Introduction
In
the context of interreligious dialogue, it is necessary to know the background,
culture, and worldview of others. Anthropology as a social science is a helpful
discipline that Christians can gain insight from it in terms of how to
communicate the gospel to others in a relevant way. However, in the
interreligious dialogue, being sensitive and relevant to others is not enough
because knowing others is not the end in itself.
From
a Christian standpoint, the end goal of interreligious dialogue is to preach
the eternal salvation of Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sin. In this
sense, anthropology is not enough to point out the theological aspect of
humanity. Anthropology can look at others from social, psychological, and
cultural perspectives. Nevertheless, it fails to access to others from a
theological perspective. In the interreligious dialogue, what we need is theological anthropology, not just
anthropology.
The Plight of Humanity: the Reality of
Sin
In
the context of postmodernity, people are often bound by the social dimension of
knowing. Absolute truth is fading away in our daily conversation. Any claims
related to absolute truth are interpreted as prejudice, narrow-mindedness,
domination, or oppression. In this context, the overarching narrative that
governs the moral value of humanity is missing. People end up looking at things
according to their subjectivity.
In
Losing Our Virtues: Why the Church Must
Recover Its Moral Vision[1],
David F. Wells notes that there is a radical shift in the postmodern culture.
There is a shift in our language when we discuss the concept of sin and the
problem of humanity. People no longer use the language of guilt, but the language of shame.
There is no guilt in our language. Rather, we talk about shame. We no longer
look at each other from a theological standpoint. We merely see each other as
social beings that whatever problems we have, they are social problems and can
be fixed by social sciences.
When
we understand sin as guilt in relation to God vertically, our sense of guilt
cannot be cancelled out by others,
except by the wholly Other. On the
contrary, when sin is understood as shame in relation to one another
horizontally, being shameful is situational. People may feel shameful in one
situation if their thoughts and behaviors are not acceptable. In another
situation, people may not be ashamed of their thoughts and behaviors because
what they think and act are not alien to others in that specific time and
space. David F. Wells writes:
Guilt is the
compass point that lines up our actions with the moral world in which we live.
Whether people know it or not, this world is a part of that moral reality whose
apex is the holiness of God and which is given verbal expression in the moral
codes of Scripture. Shame has to do with our location in our social world.[2]
In the postmodern context, there is no concept of guilt that arouses the wrath of God. In other words, sinful humans don’t need to ask for forgiveness of sins. They don’t need to be saved by grace through faith, for they don’t fall short of God’s glory. They are merely imperfect human beings, just like all humans. In this vein, what people need is acceptance, not correction and therapy, not salvation. When the language of guilt disappears, the language of atonement seems unnecessary. When human sin is understood as a social shame or a mere social problem, not a moral guilt, what people are saying is that the problem of humanity is disease, but not dis-ease. St. Augustine said, “I am restless until I rest in thee” (Confessions, Book I). He was talking about dis-ease in his heart, for his iniquities had separated him from God (Isa. 59:2). Such separation makes humanity restless. There is a sense of dis-ease when guilt is not dealt with, for guilt violates God’s moral law and his holiness. Rather, those who are situated and influenced by the postmodern spirit just feel shameful of their diseases. They just need comfort and acceptance from others.
In
the interreligious dialogue, Christians take the difference between disease and dis-ease seriously, for sin is a serious matter in Christian
theology. It is serious to a point where God’s wrath must be pacified because
of human sinfulness. That’s why “God put forward as a propitiation by his
blood, to be received by faith” (Rom. 3:25). Disease is something that can be healed temporarily by social
science or psychotherapy; dis-ease is
a life-long restlessness until God intervenes in the life of people through
Jesus Christ.
Theological
anthropology recognizes the plight of humanity—the reality and depth of sin. It
is the problem of sin that causes human restlessness. It is the reality of sin
that exposes the shortcoming of social science in which we gain insight about
humanity, but it fails to offer us a remedy to human problem. Theological
anthropology means that we look at each other as God looks at us. “None is
righteousness, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Rom.
3:10-11; also see Ps. 14:2-3). As Klaus Deltev Schulz notes, “In our
proclamation of the Gospel to others, we should thus take on the perspective of
God and see human beings as He does.”[3]
In
the interreligious dialogue, this missing element—the reality and depth of
sin—is a determining factor. Any religious dialogues that water down the
reality of sin are not Christian dialogue. Whenever we diminish the reality and
problem of sin as if social problems could be fixed by humans themselves, the
person and work of Jesus Christ is no longer understood in an absolute sense,
for Jesus Christ came for this very purpose—to save sinners from the bondage of
sin and bring them back to God (Matt. 1:21; 1 Pet. 3:18).
Paul Knitter’s Non-Normative Theocentric
Approach
In
No Other Names? A Critical Survey of
Christian Attitude toward the World Religions[4],
Paul Knitter engages in interreligious dialogue without the centrality of Jesus
Christ and his salvation in the midst of it. Knitter is a pluralist who
proposes a non-normative theocentric Christology, meaning that God, not Jesus
Christ, is the starting point in the dialogue with other religions. In other
words, the notion of God apart from Jesus Christ serves as the normative
standard in the interreligious dialogue (Jesus as the normative standard means
that Jesus Christ is the final and complete revelation of God. He is the norm
to measure and judge all other religions).
For
Knitter, there is a shift from the christo-centric approach to the theo-centric
one. Knitter’s non-normative theo-centric Christology indicates that a
Christian commits and is devoted to Jesus Christ as his savior. His conversion
to Jesus can be decisive for him, but Jesus is not the only savior. He is just one of the many. Knitter says that one’s
commitment to Christ does not lead to “any claim about Jesus’ superiority or
normativity over other religious figures.”[5]
Knitter’s
open-ended confessional non-normative Christology toward other religions does
open up space for dialogue and have an access to the divine mystery of others.
But this is not a Christian approach to the interreligious dialogue. Knitter’s
non-normative theo-centric approach explores the divine mystery apart from
Jesus Christ, who is the exact representation of God (Heb. 1:3). In the
interreligious dialogue, when we downplay the uniqueness of Jesus, we violate
the biblical confession of Jesus Christ as the only mediator between God and
humans (1 Tim. 2:5). In Christ, “the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”
(Col. 2:9). Who has seen Jesus has seen God the Father (Jn. 14:8-9).
The
theo-centric Christology emphasizes on the necessity of genuine dialogue by
de-emphasizing the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. On the one hand, Knitter talks
about the “uniqueness” of Jesus and the universal significance of what God has
done in Jesus. On the other hand, he proposes that Christians should be opened
for “the uniqueness and universal significance of what the divine mystery may
have revealed through others.”[6]
He summarizes his position as follows: “In boldly proclaiming that God has
indeed been defined in Jesus, Christians will also humbly admit that God has
not been confined to Jesus.”[7]
This is Knitter’s understanding of interreligious dialogue. But this is not
Christian understanding of it.
Knitter’s
open-ended confession in interreligious dialogue leads to confusion. The goal
of his approach is to have dialogue and accept other faiths, for the divine
mystery has not been confined to Jesus. For Christians, the goal of interfaith
dialogue is not only to create a path of dialogue (a point of contact), but
also to bring people to a saving religion that can only be found in Jesus
Christ (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12). Knitter’s non-normative theo-centric approach
suggests that “truly” (genuine dialogue) does not require “only” (Jesus is the only Savior). From a biblical
standpoint, “truly” must be understood in the light of the “only.”
Christian Response
Paul
Knitter has insights on creating space to have genuine dialogue with others,
but such a dialogue needs to have a firm position. Having a dialogue is not for
the sake of itself. Rather, there should be a genuine concern for the salvation
of others in genuine dialogue. Such genuine concern should shape the way
Christians carry a dialogue with others. Christians do not just convert others
without showing any genuine concerns. Rather, Christians witness Christ to
others through listening and proclaiming. We care others in dialogue for the
sake of their eternal destiny that can only be found in Jesus Christ. Without
this fundamental theological standpoint, any conversation is just “a two-part
monologue.” Klaus Detlev Schulz rightly comments:
The influences
of secularization and postmodernism on
Christians have led many church bodies to abandon the traditional goals
of conversion and Baptism and place in their stead the method of postmodern
“dialogue” in the sense of a conversation that has no goal of
salvation…Ultimately, this “dialogue” replaces Christian witness. It sees two
people witnessing to each other without any preconceived intentions of
converting the other. This is really a two-part monologue.[8]
In The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission, Lesslie Newbigin comments on proclaiming the gospel among others, saying that “the Christian mission rests upon a total’s unconditional commitment to Jesus Christ as the one in whom all authority inheres.”[9] Jesus is the supreme authority in our proclamation of the gospel among all other religions. Christian dialogue with other faiths is bound by the authority of the exalted Lord. Concerning the confession “Jesus is Lord”, Newbigin notes that “this confession implies a claim regarding the entire public life of mankind and the whole created world…The Christian mission is thus to act out in the whole life of the whole world the confession that Jesus is Lord of all.”[10] His authority always precedes Christian proclamation and witness in interreligious dialogue. The risen Lord said:
All authority in
heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And
behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Matt. 28:18-20).
Christians
take Jesus Christ seriously because sin is serious. Christians are serious
about the gospel because human sinfulness is serious. The gospel of Jesus
Christ offers an alternative to the therapeutic culture that, in Jesus Christ,
human guilt can be dealt with and cancelled out because of the saving work of
Jesus Christ on the cross. People can find true acceptance and forgiveness of
sin. By grace through faith, his righteousness can become our righteousness. In
Christ, we can talk about guilt with no shame. We can move from the self to
Christ, from sinfulness to holiness, and from brokenness to fullness (Jn.
10:10).
Christians
are not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for “it is the power of God for
salvation to everyone who believes” (see Rom. 1:16-17). In the interreligious
dialogue, to proclaim the gospel is to tell others explicitly that the reality
of sin arouses the wrath of God and violates his holiness (Rom. 1:18-3:20). The
solution for the plight of human sin is found in the righteousness of God
through faith in Jesus Christ. Those who repent and trust in him will be
redeemed, forgiven, and justified (Rom. 3:21-26).
Human
problems are not just disease (e.g.
social and psychological problems), but dis-ease.
Gospel communicators must point out that the root of this dis-ease is caused by the weightiness of sin and that Jesus Christ
died on the cross and rose on the third day to save humans from the bondage of
it and its eternal condemnation. In Doctrine:
What Christian Should Believe, Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears write,
“The cross is something done by you. You murdered God incarnate. The cross is
something done for you. God loves you and died to forgive you.”[11]
Humans are responsible for their dis-ease.
In Jesus Christ, God graciously puts restless humans at ease.
“There
is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given
among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
[1] David F. Wells, Losing Our Virtues: Why the Church Must
Recover Its Moral Vision (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
[2] Ibid., p. 131.
[3] Klaus Deltev Schulz, Mission from the Cross: The Lutheran
Theology of Mission (St. Louis: Concordia, 2009), p. 288.
[4] Paul Knitter, No Other Names? A Critical Survey of
Christian Attitude toward the World Religions (MaryKnoll: Orbis, 1985).
[5] Ibid., p. 203.
[6]
Ibid., pp. 203-204.
[7]
Ibid., p. 204.
[8]
Schulz, Mission from the Cross, p.
288.
[9] Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: An Introduction to the
Theology of Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 160.
[10]
Ibid., pp. 16-17.
[11] Mark Driscoll and Gerry
Breshears, Doctrine: What Christian
Should Believe (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), p. 276.
No comments:
Post a Comment