What I've been thinking about this Fall Semester

These are 4 briefs describing four different ways Christians can think about other religions...(Christian Theologies of Religions) which I had written throughout this semester for class.

I am posting them here for discussion purposes, so please...what do you think of them? is there one or none or more than one you connect or agree with? I have yet to write my own persuasive essay for the end of the semester paper, but that will be coming soon and I hope to grow from writing it.

The Total Replacement Model

Argument Synopsis

Most evangelicals would accept the total replacement model of theology in understanding people of other religions. In essence this model sees little to no value in other religions. It holds to the gospel message as the ultimate answer to all faith-lacking religions, including its own; Christianity.

Foundational Features

The Replacement Model conforms to Barthian theology of the inadequacy of religion while simultaneously revealing Christianity’s uniqueness and ability to go deeper than theology. Their unshakable ground consists of the Four Alones which describe how Christianity stands out among other religions; through grace, faith, Christ and scripture!

Strengths

The major strength of this model is that Christianity is broken down to its very core message which can be helpful to confused, seeking people. It is both humble in acknowledging the problems with religion in general but strongly convicted that Christianity is the only one saved by grace.

Problems

The major problem with this model is the overall attitude towards other religions. There is a lack of respect, which tends to divide rather than unite. So, its goal is not inter-religious dialogue but rather to foster “religious competition” causing negative views of God.

Implications for Applied Theology

The total replacement model sees no purpose engaging other religious people. If they do it’s to share the gospel but leave the rest up to God. However, the partial replacement branch off of this model has more potential for inter-faith dialogue due to their understanding that it is part of living out their faith.

Conclusion

I disagree with the replacement model’s argument. I do admire the fervor to share the gospel; however the interpretation of scripture is not holistic but taken out of context. And a group who is unwilling to listen or show enough decency to leave room for God’s revelation outside of their faith is un-Christian.

The Fulfillment Model

Argument Synopsis

According to the fulfillment model, non-Christian religions can be ways of salvation. In being faithfully Trinitarian, God’s saving grace can be realized through his Spirit in infinite ways by anyone. And it will work in ways consistent with Christ. God’s kingdom is greater than the Church; however there is no salvation without the Church.

Foundational Features

This model seeks balance between the universal side of God and the particular side of Jesus. And so Jesus does not need to be everyone’s efficient cause of salvation but will ultimately be the final cause. It is part of the church’s duty to be dialogical because Jesus is the fullest revelation of God’s saving grace.

Strengths

This model recognizes a greater openness and freedom that the trinity possesses. By engaging non-Christians out of belief that God’s grace and truth inhabit them as well, creates fruitful inter-faith dialogue. This position seeks genuine, two-way dialogue with others without forsaking the Church’s necessary presence in the world.

Problems

Even though the model seeks balance through the Holy Spirit working in other religions, Jesus’ particularity outweighs God’s universality. A problem within this theology is the risk of falling out of Christian tradition due to religious pluralism. The non-negotiable aspects of all religions must not become abolished or ignored with the fulfillment model.

Implications for Applied Theology

Sharing of the gospel is equally important as gaining new truths from other religions that do not contradict but enhance our biblically based revelations. This model challenges those who keep their Christian faith in isolation to embody the dialogical church we are called to be. Dialoguing fosters peaceful relations with making visible God’s reign on earth.

Conclusion

Pioneering catholic theologians have led the church throughout history as no other Christian church has previously done by exploring the universal side of God’s love to affirm the positive value in other religions. I agree with this model’s visionary attempts to balance limited human assumptions with God’s mystery and infinite nature.

The Acceptance Model

Argument Synopsis

The Acceptance model seeks to focus more on the real differences that exist between the religions rather than the deceivingly false universal similarities. Through diversity one can find unity of all religions. A high Christology is not compromised, but action prior to theology is the preferred chronology of dialogue.

Foundational Features

The “good neighbor” policy is the essential ground on which any dialogical relationship can begin, if both sides hope to find fulfillment with a greater awareness of the divine. An embracing of each religion’s particularities is fundamental in this model. Reason is required to step down for humility to compensate.

Strengths

The explanations for how the Trinity displays both God’s overarching plan of diversity in humans as well as the divine itself is stimulatingly though-provoking. And uniformly embracing each religion’s particularities shows the strength in this model’s capabilities of respect toward the other.

Problems

With the utter rejection of any common universals between religions there is less hope for a unified religious body in which all can feel an equal, legitimate part of its greater whole. Christians with the priority of conversion may be more apt to reject this because of their exclusivist position.

Implications for Applied Theology

An adherent to this mode will have the goal of friendship first. Having no agenda other than to listen and share. It is all simply an opportunity to learn, never to overcome certain boundaries to reach a comfortable commonality. Self-criticism is mandatory for creating that basis for a relational interaction.

Conclusion

Its insistence upon orthopraxy and orthodoxy among the religions makes it unique and fitting to its name. Its postmodern influence as well forms to our current globalizing world. I agree with the statement, “our unity is in our diversity” and that this model holds great potential for furthering inter-religious dialogue.

The Mutuality Model

Argument Synopsis

The three bridges of the Mutuality Model hope to convey in different languages how Christians, by altering their perception of Jesus, can be able to foster authentic dialogue with others. All religions share a mutual agenda to move from self-centeredness to other-centeredness. Inter-faith dialoguing can be modeled after the Trinity.

Foundational Features

This model upholds relationships and within Christianity focuses more on the Universality of the faith and Jesus to accomplish that. Approaching other religions on their own level, balancing our commonalities with the distinctive differences is essential. Religious differences do matter however they converge on the crucial doctrines of experience.

Strengths

Drawing upon personal experiences in the Mystical Bridge is a strong aspect of this model because of its ability to transcend doctrinal disputes and accentuate another part of all religions. Many can relate more to the Ethical-Practical Bridge because it allows for productivity outside of them, covertly opening meaningful dialogue.

Problems

Appearing to be pluralistic and relativistic is for some problematic. This model risks sounding contradictory in its claim to honor all religious differences while also claiming that all religions are not equal. Exclusivists from any religion will find little value in this model because of such sentiments.

Implications for Applied Theology

A healthy and natural type of dialoguing is foreseen with the Mutuality Model because it will take place most likely in comfortable environments where both practitioners are assumed equal and valuable to the “team”.

Conclusion

Again the philosophical, mystical and practical bridges that make up this model create a wide array of opportunity for dialoguing. Theologian Raimon Panikkar summarizes such complexity with simplifying the mutuality model down to a mystery in all religions, which is both transcendent and immanent.