Relativity theory does not mean that nothing is stable; rather that everything is relative to an Absolute. Is there a theory of relativity for religious pluralism? Where is the Absolute? The current choices of exclusivism (Christianity is the only true religion) and inclusivism (outsiders may be implicit or anonymous Christians) both come down to the same old story of unquestioned Christian superiority. Now, the greatest danger to any religion is not its critics but its own fundamentalism. Such an uncritical acceptance of dogma makes for prejudice and arrogance, preventing one from “serving God with the mind.” But our Christian idea of God as Trinity includes many facets that allow a generous approach to other faiths.
The doctrine of Tri-unity involves a beautiful image, the process of mutual indwelling and delight, “dancing around” (perichorésis) each other. It was a dynamic doctrine, far from absolute dogma.
Augustine remarked that “the absolute transcendence of the supreme Trinity defies comparison … the answer is given ‘three persons,’ not because the phrases are adequate but because they are only an alternative to silence.” This echoes Anselm’s “three I know not what.” Remember Anselm’s definition? “That than which nothing greater can be conceived.” This is echoed in the Muslim Alla-u-Akbhar: “God is always greater.” Before this mystery, silence is sometimes better than speech, and prayer than doctrine.
Popular Christianity is guilty of a naive supernaturalism, in fact our worship smacks of heresy, as I’ve said before, thinking simply that “Jesus is God” and so “God is Jesus.” This ignores the subtlety of Trinitarian doctrine, which seeks the hidden Father through Jesus the Christ. It turns Jesus of Nazareth into pure deity, whereas Christian faith is based on the fact that he is “both truly human and truly divine;” with the human side always facing us as our access to God. This was a main feature of Reformed theology, Calvin’s in particular. If the Christ is not with us as elder brother we have no channel of grace to the God who is always greater than we can think or say.
In the old covenant, God’s Ten Words were housed in the covenant-ark, at the centre of the Most Holy, called “the Word-place.” In the New, God’s One Word is outside the box, free to be “present wherever He wills” as Luther phrased it. Surely the universal Word (God’s missionary) is busy doing His work of reconciliation wherever needed in this universe? Traditional theology was global, geared for what happens on our planet Earth. But last century the whole universe became our neighbourhood, with the possibility – some of us say probability – that there is intelligent life in other solar systems. And if there are, these “others” need revelation; if they have sinned they require redemption. Calvin called the universe “the theatre of God’s glory,” and surely it’s the universal Logos, or Spirit, that makes this true.
Here’s another spinoff from this doctrine of the universal Word. In the hot debates of the 16th-century Reformation, an important teaching emerged between Lutheran and Calvinist. The former emphasized the incarnate Christ lying in the manger, but Calvinists insisted that meanwhile the eternal Word or Logos remained in the godhead, ruling the universe. The Lutherans dubbed this added dimension “the Calvinist extra” (extra Calvinisticum). They thought it divided Logos, but our side agreed with Augustine that the Logos could be in Jesus the Christ truly but not wholly (totus, totum). Calvin writes, “We do not imagine that [the human nature] was an enclosure.” Indeed, the creeds themselves distinguished the Logos “enfleshed” from “unfleshed.” The former is limited to the incarnation in human flesh; the latter holds unlimited possibilities for whatever sort of revelation is required outside the Christian sphere. Our Presbyterian forebears called it “common grace” given to every person.
I like this idea because it means that for the Word of God there are no “others” or outsiders – not only religions outside Christianity but even extraterrestrial life outside our planet. The Logos or Spirit enlightens everyone (John 1:9), the Presence behind every genuine faith, however different from ours (see Living Faith 9.2.1). So the Logos is not only incarnate in Jesus, but also remains “discarnate,” able to relate wherever there is intelligent life in His vast universe. This wider role for Logos beyond his incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth moves us from traditional “global” theology to a properly “universal” one, suited for the 21st century. Otherwise our ideas remain limited, liable to severe correction in the future. And if Logos can relate to other life forms in the universe, how much more does he relate to those “others” in our little world?
Earlier, we noted how Christian mission has changed, adapting to pluralist society. We need to listen to sociology: for instance, if you are a McGregor born in Scotland, would you still be Presbyterian if you were a Sharma born in India? Theology must take account of such human factors. For one thing, we’re no longer privileged as a Western product, bringing culture and technology along with gospel. Other nations won’t allow us to proselytize. And – in part a strange by-product of our missions – other religions have become self-conscious about themselves and some, particularly Buddhism, are themselves missionary. And Hinduism has incorporated Jesus into its spirituality.
Therefore let us turn in humility to those others who have their own faith and works, and who resist our witness because they have their own story to tell us. Such open dialogue is the way ahead in our age of religious pluralism. The great Origen of Alexandria was to the East what Augustine was to the West. His daring speculative theology (even Satan will be converted in a future aeon) was condemned by the church. But a modern scholar has commented, “Origen was suspected of a great orthodoxy.” I believe that a greater Orthodoxy awaits us as we enter into dialogue with people of other faiths, without prejudice and without privilege, as equal partners in our common “exploration into God.” Surely dialogue is the new face of mission, and mission means God’s own Mission, enlightening every human being on our little planet and beyond through His universal Word.
God is always greater!
Online Study Guide for December
1. Current debate on religious pluralism is called “exclusivism” vs “Inclusivism.” Christianity is either absolutely unique, excluding all other religious experience as false, or it includes the others as implicit or “anonymous” Christians. Is there a third way to describe God’s relation to other religions?
2. What do you think “person” means in the Trinity? The ancient formula was “three persons in one substance.” In those days “person” meant a kind of mask, as in the theatre where one “spoke through” (per-sona) a mask.
3. See Living Faith 9.2.1 – do you agree that the Spirit is “the author of all truth” so that other religions speak the truth about God even from a different perspective? If so, then our mission is “to point to life in Christ” like beggars telling others where there is food – an excellent image from Daniel T. Niles, a great modern missionary.
4. What should we learn from the Lutheran-Calvinist debate about the incarnation of the Word? Each side is making a valid point about this basic doctrine. Are they both correct? See David Willis, Calvin’s Catholic Christology (1988), and J.C. McLelland, “The Extra-Calvinisticum,” in Pluralism Without Relativism (2008) pp. 169-71.
5. The 19th century was called “the Christian century” when the missionary movement was expected to convert most of the world. Today missions takes a variety of forms – find out some of these from the inserts to the Record or in Glad Tidings. How do these missionary acts relate to the old goal of simple conversion?
