REC Home*** Theological Forum 

 

Theological Forum

Vol. XXIII, No. 2, June 1995

 

MISSION IN A MULTI - RELIGIOUS CONTEXT


D. Crafford


Religious pluralism has become a reality in the traditional Christian Western world, and it is becoming more and more part of the context in South Africa, traditionally known as a "Christian country." Changes in the socio- political set-up in South Africa have stimulated an increasing multi-religious context. Whereas in the past Christians could have ignored the minorities of other religions because they lived in separate worlds of apartheid, today people of different religious convictions are forced to become aware of each other because they live as neighbors in the same communities. People of different faiths are serving together in local, provincial and national councils and in government and economic institutions. The mass media shrinks the world and bring us daily in contact with views, doctrines and religious experiences of people of different religious backgrounds. The result is that no individual or community can live any longer in isolation from people of other religions.

Another characteristic of the multi-religious context is that many Christian churches are losing their missionary zeal, while other religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam experience a general renaissance and a growing missionary enthusiasm. In many cases Christians have found themselves to be the object of missions. While Christians, under influence of liberal theology or through the onslaught of secularism, lose faith in what used to be unshakable religious truths, the people of other religions continue to propagate their convictions as eternal values and truth. In this way liberalism and secularism contributed toward the erosion of the Christian faith and made it easier for Christians to switch over to other religions. In many instances the good news of security, harmony, peace and liberation is no longer offered to the world by Christians but by the adherents of other faiths and ideologies.

It is clear that religious pluralism poses a major challenge to Christian churches of our day and more specifically to Christian missions.

David Bosch states "the two largest unsolved problems for the Christian church are its relationship (1) to world views which offer this - worldly salvation

and (2) to other faiths" (Bosch 1991:476).

After Marxism and Neo-Marxism lost much of their power in the world, the world religions now offer the greatest challenge to churches. Exactly for this reason theologia religionum, the discipline that is involved in the evaluation and interpretation of the salvation offered by the world religions in the light of the Christian Scriptures, is becoming a very important aspect of Missiology. Are the Christian Church and mission equipped to respond to this challenge? Unfortunately Protestant churches and Roman Catholic spokespersons are terribly divided and even confused about the attitude of Christians towards people of other religions.

The biggest challenge to the church is to spell out clearly the role and function of mission in a multi-religious context. Can mission be continued in this context and if so, in what form? Must it be replaced by dialogue and inter-faith cooperation? Must it make place in the academic field for religious studies and third world theologies?

There are those who are determined to continue in the spirit of Edinburgh 1910 and are convinced that all adherents of other religions must be converted to Christianity. A strategy must be worked out and put into effect world wide for this purpose. This is still the position in the broad stream of Evangelicals, as reflected by the statements of Wheaton 1966, Lausanne 1974 and Edinburgh 1980 (Saayman 1981:117). Others are more pessimistic about the possibilities to conquer the world religions. Colonialism and Western expansion have failed. Therefore there is little hope for missions to be successful. The world religions will always be with us. Therefore we must rather accept religious pluralism as a fact. If through mission people can be converted, it is a bonus, but it is even better to see the role of mission as that activity which can make the Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim a better follower of his own faith, according to some current views.

Others go even further. They say that immorality, poverty and suffering are posing such immense challenges for the world of our day that religious people must stop fighting and proselytizing each other. They should rather join hands and form a united front against these common enemies.

The challenge that religious pluralism poses to mission is clear. How to answer the challenge is a question on which not all Christians agree. The answer to the question will be determined by the attitude that one shows towards other religions. In this regard it has become a general practice to express the different attitudes in terms of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism or relativism. (D'Costa, 1986 and Gillis, 1993).

Let us briefly look at each of these attitudes and determine how they influence the understanding of mission in a multi-religious context.

Exclusivism and mission

 

The exclusivist position holds that salvation is only possible through confession and surrender to God in Christ. This means that an explicit expression of faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. The basis of this position is that humankind is fundamentally sinful after the fall and therefore opposed to the will of God. The result is that all people are lost and all religions erroneousmere human efforts to save themselves from the tragedy of sinful existence. Christ alone (or according to others Christianity or the Christian church) offers the only valid path to salvation. Although some traces of good could be left in other religions, they cannot lead to salvation nor to a full knowledge of God.

Karl Barth advocated a radical antithesis between revelation and religion. Revelation is a self disclosure from the side of God, and it happens in Christ and in Him alone. Religion is a product of sinful man and, therefore, essentially disbelief and rebellion against God. This is true of every human religion including Christianity. Mission, therefore, cannot be a call to change from one religion to another. It must be a call to faith in Christ as the true self revelation of God. Mission will find no point of contact in non-Christian religions. There is no continuation with any existing beliefs, but a new beginning, a new radical call to faith in Christ is necessary. Mission must proclaim resurrection to the dead (Barth: 304:397). The consequence of Barth's theology is that dialogue was totally impossible (Barth 1935:280-361). It is however not correct to see Barth as an exponent of exclusivism because of a strong tendency towards universalism that is also observable in his theology.

The Dutch theologian Hendrik Kraemer can be regarded as one of the strongest exponents of exclusivism. The message of his major work, The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World (1937), was very influential in the Protestant and ecumenical world. The central thesis in Kraemer's approach is: "God has revealed the Way and the Life and the Truth in Jesus Christ and wills this to be known through all the world" (Kraemer 1937:107). Kraemer refused to defend Christianity on the basis of philosophical truths because every religion has its own truth claims. He prefers to speak of Biblical realism. This means acceptance of the real saving and revealing acts of God in the death and resurrection of Christ and in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Referring to John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 Kraemer believes that the truth about God and humankind is revealed perfectly in Christ. Exactly for this reason Christians are obliged to proclaim this message to all people. Mission, therefore, cannot only be social service or inter-church aid. Christ must be preached and accepted by all nations. Conversion and change of mind must remain the main aim of mission.

Kraemer is in agreement with Barth in as far as he believes that non- Christian religions are "all human constructions of self-justification" (Kraemer 1937:432). He differs from Barth in as far as he accepts a general revelation in non-Christian religions. "God shines through in a broken, troubled way: in reason, in nature and in history" (Kraemer 1937:120). This general revelation can only be effectively discerned in the light of the special revelation of Jesus Christ. A further difference with Barth is that Kraemer accepts a "religious consciousness" (a sensus divinitatis, in the words of Calvin). This universal religious consciousness in man is the result of the fact that God created men and women in his own image, and this presents a definite point of contact for Christian missions.

From what we have said above, it is clear that the exclusivist position automatically leads to the acceptance of the necessity of Christian missions. If Christ is the only path to salvation and the only way through which God can fully be known, then Christ must be proclaimed to all the nations. That is the will of God and if Christians want to do His will, they must actively partake in missions. It is clear that this mission cannot only be social involvement or liberation from poverty or oppressive structures. It must also include a call to repentance and acceptance of Christ and must result in a positive confession of His Name and recognition of His Lordship.

The exclusivist model is accepted by the broad evangelical stream of Christianity and by a majority of mainline Protestant churches. It must however be understood that there is a great variety of standpoints within this paradigm. The growing contact, dialogue and co-operation between Christians and people of other faiths resulted in an increasing criticism of the exclusivist position. Many started to ask if exclusivist christology is the only possibility to be deduced from Scripture? If one admits that God is working outside the confines of Christian revelation, how can one be sure that this cannot lead to salvation and to the true knowledge of God? If people can only be saved through confession and surrender to God in Christ, what about the faithful in the times of the Old Testament? And what about the millions of non-Christians who have never heard the Gospel? Can it be that God who is righteous and loving has denied all these millions the means of salvation because they never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel?

These difficult questions forced many to ask whether it is possible there are many ways to salvation and other saviors beside Jesus?

This brings us to the second attitude towards non-Christian religions - the pluralist position.



Pluralism and mission


The pluralist paradigm holds that other religions form valid paths of salvation and all of them ultimately lead to the one God. Those who are saved are saved by their own religion, independent of Christ and Christianity. This model can also be called theocentric because Christ is no longer in the center but God Himself.

John Hick, in his publication God and the Universe of Faiths (1973), became known for his statement that a Copernican revolution is necessary in the world of religions. The old Ptolemaic cosmology was replaced by the Copernican view that no longer the earth but the sun is at the center of the universe. In the same way the old belief that Christ is at the center of the universe of faiths must be replaced by a new paradigm where God is at the center and all religions revolve around Him (Hick 1973:131). Hick put all the emphasis on God's universal salvific will and his desire to save all people. God's universal love demands that he will also create the possibility for all people to be saved. This means that it must be possible for people to be saved through their own religions. How does Hick come to this new Christology, which clearly departs from the incarnation as central truth of traditional Christianity? Hick argues that the incarnation should be understood mythologically rather than literally. Mythological language implies that Christ is savior for the Christians but it does not imply an exclusive revelation of God. According to Hick modern New Testament scholarship confirms that the historical Jesus did not make for himself the claims the Church later made on his behalf. The fact that he is called the Son of God is also mythological language (D'Costa 1986:39).

Paul Knitter, with his publication No other Name? (1985), has become one of the best known exponents of pluralism. Knitter uses the term "unitive pluralism," which is not the same as syncretism but accepts the fact that all religions are equally valid and true and that other saviours may be as important as Jesus. Knitter chooses for religious plurality where no religion can claim a final or absolute truth. What is needed is an interreligious ecumenism where religions together seek the truth that independently may have eluded them. Traditional christology forms an obstacle for interreligious ecumenism. Therefore we must move away from Christ-centered theology to a theocentric theology. Knitter does not want to reject the unicity of Christ altogether. He calls it a "relational unicity." Christ is a universal, relevant manifestation of God but He is not exclusive nor normative. There are also other manifestations of God and other saviors. It is only in relation to them that Christ can retain His universal importance. The theocentric position is the only one that really opens up doors for interreligious dialogue. And this is what we really need in the multi-religious context of our times.

The theological presuppositions of Knitter have radical consequences for his understanding of mission. The aim of mission is not that people of other faiths should become Christian. What is wanted is a "global ecumenism" in which the different religions can enrich each other. Christian mission must rather restrict itself to humanitarian fields of health, education and development. There is no need for converting adherents of other religions in which God's saving grace is already at work. There is no need to preach Christ to people of other religions whose saviors can bring about their own salvation. It is clear that the pluralist position makes mission redundant. The result is that in many liberal Protestant circles mission is no longer a popular activity. The tendency is rather to replace it with dialogue. The aim of dialogue is then to work out ways of cooperation between the different religions.

Pluralism must inevitably lead to the rejection of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as savior (Hick and Knitter 1987).

The pluralist paradigm is not above criticism. Lesslie Newbigin (1989) strongly criticizes this position. From an evangelical viewpoint A E McGrath gives an incisive critique of the reductionist assumptions of the pluralists like Hick, Knitter, Smith and others (McGrath 1994:5-19). The pluralists put all the emphasis on the universal salvific will of God, but reject the Biblical claim of salvation through faith in Christ alone. The pluralist position forces its advocates to adopt a heretical christology in order to defend their position. Hick's mythological christology rejects the incarnation as absolute and final disclosure of God to human beings. This conviction is opposed to all the great Christian confessions formulated through the centuries. It is therefore a break with the central belief in Christianity. It is impossible for the majority of Christians to accept it.

The pluralist paradigm does not take into consideration the central Biblical message that the true knowledge of God and salvation in Christ must be made known to all nations. A teaching that breaks with the central message of the Bible cannot be accepted as Christian any longer.

Chester Gilles, in defence of pluralism, uses the argument that the missionary effort through the ages has not succeeded in supplanting the great world religions with Christianity. It is also unlikely that the Christian population is going to grow significantly in places where a world religion is already established. Christianity will remain at about twenty eight per cent of the world's population or will even decrease in relation to the world population. If all who do not acknowledge the lordship of Christ are condemned, it will reflect badly on God who will be regarded as cruel. "The pluralist position envisions a fairer God who gives equal opportunity for ultimate fulfillment to persons of all major religions" (Gillis 1993:170). This God is present and immanent in all the world religions.

Is the "fairer God" of the pluralists still the God of the Bible? Is he the God who elected Israel from all the nations to make himself known as the one creator God of all the universe? Is he the God who elected from Israel only a remnant and in the end only the one Servant and Son in whom he revealed himself in his trinitarian being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Is he the God who elected his Church as a minority to be the instrument through which the good news must be proclaimed to all the nations? Is he the God who blessed the missionary effort in such a way that today the elect can be found in nearly all the nations of the world and the name of the triune God can be praised in all the languages of the world? A "fairer God" who is not the God of the Bible is a human invention and therefore an idol.

We come to the conclusion that extreme exclusivism that denies the presence of God and the working of the Holy Spirit outside the confines of the Christian church does not satisfy. Extreme pluralism where God's perfect self- disclosure in Christ is denied is not acceptable because it fully departs from traditional Christianity. Can the third paradigm, that of inclusivism, present us with a solution?


Inclusivism and mission


The inclusivist paradigm affirms the saving presence of God in non- Christian religions and at the same time accepts the fact that Christ is the absolute and authoritative revelation of God. Those in non-Christian religions who are saved are saved in Christ, even if they do not acknowledge Christ's role in their salvation. This paradigm wants to do justice to the universal salvific will of God but also to the confession of salvation through the merits of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ alone. The most important exponent of this position is the Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner. Since Vatican II a large number of Roman Catholic theologians have taken this stance (Camps 1976; D'Costa 1986; Hans Kung). A growing number of mainline Protestant theologians also support this paradigm (John Farquhar; Carl Braaten; John Cobb and Wolfhart Pannenberg).

Karl Rahner worked out his inclusivist views in an essay titled "Christianity and non-Christian Religions" in volume 5 of his Theological Investigations. Rahner agrees with the pluralist that an all-loving God would provide for the salvation of all mankind and with the exclusivists that salvation comes only through faith in God through Christ. In this way he wanted to bridge the gap between the two paradigms.

On the one hand Rahner confirms that salvation is through the death and resurrection of Christ alone and that Christianity understands itself as the absolute religion intended for all men. On the other hand he emphasizes the universal salvific will of God, which implies that God must also offer grace to all those who have never heard the Gospel. This grace is offered not despite the non-Christian religion but exactly through it. Grace must be made available to people of other religions through their own religions. But the origin of this grace cannot come from any other source than from God through Christ. This means that the cosmic Christ bestows his grace on people through their own religions. For this reason non-Christian religions can in principle be called lawful. Non- Christians who accept God's grace can be called "anonymous Christians."

If such a person shows selfless love or charity to his fellowman, it is through the grace of the God who revealed himself in Christ. God's salvation can never be divorced from Christ. God's presence can only be real if it is a presence in Christ. Those who accept God's grace have done so through the work of Christ in the Holy Spirit and can therefore rightly be called anonymous Christians, Rahner says.

Rahner urges that within the inclusivist paradigm mission is absolutely necessary. Even more, mission becomes much easier. The missionary does not go into a void, but into a sphere where God and Christ is already present and where the Holy Spirit has been preparing people within the context of their own cultures and religions. The missionary may encounter people who may have already accepted God's grace in the depth of their hearts.

What is then the aim of mission? According to Rahner 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 form in the Church" (Rahner 1966:132). In this way the anonymous Christian can become a confessing Christian with a much richer and fuller life in communion with other Christians within the church. So the non-Christian who accepted God's grace can now find his proper fulfillment in the community of Christians. In this way Rahner wanted to do justice to the fact that Christianity is in essence a missionary religion. This method of mission is called maieutic by the Dutch theologian Arnulf Camps (1072:1-9). The embriotic knowledge of Christ is already present in the womb of the world religions. Christian missions must help to let the full knowledge of Christ be born so that people can openly recognize, confess and serve Him.

John Hick criticizes the inclusivist position as "an honorary status granted unilaterally to people who have not expressed any desire for it" (Hick 1980:68). It can be offensive to non-Christians and even create barriers against open dialogue. L. Newbigin calls this position vulnerable because it does not take the faith of people of other religions seriously (1981:8).

Another problem with inclusivism is that non-Christians who accept God's grace are expected to live lives of selfless love and charity without changing their religious beliefs. This is an unacceptable division between life and faith. Wrong beliefs and misconceptions about the true nature of God are just as sinful as wrong deeds.

The idea of anonymous Christians is also in contradiction to the biblical teaching that only those who confess the name of Christ and who willfully and openly relate and submit to him will be saved (Romans 10:9).

Although Rahner argues for the absolute necessity of mission, the inclusivist position makes it redundant or at least must result in less enthusiasm for mission. If people in other religions are already saved through their own religions, why then take all the trouble to proclaim the Gospel of salvation to them?

Chester Gillis, who chooses for the pluralist paradigm, criticizes inclusivism because "other relations are neither autonomous nor sufficient in themselves to bring their adherents to salvation. The richness of the other religions is diminished by Christianity's absolute claim to salvific efficacy in Christ" (Gillis 1993: 170). Exclusivism does not really convince. It may help Christians to get rid of a guilty conscience because of the many people without Christ who are lost, but it really does not solve the problem of the relationship of Christianity to the other world religions.

The solution of the problem must be found somewhere between extreme exclusivism and pluralism. Perhaps it can be found in the words of David Bosch: "a theology of religions characterized by creative tension, which reaches beyond the sterile alternative between a comfortable claim to absoluteness and arbitrary pluralism" (Bosch 1991:483).


The paradigm of dialectic creative tension


All three of the paradigms discussed above are typical of the modernistic approach. Everything must work out neatly and be explained logically. Every bit and piece must fit well. But can it not be that the mind of God is so great that his plans do not fit into our logical explanations? Are there not many things happening in this world that we cannot explain and have to leave in the hands of God in good faith? Is the fate of those who have never heard the gospel not one of those things? If the incarnation itself, vicarious grace and atonement, the ascension and the parousia cannot be explained logically, why is it necessary to find a logical paradigm for the relationship of Christianity to other religions?

Arguing from a postmodern missionary paradigm David Bosch states: "The various models seem to leave no room for embracing the abiding paradox of asserting both ultimate commitment to one's own religion and genuine openness to another's" (Bosch 1991:483). We must leave room for God's mysterious acts in history. We can, therefore, consider the possibility of a paradigm in which the paradox remains and the creative tension is kept intact.

In order to outline this paradigm, we have to start with the insights of John Calvin. Calvin's view of non-Christian religions is based upon two doctrines: the doctrine of the creation of human beings in God's image and the doctrine of common grace.

As far as the first is concerned, Calvin teaches that by creation all men have a knowledge of God and a semen religionis - a germ of religion. This means that religion is an element in the structure of human consciousness. Man is homo religiosus. On this point Calvin's view is supported by scholars like Otto, Wach and Eliade. According to Calvin sin has distorted our religious consciousness so that instead of seeking the true God, we constantly make our own gods and superstitions (Inst. 1,5:12). Nevertheless fallen humans retain a knowledge of a high god (Inst. 1, 12:1) or at least of a transcendent reality that influences their lives. Calvin speaks of a general sensus divinitatis - a natural instinct for God. Humans universally possess a sense of the existence of God. This sense of God is the basis of all religion.

Secondly Calvin teaches the doctrine of common grace and common revelation. He uses common grace to explain the fact that spots of light, elements of morality and good works, can be found among people of other faiths. In their sinful state humans are constantly making images of God, but traces of good and genius remained in them. Common grace explains the reason for the presence of good gifts in human nature even after it was deprived of the knowledge of the true God (Inst. 11, 2:13-15). Common grace prepares the human heart for the preaching of the gospel so that all who believe can come to a true knowledge of God in Christ.

If the doctrine of sensus divinitatis and common grace is accepted, there is a basis for dialogue with other religions. Because common grace does not lead to salvation, the challenge remains to confront people with the special revelation of Scriptures so that they can learn to know the true God. This view of other religions does not exclude the possibility of working together for common purposes or of praying to God in the presence of each other.

Following Calvin on this point, Hendrik Kraemer developed a dialectical evaluation of the relationship between the Christian Gospel and non- Christian religions. Because of man's religious consciousness, he is striving after the Absolute but because of his sinful state he is constantly fleeing from him. "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.... Man seeks God and at the same time flees from Him in his seeking, because his self-assertive self- centeredness of will, his root sin, always breaks through" (Kraemer 1937:112). This tragic contradictory position is the deepest problem of man. Man's seeking for God and his running away from God, is together with God's seeking for man in the incarnation, the strongest point of contact for Christian mission.

For Kraemer the paradox continues. God is at work in Christ and through the Holy Spirit in non-Christian religions, but they remain separated from God until they find salvation in Christ. Christian mission is absolutely necessary because only through conversion and faith can people become aware of God's involvement with them. The universal salvific will of God and salvation through faith in Christ alone are both true The dialectical tension between them remains. The attitude to non-Christian religions is at the same time 'No' and 'Yes'.

David Bosch follows the same line of thinking when he argues that the tension between being both missionary and dialogical cannot be solved. He refers to Section I of the San Antonio Report where it is stated: "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... We appreciate this tension, and do not attempt to resolve it" (Bosch 1991:489).

This position of dialectical tension creates room for both dialogue and mission. The one is not a substitute for the otherthey are not to be viewed as identical nor as opposed to each other.

Christians must engage in dialogue with people of other faiths knowing that God is already at work in them. The purpose of dialogue is to understand each other better. It accepts the co-existence of different faiths willingly and subscribes to the principle of religious freedom. Through dialogue ways of cooperation in different fields can be discovered, and people of different faiths can even be enriched by each other to understand their own doctrines better. Christians, of course, must dialogue from a position of faith in the Lordship of Christ (Schuman 1989:91).

Dialogue is, however, not incompatible with mission and does not exclude evangelism. Dialogue cannot cancel out the fundamental missionary nature of Christianity. All the great denominations agree that at the very heart of the Church's vocation in the world is the proclamation of the kingdom of God inaugurated in Jesus the Lord, crucified and risen. In the words of David Bosch: "The Christian faith cannot surrender the conviction that God, in sending Jesus Christ into our midst, has taken a definite and eschatological course of action and is extending to human beings forgiveness, justification, and a new life of joy and servanthood, which in turn, calls for a human response in the form of conversion" (Bosch 1993:488). That is exactly what we owe the world religions. If we keep this blessing away from them, we do them a great injustice and we deprive them of the fullness and joy of a new life in God through Christ. This deprivation "leaves the helpless hopeless" (Borland 1990:11). Bosch stresses the fact that Christians have to be humble in their encounter with people of other faiths (1988:139). In the encounter with other faiths Christians are judged because they are not always what they claim to be. Christians are called to serve humankind in selfless love and in humility. Without this attitude Christian witness is bound to fail.

We are still called to go out to the people of other faiths with the same message that Paul preached to the people of Athens.


 


God, the creator of all nations and all people, has never stopped being engaged in their affairs. Although he allowed them to go their own way, he has not left them without some clue to his nature (Acts 14:17). He showed his kindness to them and gave them rain and crops. They were able to see his footprints in nature and in history. They responded in seeking this God and in looking for ways of salvation and liberation. This was no more than a search in the dark. It was a time of ignorance because they could not really know God and his plans with man and universe.

But now things have radically changed. God sent a man who will judge the world through his death and resurrection. Now God has communicated himself to the world in Christ. Previously God sent messengers and messages to people, but now he has come to them in person in the cross and resurrection of Christ. He has laid the foundation for His Kingdom. God has appeared in flesh and stepped into human history and human suffering. "God is Christologically disclosed" (McGrath 1994:6).

Now God has overlooked the times of ignorance. Now he commands all people everywhere to repent. In the light of the coming judgement, there is only one relevant response and that is repentance.

This is the message of God to all the nations and to all human religions. The way to God's Kingdom is through repentance and faith in Christ. Our mission is to communicate this message to all people in word and deed. We can do it because the spirit of God is already at work among other nations and in other religions. He prepares the way for the acceptance of this message. He makes the impossible possible and creates faith in the Triune God, who is the only key to real peace, joy and liberation in a suffering and broken world. The church is not the possessor of salvation but the sign and witness of the salvation that God offers to the world in Christ and through the Holy Spirit (Newbigin 1981:16).


Bibliography