Salvation and the World’s Religions

One of the first hurdles that many Christians experience when they begin learning about and dialoguing with other religions is the question of salvation.  Often, salve this is because the framework that they have learned to use to interpret non-Christian religions is defined by two specific and overarching claims:  first, prescription belief in Jesus Christ (and baptism into that faith) is required for salvation; and second, and all Christians are called to share their faith with the hope of converting others to Christianity (the traditional, even if perhaps not quite accurate, interpretation of what is typically called “the Great Commission” in Matthew 28:16-20).  Consequently, immediate discomfort can result when Christians are asked to think more positively and constructively about another religion:  What does that mean for their own commitment to the Christian faith?  What does that mean for the exclusive claim about Jesus’ salvific action?   When looked at through the lens of salvation, interreligious dialogue can feel very threatening and uncomfortable, especially in the context of theological education.

Yet, there are some helpful means by which that anxiety might be reduced; and one of those means is through learning about the different possible answers to the question of salvation that already exist in the Christian tradition.  In other words, it is reassuring for Christians to be reminded that they are not the only ones struggling with this issue, and that the larger, broader Christian tradition actually offers many different ways of responding to its challenges.

Mary Hess, in her response to Chapter Three of my forthcoming book, Interreligious Learning and Teaching: A Christian Rationale for a Transformative Praxis, describes very well one approach that can provide this kind of help, suggesting a way of moving beyond the “either/or” mentality that many Christians have when it comes to other religions:  either you believe in Jesus Christ and are saved; or you don’t, and you’re not.  That approach is found in a very interesting, accessible book, Introducing Theologies of Religions, written by Paul Knitter.  In that text, Knitter describes and elaborates upon four different responses—all present within the Christian tradition—to the question of salvation and God’s broader activity in non-Christian religions.

Knitter titles these “models” as follows:  replacement, fulfillment, mutuality and acceptance; and readers familiar with his work will recognize that he is attempting to move beyond the “exclusive/inclusive/pluralistic” paradigm that dominated this kind of analysis for decades.  What Mary lifts up as particularly helpful in his analysis is the way in which he not only describes each response, but how he lifts up both insights and questions each different model raises.  As she says, “In doing so he offers an example of a stance of theological inquiry which invites deeper engagement, and which inevitably draws out student thinking in richer, more complex ways.”

Using Knitter’s own words, she offers the following summary of his analysis (these are direct quotations from his text, with accompanying page numbers).  Insights from the “Replacement Model” are as follows: the centrality of the scripture for Christian life (50); the reality of evil and the need for help (51); Jesus as the One and Only (53); and the caution to “beware of religion” in general (55).  Questions from this model are:  What to do when there is a clash between what the Bible says about other religions and what other religions say about themselves? (56); and If we grant that there are two sources for a Christian theology of religions –both the Bible and the dialogue with other religious believers – is it possible to understand this one-and-only language differently than have Christians in the past? (59).

Here are his insights from the “Fulfillment Model:” The existence of “truth and grace in other religions” (100); dialogue essential to Christian life (101); and the fact that there are nonnegotiables in all religions (102).  The questions from that model are:  Does the fulfillment model really allow dialogue? (103); Does commitment require certitude? (104); and How does Jesus save? (105).  These two models correspond roughly to what used to be called “exclusivist”—that is, no salvation outside the Christian church, and “inclusivist”—that is, God saves everyone, but through Jesus Christ, whether people confess Christ or not.

The last two models Knitter describes come out of what used to be called the “pluralist” camp, and they both recognize a more complex way of thinking about salvation that includes a more explicit, positive role for non-Christian belief and practice.  The first of these two models is the “Mutuality Model,” and Mary notes the following insights it suggests: The need for new answers (150); Jesus as sacrament (152)—“Jesus more as a sacrament of God’s love than as satisfaction for God’s justice” (152); a Spirit Christology (154); and a Christology of mutuality (156).  The questions from that model are: Does this represent either “a creeping imperialism” (157) or “a creeping relativism”? (162); and, Is it really Christian? (164). The last model is the “Acceptance Model,” which offers the following insights:  we are all inclusivists (216); the value of differences (219); and dialogue has the right-of-way to theology (222).  Finally, it suggests the following questions:  Is language a prism or a prison? (224); Can many salvations save our world? (229); Many absolutes = No absolute? (232); and Can comparative theology be “theology-free”? (235).

What Mary lifts up about Knitter’s analysis here is “the way in which Knitter works at theological inquiry. In addition to providing a respectful and non-judgmental entry point into each stance, he offers a set of compelling questions which, at least in my experience, have invited students to name their own engagement in these issues.”  In my view, it’s a helpful, constructive way of giving Christians the tools with which they can think critically about their own understanding about salvation, and engage different views with a lower-level of anxiety, not being so worried about taking the “wrong” stance.  If we know anything about the Christian tradition, we know Christians always have disagreed and debated important points of doctrine and practice—this activity is a part of what it means to be a faithful Christian, and we shouldn’t shy away from it, or be afraid of it.

Interreligious Learning and Teaching: A Christian Rationale for a Transformative Praxis is part of the Seminarium Elements book series.

Order today at fortresspress.com and Amazon.com.

Photo Credit: “Salvation_Mountain-1-4” by hmcharg. Licensed for reuse by CC BY-SA 2.0 license

[sociallocker] [/sociallocker]

Add to favorites