the:shiverian

This spring I-m engaging the issue of Christianity-s relationship and interaction with other religions in a pluralistic world through an Independent Study with Prof Steve Hayner. We have agreed that instead of a -traditional- paper per se at the end of the reading, I would present my evaluations through the portal of this blog. Hopefully, this will allow for some dialogue and discussion concerning the various paradigms that are out there. I-ll be following Paul Knitter-s classifications and I hope that you-ll feel free to comment (and thus help my independent study!) throughout the process. Obviously, any attempt at classifications will by necessity be reductionist, but Knitter-s paradigms are helpful in introducing the diverse positions that are represented within Christianity.

Total Replacement Model

-We affirm that there is only one Savior and one Gospel, although there is a wide diversity of evangelistic approaches. . .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 man. There is no other name by which we must be saved. – Lausanne Covenant, 1974

The first paradigm in which Christians have operated in their interaction with other religions is what Knitter names the Total Replacement Model (Paul Knitter, Theologies of Religions, 19). In this model, generally held by more conservative strands of the Christian tradition, including many fundamentalists, -Christianity is meant to replace all other religions- (Ibid, 19). Salvation is only found in the particular person of Jesus Christ and thus Christianity is the only true religion. Other religions are not one of many roads to the same destination but can ultimately only be classified as false in their failure to recognize God-s special revelation in Jesus Christ.

It seems to be common among those who hold this viewpoint to attempt to place the burden of proof on those who disagree with them. After all, as Knitter affirms, this has been the church-s position for most of its history. Ronald Nash compares this doctrine to that of creation ex nihilo, the Trinity or Calvinism. He writes,

-But our trinitarianism is also inseparable from the total unacceptability of the other options that are out there. Historically, once Christians rejected Unitarianism, modalism. . .the doctrine of the Trinity began to take shape. A similar situation exists with respect to this debate.- (Ronald Nash, -Restrictivism.- In What About Those who have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, 109).

In rejecting positions that have been rejected throughout Christian history, Nash is able to accuse those who hold different positions of -reshuffling the deck- and formulating -a totally new understanding of how God saves the lost- (108). Thus, since church tradition has generally held to this conviction, there is less of an articulate presentation of the position and more of a rebuttal against those that are contrary. Nash is seemingly content that the interpretation of such verses as Romans 10:9-10; Acts 4:12; and John 14:6 are imminently clear and in claiming that interpretations which differs from classical church tradition -are hardly theologically harmless.- (139).

Perhaps the most influential advocate of this position is none other than Karl Barth, the great Swiss theologian. In Church Dogmatics, Barth argues that all religion is unbelief, including Christianity (vol. 1/2, Par. 17). Religion is a way that humanity attempts to get at God, to get into the work of the divine. In reality, God interacts not through these attempts by humanity but through God-s own self-revelation in Jesus Christ. Barth writes, -To realize that religion is really unbelief, we have to consider it from the standpoint of the revelation attested in Holy Scripture- (Ibid). Thus, revelation contradicts and displaces religion, our attempts to -think of God and to represent Him- according to our own standard. This revelation for Barth is Jesus Christ who -replaces and outbids those attempts, putting them in the shadows which they belong.-

Barth goes on to say that -No religion is true. It can only become true, i.e., according to that which it purports to be and for which it is upheld.- In order for religion to be classified as true, it must be adopted by and marked off by revelation, which again for Barth is Jesus Christ. The Christian religion can be considered true not because it is not guilty of idolatry or other sins but because it is true -only as we listen to the divine revelation.- Listening to the divine revelation means accepting the judgment of revelation on all religion and allowing ourselves to be led beyond that judgment. Accepting the futility of any attempts at religion, Christians allow themselves to be the first judged by God-s revelation and then through faith in which the grace of God is present, be led to belief. Barth goes to great length to ensure that Christianity is not regarded as true because of some -inward worthiness, but only by the grace of God, proclaimed and effectual in His revelation.- Christianity is only true because of Jesus Christ, not because of any theological or doctrinal systems.

Those who operate within the Total Replacement model, sometimes called exclusivists, take Barth to mean that salvation is found only within the special revelation of Jesus Christ. There is no salvation in what may be called general revelation, which is the -presence of God-s spirit within the persons and structures of other faith communities- (Knitter, 34). This claim combined with the usual view of eternal judgment held by conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists means that those who have not encountered Christ will be separated from the love of Christ forever in a reality named by Scripture as Hell. Followers of other religions, therefore, are eternally damned unless they are converted through an experience with Jesus Christ. Thus, these religions are false and God-s will is that they ultimately be replaced by the true religion of Christianity.

It would seem that such a view of other religions leaves very little room for dialogue. In many cases, this is certainly the case as it becomes easy to create an -us- and -them- mentality and rhetoric. There are those in this paradigm, however, that are interested in dialogue as long as it is -properly defined- (Harold Netland, Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth, 301). Stott quotes an article in his book, Christian Mission,

-Anyone brought up in the Platonic tradition of dialogue knows well the intense seriousness involved; Socrates and his interlocuters are concerned about one thing only-that the truth should emerge. This is the concern of the Christian partner in dialogue. If Christ is the truth, then the only thing that matters is that Christ should emerge, but Christ as the truth makes categorical demands on the individual for total, unconditional and exclusive commitment to himself (73). There is a confidence in this position that the truth found only in Christ will emerge in dialogue and that this truth will call all people to himself.-

Knitter describes this model as a kind of -holy competition- between religions for one final and complete truth (31). This is indeed the attitude that many in this paradigm have towards the faiths found in other religions. Taking scripture very seriously, they will claim that Christ is the way, the truth and the life. There is no other name under heaven whereby humanity can be saved. Christ, the revelation of God, is the only source of truth and salvation that exists in this world.

Next : The Partial Replacement Model

CONTINUE READING...

Posted by mark at 12:03 PM | | perm