the:shiverian

THE MUTUALITY MODEL _ PART ONE _ JOHN COBB

The next paradigm for relating to other religions is what Knitter terms the Mutuality Model. The mutuality proposal still seeks to bring balance between the particularity and universality of Jesus Christ but where the fulfillment model tended to land in the particularity; this model tends to lean towards the universality. Knitter offers that those in this model seek to answer three main questions.

1) How can Christians engage in a more authentic dialogue with persons of other faiths?
2) How can we create a level playing field for dialogue?
3) How can we come to a clearer understanding of Jesus_ uniqueness that will sustain the dialogue? (Knitter, 109-111)

Knitter asserts that proponents of this model deem dialogue as an integral part of the Christian faith. Christians should be interested in sincere interaction with believers of others faith. This interaction does not mean downplaying the differences in belief but it does mean acknowledging the _something that_s the same_ between them. As Knitter admits, this _something in common_ is not easily identified but in order for dialogue to take place, the participants must be able to _play with each other (111).

John Cobb wrestles with this issue of the _common essence of religion_ in his article _Beyond Pluralism._ Cobb begins with the intriguing statement, _I am against pluralism. But I am against pluralism for the sake of a fuller and more genuine pluralism (81)._ The idea of finding an underlying essence that all religions can share in order to bring about world peace is troubling to Cobb. What exactly should this common point of commonality be? And what should be classified as religions in the first place to try to draw this essence from? Cobb expresses the difficulty,

_It would be possible to draw up a long list of characteristics that one person or another associates with the word religion. A list drawn up by a Buddhist would be likely to overlap with, but differ from, a list drawn up by a Muslim. Does that mean one list would be more accurate than the other? That would imply that there is some objective reality with which the lists more or less correspond. But there is no Platonic idea _Religion_ to which the use of the term ought to conform (82)._

Since there is no consensus about this essence and because there is no _Platonic_ idea that defines religion, Cobb dismisses this as a logical starting part for a pluralistic paradigm. He concludes that there is no _empirical evidence in favor of this view_ and instead of a way to peace, Cobb sees this approach as _only scholarly habit and the power of language to misled (84)._

Given that Cobb has rejected the presence of some universal norm, this seems to leave him with only one option. If there is no standard to judge between the claims of various religions, must we not accept each religion_s claims to their own standard and norm? This _conceptual relativism_ in effect, however, only _vitiates the claims of all_ instead of doing justice to the claims of specific religions (85)._ Cobb rejects that he must choose between these two options and claims that actual dialogue suggests another option.

This dualism is overcome by the belief that _there is more to truth and wisdom than one_s own tradition has thus far attained (86)._ True reality is always more than one_s formulation of that reality. These formulations are naturally reductionist in that those who make the claims realize that there is more to truth/God/reality than what they articulate. If this is the case, Cobb concludes there can be no true norm for Christian religions. Asserting a common essence not only assumes that one can stand outside as an objective observer but also that these religions are static and unchanging. Cobb rejects this and pictures religions as always evolving and growing, reaching deeper understandings and experiences of the truth.

Thus, Cobb formulates a norm that he claims can be applied only with _relative objectivity._ This norm _has to do with their ability, in faithfulness to their heritage, to expand their understanding of reality and its normative implications (87)._ The relative qualifier signifies that when religions encounter each other and have their understandings expanded, this event is only relative to those in the encounter. For example, when Christianity meets Buddhism and finds ways in which to expand its understanding of God, these understandings will be reformulated in new ways when Christianity encounters Hinduism.

If this is indeed the norm, Cobb suggests that some religions may be in positions to better benefit from the contemporary pluralistic nature of the world. The religion that has the best position according to Cobb is Christianity. A religion that centers its focus on the person of Jesus Christ should be one that is continually opening to new understandings of reality. Cobb writes,

_Centering on Jesus or on the Christ often functions as a form of closure, as an insistence that nothing more needs to be learned. . .The deeper questions is whether centering ourselves on Jesus or on Christ truly has this effect of closure or whether this is itself a misunderstanding of the meaning of Christocentrism. (90)._

The focus on Christ and the hope for the future kingdom should serve to encourage Christians to open up towards those of other faiths. Christ_s work continually reminds humanity of its finitude and _breaks the tendency to think that our own opinions are final and adequate._ Thus, the uniqueness of Christ is a central focus that puts Christians in an excellent position to open up to fuller understandings of reality and truth in a pluralistic world. Christian uniqueness that emphasizes this openness, and not those which express faith in idolatrous forms, should then be _celebrated (94)._

READ MORE...

Posted by mark at 1:29 PM | | perm