants with humankind and the chosen people. Yet these various covenants are based on a single plan of salvation history. All of these covenants have but one focal point: Jesus Christ. It is not only “salvation history” that matters in God’s economy but “secular” history as well. It is indeed the case, Dupuis argues, that the history of other peoples plays a role analogous to that played by the Hebrew people, the recipient of God’s covenant. The existence of the “cosmic” or universal 7

Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 209. Ibid., p. 210. 9 The following exposition is based on chap. 8 in ibid. 8

Jacques Dupuis

209

Noachic covenant, struck before the choosing of Abraham (Gen 7—9 and 12, respectively), testifies to the universal purpose of the covenants. “The covenant with Noah constitutes the lasting foundation for the salvation of every 10 human person.” As already suggested, the case of Judaism and Christianity can serve as a catalyst for a reorientation of the relationship between Christianity and the other religions: What applies in the first instance holds good, analogically, in the other. . . . Even as the Mosaic covenant has not been suppressed by the coming to its fullness in Jesus Christ, neither has the cosmic covenant in Noah with the nations been obliterated by reaching in the Christ-event the goal for which it was ordained by God. The implication is that the distinction between the general and special history of salvation must not be taken too rigidly: extrabiblical traditions . . . cannot be excluded a priori from belonging to special salvation history. To include them in it would presuppose . . . events in the history of peoples which, in function of a pro11 phetic charism, are interpreted as divine interventions.

This holds even if a closer study is needed to look for more specific contributions of other religions and also despite the fact that there are elements of falsehood and error in them, Dupuis reminds us. If Dupuis’s understanding of the ongoing relevance of the Noachic covenant is true, then it is quite natural to conclude that “ ‘elements of truth’ originating in divine revelation must be found in the various religious traditions of the 12 world.” Again, drawing from the trinitarian structure of his theology, Dupuis notes that wherever there is a personal communication of God, it is always necessarily the God of Jesus Christ who engages in self-revelation and self-bestowal: that is, the triune God—Father, Son and Spirit. Notwithstanding all the errors and limitations, the sacred books and other religious traditions of the world participate in the Word of God. “Seen in its historical context, Muhammad’s monotheistic message indeed appears as divine revelation mediated by the prophet. 13 This revelation is not perfect or complete; but it is no less real for all that.” Furthermore, according to Dupuis, “the religious experience of the sages and rishis (seers) of the nations is guided and directed by the Spirit. Their experience 10

In ibid., p. 226, Dupuis cites with approval B. Stoeckle, “Die ausserbiblische Menschheit und die Weltreligionen,” in vol. 2 of Mysterium Salutis, ed. J. Feiner and M. Löhner (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1967), p. 1053. 11 Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 233. 12 Ibid., p. 239. 13 Ibid., p. 245.

210

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

of God is an experience in God’s Spirit.”14 Yet this does not nullify the fullness of revelation in Jesus Christ. This “qualitative fullness” of revelation in Jesus, as Dupuis calls it, is no obstacle to a continuing divine self-revelation through others.15 Building on these premises, Dupuis further argues even though Christian faith confesses the triune God, this God is not unrelated to the concept of god/ 16 God in other religions. This applies especially to the monotheism of Judaism and Islam, all appealing to the God of Abraham. But what about religions beyond monotheism? Even here the divine Trinity, the Ultimate Reality itself— not a sign of it, as Hick’s pluralism maintains—serves as the criterion. There is no reason to deny that even with all their weaknesses and distortions, we can find “in the mystical traditions of the East foreshadowings of, and approximations to, the Ultimate mystery of Being such as will be decisively, though still 17 incompletely, disclosed and manifested in Jesus Christ.”

Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions In his earlier book Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions, Dupuis argued for the uniqueness of Jesus Christ that would not negate the principle of universality. The approach of that book is clearly inclusive: Christ as mystery is God turning toward men and women in self-manifestation and self-revelation. The Christic mystery, therefore, is present wherever God enters into the life of human beings in an experience of the divine presence. Nevertheless, this mystery remains anonymous in a certain sense for whoever has not been enabled, thanks to the Christian revelation, to recognize it in the human condition of Jesus of Nazareth. All have the experience of the Christic mystery, 18 but Christians alone are in a position to give it its name.

In other words, Dupuis maintained that Jesus Christ is clearly asserted as God’s definitive revelation and the absolute Savior (as does Karl Rahner), yet the door is open to a sincere acknowledgment of divine manifestations in the 19 history of religions. His later work argues along the same lines: a Christian claim for the oneness and universality of Jesus Christ leaves room for an open theology of religious pluralism. 14

Ibid., p. 247. Ibid., pp. 249-50. 16 The following exposition is based on chap. 10 in ibid. 17 Ibid., p. 268. 18 Jacques Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991), p. 92. 19 Ibid., p. 108. 15

Jacques Dupuis

211

In determining the role of Jesus Christ among religions, Dupuis takes stock of how other religions view their salvific figures. Since other savior figures are claimed to be “absolute,” the inquiry has direct bearing on our topic. Indeed, not only monotheistic faiths such as Islam but also others like Hinduism, with all its alleged inclusiveness, argue for superiority. In response, Dupuis first mentions that all talk of the “absolute claims of Christianity” about Jesus Christ should be discontinued. He says this not because Jesus Christ is not unique and universal but because, as Dupuis has shown elsewhere, “absolute” is an attribute of the Ultimate Real; “only the Absolute is absolutely.”20 “The ‘constitutive’ uniqueness of Jesus Christ will stand as an affirmation of Christian faith, but it will not be absolutized by relying merely on the unilateral 21 foundation of a few isolated texts.” In the final analysis, the constitutive uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ must rest on his personal identity as the Son of God. No other consideration seems to provide such an adequate theological foundation, Dupuis maintains that the “Gospel” values which Jesus upholds, the Reign of God which he announces, the human project or “program” which he puts forward, his option for the poor and the marginalized, his denouncing of injustice, his message of universal love: all these, no doubt, contribute to the difference and specificity of Jesus’ personality; none of them, however, would be decisive for making him or recognizing 22 him as “constitutively unique.”

Clearly, Dupuis holds to a “high Christology” and opposes severing a “universal Christ” from the “particular Christ.” In theological terms, Jesus is Christ. Yet he is so inclusively, not excluding others. How this will translate into the question of salvation will be discussed after a brief look at the pneumatological orientations of Dupuis’s trinitarian theology of pluralism.

Trinitarian Pneumatocentrism In his trinitarian vision of the theology of pluralism, Dupuis inquires into the role of the Spirit. He notes that recently many have proposed a pneumatological approach to other religions for the obvious reason that the Spirit knows no limits and is free to operate everywhere: The Spirit of God has been universally present throughout human history and remains active today outside the boundaries of the Christian fold. He it is who “in20

Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 292. Ibid., p. 294. 22 Ibid., p. 297; see also Dupuis, Jesus Christ, pp. 192-97. 21

212

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

spires” in people belonging to other religious traditions the obedience of saving 23 faith, and in the traditions themselves a word spoken by God to their adherents.

Therefore, Dupuis asks, “Could it not, in effect, be thought that, while Christians secure salvation through the economy of God’s Son incarnate in Jesus Christ, others receive it through the immediate autonomous action of the Spirit of God?” Theology has spoken of the “hypostatic independence,” or personal distinction between God’s “two hands,” the Spirit and the Word/ Son, as “two distinct channels through which God’s saving presence reaches 24 out to people in distinct economies of salvation.” While this approach seems commendable and appealing, Dupuis, as a truly trinitarian theologian, is not fascinated at all by pneumatocentric approaches that tend to separate the Spirit from Christ (or those that sever the universal presence of the Logos, the Word, from the Word incarnate). In the Bible, especially in the Prologue to the Gospel of John, Logos, the Word, is depicted in universal terms not unlike those describing the Spirit who blows where he wills (Jn 1:1-4 and 3:6, respectively). Similarly, “this anticipated presence and action of the Logos do not . . . prevent the New Testament from seeing in the Word incarnate, . . . the universal Savior of humankind” (Jn 1:14). Therefore, “Logocentrism and Christocentrism are not mutually opposed; they call to 25 each other in a unique dispensation.” Dupuis wants to offer a theological corrective to all who tend to separate the Spirit-centered approaches from the christological model. Even though— on biblical and theological bases—one needs to affirm clearly the universal action of the Spirit throughout human history, both before and after the historical Jesus-event, the action of the Spirit and that of Jesus Christ, though distinct, are nevertheless complementary and inseparable. “Pneumatocentrism and Christocentrism cannot, therefore, be construed as two distinct economies of salvation, one parallel to the other. They constitute two inseparable aspects, or complementary elements, within a unique economy of salvation.” The Spirit is at the same time God’s self-communication to human beings and the Spirit of Christ, communicated by him on the basis of his resurrection from the dead. Therefore, the cosmic influence of the Spirit cannot be severed from the uni26 versal action of the risen Christ.

23

Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 196. Ibid. 25 Ibid.; see also Dupuis, Jesus Christ, pp. 188-90. 26 Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 197; see also pp. 206-8. 24

Jacques Dupuis

213

Agreeing with Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes 22, Dupuis maintains that the specific function of the Spirit consists in allowing persons to become sharers, whether before or after the event, of the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. Thus, through the power of the Spirit, the Jesus Christ-event is being actuated through all times; it is present and active in every generation. In all cases the immediate influence of the Spirit gives expression to the operative presence of 27 God’s saving action which has come to a climax in Jesus Christ.

A Kingdom-Centered Model of Salvation The way Dupuis conceives of salvation can be summarized with two terms: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is neither absolute nor relative, but “constitutive” and “relational.” “Constitutive” means that, for Christian faith, the paschal mystery of the death-resurrection of Jesus Christ has, according to God’s saving design for humankind, a universal significance: it seals between the Godhead and the human race a bond of union that can never be broken; it constitutes the privileged channel through which God has chosen to 28 share the divine life with human beings.

“Relational” refers to the universal significance of the Christ-event in the overall plan of God for humankind and to the manner in which it unfolds in salvation history. In particular, it emphasizes the reciprocal relationship that exists between paths of salvation in Christianity and in other religions. Acknowledging the necessary differences among various religions’ concepts of salvation, Dupuis suggests that what Christians call salvation has to do with the search for and attainment of fullness of life, wholeness, self-realization and integration. For Christianity, salvation is found in the triune God. Yet the Christian tradition has always held that God wills the salvation of all human beings (1 Tim 2:4). Dupuis differentiates himself from the proponents of S. Mark Heim’s “orientational pluralism,” according to which a genuine pluralism must account for the possibility of various religious ends in different 29 religions. Rather, in Dupuis’s view there are divergent paths to one common destiny; in this sense, his theology is closer to Hick’s and other pluralists’ ori30 entation. 27

Ibid., p. 197. Ibid., p. 305. 29 S. Mark Heim, Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1995). 30 Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, pp. 307-16. 28

214

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

The triune God is the goal of Christianity and all other religions. But how does this relate to the kingdom of God, his reign and the church? Dupuis understandably argues for the universality of the reign of God. Not only does the reign transcend the church—gone are the times when the church and the reign of God were identified—but it also transcends Christianity, in the sense that followers of other religions also participate in God’s reign. It is in this qualified sense that they are comembers and cobuilders of the reign of God: The universality of the Reign of God consists in that Christians and the “others” share the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ, even if the mystery reaches to them through different ways. To recognize that the Reign of God in history is not confined to the boundaries of the Church but extends to those of the world is not without interest and bearing on a Christian theology of religions. . . . The “others” have access to the Kingdom of God in history through obedience in faith and conversion to the God of the Kingdom. . . . The Reign is present in the world 31 wherever the “values of the Reign” are lived and promoted.

Therefore, Dupuis champions a kingdom-centered model. Through sharing in the mystery of salvation, the followers of other religious traditions are thus members of the kingdom of God already present as a historic reality. Not only that, but other religions as such contribute to the construction of the reign of God. Referring to Rahner, Dupuis notes that those other traditions contain 32 “supernatural, grace-filled elements.” This naturally has grave implications for interfaith dialogue. Dialogue takes place between persons who already belong together to the reign of God. “In spite of their different religious allegiance, such persons are already in communion in the reality of the mystery of salvation.” Communion in the reality is more 33 foundational than differences in the sacramental structure and elsewhere. What about the role of the church? According to Vatican II, the church is not only a kind of sacrament of communion with God and of unity among all hu34 35 man beings and the instrument for the salvation of all; it is also “necessary 36 for salvation.” Dupuis, however, wants to make these statements relative in

31

Ibid., p. 344. Ibid., pp. 345-46, quoting from Karl Rahner, “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions,” in vol. 5 of Theological Investigations (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1966), p. 121. 33 Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, p. 346; see further chap. 14. 34 Lumen Gentium 1. 35 Ibid., 9. 36 Ibid., 14. 32

Jacques Dupuis

215

order not to put them on par with the status attributed to Jesus Christ as the Savior. Two orientations are helpful here, Dupuis believes. First, Vatican II teaches that people outside of the church are “oriented” to the church while not yet members of it. Second, the church is “necessary for salvation” in the sense that gifts of God are mediated, if not exclusively, through the church, its sacraments, its intercession and the preaching of the Word. The church’s “mediation” of salvation understood in this sense does not necessarily nullify the “substitutive mediations” of other religions. Nevertheless, the Christian church remains the “sacrament of salvation.” The followers of other religions can be members of the kingdom of God without being part of the church and without recourse to its mediation.37

37

Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology, pp. 347-52.

24 Gavin D’Costa TR INIT A R IAN T HE O L OGY OF RELIGIONS

Pluralisms That Fail It has already been observed several times that any system of classifying contemporary theologians of religions inevitably ends up being both limited and to some extent misleading. Gavin D’Costa, a Roman Catholic theologian from Great Britain, explicitly separates himself from both pluralism and inclusivism in his trinitarian Catholic theology of religions. Therefore, placing him among other inclusivists in the Christocentric camp seems to contradict his own selfperception. Yet—and this is the present author’s self-justification for his choice—in that D’Costa faithfully follows the inclusivist theology of Vatican II, the choice can be justified. (In fact, he follows it so much that a great deal of his major recent work, The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity, can be seen as a theological ratification of the mainline Catholic standpoint.) Despite his rejection of pluralism, he certainly is not in favor of any kind of ecclesiocentrism. He maintains rather a trinitarian Christo-pneumatocentrism; for D’Costa, as a Catholic theologian, there is no doubt about the possibility of salvation for the followers of other religions. What makes his approach fresh among those of recent con1 structive writers is that he is unabashedly Catholic and trinitarian. Also, with all his differences from his older Catholic colleague Jacques Dupuis, D’Costa has also begun to work toward a pneumatological theology of religions. D’Costa’s understanding of pluralism holds that all religions lead to the same divine reality; that there is no privileged self-manifestation of the divine; and that religious harmony will follow if tradition-specific approaches are 2 abandoned. The starting point for his relentless criticism of pluralism is that Christian pluralism is a species of Enlightenment modernity. If so, is that also 1

See Gavin D’Costa’s own comment in his The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2000), p. 99. 2 Ibid., p. 19, see also p. 21.

Gavin D’Costa

217

the case for pluralists in other religions? He believes that even though not all pluralists in other religions are modernists, those who are hold positions that fail. And the reason is simply this: Despite their [pluralists’] intentions to encourage openness, tolerance, and equality they fail to attain these goals (on their own definition) because of the tradition-specific nature of their positions. Their particular shaping tradition is the Enlightenment. . . . The Enlightenment, in granting a type of equality to all religions, ended up denying public truth to any and all of them.

And the end result is that the pluralists’ “god is modernity’s god.”3 D’Costa laments the fact that even though pluralists present themselves as honest “brokers to disputing parties,” they in fact conceal the fact “that they represent yet another party which invites the disputants to leave their parties and join the pluralist one,” namely, liberal modernity. Therefore, ironically, plural4 ists end up being “exclusivists”! For example, D’Costa calls John Hick’s view 5 “liberal intolerance.” This is D’Costa’s inevitable conclusion in regard to Christian pluralists such as Hick and Paul Knitter (who will be discussed later) and Jewish pluralists, from whose small number of thinkers he selects Dan Cohn-Sherbok. As far as the neo-Hindu pluralism of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan is concerned, it also fails since it sometimes tries to advance a positionless pluralism that is not dependent on Hinduism. Consequently, it erases the historicity of all positions including itself. However, it differs from Enlightenment pluralism as it finally affirms the truth of the tradition-specific advaita understanding of Brahman. D’Costa assessment of the most famous Tibetan Buddhist pluralist, the Dalai Lama, is that his view is entirely pragmatic, which is in keeping with various premodern features of Buddhism. It, too, fails in that it is exclusivist despite all appearances to the contrary. All the thinkers mentioned here are D’Costa’s dialogue partners, and that is one more reason his book The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity is unique among recent works on the Christian theology of religions. He speaks to Christian, Jewish, neo-Hindu and (Tibetan) Buddhist pluralists and finds them all wanting. What about inclusivism then? D’Costa suggests that inclusivism also collapses into differing types of exclusivism; it is always based on the idea of particularity in a given tradition. Inclusivists, like exclusivists, hold in the final 3

Ibid., pp. 1-2. Ibid., p. 20, see also p. 22. 5 Ibid., p. 24. 4

218

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

analysis that their tradition contains the truth regarding ontological, epistemological and ethical claims. Inclusivism also violates the rule according to which each tradition has to be treated as a totality; one cannot affirm only some aspects of another tradition. When one does so, one is still operating from one’s own specific tradition and responding to what seems good to it; the aspects the alleged inclusivist affirms or responds to might differ from the self-understanding of the representative of that other religion.6

Openness, Tolerance and Equality Refined D’Costa’s own proposal then is a form of Roman Catholic trinitarianism that has the potential of refining the three goals of pluralism—openness, tolerance and equality—in a most satisfactory way. Building on critical interaction with two thinkers, Alasdair MacIntyre and John Milbank, and a careful analysis of both Vatican II texts and later ecclesiastical guidelines on other religions, D’Costa wishes to avoid the pitfalls of both pluralism and inclusivism. MacIntyre, with his widely debated works such as After Virtue (1981) and Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (1988), has argued for the pervasiveness of modernity in both contemporary philosophy and theology. In his analysis, “the Enlightenment project” was doomed to failure because its promise of a rationality independent of any historical and social context was never fulfilled. Milbank critically agrees and laments that the Enlightenment project with its result, modernity, has resulted in the demise of trinitarian theology and Christian practice. Depending on narratives other than the biblical-theological story, modernity has left the world without a God and without teleology (purpose). “Deism was the initial home for this unemployed god, but agnosticism, atheism, and secularism were the inevitable trajectories,” D’Costa con7 cludes in light of MacIntyre’s and Milbank’s analyses. Yet D’Costa is not completely happy with the way Milbank especially analyzes the influences of modernity on religions, and so he wants to uncover the extent of modernity’s influence on the religions case by case. Even when building on MacIntyre and Milbank, D’Costa also departs at several points from them. The main point has to do with how to deal with the “Other.” Rather than seeing the Other as a “rival” (MacIntyre) or as an object of “out-narration” (Milbank), “the other is always interesting in their difference and may be the possible face of God, or the face of violence, greed, and 6 7

Ibid., pp. 22-23. Ibid., p. 4.

Gavin D’Costa

219

death. Furthermore, the other may teach Christians to know and worship their own trinitarian God more truthfully and richly.” D’Costa believes that trinitarian Catholic theology provides the “context for a critical, reverent, and open engagement with otherness, without any predictable outcome.”8 Considering this starting point, D’Costa suggests new meanings to the three goals of pluralism that pluralism itself fails to meet. Openness becomes “taking history seriously” and not dismissing it as pluralism seems to do. Tolerance, rather than denying the tradition-specific claims for truth—which in itself, ironically, is one more truth claim among others—becomes the “qualified establishment of civic religious freedom for all on the basis of Christian revelation and natural law.” Equality becomes the “equal and inviolable dignity of all persons,” which naturally leads to taking the Other seriously, dialoguing 9 with the Other with willingness to learn from the Other and teach the Other. In D’Costa’s opinion, for example, Hick’s pluralism leads to the denial of Otherness and difference. Hick mythologizes the differences away so that the religions can be fitted into his system. With regard to Knitter’s eco-liberationist approach, according to which the ultimate criterion for any religion is the extent to which it champions ecological and social well-being, it also rejects the religions’ own self-understandings in favor of Knitter’s understanding, and so 10 waters down the right for the Otherness to exist.

Spirit, Trinity and the Church But how does D’Costa theologically justify his position? What does the Catholic trinitarian orientation to other religions mean? And how does the Spirit connect to all of that? D’Costa sets himself the task of determining whether the current Roman Catholic doctrine of other religions really teaches the salvific structure of other religions as Knitter and many other Catholic pluralists maintain. D’Costa’s conclusion is that this is not the case, but rather, that according to Nostra Aetate, Lumen Gentium and other relevant Vatican II documents, other religions are not salvific as such, even though followers of other religions may be saved if they follow their religion sincerely and try to respond to the “natural law.” However, 8

Ibid., p. 9. For a tentative synopsis of the argument, see ibid., p. 13. 10 See further ibid., p. 39, and Gavin D’Costa, “Christian Theology and Other Religions: An Evaluation of John Hick and Paul Knitter,” Studia Missionalia 42 (1993): 161-78. For Hick’s response to D’Costa, see further his “The Possibility of Religious Pluralism: A Reply to Gavin D’Costa,” Religious Studies 33 (1997): 161-66. 9

220

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

and this is the key point for D’Costa, in his reading of the postconciliar documents, it is affirmed that the Holy Spirit may be actively present in other religions. And, according to the ancient theological rule that the works of the Trinity ad extra (outward) are undivided, the presence of the Spirit among other religions also means the presence of the triune God. Thus, D’Costa champions a genuinely trinitarian theology of religions. But not only that, D’Costa takes one more step in his argumentation: the presence of the Spirit and thus the triune God in other religions also means some kind of presence of the church since in the biblical tradition (especially in the Paraclete passages of John 14—16) the 11 presence of the Spirit is connected to the church. This is the distinctive contribution of D’Costa to Christian theology of religions. In order to make it more concrete, let me spell out some of its main affirmations. In regard to the Vatican II teaching on other religions and their salvific value, D’Costa argues that there is an intentional silence, and this silence has been read in two differing ways. D’Costa champions the view that takes the silence as meaning no. He justifies it among other things by the scarcity, almost nonexistence, of positive references to goodness and truth found outside the church (with the exception of Nostra Aetate, the whole purpose of which is to point to the potential positive elements). So D’Costa’s conclusion is this: “While it is true that there is no explicit negative answer [to the question of whether other religions are salvific], there is certainly no positive answer.” Therefore, he takes as probable that “the documents’ silences are intentional and could be read . . . as prohibiting any unqualified positive affirmation of 12 other religions as salvific structures, or as containing divine revelation.” The closest some postconciliar documents come to affirming salvific elements in other religions is found in the 1994 papal encyclical Crossing the Threshold of Hope, a running commentary on Nostra Aetate. John Paul II argues that while some elements within a religion may be used by the Holy Spirit in mediating grace to those who seek God sincerely, the whole structure of religions cannot: In another passage the Council says that the Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the church (cf. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church 13), making use of the very semina Verbi [seeds of the Word], that constitute a kind 13 of common soteriological root present in all religions.

11

For a theological exegesis of John 14—16, see D’Costa, Meeting of Religions, pp. 117-27. Ibid., p. 105; for the argumentation and dialogue with other Catholic voices, see pp. 101-9. 13 John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (London: Jonathan Cape, 1994), para. 81 (italics in the original). 12

Gavin D’Costa

221

This passage, no more than the papal affirmations about the Spirit in Redemptoris Missio, should not be read as endorsing other religions as salvific per se but as acknowledging the rays of truth in other religions and the Spirit as 14 the source of human beings’ “existential and religious questioning.” A key passage for D’Costa is this: This is the same Spirit who was at work in the Incarnation and in the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus, and who is at work in the Church. He is therefore not an alternative to Christ, nor does he fill a sort of void which is sometimes suggested as existing between Christ and the Logos. Whatever the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the history of peoples, in cultures and religions serves as a preparation for the Gospel and can only be understood in reference to 15 Christ.

The pope, then, clearly connects the presence of the Spirit in other religions to the Trinity and the church, and this is crucial to D’Costa.

“The Holy Spirit’s Invitation to Relational Engagement” In the council documents, the most explicit mention of the Spirit’s role in other religions is to be found in Gaudium et Spes 22, which connects the Spirit with Christ and his cross: “For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.” This passage, D’Costa suggests, needs to be read in light of the Lumen Gentium view that the church “is neces16 sary for salvation.” D’Costa’s way of making sense of these two seemingly different orientations is the following: The main route for reconciling these tensions lies within the Conciliar teaching that whenever God is present, this is the presence of the triune God; and it is this triune God who is the foundation of the church. Hence, one very important point follows from these Conciliar statements: the Holy Spirit’s presence within other religions is both intrinsically trinitarian and ecclesiological. It is trinitarian in referring the Holy Spirit’s activity to the paschal mystery of Christ, and ecclesial in referring the paschal event to the constitutive community-creating force it has, 17 under the guidance of the Spirit. 14

John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio: On the Permanent Validity of the Church’s Missionary Mandate (1991), para. 28. 15 Ibid., 29. 16 Lumen Gentium 14. 17 D’Costa, Meeting of Religions, p. 110.

222

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

In other words, D’Costa distances himself from those Catholic interpretations that want to separate the Spirit’s presence in other religions from Christ (Knitter), or relativize it to the extent that Christ is only one reference point (Raimundo Panikkar), or connect the Spirit to Christ but not necessarily to the church and kingdom (Dupuis). D’Costa’s conviction is that by virtue of the Spirit’s presence in the world, “there too is the ambiguous presence of the triune God, the church, and the kingdom.”18 In this affirmation, D’Costa does not want to limit the presence of the Spirit in the world to the domain of human hearts or salvation; it also has cultural, social and religious dimensions. He quotes again with approval from Redemptoris Missio 28: “The Spirit’s presence and activity affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures, and religions. Indeed, the Spirit is at the origin of the noble ideals and undertakings which benefit humanity on its journey through history.” But this does mean conferring independent le19 gitimacy upon other religions. The Spirit’s invitation to relational engagement and dialogue with other religions means several things. First, the same Spirit who helps the church to follow Christ and indwell the Trinity more completely also plays an analogous role outside the church—namely, helping men and women be more Christlike, individually and communally. Second, there is a real trinitarian basis to Christianity’s openness in meeting other religions, knowing that in “dialogue” the Church must be attentive to the possibility of God’s gift himself through the prayers, practices, insights, and traditions found within other religions. Such an acknowledgment facilitates a critical and reverential openness toward other religions.

Third, the discernment of the Holy Spirit’s activity within other religions must also bring the church more truthfully into the presence of the triune God, D’Costa argues. The rationale for this affirmation is simply that if the Spirit is present, the Spirit’s activity bears an analogical relationship to the guiding task of the Spirit within the church: “that is, She leads the Church more deeply into a life with Christ.” The church should really listen to other religions as they understand themselves, to engage critically with the religions—this is “mission in dialectical and rhetorical fashion”—and to be open to the reality of the church’s being challenged and deepened in its commitment to the triune

18 19

Ibid., p. 111. Ibid., p. 113.

Gavin D’Costa

223

God.20 There is, thus, a possibility of change and development of the church as a result of an open dialogue with the other. A case study to test this theory is offered in the form of interreligious prayer. D’Costa wonders whether that kind of activity is like marital infidelity or like a genuine, mutual dialogue. D’Costa argues that if prayer leads into perichoretic (mutually indwelling) communion with the triune God and his people, there is no reason to limit the perichoretic relations to the boundaries of the church. The same Spirit who helps Christians in their weakness (Rom 8) is possibly at work in other religions. Prayers from other religious traditions can be moved by, and be authentic promptings of, the Holy Spirit. Are they directed to the triune God? D’Costa realistically notes that since various traditions are different, they are not commensurate or incommensurate a priori. One can say that while no other tradition explicitly affirms the Trinity, it is not clear a priori that they deny the Trinity. While Christians are bound to pray to the triune God in the name of Jesus, there is no way—nor any need—to try to limit the work of the Holy Spirit who “offers everyone the possibility of shar21 ing the Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.” This means, D’Costa believes, that the presence of the Holy Spirit must in some manner entail the reality of Christ’s presence, and therefore the Father’s presence, within a person’s life and devotion. Theologically, it is not possible to claim the presence of the Spirit apart from the perichoretic presence of the Trinity. In the final analysis, D’Costa leaves open the question of the nature and goal of interreligious prayer, but certainly he is leaning toward experimenting with it: I have been suggesting that plunging into the love of the triune God may well call us to risk finding an even greater love of God through interreligious prayer, and into discovering the darkness and mystery of God afresh. Our marriage to our Lord may itself suffer infidelity in an absolute resistance to the promptings of suffering love which might entail interreligious prayer. But equally, interreligious prayer may also be an act of irreverent infidelity. The church is called to pray fer22 vently for those who engage in interreligious prayer for the sake of Christ.

20

Ibid., pp. 115-17. See further pp. 128-32 for seven summary theses as to the meaning of the Spirit’s presence in the world, its relation to the Trinity and the church and its implications for other religions. 21 Gaudium et Spes 22. 22 D’Costa, Meeting of Religions, pp. 143-66; the quotation is from p. 166.

C H R I S T O C E N T R I S M 2: Mainline Protestants

25 Paul Tillich T HE DY NAM IC -TY P O L OGIC A L A PPROA C H TO RELIGIONS

The Kairos of Christ and Kairoi of Other Religious Manifestations In his last public lecture in the mid 1960s Paul Tillich, in an almost prophetic way, called for Christian theology to adopt a new approach to the history of religions and, consequently, to other religions. He challenged the classical supranaturalistic way of thinking that starts out from the utter uniqueness of the Christian revelation and therefore must lead to the isolation of Christianity from other religions as well as from the Enlightenment’s “quest for a natural religion/theology,” which posits more or less total continuity between Christianity and other religions. Tillich wanted to place Christian theology of reli1 gions between these two extremes. By calling for a new approach to religions, Tillich was also challenging his own way of doing theology, which came to a noble conclusion in his celebrated three-volume Systematic Theology. His was the approach of “correlation.” The basic idea is simple: theology should have a mutual working relationship with philosophy in that philosophy asks the relevant questions and theology provides the answers from the perspective of Christian faith. Tillich elaborates the 1

Paul Tillich, “The Significance of the History of Religions for Systematic Theology,” in The Future of Religions, ed. Jerald C. Brauer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), pp. 80-94.

Paul Tillich

225

method of correlation in terms of the correlation between the question and the answer as well as in terms of the correlation between form and content. Concerning his method, Tillich states, “Philosophy formulates the questions implied in human existence, and theology formulates the answers implied in divine self-manifestation under the guidance of the questions implied in human existence.”2 For Tillich, reason does not resist revelation but rather asks for it; revelation means the reintegration of reason. Nevertheless, the revelation of God in Christianity makes Christianity a special revelation, even though what is special is defined by Tillich differently than by his neo-orthodox teachers, Karl Barth and others. In order to gain perspective on Tillich’s highly creative thinking, which is not easily categorized in neat classifications, we need to take note of his major influences. With all his neo-orthodox leanings going back to Barth, he was trained by the last liberals and strongly influenced by existentialist philosophies. The label that might best do justice to Tillich is “neoliberalism.” Some thinkers such as Tillich shared much of neo-orthodoxy’s criticism of classical liberalism, but they wondered whether Barth and others had been too harsh and become one-sided. Perhaps neo-orthodoxy had become too preoccupied with the idea of God’s transcendence in its fear that liberalism had “brought God down from heaven” to the level of humanity. Tillich stood eminent among those thinkers of the mid twentieth century who did not want to return to neo-orthodoxy, let alone orthodoxy, but wanted to revise and make the classical liberal agenda more up-to-date and, at the same time, take notice of advancements in philosophy, the social sciences and the natural sciences. Finally, Tillich chose existentialism as his main dialogue partner even though he disassociated himself from many basic tenets of existentialist philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger, who were either atheists or agnostics. Out of this multiform and complex pot of theological influences emerged his approach to religions that, on the one hand, can perhaps be called “Christocentric” in that Christ plays a special role in the economy of salvation but, on the other hand, especially in light of his last years’ developments, is moderately theocentric in that the light in Christ is qualified, also allowing for signifi3 cant lights in other religions. 2

Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1951-1963), 1:61.

3

It is not without significance that Tillich can be classified in both inclusivist camps (as here) and pluralist camps (as in Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Chris-

226

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Tillich’s way of accounting for this dynamism is to use one of the Greek terms for time: kairos, a specifically appointed time. The kairos in Christ denotes a central event in the history of religions that makes possible a particular theology of universal significance. This is the appearance of Jesus Christ. There are, however, other kairoi in the history of religions—momentous events of great religious significance. The relation of the kairos to the kairoi is “the relation of the criterion to that which stands under the criterion and the relation of the source of power to that which is nourished by the 4 source of power.” The kairos is unique, and kairoi are rare symbolic moments, but together they determine the dynamics of religious history. For Tillich, the appearance of Jesus as the Christ is “a moment in history for 5 which everything before and after is both a preparation and a reception.” How could he say this with all his insistence on the continuity between religions? Here his neo-orthodox and existentialist orientations come to focus. It is precisely an expression of the daring courage of the Christian faith that would not be faith without the risk of error. Glyn Richards succinctly captures the tension here: Yet even the possibility of error seems to be removed when he confidently asserts, that “even for an empirical and relativistic approach” there is “no other event of which this could be asserted,” and then goes on to claim that the appearance of Jesus as the Christ “is not only the center of the history of the manifestation of the Kingdom of God; it is also the only event in which the historical dimension is fully and universally affirmed.” The implication of this statement is that history can only be fully understood from the point where history reveals its meaning, name6 ly, in the appearance of Jesus as the Christ as the center of history.

Christ, the “New Being” The gateway for Tillich’s coming to an appreciation of the accomplishments of other religions and of their view of God/gods—evident also in his dialogue with Buddhism, to be discussed below—is based on his specific understanding of the Christian doctrine of God. His Christology, the most determinative 3

tian Theology of Religions [Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1982], chap. 4). It seems to me that he belongs to the Christocentric/inclusivist camp, albeit its left wing, since for him Christ represents something unique and unrepeatable among salvific figures. This holds even in light of Tillich’s radical reinterpretation of the orthodox concept of Christ’s divinity (to be discussed in what follows). 4 Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3:389. 5 Ibid., 3:393. 6 Glyn Richards, Towards a Theology of Religions (New York: Routledge, 1989), p. 64.

Paul Tillich

227

factor in most theologies of religions, comes from his existentialistically based analysis of ontology, the study of being.7 The foundational clue to understanding God and Jesus Christ for Tillich is the ontological question of what it means to say that something exists; ontology is the branch of philosophy that inquires into the nature and possibility of being, existence. If the question of “being” is the basic question of philosophy and theology, its counterpart is the question of “non-being.” This question is present in everything finite. For Tillich, the question of non-being raises the question of a power of being that overcomes the threat of non-being and sustains life. This has to be the “Being Itself” or the “Ground of Being.” Without this Ground of Being everything finite would fall back to non-being or nothingness. Thus, God for Tillich is the Ground of Being. This gives us access to Tillich’s christology. In the third part of his Systematic Theology, significantly titled “Existence and the Christ,” Tillich begins to analyze the situation of human existential alienation and the quest for salvation. He offers a reinterpretation of the Fall: it is a universal transition from essence (authentic being) to existence (actual being in the world, which is always characterized by limitations and fallenness). For Tillich, of course, “the Fall” is not a literal, factual event, but it is still real in its effects. This predicament calls for the coming of someone who is able to break through the estrangement and overcome the distinction between essence and existence. This is where Tillich’s system introduces Christ. As the New Being, Christ is the answer for human beings who find themselves under the fallen conditions of existence. For Tillich, the event on which Christianity is based has two aspects: the fact of Jesus of Nazareth and the reception of this fact by those who receive him as the Christ. The factual, historical Jesus is not the foundation of faith apart from his reception as the Christ. In the spirit of existentialism, neo-orthodoxy and the Bultmannian approach, Tillich maintains that the history of Jesus and his life are unimportant; regardless of how much critical scholarship eradicates the credibility of the Gospel stories, Tillich’s trust in the New Being remains unaffected. All that Tillich is ready to affirm about Jesus is that it was a “personal life.” Whatever the details of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, the New Being was and is active in this man. The symbol “Christ” for Tillich means the same as the one “who brings the new state of things.” The meaning of Jesus Christ lies in that he is the manifes7

See further Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1:21.

228

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

tation of the New Being, who subjects himself to the conditions of existence and by doing so conquers existential estrangement. Tillich says that it is “the Christ who brings the New Being, who saves men from the old being, that is from existential estrangement and its destructive consequences.” In the personal life of Jesus of Nazareth, the “essential manhood” has manifested itself.8 For Tillich, then, Jesus was not God-become-man as the classical orthodox confessions state but rather “essential man appearing in a personal life under 9 the conditions of existential estrangement.” The subjection of the Christ to estranged existence is symbolized in the cross, and his conquest is symbolized in the resurrection. Jesus Christ was not divine and did not have a divine nature; rather he manifested in and through his humanity an entirely new order of being—essential humanity. In Jesus, humanity became “essentialized” within existence, a great paradox, a reversal of the necessary human fallenness. Not surprisingly, Tillich maintains that Christology is the function of soteriology: in other words, the question of salvation creates the Christological question. That gives Tillich the necessary freedom to deal with the details of Jesus’ life and even maintain that as the New Being, Jesus Christ need not be “god” in the traditional sense of the term. If Jesus is not God as the orthodox position has maintained, what about the revelatory role of Jesus of Nazareth in Tillich’s system? Traditionally, christology has been connected with the revelation of God in one way or another. In his doctrine of revelation, Tillich rejected the concept of revealed words or propositions. He went with the mainstream neo-orthodox view in which revelation is never the communication of information but rather an event and experience that can happen through many different media, including nature, history, people and speech. Anything can become a bearer of revelation. The Bible, then, is not the “Word of God.” Tillich argues that the traditional view, which identifies the Word with the Bible, has added to the confusion about revelation. The Bible only participates in revelation. Tillich makes a distinction between “actual revelation,” all events and experiences that manifest the power of being wherever and whenever they happen, and “final revelation,” ultimate, unsurpassable revelation, which is to be found in Jesus Christ. So there is in Christ, the New Being, a final revelation of God, but that can never be equated with the testimonies of the Bible. Perhaps the best way to characterize Tillich’s view of revela8 9

Ibid., 2:150. Ibid., 2:95.

Paul Tillich

229

tion is to say that Jesus of Nazareth’s role is to illuminate the mystery of being and point to the possibility of overcoming the state of estrangement. Other sources of illumination are available, too. In this way, Tillich sympathizes with the classical liberal thought that sees Jesus as one among others who have enlightened the human situation. Significantly, Tillich referred to the Christ with the definite article (the) to underline the fact that Christ is not so much a personal name as it is a function or role. After this discussion of Tillich’s approach to theology and his view of God and Christ, the statement in the beginning of this section—that even though the manifestation of Jesus as the Christ represents the kairos, there are also other kairoi in the history of religions—should make sense. Jesus Christ for Tillich is unique, but he is not absolute in the sense of classical orthodoxy.

Christianity and the Encounter of World Religions Not surprisingly, toward the end of his life Tillich wrote a book titled Christianity and Encounter of the World Religions, in which he attempted to spell out some of the implications of Christian theology of religions. His life ended before he was able to construct a full-scale theological approach to other religions, but an incipient outline may be detected there, to be tested in his encounter with Buddhism around the same time. Tillich came to appreciate the use of logos and spermatikos by the early Apologists as a way of accounting for the presence of God’s truth among religions. Tillich argued that the Logos had always existed in the world. This expression of universality, however, was always balanced by “the image of Jesus as the Christ,” which provided a definite 10 standard and prevented syncretism. During church history, however, Tillich lamented, this particularity took over and the universality almost came to an end. Only as a result of the Enlightenment did “Christian universalism” re11 emerge, in terms of “humanist relativism.” Another tension in Christian theology came into focus early, namely, whether Christianity is a religion or not. This has direct bearing on the question of religion(s) in general and the question of whether there is continuity between Christianity and other religions or whether Christianity represents a special genus. Even here Tillich wants to negotiate between two extremes. His answer is ambiguous: “With this image, particular yet free from particularity,

10

Paul Tillich, Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), pp. 34-37. 11 Ibid., pp. 41-42.

230

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

religious yet free from religion, the criteria are given under which Christianity must judge itself and, by judging itself, judge also the other religions and the quasi-religions.”12 In other words, for Tillich Christianity is a religion as any other, yet it is more than that—it is a medium of the manifestation of the New Being, the Christ. By placing itself in the midst of religions but yet transcending them, Christianity is able to offer a criterion to judge other religions and itself. Clearly, the kairos is both a criterion of judgment and a criterion in need of judgment. Whatever Tillich’s precise understanding of religion, it is clear that he was not happy with the classical distinction between true religion and false religions, which often translated into the dichotomy of either faith and revelation in Christianity or “religion” in other religions. Religion to Tillich is a generic category transcending the confines of Christian religion in that it is “the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary and which itself contains the answer to the question of the 13 meaning of our life.” It may take several forms: theistic (e.g., Christianity), non-theistic (e.g., Buddhism), global, local, secularistic or humanistic, as well as quasi- or pseudo-forms such as Communism. For Christian (systematic) theology to speak to the religions and to culture—Tillich’s primary concern since the beginning of his theological career— it has to be characterized by the following affirmations: • “Revelatory experiences are universally human. . . . There are revealing and saving powers in all religions.” • “Revelation is received under the conditions of man’s estranged character” and thus is always distorted. • Revelation, because it is distorted, is subject to mystical, prophetic and secular criticism. • There may be some event that can unify “the positive results of those critical developments in the history of religion.” • The sacred is not something that exists side by side with culture but is rather 14 a profoundly integral part of culture. How these principles translate more concretely into an encounter between Christianity and other religions, we will discuss in light of Christian-Buddhist 12

Ibid., p. 82. Tillich, Future of Religions, p. 3. 14 Tillich, Christianity and the Encounter, pp. 81-82. 13

Paul Tillich

231

dialogue. But before that, in order to deepen our evaluation of Tillich’s analysis of religion(s), a look at his understanding of the “holy” in religions and its relationship to the Spirit is in order. Tillich’s approach to religions betrays a definite pneumatological orientation.

“The Religion of the Concrete Spirit” Tillich calls his approach to the history of religions a “dynamic-typological” approach to religious experience. Building on the famous work of Rudolf Otto’s The Idea of the Holy—which maintains that the root of all religions is the experience of the “Holy” in contrast to the “secular”—Tillich maintains that there are three main elements in human experience of the Holy: the sacramental, the mystical and the prophetic. The Holy, whenever it is experienced, proceeds from a sacramental basis, which is then developed in the direction of either the mystic or prophetic type of religious expression. In the sacramental, the Holy appears in the finite and the particular; the mystical resists the “demonization” of the sacramental, its objectification for manipulative purposes; and the prophetic moves from the Holy to the “ought to be” in the quest for peace and justice. These three elements, when harmoniously united, produce what he calls the “Religion of the Concrete Spirit.” It is a kind of religious experience that all religions strive for and that occurs only in fragmentary form in particular, historical religions. Tillich sees the whole history of religions “in this sense as a fight for the Religion of the Concrete Spirit, a fight of God against religion within religion.” This is the “key for understanding the otherwise extremely 15 chaotic, or at least seemingly chaotic, history of religions.” In other words, religion, rather than being an abstract phenomenon, is always tied to and emerges from a particular, historical religion: [Tillich] refuses to conceive of a universally valid religion of the spirit existing in the abstract, as it were, unrelated to, or divorced from particular religious formulations. He insists rather, that the religion of the Concrete Spirit, or the ideal type of religious experience, which harmonizes the dynamic-typological elements of the Holy, can be found only in the depths of particular, religious traditions.

It is the purpose, an inner aim, of all religions to become the Religion of the 16 Concrete Spirit. 15 16

Tillich, Future of Religions, pp. 86-88. See especially ibid., pp. 86-91; the quotation is from p. 88.

232

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Tillich was especially interested in the “religions of the Spirit” like Protestantism and early Christianity insofar as these are “free from oppressive laws and, consequently, often without law altogether.”17 Religions of the Spirit are contrasted with institutionalized traditions, legalistic faith expressions and authoritarianisms. As such they represent “the way of reception of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, a symbol which stands for the decisive self-manifestation in human 18 history of the source and aim of all being.” So it seems that for Tillich both Christology (Christ as the criterion) and pneumatology (the universal Spirit) are needed for a healthy theology of religions. Some recent authors have argued that Tillich in fact was one of the first theologians to construct a truly pneumatological theology of religions with the help of the concept of the Holy Spirit as 19 Spiritual Presence. It is safe to say that both the emphasis on Logos Christology (the “seeds” of the Logos being implanted in the cultures and religions of the world as the early Apologists maintained) and the understanding of the Spirit as universal Spiritual Presence speak strongly for the universality of Christian faith—especially so in the religion(s) of the Concrete Spirit in general. Tillich’s main criterion for the Spiritual Presence is justice: “the Spiritual Presence is the presence of the God of humanity and justice.” It is the church, the “Spiritual Community” where other “marks” of the Presence are to be found, such as love, faith, holiness, unity and universality. It belongs to the na20 ture of spiritual community to be inclusive, welcoming to all. But for Tillich, the Spirit’s presence clearly transcends the confines of the Christian church. In his sermon “Spiritual Presence,” Tillich enumerates several ways this presence becomes visible, such as being led to prayer, relieved from anxiety, filled with courage to be, made to love and so on. Tillich then asks, why shouldn’t we as Christians call a person like that “a bearer of the Spirit”? According to him, after all, “the Spirit is not bound to the Christian church or any one of them. The Spirit is free to work in the spirits of men in every human situation, and it urg21 es men to let Him do so; God as Spirit is always present to the spirit of man.” How is the Spiritual Presence to be depicted in other religions, such as Buddhism? To this issue we turn next. 17

Tillich, Future of Religions, p. 7. Tillich, Christianity and the Encounter, p. 51. 19 See further Pan-Chiu Lai, Towards a Trinitarian Theology of Religions: A Study in Paul Tillich’s Thought (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1994); Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), pp. 77-85. 20 Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3:155-57. 21 Paul Tillich, The Eternal Now (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963), pp. 86-87. 18

Paul Tillich

233

Buddhist-Christian Dialogue A few years before his death, Tillich paid a visit to Japan. This trip extremely influenced Tillich, for it was the first time he experienced a concrete form of another religion. The third chapter of his Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions is an engaging account of this experience. Against Georg Hegel and others who had regarded Buddhism as an underdeveloped, static religion, Tillich came to see Buddhism as a dynamic one. This encounter was so powerful that for him it was “impossible to call Christianity 22 the absolute religion” anymore. Tillich came to regard Buddhism as “the great23 est, strangest, and at the same time the most competitive of all the religions.” There are differences between these two religions, Tillich noted, but the religions can be regarded as complementary rather than as exclusive of each other: Christianity elevates the ethical, Buddhist the mystical, even though it is not an either-or but both-and situation. Christianity represents the personal, Buddhism the impersonal, and so on. And the key element uniting these two religions was the Christian concept of the kingdom of God, “a social, political and personalistic symbol” concerned with establishing justice and peace, and its Buddhist equivalent, Nirvana, “an ontological symbol” concerned with providing an answer to finitude, separation and suffering in the Ultimate Ground of Being. Tillich sees that Christianity conceives of the world as the creation of God and as, in its essence, good, and it sees the human being as a responsible creature who precipitates the Fall by his sinful actions; for Buddhism, the existence of the world presupposes “an ontological fall into finitude,” and the human being is “a finite bound to the wheel of life with self24 affirmation, blindness, and suffering.” How do these two religions, then, relate to each other and to reality as a whole? The principle behind the Christian concept of the kingdom of God is “participation,” whereas the idea behind Nirvana is what Tillich called “identity.” In the realm of nature, the former leads to exploitation, since the concept is that the resources of nature were placed to serve humanity. The latter leads to non-interference, since in that worldview even the most insignificant life 25 forms are considered to be part of the same unified essence. Tillich further analyzed the concepts of compassion and love. He found

22

Tillich, Christianity and the Encounter, p. 57. Tillich, Future of Religions, p. 54. 24 Ibid., pp. 65-66. 25 Ibid., pp. 68-69. 23

234

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

compassion in Buddhism but not the concept of agape-type love. Also, Tillich found that whereas the “symbol” of the kingdom of God is “directed toward a radical transformation of society,” the idea of Nirvana does not offer incentive to effect changes so badly needed in the Japanese society. It seemed to him that Buddhism, unlike Christianity as a theistic religion, does not offer spiritual roots for democracy and social change. The area where Tillich found the most convergence between these two religions is mysticism. Over the centuries there have been many Christian expressions of mysticism. Currently, that aspect of Christianity has waned almost to the point of nonexistence, he lamented.26 It is understandable that Tillich issued a call for dialogue rather than conversion as a way of Christian witness to other religions. All religions share the same common ground. Dialogue would be needed both between religions (such as between Buddhism and Christianity to inquire, for example, into the relationship between the ethical and mystical) and also within religions (leading to healthy self-criticism and self-appraisal). True dialogue is possible only when both sides acknowledge the significance and revelatory character of the 27 other’s position. Owen C. Thomas succinctly summarizes Tillich’s tension-filled, inclusive dynamic-typological approach to other religions in light of Christian faith: The problem of the nature of religion and the significance of the world religions was always a fundamental concern for Tillich. His definition of religion as “ultimate concern” makes it a universal element in human life and thus includes such “quasi-religions” as fascism, communism, and liberal humanism. Tillich affirms a universal revelation of God which is the source of the religious experience, the myths, and the cults of the various religions, and which constitutes a preparation for the final revelation in Christ. He suggests that a typological analysis of the history of religions shows that the concreteness of man’s ultimate concern drives him toward polytheistic structures, while the absolute element in his ultimate concern drives him towards monotheistic structures. Tillich believes that the history of religions should be a major source for Christian theology, and his Systematic Theology includes many references to other religions. . . . He expressed the hope that Christian theology might in the future be developed in dialogue with 28 the insights of other religions.

26

Ibid., pp. 72-75. See, e.g., ibid., p. 62. 28 Owen C. Thomas, preface to “Dialogue: Paul Tillich,” in Attitudes Toward Other Religions: Some Christian Interpretations, ed. Owen C. Thomas (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p. 174. 27

26 Wolfhart Pannenberg R E L IGIONS COM P E T ING FOR THE UNIV ERSA L TRUTH

Religion and Theology in the Service of the Truth For Wolfhart Pannenberg, what is most distinctive about theology is “truth of 1 the Christian doctrine [as] the theme of systematic theology.” Consequently, theology is a public discipline rather than an exercise in piety. He adamantly opposes the widespread privatization of faith and theology; theology has to speak to common concerns, since there is no special “religious truth.” What theology claims must be in consonance with what other fields of inquiry claim: there can be only one truth. As Pannenberg untiringly insists, if something is true, it has to be true for everyone, not just for oneself. In his theology, God is the object and determining reality of all theology: God is the power that determines everything. If the idea of God must be able to illumine not only human life but also experience of the world, then theology 2 should also. Consequently, Pannenberg has boldly argued for the truth of the 3 Christian message vis-à-vis competing truth claims.

1

This is the title of the first chapter in vol. 1 of Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991-1998). The title for the second chapter of the same work is also indicative of its basic approach: “The Concept of God and the Question of Its Truth” (pp. 63-188). For the idea of truth, see esp. pp. 8-17, 21-26. This basic orientation has been present from the beginning of Pannenberg’s career: see, e.g., Wolfhart Pannenberg, “What Is Truth?” in vol. 2 of Basic Questions in Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), pp. 1-27. 2 Pannenberg, “What Is Truth?” p. 1. 3 See Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Religious Pluralism and Conflicting Truth Claims: The Problem of a Theology of the World Religions,” in Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990), pp. 96-116; “Le religioni nella prospettiva della teologia cristiana e l’autocomprensione del cristianesimo nel suo rapporto con le religioni esterne alla chiesa,” Filosofia e teologia 6, no. 1 (1992): 25-27; and “Die Religionen als Thema der Theologie,” Stimmen der Zeit 169 (1991): 98-110. Pannenberg’s treatment of the theology of religions in his Systematic Theology (1:119-88, under the title “The Reality of God and the Gods in the Experience of the Religions”) does not offer any kind of comprehensive program but

236

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

For him, truth that purports to be coherent not only with theological knowledge but also with the rest of human knowledge by definition has to be universal in nature, and this is exactly what Pannenberg strives for. Truth that is truth to one person only cannot be universal truth.4 With regard to religions, the dominant theme is the search for universal truth. Pannenberg rejects the older approach to the study of religions, which sought a “common essence.” For example, John Hick’s view of a new, “pluralistic” religion, which shares several elements from positive religions and at the same time cannot be identified with any of them, is foreign to Pannenberg. Instead, for Pannenberg religions represent rival conceptions of the ultimate truth. In this sense, his method takes the risk of placing all theological principles on the open market 5 of public accountability.

Religion, God(s) and Anthropology Pannenberg has restored religion to the central place in theology.6 Perhaps surprisingly, his point of departure for assessing the value of religions is the phe7 nomenology of religions. But his is a theological interpretation and “critical

3

serves the purposes of a prolegomena to his systematic theology. On his involvement with Christian-Jewish dialogue, see his Judentum und Christentum: Einheit und Unterschied: Ein Gespräch, Kaiser-Traktate 60 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1981); Der christliche Glaube und seine judischgriechische Herkunft, EKD Texte 15 (Hannover: Kirchenamt der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, 1986). For an appraisal, see Richard John Neuhaus, “Wolfhart Pannenberg: Portrait of a Theologian,” in Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Kingdom of God, ed. Richard John Neuhaus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), pp. 33-36. On Pannenberg’s encounter with Buddhism, see “A Search for the Authentic Self,” in his Christian Spirituality (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), pp. 93-110. 4 “For a ‘truth’ that would be simply my truth and would not at least claim to be universal and valid for every human being could not remain true even for me. This consideration explains why Christians cannot but try to defend the claim of their faith to be true.” Wolfhart Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), p. 15. 5 See further Carl E. Braaten, “The Place of Christianity Among the World Religions: Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Theology of Religion and the History of Religion,” in The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg: Twelve American Critiques with an Autobiographical Response, ed. C. E. Braaten and P. Clayton (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), p. 294. 6 A comprehensive treatment of the topic is to be found in Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:119-36. In his Theology and the Philosophy of Science (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976), p. 31, Pannenberg already announced his program: “Theology as a science of God is therefore possible only as a science of religion, and not as the science of religion in general but of the historic religions.” 7 “Today, the phenomenological method is obviously the dominant one among the science of religions.” Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Toward a Theology of the History of Religions,” in vol. 2 of Basic Questions in Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), p. 72.

Wolfhart Pannenberg

237

appropriation” of religions;8 in other words, it is a theological reflection on the results and approaches of empirical finds in psychology, sociology and history of religions. Whereas Karl Barth vehemently opposed religions since they not only represented inadequate views of God but also represented false human attempts to find a contact point between humanity and deity, Pannenberg believed religions play a crucial role in revelation, since the claim for the 9 truth of god(s) lies at the heart of religions. The history of religions represents this endless search for universal truth. Even though Pannenberg be10 lieves that God can only be known as God reveals himself, he also acknowledges that the only way to examine divine revelation is through human religion. Christianity is a religion among others. By this, however, Pannenberg is not willing to go with the mainstream of contemporary research into religions in which the turn to anthropology has eliminated God 11 from religions. However, at the same time Pannenberg champions an anthropologically based view of religion; he labels his approach a “fundamental-theological 12 anthropology.” In this view, religion is an essential dimension of human life; it belongs to the nature of humanity to be open to God and search for 13 meaning and truth. Pannenberg arrives at this fundamental conclusion by way of arguing with René Descartes and Friedrich Schleiermacher that the only way to posit the finite is to assume the infinite as the necessary hori14 15 zon. Of course, claiming the “incurable” religiosity of humankind does 8

Pannenberg, Anthropology, p. 18. See further Stanley J. Grenz, “Commitment and Dialogue: Pannenberg on Christianity and the Religions,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 26, no. 1 (1989): 201. 10 See esp. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:189. 11 For a critical dialogue with several phenomenologists of religion, see ibid., 1:136-51. Pannenberg bemoans the inner contradiction that contemporary research into religions has created in denying the existence of God, since this hypothesis brings the study of religion into opposition with the intentions of religion itself. “In religion God is the agent in the relation to humanity, but the study of religion looks only at humanity’s relation to God and tells us nothing about God’s action’” (1:143-44). Even the famous phenomenologist G. van der Leeuw noticed this but obviously regarded this contradiction as unavoidable. 12 Pannenberg, Anthropology, p. 21. 13 For a short statement, see Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:154-57. For a full-scale treatment, see his Anthropology in Theological Perspective, which in fact is an attempt to fight against the opponents of religion on their own fields: namely, psychology, anthropology, sociology and history. 14 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:113-18 and esp. 1:136-41. 15 Ibid., 1:157. 9

238

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

not guarantee the truth of theological claims. Rather, that is a necessary but not satisfactory piece of evidence.16 It is the task of the religions to mediate the appearance of the divine in human experience and history. Consequently, religions are both useful and in fact necessary for our knowledge of God. However, Pannenberg is too sharp an observer of religion to ignore the fact that too often the view of the religions is being falsified because of their tendency to fixate on the finite or resort to mag17 ical means of exerting power. But that tendency does not invalidate the crucial role religions play in the human search for meaning. Whatever falsifications there are to be found in religions, Christianity for Pannenberg is by nature a syncretistic religion in that it assimilates, incorporates and critically adopts elements from other religious traditions, even those in competition with it. As with regard to his understanding of revelation, understandings that are best described as hypotheses are already anticipations of 18 what will eventually prove themselves to be true—or false. Historical truth by nature is always contestable and open to be debated until the eschaton. Yes, religions play a vital role in Pannenberg’s understanding, but they also stand under the qualification of provisionality. Christianity, like other religions, is provisional since the truth that both Christianity and other religions are searching for is not yet fully present.

The Christian Conception of God and the History of Religions For Pannenberg,19 the main thrust of the history of religions is the competition between conflicting truth claims of adherents of various deities. He takes a look at the phenomenology of religions and concludes that at the heart of the history of religions is the search for a religion that would be able to illumine our experience of the world in the most coherent way. The debate is going on and the final outcome is yet to be determined. The main focus of Pannenberg’s treatment of the topic, “The Reality of God 20 and the Gods in the Experience of the Religions,” is a dialogue between Chris16

“No anthropological argument can prove God’s existence in the strict sense. In most cases no such claim is made. All that is maintained is that we are referred to an unfathomable reality that transcends us and the world, so that the God of religious tradition is given a secure place in the reality of human self-experience.” Ibid., 1:93. 17 Ibid., 1:172-87, esp. 1:182-83. 18 Pannenberg, “Toward a Theology,” p. 104; see also Braaten, “Place of Christianity,” p. 303. 19 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:119-88. 20 Ibid., 1:119-87. The basic ideas are already present in one of his first essays; see “Toward a Theology,” pp. 65-118.

Wolfhart Pannenberg

239

tianity and ancient religions (rather than between Christianity and the contemporary religions). For Pannenberg, the Jewish view of God, which was subsequently adopted by Christian theology, represents a radical progression from rival ancient religions in that it was able to provide the believers with the concept of the unity of the culture. For ancient people, gods were looked upon as the providers of this unity.21 A transformative change also took place in Israel in that the division into holy and profane was overcome and God’s influence was felt to be comprehensive, reaching to all spheres of life. In Israel, as soon as Yahweh was regarded as the one God who was in control of all spheres of life, this foundational tension was overcome and monotheism emerged. It is only against 22 this background that the exclusive claim to worship Yahweh can be understood. On the basis of monotheism, it becomes understandable how the one God was also looked upon as the ground of the world as a whole as well as of human life. Consequently, the dispute concerning religious claims finds its resolution in the sphere of the experience of the world, since the world shows that 23 it is determined by God. Here the critical question is, how is it possible for humans to decide what is the alleged determinative work of God in the world experience? For Pannenberg, the gateway to describe this is a specific understanding concerning the relationship between religion and world experience. Pannenberg claims that religious consciousness and beliefs—rather than simply being the results of cultural, sociopolitical and economic changes (Max 24 Weber)—are in fact the driving force behind such changes. A final advancement of Jewish faith in God took place along with the emergence of the apocalyptic, when the past-oriented mythical religion began to be transformed into a future-oriented open religion. Unlike typical mythological religions in which historical and religious changes are placed back in the primal age of myth, there arose in Israel the question of the future definitive selfdemonstration of the deity of God. This happened in Israel especially in exilic prophecy and was later taken up by apocalyptic literature into expectation of 25 end-time events. Any religion that lives by promise toward the future can “cope with the vicissitudes of the historical process better than religions relat-

21

See also Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science, esp. pp. 311-13. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, esp. 1:148. 23 See further Pannenberg, Theology and Philosophy of Science, pp. 300-303. 24 Grenz, “Commitment and Dialogue,” p. 200; see also Pannenberg, Theology and Philosophy of Science, pp. 206-24, 311-12. Even Max Weber himself noted that with regard to Protestant ethics, this ethos has been a catalyst of social changes. 25 See esp. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 1:169-71. 22

240

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

ed to the past-oriented myth of primordial time.”26 Consequently, both Jewish and Christian faith came to view reality as history moving toward a future goal that has not yet appeared. In the Christian faith, the coming of the kingdom of God, which would give final evidence of God as the Lord of all people, was the pivot of this expectation. That would also validate the claim of Christian revelation about the unique place of Christ in the history of religions. Rather than delving into the past, this orientation came to view the future as holding the power to interpret the past. In this life, however, no final demonstration of the superiority of any God is to be expected, since the flow of history has not yet reached its end. So what is needed is an eschatological outlook, one of the most definitive characteristics of Pannenberg’s thought. Pannenberg sees the “turn to the future” of Israelite and consequently Christian faith in God as additional evidence of the superiority of the Christian conception of the deity. But how could a seemingly exclusivist tendency of Pannenberg’s theology— the search for the appearance of the final truth—be reconciled with his inclusivist standpoint? Here the role of the Spirit comes to focus in his trinitarian theology.

The Universality of the Spirit and the Particularity of Jesus Christ Stanley Grenz, a long-time interpreter of Pannenberg’s theology, makes a profound observation in noting that one of the major resources for the theology of religions in Pannenberg’s system is his understanding of God—especially his understanding of the role of the Spirit in the Godhead. Because of his non-filioque view (the Latin word filioque means “and from the Son,” thus a filioque view holds that the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son), Pannenberg is able to “move beyond traditional Christocentrism and to elevate the Spirit as the trinitarian member most specifically operative in the 27 world.” Because Pannenberg rehabilitates the role of the Spirit in the Trinity, his pneumatological approach allows him to see the saving work of God in the context of the divine activity in creation as a whole. The role of the Spirit for Pannenberg is both “ecstatic” and “exocentric”; the Spirit elevates creatures above themselves to participate in the life of God. Therefore, there is continuity between creation, the new life in faith and the es26

Braaten, “Place of Christianity,” p. 304. In “Toward a Theology” (p. 109), Pannenberg writes, “Whoever lives on the basis of the archetypal and strives to achieve for the present only its optimal participation in the archetypal reality, lives unhistorically. To this extent, archaic peoples close themselves off from the historic future.” 27 Grenz, “Commitment and Dialogue,” p. 204; see also pp. 204-6.

Wolfhart Pannenberg

241

chaton—the completion of the creation by the power of the Spirit.28 Consequently, the experience of faith is not something foreign to structures in the created order; rather, it is a heightening of the exocentric life that the Spirit already activates everywhere, especially in human beings. And the same Spirit is present in the religious expressions of the human person, which have given rise to the various religious traditions of human history.29 Furthermore, on the basis of his understanding of intratrinitarian relations, according to which the task of the Spirit is to glorify the Son and through the Son to give honor to the Father’s claim of unique lordship, Pannenberg is able to maintain that everywhere in relations where the divine mystery is at work, the Son is, too. Now it may be that there are distortions and misrepresentations present in religions, but still the Son, as the mediator of all creaturely existence, is “behind” this quest for meaning and truth. And the same Spirit of God who lifts creatures, especially human beings, above themselves to share in the divine life is at work in correlation with the Son. Pneumatology represents universality, while Christology in a sense becomes the point of tension between the historical particularity and the eschatological universality, not in an exclusive way but rather in a way that opens up Christian30 ity for dialogue with others. “The rule of God that Jesus proclaimed and pioneered in his own life, death, and resurrection can be seen in light of the 31 apostolic message as the power at work in all the religions of humanity.” Therefore, the possibility of salvation is not confined to the church. What is Pannenberg’s understanding of the fate of nonbelievers? He leaves the question open. For him, Jesus is “the universal criterion of judgment or salvation, 32 but not the indispensable historical means of salvation.” Earlier in his career, Pannenberg proposed the idea that the disputed passage of 1 Peter 3:19-20 (about the descent into hell of Christ after the cross) opens up hope for those who have not heard the gospel: “Salvation from future judgment is still made

28

For a programmatic statement, see Wolfhart Pannenberg, “The Working of the Spirit in the Creation and in the People of God,” in Spirit, Faith and Church, ed. Wolfhart Pannenberg, A. Dulles and Carl E. Braaten (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), pp. 13-31; see also his article “The Doctrine of the Spirit and the Task of a Theology of Nature” in Beginning with the End: God, Science and Wolfhart Pannenberg, ed. C. R. Albright and J. Haugen (Chicago: Open Court, 1997), pp. 65-79. 29 See further Grenz, “Commitment and Dialogue,” pp. 204-5. 30 So also another inclusive theologian of religions, Clark Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), esp. p. 188. 31 Braaten, “Place of Christianity,” p. 305. 32 Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Constructive and Critical Functions of Christian Eschatology,” Harvard Theological Review 77 (April 1984): 136.

242

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

available to those who during their lifetime encountered neither Jesus nor the Christian message.”33 He understands the passage symbolically expressing 34 “the universal significance of Jesus’ victorious death under the curse.” This kind of understanding coincides with Pannenberg’s understanding of election, according to which election does not mean sealing the eternal fate of certain individuals but rather bringing about the divine goal through the involvement of the people of the world. “This view,” writes Grenz, serves to move the focus of interreligious dialogue away from the question of who ultimately belongs to the people of God and toward the task of looking for the activity of the divine reality in the world and engaging all peoples in the man35 date to foster the divine program.

Before we look at the implications of this type of inclusivism for interreligious dialogue, let us inquire into Pannenberg’s view of mission and ecumenism, since those views are also crucial to our topic (even though I have not seen them discussed in literature with regard to Pannenberg’s theology of religions).

Mission, Ecumenism and the Unity of All Humankind Pannenberg’s distinctive view of relating to other religions also comes into focus in his specific understanding of the role of Christian ecumenism. It is clear without saying that in light of his search for a universal truth, Pannenberg has aimed for the whole worldwide church rather than any specific denomination. But not only that—he is not satisfied to write only to the church and Christians alone but instead writes to the rest of humanity as well, since in his view the 36 church is an anticipation and a sign of the unity of all people under one God. His view of the nature of the church in relation to the world and other peoples is based on his idea of the kingdom of God. The church is the anticipation of the kingdom of God; therefore its essence is constituted by the kingdom, of which it is the sign. The church has been given a noble task: “It serves both as a sign, pointing to a future society of peace and justice that no political system can bring into existence, and as a reminder of the transience of all social orders 37 in contrast to the finality of God’s rule.” For Pannenberg, it is crucial that the 33

Wolfhart Pannenberg, The Apostles’ Creed in the Light of Today’s Questions (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), p. 95. 34 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 272. 35 Grenz, “Dialogue and Commitment,” p. 206. 36 Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3:xv. 37 Stanley J. Grenz, Reason for Hope: The Systematic Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 153.

Wolfhart Pannenberg

243

kingdom of God is directed beyond itself to the unity of humankind under one God. The essential goal of the church is a sign and tool of the coming kingdom of God; the church has its end not in itself but in the future of a humanity that is reconciled to God and united by common praise of God in his kingdom. Therefore, the church is essentially missionary.38 Consequently, salvation is corporate, as is also the focus of the biblical notion of election. There is no individual attainment of final salvation without the rest of the community. So Pannenberg is not content to promote ecumenism for its own sake; for him the ecumenical endeavors point to the final 39 goal of the church: the unity of all people of God under one God. “If Christians succeed in solving the problems of their own pluralism, they may be able to produce a model combining pluralism and the widest moral unity 40 which will also be valid for political life.” The unity and peace among Christians and between them and their God are proleptic signs of the renewed humanity. Now finally, how would all this translate more concretely into interreligious dialogue and the relation of Christianity to other religions? This is the theme of the concluding section on Pannenberg.

The Potential and Challenge of Interreligious Dialogue Pannenberg comes to the dialogue table with the adherents of other religions with a set of commitments, the most important of which is that there is one, unified, coherent truth to be searched for. He also contends that the Christian view of God is superior to the views not only of ancient religions but also of contemporary living faiths, a sort of criterion for the history of religions. For Pannenberg, Christ represents a final revelation of God, although not in an 41 exclusive way. Unpromising as this kind of attitude might sound to most 38

Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3:45. See further Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Unity of the Church—Unity of Mankind: A Critical Appraisal of a Shift in Ecumenical Direction,” Mid-Stream 21 (October 1982): 485-90. 40 Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Christian Morality and Political Issues,” in Faith and Reality (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), p. 38. 41 Pannenberg’s Christology, although it works from “below to above,” is a high Christology as becomes evident from, e.g., this statement: “Jesus of Nazareth is the final revelation of God because the end of history appeared in him. It did so both in his eschatological message and in his resurrection from the dead. However, he can be understood to be God’s final revelation only in connection with the whole of history as mediated by the history of Israel. He is God’s revelation in the fact that all history receives its light from him.” Wolfhart Pannenberg, “The Revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth,” in Theology as History, ed. J. M. Robinson (New York: Macmillan, 1967), p. 104. 39

244

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

pluralists of our age, Pannenberg’s theology of religions in fact does carry a lot of potential for sustained dialogue. The purpose of the dialogue is not to soften the differences between religions and, consequently, to blur the importance of the search for a unified truth. Pannenberg’s program naturally sets the tone for the encounter, that is, a common search for a truth. Rather than trying to extrapolate an alleged “core” of religions in an attempt to create a new kind of “universal” religion, the positive religions in their own distinctiveness have to be honored as legitimate ways of reaching for a unified truth. That religion which has the potential of offering an explanation of the experience of the world in a most satisfactory way most probably prevails or at least offers itself as the most viable one. Since it is only at the eschaton that the truth of any religious claim can be finally established, the dialogue process becomes a real process. The religions themselves, not only their truth claims, are provisional in nature. At best, they approach the truth. Therefore, any kind of haughty claim for the superiority of any religion can hardly stand the criticism of an honest dialogue. On the contrary, even the final result of the dialogue cannot be guaranteed beforehand. Provisional truth by definition is open to corrections and adjustments. Even though for Pannenberg Christ represents a unique revelation of God in the history of religions, his Christology is by no means restrictive. In Jesus’ resurrection, which was the Father’s confirmation of the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, a proleptic definitive insight into the final eschatological resurrection and new creation was given. In retrospect one can see that the coming eschatological kingdom and the Father’s claim for lordship over all creation and all people were already present also in other religions in their function as wit42 nesses to the coming fullness of the truth. Finally, not only Christianity but perhaps all other living faiths are also syncretistic in nature. If so, interreligious dialogue is as much a learning experience as it is an opportunity to share about one’s convictions and let others test one’s own hypotheses.

42

See also Braaten, “Place of Christianity,” p. 306.

27 Lesslie Newbigin T HE GO S P E L A S P UB L IC TRUTH

The Challenge of the Pluralist West The late Bishop Lesslie Newbigin—an Anglican churchman and theologian from England who worked over three decades in India (1936-1959 and 19651974) and worked also as an ecumenical officer in the World Council of Churches—has been on the forefront in confronting secular Western culture with the Christian message. Upon his return from India, Newbigin devoted the last two decades of his life (before his death in 1998) to a critical analysis of the nature and task of Christian theology and theology of religions amidst the post-Enlightenment culture of the West. A whole movement by the name “Gospel and Culture,” found mainly in England, has arisen as a result of this reflection. While The Other Side of 1984 (1983) and Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (1986) were his first two main works to analyze the conditions of Christianity in the West, significantly enough his last published book was titled Faith and Power: Christianity and Islam in Great Britain (1988), in which he incisively analyzed the role of Islam in the religious vacuum of the West. His 1989 book, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, pulls together much of his thinking and points to the overarching challenge of pluralism to his theology and missiology. While at one time an active participant in the formal ecumenical movement, especially the WCC, Newbigin became increasingly critical of its “secular” agenda, as he saw it, and its negligence of mission at the expense of social concern and interfaith dialogue. In fact, a few years before his death, Newbigin openly accused the WCC of having forgotten its roots in the Protestant missionary movement and its original Christ-centered vision. He

246

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

feared that the WCC had so much reshaped its theology that the uniqueness of Christianity was at stake.1 In his desire to combat the secular forces of the (post)modern West, Newbigin has not been happy either with the typical approach of the “contextual” theologies. While his own theology could quite appropriately be called a form of apologetic contextualism, what concerned him most was that the contextual 2 theologies were developed and tested all over the globe except in the West.

Two Stories Leading Up to the Enlightenment In a quite innovative way, Newbigin traces the roots of the Enlightenment to two competing stories that shaped the emerging Western culture. Those two streams he calls rationalism, originating in the Greek world, and the JudeoChristian narrative, based on God as the Creator and Sustainer of all. He emphasizes that in order for us to appropriately assess the meaning of the Enlightenment for the West and for the rest of the world at the turn of the twentieth century, we need to reckon with the developments prior to the En3 lightenment. Out of this creative tension and to some extent conflict, Christianity emerged. Christianity, while having its roots embedded in the Judaic tradition, soon gained independence and established itself, unlike its predecessor, as a global missionary religion. Augustine’s program of credo ut intelligam (“I believe in order to know, or understand”) became a significant influence toward the end of the collapse of the Roman empire and classical culture. Newbigin argues—even though many would want to qualify his statement—that it was the emphasis on faith, in contradistinction to classical philosophy’s skeptical attitude toward faith in 4 myths or gods, that distinguished Augustine’s program. Consequently, Augustine laid the foundation for Christian thought for the following eight hundred years or so. It was left to Thomas Aquinas to make a fatal distinction between faith and knowledge. This is significant for Newbigin, since it signals the later dominant distinction between faith and knowledge. Of course, for 1

Lesslie Newbigin, “Ecumenical Amnesia,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 18 (January 1994): 2-5. See the response by Konrad Raiser, the general secretary of the WCC, in Raiser, “Is Ecumenical Apologetics Sufficient? A Response to Lesslie Newbigin’s ‘Ecumenical Amnesia,’ ” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 18 (April 1994): 50-51. 2 Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1986), pp. 2-3. 3 See esp. Lesslie Newbigin, Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt and Certainty in Christian Discipleship (London: SPCK, 1995). 4 See esp. Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, pp. 102-3.

Lesslie Newbigin

247

Aquinas, faith and knowledge were still kept together, even though clearly distinguished. The final clash between faith and knowledge took place on the eve of the Enlightenment during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when skepticism became the dominant motif in Western philosophy. Rather than seeing empiricism (with its appeal to experience) and rationalism (with its appeal to reason) as opposite to one another, as is usually the case, Newbigin sees both of them as responses to skepticism. René Descartes developed the philosophically most significant response. First, Descartes distinguished knowledge from faith and, opposite to what Aquinas had done, adopted skepticism as the only way to gain knowledge with his famous dictum cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am,” i.e., one can be confident about one’s existence only because of the act of thinking). Now, Newbigin observes, the Augustinian “I believe in 5 order to know” program had been both turned upside down and destroyed. Quite naturally this led to dualism. Newbigin identifies three dualisms that he regards as defining later Western culture and philosophy: • Mind and matter: dualism between the thinking mind and the object of the thinking. This makes a knower an outside observer. • Subject and object: dualism between the knowing subject and the known object. This led to the ideal of “neutral” and thus “pure” knowledge free from the self-interest of the knower. • Theory and praxis: dualism between theoretical, disinterested visioning 6 and the putting into action of that vision, the actual doing. One of Newbigin’s general conclusions is that the Cartesian program contributed to the growth of atheism and to a nonreligious explanation of the world (apart from the fact that Descartes himself still believed in God). It also created an illusion of science as a collection of “neutral” facts, whereas religion was composed of subjective values. More importantly, the method of skepticism, even after various transformations, has been preserved by later Western tradition. It was left to Francis Bacon to further develop the line of thought leading up to the Enlightenment. He is the originator of the dualism between facts and value. For Newbigin, it is of utmost importance to note that this has led to the elimination of teleology (purposefulness) to make room for causality

5 6

See further Newbigin, Proper Confidence, pp. 20-21. See, e.g., Lesslie Newbigin, “Certain Faith: What Kind of Certainty?” Tyndale Bulletin 44, no. 2 (1993): 339-50.

248

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

in modern science.7 The “facts/values” dualism correlates with another dualism so prevalent in modern culture, namely, that between public and private. The public world includes facts on which all sophisticated people may agree, while in the private worlds, the opposite of the public worlds, people are totally free to adopt any values.8 Ironically, values are highly significant in the modern world even though they are relegated absolutely to the private—thus subjective—realm, he notes. The Enlightenment was both a culmination and a radical transformation of this heritage with its concept of human knowledge as that of an outside observer, with its subject-object dualism, and the dichotomy between practice 9 and theory. And, as noted, these and other developments in the aftermath of the Enlightenment contributed to both secularism and atheism and to the removal of the question of meaning from the purpose of scientific explanations. In the analysis of Newbigin, the Enlightenment experience was almost a religious experience for many. Corollary developments were the emergence of individualism and individuality and the growing optimism as a result of rapidly developing industrialism and scientific resources. Eschatology was secularized from “the sweet by and by” to the betterment of this world. In a real sense, for the European intelligentsia, the Enlightenment offered a kind of religious 10 experience, Newbigin contends.

The Failure of Protestant Theology and Christianity to Respond to Modernism Newbigin laments that Protestant theology especially succumbed too easily to the new challenges of this changed intellectual climate. One unfortunate reaction of the Christian church was apologetic, attempting to defend itself against the growing impact of science and secular philosophy. This apologetic approach has taken several forms, such as deism, classical liberalism, historicalcritical study of the Bible and subjectivistic pietism. Basically, the defense has been a tactical retreat, but from the vantage point of later history these retreats 11 begin to look more like a rout. 7

Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, p. 34; Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989), p. 37, among others. 8 Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, pp. 18-19, 35-36, among others. 9 I am indebted to the careful, detailed analysis by Jukka Keskitalo, Kristillinen usko ja moderni kulttuuri: Lesslie Newbiginin käsitys kirkon missiosta modernissa länsimaisessa kulttuurissa, Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran Julkaisuja 218 (Helsinki: STKJ, 1999). 10 Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, pp. 22-23. 11 Newbigin, Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, p. 3.

Lesslie Newbigin

249

The deism produced by the Enlightenment is a textbook example of a misfortunate contextualization. Despite the fact that God still was considered the genesis of all things, God was not needed to explain reality.12 The same has to be said of classical Protestantism. Friedrich Schleiermacher and others relegated religion to the subjective arena, the private sphere. He initiated the move from the object to the subject. Therefore, the object of theological research was not the revelation of God as such but the human consciousness, the Gefühl (the German word has the dual connotation of “feeling” and “knowing”; regard13 less of translation, it refers to the subject). Protestant theology, in Newbigin’s analysis, followed Schleiermacher’s lead. With all its attraction, this fideistic model (based on faith without any reference to outside reality) has been detri14 mental to Christian faith because it has disconnected it from the factual basis. As a result, Christian faith has become privatized and divorced from the center of culture. This has lead to what Newbigin calls the “timidity” of theology. Theology, as it is taught in universities and theological schools, is governed by modern Enlightenment principles. Religious studies flourish because they do 15 not take a stance with regard to the factuality of religious claims. The historical-critical research paradigm is yet another example of a false contextualization to the demands of modernity. Its aim as such is commendable: to make the Christian message more acceptable to modern men and women. But the alternative is not fundamentalism, which Newbigin regards as the child of the Enlightenment as well. There is no need—nor is it feasible— to leave behind the results of the new paradigm of biblical studies. But it is essential to note that the historical-critical biblical studies do not represent what the Enlightenment envisions as a neutral, noncommitted research paradigm, a “scientific” model (which is not possible at all). The student of biblical studies approaches the Bible from a specifically modern perspective with its presup16 positions and conditions. Newbigin even goes so far as to call this the “confessional stance”: it does not mean a shift from a confessional to a neutral 17 position, but rather a move from one confession to another. As a result of all of this, Newbigin sees the retreat of Christian theology and

12

Lesslie Newbigin, The Other Side of 1984:Questions for the Churches (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1983), p. 11. 13 Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greek, p. 44. 14 Ibid., p. 40. 15 Newbigin, Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, pp. 242-43. 16 Newbigin, Other Side of 1984, pp. 44-45. 17 Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 39.

250

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

the Christian church into the private area as disastrous. It is an end result of a less than commendable type of apologetics. To its own detriment, the church has freely accepted this division between the public and private spheres and has been content to deal with issues relating to the latter. This has meant the message and the church are marginalized. The price paid for this marginalization has been costly, namely, the relativization of the message. The church has shied away from its appeal to universal truth.18 By doing so, the church has focused on values and adopted a kind of therapeutic role to ensure life after 19 death. As a result, general history and salvation history have been separated from each other. This is one reason for the ghetto mentality of the church. Pietism, which has focused on the personal faith of the individual, is a result of 20 this kind of development. Not without reason, Newbigin has spoken of the 21 cultural captivity of Western Christianity and theology.

A Missionary Encounter with the (Post)Modern Western Culture What, then, is Newbigin’s alternative? What is the more commendable option for the Christian church especially in the West at the turn of the third millennium? While the three aforementioned theological programs—deism, classical liberalism and historical-critical biblical studies—have attempted to explain the gospel on the basis of the presuppositions of modern culture, a “genuinely missionary encounter” with modern culture demands, in Newbigin’s opinion, that an exactly opposite attempt be made: a study of and interpretation of modern Western culture in the light of the gospel. In practice, this means, in Newbigin’s opinion, that the presuppositions of the modern era be challenged and questioned intellectually. The program also means offering a Christianbased view of reality as a new fiduciary framework for modern culture and as public truth for the whole of society. The missionary program of modern culture is thus not only a situation assessment, but also a genuine call to holistic 22 intellectual conversion. So, clearly, Newbigin’s own proposal for the church to accomplish its mission in contemporary Western culture goes against the tendency to adapt to the culture. The prerequisite for such an approach is a critical reevaluation of 18

Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, p. 19. Newbigin, Other Side of 1984, p. 35. 20 Ibid., p. 22. 21 Lesslie Newbigin, A Word in Season: Perspectives on Christian World Missions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 66-79. 22 Keskitalo, Kristillinen usko ja moderni kulttuuri, p. 369. 19

Lesslie Newbigin

251

the self-understanding of the church and its theology. Rather than trying to explain Christian faith in light of modern scientific rationality, modern culture should be analyzed from a specifically Christian standpoint. The church is called to challenge the prevailing thought forms and its questionable philosophical foundation. Necessarily, this will bring the church in tension with culture.23 By doing so, the church invites people to metanoia, repentance, a change of mind. But rather than aiming at a pietistic subjectivistic conversion, the 24 “conversion of the mind” is the ultimate goal. In fact, Newbigin goes so far as to issue a call for a specifically Christian view of reality. For him, Christian faith represents a distinctive form of rationality. Building on the studies of Michael Polanyi, Newbigin argues that the principle of skepticism, so prevalent in (post)modern culture, has to be subjected to criticism. According to this criticism, all knowledge presupposes faith: “If we consider what is involved in learning to know anything, we will see that knowing 25 has to begin with an act of faith.” Thus, Newbigin challenges the Cartesian notion based on the principle of skepticism. The only way to become convinced of the truth of any claim is to base it on another more foundational claim that cannot be doubted. This is where faith is introduced: “You cannot criticize a statement of what claims to be the truth except on the basis of some other truth26 claim which—at the moment—you accept without criticism.” Again building on Polanyi, Newbigin argues for the important role of tradition in knowing and faith. Tradition serves as a fiduciary framework for all knowing. This applies to scientific knowledge as well as to other kinds of knowledge. The authority of science does not rest on anything external to it 27 but on the tradition that validates itself. The adoption of tradition as a prerequisite for knowledge does not substitute for the personal search for truth but is its necessary condition. Consequently, according to Polanyi, the activity 28 of a scientist follows the Augustinian rule, credo ut intelligam. In this qualified sense, all systematic thinking is dogmatic, Newbigin contends, including the thinking in natural sciences. Newbigin’s whole point here is to attempt to show that the accepted dis23

See, e.g., Newbigin, Other Side of 1984, p. 53. See, e.g., Newbigin, Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, p. 110. 25 Ibid., p. 19; see also Lesslie Newbigin, Truth and Authority in Modernity (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press, 1996), p. 3. 26 Lesslie Newbigin, Truth to Tell: The Gospel as Public Truth (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 29. 27 Newbigin, Proper Confidence, pp. 47-48. 28 See further Newbigin, Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, p. 48; Truth to Tell, pp. 30-31. 24

252

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

tinction between knowledge and faith is not valid: “There are not two separate avenues to understanding, one marked ‘knowledge’ and the other marked ‘faith.’ There is no knowing without believing, and believing is the way to knowing.”29 True knowledge for Newbigin, then, is not disinterested, outside observation, as modernity assumes, but a sort of personal commitment. It is only through the acknowledgment of the proper epistemic value of faith that the fatal distinction between facts and values can be reconciled. This is crucial to Newbigin’s missionary encounter with the pluralistic culture and to his theology of religions in general.

The Gospel as Public Truth It is not legitimate, Newbigin argues, to reduce faith primarily to the subjective arena any more than it is possible to regard the arena of facts as free from sub30 jectivity. In other words, Newbigin rejects both objectivism and subjectivism: the former meaning that we do have access to facts apart from subjectivity; the latter that faith is only a matter of subjectivism and values. His option is “personal knowledge,” again borrowing from Polanyi, who suggests the conception of the personal, which is neither subjective nor objective. In so far as the personal submits to requirements acknowledged by itself as independent of itself, it is not subjective; but in so far as it is an action guided by individual 31 passion, it is not objective either.

The category of personal knowledge transcends the disjunction between subjective and objective. Naturally, all knowledge then includes the risk of fallibility; it is “risky business.” But on the basis of the notion of personal knowledge, Newbigin argues further for the public nature of the Christian message: “The commitment is a personal matter; it has to be my commitment. In that sense it is subjective. But it is a commitment which has an objective reference. It is . . . a commitment ‘with universal intent.’ It looks for confirmation by further experience.” Therefore, it is something “to be published, shared so that it 32 may be questioned and checked by the experience of others.” This takes us to the heart of Newbigin’s program. When a Christian says “I believe,” he or she is not merely describing an emotion or even a value state29

Newbigin, Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, p. 33. Ibid., p. 22. 31 Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), p. 300. 32 Newbigin, Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, p. 35. 30

Lesslie Newbigin

253

ment but affirming what he or she believes to be true—and “therefore what is true for everyone.”33 In other words, since faith is more than personal, it has an objective reference point; it is necessary to bring it out to the public arena. This is what Christian witnessing is all about. But Newbigin takes one step further. Not only has Christianity every right to publicize its truth claims, more importantly, it forms a kind of distinctive “truth community.” In fact, Newbigin sees marked parallels between the scientific community and Christian faith and the church: The scientific community and the Christian community are both entered by a similar process of socialization to the tradition. Both are authoritative communities of truth. There are also significant differences between the scientific tradition and the community of faith: the scientific tradition is the field of human reason and debate; the Christian tradition is not limited only to the things observed within the rational structure of the world. The Christian tradition of rationality is based on the self-revelation of God, which is focused in the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the modern idea of the antithesis of reason and revelation is a serious confusion of categories. The relation between reason and revelation is not a question of an antithesis between rationality 34 and irrationality, but of two different ways of employing reason.

And the locus where this specifically Christian form of rationality comes alive is the church, a transcultural community, a pilgrim people. It lives out and makes public, in dialogue with the world around, the Christian rationality. The final verification will be possible only eschatologically; until then it is the task of Christian theology and the church to make a convincing case in the 35 free market of ideas.

The Legitimacy and Purpose of Christian Mission Among World Religions The missionary nature of Christianity and the Christian church arises from the fact that truth understood as personal knowledge necessarily has a universal intention: it is meant for and applies to everybody, not just to Christians. Even 36 though one can never reach absolute certitude, a certainty is available. Clearly, then, Newbigin defends the rational nature of Christian faith against the forces of postmodernism. Borrowing yet another concept from Polanyi, “uni33

Ibid., p. 22. Keskitalo, Kristillinen usko ja moderni kulttuuri, p. 371. 35 Newbigin, Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, p. 74, among others. 36 Newbigin, Proper Confidence, p. 67. 34

254

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

versal intent,” Newbigin argues that the Christian message is linked “with universal intent.” This means that I cannot treat it as simply a personal decision; I am bound to publish it, to commend it to others, and to seek to show in the practice of life today that it is the rational tradition which is capable of giving greater coherence and intelligibility 37 to all experience than any other tradition.

At the same time, Christians are to acknowledge the existence of other kinds of rationalities, “faiths,” be they of a scientific, atheistic or religious nature. Those other traditions are to be allowed to express their universal truth claims. The existence of the Christian rationality among other rationalities, however, does not relativize its universal intention. It engages the public dis38 cussion and defends its truth claims that are universal in intent. The missionary challenge of the church amidst the postmodern, post-Christian West is enormous. The church finds itself sharing the gospel with a culture that is permeated, on the one hand, by the heritage of the Enlightenment and modernity and, on the other hand, by postmodern nihilism and hopelessness. People living amidst this tension tend to react to the message of the church in two seemingly opposing ways: those whose roots are still in the project of modernism are usually very skeptical, whereas a genuinely postmodern person may welcome the narrative truth of the gospel, although only as a story among others. To be credible, the church has to respond to both of these reactions. The nature of the witness of the church in such a context, rather than claiming to possess the truth, is “bearing the truth and witnessing to the truth.” At the same time the church is also a seeker of the truth, even though it 39 also has access to it in the gospel. As already mentioned, it is left to the eschaton to verify the truth claims of Christian faith. Newbigin’s theology therefore is future-oriented, centered in Christ. This crucial idea was written into the very constitution of the Church of South India, of which Newbigin was bishop; that church “confesses its own partial and tentative character by acknowledging that the final aim is ‘the union 40 in the Universal Church of all who acknowledged the Name of Christ.’ ” The eschatological nature of the church also comes to the fore in the future 37

Newbigin, Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, p. 88. Ibid., p. 64, among others. 39 Ibid., p. 12. 40 Lesslie Newbigin, The Household of God (London: SCM Press, 1953), p. 18; for the relationship between eschatology and mission, see esp. pp. 153-59. 38

Lesslie Newbigin

255

hope that not only all Christians but all creation will participate in God’s new creation: In the final consummation of God’s loving purposes we and all creation will be caught up into the perfect rapture of that mutual love which is the life of God himself. What is given to us now can only be a foretaste, for none of us can be made whole till we are made whole together. The very meaning of the word salvation is that it is a making whole, a healing of that which sunders us from God, from one another, and from the created world. The idea of a salvation that is a completed experience for each of us privately, apart from the consummation of 41 all things, is a monstrous contradiction in terms.

Newbigin’s theology of religions is firmly rooted in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ and Christian rationality. It is explicitly antipluralistic, but it cannot be regarded exclusive or ecclesiocentric. The church plays a crucial role as the bearer of the truth and as its witness, but Newbigin does not engage the speculation as to the destiny of those who have not heard the gospel. What he makes clear is that salvation is to be found in Christ and has to be proclaimed to all—that salvation comes in and through his cross and resurrection. While it is missionary, it also gives space to all other traditions with their truth claims. Much like in Pannenberg’s theology of religions, Christians are entitled to argue for the validity of their truth claims in the public arena of religions and ideologies; the eschaton gives the final ratification of whose rationality is the true one.

41

Ibid., p. 147.

28 M. M. Thomas “ R IS K ING C HR IS T F O R C HRIST’S SA KE”

Salvation, Humanization and Nation Building While many Asian theologians have addressed the perennial issue of poverty and social justice from a Christian perspective (e.g., Aloysius Pieris, a Sri Lan1 kan Jesuit, who has also labored in the Christian-Buddhist dialogue), it is Madathilparampil M. Thomas who has made the struggle for the humanization of Asia the cornerstone of his theology and interreligious practice. Thomas was a lay theologian from the Mar Thoma Church in India, a chairperson of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches (1968-1975) and governor of Nagaland, India for a short time in the beginning of the 1990s, a few years before his death. He was a widely acknowledged author on the theology of religions, social justice and nation-building efforts in India. In the beginning of his career, he was associated with student movements and soon gained an influential role in ecumenical and interreligious affairs. His association with an influential Indian theologian Paul D. Devanandan, beginning from the founding of the Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society at the end of the 1950s, was formative for his thinking. Thomas also became famous with his study on neo-Hindu Christologies. But in contrast to his Indian colleague Raimundo Panikkar’s work The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, Thomas 2 titled his book The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance. Thomas’s gateway to theology was the emergence of political and social 3 consciousness; at one time he even became a member of the Communist Party 1

See, e.g., Aloysius Pieris, An Asian Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1988). M. M. Thomas, The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance (London: SCM Press, 1969). For an autobiographical account, see M. M. Thomas, “My Pilgrimage in Mission,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 13, no. 1 (1989): 28-31. 3 Thomas himself acknowledges this in a programmatic essay (to be discussed below): “The Absoluteness of Jesus Christ and Christ-Centred Syncretism,” Ecumenical Review 37 (October 1985): 390-91. 2

M. M. Thomas

257

while seeking ordination as a pastor. The title of his main book, Salvation and Humanization, reveals the main orientation of his thinking. For Thomas, the validity of Christology is based less on its doctrinal orthodoxy than on its contribution to the human quest for a better quality of life and for social justice. In Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake, Thomas attempted to develop a “Christ-centered 4 humanism” that would be based on a syncretistic view of religions. The source of strength for this kind of risky ecumenical and interreligious work came from the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a real liberation theology with the purpose of explicating in real life the implications of faith in Christ. Thomas, like Pieris, criticizes Christian liberation movements for their inability to recognize the liberative force of other religions. Their naming Christianity as a specifically liberationist religion too easily leads to the implication that other religions are not liberationist and thus fosters the unhealthy isolationism of Christianity from other religions. Thomas’s relation to the emerging sociopolitical theologies of the WCC was both affirmative and critical. He enthusiastically championed the rise of political consciousness, but he was frustrated by the lack 5 of the acknowledgment of other religions’ role in it. For Thomas it is clear that even the atheistic secular ideologies of India have been “drawn to the crucified Jesus and what it means for tortured humanity.” And how much more this ap6 plies to Indian religious leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi. Thus, Thomas’s theology recognizes the presence of Christ in all struggles for justice, whether Christian or not. It also acknowledges the presence of Christ in any spirituality, whether Christian or not, that inspires struggles for justice. Not only Christianity but also Asian religions provide spiritual bases for striving for justice. This recognition leads to the consideration of his Christology.

The Cosmic Christ of History Thomas’s “cosmic Christology” acknowledges that Christ is present in these struggles as the cosmic Lord of history. On the basis of Colossians 1 and Ephesians 1, Thomas argues that if Christ as the principle and goal of creation is present in all creation, then every attempt to better creation and the life of creatures is related to Christ, whether so acknowledged or not by the agents of 4

M. M. Thomas, Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake: Towards an Ecumenical Theology of Pluralism (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1987). 5 See, e.g., M. M. Thomas, “Uppsala 1968 and the Contemporary Theological Situation,” Scottish Journal of Theology 2 (February 1970): 49. 6 M. M. Thomas, “Christology and Pluralistic Consciousness,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 10, no. 3 (1986): 107.

258

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

change. There is a curious dialectic in Thomas’s understanding with regard to how people recognize the power of Jesus at work in the world: Christ makes use of worldly and non-worldly forces for this purpose. The notion that Christ is at work only in the church and Christians is foolish and nonsensical. But it is the church and the Christians who can recognize Christ in the efforts and 7 events of our time.

It has become evident that Thomas’s Christ, the cosmic Lord of history, is not so much related to the mystery of the divine (as in many other Asian interpretations of Christ, especially Panikkar’s), but rather to the historical plane, the struggle for equality, justice and peace. Thomas is the liberation theologian for Asia: Thomas’ Christology does not deny the importance of history in order to provide a common basis for all religions. Rather, the cosmic lord of history becomes the meeting point of religions as they struggle for justice. Christ is present not so much in ahistorical mystery as in the human quest for a better life. Therefore, for Thomas, the cosmic lord of history and the historical Jesus, who labored among 8 the poor, are one and the same, sharing an identical purpose.

Jesus not only identified with the poor, he also suffered and died on the cross to empower his followers to continue the same work. This leads us to acknowledge the role of the church in the work of the cosmic Christ. For Thomas, because Christ is the cosmic Lord of history, the Christian church has no alternative but to encounter Christ’s presence, not in its own religiosity but in a larger history that includes all religions. Since Christians believe that “Christ holds all things together now (Col 1) and will sum up all things in himself in the end (Eph 1),” should they “not make greater efforts to discern how Christ is at work in other faiths, generally in their traditional patterns and more par9 ticularly in their renewal movements”? Therefore, the Christian church in India has to remind itself that the Indian religions and secular ideologies are our 10 partners in the common work toward nation building.

7

Quoted in Volker Küster, The Many Faces of Jesus Christ: Intercultural Christology (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2001), p. 84. 8 Priscilla Pope-Levison and John R. Levison, Jesus in Global Contexts (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1992), p. 73. 9 M. M. Thomas, Toward a Theology of Contemporary Ecumenism (Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1978), p. 306, quoted in John R. Levison and Priscilla Pope-Levison, “Toward an Ecumenical Christology for Asia,” Missiology: An International Review 22, no. 1 (1994): 11. 10 Thomas, “Christology,” p. 107.

M. M. Thomas

259

Christology, Pluralistic Consciousness and Syncretism In the present book, Thomas is classified as a Christocentric inclusivist rather than as a pluralist. As mentioned several times, these classifications are elusive and often do not reflect the whole picture. My reason for placing Thomas in the inclusivist camp is based on the rationale that even with all his pluralistic leanings—and therefore, he certainly represents a very different kind of inclusivism, say, from the mainline Protestant Wolfhart Pannenberg or evangelical Norman Anderson—he holds that the person and work of Jesus Christ is the defining moment of religions. An article that perhaps most accurately captures his dynamic, tension-filled approach to religions is entitled significantly “The Absoluteness of Jesus Christ and Christ-Centred Syncretism.” This programmatic article of the mature Thomas summarizes the main orientations of his “pluralistic consciousness” within the “absoluteness of Christ-centredness.” He acknowledges (and this is significant for Thomas’s socially and politically oriented thinking) that the pluralistic consciousness is a result of the pressure in modern secular history of the technical and political movements “unifying people and the consequent awareness of our common responsibility 11 to a common historical human destiny.” Here is another indication of the “practical” nature of Thomas’s theology: the pluralistically oriented drive arises from the need to work for the unification of the world, which is fragmented socially, politically, culturally and religiously. Thomas rightly concludes that in this theology, anthropology is the point of entry into historically relevant and challenging interfaith dialogue and common work among religions and ideologies. This need “challenges different religions and secular faiths toward inner intra-faith reform, around which they can enter into any kind of meaningful interfaith dialogue.” The sharp focus on this ultimate goal differentiates the pluralistic consciousness championed by Thomas from what he calls “stat12 ic pluralism.” Thomas is critical of other types of pluralisms, such as those of John Hick and Panikkar. In response to Hick (and his The Universe of Faiths), 13 Thomas titled one of his books, Man and the Universe of Faiths. How, then, does Thomas understand the relationship between the “absoluteness” of Christianity and the emerging pluralistic consciousness? He notes that “absolute” is a philosophical category that seems to make all relatives meaningless; therefore, even though he has continued using the term absolute, 11

Ibid., p. 106. Ibid. 13 Thomas makes this explicit in ibid., p. 107. 12

260

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

it would be more appropriate to speak of the “centrality” of Jesus Christ. That makes it possible to “speak of other realities of the world and life as real as they are centered in Jesus Christ.”14 Thomas laments that as a result of less than appropriate uses in the past of the term syncretism (he mentions Hendrik Kraemer as an example), the term syncretism has lost its power and has come to be 15 understood as the opposite of Christocentrism. This has led, unfortunately, not to the revival and advancement of interfaith dialogues, but to an overcautious attitude on the part of those who see the dangers of syncretism everywhere. For Thomas, this also led to the halting of the adjustment of Christianity in the Asian context, something totally different from what Kraemer and other “conservatives” hoped for. What Thomas champions is a Christ-centered syncretism in which there is not only adaptation of the Christian message to the local context and religious needs, but also a real interaction between the Christian message and religions—all this being done from the centrality of Christ, the cosmic Lord of history. Thomas envisions that there “has to be reciprocity between the gospel of Christianity and the existential self-understanding of Asian and African cul16 tures for proper incarnation to happen.” On the basis of these considerations, Thomas is quite happy with the way the WCC’s Guidelines on Dialogue defines syncretism: Partners in dialogue should be free to define themselves. One of the functions of dialogue is to allow participants to describe and witness to their faith in their own terms. It should be recognized by partners in dialogue that any religion or ideology claiming universality, apart from having an understanding of itself, will also have its own interpretations of other religions and ideologies as part of its own self-understanding. Dialogue gives an opportunity for mutual questioning of the understanding partners have about themselves and others. It is out of a re17 ciprocal willingness to listen and learn that significant dialogue grows.

14

Thomas, “Absoluteness of Jesus Christ,” p. 387. For an interesting dialogue with Kraemer, see ibid., pp. 388-93. 16 Ibid., p. 395. 17 Dialogue in Community, Chiang Mai Theological Consultation (Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1978), p. 22, quoted in ibid., p. 396. 15

C H R I S T O C E N T R I S M 3: Evangelicals

29 Sir Norman Anderson UNIQUE S A VIOR B UT NONEXC LUSIV E SA LV A TION

The Historical Basis of Christian Faith as the “Divide Between Religions” Undoubtedly, the person who up until the early 1990s made the largest impact on the evangelical movement in terms of a more inclusivist theology of religions is Sir Norman Anderson, formerly professor of oriental law at the University of London in England. As already mentioned in the discussion of the theology of religions of the evangelical movement (chap. 15), Anderson was the one who challenged the often extremely restrictivist standpoint and elicited a great deal of responses among evangelicals, both affirmative and critical. Therefore, discussing his views provides an appropriate introduction to the specific kind of Christocentrism among evangelicals represented by some theologians. In the 1970s, Anderson wrote a book entitled Christianity and Comparative Religion, based on a series of theological lectures given in Ireland, in which he outlined an inclusivist position that placed Christianity among world religions and yet remained fundamentally in agreement with evangelical convictions. In his subsequent revision of that book, entitled Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism, published by the evangelical Inter-Varsity Press in England in 1984, he brought to maturity these basic ideas and focused more on

262

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

theological analysis and less on comparative religion, the latter of which is one of his special areas of study. He takes stock of a wide variety of literature published by the mid 1980s1 and advances an approach to religions that is staunchly Christocentric, wanting to avoid the pitfalls of syncretism, pluralism 2 (especially that represented by John Hick ) and mysticism. His debt to the influential Christocentric inclusivist Lesslie Newbigin is visible throughout the 3 book, and Anderson does not shy away from giving him credit. Anderson is not happy about the kind of “syncretism” that tends “to interpret Christianity ‘wholly in terms of ideas,’ rather than God’s decisive intervention in history.” Quoting Newbigin, Anderson affirms that Christianity is 4 not a philosophical system; it is “primarily news and only secondarily views.” Among those with whom he differs he counts, for example, William Hocking, Arnold Toynbee and many other unnamed current scholars of religion and theologians. Building his Christocentric approach, Anderson maintains— again with reference to Newbigin—that the historicity of Christianity is the “great divide among the religions,” namely, “their attitude to history.” Eastern religions, for example, in general consider “incarnation” as an ahistorical or suprahistorical event, not necessarily something that can be viewed as a his5 torical event like any other. Anderson contends to the contrary: But the fundamental fact about the incarnation is that it was a unique, historical event in which God himself intervened decisively in the world he has created. It is precisely at this point that the Christian must of necessity part company with a great deal that is included under the comprehensive umbrella of Mysticism. This phenomenon is found in so many different religions—and is, indeed, often expressed in such similar terms—that it frequently appears as an emotional or in6 tuitive form of Syncretism.

“The Scandal of Particularity” In order to argue for the historicity of incarnation and thus the historical foundation of Christian faith, Anderson engages in a discussion of the New Testa1

See further Sir Norman Anderson, Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984), pp. 8-10. 2 See further ibid., pp. 22-27. 3 See the comment in ibid., p. 22. 4 Ibid., p. 18; quotation from Lesslie Newbigin, A Faith for This One World (London: SCM Press, 1961), p. 45. 5 Anderson, Christianity and World Religions, p. 45; quotation from Lesslie Newbigin, The Finality of Christ (London: SCM Press, 1969), p. 65. 6 Anderson, Christianity and World Religions, pp. 21-22.

Sir Norman Anderson

263

ment kerygma, the proclamation of Christ.7 He is critical of that type of New Testament theology that tends to make the history of Jesus of Nazareth either mythical (Rudolf Bultmann), parallel with mystical traditions of the East or a result of a relativist historical nature of all human knowledge (History of Reli8 gions School). Anderson surveys widely approaches to history among world religions—both those without any kind of reference to the historicity of their savior figures, such as Hinduism, and those with an appeal to history, such as Zoroastrianism and Islam—and comes to the conclusion that the Christian faith stands or falls with the alleged historical nature of the Christ-event, especially the incarnation and resurrection. Following his insistence on the historicity of the Christian faith, Anderson moves to consider the nature of salvation in Christianity in light of proposals from other religions. Two things make the Christian view of salvation unique for him. First, it distances itself from those religions that understand salvation merely in terms of this world; “political religions” such as communism and Theravada and Zen Buddhism are case studies here. He also wants to distance himself from those views that approach salvation merely in terms of eternity, Hinduism being the grand example, but also the mainline (Mahayana) Buddhism to a large extent. For Christianity, salvation is both this worldly and eternal, and it concerns not only the salvation of the soul but also a new creation of the whole cosmos. Second, Christianity differs from other religions in terms of “means” of salvation. It is only through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ that salvation is available. All other religions, Anderson maintains, look to other things, be they good deeds, true knowl9 edge or whatever. According to Anderson, salvation is to be found only in Christ; religion does not save—not even Christianity. (However, this is not to deny the rela10 tive value of religions as vehicles of truth and light originating in God. ) The reason religion cannot save is that no human being can be saved by the quality of his or her life, be it orthodoxy or good behavior. Clearly standing within the classical Christian and evangelical tradition, Anderson argues that all human beings 7

This subhead is taken from ibid., p. 138. Chapter 2 in ibid. is devoted to this topic. 9 Chapter 3 in ibid. is devoted to a careful comparison between world religions and Christianity with regard to salvation. 10 For a discussion concerning the value, potential and limitations of religions, see ibid., pp. 169-74. 8

264

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

have sinned and continually fall short of the only standard that a holy God must require. It is only when we come, spiritually naked, to the cross where God himself, in the man of Jesus Christ, revealed not only sin as it really is but also the 11 love . . . that we realize that there is, in fact, no other way.

A Unique Savior, but Not an Exclusive Salvation Having stated his case in clear terms, Anderson, however, departs from that kind of restrictivist evangelicalism that excludes salvation from most everybody who did not respond in faith to the hearing of the gospel. He maintains that “these categorical statements about the one and only [Savior, Jesus Christ] do not of themselves exclude anyone, except those who with open eyes persist 12 in rejecting them.” Anderson obviously implies that those who never had a chance to hear the gospel in the first place are not necessarily accountable for the lack of response that was never made possible. Referring to the salvation 13 of Old Testament saints who never heard of Christ, even though obviously they were saved by virtue of Christ’s cross according to the New Testament, Anderson wants to raise the possibility that, where the ‘God of all grace” has been at work by his Spirit in the hearts of individuals from other religious backgrounds, revealing to them something of their sin and need and enabling them (as he alone can) to throw 14 themselves on his mercy, they too may profit [from what Christ has done].

In criticism of—yet in basic material agreement with—Karl Rahner and Hans Küng, he says that there is not need to use categories such as “anonymous Christians” or all religions as “ordinary ways of salvation.” Nor is one to dismiss the problem with the too-often-typical “we do not know” answer about the destiny of others. Anderson lays out his own case for Christocentric inclusivism in these terms: Wherever and whenever the Spirit of God brings a man, whatever his religious background, to realize something of his sin or need, and to throw himself utterly on God’s mercy, the Bible gives us reasons to believe that he will in fact find mercy where it is always and only available—at the cross of Christ—and that he will be accepted and forgiven on the basis of what God himself did at the cross to make possible the forgiveness of the repentant sinner. If this is true, then it fol-

11

Ibid., p. 30. Ibid., p. 31 (italics in the original). 13 See further ibid., pp. 143-45. 14 Ibid., p. 32. 12

Sir Norman Anderson

265

lows that those mystics from other religious traditions who have genuinely sought the face of God with a real sense of sin and need—as many of them undoubtedly have—have in all probability experienced his grace and forgiveness in 15 Christ, little though they may have understood it.

The challenge of millions and millions of people dying without any chance of hearing the gospel begs an answer from Christian theology, Anderson contends. For him so many deaths without salvation would “be an agonizing thought.” So he is in search of a less restrictivist biblical and 16 theological view. Anderson, however, does not find the basis for his inclusivism in the traditional view that all will be judged by the light they have (on the basis of Rom 2:14-16); Jews will be judged on the basis of Mosaic law, non-Jews according to natural law. Of course, as law expert, Anderson has no problem affirming the principle in itself, but the problem he finds here is this: Just as Jews have never lived up to the demands of the Mosaic law, so no Gentile has ever fulfilled the requirements of the law “written in their hearts.” So this does not provide a basis for either salvation or damnation. The question has to be rephrased: “Is there any basis on which the efficacy of the one atonement can avail those who 17 have never heard about it?” The answer given by contemporary Christian pluralists—according to which it does not belong to the nature of a loving God to condemn anybody—is not satisfactory to Anderson for the simple reason that it relativizes the whole quest of religions and misreads the biblical testimony to God as a God of love and holiness and justice. On the other hand, he disagrees with traditional Protestantism, according to which salvation is only about faith; for Anderson, the biblical testimony to salvation in Christ is also about grace. Anderson’s own solution, once again, goes back to the salvation of the Old Testament saints. The Jews of the Old Testament who turned to God in repentance and brought the prescribed sacrifice “threw themselves on” God’s mercy. It was not that they earned that mercy by their repentance or obedience or that an animal sacrifice could ever atone for human sin. “It was that their repentance and faith (themselves, of course, the result of God’s work in their hearts) opened the gate, as it were, to the grace, mercy and forgiveness which he always longed to extend to them, and which was to be made avail-

15

Ibid., p. 43. Ibid., p. 146; in pp. 162-69 he considers carefully what the sayings in the Bible about “only few being saved” mean in their context. 17 Ibid., p. 146. 16

266

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

able at the cross” of Christ.18 The Jews of the Old Testament had a special divine revelation to assist them, but, Anderson proposes, might it not be true of the follower of some other religion that the God of all mercy had worked in his heart by his Spirit, bringing him in some measure to realize his sin and need for forgiveness, and enabling him, in the twilight as it were, to 19 throw himself on God’s mercy.

Knowledge of God Among Religions Anderson develops his case for the openness of God’s mercy on the basis of his exposition of some key biblical passages. Looking at Romans 10:12-18, Anderson notes the idea (with reference to John Calvin’s comments) that the preached Word is not necessarily the only means by which God can communicate a knowledge of himself among men and women. The Old Testament offers examples of direct communications of God to people with the help of visions, dreams and divine speech. In addition, there is biblical basis for the idea of a general revelation of God among the nations and followers of other religions. In contrast to more restrictivist Protestant interpretation, according to which even this kind of “cosmic revelation” only accounts for idolatry (cf. Rom 1:18-32), Anderson wonders, May it not be compatible, both with Scripture and experience, to suggest that God sometimes so works in men’s hearts by his grace that, instead of them “holding down the truth,” he opens their hearts to it and enables them to embrace such 20 of it as has been revealed to them?

In other words, Anderson seriously doubts whether the only or major task of general revelation is to make the human being without excuse before God and thus exclude her from salvation. In reference to Romans 3:10-18, on the basis of his deep acquaintance with Islam, Anderson is convinced that, indeed, some great Muslim mystics “have sought the face of God with a wholeheartedness which cannot be questioned.” His point here is that even though according to Romans there is no one righteous among the Jews or Gentiles, there are those who are “relatively” righteous, and God is not indifferent to them. The case of Cornelius in Acts 10 illustrates this. Anderson therefore wonders whether there is any convincing reason why the numerous references and promises in the Scriptures to those who seek God 18

Ibid., p. 148. Ibid., pp. 148-49. 20 Ibid., p. 151. 19

Sir Norman Anderson

267

should apply exclusively to those Jews of Old Testament times. While it is true, Anderson notes, that often religious enthusiasm may represent a human attempt to earn salvation, it is also true that there are a lot of honest, sincere, devoted, God-seeking men and women in all religions. These people, like everyone else, could only be saved by grace, “but may they not have been responding to some initiative of that grace which was uniquely operative in the cross and resurrection” of Jesus Christ?21 Anderson believes that most probably this kind of seeker would have embraced the gospel had she had a chance to do so. Missionary experience testifies to the existence of people who have been waiting for years to receive the gospel of which they did not yet know. On the other hand, Anderson is not willing to posit a “second chance” in terms of after22 death experience of God’s love, because there is no scriptural evidence for it. In summary, we may state that Anderson draws a parallel between the Jews of the Old Testament who received salvation before the coming of Christ, and those followers of others religions who today have never really heard the gospel but are genuinely seeking God in their own religions. None of them can earn salvation by their own works—neither Jews, nor Christians nor any others. But they can be saved on the basis of what Christ did, even though they have not had an opportunity to respond in explicit faith. Anderson, however, warns his evangelical colleagues that this view should not lead to any diminution of missionary urgency. Reasons are many. First, Christians are “under orders.” Second, even though salvation may be available, much teaching and heart assurance is needed. Third, what most often helps people to give up their own efforts for earning salvation is hearing the good news of what God has done in Christ. Fourth, no Christian would want to “deny others the present experience of joy, peace and power which a conscious knowledge of Christ, 23 communion with him, alone can bring.” But what about the present state of Jews? Anderson makes several points in reference to this. Before presenting four categories of Jews, he reminds us of the obvious fact that the Bible’s message of the “new covenant” was primarily directed to the people of the “old covenant.” So those who argue for the lasting value of the old covenant for the Jews in a way that makes the new covenant in Christ needless for them are wrong. His categories are these: First, many, perhaps most, Jews living after Christ have not really heard the gospel in any

21

Ibid., pp. 152-53 (italics in the original). Ibid., pp. 153-54. 23 Ibid., p. 155. 22

268

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

meaningful way because of prejudices and the sad history of Christian-Jewish relations. Their position is the same as those living before Christ. Second, some Jews believe in Christ as Messiah, but do not want to align themselves with the church. Third, there are those who bluntly reject the message of Christ. Their lot is the same as anybody’s who turns his or her back to truth. Fourth, there are those who put their trust in Christ as their Messiah and still cherish their 24 Jewish heritage.

24

Ibid., pp. 155-61.

30 Clark Pinnock A WIDE NE S S IN GOD’S M ERC Y

The Perils of Relativism and Restrictivism The title of the main work on theology of religions written by Clark Pinnock, a leading evangelical theologian from Canada, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions, reveals the dynamic that characterizes his approach. As an evangelical theologian, Pinnock started his move toward inclusivism mainly on a christological basis but then later shifted to a definite pneumatological view (without, of course, positing any contradistinction between these two orientations). The challenge of pluralism as such is not new, Pinnock notes. And it is not confined to the Christian religion only; other religions have to tackle the problem, too. But what makes pluralism so challenging today is the “relativistic mindset of late modernity,” that is, “an ideology of pluralism which celebrates choice in and of itself and claims that choice is good no matter what is chosen.” In this climate, Pinnock adds ironically, any diversity of choices is tolerable except one: “the mentality that believes that some choices are right and others wrong, some beliefs true and others false. That can1 not be tolerated.” Pinnock rightly grasps the basic errors to be avoided: one is to say dogmatically that all will be saved, and the other is to say that only a few will be. The two poles of the Christian message—the universal will of God to save all and the finality of salvation only in Christ—are to be handled in a way that does not discourage evangelism yet does not make salvation unavailable to most people. Here we come to another of Pinnock’s concerns besides relativism, in a sense its exact opposite: restrictivism. As he sees it, a majority of

1

Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992), pp. 9-10.

270

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

evangelicals today are “hardline restrictivists” in his estimation, which means that the only possibility for encountering God and receiving salvation is to exercise explicit faith in Jesus Christ in this earthly life. All must receive God’s revelation in Christ. “Outside of this special revelation, there is neartotal darkness.”2 An evangelical theology of religions, as Pinnock presents it, is governed by two foundational parameters. First is the biblical and theological basis for an optimism of salvation grounded in the love of God for all humanity. This opposes the “fewness doctrine,” according to which only a small number of people will be saved. The second foundational concern is christological. It is a high Christology, necessary for any evangelical theology of religions that takes the uniqueness of Jesus Christ for granted but does not understand it in a way that closes the door of salvation to the majority of people. While resisting attempts to conceive of incarnation as mythical (John Hick and others) or truncate the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, Pinnock “will insist just as emphatically that a high Christology does not entail either a pessimism of salvation or an exclusivist attitude toward people of 3 other faiths.”

Optimism of Salvation and the Uniqueness of Christ Based on a careful survey of biblical materials, Pinnock comes to the understanding that an optimism of salvation can be maintained: A fundamental point in this theology of religions is the conviction that God’s redemptive work in Jesus Christ was intended to benefit the whole world. . . . The dimensions are deep and wide. God’s grace is not niggardly or partial. . . . For according to the Gospel of Christ, the outcome of salvation will be large and 4 generous.

The optimism of salvation is based on one’s understanding of God. Pinnock champions a view of God that is of “unbounded generosity.” This God is committed to a full racial salvation. “The God we love and trust is not One to be satisfied until there is a healing of the nations and an innumerable host of redeemed people around his throne (Rev 7:9; 21:24-26; 22:2-6).” This is 5 what Pinnock calls a hermeneutic of hopefulness. This optimistic herme2

Ibid., p. 12. Ibid., pp. 13-14. 4 Ibid., p. 17. 5 Ibid., pp. 18-20. 3

Clark Pinnock

271

neutic was lost early in Christian theology with the introduction of the Augustinian notion of the doctrine of election that focused on individuals and often led to apathy before the sovereign choice of God. This Pinnock calls “a megashift in historical theology.”6 Instead, the Greek theology operated in more open terms. Referring to Karl Barth and others, Pinnock wants to revive the doctrine of election as referring to the election of the community, with the focus on salvation rather than on judgment. This would change the pattern of Bible reading, Pinnock argues. It would also highlight, more than is often the case in evangelical theology, the importance of “pagan saints” in 7 the Bible—those from outside the elected community yet included in it. Thus, Pinnock concludes that the overall point of the Old Testament is to present a God who “is in dialogue with all the peoples of earth. What he is doing in the call of Abram and the election of Israel is not in opposition to 8 the salvation of the world but on behalf of it.” The same pattern he also detects in the New Testament. But alongside the optimism of salvation Pinnock also holds to the uniqueness of the person of Jesus Christ. This claim, indeed, causes embarrassment to many, both Christians and others. Therefore, Pinnock goes into a quite detailed biblical and dogmatic inquiry into the basis for high Christology to argue for the finality of Jesus Christ among religions and religious figures. He is critical of the reinterpretations of Christology that are common among pluralists and argues that they distort the historical faith of the church. Pinnock believes that theological pluralism is a metareligious conviction, an attitude that is not at all open-minded or tolerant to nonrelativist ways of thinking. It does not allow the presentation of truth claims of 9 religions. But once again, Pinnock notes that a high Christology does not necessarily mean exclusivism. The basis of an open attitude to all peoples theologically is the doctrine of the triune God and of his prevenient grace. In Christ, “God’s secret plan for the creation is disclosed.” Therefore, the incarnation “does not weaken but seals and strengthens our confidence in the universal salvific will of God.” The Logos, which was made flesh in Jesus of Nazareth, is present in the entire world and in the whole of human history. “Though Jesus Christ is 6

Ibid., p. 35. See ibid., p. 25. The term “pagan saints” is borrowed from Jean Daniélou, Holy Pagans of the Old Testament (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1957). 8 Pinnock, Wideness, p. 29. 9 Chap. 2 in ibid. is devoted to this topic. 7

272

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Lord, we confess at the same time that the Logos is not confined to the segment of human history or one piece of world geography.”10

The Spirit in the World In his recent pneumatological systematic theology, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit, Pinnock specifically sets before himself this question: What is the role of the Spirit in the world, outside the confines of the Christian church? Out of these considerations emerge a challenging pneumatological theology of religions. In Pinnock’s view, being against restrictivism is not only God’s nature as Father and the universality of the atonement of Christ but also the everpresent Spirit, “who can foster transforming friendship with God any11 where and everywhere.” The entry for Pinnock to an appreciation of a more unlimited ministry of the Spirit is the “cosmic range to the operations 12 of the Spirit.” Emphasis on the Spirit’s work in salvation should not be read as a denial of his work in creation on which it is based, as too often 13 has been the case. Pinnock argues that by acknowledging the work of the Spirit in creation we are actually allowing a more universal perspective of the Spirit’s ministry in which the work of preparing hearts to hear the gospel is not set in antithesis to the fulfillment of the gospel in Christ. “What one encounters in Jesus is the fulfillment of previous invitations of the 14 Spirit.” Pinnock argues that access to grace is less of a problem for a pneumatologically based theology of religions than it is for an exclusively Christologically anchored one. Whereas the incarnation of the Son was confined to a specific place in time and history, its universal effects through the ministry of the Spirit 15 can be transmitted to the farthest ends of the earth. Not only that, but everyday human experiences can likewise be means of 10

Ibid., p. 77. Clark Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), pp. 186-87. 12 Ibid., p. 49. In an ecumenical spirit, Pinnock quotes here in approval from Pope John Paul II, who speaks of “the breath of life which causes all creation, all history, to flow together to its ultimate end, in the infinite ocean of God.” 13 Pinnock, Flame of Love, p. 51. A case in point is evangelical theologian W. H. Griffith Thomas, who prefers to bypass the cosmic activities of the Spirit as he sees them threatening the uniqueness of the gospel. See Thomas, The Holy Spirit of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 187, 196, 201. 14 Pinnock, Flame of Love, p. 63. 15 Ibid., p. 188. 11

Clark Pinnock

273

divine contact since human beings “as spirit” are created to be open to God.16 In the final analysis, the ministries of the Son and Spirit can, of course, not to be put in any kind of opposition to one another; rather, they are to be seen as “both-and.” “Christ, the only mediator, sustains particularity, while the Spirit, 17 the presence of God everywhere, safeguards universality.” The complementary ministry of the Spirit and Son come to focus with regard to religions.

The Potential of Religions and Religious Experience Unlike most evangelical theologians, Pinnock inquires into the nature and role of religions in the divine economy and finds the biblical teaching both affirming 18 and correcting them. He does not tire in urging his fellow evangelicals to become more positive in relation to other religions than historically they have been. There are positive features in other religions due to God’s presence and revelation. And since religions are not static but constantly changing over time, he believes that it is possible for Christ to impact them. Being more positive, however, does not require one to conclude that every religion is a vehicle of sal19 vation or an ordinary way to salvation. To facilitate the impact of Christ on religions, Pinnock recommends truth-seeking dialogue as the mission activity. The setting for considering religions as dynamic, open to change, is the biblical philosophy of history and hope. Quoting Wolfhart Pannenberg’s statement that “in contradistinction to other peoples and their religions, Israel, in the light of its particular experience of God, learned to understand the reality of human existence as a history moving toward a goal which had not yet ap16

Ibid., p. 73. Here one can see the influence of Karl Rahner on Pinnock’s thinking, although he doesn’t explicate it in this context. Wolfhart Pannenberg’s theological anthropology also operates with this idea. Another sign of Pinnock’s open ecumenical attitude is that he quotes with approval from the Catholic feminist theologian Elizabeth Johnson: “The breadth and depth of experience that may mediate holy mystery is genuinely inclusive. It embraces not only, and in many instances is not even primarily events associated with explicitly religious meaning such as church, word, sacraments, and prayer, although these are obviously intended as mediations of the divine. But since the mystery of God undergirds the whole world, the wide range of what is considered secular or just plain ordinary human life can be grist for the mill of experience of Spirit-Sophia, drawing near and passing by.” Johnson, She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse (New York: Crossroad, 1992), p. 125. 17 Pinnock, Flame of Love, p. 192. For an appreciation of Pinnock’s overall scheme, but also a critique of his theological methodology here, see Amos Yong, “Whither Theological Inclusivism? The Development and Critique of an Evangelical Theology of Religions,” Evangelical Quarterly 71, no. 4 (1999): 327-48. 18 He devotes no less than two chapters (chaps. 3 and 4) in A Wideness in God’s Mercy to the topic of religion(s). 19 See further ibid., esp. pp. 106-7 and chap. 3 in general.

274

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

peared,” Pinnock argues for a hermeneutic of optimism concerning the potential of religions.20 A forward look characterizes the church age, and central to it is the ingathering of the Gentiles. “Religions as cumulative traditions have to be viewed in this context like everything else. The sweeping action of the kingdom of God, through the mission of the church, will inevitably overtake 21 them.” Since the gospel cannot be preached to the nations apart from an encounter with religions, the church cannot afford to ignore other religions. In his pneumatological theology of religions, Pinnock is of the opinion that religions, rather than being either futile human attempts to reach God or outright obstacles to a saving knowledge of God, can be Spirit-used pointers to 22 and means of contact with God. This comes to focus also in Pinnock’s understanding of Christian revelation. He engages the questions of truth and revelation from a pneumatological perspective: in other words, he asks how the 23 Spirit reveals God’s identity and brings revelation to fruition. God’s Spirit is never confined to parochial interests but is always intended for the nations. The Spirit is “guiding, luring, wooing, influencing, drawing all humanity, not 24 just the church.” Pinnock’s concern in his discussion of revelation is not so much the fact of divine inspiration—which has been the focus of much of traditional theology—but rather the growth of Christians and all peoples as hearers of the Word. The issue is the appropriation of God’s Word.

The Faith Principle In light of the general framework of Pinnock’s theology, it is not surprising to hear Pinnock argue for hope for people who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. Pinnock’s openness is enhanced by two further considerations, both of which go back to the theological orientations exposited above. The first pays attention to the fact that the Bible is more communally oriented in its approach to salvation than Western individualism allows us to see. The second

20

Ibid., pp. 116-17, quoting Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Toward a Theology of the History of Religions,” vol. 2 of Basic Questions in Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), p. 113. 21 Pinnock, Wideness, p. 118. 22 Pinnock, Flame of Love, p. 203. He asks (pp. 200-201), “If the Spirit gives life to creation and offers grace to every creature, one would expect him to be present and make himself felt (at least occasionally) in the religious dimension of cultural life. Why would the Spirit be working everywhere else but not here? God is reaching out to all nations and does not leave himself without witness (Acts 14:17). Would this witness not crop up sometimes in the religious realm?” 23 The basic argumentation is found in Clark Pinnock, “Word and Spirit,” in The Scripture Principle (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984). 24 Pinnock, Flame of Love, p. 216.

Clark Pinnock

275

is the boundless generosity of God. These two considerations, however, do not lead to universalism, an idea that is problematic to Pinnock for several reasons: it ignores the warnings of judgment in the Bible and it denies human freedom to say “no” to God. Naturally people without any capability of responding to grace, such as infants, are included in salvation, Pinnock notes and rejects the Augustinian view of the damnation of the unbaptized. Similarly, mentally incompetent people are received by God. But there is more than that to God’s desire to open salvation to as many as possible. The key to hope for the unevangelized lies in Pinnock’s idea of the faith principle: according to the Bible, people are saved by faith, not by the content of their theology. Since God has not left anyone without witness, people are judged on the basis of the light they have received and how they have responded to that light. Obviously, people cannot be held 25 responsible for not responding to revelation they never received. God accepted Old Testament saints such as Abraham and David on the basis of their faith even though their knowledge of salvation in Christ was minimal when compared to that of those after the coming of Christ. The faith principle is also fleshed out in the holy pagans of the Bible, such as Job and Abimelech, who put their trust in God even though they were inadequately informed doctrinally and morally. Pinnock also sees Jesus speaking about the salvation of the unevangelized in his parable of the last judgment, when he promises a share in the kingdom to those who treated well “one of the least of these brothers of mine” (Mt 25:40). If the word brothers refers to needy people in general, then this parable illustrates the principle, already evident in the Noahic covenant, that the “son 26 of man [is] standing in solidarity with the human race.” For Pinnock, the story of Cornelius in Acts 10 is yet more evidence of the salvation of the unevangelized. Cornelius is the pagan saint par excellence of the New Testament—a man who believed in God before he became a Christian and so embodied in his very person the truth that “God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right” 27 (Acts10:34-35). Pinnock also wonders whether a postmortem encounter with Christ could lead to salvation. He acknowledges the scarcity of the biblical testimony: the 25

Pinnock, Wideness in God’s Mercy, esp. pp. 157-58; the rest of chap. 5 is an elaboration of that principle. 26 Ibid., p. 164. 27 Ibid., p. 165.

276

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

only reference is the highly disputed passage 1 Peter 3:19-20 (and 1 Pet 4:6), but it was significant enough to be included in the creed. Echoing the interpretation others, such as Wolfhart Pannenberg, who sees the passage as symbolic of God’s readiness to open up the way of salvation even to those who were dead but never had a chance to respond to God’s call, Pinnock is willing to entertain the possibility of an after-death chance.28 “Although the scriptural evidence for postmortem encounter is not abundant, its scantiness is relativized 29 by the strength of the theological argument for it.” But would that encounter necessarily be one of salvation? Might it not rather be the finalizing of judgment? Pinnock responds that the God before whom people stand after death is the one and same God of love. God has not changed. It is another thing that most probably people who said “no” to God in their earthly life would not change their mind after death. But to those who sought God during their lifetime but never had a real chance, the postmortem encounter could open the door of salvation, Pinnock believes. At the end of his treatise A Wideness in God’s Mercy, Pinnock, like Norman Anderson, wants to emphasize the need for mission even in light of a more open-minded approach to other religions. For Pinnock, the urgency of mission does not arise from the drive to save people from damnation but from the desire to share the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ and the coming of God’s kingdom. Mission is spreading the “news of an event that had not happened before, the news of God reconciling the world to himself in Jesus Christ 30 and the beginning of the age of salvation.”

28

See Wolfhart Pannenberg, The Apostles’ Creed in the Light of Today’s Questions (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), p. 95. 29 Pinnock, Wideness, p. 169. 30 Ibid., p. 178.

31 Amos Yong A P NE UM AT OL O GICA L THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Discerning the Spirit(s) The younger generation of evangelical scholars laboring in the field of theology of religions is represented by Amos Yong, an Asian American scholar originally from Malaysia. It seems appropriate that the first evangelical scholar (who is also Pentecostal) to work for a distinctively pneumatological theology of religions comes originally from Asia, where the challenge of pluralism is more pervasive than anywhere else. In his groundbreaking monograph, originally submitted as a doctoral dissertation to Boston University, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions, Yong defines Charismatic theology of religions “as the effort to understand both the immensely differentiated experiences of faith and the multifaceted phenomena of religious traditions and systems that is informed by experiences of the Spirit in the light of Scrip1 ture, and vice versa.” Moreover, this endeavor should be attempted without giving up, on the one hand, the priority of evangelism or, on the other hand, 2 commitment to the authority of Scripture. Yong discusses several reasons why Pentecostals and Charismatics should engage the urgent task of a theology of religions: • their international roots and global presence • the presence of urgent missiological issues such as syncretism, the denun1

Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), p. 24. See also his articles “The Turn to Pneumatology in Christian Theology of Religions: Conduit or Detour,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 35 (1998): 39-65; and “ ‘Not Knowing Where the Spirit Blows . . .’: On Envisioning a Pentecostal-Charismatic Theology of Religions,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14 (April 1999): 81-112. 2 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), pp. 24-25.

278

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

ciation of local traditions as a sign of a dualistic approach to questions regarding the gospel and culture, the balance between gospel proclamation and work for social justice, etc. • the quest for Pentecostal identity and theological truth According to Yong, Pentecostal identity cannot be determined apart from relation to other churches (ecumenism) and other religions (theology of religions). In addition, the truth question of any religion cannot be answered apart from the challenge of competing (or complementary) truth claims. Yong is a young theologian whose theological program is still in embryonic form. He is currently finishing another monograph on the topic and has already announced that some of his theses in Discerning the Spirit(s) are being revised. Therefore, it suffices here to sketch briefly the main orientations of his ambitious pneumatological and Pentecostal/Charismatic theology of religions. At the same time, it is quite legitimate to include his proposal among theologies of religions by more seasoned scholars, since undoubtedly one of the directions academic discussion is moving in the third millennium is the rediscovery of the role of the Spirit. Several other theologians have already begun to explicate implications of a pneumatological understanding—the Catholics Jacques Dupuis and Gavin D’Costa, among others. In addition, a pneumatological approach to religions from an Asian scholar is significant, since the essence of Asian religiosity very much focuses on the spiritual. Finally, the fact that Yong is a Pentecostal/Charismatic theologian (and an ordained Assemblies of God pastor) also makes his proposal highly significant.

The Spirit as the Divine Presence Yong’s ambitious program consists of the following tasks. First, he shows the impasse of the christological approach to the question of a Christian theology of religions. Yong is too good a theologian to undermine the role of Christology in any Christian theology of religion; what he attempts to show are the limits of a christological starting point, which finally leads to exclusive 3 particularism. Yong concludes that the debate about the finality of Christ “continues unabated.” The situation is compounded when one realizes that any attempt to answer these questions may affect, and sometimes drastically so, other theological loci. Exclusivists, inclusivists, and pluralists . . . each has to deal with the validity in 3

Ibid., chap. 2.

Amos Yong

279

applying Christological norms to the extent of God’s saving grace and love, the character and modality of the Kingdom of God, the presence and activity of the 4 divine Spirit, the task and mode of Christian evangelism and mission.

Therefore, Yong wonders, what would happen if one were to begin with the doctrine of the Spirit instead? Even then, for sure, the christological question would be merely postponed, not dismissed. Eventually, Christology and 5 pneumatology must be understood within a broader trinitarian framework. Before that, however, Yong considers it urgent to begin work from a pneumatological perspective. Second, Yong discerns in clear terms the challenge of theology of religions for his approach: “The perennial problem for Christian theology of religions has been how the affirmation of divine presence in the universe of human religiousness can be compatible with the affirmation of salvation through the 6 particular person of Jesus Christ.” In critical dialogue with Eastern Orthodox contributions and with those of Karl Rahner, Paul Tillich and Michael Lodahl (whose Shekinah/Spirit: Divine Presence in Jewish and Christian Religion purports 7 to offer a pneumatological bridge between these two sibling faiths), Yong argues for the necessity of a pneumatological approach, basing it on a foundational concept of the Spirit as divine presence. He maintains that it is possible to conceptualize divine presence and activity in the world without denying the reality of divine absence. Since these categories are potentially universal, they can be considered as central elements of a more universal theology of the 8 Spirit in the world. Third, however, Yong acknowledges that a problem is emerging as to the capability of discerning the Spirit’s activity in the world apart from the christological criterion. To address this challenge—the main challenge to a pneumatological theology of religions as Yong sees it—he suggests a “foundational 9 pneumatology.” To accomplish this task, he wants to develop an outline for a trinitarian pneumatology within the frameworks of creation and the Godworld relationship. Yong envisions a trinitarian theology in which there is a 4

Ibid., p. 57. Ibid., p. 58. 6 Ibid., p. 35. 7 Michael Lodahl, Shekinah/Spirit: Divine Presence in Jewish and Christian Religion (New York: Paulist, 1992). 8 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), chap. 4. 9 Yong acknowledges his indebtedness to the work of the Catholic Donald Gelpi, The Divine Mother: A Trinitarian Theology of the Holy Spirit (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1984). 5

280

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

mutual relationship between the economy of the Son and the Spirit. That enables him to understand the non-Christian faiths within a pneumatological rather than a christological framework (and this, of course, once again makes the discernment so urgent).10 In a sense, Yong is reviving the patristic idea of Logos Christology accounting for the what of the incarnation while Spirit Christology answers the how. This helps Yong to speak of the presence of the Spirit in the world in wider terms than the strictly christological; yet pneumatology can never be loosed from Christology since the Word and Spirit are “re11 lated dimensions of being.”

Criteria for Discernment Fourth, now, and more specifically, Yong turns to the task of discernment. Yong finds the proposal of Hans Küng quite helpful. He offers three general categories of criteria for discerning the presence of the Spirit. At the outermost level, a general ethical criterion is applied to all human endeavors, institutions and, indeed, religious traditions. That which is humanitarian is genuinely religious; that which is not is false or bad religion. At the middle level is faithfulness to canonical origins. A religious tradition is true to the extent that it remains faithful to its authentic normative tradition. At the innermost level, the specifically Christian criterion of Christ is directly applicable only to Christians. “As Christians, however, we cannot but share our convictions with others. This specifically Christian criterion is, then, applicable in an indirect sense to non-Christians, but only insofar as Christians faithfully apply this criterion 12 to themselves first.” Obviously there is then a tension within the Christian discernment of spirits in non-Christian traditions. On the one hand, one cannot avoid Christian criteria; on the other hand, to be fair to others in the interreligious dialogue, their own internal criteria have to be invoked at some level. Yong (in agreement with Küng) contends that these two need to be kept together. “In other words, the discernment of spirits cannot be solely an in-house 13 Christian affair.” Fifth, going back to his specifically Pentecostal/Charismatic type of theol-

10

Chapter 4 in Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s) is devoted to this task; and this chapter is the theological heart of his book. 11 Ibid., p. 122. 12 Ibid., p. 141; see also pp. 137-42, especially, and Hans Küng, “What is True Religion? Toward an Ecumenical Christology,” in Toward a Universal Theology of Religions, ed. Leonard Swidler (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1987), pp. 231-50. 13 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), p. 141.

Amos Yong

281

ogy of religions, Yong enlists the services of various resources among Pentecostals with regard to the theology of religions challenge. He takes up and adapts the basic categories suggested by Harvey Cox in his widely acclaimed book Fire from Heaven, such as the Spirit-inspired religious experience in the form of glossolalia and other gifts as a token of the presence of the Spirit in believers’ lives, and the “Pentecostal pragmatism” that expects the miraculous from God but at the same time is committed to activism and service in the 14 world. Yong also discusses the role of spiritual discernment and a responsible 15 relationship to the demonic. Finally, he ventures into a case study of Pentecostalism and Umbanda, an Afro-Brazilian tradition, to test his emerging pneumatological theology. It is too early to give a definite assessment of Yong’s very recent approach. Nevertheless, his attempt to construct a viable pneumatological theology of religions should be understood as an opener, a way to ask the right questions. It understandably leaves many crucial issues open, such as the relationship between Christology and pneumatology. Most theologians today agree that building a theology of religions on Christology alone is not the most promising way, but neither is a theology based on the Spirit at the expense of Christ. Furthermore, even with his inclusion of the case study, Yong’s attempt is quite abstract, and several perspectives that he eloquently develops (and which are in themselves very interesting) do not easily relate to the main problem of the inquiry, and so we look forward to his forthcoming monograph on the topic.

14

The full title of Harvey Cox’s book is Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1995). 15 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), chap. 7.

THEOCENTRISM

32 John Hick T HE COP E R NICA N R E V O LUTION OF RELIGIONS

A Pilgrimage with Changing Landscapes The British John Hick, who also had a long teaching career in the United States, is without doubt the most noted and hotly debated defender of religious pluralism. Through prolific writings and decades of active lecturing, including a host of popular presentations, Hick has established himself as the leading Christian pluralist. What makes his life and career so exciting is that he began his theological career as a conservative, almost fundamentalist, believer following his dramatic conversion experience. During his years of teaching and doing research in the area of theology, he has become the leading spokesper1 son for an extremely pluralistic theology of religions. Hick began his work as a philosopher of religion, first in the area of epistemology and Christian theodicy; his work in both of these areas could alone es2 tablish his fame as a scholar of international caliber. It was not until the 1

One of the places he chronicles his pilgrimage is in John Hick, “A Personal Note,” in Disputed Questions in Theology and Philosophy of Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), pp. 139-45. 2 John Hick, Faith and Knowledge (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957) sets out the basic epistemological principles that he still holds. His take on Christian theodicy is found in his Evil and the God of Love (New York: HarperCollins, 1966).

John Hick

283

beginning of the 1970s that a radical shift began to emerge in his thinking—a shift that took him from exclusivism, to inclusivism, to pluralism, to an almost total abandonment of an idea of God, to a sort of reality-centeredness. In 1970, Hick published with some of his colleagues a critical manifesto titled “The Reconstruction of Christian Belief for Today and Tomorrow,” whereby they questioned the literal meaning of most of the traditional Christian beliefs.3 This manifesto meant a new approach to Christianity and included in an embryonic form ideas later to be developed with regard to the theology of religions. The basic Christian tenets to be reconsidered and ultimately either rejected or radically revised included these: • divine revelation • creation ex nihilo • substitutionary death of Christ • virgin birth • miracles of Christ • resurrection • need for new birth to be saved • that there would not be another chance after death • hell and heaven Hick also came to question the old paradigm according to which there is no salvation outside the church and missionary work was continued in the belief that there is salvation only in Christ. His own emerging pluralistic view, according to which there is more than one way of salvation, was inspired by the consideration of factors that challenge exclusivism: the diversity of religions (Christians are the minority in many areas of the world), the tie between ethnicity and religion, the lack of missionary success, the quality of religious life in non-Christian religions, and the phenomenological similarity of religions (visiting worship places of other religions reveals so many similarities). He came to the conclusion that religion is a human interpretation of reality, not absolute fact statements, and 4 that consequently all religions are in contact with and describe the same reality. His widely acclaimed first major title on the theology of religions outlined his 3

John Hick et al., “The Reconstruction of Christian Belief for Today and Tomorrow,” Theology 73 (September 1970): 339.

4

The most substantial recent exposition and assessment of Hick’s pluralism and its theological ramifications is Matti T. Amnell, Uskontojen Universumi: John Hickin uskonnollisen pluralismin

284

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

emerging theocentrism: God and the Universe of Faiths (1973). The following year saw the publication of Truth and Dialogue in World Religions: Conflicting Truth Claims.5 Hick also gleaned many insights from Asia through his extensive travels and short-term teaching periods in India (1974, 1975-1976), Sri Lanka (1974) and elsewhere. Especially in his book Death and Eternal Life, he dialogues ex6 tensively with materials from several Asian religions. Also, his contribution to The Myth of God Incarnate betrays the formative influence of the Asian mind7 set. The book entitled The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, edited in collaboration with the Catholic pluralist Paul F. Knitter (see below), was a result of a significant symposium at Claremont Graduate School in 1987, the school where Hick taught for a number of years. Its purpose was to cross a “theological Rubicon” and move the discussion definitively toward the pluralistic end of the 8 spectrum. Since then several major titles have come from the pen of Hick who, after his retirement, still continues to be productive. The major recent title is A 9 Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths (1995).

The Copernican Revolution of Religions Hick compares his pluralistic theology of religions to Copernicus’s astronomical model. God, the Ultimate Truth, is the center of all religions around which they revolve in the way of planets:

4

haaste ja siitä käyty keskustelu, Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran Julkaisuja 217 (Helsinki: STK, 1999). Unfortunately, the monograph is written in Finnish and is thus inaccessible to the wider academic audience. I make use of its thorough discussion and balanced judgments here. The standard earlier work is Gavin D’Costa, John Hick’s Theology of Religions: A Critical Evaluation (New York: University Press of America, 1987). There is a host of unpublished dissertations written on Hick, but they are not yet available for general readers. 5 John Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths: Essays in the Philosophy of Religion (London: Macmillan, 1973); Truth and Dialogue in World Religions: Conflicting Truth Claims (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974). 6 John Hick, Death and Eternal Life (London: Collins, 1976). For an assessment, see D’Costa, John Hick’s Theology, pp. 11-13. 7 John Hick, ed., The Myth of God Incarnate, 5th ed. (London: SCM Press, 1978). 8 John Hick and Paul F. Knitter, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987). 9 John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1995); this was published in the U.K. as The Rainbow of Faiths: Critical Dialogue on Religious Pluralism (London: SCM Press, 1995) and is hereafter abbreviated as Rainbow of Faiths. Hick’s other titles include The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993); and The Fifth Dimension: An Exploration of the Spiritual Realm (Oxford: Oneworld, 1999).

John Hick

285

And the needed Copernican revolution in theology involves an equally radical transformation in our conception of the universe of faiths and the place of our own religion within it. It involves a shift from the dogma that Christianity is at the center to the realization that it is God who is at the center, and that all the re10 ligions of mankind, including our own, serve and revolve around him.

In Hick’s view, the essence of pluralism means that there is “both the one unlimited transcendent divine Reality and also a plurality of varying human con11 cepts, images, and experiences of and responses to that Reality.” The challenge given to Christian theology, as well as, for example, to Hindu 12 or Buddhist theology, is to move from the “Ptolemaic” view in which Christianity or any other religion stands at the center and other religions are being judged by the criterion of that center.13 (Hick rightly notes that Zen Buddhism is more open to pluralism even though it is not without its own kind of absolutistic claim either, in that it posits a kind of absolute intuition that is able to ascend above all intellectual critique in its vision of the divine.) To accomplish this task, Hick contends that the views of the adherents of religions cannot be taken at the face value, but rather each religion has to be confronted by the 14 challenge of deemphasizing its own absolute and exclusive claims. To illustrate his point, Hick uses the same Buddhist allegory as does Hans Küng: ten blind men touch an elephant and each describes what an elephant is on the basis of his limited experience. Various conceptions of God/god(s)/ divine—such as Yahweh, Allah, Krishna, Param Atma or the Holy Trinity—are 15 16 but aspects of the Divine, or like “maps” or colors of the rainbow. 10

Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths (New York: St. Martin’s, 1973); see also, e.g., John Hick, The Second Christianity, 3rd enl. ed. of Christianity at the Centre (London: SCM Press, 1983), p. 82. The Catholic Paul F. Knitter agrees in his No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985), pp. 166-67. 11 Hick, Second Christianity, p. 83. 12 For the challenge to Hinduism, see John Hick, God Has Many Names (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982), p. 83; and Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths, p. 131. For the Buddhist challenge, see John Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism (London: Macmillan, 1988), p. 48; see also Hick, Metaphor, p. 134. 13 See further Hick, Metaphor, p. 135; Hick, Rainbow of Faiths, p. 44; Amnell, Uskontojen Universumi, pp. 36-37. 14 Hick, Interpretation of Religion, pp. 2-3; Hick, Metaphor, p. 135; Hick, Rainbow of Faiths, p. 48; Amnell, Uskontojen Universumi, p. 39. Compare Wolfhart Pannenberg’s critique of Hick’s position, “Religious Pluralism and Conflicting Truth Claims: The Problem of a Theology of the World Religions,” in Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990), p. 97. 15 Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths, pp. 140-41. 16 Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 80; Hick, Rainbow of Faiths, pp. ix-x.

286

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Hick uses the concept of “epicycle,” also drawn from late medieval astronomy, to explain the attempts of religions to defend the Ptolemaic views when confronted by challenges such as the fate of those who do not believe according to the doctrines of that particular religion. In Christian theology, such epicycles are, for instance, the inclusivist positions of Küng (“normal” and “extraordinary” ways of salvation), Karl Rahner (“anonymous Christians”), Wolfhart Pannenberg (on the basis of Christ’s descent to Hades, people outside the church may attain to salvation) or Richard Swinburne (annihilation; i.e., immortality is reserved only for those who believed, others will be extinguished). Having been exposed to a wide variety of Asian and other religions, Hick partly builds his pluralistic case on the phenomenological similarity of religions.17 He also notes the self-evident fact that one’s religion usually correlates 18 with the area in which one lives. All religions in this estimation have the same basic orientation, and they share the same hope for salvation. The main bibli19 cal-theological reason for pluralism is God’s love. The role of the Holy Spirit 20 has been to make followers of various religions open to the idea of openness. On the basis of these considerations, what is needed is “the basic common ground of the world religions.” The very same Divine Reality is present in var21 ious religions and cultures. Even though Hick claims to present a kind of “metatheory” of religions,22 he reminds us that his view is not based on some preconceived philosophical or theological standpoint but rather is a result of empirical, phenomenological observations. The pluralist, according to Hick, does not even claim to possess 23 the final word about religions.

Myth and the Nature of Religious Language To understand Hick’s theology of religions, one has to take note of how he understands the nature and functions of talk about religion and the divine. Hick

17

See further Hick, Rainbow of Faiths, p. 13; Hick, God Has Many Names, pp. 4-5. John Hick, “Is Christianity the Only True Religion?” Theology 101 (September-October 1998): 326. 19 Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths, pp. 122-23. 20 Hick, God Has Many Names, p. 41. 21 Hick, Death and Eternal Life, p. 30; Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths, p. 141; Hick, God Has Many Names, pp. 27, 35, 44, etc; Amnell, Uskontojen Universumi, p. 47. 22 See further John Hick, “Religious Pluralism and the Divine: A Response to Paul Eddy,” Religious Studies 31 (December 1995): 418; John Hick, “The Epistemological Challenge of Religious Pluralism,” Faith and Philosophy 14 (July 1997): 163. 23 Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 37; Amnell, Uskontojen Universumi, p. 49. 18

John Hick

287

does not totally deny the cognitive function of religious language,24 as many other contemporary pluralists do,25 but rather uses two kinds of approaches to deal with the existence of competing truth claims. In his first approach, Hick divides the differences between seemingly contradictory claims of various religions into three categories. The first level relates to historical conceptions, such as the Christian belief in the death of Jesus on the cross vis-à-vis the view of the Qur’an according to which it only seemed actual; or the debate between the two Muslim parties who debate about whether or not Muhammad chose his relative Ali to be his successor. The only way to solve a conflict on this level is by appealing to historical evidence, 26 which, of course, is lacking. The second level is that of suprahistorical claims, or as Hick also calls them, “quasihistorical” claims, such as the doctrine of reincarnation. Obviously, there is no way to reconcile the differences between those religions that do support the idea (Buddhism and Hinduism) and ones that do not (Islam, Judaism and Christianity). Consequently, the only sensible way to deal with this 27 level of conflicts is to adopt an attitude of mutual respect and acceptance. The third level of conflicts concerns the conceptions about the Ultimate Reality. Ideas of personal god(s), such as Yahweh, Siva, Vishnu and Allah, and impersonal concepts, such as Brahma, Tao, Nirvana, Sunyata or Dharmakaya, cannot be easily reconciled. Thus, what we should do (according to Hick) is treat these seeming28 ly contradictory descriptions of the divine as complementary to each other. Hick’s second basic approach to easing the conflict between contradictory truth claims is to appeal to the mythical nature of religious language. The “myth” is based on “metaphor,” which means that we speak “suggestive of 29 another.” In other words, metaphors, which are not meant to be taken at face 24

In this regard, Paul Griffiths and Delmas Lewis overstate their case when they argue that Hick sees no conflict between differing claims since for Hick religious language does not deal with truth claims at all (Griffiths and Lewis, “On Grading Religions, Seeking Truth, and Being Nice to People: A Reply to Professor Hick,” Religious Studies 19 [March 1983]: 75-80). Amnell, Uskontojen Universumi, p. 76, rightly notes this overstatement of Griffiths and Lewis. 25 For example, Gordon D. Kaufman (The Theological Imagination [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981]), who contends that religious language is not meant to convey information but consists of metaphors. In order to get behind these metaphors, religious language has to be demythologized. 26 John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 363-65. 27 Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, pp. 89-95; Hick, Interpretation of Religion, pp. 365-72. 28 Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, pp. 90-95; Hick, Interpretation of Religion, p. 374. 29 Hick, Metaphor, p. 99. Hick is well aware of the debates among various approaches to the definition of myth, but he basically follows the conventional definition.

288

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

value, still convey meaning, but they do so in terms of eliciting emotions and associations familiar to a group that shares the common context of meanings. In an important sense, myth is an expanded metaphor. Even though a myth is not literally true, it “tends to evoke an appropriate dispositional attitude.”30 Its purpose is to change our attitude and thus influence our thinking in a real way. The story about Buddha’s flight to Sri Lanka, the creation story of the Old Tes31 tament, the legend of the dance of Siva—these all function in this manner. As long as myths are understood literally, conflicts arise as a result, but if they are treated mythologically, they function in “separate mythic spaces” and do not 32 come into conflict with each other. Rather than inquire into the truth of the myth, one should rather ask whether it functions as it does in the life situation and context for which it was created. Then, Yahweh and Krishna are not set in 33 antithesis since they operate in their own distinctive spheres. On the basis of his understanding of language, Hick divides the basic elements of religions into two categories: those that are essentials and those that are more superficial. In other words, even though various religions seem to have dramatic differences at the surface level, deep down they share a common foundation. For Hick, the differences on the surface level, even when they are to some extent cognitive in nature, do not create insurmountable conflicts, and here the use of those two strategies described above is of help.

“Christology at the Crossroads” Hick’s Christology is a case in point here. Already in 1966 in an essay fittingly titled “Christology at the Crossroads,” while still holding to the idea of incarnation in its classical sense, he was clearly troubled by the implications of the

30

Hick, Metaphor, p. 105; see also Hick, Interpretation of Religion, pp. 99-104, 348; Amnell, Uskontojen Universumi, pp. 79-81. 31 Hick, Interpretation of Religion, pp. 103, 347-72. 32 Ibid., p. 15. 33 Ibid., pp. 267-68. Amnell, Uskontojen Universumi, pp. 92-95, rightly notes that Hick’s use of myth bears obvious similarity to George Lindbeck’s description of the “expressive-symbolic” category. For Lindbeck, expressive-symbolic use of language, in contrast to “cognitive” use, which understands words as propositions, attempts to describe and reflect the religious experience that takes place in the depth of one’s self, not unlike how artistic works express feelings and experiences of beauty. Hick’s mythical understanding of religious language also bears some resemblance to Lindbeck’s third category, the “cultural-linguistic,” in which words about the divine and other religious aspects are treated as language rules. (This is, of course, a development of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language.) See further George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (London: SPCK, 1984).

John Hick

289

incarnation for other religions.34 Soon he began to apply the concept of myth to Christology, and that helped him revise the notion of incarnation, among others. It opened a way for him to account for the existence of seemingly conflicting truth claims between religions, and it also brought to focus his idea of religious language. In traditional Christianity, incarnation language has been taken for granted, and it entails exclusivism: God is present in Christ in a specific, unique way. Mythical interpretation sees continuity rather than contradistinction between religions. So traditional talk about the incarnation has to be demythologized and set in harmony with other major religions, Hick contends. What incarnation is all about is making real the presence of the Divine to all men and women. It is not about a god becoming a human being; that kind of idea is totally repulsive to 35 contemporary people. 36 Jesus’ divinity also has to be understood metaphorically. A mythological interpretation of Christology has the potential of serving a pluralistic theology of religions, Hick argues. In that view, Christ is depicted as the embodiment of divine love, complementary to what Buddhism reveals about the divine in the intense experience of release from suffering, or to Hinduism’s source of life and purpose. Logos, for Hick, transcends any particular religion and is present 37 in all of them. Talk about incarnation thus is not indicative but rather expressive.38 Hick also makes reference to the way two lovers express themselves to each other. Even though expressions such as “I love you more than I love anybody else” seem to be absolutistic, they are not exclusive; other lovers may freely use them as well, and still they are true in their own context and for the purpose 39 they were meant. Against the traditional view, Hick argues that it is extremely unlikely Jesus thought of himself—or that his first disciples thought of him—as God incarnate. Jesus would have regarded it as blasphemy. Sayings like “I and the Father are one” (Jn 10:30) are not sayings of Jesus but of the early church. Jesus regarded himself as an end-time prophet sent to proclaim the

34

John Hick, “Christology at the Crossroads,” in Prospect for Theology, ed. F. G. Healey (London: James Nisbett, 1966). 35 See, e.g., Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 14. 36 Hick, God Has Many Names, p. 74; Hick, Second Christianity, p. 9. 37 Hick, God Has Many Names, p. 75; Hick, Rainbow of Faiths, pp. 22-23. 38 Hick, God Has Many Names, p. 78; Amnell, Uskontojen Universumi, pp. 108-9. 39 Amnell, Uskontojen Universumi, pp. 119-20.

290

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

imminent coming of the kingdom or, so to speak, as a Buddha who had attained true knowledge of and access to pure reality; he was aware that God was present in his life. This presence of God in his life was channeled to others in occasions such as “healings,” which were psychosomatic healing influences. Furthermore, the traditional view of the sinlessness of Jesus has to be reevaluated. Although Jesus was above other humans because of his special God-consciousness, he was not perfect morally. For example, he displayed racist attitudes toward the Canaanite woman, violence in the temple by driving out the merchants and so on.40

Degree Christology: Jesus Christ Among Other Savior Figures According to Hick, the development of the doctrine of incarnation has little to do with Jesus or his early disciples. Echoing the opinions of classical liberalism and the “Quest of the Historical Jesus,” Hick maintains that neither Jesus nor his disciples interpreted Jesus as God incarnate. Because of the power of the Christ-event, the early church later came to elevate Jesus to the status of God. In the process, the church made use of the Old Testament concepts of divine sonship and the suffering servant. Early Christians had encountered God in a specific way, and as the message spread into the Greco-Roman world, the language and philosophy of that culture was employed to give meaning to the experience. In that sense, the development of Christology was a historical accident. Had it spread to the East, it might have taken another kind of development. Hick’s vision for an Eastern Christ is this: Instead of Jesus being identified as the divine Logos or the divine Son he would have been identified as a Bodhissattva who, like Gotama some four centuries earlier, had attained to Buddhahood or perfect relationship to reality, but had in compassion for suffering mankind voluntarily lived out his human life in order 41 to show others the way to salvation.

Hick’s preference for a pluralistic understanding of Christ is a “degree Christology” in contrast to a “substance Christology” that holds that Jesus is unique. According to degree Christology, Christ differs from other humans only in degree. Hick claims that substance Christology must be rejected because theology no longer treats the incarnation factually. And so the metaphorical or mythical understanding is in line with degree Christology: 40 41

For more details on Hick’s Christology, see Metaphor, among others. Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths, p. 117.

John Hick

291

Incarnation, in the sense of the embodiment of ideas, values, insights in human living, is a basic metaphor. One might say, for example, that in 1940 the spirit of defiance of the British people against Nazi Germany was incarnated in Winston Churchill. Now we want to say of Jesus that he was so vividly conscious of God as the loving heavenly Father, and so startlingly open to God and so fully his servant and instrument, that the divine love was expressed, and in that sense incarnated, in his life. This was not a matter (as it is in official Christian doctrine) of Jesus having two complete natures, one human and the other divine. He was wholly human; but whenever self-giving love in response to the love of God is lived out in a human life, to that extent the divine love has be42 come incarnate on earth.

Instead of homoousios, the term of the ancient creeds that establishes the total divinity of Christ and his equality with the Father, Hick prefers the term homoagape. Moreover, this work of the Holy Spirit, to be a channel of God’s love, can be found everywhere, not only in Jesus incarnate. It is incarnated in other world religions as well. From this perspective, incarnation is the activity of God’s Spirit or of God’s grace in human lives so that the divine will 43 is done on earth. Degree Christology has no need for trinitarian doctrine. The only meaning of the Trinity is as an expression of a threefold experience of God in the human mind, as Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Neither is there need for a two-nature Christology in the traditional sense. Christ’s “divinity” means that he had a specific God-consciousness, but that does not mean that other religious leaders could not share the same consciousness.

The Ultimate Reality Later in his career, in order to do justice to his understanding of the nature of religious language, Hick shifted from speaking about God to the speaking about “(Ultimate) Reality.” This term is more flexible than the personal term God. For Hick, the great religions of the world are different—and one may say complementary—ways of approaching this Reality, which exists beyond the human capacity of knowing. The Sanskrit term sat and the Islamic term al-Haqq are expressions of that Reality, as is also Yahweh and the Christian 44 term God. It is important for Hick’s purposes to notice that this Reality has two facets. 42

Hick, God Has Many Names, pp. 58-59. Hick, Rainbow of Faiths, p. 136. 44 Hick, Interpretation of Religion, pp. 10-11. 43

292

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

On the one hand—in consonance with the Kantian distinction between phenomena (the way we see things) and noumena (the-thing-in-itself, which is unknown to us)—the Reality includes that part totally unknown to us and that part about which we know at least something. The Hindu concept of nirguna Brahma, as distinct from saguna Brahma, is a reference to something that cannot be fathomed at all by human means of knowledge. Similarly, Taoism’s eternal Tao, about which we know nothing, is to distinguished from the ex45 pressed Tao. Irrespective of these differing names and approaches to the Reality, in Hick’s view there is only one Reality, the Ultimate Divine. This he postulates mainly on the basis of astonishingly similar concepts of the divine in various 46 religions. Consequently, one is not surprised to hear that, for Hick, different religions are all ways to salvation; regardless of differences in beliefs, ultimately their purpose is the same: the salvation of all. He posits a unified soteriolog47 ical structure in all religions. This he calls a move from self-centeredness to 48 reality-centeredness. Of course, various religions have their own distinctive ideas of the “Fall” out of which one has to be saved. Mahayana Buddhism requires an awakening to the realization that the way to salvation comes by the release from one’s own self and transformation into the manifestation of Dharmakaya. In the monistic tradition of Hinduism, salvation is depicted as the freeing of atman (the eternal self) from the empirical self through the enlightening insight that it re49 ally is identical with Brahman. In summary, we need to note that Hick’s theology of religions is a result of a lifetime of reflection; it is a series of turns and paradigm shifts and as such represents a living tradition and openness to new discoveries. On the other hand, when pressed by critics of his theology of religions Hick sometimes eschews clarity. In addition, given the reality of so many moves in his thinking— and in his subsequent writings he has not always been too concerned about making these moves explicit or highlighting the differences between various phases of his career—any kind of general picture of his thinking tends to make 45

John Hick, “Religious Realism and Non-Realism: Defining the Issue,” in Is God Real? ed. Joseph Runzo (New York: St. Martin’s Press,1993), p. 6; Amnell, Uskontojen Universumi, pp. 126-30. 46 Hick, Rainbow of Faiths, p. 69. 47 Hick, Metaphor of God Incarnate, p. 136; Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism, p. 69; Hick, Interpretation of Religion, pp. 5-6. 48 Amnell, Uskontojen Universumi, pp. 148-49. 49 Ibid., pp. 153-54.

John Hick

293

it look too uniform. Most probably, the creative and to some extent impromptu nature of his theology of religions also makes it dynamic to the point of bordering on internal contradiction. This is not the place to enter into a criticism of Hick, since the nature of this textbook is descriptive exposition. But to illustrate the challenges of a system like his, one major criticism may be taken up as an example: In wanting to promote pluralism, Hick is compelled to deny the validity of the absolutist beliefs of the followers of existing religions and to present his own theocentric model, which equals none of the religions of the world; this, of course, is contradictory, since Hick is then in the place of telling others how to believe or at least denigrating the value of their own religions. This posture thus works against the 50 pluralistic idea.

50

For a summary of criticism against Hick’s major tenets of pluralism, see Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Universe of Faiths: Theological Challenges of John Hick’s Pluralism,” in Dharma Deepika (forthcoming). Some sections of this chapter closely follow that article.

33 Stanley J. Samartha ONE CHR IS T , M ANY R ELIGIONS

“The Unbound Christ” Stanley J. Samartha, ordained in the Church of South India and involved in theological teaching in his earlier years, has exercised considerable influence through his post as director of the World Council of Churches Dialogue Programme, which he initiated. He has written extensively on the challenge of pluralism in Asia from a christological perspective. Throughout his life, Samartha has advocated dialogue among world religions as the demand of our age. One of Samartha’s major areas of interest in the beginning stages of his career was the study of an unprecedented interest in the person of Christ in the so-called Indian Renaissance or neo-Hindu reform. During the nineteenth century and the first part of the twentieth century, various Hindu personalities came to acknowledge Christ in relation to their own religious background and context. Samartha describes the Christ acknowledged by neo-Hinduism as an “unbound” Christ. What he means by that is that while many attach themselves to the person of Jesus Christ, they usually detach themselves from the institutional church, which for them does not represent the quintessence of Christ’s religion. They often complain that the church of Jesus’ followers is either a hierarchical institution or a Western, even colonial, power system: The Christ acknowledged by Hinduism is often a churchless Christ. For that matter, the Christ acknowledged by Hinduism is often a Christ delivered from the encumbrances of numerous “bonds” with which he is laden by traditional Christianity—whether it be a matter of applauding his message while rejecting the Christian claim to his person, or of receiving from him as one divine manifestation 1 among others in a catalog of divine descents (avatara) as varied as it is extensive.

1

Jacques Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991), p. 15.

Stanley J. Samartha

295

Samartha has become more and more weary of the widespread hostile attitude of Christianity toward other religions: Although most Christians today are unwilling to take a totally negative attitude toward neighbors of other faiths, there seems to be a good deal of hesitation on the part of many to reexamine the basis of their exclusive claims on behalf of Christ. The place of Christ in a multireligious society becomes, therefore, an im2 portant issue in the search for a new theology of religions.

A Revised Christology In his later main work, One Christ—Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology, Samartha argues that Christocentrism is applicable only to Christians: it can never be considered the only way to the mystery of the divine.3 Christocentrism cannot then be the norm by which the various religious traditions are valued. All approaches to the divine have their validity. Samartha observes that a process of rejecting exclusive claims and seeking new ways of understanding the relationship of Jesus Christ to God and humanity is already underway. There is a shift from the “normative exclusiveness” of Christ to what he calls the “relational distinctiveness” of Christ. The term relational refers to the fact that Christ does not remain unrelated to neighbors of other faiths; distinctive denotes the recognition of the distinctiveness of the great religious traditions as different responses to the Mystery of God. Samartha argues that the Hindu and the Christian have their own particularly distinctive contributions to make to the common quest for truth. The problem of religious exclusivism (according to which only those who believe in Christ will be saved) is that it cannot explain why a God whose love and justice are universal would reveal the way of salvation only through one savior, one people and one book. Samartha wonders why the authority of one book should be thought binding for other faith communities with their own books, some of them even older than the New Testament. It is rather the limited view of Christians that argues for that kind of limitation in God’s dealing with humankind, he believes. The claim for the exclusive truth in Christianity means putting religion in the prison of history. According to Samartha, genuine pluralism does not relativize the truth; the only thing that can make the truth relative is the different responses by different people. The truth is no one’s 2

Stanley J. Samartha, “The Cross and the Rainbow: Christ in a Multireligious Culture,” in Asian Faces of Jesus, ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1995), p. 104. 3 Stanley J. Samartha, One Christ—Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991).

296

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

privilege. The goal of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue is to create a “truly universal community” that will cut across boundaries of nations and religions. The drive behind interreligious dialogue is not only the common search for the truth; it is also the changed situation in the world in which religions have found themselves caught up in a global struggle against injustice. Interreligious dialogue must seek after truth not only for its own sake but also in order to promote justice, peace and equality. There can be no lasting justice, Samartha envisions, unless it is rooted in divine truth, and there is no authentic divine truth that does not produce the fruit of social justice.

The Sense of Mystery In the context of India and many other Asian countries, alongside the growing sense of religious tolerance but increased and intensified political and social intolerance, there is a need for a Christology that is based on something other than clearly defined doctrinal formulations, Samartha contends. And he adds that in order for Christology to take root in Asian soil, the specific nature of the Asian mindset has to be taken into consideration. This is where the concept of Mystery is introduced into his theological discourse. Any attempt to formulate such a Christology should take into account at least two factors that have emerged out of Asia’s long history of multireligious life. One is the acceptance of a sense of Mystery, and the other is the rejection of an exclusive attitude where ultimate matters are concerned. However, when it comes to the concept of Mystery in Asian thought, it has to be observed that it does not denote something that fills the gaps in rational knowledge. Rather, Mystery provides the ontological basis for tolerance, which would otherwise run the risk of becoming uncritical friendliness. This Mystery, the Truth of the Truth (Satyasya Satyam), is the transcendent Center that remains always beyond and greater than apprehensions of it, even in the sum total of those apprehensions. It is beyond cognitive knowledge (tarka) but it is open to vision (dristi) and intuition (anubhava). It is near yet far, knowable yet unknowable, intimate yet ultimate and, according to one particular Hindu view, cannot even be described as “one.” It is “not-two” (advaita), indicating thereby that diversity is within the heart of Being itself and therefore may be intrinsic to 4 human nature as well.

The emphasis on Mystery is not meant as an escape from the need for ra4

Samartha, “Cross and the Rainbow,” pp. 110-11 (italics in the original).

Stanley J. Samartha

297

tional inquiry, but it insists that the rational is not the only approach to theology. The mystical and the aesthetic also have their necessary contributions to theology. Samartha believes that Mystery lies beyond the dichotomy of theistic versus nontheistic. “Mystery is an ontological status to be accepted, not an epistemological problem to be solved. Without a sense of Mystery, Theos [Greek, “god”] cannot remain Theos, nor Sat [Hindi, “god”] remain Sat, nor can Ultimate Reality remain ultimate.”5 One strand of Hinduism, for example, has described this Mystery as sat-citananda, “truth-consciousness-bliss.” This is one way of responding to Mystery in a particular setting that differs from that of the early Christian centuries. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity with Jesus Christ as the self-revelation of God is a way of approaching the Mystery in a particular historical context. The terms Sat and Theos could be regarded as two responses to the same Mystery in two cultural settings, Samartha concludes. The nature of Mystery makes inadmissible any claim on the part of one religious community to exclusive or unique knowledge. Samartha strongly believes that an exclusive attitude erects a fence around the Mystery. Exclusiveness also creates dichotomies between different religious communities and leaves little room for the nonrational elements in religious life, such as the mystical, the aesthetic, meditation and rituals. Furthermore, exclusive claims isolate the community of faith from neighbors of other faiths, creating tensions and disturbing relationships within the larger community. But when the distinctiveness of a particular faith is stated in a manner that avoids open or hidden exclusiveness, then meaningful relationships among different com5

Ibid., p. 111. One of the distinctive features of Asian thinking is its reluctance to employ the Western “either-or” dialectic. Instead, most Asians feel comfortable thinking in terms of the “yin-yang” inclusiveness. This term goes back to Taoism and Confucianism in their Chinese forms. According to that philosophy, the category of change is the interplay of yin and yang. These two terms, so crucial to much of Eastern thought (and expressed in different Asian languages and thought forms in varying terminology), mean something like female-male (female being yin and male being yang), weak-strong, light-dark, etc. But these poles are to be thought of not as opposites but as complementary to each other. It is a matter of becoming rather than of being. One can easily imagine how this kind of inclusive thinking might affect one’s Christology: “Jesus as the Christ, as both God and man, cannot really be understood in terms of either/or. How can man also be God? In the West we have to speak in terms of paradox or mystery in order to justify the reality of Christ. However, in yin-yang terms, he can be thought of as both God and man at the same time. In him God is not separated from man nor man from God. They are in complementary relationship. He is God because of man: he is man because of God.” Jung Young Lee, “The Yin-Yang Way of Thinking,” in Asian Christian Theology: Emerging Themes, ed. Douglas J. Elwood (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980), p. 87.

298

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

munities becomes possible. As a consequence, Christianity in Asia need not be in competition with the whole range of Asian religions but can instead foster cooperation in the common quest for fullness of life. The central effort of theology for Samartha is to acknowledge the mystery of Christ and explain the meaning of the person and work of Jesus Christ for theology and the church. Out of this commitment arises his theocentric pluralistic view of Christ.

Theocentric Pluralism Samartha is a more moderate theologian of religion than many other pluralists. Like many of his colleagues, Samartha began with the open-minded Catholic view according to which the “cosmic Christ” is acknowledged by all religions of various kinds. Later in his theological and ecumenical career, however, he moved in the direction of others such as Raimundo Panikkar. Consequently, the task of proclaming Christ on Asian soil is not so much one of conversion but of growing with Asians in the knowledge and experience of God’s saving work in the world. The contribution of Christian mission is to inform the Asian spirituality shaped by Asian cultures and religions with the love of God in Jesus Christ. This helps to change Asian society toward freedom, justice and love. With many other pluralists, Samartha became dissatisfied with the idea of “anonymous Christianity” of Karl Rahner and similar ideas that still betray an assumption of the normativity of Christianity over other religions. Samartha has come to question the absolute finality and universal normativity of Christ. The reason for the shift in his thinking is his theocentric approach to theology in general and to Christology in particular: before the total mystery of God, no religious figure nor any single religion can call itself the final and full word. Samartha’s reluctance to name Jesus Christ the final revelation is, interestingly enough, based on his understanding of God, and this makes his pluralism distinctive: “The Other [God as the Mysterious Other] relativizes everything else. In fact, the willingness to accept such relativization is probably the only real 6 guarantee that one has encountered the Other as ultimately real.” In other words, those who recognize God alone as Absolute will recognize all religions as relative. Clearly, for the mature Samartha, the incarnation is a symbol of the divine 6

Stanley J. Samartha, Courage for Dialogue: Ecumenical Issues in Inter-Religious Relationships (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1982), p. 151.

Stanley J. Samartha

299

rather than a normative historical happening. Also, the death and resurrection of Christ, even though they are revelations of who God is, are not to be treated as a universally valid paradigm. Samartha has no problem in affirming the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ, but he is not willing to affirm the orthodox teaching that Christ is God. The reason is simply that “an ontological equation of Jesus Christ and God would scarcely allow any serious discussion with neighbors of other faiths or with secular humanism.”7 Samartha is also following Panikkar in that even though he relativizes all particular religious expressions and forms in history, the incarnation of Christ included, he is not willing to deny their necessity. The Mysterious Other must confront us through particular mediations. Therefore, Samartha is not naively assuming the equality of all religions. But what he claims is that each and every religion and its figures are limited: “a particular religion can claim to be decisive for some people, and some people can claim that a particular religion is de8 cisive for them, but no religion is justified in claiming that it is decisive for all.” For Samartha, classical theology runs the danger of “christomonism” in its insistence on the absolute finality of Jesus Christ. It turns Jesus into a kind of “cult figure” over against other religious figures. Rejecting a christomonistic approach to other religions, Samartha advocates a theocentric approach, which is more consistent with the God-centered message of Jesus of Nazareth. He tries to maintain a dynamic between the normative significance of Christ as the revelation of God and the need for openness in relation to other faiths: No one could have anticipated in advance the presence of God in the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. There is an incomprehensible dimension to it. That Jesus is the Christ of God is a confession of faith by the Christian community. It does indeed remain normative to Christians everywhere, but to make it “absolutely singular” and to maintain that the meaning of the Mystery is disclosed only in one particular person at one particular point, and nowhere else, is to ignore one’s neighbors of other faiths who have other points of reference. To make exclusive claims for our particular tradition is not the best way to love our neigh9 bors as ourselves.

This kind of non-normative Christology, in Samartha’s view, gives Christians an opportunity to hold their personal commitment to Christ and even their belief in his universal meaning, even though not in an exclusive way. For 7

Samartha, “Cross and the Rainbow,” p. 111. Samartha, Courage for Dialogue, p. 153. 9 Samartha, “Cross and the Rainbow,” p. 112 (italics in the original). 8

300

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Christians, Christ represents the fulfillment of God’s promises. “But such an announcement will be an enthusiastic witness to their own revealer, not a denigrating judgment about other revealers.”10 Consequently, whether it is in the attempts to redefine the goals of life or in the effort to meet human needs in the dust and heat of the plains, wherever two or three Hindus and Christians are gathered together in his name, there one need not doubt the 11 presence of the living Christ in the midst of them.

Buddha, Rama and Krishna As already mentioned, one of Samartha’s main theological works is the one in which he studied the interpretations of Christ in the Hindu Renaissance. He himself shows a clear preference for the advaita philosophy of Shankara. In an interesting analysis, he regards the Upanishads as Protestant movements within Hinduism, seeking to liberate the essence of religion from the authority of the church and old-fashioned modes and practices. Samartha sees a parallel to this in what happened with the early church as it struggled its way through the challenge of expressing the gospel in Greek thought forms. By adopting the categories of advaita in its classical and modern interpretations in the Hindu Renaissance, “Samartha wants to make room for faith in Jesus Christ in Indian pluralism and overcome the traditional claim of Christianity to 12 absoluteness. . . . Christology and advaita are to be mutual correctives.” In the Indian context, Samartha sees no way to avoid the comparison of Jesus Christ with the other savior figures of Hinduism and of other religions of the area. Samartha cites Buddha, Rama and Krishna as examples and argues that no credible Christology can be constructed in an Asian context without relating Christ and these figures to each other. Many things unite these three saviors with Christ. In the life and work of each of them, revelation and liberation stand in a direct connection. Each of these savior figures experienced—according to their followers’ interpretations—a development from original humanity to later deity. Rama and Krishna are “household words in India and are at the center of 10

Paul Knitter, No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985), p. 159 (italics in the original). 11 Stanley J. Samartha, “Unbound Christ: Towards Christology in India Today,” in Asian Christian Theology: Emerging Themes, ed. Douglas J. Elwood (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980), p. 146. 12 Volker Küster, The Many Faces of Jesus Christ: Intercultural Christology (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2001), p. 89.

Stanley J. Samartha

301

theistic bhakti (devotional religion), at times merging into the larger horizon of advaita.”13 The question of the historicity of Rama and Krishna has always been complex, but Samartha does not want to give too much attention to that since the quest for the historical foundations of the founder of any religion is a recent phenomenon. The Quest of the Historical Jesus did not arise until the emergence of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century; before that time the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth was taken for granted. Samartha believes that it is easier to talk about the Buddha and Christ together, partly because the case for the historicity of each is strong, and partly because both Buddhism and Christianity have transcended their particularities and become universal in the sense that they have found themselves at home in different counties and cultures. For Samartha, the key to the similarities between Buddha and Christ lies in their roles as the liberators. During the past few centuries the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth have provided both an inspiration and an example for reformers working for the liberation of the poor and oppressed in Asian societies. In more recent years, it is the Buddha who has provided both a shelter (saranam) and a dynamic source of power to millions of Dalits (the lowest class of people, the “class-less”). Millions of Dalits have adopted the religion of Buddhism in India and rebelled against the ruling Hindu caste system. Christ can be an inspiration for the followers of Buddha, Samartha argues, but a “Christology of domination” is not good news for Buddhists. In this context, Samartha quotes with approval Aloysius Pieris, who has argued that an Asian theology of liberation evolves into a Christology that does not compete with Buddhology but complements it by acknowledging one path of liberation of which Christians join Buddhists in their Gnostic detachment (or the practice of voluntary poverty) and Buddhists join Christians in their agapaeic involvement in the struggle against forced poverty. . . . It is only at the end of the path, as at Emmaus, that the path itself will be recognized by name (Luke 14 24:31).

With regard to his consideration of these four different savior figures—Buddha, Krishna, Rama and Christ—Samartha argues that the theory of multiple avatara (Hindu, “incarnated gods or other significant persons”) seems to be theologically the most accommodating attitude in a pluralistic setting, one that permits recognizing both the Mystery of God and the freedom of people to respond to divine initiatives in different ways at different times. 13 14

Samartha, One Christ—Many Religions, p. 126. Ibid., p. 126.

34 Raimundo Panikkar T HE UNK NO W N C HR IS T OF HINDUISM

“Ecumenical Ecumenism” The Asian pluralist Raimundo Panikkar, a Catholic priest from India whose father was Hindu and whose mother was a Spanish Catholic, came to internation1 al fame a few decades ago with books such as The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. He has studied both in Europe and in India and taught also in the United States. Beginning in the 1960s, he has been one of the most eminent speakers for a unity between various religions. What he wrote about his vision in the above-mentioned book illustrates his approach to religions: “the Christian, in recognizing, believing and loving Christ as the central symbol of Life and Ultimate Truth, is being drawn towards the selfsame Mystery that attracts all other human beings 2 who are seeking to overcome their own present condition.” Panikkar’s desire is to find a common ground between his Indian heritage, especially between the advaita of Hinduism, which purports to overcome perennial dualism, and the personalism of the Judeo-Christian traditions. In that vision, the Mystery may be called by various names, but yet it is one and the same. It is neither “one” nor “many” since in the Ultimate Reality the dualism/nondualism does not hold. Panikkar also has strong leanings toward the Buddhist emphasis on ultimate silence. Panikkar’s pluralism, as anybody else’s, is a result of personal pilgrimage, which he often relates to the experience of the disciples on the Emmaus road. He believes himself to have been placed at the confluence of the four rivers: Hin3 du, Christian, Buddhist and Secular.

1

Raimundo Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, rev. ed (1964; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1981). References to this work are to the substantively revised 1981 edition unless specifically noted as being to the original 1964 edition. 2 Panikkar, Unknown Christ of Hinduism, p. 23. 3 Panikkar, Unknown Christ of Hinduism (1964), p. 30.

Raimundo Panikkar

303

In the very beginning of his career Panikkar became convinced that there “is a living presence of Christ in Hinduism”—and not only that, but also that Christ “is not only at the end but also at the beginning. Christ is not only the ontological goal of Hinduism but also its true inspirer, and his grace is the leading, though hidden, force pushing it towards its full disclosure.”4 “It is Christianity and Hinduism as well that belong to Christ, though in two different levels.” Therefore, “Christ does not only belong to Christianity, he only be5 longs to God.” Thus, we have theocentrism. Panikkar firmly believes that the religions are approaching each other, and he expects a convergence, not necessarily at the doctrinal level but at an existential level, in the “cave of heart,” as he puts it. Doctrinal conceptions create differences and conflicts, whereas the meeting of hearts fosters unity. This is the call of what Panikkar refers to as “ecumenical ecumenism.” This interreligious ecumenism works out of a common origin and goal, a “transcendental principle” or mystery, a basis for shared experience active within all religions. Panikkar calls this shared mystery “the fundamental religious fact” that does not lie in the realm of doctrine, nor even of individual self-consciousness, but is present everywhere and in every religion. The whole purpose of ecumenical ecumenism is to deepen one’s grasp and living of this mystery. For this to happen, all religions, Christianity included, have to give up any claim for uniqueness, let alone absolute normativity. In Panikkar’s theocentric vision there is a special relationship between Hinduism and Christianity. Hinduism has a place in the Christian economy of salvation. On the one hand, Hinduism “is the starting-point of a religion that culminates in Christianity”; it is “Christianity in potency.” On the other hand, there is a need for “conversion,” “a pascha,” a mystery of death and life for Hinduism. In other words, it is not a matter of total continuity or of fulfillment in terms of the fulfillment theory of religions. A final result is not another religion but rather a “better form of Hinduism.” Christ has been at work in anticipation in Hinduism, and now the task of Christian revelation is the “unveiling of reality.” “The Christian attitude is not ultimately one of bringing Christ in, 6 but of bringing him forth, of discovering Christ.”

4

Ibid., pp. ix-x. Ibid., pp. 20-21. 6 Ibid., pp. 58-61 (italics in the original). I am indebted to Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997), pp. 149-50. 5

304

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Christic Theandrism The ontic principle for Panikkar is the Christ of Christian faith who can also be named the Isvara of Hinduism. This is the “living symbol for the totality of re7 ality: human, divine, cosmic.” This is what he has more recently labeled the cosmotheandric reality. This nondualistic vision is described as follows: Man and God are neither two nor one. . . . There are not two realities: God and man (or world); but neither is there one: God or man (or world), as outright atheists and outright theists are dialectically driven to maintain. Reality itself is theandric. . . . God and man are, so to speak, in close constitutive collaboration for the build8 ing up of reality, the unfolding of history, and the continuation of creation.

Panikkar contends that theandrism—as the name literally says, “God-human-ism”—is “the infinitude of man, for he is tending towards God, the infinite, and the finitude of God, for he is the end (finis) man.” In each of the religions this theandrism may take various forms: in Christianity it is the 9 church, the body of Christ; in Buddhism it is dharmakaya, and so on. This theandric reality both embraces and transcends various manifestations. It is not that this reality has many names but rather that this reality is many names and each name is a new aspect or manifestation of it. Each au10 thentic name enriches and qualifies it. Consequently, for the Christian the Ultimate Mystery is Christ, but for the Hindu this is the realization of the realized atman-Brahman. Panikkar refers to a nature metaphor, the rainbow. It is only in the spectrum of various colors of the rainbow that the rainbow is seen, not in 11 any particular color, even those that are part of what we call a rainbow. Panikkar invites us to consider what he calls the “Christic principle” based on this theandric vision. This is not a universal religion, nor a particular event, but “the center of reality as seen by the Christian tradition.” He refers metaphorically to three stages in the historical consciousness of Christianity in relation to other religions as three rivers: the Jordan, the Tiber and the Ganges. The Jordan represents Judeo-Christian faith with a traditional exclusivism, the Tiber is the imperial expansion of Christianity into an inclusivist faith and the Ganges is the emerging pluralism of religious faiths. These he calls “Christian7

Panikkar, Unknown Christ of Hinduism, p. 27. Raimundo Panikkar, The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1973), pp. 74-75. 9 Ibid., p. 75. 10 Vinoth Ramachandra, The Recovery of Mission: Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm (Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 1996), p. 81. 11 See further Panikkar, Unknown Christ of Hinduism, pp. 29-30. 8

Raimundo Panikkar

305

ity,” “Christendom” and “Christianness,” respectively: Only the last is appropriate for the present kairos of a pluralist world. Christianness stands for “experience of the life of Christ within ourselves,” an experience “that I and the Father are One”; it is freed from monotheistic assumptions of a totally intelligible Being, holds lightly to ecclesiastical creeds and traditions, recognizes myth as “the horizon that makes thinking possible” and that “no single notion can comprehend the reality of Christ,” regards security as of no impor12 tance, and lives by “confidence” in the future, not by concern over truth-claims.

How does this Christic principle relate to the Jesus of history? Before we turn to this question, we need to deepen our understanding of the view of the deity in Panikkar’s pluralistic theology of religions.

The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man In his book The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man, Panikkar offers a sketch of the doctrine of God in his Christocentric theandric vision. He looks to advaita Hinduism as a fruitful source for a view of the divine that would not posit God as “thou” over against humans as classical theism does. Panikkar firmly believes that the idea of the Trinity is not a specifically Christian idea, but that it can be found in all religions, though taking various forms. Trinity is “the junction where the authentic spiritual dimensions of all reli13 gions meet.” But Panikkar’s view of the Trinity is unique, different from classical theism and not similar to any existing religion as such. The most controversial claim is the claim for the kenosis (self-emptying) of the Father. How does this happen? “In begetting the Son he gives up everything, even, if we may dare to say so, the possibility of being experienced in a name that would speak of him and 14 him alone.” This leads to the denial of the existence of Father, something akin to the Buddhist experience of Nirvana and Sunyata. God is total Silence. This is affirmed by all the world religions. One is led towards the Absolute and in the end one finds nothing, because there is nothing, not even Being. The Father has no being; the Son/Logos is his being. The source of being is itself not being, for otherwise how can it be its source? No-one can go to the 12

Ramachandra, Recovery of Mission, p. 82; quotation from Raimundo Panikkar, “The Jordan, the Tiber and the Ganges: Three Kairological Moments of Christic Self-Awareness,” in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. John Hick and Paul F. Knitter (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987), p. 113. 13 Panikkar, Trinity and the Religious Experience, p. 42. 14 Ibid., p. 46.

306

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Father except through the Son. Properly speaking, the spirituality appropriate to the Father is not a way of spirituality. . . . Therefore, there is no God except the Father who is his Son through the Spirit—“but without three ‘whos’ or ‘whats’ of 15 any sort.” Only the Son is Person.

Consequently, it is only with the Son that human beings can have a personal 16 relationship. “The God of theism, thus, is the Son.” What then is the role of the Spirit? In Panikkar’s version of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit of the Bible is identified with Hinduism’s “Divine Sakti penetrating everything and manifesting God, disclosing him in his immanence and being 17 present in all his manifestation.” Panikkar sees that the “thrust” of the Spirit is “pushing the Christian forward beyond what we call ‘christianity,’ beyond, I am tempted to add, even the institutional and visible Church.” The goal of 18 the Spirit is “apokatastasis, the restoration, of all in Christ.”

The Universal Christ and the Particular Jesus For Panikkar, God works in this world always through Christ; and where God is present, there is also Christ and the Spirit. This triune God works in all religions and forms the common foundation for all religions. Thus, Christ, the Logos, is present in the holy writings of Hinduism. Christ is also present mystically wherever people reach to union with God. God himself is the Mystery, Absolute, even though he is not so acknowledged. Panikkar sees correspondences and similarities between Christ and Hindu figures; for Hindus this is Isvara. In his earlier works, Panikkar still argued that in the historical Jesus the fullness of revelation had occurred even though not in an exclusive way. But in his revised version of The Unknown Christ of Hinduism in 1981, he moved definitely toward a pluralistic version of Christology. In that book, he rejects all notions of the superiority of Christianity or fulfillment of other religions in Christianity. The reason is simply that the world and our subjective experience of the world have radically changed since Christian doctrine concerning Christ was first formulated. And along with the change of our experience of the world, our understanding should also be modified. Now he believes that it is a major obstacle for followers of other religions to hear Christians saying that Christ is 15

Ramachandra, Recovery of Mission, p. 91. The quotation can be found in Panikkar, Trinity and the Religious Experience, p. 52. 16 Panikkar, Trinity and the Religious Experience, p. 52. 17 Panikkar, Unknown Christ of Hinduism, p. 57. 18 Panikkar, Trinity and the Religious Experience, p. 57.

Raimundo Panikkar

307

to be identified with Jesus, the Son of Mary. This is what he also calls the “myth of history.”19 Panikkar’s revised understanding is based on the distinction between the universal Christ and the particular Jesus. This is the key for him to an “authentically universal” Christology. Christ is “a living symbol for the totality of re20 ality: human, divine, cosmic.” As such Christ represents an intimate and complete unity between the divine and the human. It is what Panikkar calls a “non-dualist vision.” God and human beings are not two realities, but rather one. God and human beings presuppose each other for the building up of reality, the unfolding of history. The meaning of the confession “Christ is God the Son, the Logos” is that Christ is both symbol and substance of this nondualistic unity between God and humanity. But what, then, is the relationship between this universal Christ and the historical Jesus? With Catholic theology Panikkar affirms that Logos, or Christ, has been incarnated in Jesus of Nazareth. But he departs from orthodoxy by denying that this incarnation has taken place solely and finally in Jesus. In opposition to what he argued in the first (1964) edition of The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, in which he posited unity between Christ and Jesus, he now rejects this unity. According to his revised Christology, no historical form can be the full, final expression of the universal Christ. The universal symbol for salvation in Christ can never be reduced to a merely historical personhood, he argues. Panikkar claims that “Christ will never be totally known on earth, 21 because that would amount to seeing the Father whom nobody can see.” Total identification between the universal Christ and the historical Jesus would lead, in Panikkar’s understanding, to a sort of idolatrous form of historicism. The saving power of Jesus, indeed, is to be found in the fact that he embodies a reality beyond every historical form—the universal Christ. On the other hand, as a Catholic theologian, Panikkar is not willing to lose all historical contours. He issues a warning against diluting the Christian belief that Christ has appeared in the form of the historical Jesus. The connection, if not the total identity, is to be maintained, yet it should be done in a way that does not hinder the dialogue with people of other faiths as it has tended to do in the past. For Panikkar, this means that one can at the same time make a genuine confession of Christ, the “Supername” (Phil 2:9), and yet acknowledge that in 19

Panikkar, Unknown Christ of Hinduism, pp. 56-57, 83. Ibid., p. 27. 21 Cited in Paul F. Knitter, No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985), p. 156. 20

308

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

one way or another all religions recognize and acknowledge Christ. Panikkar is not the most systematic thinker, and it is rather difficult to discern his opinion exactly.22 Sometimes he seems to give more room to the idea of the uniqueness of Christ. He is clearly echoing Karl Rahner when he maintains that Christ always works and saves “sacramentally” in the world and in human beings: “The good and bona fide [good faith] Hindu as well as the good and bona fide Christian are saved by Christ—not by Hinduism or Christianity per se, but through their sacraments and, ultimately, through the mysterion ac23 tive within the two religions.” Even though it is not the task of the present book to enter into a critical dialogue with any particular view, theologians are, of course, prone to ask for more clarification here. What do the terms sacrament and sacramentalism mean outside Christian theology? If in Christianity sacraments work only by virtue of Christ and his work (effecting salvation, as Panikkar here seems to imply), is Panikkar’s view that of Rahner and other inclusivists—according to which salvation outside Christianity still owes to Christ? These and related questions, as crucial as they are to any theology (and theology of religions, especially) are not addressed unambiguously in Panikkar’s writings.

22

In my exposition of Panikkar, I am indebted to a careful analysis by Ramachandra, Recovery of Mission, chap. 3. 23 Panikkar, Unknown Christ of Hinduism, p. 85.

35 Paul F. Knitter JE S US AND T HE O T HE R NA M ES

A Spiritual Odyssey On the American scene, the leading Catholic theologian of religions, who is also a pronounced pluralist, is Paul F. Knitter, a former Divine Word missionary and currently a professor emeritus of theology. The leading themes in his theology and spiritual journey have been two “Others”: the religious Other and the suf1 fering Other. In his earlier career, Knitter focused on the challenge of other religions; more recently, the vantage point from which he considers this topic is the issue of social justice and poverty. Thus, the mature Knitter brings together the two disciplines of liberation theology and the theology of religions. Knitter’s thinking, like that of his Protestant pluralistic colleague John Hick, has undergone several serious turns. He gives a helpful autobiographical account in the first chapter of his Jesus and the Other Names: Christian Mission and Global Responsibility, which, together with its rejoinder, One Earth, Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global Responsibility, presents his current understanding of the theology of religions. In his own journey, Knitter sees a minirecapitulation of what have been the journey and the struggle of many Christian churches on their way to a more appreciative attitude toward the Other. As a young missionary, Knitter looked at other religions from an exclusivist standpoint. With all the talk about “accommodation” and “missionary adaptation” in the late 1950s, the Catholic missionary society still approached the task of missions from the perspective of a doctor-patient relationship. It was the openness of Vatican II and Karl Rahner, whose student Knitter was at Rome, that first challenged Knitter’s exclusivism. Rahner’s inclusivism, he reminiscences, “turned out to be an opportunity for the religious Other to

1

Paul F. Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names: Christian Mission and Global Responsibility (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1996), p. 3; see also pp. 15-20.

310

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

knock again on my door—or better, I on theirs!”2 Studies under the Protestant faculty of Marburg University—he was its first Catholic student ever—further helped him open up. His Marburg dissertation on Paul Althaus, with reference to Karl Barth and Ernst Troeltsch, is his first scholarly monograph on the topic of other religions.3 At the end of his study, Knitter raised several questions concerning Christology, many of which he took up later. Perhaps the most significant was his questioning of the Reformation’s principle of solus Christus (Christ only) and the way it prepared the way for a Barthian type of “christomonism.” This, in Knitter’s evaluation, too easily leads to a diluted understanding of the orders of creation and redemption, with the resulting impasse for appreciating the value of other religions. At this time, Knitter was still operating under the system of Catholic-Rahnerian thought, but soon he was to go beyond that. This happened when Knitter became friends with a devout Muslim from Pakistan, by the name Rahim. The result of his encounter was this: “But if I were to speak about Rahim’s need of being ‘fulfilled’ through Christianity, it would have to be in the same sense that I needed fulfillment through Islam. Theologically, I could say that Rahim was saved; I could not 4 call him an anonymous Christian.” Having left the Divine Word Society in the mid 1970s, Knitter was drawn to a more explicit embrace of pluralism through the influence of Panikkar and Thomas Merton, the latter of whom built bridges between Zen Buddhism and Christianity. Continued dialogue with Hindus and Buddhists consolidated his move to a definite pluralism. In 1985 Knitter came to international fame by virtue of his widely read textbook No Other Name? In this book, he proposed a theocentric Christology that was moving in the same direction as the thinking of Hick, in which God, rather than Christ, is the center. The year 1987 saw the publication of one of the most significant books on the topic of Christian theology of religions, namely The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, which Knitter coedited with Hick. In that book, Knitter completed his pluralistic turn by coming to a new appreciation of the topic of social justice and global responsibility as the leading criterion for religions. Knitter’s years-long engagement with students and colleagues who represented both Asian and Latin American liberationism stood behind this final move. 2

Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, p. 6. Paul F. Knitter, Towards a Protestant Theology of Religions: A Case Study of Paul Althaus and Contemporary Attitudes, Marburger Theologische Studien 11 (Marburg, Germany: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1974). 4 Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, p. 8. 3

Paul F. Knitter

311

These years also saw Knitter participating in a Christian-Jewish social resistance movement in the U.S. and activities to help Central American refugees. Owing to these experiences and contacts with liberationists such as Jon Sobrino, liberation theology became for Knitter “not just a ‘new method’ but a matter of making sense of religion and of being a faithful disciple of Jesus.” He “experienced the fundamental option for the oppressed not simply as an option but a demand.”5 Clearly, Knitter’s liberationist approach to religions echoes the more recent ideas of his Catholic colleague Hans Küng, even though Knitter has been critical of what he regards s Küng’s rather reserved approach to pluralism. The mature form of Knitter’s theology of religions, as has already been mentioned, has come to us in the two latest major monographs, One Earth, Many Religions and Jesus and the Other Names. His self-designation for the kind of the theology of religions in the third millennium that would contribute to liberation 6 and justice is “a globally responsible, correlational dialogue among religions.”

Theocentric Christology Even though Knitter has moved beyond his theology of religions of the mid 1980s, it is helpful to take a brief look at the first stage of his pluralism as explicated in No Other Name? In this book, he spoke approvingly of the theocentric model of Hick and Raimundo Panikkar. He himself proposed a non-normative theocentric Christology. This is needed on the way to “a more authentic dia7 logue.” Rather than approaching the question of religions from the standpoint of Jesus Christ as the normative standard—the standpoint of classical orthodoxy—Knitter came to focus on the theocentric consciousness of Jesus Christ and his preaching of the coming of the kingdom of God. Knitter begins his inquiry by considering the necessary question of the uniqueness of Jesus in a theocentric Christology. In alignment with a prevailing scholarly view of the time, according to which New Testament Christology is “dialogical, pluriform, and evolutionary,” suggesting that the christological trajectories are not definitions but interpretations of who Jesus was, Knitter was able to take biblical Christology “seriously” but not “literally.” New Tes5

Ibid., p. 10. This is a section title in Paul F. Knitter, One Earth, Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global Responsibility (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1995), p. 16. 7 Significantly enough, this is the title for his own proposal in Paul F. Knitter, No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985), p. 169. 6

312

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

tament christological statements are “myth” rather than definitive, final statements of fact. They give us access to the mystery of Christ in that they “must be understood ever anew.”8 This made it possible for Knitter to move beyond the exclusivism of the New Testament authors. While it was appropriate for the early church to define the uniqueness of Christ in an exclusive manner, this is neither necessary nor helpful for us as we encounter the challenge of religions. Like Hick, Knitter reinterprets the language of “uniqueness” in terms of that of lovers; a husband’s confession to his wife that “you are the only one in the world” is a true statement, but it is not exclusive of other husbands’ confessions of love. Similarly, statements about Jesus being “the only begotten Son” are not meant to be interpreted as exclusive of other “sons” of God; rather 9 they should urge all hearers to take Jesus seriously, as authoritative. Knitter suggests that the transcendental Christologies of the early church councils would be better off if reinterpreted along functionalist lines: the purpose of the doctrine of incarnation is to be a medium of God’s self-communication rather 10 than a way of emphasizing the particularity of a literal divine descent. Knitter claims that Rahner’s transcendental Christology—the term transcendental in Rahner, of course, has a technical meaning as became evident in the treatment of his theology of religions (see chapter twenty-one)—and the Christology of process theology make the same point. On the basis of these considerations, Knitter comes to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is “unique” in that he is authoritative revelation of God, but there may be other savior figures among other religions. This for Knitter does not undermine the Christian’s commitment to Christ—nor of course make him willing to “convert others”—but it renders one’s faith in Christ “more intellectually coherent (better theory) and more practically demanding (better prax11 is).” The implications for interreligious dialogue, which Knitter wholeheartedly recommends to all, is this: Christians, in their approach to persons of other faiths, need not insist that Jesus brings God’s definitive, normative revelation. A confessional approach is a possible and preferred alternative. In encountering other religions, Christians can confess and witness to what they have experienced and come to know in Christ, and how they believe this truth can make a difference in the lives of all peoples, without making any judgments whether this revelation surpasses or fulfills other 8

Ibid., pp. 180-81. Ibid., p. 185. 10 Ibid., p. 172. 11 Ibid., p. 200. 9

Paul F. Knitter

313

religions. In other words, the question concerning Jesus’ finality or normativity 12 can remain an open question.

From this pluralistic basis come the further developments of Knitter’s thought.

“Toward a Liberation Theology of Religions” Knitter’s contribution to the Myth of Christian Uniqueness is titled “Toward a Liberation Theology of Religions.” He agrees with Arnold Toynbee that religion is necessary to overcome society’s selfishness and injustice. This means that the liberation movement requires not merely religion, but religions. For example, for a liberation theology to accomplish its huge task amidst Asian poverty, it needs help from all religions, not just Christianity. “A purely Christian theology of liberation . . . suffers the dangerous limitation of inbreeding, 13 of drawing on only one vision of the kingdom.” In Knitter’s vision of the future of the theology of religions, a liberation perspective contributes in several ways. The “hermeneutics of suspicion,” the main methodological orientation of liberationism, is to be adopted in the theology of religions, too. This helps us acknowledge the extent to which our biblical and theological interpretations are conditioned by our own interests. The liberation theologies’ preferential option for the poor has the capacity of becoming the norm for the theology of religions as well. Instead of positing a common core for all religions—in the spirit of Toynbee and others—one may take the status of the poor as the criterion. Furthermore, the liberation theologies’ soteriocentric (salvation-oriented) approach gives the theology of religions the right goal, which is to advance the coming of the kingdom of peace 14 and justice. This means that Christian theology of religions is called to make yet another turn after the shift from ecclesiocentrism to Christocentrism to theocentrism, namely to “kingdom-centrism” or “soteriocentrism”: For Christians, that which constitutes the basis and the goal for interreligious dialogue, that which makes mutual understanding and cooperation between the religions possible (the “condition of the possibility”), that which unites the reli-

12

Ibid., p. 205. Paul F. Knitter, “Toward a Liberation Theology of Religions,” in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. John Hick and Paul F. Knitter (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987), p. 180. 14 Ibid., pp. 183-88. 13

314

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

gions in common discourse and praxis, is not how they are related to the church (invisibly through “baptism of desire”), or how they are related to Christ (anonymously or normatively), nor even how they respond to and conceive of God, but rather, to what extent they are promoting Soteria (in Christian images, the basileia)—to what extent they are engaged in promoting human welfare and 15 bringing about liberation with and for the poor and nonpersons.

Eco-liberation as the Goal What, then, is the uniqueness of Jesus Christ in the later stage of Knitter’s liberationist theology of religions? Knitter locates the uniqueness of Jesus in his capacity to elicit a proper incentive for and response to promoting the welfare of all persons, especially the poor and underprivileged. Jesus’ special meaning can be found in that “the reality of God cannot be truly experienced and known unless one is actively, historically, materially engaged in loving one’s neighbors 16 and working for their betterment in this world.” This we might call “relational uniqueness,” which is inclusive, not exclusive, of others. Clearly, the focus of Christian mission shifts from proclamation to service and dialogue. This is where the focus of the eco-liberation approach of One Earth, Many Religions lies: “I will be urging that religious persons seek to understand and speak with each other on the basis of a common commitment to human and ecological well-being.” The key point here is “global responsibility,” mentioned in the titles of both of his recent books. Global responsibility “includes the notion of liberation intended by traditional liberation theologians but goes beyond it in seeking not just social justice but eco-human justice and well-being.” And the way to attain this noble goal is to engage the whole globe and its religions in the project: “it does so aware that such a project, in order truly to attend to the needs of all the globe, must be an effort by the entire globe and 17 all its nations and religions.” For Knitter, suffering and ecobalance are givens; they are common to all inhabitants of the earth. “Suffering has a universality and immediacy that makes it the most suitable, and necessary, site for establishing common ground for in18 terreligious dialogue.” With regard to ecological well-being, Knitter calls on science for help and argues that the contemporary scientific narrative of the or-

15

Ibid., p. 187 (italics in the original). Knitter, “Christian Salvation: Its Nature and Uniqueness—An Interreligious Proposal,” New Theology Review 7 (1994): 43. 17 Knitter, One Earth, Many Religions, p. 15. 18 Ibid., p. 89. 16

Paul F. Knitter

315

igins of the world may indeed serve as a “common creation myth” and a “common ethical story.” Knitter believes that ethical standards to further the well-being of both people and the environment can be worked out by “international ecological groups, especially non-governmental [ones].” Unless the religions and peoples of the earth can respond to suffering and ecological threats, there is no hope for the future.19 There is no denying that in his recent project of eco-liberation, Knitter prioritizes praxis over theory. It looks like the praxis becomes the criterion for the “truth,” that is, the promotion of ecological well-being is the criterion for the truth: If followers of various religious traditions can agree in the beginning that whatever else their experience of truth or of the Divine or of Enlightenment may bring about, it must always promote greater eco-human well-being and help remove sufferings of our world, then they have a shared reference point from which to 20 affirm or criticize each other’s claims.

The subsequent volume, Jesus and the Other Names (a discussion of which concludes our survey of his thinking), leaves no doubt about his opinion that those religions promoting socio-ecological justice become and are the channels of salvation.

“Uniqueness Revised” In light of the argumentation in One Earth, Many Religions, the starting point 21 for Jesus and the Other Names has become clear: “commitment to an authentic, globally responsible dialogue will enable Christians to both revise and reaffirm their understanding of the uniqueness of Jesus and the purpose of the 22 church and its mission.” In contrast to the official Roman Catholic position, which he calls a “constitutive Christology,” Knitter champions his own “representational Christology that holds up Jesus as a decisive representation or embodiment or revelation of God’s saving love—a love that ‘predates’ Jesus and is ‘unbounded’ and universally active by the very nature of God and of 23 creation.” Using the classical theological categories, Knitter regards Christ not as norma Normans non normata, a norm that norms all others but is not 19

Ibid., esp. pp. 119-23. Ibid., p. 127. 21 The heading of this section is the title of chap. 4 in Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, p. 61. 22 Ibid., p. 21. 23 Ibid., p. 133, with reference to Schubert M. Ogden, “Some Thoughts on a Christian Theology of Interreligious Dialogue,” Criterion 11 (Winter 1994): 9-10. 20

316

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

normed itself, but rather as norma Normans et normata, a norm that norms others but can also be normed itself.24 As always, Knitter dialogues extensively with his critics; chapter 3 in Jesus and the Other Names is devoted to dialogue with them. He attempts to respond to those who wonder whether Knitter’s pluralistic, “correlational model”— which allows the possibility that Buddha or some other religious figure may have a saving word to speak—violates the identity and integrity of the Christian religion, which traditionally is centered on the uniqueness of Christ. Others think that believing in Christ and following him, let alone proclaiming his name, is no longer possible in the atmosphere of pluralism. Knitter disagrees with this also and tries to show evidence that his revision of the uniqueness still leans toward faith in Christ and missionary proclamation and service. There are two main components in his revised Christology. First, he proposes that faithfulness to the tradition about Christ means holding to it in relation to our contemporary challenges and problems. This is what the Christian church has always done. There is growth and elaboration of tradition. More importantly, right belief has always been rooted in right action. Once again, in line with what he proposed earlier, Knitter argues that the New Testament language of exclusivism is not to be taken literally but is to be understood as something similar to the language of lovers. Even if the early Christians or the authors of the New Testament may have taken their own language literally and believed that there were no other names that could save (and I think they did), still this was not the primary intent, the essential content, of their language. It was action language, not exclusive language; or, they used exclusive terminology (like “only begotten Son”) in order to call them25 selves and others to the practice of discipleship.

Today, if it is possible to remove the exclusive implications of these texts and still preserve their call to act like Jesus, Christians are remaining faithful to the New Testament. The second component in his revised Christology is the argument according to which “ ‘truly’ doesn’t require ‘only.’ ”26 He defends this by presenting qualities or attributes of Jesus’ uniqueness. He argues that Jesus is not to be understood as “full, definitive, and unsurpassable”; that would lead to an impasse in dialogue with others. In Jesus, Christians have a true but not full, exhaustive 24

Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, p. 169 n. 9. Ibid., p. 69. 26 Section title in ibid., p. 72. 25

Paul F. Knitter

317

revelation. Nor is the revelation in Christ definitive, as if no other revelation existed. Therefore, the revelation in Christ is not unsurpassable, as if God could not reveal more of himself. But what can be said of Christ is that he is “universal, decisive, and indispensable.” He is universal in that he is meant for all peoples of all times. He is decisive in that he shakes and challenges and calls for change. And he is indispensable: “If I experience something to be true not just for me but for others, and if this truth has enriched and transformed my life, I automatically feel that it can be and should do the same for others.” Therefore, for Christians, Jesus’ message is “something without which we can’t see the richness of who God is and what God is up to in the world.”27 Jesus’ uniqueness comes to focus (understandably, in light of Knitter’s ecoliberationist theology of religions) as the medium of God’s reign, God’s king28 dom. Therefore, the church is called to live out and share its faith in a mature, responsible, “kingdom-centered” fashion. Knitter calls for a shift from a 29 church-centered to a kingdom-centered approach. The missionary mandate is not to be overlooked, but mission is to be understood as dialogue. Dialogue calls both sides to the possibility of mutual enrichment and mutual correction. In fact, for Knitter, “mission is dialogue”; in other words, dialogue is not only 30 a method, but the essence of Christian mission.

27

Ibid., p. 78. Chap. 5 in ibid. is devoted to this discussion. 29 See further ibid., chap. 6. 30 See further ibid., chap. 7. 28

ECCLESIOCENTRISM: Contemporary (Evangelical) Approaches

36 Millard J. Erickson NO OT HE R NAM E

Varieties of Ecclesiocentric Views If there are various types of pluralisms available, it is certainly the case that there are also different kinds of ecclesiocentric views. Above, we discussed three earlier representatives, all of them coming from the mainline Protestant traditions. Karl Barth, Hendrik Kraemer and Paul Althaus, though presenting distinctive approaches to other religions, shared the general mindset of Protestant theology of the first half of the twentieth century. The three other ecclesiocentric theologians discussed here differ from their predecessors in several ways, yet they continue the main orientation of that paradigm in affirming salvation not only through Christ (as Christocentrism does, too) but also in and through the church. Millard Erickson, Harold Netland and Vinoth Ramachandra all represent the evangelical movement. In chapter fifteen, we discussed the general orientations of this more recent tradition of Christian theology, which, in terms of its rapid growth, is gaining an established and surprisingly influential status in Christian theologies of the third millennium. Our survey thus far has made us alert to the fact that among evangelicals there are currently various approaches to theology of religions, both ecclesiocentric and Christocentric (e.g.,

Millard J. Erickson

319

Norman Anderson, Clark Pinnock and Amos Yong). Even with regard to current evangelical ecclesiocentric theologians, we find a growing gulf between what might be called the right- and left- wing approaches. Erickson, the most noted systematic theologian on the more conservative side of evangelicalism (his three-volume Christian Theology has established itself as the most widely used textbook in evangelical schools after Louis Berkhof’s Systematic Theology), continues in the framework of traditional Protestantism, which gives some credit to general revelation but limits salvation to a faith response of the individual. Netland’s ecclesiocentrism is heavily shaped by his philosophical critique of (post)modernity and its hegemony of pluralism and tolerance. With long experience as a missionary to Japan, Netland supports a more openminded ecclesiocentrism and desires to construct a distinctively evangelical theology of religions. Ramachandra, a native Sri Lankan, also focuses his theological analysis on the pitfalls of pluralism, especially that of leading Asian theologians such as Stanley Samartha, Raimundo Panikkar and Aloysius Pieris. While Ramachandra’s stance is also ecclesiocentric in the sense that salvation in Christ is to be found in the church and in a faith response to the Christian gospel, out of these three evangelicals he is probably the first to acknowledge the value of non-Christian religions, too. Millard J. Erickson has written several widely used textbooks in addition to his very popular Christian Theology, and he has taught in several American evangelical schools. His theological interests lie mainly in areas other than the theology of religions, yet his inclusion in this presentation of current ecclesiocentric views seems necessary because his theology has had and continues to have such a wide effect on more conservative evangelicals. His monograph on the theology of religions, How Shall They Be Saved? The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus (the subtitle highlights its main orientation), offers a scrutiny of the main orientations to other religions among Christian theologies through 1 the centuries and a defense of an exclusive position with regard to salvation. Erickson’s approach is quite typical of many evangelical theologians’ approaches to the topic of other religions: rather than trying to construct a viable evangelical theology of religions (or pluralism) as such, they often focus on the question of salvation. Erickson begins his consideration of the theology of religions by listing four

1

Millard J. Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved? The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1996). See also Millard J. Erickson, “Hope for Those Who Haven’t Heard? Yes, But . . . ,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 11 (April 1975): 122-26.

320

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

major classical doctrines of Christianity and argues that one’s theology of religions is tied to those affirmations. The person of Christ. One chooses either the mythical views of pluralism (such as John Hick’s or Paul Knitter’s) or the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation, God become flesh. The doctrine of God. The doctrine of the Trinity stands out as unique among the world religions. It brings Christianity into conflict with not only the monotheism of Islam and Judaism but also with Eastern polytheism and recent theocentric or reality-centered views. A related issue has to do with one’s view of divine sovereignty: one has to choose between the view of God in which he has complete right to stipulate the conditions for salvation and the view according to which God has to adhere to human opinions of what is right and wrong. Scripture and authority. The uniqueness of biblical revelation vis-à-vis other holy scriptures of religions has to be decided, as does the question of how to reconcile the seeming contradistinction between those passages in the Christian canon that seem to limit salvation to a few and those passages with a more universal look. A related issue involves the locus of authority: is it found solely in Scripture itself, or in Scripture and the church, or somewhere else, such as Christian or general human experience? The nature of religion. Two options are available, according to Erickson, with regard to how one views religion. On the one hand, one may go with the traditional view according to which doctrines and ideas make a difference between various religions. On the other hand—following Immanuel Kant’s removal of religion from the realm of reason to that of ethics, and Friedrich Schleiermacher’s turn to the subject and “feeling” as the locus of religion—one may agree with modern pluralists such as Hick, to whom doctrines are but mythical descriptions of one and the same reality, or Wilfred Cantwell Smith, who limits “religion” to faith (in fact, there is no “religion” anymore for him), 2 and deny doctrines as the criteria in assessing religions. Having set the record straight, Erickson considers arguments for a more open view of salvation and finds them wanting. He is well aware that exclusivism has come under serious criticism recently. Objections—such as the challenge to divine justice; the sad history of colonialization in the name of Christian mission; less than respectful treatment of fellow humans in other religions; and “exclusivist doctrinal idolatry,” namely, that “the whole exclusivist approach means 2

Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved? pp. 14-20.

Millard J. Erickson

321

setting up doctrines or ideas as idols”—are not weighty enough to make Erickson relax the standards of classical Protestant ecclesiocentrism.3

How Much Does One Have to Know and Believe to Be Saved? The topic of general revelation is defining for Erickson’s consideration of the possibility of salvation apart from Christian faith. He notes that this is a critical issue not only in differentiating exclusivism from pluralism but also in making a distinction between exclusivism and inclusivism, thereby indicating that not only John Hick and Raimundo Panikkar (pluralists), or Karl Rahner and Hans Küng (Catholic inclusivists), but also Clark Pinnock and Norman Anderson (his fellow evangelicals, but inclusivists) may be wrong in giving too much credit to the general knowledge of God apart from special revelation. After carefully examining biblical passages such as Psalm 19 and Romans 1—2 and empirical cases that support the existence of knowledge of God prior to Christian proclamation,4 Erickson affirms the classical orthodox view, according to which a general knowledge of God is available by virtue of creation but that, because of sin, this knowledge is often distorted and confused. He also acknowledges biblical passages which teach that certain persons (e.g., Melchizedek) became true believers through responding to general revelation alone. But given the explicit commands to preach the gospel to all people (Romans 10, etc.), “ordinarily, general revelation is insufficient to bring persons to salvation.” “In Scripture, the evangelistic strategy with respect to those who have some faith in God without having been exposed to the gospel appears to be to regard them as prepared for, but still in 5 need of, the gospel.” Erickson notes that there is another step in the argument regarding whether those who have never heard will be saved: perhaps there will be another chance after death. Erickson studies the view of postmortem encounter in relation to both 1 Peter 3:18-20 (and the corollary reference in 1 Pet 4:6) and the views of theologians who argue for a possibility of salvation after death (Wolfhart Pannenberg and Norman Anderson, among others). Erickson’s conclusion is this: It would seem strange to rest a doctrine about the eternal destiny of humans on such an obscure passage. The doctrine is based on a series of interpretations of

3

Ibid., pp. 24-26; the quotation is from p. 26. Here Erickson discusses, e.g., the accounts of Don Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts (Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1984). 5 Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved? pp. 143-58; the quotation is from p. 158. 4

322

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Scriptures and philosophical and other assumptions which, by admission of the proponents of this view, are in many cases at best possibilities, and scant in num6 ber. . . . [Therefore,] the proof falls sadly short of demonstration.

So Erickson’s main question becomes, what is involved in receiving salvation. What about the importance of faith? Erickson criticizes the “faith principle” of his fellow evangelical Pinnock, which maintains that faith in the sense of putting one’s trust in God, rather than of knowledge of God, is the basis of salvation. Erickson finds highly problematic any view that downplays the cognitive aspect of faith, and he insists on “at least minimal content for this faith,” based on Hebrews 11:6 and similar passages. Erickson finds appeals to newborn babies or some Old Testament saints such as Abel and Noah to be exceptions, not test cases allowing one to diminish the biblical requirement for the cognitive dimension to faith. Erickson also, as one could expect, rejects any view of salvation based only on works; works and faith are needed. He then posits his own alternative solution to the question of what one needs to do in order to be saved. First, he argues that the New Testament strongly emphasizes repentance as the condition for salvation. Furthermore, there is also “a strong emphasis on the need of understanding, belief, accep7 tance, and commitment on the basis of the facts of Christ’s life.” Second, Erickson sees that the guiding principle in both Testaments is response to the amount of knowledge one has received. Even if one is not knowledgeable of all the nuances of orthodox Christology—say, of Christ’s two natures or of the details of how incarnation happened—one is responsible to the extent he or she has been given knowledge of God. Erickson turns the tables and says that it is not an issue of “how much information about the fuller revelation and the gospel may one be ignorant of and still be saved. That is a rather different question than how much of the fuller revelation and the gospel one may knowingly reject or disbelieve and still be saved.” There was, for Jews and Gentiles alike, a responsibility to accept and respond to the full message when 8 presented, which removed any excuse of ignorance.

How Many Will Be Saved? This question has to do basically with the effectiveness of various means of salvation. Erickson acknowledges the existence of various types of materials 6

Ibid., pp. 159-75; the quotation is from p. 175. Ibid., p. 192. 8 Ibid., pp. 177-95; the quotation is from p. 195. 7

Millard J. Erickson

323

in the Bible: those that seem to support a universalist salvation (Jn 12:32, among others), those affirming both saved and unsaved (Mt 25:46, among others), and those teaching that relatively few will be saved (e.g., Mt 20:16). He also notes that among evangelicals various kinds of responses have been given to the “fewness texts.” Pinnock and Anderson have given their responses; and the great Princeton theologian of the turn of the twentieth century Benjamin B. Warfield, with all his conservative leanings, wanted to widen the scope of salvation beyond the few.9 However, Erickson is not convinced by any of these interpretations. Instead he argues that even though there will be persons in the final kingdom from every nation and there will be a large number of believers, nonetheless, they will be, when compared to the great number of unbelievers, a minority. It is not with satisfaction that we arrive at this conclusion. On the contrary, it is with a great sense of sorrow that we conclude this. We could wish that it were otherwise. Yet, in the final analysis, it is not our wishes or desires that determine what is true. There is a sufficient number of reasonably clear biblical texts teaching this 10 that we have no choice but to reach this conclusion.

One of the views entertained by both nonevangelicals and evangelicals alike to soften the exclusiveness of the “fewness” texts is the doctrine of annihilationism. This simply means that immortality is only for those who will live with God in eternity; for the unbelievers, there is neither any future nor endless suffering in hell. But Erickson’s verdict is clear here: annihilationism can11 not be sustained philosophically, biblically or theologically. In light of the fact that for many, if not the majority of people, there is a real chance of eternal condemnation, the implications of one’s theology of religions for missions and evangelism are crucial. Erickson notes that it simply is not true that no other view besides the exclusivist supplies a motive for evange12 lism and mission. However, he has no doubt that “the strongest motivation for evangelism is attached logically to the exclusivist view, since without hearing the gospel explicitly, people are eternally lost.” In other words, for Erickson the urgency for mission and evangelism is another supporting factor speaking for exclusivism as the best choice.

9

B. B. Warfield, “Are They Few That Be Saved?” in Biblical and Theological Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1952), p. 338. 10 Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved? pp. 197-215; the quotation is from p. 215. 11 Ibid., pp. 217-32. 12 Ibid., p. 268.

37 Harold Netland T HE E NIGM A O F P L UR ALISM

An Ideology of Pluralism as a Challenge Harold Netland, who lived and taught in Japan for a number of years and now teaches in the U.S., wrote his first main work on the Christian theology of religions in the beginning of the 1990s: Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the 1 Question of Truth. His recent title, Encountering Religious Pluralism, continues 2 and expands the previous work. Now he engages in a sustained philosophical and theological analysis of the phenomenon known by the name of pluralism (his main dialogue partner is John Hick) and focuses even more on the centrality of the question of truth for any theology of religions and particularly for an evangelical one. Netland makes the obvious observation, noted by so many current writers, that pluralism as such is not a new phenomenon and is certainly no stranger to Christian mission. What makes the current forms of pluralism (and he underlines that we need to speak of various forms of pluralism) so challenging to Christian theology is their normative judgment about the relations among world religions. The challenge is not only about diversity, about differences, but about “an egalitarian and democratized perspective holding that there is a rough parity among religions concerning truth and soteriological (salvational) effectiveness.” In this sense religious pluralism is a “distinctive way of thinking about religious diversity that affirms such diversity as something in3 herently good, to be embraced enthusiastically.” It is this ideological sense of pluralism that concerns Netland. This is what he also calls a pluralistic ethos,

1

Harold Netland, Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991). 2 Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001). 3 Ibid., p. 12 (italics in the original).

Harold Netland

325

a set of assumptions and values that celebrates the diversity of religious experience and expression as something to be desired. A person who embraces this ethos of pluralism is deeply suspicious of attempts to privilege one tradition or teaching as normative for all, and while skeptical of claims that any particular religious tradition has special access to truth about God, nevertheless freely acknowledges that different people can find religious truth for them. At its heart is the conviction that sincere and morally respectable people simply cannot be mistaken about basic religious beliefs, especially when such beliefs and practices have beneficial effects for the 4 participants.

The “ideology of pluralism,” as Netland calls it, did not suddenly appear out of nowhere. Rather, the cumulative influences of the disestablishment of Christianity in the West, the marginalization of religion in modern societies, a deepening skepticism about truth claims and the forces of globalization have 5 contributed to the rise of pluralism. The most decisive factor, for Netland, has been modernity. And here we come to one of Netland’s foundational claims: he contends that the distinction between modernity and postmodernity is not only misleading but also leads to a reductionist view of modernity that exaggerates the changes postmodernity is supposed to have brought about. The changes that many identify today with postmodernity are better understood as the latest developments in the ongoing processes of modernization and the culture of modernity. In other words, postmodernity—as the name implies— 6 is a parasite upon modernity. Netland sees yet another facet of pluralism as significant: the enforcement of tolerance. Quoting Alan Levine, according to whom toleration “is one of the most attractive and widespread ideals of our day,” Netland notes that in the popular consciousness, tolerance and pluralism are linked in the perception that particularism is inherently intolerant of other faiths whereas plural7 ism is appropriately tolerant. But this has a significant corollary. More recently the meaning of tolerance has changed: being tolerant of another re4

Ibid., p. 14 (italics in the original); see also p. 53. Ibid., p. 15. 6 Netland’s view comes close to that of Newbigin, even though these two theologians do not completely agree in their historical analysis; for some reason, however, Netland does not refer to Newbigin in that context. 7 Alan Levine, “The Prehistory of Toleration and Varieties of Skepticism,” introduction to Early Modern Skepticism and the Origins of Toleration, ed. Alan Levine (New York: Lexington, 1999), p. 1. 5

326

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

ligion is often regarded as a matter of not saying anything negative about that religion. Skepticism about the possibility of determining truth in the midst of competing religious claims, the breakdown of traditional community life that had sustained common visions of the true and the good, rampant consumerism and individualism that feed upon pragmatism—all of these encourage an uncritical tolerance that refuses to make negative judgments about alternative beliefs and practices.8 But appearances may be misleading. Netland concludes that with all the appeals to religious pluralism, what we have are a variety of pseudopluralisms. Even extreme pluralists still operate within the framework of their own tradition. Netland takes examples from both Christian pluralists, such as Hick, and pluralists of other religions, such as Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and the Dalai Lama, and shows evidence of a very limited pluralism. What he finds inadequate in the pluralisms of Hick and others in this respect is their reductionist nature (they purport to reinterpret other religions to fit their distinctive form of pluralism), their minimization of soteriological differences and their other accommodations in favor of a lowest-common9 denominator approach. In order to address the challenge of pluralism and begin to work toward a viable evangelical theology of religions, Netland considers it important to address two foundational issues in light of Christian theology: • Pluralism is not only a matter of worldview and attitude, but “a form of ‘unbelief, ’” and it “emerges from and serves humankind’s sinful tendencies.” Netland believes that no Christian should be satisfied with explanations for religious commitments that fail to acknowledge either the place of sin in un10 belief or the “supernatural work of God the Holy Spirit in saving faith.” • At the heart of the issues prompted by pluralism is the growing ethos of skepticism concerning religious truth. Therefore, Netland engages in what he calls “positive apologetics”: he investigates criteria for assessing truth claims of religions and argues for a theology of religions that is based on certain commitments: for instance, that the faith which brings salvation is itself a gift of God’s grace and that sinful human beings are invited to repent 11 and believe. 8

Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism, pp. 142-45; the quotation is from p. 145. See chap. 7 in ibid. 10 Ibid., p. 18; so also p. 126. 11 Ibid., esp. p. 19. 9

Harold Netland

327

The “Culture of Modernity” as the Bedrock of Religious Pluralism Netland argues that there are two competing ways to account for the recent cultural changes—changes that have also influenced the religious landscapes first in the West and now also elsewhere. The first paradigm identifies modernity with the Enlightenment and holds that the Enlightenment project has now largely been abandoned in favor of postmodernism. The second paradigm, the one favored by Netland, sees modernity in terms of the ongoing processes of modernization and globalization. Even though these two models are not necessarily contradictory, the latter appeals to Netland. Out of the Enlightenment emerged modernism, taken up later on by postmodern developments in continuity with modernism, which led to what Netland calls the “culture of modernity”: “the increasingly common cultural symbols, values and institutions that modernized societies share, recognizing that each of these cultures will be significantly different from the others.” The culture of modernity is a product of two sets of factors: the increasingly globalized culture rooted in the processes of modernization associated with the economic, industrial and social transformations originating in sixteenthcentury Europe and progressively moving worldwide; and the intellectual heritage of the West during the past three hundred years. Consequently, modernism is not limited to one particular period but includes the whole era following the sixteenth century. Furthermore, modernism is not limited to the West but has spread to the whole world. And—as mentioned above— modernism and postmodernism form a continuity rather than two different 12 mindsets. What unites modernism and postmodernism especially are the epistemological skepticism and critique of metaphysics so prevalent in post13 Kantian philosophy of the West. Postmodernism does not mean, as is often claimed, a recent rejection of Enlightenment rationalism; rather postmodern14 ism is its culmination. What, then, is the religion for the culture of modernity? What has been said above already tentatively addressed the question. Clearly, modernity has facilitated and enhanced the plausibility of religious pluralism: In particular the ethos of pluralism is supported by the cumulative effects of skepticism about traditional Christianity, sustained exposure to religious diver12

Ibid., pp. 89-90; the quotation is from p. 89; see also esp. pp. 55-57. Ibid., p. 65 especially. 14 Ibid., p. 69; see also pp. 74-77. 13

328

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

sity, and the emphasis upon pragmatism and personal experience reflected in the 15 privatization of religion.

In the era of epistemological uncertainty, religion becomes a private issue; and all claims to the truth of a religious message, Christian or other, are out of the 16 question. This signals for Netland a real “crisis of faith.” Coupled with this epistemological skepticism is all-pervasive secularization, which does not mean the end of religion (as many prophesized in the 1960s) but a radical transformation of religiosity. The main change here is the shift from “religion” as a collective institution with clearly defined doctrines to “spirituality” with emphasis on the individual and his or her choice. These shifts in culture and religious expression have obvious implications for religious pluralism: The notion that one religion is true, and that others that are incompatible with it are false, makes little sense in a free market of religions. Truth . . . is understood in pragmatic terms that focus upon personal experience and benefits. One does not expect a particular religion to provide objectively true answers to basic questions about human origins and destiny, answers that apply to all people in all cultures at all times. What counts is whether the spiritual practices meet the needs (desires?) of the practitioner. Each person must discover for himself or herself what is right and best, recognizing that the journey to such discovery might take 17 strange turns and draw upon a variety of traditions.

Netland’s main task is to inquire into the possibility of religious truth for an evangelical theology of religions against the challenges of modernism and related issues. Here is the focus of his work.

Religions and Truth How do we approach the problem of conflicting truth claims? What is the nature of religious truth? These are burning questions for Netland, who also engages in a sustained dialogue with Hick’s noncognitive approach to religions. Netland takes up basically two tasks: First, he asks, what are the criteria for approaching the conflicting truth claims in religions? Second, he considers the criteria for evaluating worldviews and religions. 15

Ibid., p. 125. Netland quotes from Wade Clark Roof, who speaks of “quest culture,” in Spiritual Marketplace: Baby Boomers and the Remaking of American Religion (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). 16 Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism, pp. 126-29. In pp. 129-40 he traces the legacy of ancient skepticism from the Skeptics, to David Hume, to Kant, to its current expressions. 17 Ibid., p. 155; see also pp. 146-55.

Harold Netland

329

To address the issue of conflicting truth claims in religions, Netland poses three questions: What is the nature of the religious ultimate? What is the nature of the human predicament? What is the nature of salvation? As is expected he comes to the conclusion that different religions embrace different and conflicting answers to these questions. For example, with regard to the ultimate end, Islam, Judaism and Christianity posit a personal God whereas Buddhism, Hinduism and Shintoism refer to something else as the ultimate reality. Concerning the nature of the human predicament, Hinduism and Buddhism operate with the concept of samsara (the cycle of rebirths through which one transmigrates in accordance with karma); Shinto does not seem to have a strong sense that the present order is somehow radically distorted; and Christianity sees the world as under the effects of the Fall. Differences also pertain to the issue of salvation.18 Netland notes that there are basic differences among religions not only regarding doctrines, but also with regard to courses of action advocated by various religious communities. Not surprisingly then, he also notes that, given the problem of conflicting truth claims and different means of remedy, it has traditionally been held that the religions cannot all be true. Here we come to the essence of what Netland understands as ecclesiocentrism (his preferred term is “particularism”): “Thus Christian particularism . . . holds that where the central claims of Christian faith are incompatible with those of other religious tradi19 tions, the latter are to be rejected as false.” He hastens to add that this way of thinking is distasteful to many today, for it implies that large numbers of sincere, morally good, intelligent adherents of other religions are mistaken in some of their most fundamental beliefs. So various ways of addressing this dilemma have arisen, none of which, however, satisfies Netland. One of the ways to deal with the particularist claim of religions is to dismiss the problem of conflicting truth claims as something totally irrelevant to religion. This is the view of an “essentialist” understanding of religion which posits that all religions are basically of the same essence; Arnold Toynbee and Wilfred Cantwell Smith are grand examples here. Netland, however, is not willing to choose between either a view of religion that is identified simply with a set of doctrines or one that ignores the role of beliefs in favor of experiences. However, he strongly argues that since religions include fundamental beliefs about the nature of reality and “that at least some of these beliefs do dif18 19

Chapter 6 in ibid. is devoted to the consideration of conflicting truth claims. Ibid., p. 188; see also pp. 24-26 and 48-51.

330

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

fer from one another,” a “realist and propositional” concept of truth is needed. Netland’s definition of “propositional truth” cannot be caricatured as something external, in opposition to personal truth, but rather is something that also encompasses the personal element. For him “religious truth” is also “personal truth.” Critics of propositional truth err, in Netland’s judgment, in that they often set up the issues in terms of misleading exclusive disjunctions: either one has propositional truth about God or one has an existential encounter with God, but not both. Netland argues for the necessity of both.20 Yet another attempt to soften the traditional truth claims—and thus also the particularism—of religions is to treat religious truth as ineffable. In this view, religious beliefs are really just inadequate attempts to express what is inexpressible. Netland responds that while it is not given to human understanding to exhaust God, it does not mean that nothing conceptual can be said meaningfully. Here Netland makes reference to advaita Vedanta, which basically distinguishes between two levels of reality and two levels of truth; the religious ultimate transcends all duality and thus has no distinguishing properties at all, making any reference to the Ultimate inappropriate. Netland regards this 21 a logically incoherent and unnecessary postulation. Are there, then, any criteria available for assessing various religions and 22 their worldviews? Netland first tried his hand on this issue in his Dissonant Voices by introducing ten criteria such as logical principles, noncontradiction, coherence and internal consistency. But several authors, both evangelicals (Vinoth Ramachandra among others) and others (for example, the Catholic Gavin D’Costa), vehemently opposed the project and wondered about the origin of 23 these criteria. In Encountering Religious Pluralism, Netland takes another opportunity to try out the criteria. He posits the following two, which he believes can be affirmed across cultures: logical consistency and morality. Netland defends the cross-cultural nature of the logical criterion by noticing that, for example, “paradox” and “mystery” can never be identified with “contradiction” any more than it can be assumed that Eastern religions are void of truth claims in terms of the noncontradiction principle. With regard to the moral criterion,

20

Ibid., esp. pp. 197-204. Ibid., pp. 204-11. 22 This is the topic of chap. 9 in ibid. 23 Vinoth Ramachandra, The Recovery of Mission: Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm (Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 1996), pp. 168-70; Gavin D’Costa, “Whose Objectivity? Which Neutrality? The Doomed Quest for a Neutral Vantage Point from Which to Judge Religions,” Religious Studies 29 (March 1993): 79-95. 21

Harold Netland

331

Netland believes that all may agree to at least some moral values and principles that are binding on people in various cultures. For example, Hick’s use of the moral criterion in his model of religious pluralism is well known.24 So, Netland argues, all religions that relativize the distinction between good and 25 evil—as many think Zen does—are doomed to fail. Unfortunately, Netland does not develop further these two foundational perspectives but focuses on defending their value. It would be interesting to see how these can be applied specifically to assessing the truth claims among various religions.

“Toward an Evangelical Theology of Religions” The last chapter of Netland’s Encountering Religious Pluralism promises more than it actually offers and is meant to open the discussion among evangelicals. Netland outlines the three foundational issues that should be addressed by an evangelical theology of religions: • the soteriological question of the destiny of the unevangelized • a theological explanation for the phenomena of human religiosity • the missiological question of the extent to which we can adapt and build on aspects of other religious traditions in establishing the church in various cultural contexts Netland notes that in general evangelical theologians and missiologists have ignored the second topic, while the first one has been quite adequately treated and some work has been done with regard to the last one. In order to address these three foundational issues, as Netland sees them, an evangelical theology of religions should be shaped by the teachings and values of the Bible, and it must be phenomenologically accurate in how it depicts the beliefs, 26 institutions and practices of other religious traditions. With regard to biblical themes for theology of religions, Netland reminds us of the variety of materials in the Bible concerning religions and offers perspectives such as the holiness and righteousness of God; the creation of human beings in God’s image; the definitive revelation in the Bible and the incarnation; the pervasive influence of sin; and God’s provision of atonement for reconciliation. Therefore, the proper response of the community of God on earth is to be engaged in mission, making “disciples of all peoples, including sincere ad-

24

Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism, p. 298. Ibid., pp. 303-7. 26 Ibid., pp. 310-13. 25

332

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

herents of other religious traditions, so that God is honored and worshiped throughout the earth.” The Christian gospel is inherently missionary, and so there is urgency for mission because of both the fate of the unevangelized and the nature of the gospel. Concerning the fate of the unevangelized, Netland takes a middle position among evangelicals: while he is not ready to go with evangelical inclusivists such as Clark Pinnock, neither is he happy to shut the door to evangelical inclusivists completely.27 In addition to emphasizing biblical foundations, Netland proposes the importance of accuracy in portraying other religions. “An adequate theology of religions must accurately reflect the beliefs and practices of the religious traditions.” Furthermore, an acknowledgment of diversity across religions and of variety within any given religion should be taken into consideration in the evaluation of religions. A concern for phenomenological accuracy also requires proper attention to both similarities and differences between the Christian faith and other traditions. This demands an understanding of the self-perception of religions and also judgment as to whether similarities or differences concern surface or deep structures. This kind of careful scrutiny helps evangelical theologians determine both the continuity and the discon28 tinuity between Christianity and other religions. Netland offers these basic perspectives as seed-thoughts for the guild of evangelical theologians to use as they work toward a theology of religions. As such they are general in nature, and more writings by Netland and other evangelicals are needed in order to see the concrete form of evangelical ecclesiocentrism for the third millennium.

27 28

Ibid., pp. 313-25; the quotation is from p. 323. Ibid., pp. 325-27.

38 Vinoth Ramachandra T HE R E C O VE R Y O F M ISSION

A Dialogue with Asian Pluralism The Sri Lankan Vinoth Ramachandra, an Anglican lay theologian who has worked for years in local and international student movements, has interacted widely with the issues of pluralism especially in Asia but also elsewhere. The title of his first book on the topic, The Recovery of Mission, is illustrative of his concern—to rehabilitate Christian mission as a continuing, essential task for 1 the church. His ecclesiocentrism is not only more open-minded than that of many of his fellow Western evangelicals, but it is also shaped by the presence of pluralism and the impact of Eastern religions in Asia. His other contributions include a study on the “pseudogods” of the East and West, Gods That Fail, in which he looks at the relationship between modern idolatry and Christian 2 mission (hence the subtitle). Idols of modern society are science, reason and irrationality. His most recent book is entitled Faiths in Conflict? Christian Integ3 rity in a Multicultural World. All his work focuses on establishing a foundation for Christian uniqueness and thus Christian mission, all the while giving credit to religions that join forces in the common search for the truth. Ramachandra, not unlike his fellow evangelical Harold Netland, questions the hegemony of pluralism in general. With reference to thinkers such as John Hick and Paul Knitter, Ramachandra takes up the challenge of “normative and programmatic” pluralism, which goes beyond the recognition of the variety of 4 religions and enforces itself as the only plausible mindset. Ramachandra 1

Vinoth Ramachandra, The Recovery of Mission: Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm (Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 1996). 2 Vinoth Ramachandra, Gods That Fail: Modern Idolatry and Christian Mission (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996). 3 Vinoth Ramachandra, Faiths in Conflict? Christian Integrity in a Multicultural World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999). 4 Ramachandra, Recovery of Mission, p. ix.

334

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

builds his case by engaging in an extended dialogue with some leading Asian pluralists such as Stanley Samartha, Raimundo Panikkar and Aloysius Pieris. We will focus here on the first two, Samartha and Panikkar, since an outline of their theologies of religions has been given above. Concerning Samartha’s pluralistic approach to religions, Ramachandra finds his view of the deity highly problematic and contradictory. Ramachandra contends that it is based on the advaita Vedanta worldview and is not— contrary to what Samartha himself wants—beyond the personalist-nonpersonalist dualism. Samartha’s God is no personal God: nothing much can be said of this Reality/Mystery. According to Ramachandra, Samartha “is imposing limits not only on our human ability but also on that Reality/Mystery.” Samartha is wrong in imagining that by postulating an abstract Mystery at the center of the religious universe he can secure a unifying religious allegiance. Ramachandra asks “how could an undefinable, attributeless and undifferenti5 ated abstraction command anyone’s loyalty, let alone worship?” And when Samartha does not furnish us with any way of relating the various manifestations of Mystery to Mystery itself, where do we find criteria to ascertain whether the various names of the deity refer to one and same reality? Furthermore, Ramachandra finds it highly ironic that although Samartha wants to speak to the concerns of the poor and outcasts, he ends up embracing a concept of deity from conservative Brahmanism, which is either indifferent or 6 even hostile to the cause of the poor. There are other problems with Samartha’s desire to tie his understanding of deity with the Hindu worldview, such as the concept of tolerance so highly respected by all pluralists: Hindu tolerance is based on a hierarchical ordering of the world and does not facilitate social or religious change. For Ramachandra, the Hindu and especially the advaita tendency to assimilate all other religious traditions and figures, “thus stripping them of whatever uniqueness and innovative power they may pos7 sess, can hardly be taken as expressive of tolerance.” Ramachandra concludes that the kind of pluralism Samartha champions, based on the Hindu advaita worldview, not only denies the self-understanding and self-perception of the adherents of religions themselves, but also leads to thoroughgoing relativism. However, absolute relativism is impossible unless one wants to lose all controls: the Nazi holocaust is no different morally from the

5

Ibid., p. 14. Ibid., pp. 15-16. 7 Ibid., p. 17. 6

Vinoth Ramachandra

335

self-sacrifice of Mother Teresa. Thus, the main problem in Samartha’s proposal, for Ramachandra, is the attempt to avoid addressing the issue of conflicting truth claims among religions. In order to do so one has to minimize or eliminate the cognitive content from the notion of “faith,” as Samartha seems to be proposing.8 But this leads to the dilemma of how a faith that lacks any content can help human beings identify what is true and false in religions and how it can help them discern what is valuable in human history, as Samartha intends to 9 do. Ramachandra wonders whether Samartha’s indifference to matters of religious doctrine is more a product of post-Enlightenment secular consciousness than of a heightened religious sensibility. And he notes that even in the Indian 10 religious tradition salvation (Enlightenment) is bound up with right belief. Other themes that Ramachandra finds wanting in Samartha’s version of Asian pluralism are the following: a naive view of the relation between experience and doctrine, the claim to have access to the “real Jesus of history” apart from the apostolic writings, and an oversimplified view of the development of doctrine among Christians. Ramachandra also wonders to what extent Samartha’s one11 sided judgment on the perils of Western missions in Asia is justified.

Trinity and Pluralism Panikkar is another of Ramachandra’s dialogue partners. Scrutinizing Ramachandra’s criticism of Panikkar’s Asian pluralistic theology of religions gives us further insight into his own thinking. Ramachandra gladly acknowledges the elusive nature of Panikkar’s writings and is content with focusing on some selected topics in the wide corpus of his Asian colleague. Here we will focus on the view of God and more specifically the Trinity; for Ramachandra’s uneasiness with Panikkar’s “Christic Theandrism” comes to focus in his critique of the resulting truncated trinitarian doctrine and its implications for Christology and related issues. Ramachandra wonders whether Panikkar has drained the word Christ of its historical significance in his radical distinction between the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history. While Ramachandra sees no need to “worship history,” neither is he content with discarding the history of Jesus. For Ramachandra it is 8

See, e.g., Stanley J. Samartha, One Christ—Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991), p. 96. 9 Ramachandra, Recovery of Mission, pp. 18-19, with reference to Samartha, One Christ—Many Religions, p. 175, among others. 10 Ramachandra, Recovery of Mission, p. 20. 11 Chapter 1 in ibid. is devoted to a dialogue with Samartha.

336

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

in the wounds of Jesus that we encounter that which is ultimately real, and it is through his death and resurrection that we are not only led to affirm the value of all human history but brought into a radically new relationship with the ground 12 and goal of that history.

Even though there is no need for Christians to have a “monopoly” over Christ—a Christ only for Christians would not be the Christ of the New Testament, Ramachandra notes—history and universality may not be set in oppo13 sition to each other as Panikkar seems to prescribe. A related concern of Ramachandra’s regarding Panikkar’s Christic Theandrism is its seemingly nontrinitarian view of the deity. On the one hand, this divests Jesus Christ of full divinity, and on the other hand, it makes the Christian doctrine of the incarnation insensible. This leads to the nondualism of Eastern religions in which there is no distinction between divine and human and, consequently, in which no “encounter” is possible. The reason for Panikkar’s fear of positing a transcendent God, the “Other,” is in Ramachandra’s assessment simply that such a position would lead to a view of a God who “arbitrarily intrudes ab extra [from outside] into human affairs.” Ramachandra’s response is that Panikkar’s nondualistic view of the deity seriously compromises the principle of freedom, with regard to both God and human beings. Even when a mutuality between the divine and human is affirmed, “within that mutuality there must be room for that about God which is more than the mutual relation, and also room for that about man capable of denying and 14 seeking to distance himself from that mutuality.” A further problem with Panikkar’s view of God, for Ramachandra, is his uneasiness with speaking of the “Father”; for Panikkar, that term implies a contradiction in terms, for every word about the Father can only refer to the one of whom the Father is Father, the Son. Panikkar’s understanding of kenosis (self-emptying) is that in “begetting the Son he gives up everything, even, if we may dare to say so, the possibility of being experienced in a name that 15 would speak of him and him alone.” But this, in turn, divests the Father of 16 real personhood. Only the Son is person. The final problem for Ramachandra in Panikkar’s version of the Trinity is 12

Ramachandra, Recovery of Mission, pp. 83-84. Ibid., p. 87. 14 Ibid., pp. 88-89; the quotation is from p. 89. 15 Raimundo Panikkar, The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1973), p. 46. 16 Ramachandra, Recovery of Mission, esp. p. 91. 13

Vinoth Ramachandra

337

the identification of the Holy Spirit of the Bible with Hinduism’s “Divine Sakti penetrating everything and manifesting God, disclosing him in his immanence and being present in all his manifestation.”17 But Ramachandra laments that the content of Panikkar’s pneumatology, then, comes from advaita Hinduism rather than from the Bible. The Spirit for Panikkar is not Someone to be discovered or to be worshipped; the “spirituality of the Spirit” is “consciousness” of being included in divine love and knowledge. For Ramachandra, the problem does not lie in the use of ideas drawn from Indian religious philosophies in Christian theology any more than the use of Aristotelian or Platonic ideas. Ramachandra’s assessment describes the dividing line between Panikkar’s approach to contextualizing theology and orthodox Christian theology: But it is evident that the best of the Western theologians did make a determined effort to be faithful to the biblical revelation and not to go beyond the tradition of the catholic church. And where they failed to do so, it was more in the nature of an unconscious presupposition than a self-conscious attempt to supplant the tradition with philosophical innovation. And in such instances . . . the church has suffered in her witness as a result of the defect, and we have sought to return to 18 more biblical concepts of God in recent times.

“The Scandal of Particularity” in Perspective Ramachandra begins to build his own version of an evangelical theology of religions by considering the intellectual landscape after the Enlightenment. Several significant turns have had a tremendous effect on how Christian theology looks at other religions and religion in general. Modernity, for Ramachandra, 19 is the “first truly global civilization to emerge in human history.” Among those “turns,” the most significant for him are the rejection of the appeal to truth and the escape from history. The first one is a result of the “turn to subject.” Hick’s pluralism is a case in point here: it is based on religious skepticism and denial of real cognitive content in religious talk about God/Ultimate Re20 ality. Ramachandra refers to the analysis of Lesslie Newbigin with regard to modernity: as a result of the Enlightenment, there emerged a sharp dichotomy between the world of facts and the world of values. Only the latter are appli17

Raimundo Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, rev. ed. (1964; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1981), p. 57. 18 Ramachandra, Recovery of Mission, p. 95. 19 Ibid., p. 143. 20 Ibid., esp. pp. 122-25.

338

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

cable to religion.21 The flight from history has had dramatic effects on Christology, as the dialogue with Panikkar illustrates. The denial of the historical basis of faith has led to the cultural marginalization of Christianity in the West. The claim that ultimate religious truths must be either self-authenticating or necessarily true is itself neither self-authenticating nor necessarily true. Nor is there any reason why as Christians we should assume that epistemological immunity 22 is a desirable, let alone attainable, goal.

The Christian message is radically historical in its orientation, Ramachandra contends. As such it naturally shares in the uncertainty that besets all empirical, and especially historical, beliefs. This leads him to consideration of the age-old “scandal of particularity.” If the knowledge of ultimate reality is tied to historical events, then those who happened to be outside of the possibility of sharing in those events are excluded. So goes the typical reasoning against the idea of particularity. But things are more complicated, he responds, and he devotes considerable space to addressing this issue. Ramachandra—in contrast to many evangelicals—also notes that the problem of particularity should not be confused with the problem of the ultimate status of those who are not Christians. “The claim that God has revealed his truth in historical events does not entail, at least without further premises, that those who lack this revelation 23 are excluded from the benefits of that revelation.” But how should one approach the question of ascertaining or at least defending the truth of the historical faith of Christianity? Ramachandra turns to the proposals of both Newbigin and Netland for help. Netland’s principles for evaluating any worldview (such as noncontradiction, coherence and internal consistence, which Netland regards as universal and cross-cultural) do promise more than they redeem. First of all, they are not, against Netland’s best wishes, “independent of the mental states and psychological processes of any 24 human being.” Second, Netland’s fears of everything having to do with “subjective” certainty are exaggerated; note for instance that Newbigin’s idea of the “gospel as public truth” combines both objective historical basis and subjective certainty (a là Michael Polanyi). For Ramachandra, Netland’s desire for a formal scheme for adjudication between worldviews “smacks of rational21

For a sustained dialogue with Newbigin, see ibid., chap. 5, “Engaging Modernity.” Ibid., p. 128. 23 Ibid., p. 130. 24 Harold Netland, “Truth, Authority and Modernity,” in Faith and Modernity, ed. P. Sampson, V. Samuel and C. Sugden (Oxford: Regnum Lynx, 1994), p. 114 n. 22. 22

Vinoth Ramachandra

339

ism,” and he thinks Newbigin is on his side, too.25 Ramachandra’s sympathies lie with Newbigin’s general approach, even though he is not totally happy with some elements of Newbigin’s analysis of modernity (such as an overemphasis on the Enlightenment). Where he finds Newbigin’s approach vulnerable is in its rejection of any form of natural theology and its insufficiently critical stance toward George Lindbeck’s “cultural-linguistic” model of Christian doctrine. For Lindbeck, doctrine serves as the regulatory grammar of the Christian language, ensuring the internal consistency of the narrative.26 Ramachandra’s conclusion of Newbigin’s thought gives a good summary of his own epistemological approach. He is happy to “fully endorse” it (with the qualifications mentioned above): He has . . . shown how it is possible to recapture intellectual confidence in the truth and relevance of the gospel of the crucified, risen and reigning Lord Jesus, without being intimidated by the dominant mind-set of modern secular culture. . . . He has also shown how that gospel may be proclaimed as universal truth in a spirit that is neither arrogant nor apologetic, neither authoritarian nor individualistic. He has also shown how the painful and unnecessary divide between conservatives and liberals in the church may—and indeed must—be bridged if 27 the church is to have any credibility in a fragmented world.

The Scandal of Jesus and the Principle of Universality On the basis of these epistemological considerations, Ramachandra is ready to set forth the thesis of the uniqueness of Jesus among world religions. In contrast to pluralistic Christologies of Asia and the liberal agenda of the postQuest of the Historical Jesus approaches, Ramachandra wants to anchor his faith in Jesus in the historical documents of the church: the New Testament and the subsequent orthodox formulations of the Christian church. After conducting a detailed survey of the Gospels’ data on the history and meaning of Jesus Christ, he comes to the conclusion that the church’s faith in Christ, the Messiah, the Jesus of the Gospels is a legitimate one: “The normativeness and ultimacy of Jesus Christ in God’s salvific dealings with his world, . . . far from being an arbitrary and repressive doctrine, is intrinsic to Christian praxis and 28 self-understanding, then and now.” 25

Ramachandra, Recovery of Mission, p. 169. For George A. Lindbeck’s view, see his The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (London: SPCK, 1984). 27 Ramachandra, Recovery of Mission, pp. 171-72. 28 For the argumentation, see ibid., chap. 6; the quotation is from p. 216 (italics in the original). 26

340

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

This “scandal of particularity” and the “scandal of Jesus” are based on the biblical stress on the historical and cultural “particularity” of human life, “a particularity that God takes seriously in his dealings with his creatures”; and they challenge both the ancient Indian and the post-Enlightenment Western worldviews. God chose a nation to be the bearer of the cosmic history to the rest, and he chose one mediator to include all. Thus, incarnation is geared toward universality. Particularity is for the purpose of universality, not exclusion. Therefore, Christian faith has always been a missionary faith. Missionary urgency flows from the very logic of the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Messiah of all peoples.29 According to Ramachandra, the normativeness of Jesus—rather than being something foreign imposed on Asian religions—“safeguards some of the legit30 imate concerns of contemporary Asian theologians.” Unlike the major Asian religions, Christianity, for example, takes seriously the cause of the poor, fully endorses the equality of all persons created in the image of God, and celebrates humility and self-sacrificial life and service, among other things. The “gospel humanity” results in the creation of a new human community that celebrates plurality under one God. What kind of theological position is this? Ramachandra responds to this question himself. However others wish to label his theology, one’s self-perception should always be taken into serious consideration. He believes that this kind of theological position, which seeks a “biblical balance of confidence and humility, defies classification under the customary categories of exclusivist, pluralist and inclusivist.” According to his own judgment, it is exclusivist in the sense that it affirms the unique truth of the revelation in Jesus Christ, but it is not exclusivist in the sense of denying the possibility of the salvation 31 of the non-Christian. Ramachandra’s theology of religions is inclusivist in the sense that it refuses to limit the saving grace of God to the members of the Christian church, but it rejects the inclusivism that regards the non-Christian religions as vehicles of salvation. It is pluralist in the sense that it acknowledges the gracious work of God in the lives of all human beings, but it rejects a pluralism that denies the uniqueness and decisiveness of what God has 32 done in Jesus Christ. 29

Ibid., chap. 7; the quotation is from p. 233. Ibid., p. 216. 31 Ibid., p. 275. 32 Ibid., quoting from Gavin D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986). 30

Vinoth Ramachandra

341

Apart from Ramachandra’s self-perception, this book classifies him among (evangelical) ecclesiocentrists because in general his theology clearly affirms not only the uniqueness of Jesus, also embraced by all inclusivists, but also the importance of the Christian church as the custodian of the truth. At the same time, I also freely acknowledge the appropriateness of placing Ramachandra among evangelical inclusivists.

39 The Current Scene C R IT ICA L R E F L E C T IO NS A ND QUESTIONS

Revisiting Typology Now that we have come to the end of a long and quite complex treatment of various contemporary theologians’ opinions concerning other religions, it is time to pause and try to see the bigger picture. We need to pay attention to major trends, make comparisons and point to leading challenges and questions. The task is not easy, and in itself would require a whole book. But for the purposes of helping the reader make better sense of this bewildering complexity, we attempt at least to begin the task. It is appropriate first of all to revisit the issue of the classification. The canons of the theology of religions are still in the making, and the typology used here (ecclesio-, Christo- and theocentric) only serves pedagogical and heuristic purposes. The difference between ecclesiocentric and Christocentric is that while both affirm the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation (and in fact, the ecclesiocentric position often is even more adamant about that), for the ecclesiocentric position, as the name implies, salvation happens in the Christian church. Ecclesiocentrism argues for the necessity of hearing and responding to the preaching of the church. While the Christocentric view is not indifferent to the church, it expands the possibility of salvation for even those outside the Christian church. The third category, theocentric, in itself is easy to define: its main criterion is God rather than Jesus Christ, and thus it entertains the possibility of access to God apart from the particularity of Jesus; Jesus is one of the mediators of the presence of God. What is complicated about this category is that some leading theologians in the camp, most notably John Hick, have already left behind the concept of the God of the Bible and prefer a more generic term, “Realitycentrism.” That is logical in the sense that according to traditional Christian theology, the access to the Christian God is through Jesus Christ, and so if one proposes other means of access, then the concept of God needs

The Current Scene

343

to be expanded; once that is done, it is no longer the God of the Bible, and thus a name such as that proposed by Hick is more appropriate. So, the term theocentric is here used in a very wide sense, including Realitycentrism.

Ecclesiocentric Positions The category of ecclesiocentrism was further divided into two parts: one treated at the beginning of part four and the other at the end. Why? Because of a chronological divide: the first subcategory includes theologians of the past generation, whereas the latter discusses contemporary ones. More important, there is a theological reason: there is such a variety among the theologians in this ecclesiocentric group that it is most helpful to make some distinction yet without making a complete differentiation. Textbooks rarely, if ever, do this, and they contribute to misunderstandings. What I have called here “early approaches” are presented by theologians such as Karl Barth and Paul Althaus, who by no means would be happy to be classified with what I have called “contemporary approaches,” those representatives from the evangelical movement. One could argue for the presence of Hendrik Kraemer in the latter subcategory, since theologically he is quite close to contemporary evangelicals, but he is placed in the earlier one because of both chronology and his dialogue with Barth. That Barth and Althaus argue for an ecclesiocentric approach (in Althaus’s case, a view moving toward the Christocentric) is not because they are theologically conservative, but because they became weary with the classical liberalism out of which they both came. Barth even ended up being a virtual universalist; yet he is in the camp shared with contemporary conservatives! There is a question that cannot be pursued here: might Barth have moved to a more open attitude toward other religions if he had more meaningful contacts with them, as in his later career he began to qualify the one-sided “otherworldliness” of his dialectical theology? The challenge posed to Barth is how to account for the value of creation and the natural order. A critical question has to be asked: is the religiosity of humankind, with all its error, only an obstacle to the knowledge of God? Althaus fares a bit better in this assessment with his idea of “original revelation,” but the concrete substance of his idea is not much different from the typical idea of “natural revelation.” The methodological question to be asked of Kraemer, who as a missionary had firsthand experience with living religions, is whether he is too selective in his use of Barth and his neo-orthodoxy. Only part of what Barth taught supports Kraemer’s position. Having said this, it has to be admitted that Kraemer begins to tackle the

344

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

issue of continuity and discontinuity between nature and grace and thus looks beyond Barth’s impasse. Within the latter subcategory of ecclesiocentrists, represented by three theologians belonging to the contemporary evangelical movement, there is quite a lot of variety. They are united in that they all are very critical of pluralisms of all types, they build on the supremacy of biblical revelation, and they do not want to compromise the absolute uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Millard Erickson represents the more conservative approach among evangelicals, and his writings on the topic focus on the question of salvation. While he entertains the possibility of a very limited postmortem salvation, he does not much engage the question of the theological meaning of other religions. Harold Netland’s approach is highly philosophical: he offers an incisive analysis of the relationship between modernism and postmodernism as the backbone for his critique of pluralism. Like Wolfhart Pannenberg and Lesslie Newbigin, Netland elevates the truth question as central. At the end of his major work, he offers some biblical guidelines toward constructing an evangelical theology of religions. Netland himself admits that his proposal is very tentative; thus, it is yet to be seen what shape it will take as he moves from biblical considerations to wider theological orientations. Vinoth Ramachandra, coming from Asia, offers an interesting West-East-West dialogue: delving deeply into a criticism of three leading Asian pluralists (Raimundo Panikkar, Aloysius Pieris and Stanley Samartha), he also traces the roots of Western pluralism since the time of the Enlightenment. His main challenge is to negotiate the particularity of Jesus and the principle of universality. Like Netland, and with reference to Newbigin, Ramachandra advocates the importance of the truth question for theology of religions. What would be most intriguing is if Ramachandra, in the final analysis, puts together his Asian cultural-religious background and his insistence on truth and history as a way to affirm Jesus’ particularity and yet also the principle of universality! The major tasks for all ecclesiocentrists includes taking a deeper look at the phenomena and theological meaning of religions. In other words, what, if any, is the theological role played by the world religions in God’s economy? The other major task is sorting out how much of their often quite reserved view of other religions is due to fundamentalism—the theological midwife, if not mother, of much of English-speaking evangelicalism. As a reaction to liberalism, fundamentalism came to resist the principle of continuity between Christian faith and other religions, including the view of inspiration: therefore, some aspects of Barthianism appealed to early evangelicals, especially the

The Current Scene

345

“no” to natural religions and revelation apart from Christ. (As noted earlier, the fastest growth among evangelicals is happening outside the West. Yet it is still very much the case that non-Western evangelicals depend on Westerns theologically, ecclesiastically, financially and culturally. Thus, a mere reference to the large numbers in the southern hemisphere is no guarantee of genuinely local evangelicalisms.) Theological work among evangelicals is all the more urgent in light of their massive work of mission and evangelism.

Christocentric Positions The biggest category among contemporary theologians is that of Christocentrism, which indicates where the theological majority stands currently. It is further divided into three subcategories: Catholic, (mainline) Protestant and evangelical. Two general observations are in order here. Ecumenically, it is highly interesting that this (in one way or another) inclusivistic position cuts across ecclesiastical and theological demarcation lines unlike any other view. Second, it is significant that among evangelicals there is an important group of theologians advocating a view more open than ecclesiocentrism. And this is no new phenomenon, as the presence of Norman Anderson of the earlier generation among the theologians in this subcategory indicates. Quite naturally, Roman Catholic inclusivists take the lead position here: both Karl Rahner and Hans Küng were drafters of the transformative documents of Vatican II; Jacques Dupuis and Gavin D’Costa represent the most recent trinitarian-focused approaches. The questions to Rahner—undoubtedly the leading theological voice in the shift of the Roman Catholic church to a more affirmative stance toward other religions—have to do not only with clarification of the most confusing term, anonymous Christians (e.g., how would Christians react if others called them “anonymous Hindus”?) but also with Rahner’s understanding of discontinuity between the divine Spirit and the human spirit (in other words, what is the understanding of sin in his anthropology?). Furthermore, one would like to know more about how exactly he understands the role of Jesus Christ as the “Absolute Savior,” for example, when it comes to the meaning of the cross and resurrection. Küng also faces some serious terminological ambiguities: for many, calling religions “ordinary” ways of salvation (and Christianity “extraordinary”) raises two major issues: if religions in themselves are ordinary ways of salvation, it would be more logical to be pluralist, which Küng is not, at least in his earlier writings. Second, it is a highly disputed question among Catholic theologians whether religions play a salvific role, if any; the Catholic doctrine affirms the possibility

346

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

of salvation outside Christianity (yet on account of Christ’s work), but the majority view is that this happens despite—and not because of—other religions. Küng seems to agree, but his terminology suggests otherwise. Both Dupuis and D’Costa have attempted to work out a trinitarian theology of religions that does not leave behind the uniqueness of Jesus Christ but still makes access to God more available. Dupuis links God and Christ closely together, but he wants to affirm the value of other religions, including their conception of God, as much as possible. Here he refers to the role of the Spirit who is not confined only to the sphere of Christ. The question to be asked is this: if one lets the Spirit minister in a way that is not necessarily linked to Christ or the Father, can one still hold on to the classical trinitarian doctrine? A corollary question is this: does it help clarify this issue—or complicate it— when Dupuis refers to a kingdom-centered model of salvation? All agree that the kingdom is bigger than the church, but the kingdom is the kingdom of Christ. D’Costa, Dupuis’s younger colleague, seems to fare better when it comes to maintaining the rigors of a consistent trinitarian doctrine. First of all, he ties the ministry of the Spirit closer to the Trinity, even though his approach, like Dupuis’s, is pneumatological. Second, in contrast to Dupuis, D’Costa emphasizes the role of the church as an integral part in theology of religions. The community of Christ, rather than being an obstacle in Christianity’s relation to other faiths, is rather an asset, a way of affirming the Other. And conversely, the church needs other religions to come to a fuller and deeper understanding of its own heritage. Like Newbigin and Netland, D’Costa also offers a most incisive criticism of pluralism and argues for the failure of pluralism to live up to its own ideals, such as tolerance. The questions to D’Costa include this: what are the biblical and theological reasons for the centrality of the church? A “theological” exegesis, as he calls it, of one passage (Jn 14—16) seems to be quite a scanty reference point. The inclusivistic camp of mainline Protestants is where most of the theologians reside, yet they differ from each other quite radically. Clearly, Pannenberg and Newbigin stand out as defenders of an orthodox Christian faith, while Paul Tillich and M. M. Thomas come as close to defending pluralism as one possibly could. For both Pannenberg and Newbigin, the question of the truth of the Christian message is the leading concern. Pannenberg’s point of reference is his doctrine of God; only at the eschaton does it become apparent to all men and women which God is the true God. The truth question is not to be compromised but should be taken as a major asset in the interfaith dialogue. Pannenberg’s main challenge is to convince the rest of the world, espe-

The Current Scene

347

cially in the age of postmodernity, of the self-evident nature of the idea of truth as coherence, i.e., that Christian faith has to cohere with all that there is), and whether this applies as well to all other cultures. (This is also a challenge to Newbigin and Netland, e.g., both of whom, unlike Pannenberg, have lived for years outside the West but do not interact with non-Western voices.) Everything in Pannenberg’s system depends on the validity of his methodological orientation to the truth. Therefore, that is the main question. Furthermore, it would be enlightening to know more about how he envisions the role of contemporary religions; he mainly engages the discussion of ancient religions and their relation to Judaism. Newbigin, borrowing from Michael Polanyi, traces the influence of modernity back to Greek and Christian antiquity and analyzes the influence of the Enlightenment on how religion is relegated to the personal and to the sphere of values rather than to the public and to the sphere of facts. While Newbigin’s historical analysis has not convinced all of its accuracy, his call for the church to confront the modern and postmodern culture with a gospel that has a claim to public truth has elicited a significant hearing in the circles that do not want to succumb to pluralism and relativism. Newbigin faces the same kind of challenge as does Pannenberg—how to convince postmodernists and pluralists of the idea of a “public truth.” Many wonder whether this is still a return to modernism’s foundationalism. The two other Protestant Christocentrists, Tillich and Thomas, take very different routes to highlight the significance of Jesus Christ for religions. For Thomas, the leading ecumenist of the former generation, the role of Christian faith in promoting social concern is the key issue; doctrinal considerations seem to be secondary. Unity between the churches and among religions is the key to solving social problems. Thomas clearly leans toward a moderate pluralism in his insistence on a legitimate syncretism in which the “absoluteness” of Christ is relativized to the point that many ecclesiocentrists would be ready to lump him in with pluralists. The main question to Thomas is whether there is an internal contradiction in his idea of syncretism: on the one hand, he speaks of the “absoluteness” of Christ, but on the other hand, he wants to go beyond the contextualization of the gospel or the acknowledgment of the work of Christ among non-Christian religions to affirming the “pluralistic consciousness.” But what he means by that is less than clear, and so categorizing his thought can be risky. Many think Thomas has not even attempted to solve the problem and make himself clear on the issue. Tillich’s more abstract approach to other religions echoes Thomas’s pluralistic consciousness. Unfortunately, Tillich did not have time to develop his theology of religions based on

348

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

his highly existentialistic talk about Christ as the New Being. Thus, it is not clear how in his thinking of Christ as the New Being is related, in the first place, to Jesus Christ of the classical orthodoxy and, in the second place, to other savior figures. A related question to Tillich is whether he really sides with Paul Knitter, Pieris and others (perhaps including Thomas) who seem to make the social criterion the dominant one in assessing the value of religions, including Christian faith. If so, Tillich’s approach faces the question of how far praxis can serve as the norm. It seems to many that before a norm (in this case, social justice) can be set, we need to determine criteria as to “which justice” or “whose justice.” Tillich’s bare outline of the theology of religions cannot address these questions and should not be expected to. When compared to Catholic Christocentrists (Rahner, Küng, Dupuis and D’Costa), these four Protestant counterparts (Pannenberg, Newbigin, Thomas and Tillich) do display more variety. Whereas Pannenberg and Newbigin set themselves the task of defending orthodox Christianity in light of modernism, postmodernism and plurality, Tillich and Thomas attempt to stretch the limits toward pluralism, to shift the focus from the truth question to social concern and to seek for unity among religions. The Catholics all fall in the mainstream of Vatican II inclusivism, with Dupuis moving closest to the border of pluralism, though not willing to leave behind the unique role of Christ. The later Küng echoes the social concern of Thomas and Tillich. The third subcategory of Christocentrists is perhaps the most unexpected as it comprises three evangelicals: Anderson, Clark Pinnock and Amos Yong. Anderson is the pioneer of evangelical inclusivism, thus showing us that openness to other religions is not a phenomenon of recent years in this camp. While not a theologian by training, but rather a specialist of other religions, Anderson’s main task is to negotiate the “scandal of particularity” in light of the desire to open up the way of salvation to at least some people outside the church. Anderson’s theology of religions is a textbook example of the approach of his own times: it focuses very much on the question of salvation yet (based on his firsthand knowledge of religions) also begins to move toward assessing the theological value of religions. His main contribution is seeking parallels between God’s dealings with Old Testament people and Christianity’s relation to those who have never heard the gospel. Anderson has stirred evangelicals to reconsider their views, but understandably he has only provided some clues as to where this should begin. His conclusions are also based on speculations such as the idea that some people who have never heard the gospel might have responded positively had they had a chance. While these kinds

The Current Scene

349

of considerations contain hope, theologically they are not very convincing. In many ways, Pinnock picks up where Anderson left off. A lover of neither pluralism nor relativism, Pinnock also challenges what he calls the “restrictivism” of many of his fellow evangelicals. The greatest contribution of Pinnock is his attempt to work toward a trinitarian theology of religions: he began with negotiating the uniqueness of Christ and an “optimism of salvation” based on the love and benevolence of God, and then he moved to consider the cosmic role of the Spirit in the world. Differently from most evangelicals and in line with typical inclusivists, he has come to appreciate the role of religions as Godwilled ways of searching for God. Nevertheless, Pinnock is not blind to their faults. Questions to Pinnock include these: How exactly does he envision the relationship between the Spirit and Christ? All theologians agree that Christ represents particularity while the Spirit represents universality; but is there not also universality to the preincarnate Word/Logos, and doesn’t the particularity of the history of Jesus serve the principle of universality? How Pinnock links the Spirit and Christ will determine whether he is moving toward the Catholic Dupuis, who gives the Spirit more freedom, or the Catholic D’Costa, who links the Spirit not only to Christ but also to the church. One may also want more clarification concerning Pinnock’s “faith principle”: while even most ecclesiocentrists agree that there is the possibility of salvation for the mentally incompetent or the Old Testament saints, for example, how does this principle apply to other religions’ people of faith—or does it at all? Pinnock’s younger colleague, Yong—whose most recent work on the topic, Beyond the Impasse (2003), came too late to be consulted—takes a pneumatolog1 ical approach to other religions, thus echoing but going beyond Pinnock. His main task is to set criteria for discerning the Spirit(s). It is left to his later works to translate this yet quite abstract outline into a more concrete, specific proposal. Yong’s approach shares the risk of other pneumatologically oriented approaches which imply (even though they do not often explicitly acknowledge) that in order to advance the quest of the theology of religions, the christological particularity has to be overcome with the help of pneumatological resources. This, in its turn, raises the trinitarian question: what are the criteria for continuing to speak of the Spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of the Father rather than of the independent “itinerary” in the world of the Spirit? A corollary question asks, how can we reconcile the pneumatological focus with the biblical and theologico-historical notion of the Spirit as the “Unknown Third” who 1

Amos Yong, Beyond the Impasse (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003).

350

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

always turns people’s eyes to the Son and therefore to the Father, rather than to the Spirit’s own ministry? What is the relationship among these three Christocentric subcategories— Catholic, mainline Protestant and evangelical? They are all determined to keep the focus on the uniqueness of Christ, though not to the point of limiting salvation to only those who proclaim conscious faith in Christ. The Catholic camp seems to be most “open” to the possibility of salvation outside the church. They also readily acknowledge the value of other religions in God’s economy, based on the Thomistic doctrine of grace fulfilling nature. The evangelicals entertain the possibility of salvation for people outside the church and are moving toward giving credit to other religions, but they seem to leave it open as to how far inclusion of the people of other faiths in salvation is possible. Theirs is, clearly, a much less pronounced inclusivism. For the mainline Protestants in this category, the question of salvation does not seem to be crucial. The truth question is crucial and so is the focus on social concern. It would be a wonderful enterprise to have theologians from these three subcategories convene a mutual dialogue and study.

Theocentric Positions What is most often called pluralism is here lumped under the elusive concept of theocentrism. As mentioned, the term needs to be understood very broadly, since Hick especially has moved beyond theocentrism to Realitycentrism. As one could expect—and as the label pluralism itself entails—there is no homogenous way of affirming pluralism. For Hick, pluralism seems to mean denying the real differences between religions. Whatever different doctrines, beliefs or ideas religions affirm, upon deeper examination they all have the same frame of reference. Differences are not real. Thus, Hick’s pluralism leads to “teaching” the people of various faiths about the “true” sameness of all concepts of the divine, afterlife and destiny, notwithstanding phenomenological differences. This, of course, takes us to the major challenge for Hick: Is his theocentrism/Realitycentrism really pluralistic? Is it not rather a subtle attempt to deny the differences and compress all religions into one mold? Is this in the final analysis supportive of dialogue, if before beginning the dialogue all “know” that, whatever the differences taken up, they are not real? Hick also needs to be challenged to give a more satisfactory answer as to how one can hold on to a generic idea of God about whom we claim to not know anything, yet whose existence we can assume. A related question wonders whether it is really possible—within the confines of any twisting of language—to go be-

The Current Scene

351

yond the personal/impersonal divide as Hick claims. Panikkar’s theocentrism represents a very different kind of pluralism, a view that cherishes and embraces the differences between religions even in light of the fact that ultimately a religious convergence is to be expected, or at least hoped for. So his pluralism is much more sensitive to existing religions, and no “world religion” is to be anticipated. Panikkar’s proposal makes an interesting use of Christian, Asian and philosophical elements based on the idea of cosmotheandrism. In his focus on the Trinity, he both follows traditional Christian theology and goes beyond it by offering a highly idiosyncratic interpretation. Questions to Panikkar include these: To what extent does his view of God, the trinitarian God, really equal that of the Bible and Christian tradition? To name the Father as total silence and regard the Son as God is a view that seems to step out of all the contours of classical trinitarian doctrine. Does this interpretation fairly represent a view of the God of any existing religions? Regarding his Christology, it is not quite clear how he relates the Universal Christ to the Particular Jesus. There are times when he seems to approach right-wing inclusivists and other times when he separates those two so much that it is hard to determine his position. Furthermore, is it fair to—or supportive of—interfaith dialogue to resort to the idea of differences as being based not on doctrines but on something else? How can we talk about differences “in the cave of the heart”? Is an advaitic idea of the nonexcluded middle (that there really is no either-or dualism of classical logic) an asset or hindrance to furthering dialogue? Panikkar himself, no more than others, cannot follow this logic since it would mean giving up rational reasoning. Knitter’s theocentrism, like that advocated by many other pluralists, has grown gradually out of a quite ecclesiocentric position to a Christocentric one. The later Knitter has replaced doctrinal considerations with social and ecological criteria. He faces similar kinds of challenges as those posed earlier to Thomas and Tillich: If doctrinal formulations do not matter, what is the criterion for defining the “value” of religions? Is it rather more conducive to dialogue to explicitly define the contours of, say, justice, rather than to ignore them? Furthermore, how does Knitter’s idea of salvation as eco-social liberation relate to, on the one hand, classical Christianity’s idea of eschatological salvation and, on the other, to other religions’ quite different views of religious ends? Is Knitter guilty of imposing his particular view of the value of religions on the rest of religions and thus working against pluralism? The last theocentrist in our grouping, Samartha, has focused on christological considerations. His main contention is that while Christ may be norma-

352

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

tive for Christians, he is not necessarily so for followers of other religions. That is a problematic statement for many. Pannenberg, Newbigin and others would contend that if there is no appeal to any kind of universality, then the whole notion of truth is in danger. Samartha deals with the problem of the “uniqueness” of Jesus Christ by appealing to terms such as relational and distinctive, but the exact content of these terms needs clarification. A related challenge is Samartha’s emphasis on the “mystery.” While it is appropriate for an Asian theologian to use approaches of his own context, for the readers of Samartha coming from outside Asia the meaning of the term remains vague and needs elucidation. (This was also noticed in the context of Panikkar’s theology; they both appeal to advaitic nondualism.) Only after clarifying these key terms will Samartha’s theocentrism—which by any account represents a more moderate pluralism than that of his colleagues in this category—become understandable.

Epilogue T HE WA Y F OR W AR D

At the end of this quite comprehensive survey of major representatives on the contemporary scene and at the end of a book that has surveyed biblical, historical and contemporary views of Christian theology of religions, it is appropriate to envision the future challenges and tasks for this rapidly developing field. The following seem to be most impending for the present writer. The canons of Christian theology, including terminology and methods, are still in the making. The short history of this field of theological studies has taken various turns, such as the shift from considering the possibility of salvation outside the Christian church to determining the theological value and mean1 ing, if any, of other religions. In other words, the scope of the theology of religions has widened considerably from posing soteriological questions to developing a more constructive theological approach. One of the most exciting current developments is the constructive task of theology of religions based on 2 the central doctrines of Christian faith, such as the Trinity. Here the distinctive Christian theological heritage is as an asset, not a hindrance, to dialogue. Much of the discourse in the field of theology of religions is still quite polemical, a situation not too different from the way different Christian churches addressed one another before the rise of the ecumenical movement. The future of Christian theology of religions most probably will bring about a dialogue in which theologians from various persuasions (ecclesio-, Christo- and theocentrist positions) will talk to each other in a more nuanced way, trying to better understand one another. Ironically, though many pluralists especially

1

In speaking of the relatively short age of the Christian theology of religions, I do not mean that the questions it poses have not been discussed before; yes, they have been, and at times, discussion has been quite active. What I mean is that as a separate field of theological studies, theology of religions did not emerge until the last decades of the twentieth century. 2 See further Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Religious Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology of Religions (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, forthcoming).

354

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

are very appreciative of other religions and their voices, they tend to dump or present in a less than honorable way the voice of their more conservative Christian counterparts. While pluralism is not the sole problem of theology of religions, it is currently the most impending one. Plurality (i.e., the existence of more than one religion, often with an appeal to universal validity) in itself is not necessarily a key point. Rather the issue is the ideology of pluralism, especially in the form argued by John Hick and those likeminded—namely, that all religions should give up their distinctive features and acknowledge the existence of one single reality behind all phenomenological, doctrinal and conceptual differences. It seems like pluralism is here to stay, but it will take new forms, such as the one presented by Raimundo Panikkar, which, rather than suppressing differences, embraces them and makes them an asset to the theology of religions. Where that happens, a new kind of correlation between phenomenological, empirical study of religions and theology of religions becomes much more fruitful. Even currently, there is a quite radical divide between those who want to assess the value of religions mainly on the basis of empirical observations and those who (often ignorant of the distinctive features of the spirituality, rites and worship of various religions) carry out their work in isolated theological laboratories. While Christian theology of religions is not the only form of theology of religions, it is by far the most developed currently. Yet to be seen are the results and implications when theologies of religions from various world religions begin to talk with each other. Until now, we have only had representatives of various religions speak to each other in interfaith dialogues; a next step will be taken when Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist and other theologians of religions begin to dialogue and perhaps carry out common research projects. Whether that will lead to the kind of “neutral” search for the truth that Wolfhart Pannenberg predicts nobody can say. Whatever the form of that kind of dialogue, it will probably raise interfaith dialogue to a new level. Regarding theological education at the international and ecumenical level, my conviction is that in a few years theology of religions will establish its place in the core curriculum of schools of various persuasions. Currently, as ironic as it is, students of theology are offered courses giving detailed knowledge of the religions and their backgrounds in antiquity; yet the contemporary religious situation in light of other religions is often left totally untouched. Even in schools that purport to train ministers, missionaries and theologians for multicultural and multireligious contexts, the most that is offered is usually at

Epilogue

355

the level of introductory courses to world religions. Theology textbooks are still written as though, after graduating, students will minister only to people from a Christian background. Here is an educational need that I expect theology of religions will address more adequately in the near future.

Bibliography

This bibliography is limited to English titles. Its focus is on providing basic sources for the topics, movements, and theologians discussed in this work. Works marked with an asterisk (*) are especially helpful for beginning students in the field. Anderson, Gerald H. “Christian Mission and Religious Pluralism: A Selected Bibliography of 175 Books in English, 1975-1990.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 14 (October 1990): 172-76. Anderson, Gerald H., and Thomas F. Stransky, eds. Christ’s Lordship and Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1981. ———. Critical Issues in Mission Theology. New York: Paulist, 1974. ———. Faith Meets Faith. New York: Paulist, 1981. Anderson, Sir Norman. Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984. Ariarajah, S. Wesley. The Bible and People of Other Faiths. Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1985. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics 1/2. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956. Bavinck, Johan H. The Church Between the Temple and Mosque: A Study of the Relationship Between the Christian Faith and Other Religions. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1966. Berger, Peter, ed. The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. Borrmans, Maurice. Guidelines for Dialogue Between Christians and Muslims. New York: Paulist, 1990. *Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1992. Braaten, Carl. No Other Gospel? Christianity Among the World’s Religions. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1992. Braybrooke, Marcus. Pilgrimage of Hope: A Hundred Years of Global Interfaith Dialogue. London: SCM Press, 1992. ———. Time to Meet: Towards a Deeper Relationship Between Jews and Christians. London: SCM Press, 1990.

Bibliography

357

Brück, Michael von. The Unity of Reality: God, God-Experience and Meditation in the HinduChristian Dialogue. New York: Paulist, 1991. Bühlmann, Walbert. All Have the Same God. Slough, England: St. Paul Publications, 1982. ———. The Chosen Peoples. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1992. Burrows, William R., ed. Redemption and Dialogue. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1993. Camps, Arnulf. Partners in Dialogue: Christianity and Other World Religions. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1983. Carpenter, Joel A., and Wilbert R. Shenk, eds. Earthen Vessels: American Evangelicals and Foreign Missions 1880-1980. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990. Carruthers, Gregory H. The Uniqueness of Jesus Christ in the Theocentric Model of the Christian Theology of Religions: An Elaboration and Evaluation of the Position of John Hick. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1990. Carson, D. A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996. Clarke, Andrew D., and Bruce W. Winter, eds. One God, One Lord: Christianity in a World of Religious Pluralism. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1992. Clendenin, Daniel B. Many Gods, Many Lords: Christianity Encounters World Religions. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1995. Cobb, John B., Jr. Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and Buddhism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. ———. Christ in a Pluralistic Age. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975. Cobb, John B., Jr., and Christopher Ives, eds. The Emptying God: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990. Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, ed. Many Mansions: Interfaith and Religious Tolerance. London: Bellew, 1992. Congar, Yves. The Wide World My Parish: Salvation and Its Problems. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961. Copeland, E. Luther. A New Meeting of the Religions: Interreligious Relationships and Theological Questioning. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 1999. Corless, Roger, and Paul F. Knitter, eds. Buddhist Emptiness and Christian Trinity: Essays and Explorations. New York: Paulist, 1990. Covell, Ralph R. Confucius, the Buddha and the Christ. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1986. Coward, Harold. Pluralism: Challenge to World Religions. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985. ———, ed. Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Perspectives and Encounters. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990. Cracknell, Kenneth. Justice, Courtesy and Love: Theologians and Missionaries Encountering World Religions, 1846-1914. London: Epworth, 1995. ———. Towards a New Relationship: Christians and People of Other Faiths. London: Epworth, 1986. Cragg, Kenneth. The Christ and the Faiths: Theology in Cross Reference. London: SPCK, 1986.

358

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

———. The Christian and the Other Religions. London: Mowbray, 1977. ———. Muhammad and the Christian: A Question of Response. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1984. Daniélou, Jean. Holy Pagans of the Old Testament. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1957. Dawe, Donald G., and John B. Carman, eds. Christian Faith in a Religiously Plural World. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1978. D’Costa, Gavin. John Hick’s Theology of Religions: A Critical Evaluation. New York: University Press of America, 1987. ———. The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2000. *———. Theology and Religious Pluralism: The Challenge of Other Religions. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. ———, ed. Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990. Dean, Thomas, ed. Religious Pluralism and Truth: Essays on Cross-Cultural Philosophy of Religion. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Dhavamony, Mariasusai. Christian Theology of Religions: A Systematic Reflection on the Christian Understanding of World Religions. Studien zur Interkulturellen Geschichte Des Christentums 108. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1998. DiNoia, Joseph A. The Diversity of Religions: A Christian Perspective. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1992. Driver, Tom F. Christ in a Changing World. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Drummond, Richard H. Toward a New Age in Christian Theology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985. Dupuis, Jacques. Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991. ———. Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997. Erickson, Millard J. “Hope for Those Who Haven’t Heard? Yes, But . . . .” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 11 (April 1975): 122-26. ———. How Shall They Be Saved? The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1996. Falaturi, Abdoldjavad; J. J. Petuchowski; and Walter Strolz. Three Ways to the One God: The Faith Experience in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Crossroad, 1987. Fernando, Ajith. The Christian’s Attitude Toward World Religions. Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale, 1987. Fredericks, James L. Faith Among Faiths: Christian Theology and Non-Christian Religions. New York: Paulist, 1999. Gillis, Chester. A Question of Final Belief: J. Hick’s Pluralistic Theology of Salvation. London: Macmillan, 1989. Gioia, Francesco, ed. Interreligious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church 1963-1995. Boston: Pauline, 1997. Gort, Jerald D. On Sharing Religious Experience: Possibilities of Interfaith Mutuality. Grand

Bibliography

359

Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992. Griffiths, Paul J. An Apology for Apologetics: A Study of the Logic of Interreligious Dialogue. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991. ———, ed. Christianity Through Non-Christian Eyes. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990. Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies. Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1979. Hamnett, Ian, ed. Religious Pluralism and Unbelief: Studies Critical and Comparative. London: Routledge, 1990. Heim, S. Mark. The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. ———. Is Christ the Only Way? Christian Faith in a Pluralistic World. Philadelphia: Judson, 1989. ———. Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1995. *———, ed. Grounds for Understanding: Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. Hick, John. A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster Press, 1995. (Published in the U.K. as The Rainbow of Faiths: Critical Dialogue on Religious Pluralism, [London: SCM Press, 1995]). ———. Death and Eternal Life. London: Collins, 1976. ———. Disputed Questions in Theology and Philosophy of Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. ———. The Fifth Dimension: An Exploration of the Spiritual Realm. Oxford: Oneworld, 1999. ———. God and the Universe of Faiths: Essays in the Philosophy of Religion. London: Macmillan, 1973. ———. God Has Many Names. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982. ———. An Interpretation of Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. ———. The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993. ———. The Second Christianity. 3rd enl. ed. of Christianity at the Centre. London: SCM Press, 1983. ———. Truth and Dialogue in World Religions: Conflicting Truth Claims. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974. Hick, John, and H. Askari, eds. The Experience of Religious Diversity. Aldershot, U.K.: Gower, 1985. Hick, John, and Paul F. Knitter, eds. The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987. Hillmann, Eugene. Many Paths: A Catholic Approach to Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1989. ———. The Wider Ecumenism: Anonymous Christianity and the Church. New York: Herder & Herder, 1968.

360

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Keenan, John P. The Meaning of Christ: A Mahayana Theology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1989. Kirk, J. Andres, and Kevin J. Vanhoozer. To Stake a Claim: Mission and the Western Crisis of Knowledge. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1999. Knitter, Paul F. Jesus and the Other Names: Christian Mission and Global Responsibility. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1996. *———. No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1985. ———. One Earth, Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global Responsibility. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1995. ———. “Toward a Liberation Theology of Religions.” In The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. Edited by John Hick and Paul F. Knitter. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987. ———. Towards a Protestant Theology of Religions: A Case Study of Paul Althaus and Contemporary Attitudes. Marburger Theologische Studien 11. Marburg, Germany: N. G. Elwert, 1974. Kraemer, Hendrik. The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World. New York: Harper & Row, 1938. ———. Why Christianity of All Religions? 1959. Reprint, London: Lutterworth, 1962. ———. World Cultures and World Religions: The Coming Dialogue. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960. Krieger, David J. The New Universalism: Foundations for a Global Theology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991. Küng, Hans. Global Responsibility: In Search of a New World Ethic. London: SCM Press, 1991. ———. Theology for the Third Millennium. New York: Doubleday, 1988. ———. “What Is True Religion? Toward an Ecumenical Criteriology.” In Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Edited by Leonard Swidler. Maryknoll. N.Y.: Orbis, 1987. ———. “The World Religions in God’s Plan of Salvation.” In Christian Revelation and World Religions. Edited by J. Neuner. London: Burns & Oates, 1967. Küng, Hans, and J. Ching. Christianity and Chinese Religions. New York: Doubleday, 1989. Küng, Hans, and Karl-Josef Kuschel. A Global Ethic: The Declaration of the Parliament of the World’s Religions. New York: Continuum, 1993. Kuschel, Karl-Josef. Abraham: A Sign of Hope for Jews, Christians and Muslims. New York: Continuum, 1995. *Küster, Volker. The Many Faces of Jesus Christ: Intercultural Christology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2001. Lai, Pan-Chiu. Towards a Trinitarian Theology of Religions: A Study in Paul Tillich’s Thought. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1994. Lefebure, Leo D. The Buddha and the Christ: Explorations in Buddhist and Christian Dia-

Bibliography

361

logue. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1993. Lochead, David. The Dialogical Imperative: A Christian Reflection on Interfaith Encounter. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1988. McDermott, Gerald R. Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions? Jesus, Revelation and Religious Traditions. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000. ———. Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods: Christian Theology, Enlightenment Religion and Non-Christian Faiths. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. McFadden, Thomas M., ed. Does Jesus Make a Difference? New York: Seabury, 1974. Menacherry, Cheriyan. Christ: The Mystery in History: A Critical Study on the Christology of Raymond Panikkar. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1996. Moran, Gabriel. Uniqueness: Problem or Paradox in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Maryknoll, N.Y. Orbis, 1992. Mullen, David George, ed. Religious Pluralism in the West: An Anthology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1998. Murray, Robert. The Cosmic Covenant. London: Sheed & Ward, 1992. Nash, Ronald. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994. Neely, Alan. “The Parliaments of the World’s Religions: 1893 and 1993.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 18, no. 2 (1994): 60-64. Neill, Stephen. Christian Faith and Other Faiths: The Christian Dialogue with Other Religions. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. Netland, Harold. Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of the Truth. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991. *———. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001. ———. “Truth, Authority and Modernity.” In Faith and Modernity. Edited by P. Sampson, V. Samuel, and C. Sugden. Oxford: Regnum Lynx, 1994. Neuner, Josef, ed. Christian Revelation and World Religions. London: Burns & Oates, 1967. Newbigin, Lesslie. Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture. Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1986. ———. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989. ———. Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt and Certainty in Christian Discipleship. London: SPCK, 1995. ———. Truth and Authority in Modernity. Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1996. ———. Truth to Tell: The Gospel as Public Truth. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991. ———. A Word in Season: Perspectives on Christian World Missions. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995. Nicholls, Bruce, ed. The Unique Christ in Our Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1994. Ogden, Schubert M. Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many? Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1992.

362

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

Oxtaby, Willard G. The Meaning of Other Faiths. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985. Pandiappallil, Joseph. Jesus the Christ and Religious Pluralism: Rahnerian Christology and Belief Today. New York: Herder & Herder, 2001. Panikkar, Raimundo. The Cosmotheandric Experience: Emerging Religious Consciousness. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1993. ———. The Intra-Religious Dialogue. New York: Paulist, 1978. ———. “The Jordan, the Tiber and the Ganges: Three Kairological Moments of Christic Self-Awareness.” In The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. Edited by John Hick and Paul F. Knitter. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987. ———. The Silence of God: The Answer of the Buddha. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1989. ———. The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1973. ———. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Rev. ed.; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1964, 1981. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. “The Reality of God and the Gods in the Experience of the Religions.” In vol. 1 of Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991. ———. “The Religions from the Perspective of Christian Theology and the Self-Interpretation of Christianity in Relation to the Non-Christian Religions.” Modern Theology 9, no. 3 (1993): 285-97. ———. “Religious Pluralism and Conflicting Truth Claims: The Problem of a Theology of the World Religions.” In Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. Edited by Gavin D’Costa. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1990. ———. “A Search for the Authentic Self.” In Christian Spirituality. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983. ———. “Toward a Theology of the History of Religions.” In vol. 2 of Basic Questions in Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Parrinder, Geoffrey. Encountering World Religions: Questions of Religious Truth. New York: Crossroad, 1987. Pawlikowski, John T. Christ in the Light of Jewish-Christian Dialogue. New York: Paulist, 1982. ———. What Are They Saying About Christian-Jewish Relations? New York: Paulist, 1980. Pieris, Aloysius. An Asian Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1988. ———. Love Meets Wisdom: A Christian Experience of Buddhism. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1988. Pinnock, Clark H. A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992. *Plantinga, Richard J., ed. Christianity and Plurality: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1999. Pope-Levison, Priscilla, and John R. Levison. Jesus in Global Contexts. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Praphu, J., ed. The Intercultural Challenge of Raimon Panikkar. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1996.

Bibliography

363

Quinn, Philip, and Kevin Meeker, eds. The Philosophical Challenge of Religious Diversity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. *Race, Alan. Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1982. Rahner, Karl. “Anonymous Christianity and the Missionary Task of the Church.” In vol. 12 of Theological Investigations. New York: Seabury, 1974. ———. “Anonymous Christians.” In vol. 6 of Theological Investigations. Baltimore: Helicon, 1969. ———. “Jesus Christ in the Non-Christian Religions.” In vol. 17 of Theological Investigations. New York: Crossroad, 1981. ———. “Observations on the Problem of the ‘Anonymous Christian.’ ” In vol. 10 of Theological Investigations. New York: Seabury, 1976. ———. “On the Importance of the Non-Christian Religions for Salvation.” In vol. 18 of Theological Investigations. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983. ———. “The One Christ and the Universality of Salvation.” In vol. 16 of Theological Investigations. New York: Crossroad, 1983. Ramachandra, Vinoth. Faiths in Conflict? Christian Integrity in a Multicultural World. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999. ———. Modern Idolatry and Christian Mission. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996. ———. The Recovery of Mission: Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm. Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster, 1996. ———. The Scandal of Jesus. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2001. Ratzinger, Johannes. “Christianity and World Religions.” In One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Edited by Herbert Vorgrimler. London: Sheed & Ward, 1968. Richard, James. The Population of Heaven: A Biblical Response to the Inclusivist Position on Who Will Be Saved. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994. *Richards, Glyn. Towards a Theology of Religions. New York: Routledge, 1989. Rommen, Edward, and Harold Netland, eds. Christianity and the Religions: A Biblical Theology of World Religions. Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1995. Röper, A. The Anonymous Christian. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1966. Rousseay, R. W., ed. Inter-religious Dialogue: Facing the New Frontier. Scranton, Penn.: Ridge Row, 1981. Ruokanen, Miikka. The Catholic Doctrine on Non-Christian Religions According to the Second Vatican Council. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1992. Saldanha, Chrys. Divine Pedagogy: A Patristic View of Non-Christian Religions. Rome: Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, 1984. Samartha, Stanley J. Courage for Dialogue: Ecumenical Issues in Inter-religious Relationships. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1982. ———. “The Cross and the Rainbow: Christ in a Multireligious Culture.” In Asian Faces of Jesus. Edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1995.

364

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

———. Living Faiths and Ultimate Goals: A Continuing Dialogue. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1975. ———. One Christ—Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991. ———. “Unbound Christ: Towards Christology in India Today.” In Asian Christian Theology: Emerging Themes. Edited by Douglas J. Elwood. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980. Sanders, John. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992. Schlette, Heinz R. Towards a Theology of Religions. Translated by W. J. O’Hara. New York: Herder & Herder, 1966. *Senior, Donald, and Carroll Stuhlmueller. The Biblical Foundations for Mission. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1983. Sheard, Robert B. Interreligious Dialogue in the Catholic Church Since Vatican II: An Historical and Theological Study. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987. Shenk, Calvin E. Who Do You Say That I AM? Christians Encounter Other Religions. Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1997. Sigountos, James, ed. Through No Fault of Their Own? The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1991. Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. Religious Diversity. New York: Crossroad, 1982. ———. Towards a World Theology. London: Macmillan, 1981. Sobrino, Jon. Jesus in Latin America. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987. Song, Choan-Sen. Christology and Other Faiths: Some Theological Reflections. Toronto: Ecumenical Forum of Canada, 1985. Stackhouse, John G., ed. No Other Gods Before Me? Evangelicals and the Challenge of World Religions. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2001. Sugirtharajah, R. S., ed. Asian Faces of Jesus. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1995. Sullivan, Francis A. Salvation Outside the Church? New York: Paulist, 1992. Swidler, Leonard. After the Absolute: The Dialogical Future of Religious Reflection. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. ———, ed. Toward a Universal Theology of Religion. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1987. Thomas, M. M. “The Absoluteness of Jesus Christ and Christ-Centred Syncretism.” Ecumenical Review 37 (October 1985): 390-91. ———. “Christology and Pluralistic Consciousness.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 10, no. 3 (1986): 106-8. ———. Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake: Towards an Ecumenical Theology of Pluralism. Geneva: World Council of Churches Publications, 1987. ———. Toward a Theology of Contemporary Ecumenism. Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1978. Thomas, Owen C., ed. Attitudes Toward Other Religions: Some Christian Interpretations. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.

Bibliography

365

Tillich, Paul. Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. ———. The Future of Religions. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Tracy, David. Dialogue with the Other: The Interreligious Dialogue. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters Press, 1990. Vanhoozer, Kevin J., ed. The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age: Theological Essays on Culture and Religion. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1997. Vroom, Hendrik. No Other Gods: Christian Belief in Dialogue with Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996. Whaling, Frank. Christian Theology and World Religions: A Global Approach. London: Marshall Pickering, 1986. Yong, Amos. Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. ———. “The Turn to Pneumatology in Christian Theology of Religions: Conduit or Detour.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 35 (Summer-Fall 1998): 39-65. ———. “Whither Theological Inclusivism? The Development and Critique of an Evangelical Theology of Religions.” Evangelical Quarterly 71, no. 4 (1999): 327-48.

Author Index

Author Index (Ancient and Contemporary) Abelard, Peter, 83-84 Althaus, Paul, 74, 127, 172, 187-89, 310, 318, 343 Ambrose (bishop of Milan), 64 Amjad-Ali, Charles, 128 Amnell, Matti T., 283, 288 Anderson, Sir Norman, 148, 261-68, 319, 321, 323, 345, 348-49 Ariarajah, S. Wesley, 157 Arminius, Jacob, 87 Athenagoras, 56 Augustine, 55, 65, 71, 75, 77, 79, 91, 246 Bacon, Francis, 247 Balthasar, Hans Urs von, 106, 176 Barth, Karl, 154, 172, 17480, 181-84, 187, 189, 225, 237, 271, 310, 318, 343, 344 Bassham, Rodger C., 154 Bellarmine, Robert, 70 Berkhof, Louis, 148, 319 Bermejo, Luis M., 81 Betty, Stafford, 99-100, 102 Beyerhaus, Peter, 145 Boniface VIII, 70 Braaten, Carl E., 128 Brunner, Emil, 187 Bultmann, Rudolf, 263 Bunyan, John, 18 Calvin, John, 75-77, 85-86, 129 Candidus (Valentinian), 60 Carson, D. A., 148 Celsus, 59-60

Ching, J., 204 Clement of Alexandria, 5657, 61-62 Clendenin, Daniel B., 40 Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, 217 Congar, Yves, 195 Copernicus, 284 Cox, Harvey, 281 Cracknell, Kenneth, Cullman, Oscar, 58 Cyprian (bishop of Carthage), 63-64, 69 Dalai Lama, the, 217, 326 Daneel, M. L., 143 Daniélou, Jean, 36-37, 105 D’Costa, Gavin, 115, 11819, 216-23, 278, 330, 34546, 348-49 Descartes, René, 237, 247 Devanandan, Paul D., 256 Diderot, Denis, 91 Dupuis, Jacques, 20, 25, 42, 44, 58-59, 62, 78-79, 105, 205-15, 216, 222, 278, 34546, 348 Erasmus of Rotterdam, 85 Erickson, Millard J., 68, 148, 172, 318-23, 344 Farquhar, John N., 22, 104 Finger, Thomas, 136 Francis of Assisi, 85 Gandhi, Mahatma, 257 Gilkey, Langdon, 20 Graham, Billy, 145 Gregory VII, 82 Gregory XVI, 70 Grenz, Stanley J., 149, 240 Habgood, John (archbishop of York), 17 Harnack, Adolf von, 20, 9495

Hegel, Georg W., 223 Heidegger, Martin, 225 Heim, Karl, 154 Heim, Mark S., 151-52, 213 Henry, Carl F. H., 148 Hick, John, 20, 24-25, 169, 171-72, 208, 213, 217, 219, 235, 259, 262, 270, 282-93, 310, 312, 321, 324, 326, 331, 333, 337, 350-51, 354 Hocking, William Ernest, 22, 105, 154 Hume, David, 91 Ignatius (bishop of Antioch in Syria), 63 Innocent III, 68 Irenaeus, 37, 49, 58-59, 63 Jeremias, Joachim, 41 John Chrysostom, 64 John Paul II, 120-21, 220-21 Johnson, Elizabeth, 273 Justin Martyr, 56-57, 59 Kant, Immanuel, 328 Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti, 135, 293, 353 Kaufman, Gordon D., 20, 138 Kellogg, Samuel Henry, 104 Knitter, Paul F., 20, 23-24, 95-97, 118, 169, 180, 188, 217, 219, 222, 284, 309-17, 333, 348, 351 Kraemer, Hendrik, 105, 154-55, 172, 181-87, 189, 260, 318, 343 Küng, Hans, 24, 197-204, 264, 280, 321, 345, 348 Lederle, Henry I., 148 Leeuw, G. van der, 237 Leo XII, 70

368 Lessing, Gotthold E., 91-92 Levine, Alan, 325 Lewis, C. S., 148-49 Lindbeck, George A., 339 Llull, Ramon, 84 Locke, John, 90-91 Lodahl, Michael, 279 Lubac, Henri de, 106 Luther, Martin, 71-75, 77, 85-87, 188 MacIntyre, Alasdair, 218 Martensen, Daniel F., 127 Martin, Earl, 137 Matthey, Jacques, 158 Maurice, F. D., 103 McGrath, Alister E., 91, 176 Melanchthon, Philipp, 72 Merton, Thomas, 310 Milbank, John, 218 Nazir-Ali, Michael (bishop of Rochester), 124-25 Netland, Harold, 18, 103, 150, 166, 170-72, 318, 32432, 333, 338, 344, 346-47 Newbigin, Lesslie, 172, 245-55, 262, 337, 339, 344, 346-48, 352 Nicholas of Cusa, 84 Origen, 55-56, 59-61, 63 Ott, Heinrich, 158 Panikkar, Raimundo (Raymond), 24, 172, 222, 256, 258, 298-99, 302-8, 319, 334-38, 344, 351-52, 354 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, 107, 127, 167, 172, 235-44, 255, 259, 273-74, 276, 286, 321, 344, 346-48, 352 Paul VI, 113, 119 Philo, 56

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS Pieris, Aloysius, 256-57, 301, 319, 334, 344, 348 Pinnock, Clark H., 37, 48, 140, 149, 269-76, 319, 321, 323, 332, 348-49 Pius IV, 70, 114 Pius IX, 70 Pius XII, 71, 78, 111-13 Polanyi, Michael, 251-53, 338, 347 Race, Alan, 17, 20, 23, 225 Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli, 198, 201, 217, 326 Rahner, Karl, 118, 190-97, 210, 213, 273, 279, 286, 298, 321, 345, 348 Ramachandra, Vinoth, 172, 318, 333-41, 344 Reimarus, H. S., 91 Richards, Glyn, 226 Roberts, James Deotis, 139 Rock, Jay T., 130 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 91 Ruokanen, Miika, 118-19 Samartha, Stanley J., 22, 157, 172, 294-301, 319, 334, 344, 351-52 Sanders, John, 60, 80-81, 149-50 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 225 Savarimuthu, S. W., 155 Schineller, J. P., 25 Schleiermacher, Friedrich D. E., 93, 237, 249 Schlette, Heinz R., 49 Schweitzer, Albert, 92 Senior, Donald, 33, 43 Sigountos, James, 57 Slater, Peter, 125-26 Smith, Wilfred Cantwell,

21-22, 329 Sobrino, Jon, 311 Söderblom, Nathan, 127 Sproul, R. C., 148 Stuhlmueller, Carroll, 33, 43 Sullivan, Francis A., 58, 64, 66-67, 77, 112 Swinburne, Richard, 286 Theophilus of Antioch, 56 Thomas Aquinas, 69, 90, 175 Thomas, Madathilparampil M., 256-60, 34648 Thomas, Owen C., 234 Thompson, Nehemiah, 8889, 132-34 Tidball, Derek J., 144 Tillich, Paul, 23, 127, 22434, 279, 346-48 Tindal, M., 91 Toynbee, Arnold, 98-102, 313, 329 Troeltsch, Ernst, 22, 95-98, 178, 188, 310 Warfield, Benjamin B., 86, 323 Weber, Max, 239 Wesley, John, 87-89, 132, 149 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 288 Wong, Joseph, 196 Xavier, Francis, 70 Yong, Amos, 150, 277-81, 319, 348-49 Zwingli, Ulrich, 75-76, 8587, 129

Subject Index

Subject Index Abel, 37, 48, 66, 70, 79, 85, 322 Abraham/Abram, 36-37, 41, 49, 85, 209, 271, 275 advaita, 217, 296, 300-302, 305, 330, 334, 337 agnosticism, agnostic, 84, 105, 202, 218, 225 Anabaptists. See Mennonites/Anabaptists Anglican/Episcopalian churches, 123-26, 160-61, 245, 333 annihilation, annihilationism, 286, 323 anonymous Christian, 118, 195-96, 202, 264, 286, 298, 310, 345 Apologists (second century), 56-57, 108, 229, 232 Areopagus discourse (Athens speech), 43, 49, 83 atheism, atheist, 57, 105, 158, 218, 225, 247-48, 254, 257, 304 atonement, 81, 92, 265, 272, 231 baptism, 65, 67, 113, 314. See also unbaptized Baptist churches, 110, 13536 Buddha, Buddhism, 62, 100, 104, 106, 116, 124, 167, 171, 183, 198, 217, 263, 285, 287, 289-90, 292, 300-302, 304-5, 316, 329 Buddhist-Christian dialogue, 226, 229-30, 233-34, 256, 310, 354 Catholic. See Roman Cath-

olic Church charismatic churches/ movement(s), 136, 14243, 160-61, 277, 280 Christ cosmic, 59, 257-58, 260, 298 normativity/uniqueness of, 45-46, 110, 120-21, 137, 145-48, 156, 168-69, 176, 181-82, 185, 192-93, 204, 213, 270, 308, 312, 339 and other christs/saviors, 25, 93, 166, 170-71, 211, 290-91, 294, 300301, 306-7, 312, 316 salvation only in/as only mediator, 19, 24-26, 44, 64-66, 69, 73-77, 79-81, 87, 106, 119, 128, 132, 145-46, 167, 177, 273, 340-41 as a symbol, 227, 232 unbound, 294 Christocentrism, 25-26, 80, 120, 127, 148, 161, 165-66, 168-69, 173, 205, 225, 259, 261-62, 295, 342, 345-50 church fathers, 55, 62-65 classical liberalism, liberalism, 89, 92-95, 99, 161, 174-75, 178, 183, 217, 225, 229, 248, 290, 343 Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME), 155-58 contextual, contextualization, 125, 182, 246, 249, 337, 347 “Copernican revolution,” 20, 284-85

Council of Florence (14311445), 70, 79, 84 Council of Trent (15451563), 70-71 covenant(s), 61-62, 105, 177, 208-9, 267, 275 cosmic covenant(s), 36, 105, 208-9 dualism(s), 60, 247-48, 302, 307, 334, 351 Eastern Orthodox churches, 25, 151, 160, 279 ecclesiocentrism, 25-26, 148, 150, 165-68, 172, 182, 318-19, 329, 332-33, 34145, 349 eco-liberation, “earthkeeping,” 143, 219, 314-15, 317, 351 ecumenism, ecumenical movement, 102, 110, 142, 151-52, 155, 183, 242-43, 278, 296, 303. See also Faith and Order; World Council of Churches Edinburgh World Missionary Conference (1910), 104-5, 152-53 election, 36, 40, 50, 107, 24243, 271 Enlightenment, 19-21, 8994, 96, 99, 107-8, 216-18, 224, 229, 246-49, 254, 301, 327, 337, 339, 347 Episcopalian. See Anglican/Episcopalian churches ethics, ethical, 19, 92, 94-95, 198, 203, 233-34, 280, 315, 320 evangelical(ism), 24-25, 160, 173, 264, 269-71, 273,

370 331, 338 evangelical movement, 110, 132, 144-50, 172, 261, 318, 343-45 evangelism, evangelize, 80, 105, 119, 121-22, 124, 131, 138-40, 152, 161, 269, 277, 321, 323 evangelization after death/postmortem encounter, 79, 267, 275-76, 283, 321-22, 344 exclusivism, exclusivist, 24, 27, 68, 70, 75, 81, 85, 102, 104, 108, 141, 148-49, 160, 165-66, 168, 180, 183-84, 187, 217, 270-71, 283, 289, 295, 304, 309, 312, 316, 320-21, 323, 340 existentialism, 225-28 extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the church no salvation), 63, 66, 69-71, 78-81, 84, 107-8, 199 Faith and Order, 110, 136, 151-52 Fall, the, 75, 227, 233, 292, 329 fatherhood of God (brotherhood of humanity), 20, 94, 121-22 foreknowledge (of God), 67-68 Fourth Lateran Council (1215), 68-69 Frankfurt Declaration (1970), 145 Free churches, 110, 135-36 fulfillment theory, 43, 46, 103-5, 108, 153, 303 Gentiles, 58, 72-73, 75, 84, 88 and early church, 43-44 in the OT/before Christ, 33-34, 58, 65-66 and Jesus, 41-42

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS and Paul, 43-44, 49 God-consciousness, 93, 290-91 gospel, 37, 42, 46, 94-95, 102, 119, 128, 134, 158, 196, 200-202, 211, 250, 254-55, 260, 270, 278, 300, 321-23, 332, 338-39 belief all had heard, 64, 69, 78 hearing of necessary for salvation, 24, 66-69, 7174, 76, 141, 146-48, 16668, 187, 323 preaching in whole world, 34, 44, 103, 153, 274 preparation for, 105, 11617, 133, 149, 155, 188, 221, 272, 321 salvation possible despite not hearing, 75, 83, 8788, 107, 112, 114-15, 149, 195, 241-42, 264, 274 those who have not heard, 65, 77, 79, 265, 267-68, 348 Ground of Being, 227, 233 hell, 60, 67, 76, 241, 283 Hindu, Hinduism, 62, 88, 100, 104, 154, 167, 211, 217, 263, 287, 289, 292, 294-97, 300-306, 329, 334, 337 history religious history, 105-6, 226 salvation history, 37-38, 58, 99, 105, 201, 206, 208-9, 213; universal/“secular” history, 36-38, 208-9, 263 history of religion, 23, 9598, 100, 103, 224, 231, 23740, 243-44 History of Religions

School, 95-98, 188, 263 Holy Spirit, 62, 71-73, 87, 91, 114-15, 120-22, 125-26, 130, 140-43, 149, 157-59, 191-92, 194-95, 206-7, 21012, 220-23, 232, 240-41, 264, 266, 272-74, 278-81, 291, 306, 337, 346, 349-50 “implicit faith,” 69, 79 incarnation historical, 59, 69, 80, 95, 149, 167, 177, 193-94, 263, 271, 320, 336 symbolic or mythical, 112, 270, 288-91, 298-99, 307 inclusivism, 25, 27, 80, 84, 107, 127, 133, 149-50, 16061, 165-66, 168-69, 206, 216-18, 259, 261, 265, 269 International Missionary Council (IMC), 153-55 interreligious/interfaith dialogue, 121, 123-25, 127-34, 146, 156-58, 197, 214, 222-23, 242-45, 25960, 296, 312-13, 346, 351, 354 interreligious prayer, 223 Islam, 74, 84, 88, 100, 104, 116, 124, 128, 210-11, 245, 263, 287, 310, 239. See also Muslim Jewish-Christian dialogue/relations, 123-24, 128, 139 Jews, Judaism, 33, 42, 44, 65-66, 70-71, 73-74, 84, 88, 100, 114, 116, 119, 208-10, 217, 265-68, 287, 329 judgment of individual, 44, 76, 241, 271, 275 of other gods, 38-39, 44 of religions, 40, 44, 47-48, 179, 181, 184, 200, 229-30

371

Subject Index justice, 130, 137, 143, 159, 196, 211, 231-33, 242, 351 God of/God’s, 68, 265, 320 social justice, 124, 256-58, 278, 296, 298, 309-11, 313-14, 348 kingdom (of God), 63, 9495, 120, 128, 214-15, 222, 233-34, 240, 242-44, 274, 313, 317, 346 Krishna, 300-301 Lambeth Conferences, 12324 Lausanne Covenant (1974), 145-46 liberalism. See classical liberalism liberation theology, 257, 301, 309, 311, 313-14 limbo, doctrine of, 67, 79 Logos, 56-59, 61, 125-26, 149, 212, 221, 271-72, 280, 289-90, 305-7, 349 logos spermatikos (seeds of the Word), 57, 117, 121, 220, 229 love of God/God of love, 26, 40, 50, 92, 99, 101-2, 131, 223, 265, 270, 276, 291, 295, 298, 315 Lutheran churches, 127-29 Manila Declaration/Manifesto (1992), 145, 147-48 Melchizedek, 37, 48-49 Mennonite/Anabaptist churches, 135-38 Methodist churches, 132-34 miracles, 42, 91-92, 95, 283 mission(s), missionary, 42, 44, 57, 80, 98, 103-5, 12021, 127, 129, 131, 138-39, 145-47, 150, 152-53, 155, 158, 161, 181-82, 199, 245, 250, 254-55, 267, 273-74, 276, 298, 309, 314-17, 331-

40 modernism, modernity, 89, 161, 216-18, 248-49, 25152, 269, 319, 325, 327, 33739, 344, 347 Muslims, 71, 76, 82, 92, 266, 310 Muslim-Christian dialogue/relations, 124, 139. See also Islam Mystery (i.e. God), 190-91, 207-8, 295-99, 301-2, 304, 306, 334 mystical, mysticism, 201, 230-31, 233-34, 262, 297, 306 Eastern, 205, 210, 263 myth, mythical, 174, 207, 219, 234, 239-40, 263, 270, 286-88, 307, 312, 315, 320 natural theology, 128, 184, 187, 200, 224, 334 Nineveh, 39, 74-75 Nirvana, 102, 233-34, 305 Noah, 36-37, 48-49, 73, 85, 88, 209, 322. See also covenant original sin, 67, 87, 92, 100, 195 Other, the God as, 174-75, 298-99, 309, 336 other person/religion as, 218-19, 223, 309, 346 “pagan saint,” noble pagans, 37, 48, 83, 271, 275 parallelism, 24 particularism(s), 40, 50, 147-48, 150, 202, 278, 325, 329, 340 “paschal mystery,” 115, 213, 221, 223 Pelagianism, 65, 67 semi-Pelagianism, 68 Pentecostal(s), Pentecostalism, 135-36, 139-42, 160-

61, 277-78, 280-81 philosophy, (Greek/pagan) philosopher(s), 5657, 59, 61-62, 72, 75, 83-85, 224-25, 227, 247-48 pluralism(s) as a challenge or danger, 18-20, 83, 121, 147, 151, 243, 245, 262, 269, 32426, 333-34, 354 as failures, 216-19, 293, 326, 334-35 as a foci of theology, 20-21 general, 103, 128, 160, 171, 217-19, 259, 327-28 as a theological position, 24, 27, 80, 92, 97-98, 102, 107-8, 133-34, 150, 161, 165, 169-70, 184, 187, 206-7, 210, 213, 271, 282, 285, 311 pneumatocentrism, 207, 211-12, 216 pope, papacy, 68, 70, 74, 78, 112, 119-20 postmodernism, postmodernity, 89, 253-54, 319, 325, 327, 344, 347-48 postmortem encounter. See evangelization after death predestine, predestination, 61, 65, 77, 87 prevenient grace, 132-34, 271 Protestantism, mainline, 25, 80-81, 85, 87, 89, 109, 133, 151, 160-61, 172, 249, 265, 318-21, 346, 350 Quest of the Historical Jesus, 92, 108, 290, 301, 339 rationalism, rationality, 246-47, 251, 253-55, 29697, 327, 338-39 Realitycentrism, 25, 27, 165, 171, 342

372 Reformation, the, 71, 87, 179, 188-89, 310 Reformed churches, 128-32 relativism, 80, 130, 188, 199, 205, 229, 269, 334, 347 historical relativism, 22, 97-98, 263 religion(s) comparative religions, comparisons among, 23, 180, 183, 202, 229-30, 283, 286, 288, 332, 350, 354 differences among, 99100, 186, 213, 233, 28788, 329, 351 natural religion, 34, 72, 224 true religion, 86, 99 viewed positively, 34, 45, 48, 50, 58, 75, 82-85, 88, 154, 169-70, 194-95, 199, 208. See also history of religion; History of Religions School religious experience, 21, 93, 100, 231 repentance, 42, 94, 146, 251, 264-65, 322, 326 restorationist view, 60-61 restrictivism, restrictivist, 80, 188, 261, 264-66, 26970, 272, 349 revelation, 25, 69, 91-93, 97, 101, 116, 128, 137, 167, 170, 175, 177-79, 190-92, 209, 224-25, 228, 230, 237, 253, 274, 283, 317, 320 in Christ, 61-62, 95, 106, 128, 130, 138, 176, 180, 182-84, 194-95, 202, 210 general, 75-76, 81, 83, 97, 149, 178, 183, 187-88, 192, 200, 266, 319, 321 natural, 59, 343 “original” (Uroffen-

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS barung), 187-89, 343 special, 72, 83, 183, 189, 192, 225, 270 supernatural, 93, 115, 118, 190 of the Word/Logos, 59, 176 Roman Catholic Church, 25-26, 68-71, 78-80, 11922, 138-40, 160, 184, 190, 192, 196-97, 205, 216, 315, 345 contrasted with Protestantism, 81, 85, 138-39. See also Vatican Council II sacrament(s), 65, 69, 72, 123, 152, 215, 273n, 308 Secretariat for Non-Christians, 113, 119 seeds of the Word. See logos spermatikos syncretism, syncretist, 119, 127, 146, 154, 156, 185, 206, 238, 244, 257, 260, 262, 277, 347 theocentrism, theocentric, 24-26, 95, 120, 165-66, 16970, 200, 207, 303, 310-11, 342, 350-52 theology of religions definitions and classifications, 20-21, 23-26, 279, 319-20, 331, 353-55 history, key works and figures, 22-23, 66, 71, 76, 78, 169-70, 181, 205, 245, 261, 282, 310 theology of the cross, 72 Trinity, trinitarian, 83, 92, 94, 216, 240-41, 270, 291, 297, 305-6, 336-37, 351 as basis for dialogue/approach to pluralism, 125, 158, 205-7, 209-10, 218-23, 279-80, 346, 349,

353 as distinguishing Christian God, 176-77, 320 truth Christianity as, 167, 17980, 204 criteria for “true religion,” 203, 230 Jesus/Word as, 56, 117, 130, 139, 181-82, 204, 207 and other religions, 1820, 101, 129, 134, 153, 183, 200-202, 209 public truth, 217, 250-55, 338, 347 question of/truth claims, 24, 101, 167, 218-19, 217, 235-38, 241-42, 244, 24955, 271, 273-74, 278, 289, 295-96, 326, 328-30, 335, 338-39, 344, 346-47 true Christian religion, 86, 153 unbaptized, 67, 165, 168, 275 universalism, universalist, 60, 89, 93, 107, 146, 148, 172, 188, 200, 202, 229 in OT, 37, 39-40 Vatican Council I, 71 Vatican Council II, 22, 25, 80, 105-6, 111-19, 160, 190, 197, 199, 202-3, 213-16, 218-20, 309, 345 Venice Statement, 119 way(s) of salvation (ordinary, extraordinary, more than one), 126, 201, 203, 264, 273, 283, 286, 345 World Council of Churches, 22, 110, 124, 143, 145, 151-52, 155, 181, 245-46, 256-57, 260, 294. See also Faith and Order world theology, 21-22