Faith, Hope and Love

Gaston

• Publisher: SCM Press
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9780334054610
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religious Ecumenism & Interfaith

Often Christian interfaith engagement has been viewed through the lense of theology of religions where the primary questions are often about the salvific destiny of people of other faiths. 'Faith, Hope and Love' offers an alternative approach asking how do Christian interfaith practitioners live out their discipleship in a multi-faith world? And what, theologically, is being expressed in their activity? Demonstrating a new and innovative approach to interfaith engagement, this book argues for theological reflection on the multi faith reality of our society to focus on the practice of Christian interfaith engagement, drawing on the methodology of practical theology to explore the impact of encounter on Christian self-understanding. It suggests that other faith traditions are no longer a theological problem to be solved or people to be 'saved' but a potential 'means of grace' in which the Christian disciple learns more about God and grows in their relationship with Christ.

1

Faith, Hope and Love

Pedagogy for Interfaith Engagement

Introduction

Exploring Theology of Religions

The threefold typology1 proposed in Alan Race’s Christians and Religious Pluralism has had many critics but has stood the test of time, as demonstrated at a recent conference held to reflect on its ongoing relevance.2 Many still find it a helpful heuristic tool in approaching the engagement of Christians with other faith traditions. Race’s three categories all have their contemporary proponents:3 exclusivism, where there is no salvific efficacy in other faith traditions; inclusivism, where either other traditions can point one towards salvation in Christ or Christ works in those traditions to bring salvation; and pluralism, where all traditions that help people move from self-centredness to God or reality-centredness have genuine salvific efficacy. Although others have sought to expand the typology,4 they remain committed to its value. However, the typology and theology of religions in general, with its focus on the salvific efficacy of the other, often descends into acrimonious theological contestation within intra-Christian exploration. I will argue that although the typology has had a long track record in academic theology of religions, it is not particularly well known within the Church. My experience of working with ordinands at an ecumenical theological college and among congregations is that the vast majority have never encountered the typology and are unaware of its categories. However, many come to exploration of Christianity and interfaith engagement with real experience of engaging with people of other faith traditions. The typology is therefore, it will be argued, a useful pedagogical tool to enable reflection on attitudes to other faith traditions, and can be used to encourage intra-Christian theological engagement. I will seek to counter the claim that it necessarily has a pluralist bias, showing that although Race’s original presentation had such a focus, others have used the typology to assert the positive nature of exclusivisms and inclusivisms alike. However, the critique of the typology – that it encourages the construction of fixed positions that drive an unhelpful theological contestation over the possibility of constructive theological dialogue – will be taken more seriously. Drawing on a brief comment by Michael Barnes in his Theology and the Dialogue of Religions,5 I will outline how I have encouraged using the typology as a way for Christians to explore their practice in relation to other faith traditions and how this practice-orientated reflection encourages an affirmation of the value of each of the typology’s categories and the necessity for intra-Christian dialogue. This chapter will therefore argue that using the typology alongside forms of reflective practice, rooted in real experiences of interreligious encounter, can enhance the confidence of Christians to engage constructively with the multifaith reality of our contexts, while also encouraging intra-Christian dialogue on religious plurality. This process enables people to express their own theological understandings in light of their practice and to reflect in turn on where they locate the primary source of accountability for that understanding.

Using the Typology in Theological Education

I normally begin any course of this kind by asking participants to reflect on a significant encounter with another faith tradition. Participants are encouraged to define ‘significant’ for themselves. The following are a small selection of responses gathered from ordinands and congregants in 2009.

Barbara, an 85-year-old woman, who attends a church in an area where 80 per cent of the population is Muslim, regularly talks about her faith and in turn learns about the faith of her Muslim taxi-drivers. She finds that they often ask her to pray for a personal or family need, as they take her to the weekly Bible study class she attends at her local Methodist church in inner-city Birmingham.

Siperire, a Methodist minister in Coventry, remembers when she worked for a nursing agency being assigned to a live-in post with an elderly Orthodox Jewish woman suffering from dementia, and having to learn about Kosher practices and finding herself entering into the rhythms of Jewish life.

Roy, who works for a small engineering firm in Solihull, developed a friendship over 12 years with a Muslim colleague, Ahmed. They often talked together about God, prayer and family life. Recently the firm made a number of people redundant. Ahmed lost his job and Roy kept his; this was a difficult experience for them both.

Roberta, a primary school teacher in Wolverhampton, tells a story of being challenged by Sikh children in her class because she had placed a Bible on the floor. One of the 10-year-old children in the class left her seat, came forward, picked up the book and placed it on her desk. This incident led to a class discussion on how different faith communities treat their ‘holy books’. Roberta further reflected on the role of Scripture in Christian tradition and how it differs from that of other faiths.

Mandy, an NHS manager and an Anglican ordinand preparing for a curacy in Stafford, is a member of a reading group of ‘professionals’ that includes among its members three Hindus and three Christians. Recently, as part of a project for her training, Mandy asked the group if they would be willing to read the Old Testament book of Daniel. The generosity and interest with which her Hindu friends approached the book and the insights they gave caused Mandy to reflect on how open she would be to reading the Scriptures of other faith traditions.

A church from an evangelical tradition in a West Midlands town that has had a ministry to nightclubbers for some time – including serving tea, coffee and water – were approached by local Muslims during Ramadan, who wanted to join with them and offer food to revellers. The church agreed and a continuing relationship developed.

These encounters are by no means unusual, particularly for participants who live in the urban conurbations of the West Midlands, and sharing them in the class encourages an understanding that our theological reflecting is done in the reality of our lived experience. When we reflect on how we relate to the typology, such reflection is done with the stories of encounter with real people of other faith traditions present with us in the room.

From this initial exploration and sharing of stories of encounter I move on to present the typology to the class. The question, for me, then becomes how the typology should be presented. Race’s original typology was an argument for a pluralist theology of religions and it is claimed to have an inherently pluralist bias built into its structure.6 However, if one examines some popular presentations of the typology from more conservative theological approaches, it becomes clear that this is not necessarily the case. For instance, in her book The Bible and Other Faiths: What Does the Lord Require of Us? Ida Glaser, from a conservative evangelical perspective, presents the typology arguing that exclusivism is Christocentric, inclusivism is theocentric and pluralism is reality-centred.7 The aim is clearly to present to her target audience the positive nature, for them, of the exclusivist position with its supposed unconditional affirmation of Christ. Meanwhile Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, in an attempt to affirm mainline church inclusivism to a perhaps more conservative audience, chooses to present exclusivism as ecclesiocentric, inclusivism as Christocentric and pluralism as theocentric.8 The bias in each of these presentations is towards exclusivisms and inclusivisms respectively. The typology can be presented therefore in a number of forms that privilege one of the types over another as the most appropriate, depending on the audience and their particular biases as well as those of the authors. My own presentational bias perhaps leans towards the inclusivist position, not necessarily because I hold to that myself but because I interpret that as being the position that might be defined as the one closest to official statements of both the Anglican and Methodist churches who sponsor most of Queen’s students and who make up the membership of most of my classes in local churches. However, although the potential dangers for Christian integrity of the extreme ends of the continuum may be explored, I seek to emphasize that I believe all three positions can be argued for from within the Christian tradition. I also aim to present the typology in varied form, offering, first, a number of bullet points for each type and then, second, quotes from representatives of the type that also challenge easy dismissals of one type or another. Thus a quote from Barth is used, which reads as a strong exc...