the:shiverian

PARTIAL REPLACEMENT MODEL PT.1 - LESSLIE NEWBIGIN

Whereas most fundamentalists and some evangelicals hold to the total replacement model, Knitter identifies those often referred too as -new evangelicals- representing a slightly different attitude towards other religions (33). Instead of taking the view that other religions have nothing to offer Christianity, this model engenders a new and more generous attitude towards other belief systems. Knitter proposes that this thinking acknowledges that God is present in other religions through revelation in some distinct way but that in the end other religions fail to offer salvation that can only be found in Jesus Christ. While God certainly speaks to believers of other faiths, there can be no salvation found outside of the particular person of Jesus Christ.

One of the most able advocates of this position was Bishop Lesslie Newbigin, a forty-year missionary in India from the Anglican Church, U.K. Newbigin writes of what he believes to be the prevalent view of the contemporary era,

Just as the church in the first generation had to face the fact that Gods grace was not confined to those [who were circumcised]. . . so now the Church must have the courage to recognize a new fact, recognize that God-s grace is at work with undiscriminating generosity among all peoples and in all the great religious traditions, and therefore abandon the claim to be the sole possessor of truth (The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 156).

Rejecting this claim, Newbigin proposes that its advocates have two major assumptions. The first is that there is a great need for human unity in the world and secondly that this need cannot be met by one particular religion. As globalization has occurred, the desire for human unity has grown. There are, however, competing visions of what exactly this unity will look like and throughout history many visions of unity have been enacted with such results as imperialism and fascism. Why do these competing visions of peace continually -tear us apart (159)?-

Newbigin answers that this is because every program for peace and unity necessarily has an agenda of what will make that peace and unity possible. This hidden agenda is often -the interests and intentions of the proposer are the hidden center (Ibid).- This hidden agenda is often bound up with enlightenment optimism in the progression of western culture. The -modern historical consciousness- that is often at the center of calls to unity from the West are in the end -ultimate faith commitments- themselves. Thus, all claims to unity, whether they be Christian or not, rest on faith-commitments that cannot seek validation from higher ground.

Newbigin goes on to say the same for those who advocate that all religions -are variants of one central human experience- as a way to unity (160). This claim advocates that God reveals Godself not in one particular way but in varying ways throughout cultures. God has various natures and in the end all worship, even if it is aimless, reaches God. Newbigin responds by wondering, -if God is not one but many; if ultimate reality is such that he, she, or it behaves in mutually incoherent ways, what possible hope is there for human unity?-

The claim for the particular person of Jesus Christ as the basis for unity is just as valid as calls for unity based on other faith-commitments, whatever their nature may be. The particularity of Christ as the special revelation of God gives hope for unity whereas a God that is incoherent or inconsistent in revealing Godself through a multiplicity of religions shatters that hope. Thus, Newbigin calls for the need for an absolute. Countering an essay by Langdon Gilkey, this absolute does not become absolute because it is needed to further a specific agenda or plan. Instead, if an absolute exists, it is not created by need, it is already present and uncontrollable by human means. This claim to absoluteness need not be oppressive, especially since the church does not claim to -posses- the absolute, but -claims to know where to point for guidance (163).- Furthermore, the claim that Jesus is the absolute undercuts the use of absolutes for imperial means when the life and nature of the particular person of Jesus are considered.

If then, Christianity can claim that Jesus is the particular and absolute revelation of God and that any call to unity and peace should be based on an ultimate faith-commitment to him, what should be Christianity-s relationship to other religions? Rejecting pluralism and claiming that Christ is the unique and decisive revelation for the salvation of the world does not mean for Newbigin that a -strictly exclusivist view- must be accepted (173). A position that confidently claims that all who do not Jesus are eternally lost would mean that it -would be not only permissible but obligatory to use any means available. . .to rescue others from this appalling fate (173).- Further, it would be imperative to be able to -know- who is saved or not, a knowledge that Newbigin wants to remain in God-s hands.

A rejection of this strict exclusivist claim does not mean that one has to embrace the inclusivist position such as Rahner-s anonymous Christian. There is a way between those who claim that other religions are vehicles are salvation and those who are confident that none who do not accept Christ are eternally saved. There is a tension that is found between the amazing grace of God and the appalling sin of the world. When Christians are drawn too far towards one side of this tension, a distortion of the faith follows,

We can opt for a solution that relies wholly on the universality and omnipotence of grace and move toward some form of universalism. Here the sharpness of the issue which God-s action in Christ raises for every human soul is blunted. . .Or, on the other hand, the Christian may be so conscious of the abyss of sin from which only the grace of God in Jesus Christ could rescue him that he is unwilling to believe that same grace can operate in ways beyond his own experience and understanding (176).

When this distortion on either side occurs, there is no room for true dialogue between religions to take place. Either there is nothing at stake in the dialogue or it is inappropriate to attempt dialogue between the -person in the lifeboat and the person drowning in the sea.- True dialogue only occurs while living in tension between these two extremes. In this dialogue, Newbigin declares that the wrong question to be asking is -Who can be saved?- or -Where does someone go when they die?- These questions miss the fullness of the gospel and abstract the happiness of an individualistic soul from the full human. Instead true dialogue begins around the question, -How is God to be honored and glorified?- For Newbigin, the goal of missions is not to save the lost but the glory of God!

Finally, Newbigin offers four practical implications when starting with both the claim of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the means of salvation as well as the glory of God as the goal of missions. Christians should look for and welcome the grace of God at work in followers of other faiths. Newbigin writes, -our first privilege is to seek out and welcome all the reflections of that one true light in the lives of those we meet (180).- In welcoming signs of grace, Christians as obedient witnesses to the cross, must always be ready to receive judgment and correction (The Open Secret, 182). This means -every meeting with a Non-Christian partner in dialogue therefore puts my own Christianity at risk.- Dialogue is an act of vulnerability where the true disciple will -be exposed without defense- so that the -other-s way of looking at the world becomes a real possibility for us (Ibid, 184).- Dialogue occurs at the cross and the Christian must strip herself of everything to meet the other at the bottom where both can be ultimately be changed.

Christians should also be interested and involved in cooperation with other religions in working on concerns and issues aligned with God-s desire for the world. Christians should have a shared commitment to the real issues of the world, a place where Newbigin asserts that dialogue should began and probably will be prompted by others. Finally, the most important Christian contribution to the dialogue will be telling the story of the special revelation of Jesus Christ. Newbigin summarizes his position by writing, -So the Christian mission must be an affair of love, not an affair of truth. But it is not love which encourages people to believe a lie (Gospel, 183).-

CONTINUE READING

Posted by mark at 3:40 PM | | perm