New directions in relating Christianity to other faiths

Christian theologies of other faiths: traditional models

There are three traditional models of Christianity’s relationship to other faiths: exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. The exclusive model maintains that there is no salvation outside the Christian faith; the model is typically embraced by Christian fundamentalists. One current theologian adopting this view is Daniel Strange in his ‘For Their Rock Is Not as Our Rock’. ³ ‘It is,’ he contends, ‘out of… [the]… pervasive biblical theme of idolatry… that we must interpret the religious Other and out of which we hew our theology of religions.’ ⁴ He bases much of his argument on Old Testament texts that condemn the worship of other gods, arguing that the purpose of ‘God-breathed Old Testament Scripture’ is to act as guidance for the Christian church. But why does God allow other faiths to exist? Strange makes use of Romans 9.17 to argue that God allows other faiths to exist and their adherents to be condemned to eternal death so that they can act as a foil to Christians who will be saved. As Strange puts it: ‘God permits sinners to continue in false religions so that he might show his wrath against them, with the larger purpose of displaying his glory to the elect.’ ⁵ Personally, I cannot accept such a position, and neither could the members of St George’s in Leeds who were involved in discussing the issue. Quite simply, it presents a picture of a cruel God who is not the loving God that we know as revealed in Christ.

The second model of Christianity’s relationship to other faiths is the inclusive model; this model maintains that God may save members of other faiths. The model is particularly associated with the Roman Catholic Church. Vatican II’s document Gaudium et Spes argues that, since, in Romans 8.32, the Church is taught that Christ died for all, ‘we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being associated, in a way known to God, with the Paschal Mystery’ (Section 22). Lumen Gentium makes the same point: God’s salvation includes salvation for the Jews and also for ‘those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess the faith of Abraham’ (Section 16). It goes on to say that because God wills all men to be saved (1 Tim. 2.4), salvation will be offered to all who know nothing of the Christian gospel but who nevertheless follow their conscience. From the Protestant side, a similar position is put forward by Clark Pinnock. He argues for the uniqueness of salvation in Christ but spurns positions like those of Strange; how can Christians call themselves evangelical, he asks, when limiting salvation to the few would seem to look more like an attack on what should be the good news of the New Testament? ⁶

Jacques Dupuis, a Belgian Roman Catholic, went beyond Vatican II and proposed that not only could people from other faiths receive salvation, they could also receive God’s revelation. He argues that whenever people have a genuine religious experience, that experience must, unknown to them, be that of Jesus revealing himself. While, he continues, divine revelation achieves its fullness in the person of Jesus, this does not rule out the possibility that God has also revealed himself through the prophets and sages of other faiths. So the Scriptures of other faiths can include God’s Word. ⁷ He argues that God’s Word is not exhausted in the Christ event: the Word of God and the Holy Spirit can both be active in other faiths and cultures. Different religious traditions can therefore be said to be the way in which God can disclose himself to those who are not of the Christian faith. ⁸ Another Catholic theologian, Peter Phan, goes further. He suggests that the plurality of religions is not a human accident but part of God’s plan for humanity. Like Dupuis, he argues that the Logos or God’s Word is not exhausted by God’s presence in Jesus and that God’s self-revelation and redemption are manifested in other faiths and in other saviour figures. ⁹ Dupuis’ and Phan’s suggestion that non-Christian religions can be ways in which God purposefully discloses himself represents an inclusive model that goes beyond traditional orthodoxy and that would be questioned by many in the Church.

The third model is pluralism. This is exemplified by John Hick, who recounts his path to adopting this model. He says that he started out as a theologically conservative Christian while studying at Hull and Edinburgh universities; his move to Birmingham, however, led him to meet people of a variety of different faith communities, and this experience was reinforced when he visited Sri Lanka and India. He said that he then became aware of the need to pursue what he calls a Copernican revolution. Both the exclusivist and inclusivist models had Christ at their centre; he proposed instead that God should be at the centre, God whom he suggested might better be called the Eternal One, and which he later called the Real. This Eternal One or Real is at the centre of all religious faiths, whether theistic or non-theistic. ¹⁰ The pluralist model differs from the first two: the latter assume a particular faith perspective whereas the former requires the religious believer to ‘step outside’ their own faith to a position where creedal belief is suspended and other religious faiths can be viewed from a neutral viewpoint. The model assumes that all faiths may lead to God – that they all have a common core. Like Dupuis’ inclusive model, this pluralist model would be challenged by many members of the Church.

Traditionally, then, there are three models of the relation of Christianity to other faiths: exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. However, these three simple models are problematic. I have already pointed out that: (1) exclusivism seems to demand a God who is not loving in the way that most Christians understand it; (2) inclusivism can involve the idea that non-Christian faiths can be purposeful vehicles of God’s revelation – a position that would not be generally accepted in the Church; and (3) pluralism denies that any faith is unique or special, something that adherents of most faiths would find difficult to uphold.

Other objections can be raised against the three models. Exclusivism is a confusing term: it might mean, as in Daniel Strange, that salvation is exclusively for Christians. Alternatively, it might be taken to mean that salvation is achieved exclusively in the person and work of Christ but that it is nevertheless available to those of other faiths, as in Pinnock and Vatican II. Also, the three models in themselves are often subdivided to present even more models. Douglas Pratt’s introduction to the subject suggests that there are at least five forms of inclusivism: gatekeeper, incognito ubiquity, imperialist, mutual co-inherence and participatory inclusivism. ¹¹ In his discussion on pluralism he also identifies five different types, each of which has a number of subsets. ¹²

Finally, there is at least one description of how Christianity relates to other faiths that seems to demand another model entirely; this is the model put forward by S. Mark Heim. ¹³ Going beyond Hick, he critiques his position by arguing that it is simply not true that all faiths have one focus, the Eternal One or the Real, or that each aims to transform its followers by advocating a move from self-centredness to reality-centredness. Such a pluralistic theology is not pluralistic at all. ¹⁴ In addition, ‘the “Real” and the “possibility” which Hick takes as the true religious object and end are entirely non-functional. They serve as religious ends for no one.’ ¹⁵ Heim bases his model on the philosophical concept of ‘orientational pluralism’; this maintains that people hold different views because they view things from different perspectives. In a similar fashion, he argues that different faiths may have different ends, not the singular end proposed by traditional pluralists. A Christian can hold one particular commitment and a Muslim, a Jew or a Buddhist can each hold another. ¹⁶ The Christian end of communion with the triune God may be simply one of many religious ends that could be ‘to the glory of God’. From a Christian perspective, Heim suggests that a diversity of faiths, religious perspectives and ends is ‘providential’ and that this diversity reflects the diversity or ‘plenitude’ that Christians see in God as Trinity. ¹⁷

It is my contention, then, that the traditional three models’ account of Christianity’s possible relation to other faiths may be useful in some instances but they are far from perfect. The three models may need expanding to four or even more, and the models themselves may need sub-models. Paul Knitter calls the models ‘slippery’. ¹⁸ What I propose is that we adopt not a model through which we try to account for Christianity’s relationship to other faiths but a series of statements through which we can describe that relationship more accurately. ¹⁹

The ‘Standing Together’ statements describing Abrahamic interfaith relations

On the Friday before the ‘Standing Together’ event in Leeds, a leading member of the Jewish community, an imam and I wrote an op-ed piece for the Yorkshire Post in which we outlined the main features of the upcoming event. The op-ed included four statements that we believed we could make together as members of the three Abrahamic faiths. These did not present a theology of interfaith relations; they aimed to set out what we felt we had in common and what we felt we might do together. ²⁰

We said, first, that we could together bear witness to the one God our creator even though we perceive him differently. ²¹ The biggest difference, of course, is that Christians believe in a God whom they see as being triune: Jews and Muslims do not. For Muslims, God is revealed ultimately in the Qur’an and for Christians ultimately in the person of Jesus. Neither of these are acceptable to members of the Jewish community. So we are different in our theology but we agreed that we all nevertheless bear witness to the one God. Discussions in the follow-up sessions to ‘Standing Together’ and in the small group discussions for members of St George’s demonstrated widespread agreement on this issue.

Secondly, we said that members of our three faith communities can serve their local, national and international communities with acts of service; this evidences our traditions’ commitment to compassion, justice and equity. Responses to the terrorist attacks in both Manchester and London and to the fire at Grenfell Tower have demonstrated how the three faiths do this and how they can often do it together.

Thirdly, we said that members of our three communities demonstrate to society that living as members of a faith group is a positive experience and has positive potential. Fourthly, we suggested that we can call together for educational programmes around the globe that aim to promote and enhance an understanding of other people and their cultures. One of the reasons for much of the world violence we see at present is a lack of understanding on the part of one community about another.

Statements describing a Christian theology of the other Abrahamic faiths

It was argued that the traditional three models or paradigms of Christian interfaith relations each have weaknesses that might be overcome if we replace models with a series of statements. Statements were used above positively to describe how the three Abrahamic faith communities might relate to one another. These are Jewish, Christian and Muslim theological statements. In this section, I propose to continue by suggesting statements that might be part of a distinctly Christian theology of the other Abrahamic faiths. These statements are given as examples from a particular Christian perspective; there will be other Christian perspectives that might see things differently.

Firstly, Christians would wish to affirm the idea that the fullest revelation of God is in the person of Jesus who is the incarnate Word of God (John 1.1–18; 12.44–46; 14.9–11). Believing this should not negate the belief that God also speaks to Jews and Muslims. In my role as a teacher, one of my Muslim students told me that God spoke to him about his character when he visited Mecca; certainly, his change of behaviour would bear witness to that. As one of the members of the St George’s discussion groups said: ‘Why should we assume that God only concerns himself with and speaks to Christians?’ Believing that God’s fullest revelation is in Christ should not prevent us from believing that God has other ways of speaking.

Secondly, Christians would wish to uphold the belief that God’s work in Christ is how he has achieved salvation for us; it is this that enables us to enter the kingdom. But this is very different from saying that non-Christians are excluded from salvation in the way that Daniel Strange does. The gospel is good news for mankind, not bad news; if Christ is the ‘second Adam’, then in him God has achieved redemption for all mankind – not just for members of the Christian faith. It is God himself who will make the final judgement and it is not for us to make assumptions about the nature of that judgement. Again, a member of one of the St George’s discussion groups confessed: ‘I think we’re meant to believe… but I really cannot accept that.’

Thirdly, we believe that God is pleased with Christians, Jews and Muslims who seek to worship him in sincerity and who seek to express their faith in acts of love, compassion and justice. We believe that both Judaism and Islam have value.

By talking about how our faith relates to the faith of others through statements, I believe that we can express and develop a more nuanced understanding of both our own faith and that of our Jewish and Muslim cousins than we can by using models. Models may have a part to play in helping us to begin our journey in developing a Christian theology of other faiths; I believe, however, that they have limitations and that a better way of constructing a theology is to do it by using statements. Statements can provide us with something that is so much more positive and so much richer.

Conclusion

Recent terrorist events in the UK have been designed partly to set members of different faiths against one another; in practice, what they have done is to bring them together. Whenever you see people coming together to condemn acts of violence you nearly always see a bishop, an imam and a rabbi. What we see taking place is something which I call the reconciliation of difference. Yes, the three faiths have different doctrinal positions, but what has been shown time and time again is that they can nevertheless work together in a way in which they have not done until now. This coming together is forcing us all to look at our theology of religions, whether we are Jewish, Christian or Muslim. What I believe we need are theologies that lead us to embrace one another, embrace difference, and then get on with the work in hand.