Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2

In This Issue:

INTRODUCTION page 1 THIS ISSUE AT A GLANCE page 2 Theologies VELI-MATTI KÄRKÄINNEN Theologies of Religions page 3 of Religions

KYLE DAVID BENNETT The Authenticity of INTRODUCTION: MATTHEW KRABILL Worship page 7 Trinity and Religious Pluralism In the inaugural issue of this journal, we argued that there is a major need for JOHN W. MOREHEAD American evangelicals to engage in critical theological reflection on issues related Supplemental Reflections page 8 to interfaith dialogue. Dr. Douglas McConnell’s paper “Missional Principles for Interfaith Dialogue” explored the relationship of interfaith dialogue to the larger mission that Christians make disciples of all nations. In this second issue of the EVELYNE A. REISACHER journal, we examine another major issue related to interfaith dialogue—Christian A Timely Contribution responses to religious pluralism. page 10 In his paper prepared for the advent of the centenary celebration of the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen argues that the issue of DENNIS OKHOLM religious plurality is the most urgent challenge the Church faces at the beginning Raising Issues in the of the twenty-first century, and as a result, necessitates critical Christian theological Discussion of Pluralism reflection. page 13 Kärkkäinen affirms that while Christian theology and its respective ecclesiastical traditions do not speak uniformly in response to religious pluralism or what is called ROBERT S. COVOLO Making the Difficult a theology of religions, the typology of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism has Simple commonly been used to navigate our religiously plural landscape. Kärkkäinen asserts page 14 that these categories are predicated on a “dynamic tension”—one that attempts to reconcile two juxtaposed biblical truths: that God wishes all people to be saved and BOOK REVIEW: THE FUTURE OF that salvation is found only in Jesus Christ. Likewise, while acknowledging that the CHRISTIAN LEARNING page 9 most foundational and least negotiable tenet of faith for all Christians is the trinitarian THE EDINBURGH MISSIONARY confession, Kärkkäinen acknowledges that the topic of the Trinity may not be the CONFERENCE OF 1910 page 12 best starting point in an interfaith encounter. What is important for Kärkkäinen is PRAXIS: INTERSEM 2010: STRANGE that a theology of religions be grounded on a solid trinitarian understanding of the RITUALS page 16 role and relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit.

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 1 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM THIS ISSUE’S RESPONSES AT A GLANCE:

page 7 KYLE DAVID BENNETT explores the “how” of Kärkkäinen’s ap- SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 proach to interfaith dialogue through an Augustinian perspective. He challenges us to favor being ecclesio-considerate rather than ecclesio-centric in dialogue. As a result, an evangelical’s relation- ship with Christ is reflected in worship, and God is known through FOUNDING BOARD our worship. Thus Bennett contends that dialogue should include Carrie Graham the opportunity for a mutual observation and participation of each Matthew Krabill respective worship experience. Melody Wachsmuth Cory Willson page 8 EDITORS JOHN W. MOREHEAD offers supplemental reflections to Matthew Krabill Kärkkäinen’s theology of religions. In order for us to be faithful Melody Wachsmuth practitioners within this theological framework, numerous factors are at play, not the least of which includes attention to one’s emo- CONSULTING EDITORS tional attitude toward other religions as well as a focus on Other- Carrie Graham centered hospitality. In addition, Morehead argues that formulat- Cory Willson ing one’s theology of religions through a pneumatological lens might take the conversation forward in new and creative ways. CONSULTANTS Dr. Martin Accad page 10 Dr. Erin Dufault-Hunter DR. EVELYNE A. REISACHER challenges us to broaden our Dr. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen discussion on interfaith dialogue to include the contrasting dy- Dr. Douglas McConnell namics between academic and grassroots interfaith contexts. In Dr. Richard Mouw light of this, she calls for a “re-exploration” of biblical resources that would inform our attitudes toward other faiths. We do not VISION STATEMENT do this in isolation, Dr. Reisacher assures us, as pluralism is part This journal seeks to create space for and parcel of the historic foundation and lived experience of many Evangelical scholars and practitioners to societies, particularly in non-Western contexts. dialogue about the dynamics, challenges, practices, and theology surrounding page 13 interfaith work, while remaining faithful to the gospel of Jesus and his mission for DR. DENNIS OCKHOLM affirms Kärkkäinen’s skillful handling of his church. two juxtaposed biblical truths: God wishes all people to be saved and salvation is found only in Jesus. However, he critiques Kärk- AIMS OF THIS JOURNAL käinen’s starting point for a Christian view of religious plurality, In light of our commitment to the arguing that a Christian must begin with “the faithfulness of the authority of Scripture and the gospel of God who has disclosed himself in Jesus Christ.” It is beginning Jesus Christ, this journal seeks to: with this allegiance to Christ, rather than a pluralistic theocen- trism, that allows for both a forthright dialogue and an attitude of • ground interfaith dialogue in the humble service and love for our neighbor. missio dei • create space for pioneering page 14 Evangelical approaches to interfaith dialogue, drawing on a robust biblical, ROBERT COVOLO unpacks the complexity of Kärkkäinen’s article, theological, missiological, and veiled by the seeming simplicity of its central themes. Although psychological foundation Kärkkäinen uses the standard categories of exclusivism, inclusiv- ism, and pluralism to organize his argument, Covolo demonstrates • wrestle together publicly and as both his rationale and his awareness of the limitations behind this a community on the challenges, methodology. Thus Covolo, while calling attention to our precon- opportunities, and dangers of ceived categories, contends that Kärkkäinen displays wisdom in engaging in interfaith dialogue his decisions to maintain what is ultimately a trinitarian criteria, • begin to heal the divisions within such that his theology of religions is indeed a Christian theology. Evangelicalism between mission and dialogue by articulating the missiological guidelines for dialogue page 16 • foster discussion on interfaith JEN ROSNER reflects on her experiences in interfaith dialogue, issues between faculty, students, illustrating that long-awaited bridges can be built among Jews and practitioners from Evangelical and Christians. While remaining dedicated to both Jesus and the traditions from across the globe importance of reconciliation, Rosner emphasizes the need for vul- nerability in interreligious encounters. Such an attitude prepares Views expressed in Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or the seminary. Produced us to understand ourselves just as much as the “other.” in limited quantities. ©Copyright 2010 Fuller Theological Seminary.

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 2 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM FEATURED ARTICLE Theologies of Religions A Position Paper for Edinburgh 2010 BY VELI-MATTI KÄRKKÄINEN

The Many Dimensions of Interfaith well as a general mindset that celebrates so forth. In other words, thinking and Encounters diversity—religious encounters happen loving, reflection and relating matter. he recent document “Religious as much in our very neighborhoods as In fact, they are all indispensable. One Tplurality and Christian self-under- in “mission fields” or other exotic loca- error is to concentrate solely on theo- standing”1 reminds us of the most tions. logical and doctrinal analysis. Anyone prominent challenge the Christian who has lived in multifaith environ- While Christian theology has always Church faces in the beginning of the ments knows from experience that paid some attention to theological third millennium: people of faith meet at the personal issues regarding interfaith encounters, level, which may foster mutual under- Today Christians in almost particularly during times of heightened standing, coexistence, and the feeling of all parts of the world live in tensions—such as those in North Africa neighborhood—or misunderstanding, religiously plural societies. Per- with Islam in the seventh century, or suspicion, and even conflict. Another sistent plurality and its impact when new opportunities were looming error, similarly critical, is to bracket on their daily lives are forcing large such as with the neo-Hindu out all theological issues for the sake of them to seek new and adequate Reform’s interest in Christ in nine- alleged “dialogue”—be it the doctrine of ways of understanding and teenth-century India—only in recent the Trinity in relation to Muslims, the relating to peoples of other reli- decades has this topic risen to the center question of the ultimate religious end in gious traditions ... of reflection. Religious plurality is not relation to Hindus, or the issue of human only a sociological, cultural, and politi- All religious communities are personality/self in relation to Buddhists. cal challenge, as much as it is all of that; being reshaped by new encoun- This mistaken approach can also take it is also a deeply theological issue: “Our ters and relationships.... There the form of focusing exclusively on reli- theological understanding of religious is greater awareness of the inter- gious collaboration in sociopolitical and plurality begins with our faith in the one dependence of human life, and ecological improvement to the exclusion God who created all things, the living of the need to collaborate across of any doctrinal conversations. God present and active in all creation religious barriers in dealing from the beginning. The Bible testifies As we attempt a balanced approach, with the pressing problems of to God as God of all nations and peoples, it is necessary to seek out resources the world. All religious tradi- whose love and compassion includes all at various levels of interfaith encoun- tions, therefore, are challenged humankind.”2 ters. Naming them levels of “dialogue,” to contribute to the emergence Stanley J. Samartha of India distin- of a global community that Technically called Christian theology guishes (1) dialogue of life, in which would live in mutual respect of religions, this discipline attempts to participants are more concerned with and peace. account theologically for the meaning issues that pertain to daily living and and value of other religions, particu- While not a new challenge—just think common values; (2) dialogue of action, larly in missionary and other encounter of the calling of our forefather Abraham which involves common work for justice situations. Theology of religions is the from the polytheistic Ur of the Chaldees and shared concerns such as HIV/AIDS Christian Church’s reflection on the or the walk of St. Paul around the altar and the cause of the poor; (3) dialogue of meaning of living with people of other to the “unknown god” in Athens—the experience, which concerns daily spiri- faiths and the relationship of Christian- intensity and urgency of the interfaith tual experience and expressions; and ity to other religions. challenge today is unprecedented. (4) dialogue of experts, which is interested Whereas in the past, other religions Theology of religions, however, is more in theology and philosophy of the faith were “out there,” in today’s world—with than theology and doctrine. It has every- traditions.3 All these levels feed both mass communication, increased migra- thing to do with our attitudes, mindset, mutual understanding and a missionary tion, and sophisticated technology, as love, ability to relate to the Other, and encounter.

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 3 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM The Diversity of Christian whom Christ died, and who in some of expressing this principle of the “par- Responses way or another were already “turning” ticularity of salvation” is John 14:6: “I am While all Christian churches today to the God of the Bible by following the the way and the truth and the life. No acknowledge the urgency and challenge light given in the structure of their own one comes to the Father except through of interfaith issues, Christian theology religion, and trying as best as they could me.” The way one negotiates this seem- does not speak in a uniform way. In to follow moral precepts. ingly simple dialectic has everything to order to properly orient the discussion, do with one’s theology of religions. The exclusivist option, in one form it is useful to map out the kaleidoscopic or another, has been by far the most The biblical materials concerning the diversity of views across ecclesiastical tra- common view among Christians and early church’s view of other religions ditions and theological persuasions. This missionaries throughout Christian and other gods are scarce. What can makes the theology of religions discourse history. It was not until the advent of be said safely is that the first church also an intra-Christian ecumenical con- modernity in the eighteenth century that adopted the Jewish monotheism (based versation and learning process. serious doubts were targeted against that on Deut. 6:4) and held to the universal- confidence. Currently, the conservative ity of God’s person and nature, as well segment of Christianity most strongly as the common origin and destiny of all sticks with the traditional exclusivist LOOKING BACK AT HISTORY people (Acts 17:28). At the same time, an position. From the perspective of the intensive, intentional evangelization of “…there have not been (at least whole worldwide Christian church today, all people is evident, both toward Jews to my knowledge) any self- though, the largest group of Christians and Gentiles. pronounced “pluralists” among belong to the inclusivist camp, because Christian theologians before the that is the official position of the Roman The dynamic tension between the dark time of the Enlightenment—even Catholic Church as defined by Vatican picture of humanity in Romans 1 and universalists such as Origen Council II in the 1960s. Differently from the affirmation of the relative value of attributed the salvation of all to Pluralism, that view is strongly Chris- religiosity in Paul’s Athens address in the purposes of the Christian tocentric in its insistence that salvation Acts 17 brings home the complex nature God, the only God. But neither is can be found only in Christ. At the same of the continuity and discontinuity with it that a more inclusivist attitude time, unlike exclusivism, inclusivism regard to (other) religions. Early Chris- has not existed all through his- opens the door of salvation to many who tian theology followed this dynamic line. tory.” never heard the gospel. While pluralis- While taking for granted the superior- An Introduction to the Theology of tic forces are vocal in the academia and ity of the Christian faith and the need Religions: Biblical, Historical, and among the specialists, pluralism has not to proclaim Christ as the only Savior, Contemporary Perspectives, gained much following among ordinary at times the Fathers showed a limited by Veli-Matti Kärkäinnen believers and clergy, let alone mission- openness towards other religions, and aries. Among the mainline Protestants often welcomed non-Christian philo- and Anglicans, a negotiation is under sophical insights. This dynamic is aptly The most common way of trying to way between traditional exclusivism and illustrated in the title of a recent book make sense of the maze of Christian (Catholic-type) inclusivism. by the Canadian Baptist Clark Pinnock, responses to other religions is the three- A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of fold typology of exclusivism, pluralism, The Dynamic Tension Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (1992) and inclusivism. Exclusivists hold that Without unduly simplifying a complex and elaborated by the late Jesuit mis- salvation is available only in Jesus Christ set of issues, it can be said that the main sionary theologian Jacques Dupuis in and that a personal response of faith question of theology of religions cul- his discussion of the implications of is necessary. On the other end of the minates in the negotiation of two basic Romans 1 and Acts 17: spectrum, for pluralists other religions biblical affirmations. The first is the foun- are legitimate means of salvation. In dational biblical teaching according to Discontinuity places the stress the pluralistic mindset, there is a rough which God “wants all men [and women] on the radical newness of Christ parity between religions, and therefore, to be saved and to come to a knowledge and his resurrection and by there are many ways to God, more or of the truth” (1 Tim 2:3). A number of contrast sees the ancient world less equal. The mediating group, Inclu- biblical passages such as John 3:16 speak as darkness and sin. That is the sivists, hold that while salvation can of God’s universal love and desire not viewpoint of Rom 1. The continu- only be found in Christ, its benefits have to forsake anyone. Balancing this prin- ity, on the contrary, underlines the been made universally available even to ciple of the “optimism of salvation” is homogeneity of salvation unfold- those who have not heard the gospel. In another equally strong biblical convic- ing according to God’s plan. It is other words, the inclusivist view main- tion, namely, that “Salvation is found in the viewpoint of Acts 17, which, tains that among the saved there might no one else, for there is no other name where the religion of gentiles be a great number of people from other under heaven given to men by which we is concerned, presents a Greek faiths who never heard of Christ but for must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Another way world waiting for the unknown

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 4 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM God and prepared by its poet- the Father does, the Son and Spirit are though they had never yet received theologians to meet him.4 involved as well, and vice versa. God’s (special) revelation. Trinitarian Faith as the Christian Similarly failing are approaches to “Salvation Belongs to God” Criterion other religions and mission that have a Theology of religions discourse has The most foundational tenet of faith for tendency to minimize the church and tended to focus too much on the all Christian churches is the trinitarian speak only of the Kingdom of God and question of the access to salvation of confession of Father, Son, and Spirit. the building of the Kingdom as the only people in other faiths. On the one hand, The one God of the Old Testament, goal. That is to fail to recognize the fact the pluralistic views tend to compromise Yahweh, is the Father of Jesus Christ who that the Kingdom, the rule of God, is the uniqueness of the offer of salvation came to save us in the power of the Spirit. in itself a trinitarian process: The Son in Christ by making all faiths legitimate As much as the confession of the Triune comes in the power of the Spirit to usher avenues of salvation. This is a statement God may be a stumbling block to inter- in the Father’s righteous rule, graciously in conflict with both Christian and other faith encounters, particularly with our allowing the community “instituted” by religions’ convictions. Christian tradi-

Making Jesus merely an ethical teacher (as in classical liberalism) or only one “incarnation” among others (as in extreme pluralism)——an embodiment of the Deity, a.k.a. Hindu avataras——truncates not only the confession of the Trinity but also the biblical understanding of Christ.

Muslim brothers and sisters, that con- Christ and “constituted” by the Spirit tion has always attributed salvation only fession cannot be compromised even for (Orthodox John Zizioulas)—the People to Christ. Followers of other religions the sake of dialogue. At the same time, it of God, the Body of Christ, the Temple of would be offended to hear Christians doesn’t have to be the first topic to be dis- the Spirit—to participate in its coming. tell them that their own faith does not cussed, either! Of course, the Kingdom is far wider offer any unique vision of salvation. On than the church; but the church serves the other hand, the impression from Trinity determines the Christian view of as the sign, anticipation, and tool of the exclusivism is that there is a tendency Christ as well. Only when Christ is con- coming rule of God. to open up the door of salvation as fessed as truly divine and truly human, little as possible. This works against the following the ancient symbols (creeds) of If the Triune God is the Creator of the all-embracing love of the Father, the all- faith confessed by all Christian churches, world, it means that, on the one hand, penetrating presence of the Spirit, and can the Christian doctrine of the Trinity there is some kind of preliminary knowl- the universal salvific effects of the Son. be maintained. Making Jesus merely an edge and awareness of God among all ethical teacher (as in classical liberal- people who have been created in the The Christian Church has not been ism) or only one “incarnation” among image of God and that, on the other hand, given the “keys” to unlock the Book of others (as in extreme pluralism)—an all such knowledge, rather than being a Life to know—let alone determine— embodiment of the Deity, a.k.a. Hindu human invention, has its source in the who will be saved and who not. “It is ... avataras—truncates not only the confes- God of the Bible. As the early apologist humility that enables us to say that sal- sion of the Trinity but also the biblical Justin Martyr taught us, the “seeds” of vation belongs to God, God only. We do understanding of Christ. the Logos (the Word), as a result of the not possess salvation; we participate in it. Spirit’s universal presence, can be found We do not offer salvation; we witness to Many problems in theologies of religions in all cultures and religions. The human it. We do not decide who would be saved; derive from a less than satisfactory con- being as the image of God is “open” to we leave it to the providence of God. For ception of the Trinity. A typical pitfall receive revelation wherever truth—even our own salvation is an everlasting ‘hos- is the pluralistic “theocentric” effort to partial and in broken form—can be pitality’ that God has extended to us. It is replace Jesus as the Way for the more found in the world and religions. God who is the ‘host’ of salvation.”5 elusive concept of God at the “center” to whom many “ways” lead. In a healthy This is not to minimize the necessity of The Church has been given a simple trinitarian faith, Father and Son presup- God’s full self-revelation in Christ, com- twofold message, namely, that Jesus is pose each other and can never be set in municated to the peoples of the world the Savior and that the Church is sent opposition. A similarly appealing error through the missionary proclamation of even to the ends of the earth to preach is the turn to the “Spirit,” which hopes the gospel. On the contrary, it is to give the gospel of Christ. Let the Church be to get around the centrality of Jesus and glory to the Triune God who has already faithful in that belief and mission. Father and makes the work of the Spirit made preparations for the announce- “Othering” with Grace and Courage independent from that of Father and ment of salvation in Christ. The Bible Borrowing from the biblical scholar Son. According to classic trinitarian faith, contains numerous examples of “pagan Walter Brueggemann, I make the term the works of the Trinity in the world (ad saints” who knew something—at times, “other” a verb to remind us of the impor- extra) are indivisible: in everything that even quite a lot—about God even tance of seeing the religious Other not as

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 5 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM a counter-object but rather as “the risky, a view to inviting people of other faiths to and catechesis.” The document stresses demanding, dynamic process of relating submit their lives to the God of the Bible. that “Proclamation and dialogue are to one that is not us.”6 In the “dialogue of At the same time, the Christian receives a thus both viewed, each in its own place, life” and “of experience,” what matters twofold gift, namely, learning about the as component elements and authentic is the capacity to listen to the distinctive Other and at times learning more about forms of the one evangelizing mission testimony of the Other, to patiently wait one’s own faith in the mirror of another of the Church. They are both oriented upon the Other, and make for him or faith. This is what the Roman Catholic towards the communication of salvific her a safe space. Similarly, that kind of Gavin D’Costa calls the Holy Spirit’s truth.”9 In other words, interfaith encounter gives the Christian an oppor- “invitation for mutual engagement.”7 dialogue includes and makes space for tunity to share the distinctive testimony both proclamation, with a view to per- With this in mind, Christians, along with of the love of God. In order for that kind suasion by the power of truth and love, representatives of other faiths of good of mindset and attitude to evolve, Chris- and dialogue, with a view to facilitating will, should do their best to help govern- tian churches and congregations should mutual understanding, reconciliation, ments and other authorities to secure a be encouraged and empowered to initiate and harmony. safe, noncoercive place for adherents patient training and education with of religions to present their testimonies For the representatives of those religions regard to issues such as the following: without fear. The late missionary bishop that are missionary by nature, such as • Raising the awareness and Lesslie Newbigin reminded us of the fact Christianity and Islam, any dialogue importance of interfaith engage- that while for Christians the gospel is a engagement also provides a legitimate ment, which means venturing “public truth,” it has nothing to do with opportunity to try to persuade the outside one’s own safety zone a desire to return to the Christendom other parties of the supremacy of one’s and making oneself vulnerable model in which the state seeks to enforce own beliefs. Bishop Newbigin tirelessly beliefs. That should be unacceptable to reminded us that Christian faith—or • Helping deal graciously and in a all religions. In a truly pluralistic society, any other missionary faith—that is not determined way with our fears of decision for beliefs can never be a matter eager and willing to share its deepest the Other, which often include of power-based enforcement. When convictions in the hope of being able not only the generic fear of the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, to convince the Other, does not really “stranger” but also the tendency Sikhs, Confucians, and followers of believe in the truthfulness and value of to “demonize” others’ religion other faiths can without fear and threat its faith! and beliefs meet each other in a free “marketplace” In order for the dialogue to be meaning- • Facilitating the study of another of beliefs and ideologies, genuinely mis- ful it takes both commitment to one’s religion in order to gain a more sionary encounters are also possible. own beliefs and openness to listen care- accurate portrayal of other A powerful metaphor that has been fully to the Other. A true dialogue does persons’ beliefs and sensitivities, adopted by many contemporary dis- not mean giving up one’s truth claims but including the capacity to interpret courses on interfaith encounters is that rather entails patient and painstaking the meaning of rites and rituals of “hospitality,” a concept well repre- investigation of real differences and sim- An important aspect in the process sented in the biblical canon as well ilarities. The purpose of the dialogue is of “othering” is to resist the tendency, as in various cultural contexts. The not necessarily to soften the differences so prevalent in secular societies of the above-cited ecumenical document among religions, but rather to clarify global North and in many forms of “Religious plurality and Christian self- both similarities and differences as well religious pluralisms, to draw the Other understanding” reminds us that “In the as issues of potential convergence and under one’s own world-explanation and New Testament, the incarnation of the impasse. A successful, fruitful dialogue thus deny the existence and possibility Word of God is spoken of by St. Paul in often ends up in mutual affirmation of of genuine differences among religions. terms of hospitality and of a life turned differences, different viewpoints, and It is an act of insult rather than a sign of towards the ‘other’ [Phil. 2:6-8].”8 varying interpretations. tolerance to tell the believer of another Dialogue, Mission, and Tolerance The contemporary secular mindset often faith that against his or her own self- The recent Catholic interreligious mistakenly confuses tolerance for lack understanding no real differences exist document titled “Dialogue and Procla- of commitment to any belief or opinion. in beliefs, doctrines, and ultimate ends. mation” encapsulates in a few pregnant That is to misunderstand the meaning When the Other is allowed to be Other in sentences a holistic understanding by of the term tolerance. Deriving from the his or her own distinctive way, a genuine listing the principal elements of mission Latin term meaning “to bear a burden,” interfaith encounter has the potential of in terms of Christian “presence and tolerance is needed when real differ- facilitating both the receiving and giving witness; commitment to social develop- ences are allowed. Tolerance means of gifts. One of the Christian gifts is the ment and human liberation; liturgical patient and painstaking sharing, listen- sharing of an authentic, personal testi- life, prayer and contemplation; interreli- ing, and comparing notes—as well as the mony to Christ, the Lord and Savior, with gious dialogue; and finally, proclamation willingness to respectfully and lovingly

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 6 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM make space for continuing differences. from a different perspective. Kärkkäinen noting. First, to truly know and assess a delineated the “what” and “why” of inter- human being and her actions, one must A religiously pluralistic environment faith dialogue; I would like to explore consider what she loves. Second, while and society call for tolerance that makes the “how.” In particular, I would like to she is known and assessed by what she room for differences and facilitates explore the “how” from an Augustin- loves, if she is a Christian, her love is mutual missionary enterprises, as long ian perspective, considering the role the formed and transformed by God, the as those arise from the self-understand- Church and its worship might have in object of her love, through her worship ing of each religion. interfaith dialogue. Augustine is hardly of him. Endnotes ever evoked in interfaith dialogue, but For many of us, interfaith dialogue is a close, creative reading of him can 1 “Religious plurality and Christian self-under- primarily viewed as a rational tussle. We actually afford fecund resources for standing,” #2, 3. http://bit.ly/religiousplurality are oriented by the desire to demonstrate engaging in it. 2 “Religious plurality and Christian self-under- our beliefs. We think that by demonstrat- standing,” #27. Augustine believed that human beings ing how our beliefs are consistent, we 3 Stanley J. Samartha, One Christ, Many are fundamentally lovers. They are show how they are true, and conversely, Religions: Towards a Revised Christology (Mary- always loving and being oriented by the by demonstrating how our interlocu- knoll, NY: Orbis, 1991), 88. things that they love; God created them tor’s beliefs are inconsistent, we show 4 Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology this way. The opening lines of his Con- how they are false. But the focus here is of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, fessions highlight this: “You have made solely on the logic of beliefs. While this 1997), 50. us for yourself and our hearts are restless logical tussle is indispensable, I wonder 5 “Religious plurality and Christian self-under- until they find rest in you.” (1.1). Because if it misses something necessary for standing,” #47. God created human beings in this 6 Walter Brueggemann, The Covenanted Self: way, Augustine argued, their whole life Explorations in Law and Covenant (Minneapo- should thus be understood within the lis: Augsburg Fortress, 1999), 1. framework of love. What human beings 7 Gavin D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions and pursue and attempt to acquire should the Trinity (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000), be understood in light of the object of 109-17. their love (First Letter of John, 5.7-8). Thus, 8 “Religious plurality and Christian self-under- the believer should be understood and standing,” #27. assessed by her love for God and the 9 “Dialogue and Proclamation,” by the Pon- unbeliever by her love for herself. Indeed, tifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue there are two “kinds of love” (On Genesis, (May 19, 1991), #2. http://bit.ly/pontificalcoun- 11.15) and both of these loves lead to dif- cil (accessed 4/4/2009). ferent courses of action. In turn, these two courses of action lead to two differ- This article is used with permission of the author, ent ways of being in the world, or “cities,” and will be printed in Theology News and Notes as Augustine called them: the “city of in Summer 2010. God” and the “city of man.”

Like his understanding of the human any real dialogue. What if Augustine is Response: person, Augustine’s understanding of right and we are fundamentally lovers? Kyle David Bennett the church was very dynamic and robust. What if who we are and what we do is He believed that the church participates intimately linked with our love and The Authenticity of in salvation and has a role in forming its object of worship? Can we really be Worship: An Augustinian the love of its members. This led him to understood and our faith assessed apart Response and refer to the church as the mater fidelium, from this worship? Conversely, can we Contribution the mother of believers. What he meant really understand and assess the faith of by this is that God the Father uses the another apart from their worship? What n his essay, Kärkkäinen provides us church to nurture believers in salvation, if to truly understand another faith not Iwith a concise introduction to the like a mother nurtures her child (Sermons, only requires us to examine its beliefs. basic language, categories, and prin- 216.7.7). God does this through its worship. but to observe or, even more disturb- ciples of interfaith dialogue. In addition Where the church is gathered in love for ingly, experience its worship?1 to providing an argument for interfaith Christ, worshipping him in the power If the church of Jesus Christ is a sign dialogue, he helpfully provides us with of the Spirit, God’s eschatological reign of the “coming rule of God,” as Kärk- a theological foundation on which the is present, transforming believers and käinen rightly notes, then we should discussion can take place. In this essay, their love. He refines their love with his always be mindful that it is a witness to I would like to take the conversation own (City of God, 10.3.2). Two important the truthfulness of God’s self-disclosure further by looking at interfaith dialogue concepts are implied here that are worth

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 7 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM KYLE DAVID BENNETT is a PhD student at 1 and claim on reality in the person and Fuller Seminary specializing in systematic theology dimension has been shortchanged” work of Jesus Christ. We often forget and philosophy. His research interests include theo- in this context, and the same is true by that the church is a work of God. The logical anthropology, ecclesiology, aesthetics, political extension to the development of the- triune God is the creator and redeemer philosophy, theology and culture, and philosophical ologies of religions. Further defining issues in theology and science. of all things, and the church is a testi- his topic, Muck suggests an interesting mony to this. Similarly, we often forget alternative to interreligious dialogue “as Endnote that God meets us in our worship. The an emotion or attitude toward people 1 Experience does not necessarily imply par- triune God is eschatologically present in of other religious traditions.”2 He later ticipation. There is a passive and active aspect our midst, through our worship, and he quotes Stanley Samartha in this regard, to experience. Here, I am primarily sug- himself testifies to his reality. We know who states that “Dialogue is a mood, a gesting the passive aspect. That is, more of a he is real because he comes to us and we spirit, an attitude of love and respect spectation than a participation. That being experience him. If indeed this is the case, towards neighbors of other faiths. It said, however, participation should not be shouldn’t we invite others to church regards partners as persons, not sta- disregarded. Of course, there may be some in order to experience his presence? tistics.”3 Emotional considerations observances and practices of worship that the Shouldn’t we invite them to taste and surely play a part in the development of Christian should not engage in and, in fact, theologies of religions, but a more con- see that he is good (Psalm 34:8)? While boldly reject. But a wholesale abstinence from scious awareness of this phenomenon it may be terrifyingly uncomfortable, and rejection of all observances and practices is needed. Theologies and apologetic perhaps sometimes interfaith dialogue of worship is hardly justified. is more properly carried out by singing responses to new religions, for example, hymns in a sanctuary, listening to the have tended to be formed with negative Torah read in the synagogue, or praying and defensive attitudes as evangelicals at the mosque than sitting at Starbucks Response: have sought to define and defend theo- arguing over the problem of evil. Not John W. Morehead logical boundaries against concerns over that the latter is insignificant, only that heresy and its possible intrusion into the from an Augustinian perspective, it is Supplemental Reflections church. While the influence of negative merely one part of understanding and on Theologies of Religions emotions in this context is perhaps understandable, the adoption of more assessing faith. eli-Matti Kärkkäinen has shared positive emotional attitudes toward his helpful thoughts on theology of If our worship reveals who we truly V those in the new religions, indeed a dia- religions as one of the pressing issues are, perhaps it’s time for us to invite logical attitude of love and respect, might for Christians in the West in the twenty- our interfaith interlocutors to church provide for the development and imple- first century. In addition to the reasons to see us as we truly are and, even mentation of more promising theologies he cites for the necessity of this topic, more importantly, experience God’s of religions and engagement. presence in our fellowship and worship. we might also consider that our post- Conversely, perhaps it’s time for us to 9/11 environment, fueled many times Moving from emotional considerations attend their worship. This does not by religious contributions to tension to the cognitive, Kärkkäinen includes a mean that interfaith dialogue should be and violence, adds additional urgency discussion of Christian responses to the ecclesio-centric—only that it should be to this venture. In this article I will religions with the familiar typology of ecclesio-considerate. As evangelicals, this provide supplemental reflections on Dr. exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. should hardly be strange for us. For if we Kärkkäinen’s overall thesis. Protestant But continued focus on these issues may believe that our faith is a personal rela- evangelicalism has given recent evidence limit consideration of other important tionship with Jesus Christ, then some of promise in developing theologies of aspects of theologies of religions that aspect of our dialogue should include religions through the work of several could help move the discussion forward. Amos Yong suggests that these catego- the opportunity for our interlocutor scholars—only a few of which can be sampled as especially significant in this ries “may have outworn their usefulness to experience this relationship in and article. Space limitations preclude an and are no longer viable.”4 Instead, he through our worship, where our savior extensive response on this topic, so what has set forth a pneumatological theology promises to meet us (Matthew 18:20). If follows should be considered a summary of religions with a focus on the Spirit.5 true dialogue entails “patient and pains- introduction to additional points for Yong defines this as a theology in three taking investigation of real differences consideration. ways, as one that “completes and fills out and similarities,” as Kärkkäinen rightly the Christian doctrine of the Trinity,”6 notes, then an Augustinian contribu- Before venturing into discussion of and as one that may be uniquely suited tion to interfaith dialogue emphasizes rational considerations related to the- to address areas “where previous that an investigation of real differences ologies of religions it is important to approaches have fallen short.”7 To this and similarities warrants at least some consider the significance of emotional end Yong writes: reference to worship, where all of us are aspects. Writing on the subject of inter- authentically ourselves and the object of religious dialogue and evangelism, Terry I will argue that precisely because our love is manifested. Muck has stated that “[t]he affective the Spirit is both universal and

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 8 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM BOOK REVIEW The Future of Christian Learning: An Evangelical and Catholic Dialogue Mark A. Noll and James Turner, edited by Thomas Albert Howard, Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2008. Book Review by Donald Westbrook Donald Westbrook is a PhD student in the School of Religion at Claremont Graduate University, studying American religious history. He holds an MA in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary (2009) and BA in Philosophy from the University of California, Berkeley (2006).

razos Press recently published scholar or the scholarship?” (122). Is Ban impressive collection of there a difference between evangelicals essays by evangelical historian and Catholics on the subject? Mark Noll and Catholic historian Of course, Noll and Turner cannot speak James Turner entitled The Future for all evangelicals and Catholics, but of Christian Learning: An Evangeli- their responses reveal something sig- cal and Catholic Dialogue (Grand nificant about how their respective Rapids: Brazos Press, 2008). Since scholarly traditions tend to perceive tum (faith seeking understanding), this is a journal about interfaith the nature of Christian learning. Turner which finds Biblical precedent and, dialogue, it might seem odd to comes down sharply on the side of for Turner, is also an embodiment of review an exchange between an scholarship: “The identifiably ‘Christian’ the often ecumenical tenor of the evangelical and Catholic——in other scholar——identifiable, that is, by her Second Vatican Council. words, an ecumenical book. After scholarly works——must have somehow all, it is not uncommon to associate, Even though the Noll-Turner been molded by Christianity but need even identify, interfaith dialogue dialogue is an example of intra-faith no longer believe in it” (126). Noll, on with interreligious dialogue. But it is or ecumenical scholarship, it might the other hand, comes down decidedly important to remember that inter- also have latent implications for on the side of the faith of the scholar. In faith dialogue can include ecumeni- understanding evangelical interfaith fact, much of Noll’s first essay develops cal conversation as well, even if that dialogue in its interreligious form. the idea that evangelical Christian is not always its primary focus. In Instead of asking Turner’s question learning ought to be dependent on con- other words, interfaith dialogue can “Does the adjective ‘Christian’ in formity to theological orthodoxy——what take both an “inter-” and “intra-” the phrase ‘Christian learning’ refer he calls “real Christianity” (27-64). Noll form, and the Noll-Turner exchange to the scholar or the scholarship?” writes: “Christian learning worthy of is an example of the latter. (122), we might ask: “Does the the name must be as genuinely Chris- adjective ‘evangelical’ in the phrase Thomas A. Howard, who teaches tian as genuinely learned. Here I take ‘evangelical interfaith dialogue’ refer history at Gordon College and edited ‘real Christianity’ to mean a Trinitarian to the scholar or the scholarship?” the volume, introduces the exchange understanding of God, and also of the If Noll’s sense of “real Christianity” by explaining that it began as an in- world as fully understandable only in is any indication, it suggests that person dialogue between Noll and relation to the Trinity” (28). theological orthodoxy and an evan- Turner, both of whom now teach at Despite methodological differences, gelical commitment to the gospel Notre Dame. The main subject of Noll and Turner seem to appreciate the are central rather than peripheral, the dialogue is a joint exploration sheer value of evangelicals and Catho- non-negotiable rather than ines- of the state of “Christian learning” lics conversing on a topic of shared sig- sential. Yet, in the case of interre- in higher education at evangelical nificance. Noll even expresses “marvel” ligious dialogue, this unwavering and Catholic colleges and universi- that Catholics and evangelicals are orthodoxy should not be part of a ties (16). What do evangelicals and “[...] actually talking to and with each bait-and-switch evangelical agenda, Catholics think about the nature other about issues of mutual intellec- lest it become inauthentic or, worse, and object of “Christian learning”? tual concern” (137). Noll and Turner unbiblical. Many of us hope this As Turner aptly puts it, “Does the both realize that interfaith dialogue is balance of orthodoxy and authen- adjective ‘Christian’ in the phrase more than mere scholarly activity; it is ticity will be the future of evangeli- ‘Christian learning’ refer to the an example of fides quaerens intellec- cal interfaith dialogue.

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 9 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM 6 Beyond the Impasse, 20. particular, both the Spirit of God This divine dramatic process is also one 7 Ibid., 21. and the Spirit of Jesus the Christ, in which Christians perform their faith 8 Ibid. that pneumatology provides the while engaged with other “actors” from 9 Amos Yong, Hospitality & the Other: Pentecost, kind of relational framework other religious traditions. This process is Christian Practices, and the Neighbor (Mary- wherein the radical alterity—oth- then connected to a “performative pneu- knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008). erness—of the religions can be matological theology of religions”11 that 10 Hospitality & the Other, 54. taken seriously even within the involves neighborliness and hospitality. 11 Ibid., 57. task of Christian theology. The In this context, Christians engage those result, perhaps, is the emergence of other religions as aliens and strang-

of a new set of categories that may ers, and in so doing follow the example Response: chart a new way forward. of Jesus, who both represented and Evelyne A. Reisacher offered the eschatological hospitality of The third aspect of Yong’s definition of a pneumatological theology of reli- God. The incorporation of hospitality A Timely Contribution gions touches on soteriological issues, in theologies of religions will provide n his paper, my colleague Veli-Matti which he believes provide a “different, important aspects of engagement and Kärkkäinen addresses what he calls and perhaps broader framework”8 for humility to the theologizing process. I “the most prominent challenge the Chris- consideration, particularly in connec- Kärkkäinen has provided a helpful tian church faces in the beginning of the tion with ecclesiology. Yong’s thesis overview of various considerations third millennium,” which is the impact provides us with an important and related to the development of theologies on daily life of “persistent plurality.” The largely neglected facet in the develop- of religions, considerations that need use of the word “persistent,” which he ment of a theology of religions, and one to be related to interreligious dialogue. borrowed from the document “Religious that can open up new research trajecto- While these considerations are helpful, plurality and Christian self-understand- ries through a robust trinitarianism that additional supplemental reflections that ing,” is worth underlining. I am not sure not only involves Christological consid- take into account emotional attitudes all Christians living in multi-religious erations, but also focuses on the work of toward those of other religions, the contexts where Christianity was histori- the Spirit in creation and among human work of the Spirit in cultures and the cally dominant have come to terms with cultures and their religions. religions, and the importance of hospi- the fact that their society has irreversibly This leads to my final consideration tality toward neighbors will benefit the changed, and that they must now turn that supplements Kärkkäinen’s discus- church’s doctrine and praxis in this area. to the Bible for resources on pluralistic sion of theologies of religions, and that JOHN W. MOREHEAD is the director of the contexts they may have overlooked in is a theology of hospitality in relation Western Institute for Intercultural Studies and the the past. to those in other religions. Here Yong facilitator of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization’s issue group on post-Christendom It may seem easier for some Christians is again helpful9 as he builds on his spiritualities. He is involved in interreligious to tolerate or advocate for a plural society pneumatological perspective, drawing dialogue in various contexts, including Evangelical- as long as it is not in their backyard. In upon the interconnections and impor- Mormon and Christian-Pagan. The latter can be other words, from their perspective, tant practices of exclusivist, inclusivist, found in Philip Johnson and Gus diZerega, Beyond the Burning Times: A Pagan and Christian in foreign religions can be given a tourist and pluralist theologies of religions to Dialogue (Lion, 2009), edited by John Morehead. visa but should not take residency; create a theology of hospitality. An likewise, foreign countries should all important aspect of this is consideration Endnotes make sure they protect Christians’ rights. of “theology as dramatic performance,”10 1 Terry Muck, ”Interreligious Dialogue and Consider, for instance, the recent ban on wherein Christians participate in the Evangelism,” Buddhist-Christian Studies 17 the minarets in Switzerland and on full divine drama in the unfolding scriptural (1997): 139-51. Electronic version cited from veiling in public in France and Belgium. narrative. Other scholars such as N. T. http://apologiagospelcom.net/mainpages/ When Islam was practiced silently Wright and Nicholas Lash have argued WhatsNews/Muck/MuckArt.html, down- behind closed doors, it did not seem to similarly, and have suggested that Chris- loaded 4/19/2005 and no longer available at challenge churches as much as when tians should enter into the process of this URL. Muslims made their faith public. Most interpreting and living out the Scrip- 2 Ibid. churches in Europe have better learned tures just as actors work out parts in a 3 Ibid. to navigate the waters of secularism than play and musicians interpret music. God 4 Amos Yong, Beyond the Impasse: Toward a those of plural religious societies. has written the story that continues to Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Grand unfold in history, and we are privileged to Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003). At the same time, we should not ignore play a part. In this way theology, includ- 5 In addition to Beyond the Impasse, see Yong’s the apprehension and difficulties of ing theology of religions, is not merely a discussion of this thesis in “The Spirit bears those who daily share the same space cognitive function, but is also a dynamic witness: pneumatology, truth, and the reli- with other religions. As they see other way of living the faith as part of God’s gions,” Scottish Journal of Theology 57:1 (2004): faiths around them flourish, they unfolding narrative of the missio Dei. 14-38. imagine a scenario similar to the one in

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 10 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM which Christianity lost ground to Islam but be encouraged to put greater effort that theology of religions is less useful in the Middle East or North Africa over towards relationship building with than solving daily social problems in a millennium ago. They fear the worst people from other faiths, and adjust their multi-religious contexts. Kärk- for their own communities. A growing their attitudes when those drift away käinen’s paper, however, illustrates that number of Christians I meet in European from biblical principles due to the fierce- it can be a great addition to whatever churches are now adopting the “eye for ness of debates and polemics. else is done. I would also add that it is an eye” or “tooth for a tooth” approach. useful as long as the theology addresses Kärkkäinen’s paper provides a number They refuse to accommodate the needs the concrete problems of believers at of good suggestions to help exclusiv- of believers from other religions as the grassroots level. They must gain ists, and others, to improve, if necessary, long as Christians in the countries they a biblical understanding of how God their skills in “othering,” “hospitality,” come from are restricted from the same sees other religions and be able to draw and “holistic understanding” of mission. privileges. The prospect of successful implications for their daily encounters Exclusivists will certainly welcome his plurality grows tainted by feelings of fear with people from other faiths. exhortations to love their neighbors. But and threat. in their case, since the problem is not the I noticed this gap between experts and Therefore, I believe Kärkkäinen’s paper neighbor so much as it is his/her religion, laypeople when I was at the Festival is a timely contribution to the much- they should theologically explore how of Sacred Music in Fes, Morocco, a needed conversation that should take to manage the impact of religious differ- few years ago. There were two kinds place not just in seminaries but also in ences on social relations. For example, of events during the weeklong festival. every place where Christians gather to those who believe their values are more One was for people with tickets who pray and read the Word of God. I would excellent than those of other religions had some experience in crossing reli- add that although there are differences may have to reflect on the impact this gious boundaries through art, and who

A growing number of Christians I meet … refuse to accommodate the needs of believers from other religions … The prospect of successful plurality grows tainted by feelings of fear and threat. in the way plurality is managed around has on the religious Other. Likewise, listened graciously and often with much the world, those who have recently been people who consider the religious Other enthusiasm to music from different exposed to it should learn from churches saved only through a personal commit- religions. The other was free and open in places like Malaysia, Indonesia, and ment to Christ must decide whether to everyone and only music from one Lebanon, who have lived for centuries in the latter are just candidates for conver- faith, in this case Islam, was played. The pluralistic societies. And as Kärkkäinen sion, or perhaps could become personal majority of the people at the grassroots points out, instead of looking only at friends. Finally, if the neighbors of level only attended the second event. social, cultural and political challenges, another faith do not accept Christ, are The organizers may have been aware Christians must not forget the theo- they automatically put in the category that without some preparation and edu- logical challenges and resources these of the “forever-Other” from whom one cation in interfaith relations, the process churches have to offer. has to stay away? Forgive my hyperbolic of “othering” through music cannot take statements and broad generalizations. place. This made me think of the local Exclusivists, one of the three categories My sole intention here is to encourage church, and how often we put high of Christians that Kärkkäinen describes mission-minded Christians, like me, to expectations on believers who fail to mix in his paper, may find a pluralistic world explore with greater diligence biblical with people from other faiths in order a greater challenge because of the con- resources that combine both witness and to be salt and light. They may not be flicts and divisions that arise from the shalom in a pluralistic context. ready, like the crowds in Fes, to join the differences they see between them and multi-religious concert; and yet, in most the religious Other. Does this mean that Sometimes theologians and scholars cases, they are forced to experience the the world would be easier to share with who study people from other faiths find plurality because of the transformation inclusivists or pluralists? It would cer- it easier to deal with these issues. Chris- of our societies. How can we assist them tainly harbor less polemics and fewer tian believers at the grassroots level may at all levels of engagement? How can we theologically fueled conflicts, and other feel more vulnerable to the challenges provide them with a biblical foundation faiths may feel more welcomed. Some of a pluralistic society because they rub of interfaith relations? readers may conclude that convinc- shoulders with the religious other in day- ing exclusivists to abandon their views to-day life, which is far different from It is not enough to equip grassroots would be a quick fix for interfaith rela- academic exercises. Christians who live exclusivists with information and practi- tions. I instead suggest that exclusivists as a minority in their country or in their cal tools to proclaim the gospel to people be allowed to keep their convictions neighborhood may be inclined to think from other faiths. It is not enough to help

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 11 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM The Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910 by Matthew Krabill

At the beginning of the twentieth cen- theology of fulfillment were missionaries As delegates from around the world meet tury, the Christian Church in the West working in Islamic and primal religious this year for Edinburgh 2010, they are was boundlessly optimistic and confi- contexts. Primal religionists did not move faced with different kinds of questions. dent about the conversion of the world closer to accepting Christianity by first Here are some to consider: to Christianity. On the other hand, the becoming Muslims or Hindus; in fact the 1. How do we understand mission in re- Church faced tremendous challenges and opposite was the case. Conversely, adher- ligiously pluralistic contexts today? crisis in its missionary lands.1 According ents of “higher” Vedic forms of Hinduism And how has the concept of mission to historian Andrew Walls, the Edinburgh were not converting en masse because of been shaped by our understanding of Missionary Conference of 1910 was: their supposed elevated position on the other religious faiths and our relation- 6 a landmark in the history of mis- scale of religious development. In fact ship with people of those faiths?11 sion; the starting point of the it was “superstitious” Hindus of the lower 2. Given the fact that religious plural- modern theology of mission; the castes that found the gospel message the ism is part and parcel of the historic high point of the modern Western most attractive. foundation and lived experience of missionary movement and the One of the more significant changes dur- many non-Western societies, what high point from which it declined; ing the last 100 years has been a gradual can churches in the West learn from the launch-pad of the modern shift toward a de-territorialized under- those in the non-West about witness ecumenical movement; the point 7 standing of Christian faith. Perhaps most and dialogue? What can churches in at which Christians first began important is that the center of gravity the non-West gain from these same to glimpse something of what a in the Christian world has shifted south- discussions in the West? 2 world church would be like. ward, from its Western heartlands in the 3. If interfaith dialogue is part of the Among the eight commissions formed at U.S. and Europe to Africa, Asia, and Latin mission of the Church, how can dia- the conference, two of them——Commission America. It should also be noted that of logue allow for Christians to witness I and Commission IV——had “non-Christian” the 1,215 delegates at the 1910 conference, to their deepest convictions, while in the titles. But it is Commission IV that 500 were British, another 500 American, at the same time ensure that they dealt most specifically with the problem of and 170 from continental Europe. There listen humbly and appreciatively to studying the presentation of the Christian were even fewer delegates from the so- those of our neighbors? message to the minds of non-Christian called younger churches of India, China, peoples.3 Though plagued by a Western and Japan. There was one participant Endnotes optimism and a victorious spirit, the com- from Africa, and none from Latin America. 1 Brian Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans mission’s efforts represent one of the ear- And no one was invited from the Roman Publishing, 2009), 16. liest and most serious empirical works on Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. 2 Andrew F. Walls, The Cross-Cultural Process in other faiths. Lastly, the participants were overwhelm- Christian History (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books), Because the dominant theology of reli- ingly male, despite the fact that women 53. gions at Edinburgh was “fulfillment the- were making a significant contribution 3 Stanley, The World Missionary Conference, 235. 8 ology,” the commission conceived of its to the missionary movement. Without Stanley reports that a questionnaire containing eleven questions was distributed to missionar- primary task as the humble enquiry into a doubt, the participants at Edinburgh ies working among non-Christians around the held a Christendom outlook that viewed identification of “points of contact” in world, and 187 responses were received. non-Christian religions, using them to the success of Christian mission as the 4 Stanley, World Missionary Conference, 212. draw adherents of other faiths toward the conquest of non-Christians via the expan- 5 Stanley, World Missionary Conference, 213. full revelation of truth found in Christ.4 sion of territory of the Christian nations 9 6 Stanley, World Missionary Conference, 247. As a result, the report was structured in throughout the globe. 7 “Report 2 on Study Theme 2: Christian Mis- five sections, beginning with animistic A second significant change in the past sion Among Other Faiths,” http://www.edin- religions, followed by Chinese religions, century has been the forces of globaliza- burgh2010.org/en/study-themes/2-christian- Japanese religions, Islam, and then Hindu- tion——including migration, urbanization, mission-among-other-faiths.html, 39-41. ism. Not coincidentally, the structure of advanced technology and communication 8 Dana L. Robert, Christian Mission: How Christi- the report assumed an implicit hierarchy systems——which have contributed to the anity Became a World Religion (West Sussex, UK: of sophistication and value, with animism creation of multicultural societies charac- Blackwell, 2009), 118-119. occupying the bottom rung and Hinduism terized by religious pluralism. As such, the 9 “Report 2 Theme 2,” 39. 5 the top. “non-Christian” is no longer “out-there,” 10 “Report 2 Theme 2,” 40-45. Those who were least persuaded by the but one who lives with and among us.10 11 Adapted from “Report 2 Theme 2,” 55.

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 12 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM them understand other religions better. tion in such a way that it compromises en’s position paper. However, though I It is not enough to encourage them to the latter; exclusivism (which I prefer am not wholly in favor of exclusivism, love their neighbors. All of this must be to label “particularism”) stresses the Kärkkäinen’s tendency to lean inclusive combined with a careful monitoring of latter assertion such that it qualifies the raises some issues for both a theology the divide that their theological views former; and inclusivism straddles the of religions and the Christian attitude and resulting actions creates between two assertions. Kärkkäinen seems to toward interfaith dialogue. them and the religious Other. They favor the middle option of inclusivism. First, Kärkkäinen agrees with the must be able to differentiate between the Now, all three positions can (or should) statement that “our theological under- unavoidable tensions that the proclama- agree with Kärkkäinen’s admonition standing of religious plurality begins tion of the gospel generates in interfaith that we ought to listen to the Other with with our faith in the one God who relations and their potential misunder- patience and understanding. As Kärk- standings of God’s perspective on other käinen insists, all three can (or should) religions. It is here that theological support the right of all to preach and reflection conducted at the grassroots practice their religious faith. And all level is most valuable. three can (or should) support the Chris- Evelyne A. Reisacher is assistant professor of Islamic tian attempt to evangelize with both Studies and Intercultural Relations at Fuller Theo- logical Seminary. Before coming to Fuller, she sincere dialogue and proclamation—to worked at an organization called L’Ami for 20 years, engage in mission with openness and facilitating the relationship between churches and commitment, as Kärkkäinen puts it. North African immigrants in France and training Christians in various parts of the world to witness It would be nice if all three positions cross-culturally. Reisacher assisted in securing the could agree with Kärkkäinen’s insistence “Conflict Transformation: Creating Collaboration that we must allow the Other to be the and Reducing Conflict in Muslim-Christian Rela- tions” grant for Fuller. She was also a participant Other. That is, we must not minimize or at the workshop and conference discussions of the deny real differences between religions. Common Word Conference held at Yale Divinity To suggest that we are all just saying School in 2008. the same thing or pointing to the same reality with different cultural concep- created all things… .” While it is true that tions is pretentious and does violence humans made in God’s image possess a Response: to the integrity of the Other’s religion. sensus divinitatis, and while it is certainly Dennis Okholm Sadly, pluralists (such as John Hick) are true that God is the God of all nations often guilty of such imperialism. and peoples, God is this God through Raising Issues in the the particularity of the people of Israel Discussion of Pluralism It seems, then, that Kärkkäinen would reject the pluralist approach and narrow and the faithful Israelite, Jesus Christ. nterfaith dialogue and the issue our options to inclusivism and particular- In other words, Kärkkäinen’s beginning Iof pluralism are crucial today, if for ism, for he ultimately rejects a pluralistic point is not specifically Christian; that no other reason than the survival of theocentrism (with which he seems to specificity comes later in his paper. It many people may depend on getting it begin). I applaud him when he insists would be better to begin a Christian right. So I applaud many of the points on the non-negotiability of the Christian understanding of religious plurality that Kärkkäinen makes in his position confession of Christ’s full divinity and not with our faith or with “the one God paper, beginning with his insistence humanity and of the Incarnation, the who created” (who could be the God that doctrine and theology should not trinitarian nature of the establishment of of Deism, for instance), but with the be trivialized nor made the sole focus in God’s Kingdom, and the indispensable faithfulness of the God who has dis- closed himself in Jesus Christ. In other our discussions with advocates of other role of the church toward the Kingdom’s words, if we begin where Kärkkäinen faith traditions. completion. In other words, Kärkkäinen suggests, then we might start with the can insist that salvation belongs only to There is much else to appreciate in what wrongheaded assumption that the Deist, our God and that the church’s role is to Kärkkäinen puts forth. He acknowl- Muslim, and Christian are entering into proclaim this to and for all, which we are edges the two biblical assertions that the dialogue with the same conception to do as persuasive witnesses who speak must somehow dance with each other— of God. We must come to the table not the language of testimony. We are not that God desires all to be saved and that merely with a faith in the Creator God, to argue the case like a defense attorney, salvation is found only in Jesus Christ. but as a people shaped by the Redeemer nor as judges who decide the case for The way in which one juxtaposes these God through whom we rightly under- the world, nor as mere reporters who try assertions yields the three “classical” stand the identity of the Creator. to get the facts right. positions that Kärkkäinen enumerates: Second, the Christian must also come pluralism emphasizes the former asser- All of the above I applaud in Kärkkäin-

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 13 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM to the table with a conviction about the handful believed (v. 34), and in the rest of interfaith dialogue not with a pluralistic noetic effects of sin (a conviction that Acts and Paul’s epistles we never hear of a theocentrism, but with an unswerving Kärkkäinen implies he acknowledges church in Athens. As a result, I have never commitment to the God revealed in Jesus from Romans 1). That is, we cannot be understood why we want to lift this up as Christ, the allegiance to whom does not as optimistic as some are about the con- an example of the way we should engage preclude genuine dialogue, but actually ception of God that is assumed to be other religious perspectives by begin- opens up dialogue with those with universal. As Paul argues in Romans 1, ning with some general conception of a whom we differ. Such a commitment to it is not simply that people are without “god unknown” (or, as Stanley Hauerwas the Christ of the Gospels actually miti- excuse because they have known God labels it in Prayers Plainly Spoken, “the gates any attitudinal exclusivism on the through creation, but rather they distort god of ultimate vagueness”). part of those claiming to follow a Christ that knowledge and actually end up who permits no smug self-righteousness, In fact, Luke’s account of the (literal) worshipping a conception of the crea- triumphalism, or indifference. The more riot that the Christian gospel caused in ture’s mind rather than the Creator. we are committed to confessing the God Ephesus when it came into contention (Compare Paul’s point in 2:14-16.) Does revealed by the Christ of the Gospels, with another religion (the cult of Diana; this mean that those without the special the more we are committed as a com- see Acts 19) and Paul’s reprimand of revelation of Christ and Scripture are munity to a faith that stresses service the syncretistic faith of some Colossian

This brings us back to the start——beginning a “theology of religions” and interfaith dialogue not with a pluralistic theocentrism, but with an unswerving commitment to the God revealed in Jesus Christ, the allegiance to whom does not preclude genuine dialogue, but actually opens up dialogue with those with whom we differ.

in a hopeless situation? Not necessarily, Christians (Col 2:8-23) does not bode to the members on society’s margins, since a sovereign God has the preroga- well for an optimistic encounter with moves outward in mission, and respects tive of self-disclosing to whomever, the “pagan saints” of which Kärkkäinen the freedom of the Other to reject our whenever, and wherever God chooses. believes there are “numerous biblical proclamation, just as Christ’s opponents But that would seem to be the exception. examples.” In fact, it would be helpful if were free to crucify him. In fact, taking Romans 1 seriously, it may Kärkkäinen provided a parenthetical list Dennis Okholm has an MDiv and an MA (Church be more likely than not that other reli- of these examples, since I suspect most History) from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School gions tend away from rather than toward of the ones that turn out well (i.e., who and a ThM and PhD in Systematic Theology from the God revealed in Jesus Christ. end up knowing “quite a lot about God”) Princeton Theological Seminary. He is a professor of theology at Azusa Pacific University (Azusa, CA) and are actually recipients of some form of This leads to a third concern I have with is also on the pastoral staff of St. Andrews Presbyte- special revelation. rian Church (Newport Beach). He has participated Kärkkäinen’s “theology of religions.” I am in several interfaith discussions over the years, and not as sure as he is that Scripture explic- Finally, I take issue with Kärkkäinen in the past two years he has been involved in dialogue itly portrays “pagan saints” who know when he admonishes the contemporary with academic peers in the Mormon church. “quite a lot about God even without special secular mindset for confusing toler- revelation.” For instance, Kärkkäinen ance with the lack of commitment to appeals twice to Paul’s engagement any belief or opinion. He bases this on Response: with the Areopagus in Athens as an the etymology of the word “tolerance,” Robert S. Covolo example of how the early church dealt about which he is correct. It did mean with the “dynamic tension between the “to bear a burden” (or to bear pain or Making the Difficult dark picture of humanity in Romans 1 hardship), but if we took a poll, I believe Simple and the affirmation of the relative value we would find that that is not how the eli-Matti Kärkkäinen is a leading of religiosity” that involves the “complex word is used or understood by our con- expert who demonstrates a broad nature of the continuity and discontinu- temporaries. Instead, when folks today V understanding of the various theologies ity with regard to (other) religions.” Paul’s say we should “tolerate” each other’s of religion and has judiciously provided approach in Acts 17 is often held up as religious or political views, they usually a user-friendly introduction for a very the stellar example of a kind of interfaith mean something like this: “I’ll put up difficult field. As such, his essay has dialogue in the New Testament. But I with you if you’ll put up with me.” And a deceptively simple quality. In what think this passage can be taken in just the that is far less than what is demanded follows, I shall tease out the complexities opposite way—namely, as Luke’s account of the Christian who is commanded to behind two of his points, complexities of of the meager results from the one time love and to be a neighbor to anyone who which Kärkkäinen is well aware. This, that Paul did not begin with the particu- crosses her path. in turn, will further display his contri- larity of the God revealed in Israel and in This brings us back to the start— bution behind his carefully outlined Jesus Christ. Luke indicates that only a beginning a “theology of religions” and introduction to the field.

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 14 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM Kärkkäinen’s appeal to the categories a way to organize the approaches to the agency (Father initiating, Son actual- of exclusivism, inclusivism, and plural- broader issue of the “dynamic tension” izing, Spirit perfecting) within every ism is not without awareness of their in the scriptural witness regarding other act?5 Or does one allow for a reading of limitations. He has stated elsewhere that religions. Moreover, beginning with Augustine’s rule that understands (ad while such categories serve pedagogical these categories allows him to retrace the extra) the distinct work of one member purposes, they are problematic in that movement of the discipline of theology as inhering with the others without they reduce a theology of religions to of religions itself. Where early discus- concern for a distinct mode of agency? a purely soteriological focus, ignoring sions centered almost purely on these These alternative readings play into how other important and equally relevant categories, the relatively fledgling field one recognizes and develops the place 1 issues. Kärkkäinen is equally aware that has broadened beyond these issues and Christology or pneumatology might play these terms can at times be pejorative gone on to include thinking about the within a trinitarian theology of religions. and misleading, particularly when it religions through explicitly theological comes to classifying contemporary theo- categories (Christological, pneumato- These difficulties are not meant to logians of religions (Kärkkäinen, 166). logical, trinitarian, etc.). undermine Kärkkäinen’s statement of Gavin D’Costa and Amos Yong are two the value of a trinitarian approach, but A second commendable point is Kärk- contemporary theologians in the field to underscore the need for more work käinen’s insistence that we keep a strong who would eschew the characteriza- in synthesizing a uniquely trinitarian trinitarian criteria—not only for being tions of the complexity of their approach faithful to the Christian claim, but also and evangelical theology of religions. through these categories.2 As missiolo- for the purpose of avoiding abuses that Kärkkäinen is well aware of the need for gists have noted, our very approach to inevitably center on one theological such a synthesis, stating elsewhere his these (and all theoretical) categories loci in separation from the others. Yet desire someday to attempt his own trini- is never culturally neutral, and there- 6 once again we should not be fooled. For tarian theology of religions. Until then, fore we must not appropriate them in a as Kärkkäinen has demonstrated at Kärkkäinen is correct in his assertion way that ignores the philosophical and length elsewhere, invoking a trinitarian that one can still appeal to the impor- cultural implications behind them. approach to the theology of religions tance of a trinitarian rubric in order to Paul Hiebert’s classic discussion of is no panacea.4 Not only can one find guard against abuses. After all, creedal bounded sets highlights this concept.3 trinitarian approaches that fit all three statements receive the most immedi- As he points out, we must not simply aforementioned categories (exclusivism, ate traction when used to identify the assume categories are bounded sets. inclusivism, pluralism), one likewise finds limits of orthodoxy. It is an entirely dif- Although such an approach serves the a vast disagreement between the differ- ferent chore to construct a detailed and purpose of maintaining clear distinc- ent approaches. Theological projects as definitive statement that resolves the tions between groups, it equally blinds diverse as that of Barth, Rahner, and Hick boundaries of creedal statements into a us to the complex and unique move- all claim a trinitarian basis, yet could be definitive whole. Thus, we see Kärkkäin- ments intrinsic to each item within such seen to fall into the respective exclusivist, en’s wisdom in focusing his comments groupings. Hiebert would also warn that inclusivist, and pluralist camps. Likewise, on a trinitarian criteria for a truly Chris- although we might want to backload uniquely distinct projects such as those tian theology of religions. these categories with theoretical assump- of Pannenberg, Pinnock, D’Costa, and tions about how they can operate, the Dupuis could all be labeled an inclusiv- Robert S. Covolo is a PhD candidate studying discipline of the theology of religions ist trinitarian approach, although they theology and culture at Fuller Theological can never be reduced to simply applying disagree with each other on significant Seminary. He is a licensed minister with the Grace Brethren Fellowship and has served static (bounded) theoretical containers in points. This shows how important it is as an adjunct professor in theology and New which to put the various approaches, reli- that one carefully unpack the logic built Testament at Talbot School of Theology. gions, theologians, etc. The implications into the particular appropriation of a for such an approach, particularly as trinitarian framework, which is some- Endnotes played out in applying a theology of reli- thing Kärkkäinen has done at length in 1 Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to the Theology of gions to interfaith work, would be fraught previous scholarship. Religions, 165. with reductions and characterizations. 2 Gavin D’Costa, Christianity and the World One of the most important issues for Religions, 34; Amos Yong, Beyond the Impasse, Although Kärkkäinen is fully aware of just such an approach involves one’s 27. the limitations within these categories, understanding of Augustine’s rule of 3 Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on he is still right to begin with them. First, thumb—that the external works of the Missiological Issues, 111 ff.) as an evangelical, he is deeply concerned Trinity are undivided (opera Trinitatis 4 Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Religious Pluralism, with the euangelion and, therefore, can ad extra sunt indivisa). Does one take, as 2004. never discard the centrality of the sote- Robert Jensen does, a more Cappado- 5 Jensen, Systematic Theology: The Triune God, riological focus that these categories cian view of a perfect mutuality in each 110-111. emphasize. More so, as Kärkkäinen member’s undividedness, thus each 6 Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Religious Pluralism, notes, these categories are to be seen as equally exercising its distinct mode of 164.

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 15 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM Founded in 1971, the InterSem experience provides opportunities for Jewish and Christian seminarians to build relation- ships by engaging in dialogue designed to increase understanding and appreciation among the participants.

Praxis: Jennifer Rosner Intersem 2010: Strange Rituals n an article entitled “Salvation is from the Jews,” the late The second significant experience came during the final IRichard John Neuhaus wrote the following with regard to dialogue session. My dialogue group was discussing the role of Jewish-Christian dialogue: “I suggest that we would not be the Torah scroll in Jewish worship services and the Eucharist wrong to believe that this dialogue, so closely linked to the in Catholic worship services. Members of the group were com- American experience, is an essential part of the unfolding of menting on how both the Torah and the host are deeply revered the story of the world.” The rivalrous and troubled tale of these sacred objects, and how the elevation of the object serves as a two religions has been a constant thread in the history of the climactic moment within the worship service. This alone was West, and the need for dialogue and mutual understanding an important moment of connection and mutual understand- is as urgent as it has ever been. The tumultuous events of the ing, but the conversation went one step deeper as we realized twentieth century have yielded a new chapter in the relation- together the underlying relationship between the Torah scroll ship between Christians and Jews, one that holds great promise and the host. for healing, reconciliation, and redemptive partnership. For Jews, the Torah is the living word through which God has As an institution committed to cultural engagement and a revealed the pattern of faithful living to the people of Israel. As global approach to education and spiritual formation, Fuller the Torah is placed back into the ark, Jews recite the words of Seminary places a premium on interfaith dialogue. Since 1971, Proverbs 3: “It is a tree of life to those who embrace it; those Intersem has been one of the rich opportunities afforded to who lay hold of it will be blessed. All its ways are pleasant ways Fuller students to engage in deep dialogue and meaningful and its paths are paths of peace.” Jesus too was the living Word relationship with Jewish (and Catholic) seminarians. of God, and through his incarnation Christians experience the full revelation of God in the world. The Torah scroll and the In my three years of attending and serving on the Intersem host function similarly because fundamentally they represent planning committee, I have grown and been challenged in the same thing. Jesus, whose body is mysteriously present in ways that will continue to profoundly shape me as a person and the host, is the living Torah. As we made this connection, I religious leader. Two particular moments from this most recent was reminded of the words of Jewish New Testament scholar Intersem retreat are etched into my mind as poignant instances Amy Jill Levine: “For far too long Jesus has been the wedge that of vulnerable encounter with the religious Other. drives Christians and Jews apart. I suggest that we can also see The first of these experiences came during the Protestant him as a bridge between us.” In this particular case, Jesus was worship service. As the celebrants were serving communion, indeed a bridge. an invitation was extended to the Jewish and Catholic partici- According to Diana Eck, one cannot ever fully understand their pants to come forward to receive a blessing—in this case, the own religion until they have studied the religion of others. May priestly blessing of Numbers 6:24-26. My eyes filled with tears as we embody this truth as we prepare for lives of service in the I watched my Jewish seminarian friends reach the front of the religious world. line. The Protestant celebrants laid hands on them and recited Jen Rosner is a PhD student at Fuller Theological the blessing that holds such great significance in the Jewish Seminary and adjunct professor at Azusa Pacific tradition. “May the Lord bless you and keep you; may the Lord University and Messianic Jewish Theological Insti- make his face shine upon you and be gracious unto you; may the tute. Her dissertation focuses on twentieth-century developments in the relationship between Judaism Lord lift up his face onto you and give you peace.” It seemed as and Christianity and is tentatively titled “Healing though this loving invocation of divine favor alone could undo the Schism: Barth, Rosenzweig and the New Jewish- in part the mutual acts of discord that litter the Judeo-Christian Christian Encounter.” Her scholarship stems from her past. In that moment, the words of 1 Peter 4:8 were powerfully own journey of seeking authentic expression for her faith in Yeshua (Jesus) in the context of the Judaism with which she was raised. actualized, for love indeed covered over a multitude of sins.

EVANGELICAL INTERFAITH DIALOGUE • SPRING 2010 • ISSUE 1.2 page 16 WWW.EVANGELICALINTERFAITH.COM