AUGUST 2005 - ISSUE 5 - ISSN 1448 - 632

CHRISTIAN FAITH AND THE ISSUE OF 'SAVIOUR FIGURES' IN OTHER RELIGIONS   ADRIAN JONES

 

ABSTRACT

The paper approaches some issues regarding faith in Christ in relation to religious diversity with reference to differing Christological emphases.  ‘High’ and ‘Low’ Christologies bring differences in perspective to the discussion of Jesus’ role and status as either exclusive saviour for the world or saviour for Christians in particular.  These Christologies are considered in light of the categories often used by participants in discussion of how Christians are to approach other religions.  Reference is also made to the views of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI and Dominus Iesus on these issues.  The difficulty of some theological and liturgical language for contemporary and intercultural understanding is noted.

I will approach the question of Christian faith in the light of religious diversity by revisiting Jesus’ question to his disciples: Who do you say that I am?[1]

There is a range of responses to this question among Christians, some of which would be seen by others as within tolerable boundaries; some as outside the boundaries of identifiable Christian faith.  There are responses based on understandings of the Jesus of History and of the Christ of Faith.  Some speak of the pre-Easter Jesus and the post-Easter Christ.[2]  Some seek the ‘authentic Jesus’ in the earlier layers of the synoptic gospels;[3] others look to the later writings of John and Paul, in particular, for an enhanced understanding of the extraordinary recollections of Easter and an explanation of the remarkable impact Jesus had in such a short time.[4]  Some scholars, of course, attempt to integrate and synthesise this range of understandings.[5]  I propose below to unpack some of these interpretations and to later consider them in the light of claims for Jesus Christ as the unique and universal saviour and of the diversity of religious experience in the world.

It has been said that relativism, or pluralism for that matter (to be explained later) is more acceptable to those whose Christology is ‘low’ than to those who profess a ‘high’ Christology.[6]  That is, to those who place less emphasis on the risen, post-Easter Jesus of Faith (I know I’m speaking a little simplistically here) and more on the earthly Jesus who walked and talked among men and women it is not so difficult to position Jesus as, maybe, someone who was perhaps filled with the presence of God, but not exclusively so.  To one who believes that Jesus was, in some way, not just filled with the presence of God, but the singular and exclusive actualization and incarnation of God’s self-expression, it is not so easy to accept an interpretation of Jesus’ place in history and eschatology as just one of a number, even if first among equals, of salvific leaders, regardless of how elite, enlightened and sanctified they may be.  If I can briefly outline the main features of these approaches to Christology, they appear to me to incorporate the following perspectives.

First of all, ‘high Christology’ perceives Jesus as the Christ, the anointed one, appointed by God to introduce and inaugurate God’s reign, to proclaim God’s message of salvation not only to the people of the old (and continuing) covenant, but to all the world.  More than this, high Christology understands Jesus the Christ as the absolute incarnation of God’s self-expression, the ‘word made flesh’.  Jesus is God as much as he is Man.  He is not just an agent of God, not just a persona through which God exercises and communicates God’s will at the fleshly level.  He is fully God and fully Man at the same time in all respects except sin.  Jesus’ life is marked by total commitment to the function of expressing God’s will in absolute harmony with his life as a human being.  The hypostasis of divinity with humanity, as actualized in Jesus and defined by Chalcedon, is a Mystery of the Church and therefore very difficult, if not impossible, to sustain cohesively in the human mind, but it represents the apotheosis of high Christology.  The implication of this dogmatic definition for dialogue with non-Christians is that it demands an understanding of Jesus as a universal and unique saviour.  Dominus Iesus, the (2000) declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), subsequently signed off by Pope John Paul II, proceeds on the basis that the Nicene Creed (prior to Chalcedon, which clarified it) admits of no relativisation of Jesus’ status as the unique and universal saviour.[7]  To see Jesus, according to this declaration, as less than the one God exclusively self-expressed in human form, is both contradictory to the Tradition and logically impossible.  So, where does this place the adherents of a ‘lower’ Christology? 

Those who propose a low Christology understand Jesus as one who proclaims God’s message of salvation, not just as a prophet, but as the Messiah of Israel and the Light of Salvation for all the world to see and follow.  Jesus is, one might say, God’s self-expression in human form – God incarnate – but not so much a hypostasis of humanity with a wholly transcendent God as a complete actualization of God as immanent.  God’s transcendence is emphasized less in low Christology.  God is seen as always immanent in creation (panentheism).[8]  All people, therefore, have the capacity to integrate divinity and humanity.  Jesus, however, did so to a consummate degree.

A couple of additional points at this stage

First, I am not pretending that the mini-pen pictures drawn above constitute a definition or in any way adequate representation of high and low Christology.  However, they have been presented as in some way highlighting significant differences in emphasis between these perspectives in order to presage points of convergence and divergence that might occur in dialogue with non-Christians on Jesus’ salvific role and status.

Second, Dominus Iesus and Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) have both made the point that pluralist theologies fail to adequately acknowledge God’s transcendence.[9]  Proclamation of God’s transcendence enables Christians to proclaim a message of objective truth, a genuine Enlightenment in the face of values-based relativism and the kind of religious syncretism[10] that Christianity rejected in the pagan world of its origins.[11]

To return to the claim that advocates of low Christology will have less trouble with pluralistic approaches to Jesus, other saviour figures and inter-religious dialogue, it can be seen from the above mini-portraits that, if they fairly represent the main features of the respective Christologies, an inductive view of Jesus Christ – one that reads him as the synoptic gospels portray him, rather than as the cause and effect of his own incarnation, death and resurrection – will be easier to present in dialogue that is looking towards some degree of converging or, at least, parallel pathways to salvation.  To the extent that low Christology emphasizes Jesus’ humanity it is easier for this approach to find common ground with faith traditions based on saviour figures that make claims to enlightenment or revelation, but not divinity.  High Christology would have to find ways to acknowledge the at least subjective equality of other religious pathways while at the same time proclaiming the uniqueness and supremacy of Jesus as Christ (and Pantocrator) owing to Jesus’ divine status as sole incarnation of the transcendent Creator.

One conclusion that can be reached is that a serious issue regarding Jesus’ status and relationship in respect of the soteriology of other faith traditions is that Christians themselves are not united in their understanding of who Jesus was, what the meaning of being Christ is, and how Jesus as Christ ‘saves’ those who are faithful to him.

Having said all that, it is now timely to summarise the main positions in relation to the salvific possibilities for non-Christian faiths.  Christ as a saviour, however salvation is understood, is assumed for the purpose of this summary.

The first and perhaps initial position is that salvation in its fullest sense is restricted to those who acknowledge Jesus as Christ and saviour, fully God and fully man, whose mission to inaugurate the reign of God on Earth was salvific and remains so until the fullness of time.  This position is known as Exclusivism because the full gift of salvation is given exclusively to those who proclaim and follow Jesus as defined by the great Councils of the early Church.  People outside the tradition of the mainstream churches are excluded from the benefits of salvation.

Karl Rahner, from the late 1950s, advocated an inclusive understanding of the possibilities for full embracement by a merciful and loving God who willed that ‘all should be saved’.[12]  While retaining the hermeneutic that places Jesus at the centre of the salvific process and essential to its attainment, Rahner proposed that people outside the Christian tradition may implicitly accept the message of the Christ and be saved thereby.[13]  The Second Vatican Council gave some acknowledgement to this position in its declaration that non-Christian religions receive ‘rays’ of Christian truth as from a benign sun.[14]  The inclusivist position can be criticized by some Christians as understating the significance of a personal relationship with the Lord (and commitment thereby) and by non-Christians as being rather patronizing toward other faiths.  However, in recognizing that people are born into different traditions and will for the most part develop within those traditions, inclusivism does acknowledge an anthropology of religious faith that cannot seriously be denied.

Relativism, although it acknowledges the anthropological (and sociological) realities incorporated into inclusivism, proceeds from a Jesuology without any systematic or cohesive Christology.  For a relativist, it is not necessarily significant whether Jesus existed at all.  If he did, he may well be perceived as a sage, a reformer or an enlightened being.  (What is important to the relativiser is that Christians believe in him.)  The greater awareness of other faith traditions, which often leads to greater respect for them, has encouraged a more relativistic approach to religious diversity, particularly in the secular Western countries, where religion is regarded by many, and particularly in the academy, as being largely a matter of projection and myth.

Pluralism, associated with the work of Jacques Dupuis, Balasuriya, Hick, Knitter and others, attempts to define or map out a path whereby the authenticity of different religious experiences and traditions is acknowledged without compromising core beliefs in each of the religious paths.  Dupuis’ work was criticized by the CDF, but not found to be doctrinally unsound, and it is Dupuis who is most associated with the attempt to develop a pluralist philosophy of dialogue (not necessarily convergence) from a non-heterodox Roman Catholic perspective.[15]  Essentially, pluralists argue that while Jesus is the manifestation and sacrament of God for Christians, non-Christians cannot be expected to perceive Jesus in the same way.  To do so would be to show disrespect for the diversity of God’s creation, as people are born in times and places and are therefore largely the product of their contexts.[16]  Just as Christ had to be born in and live and proclaim his message somewhere, as did his followers at the time and through the ages, so do others live and function under the same constraints, and these constraints differ with the different contexts.  This is how God’s creation is actualized in history and it must be respected for what it is, that is, its diversity.[17]

To state the above is not to deny the uniqueness and universality of Christ’s message and salvation, it is simply an acknowledgement of the limits of human epistemology.  To acknowledge as a Christian that Jesus is the Christ and Saviour of the world is not to belittle a Buddhist’s faith in the Triple Refuge or a Muslim’s submission to the Five Pillars of Islam.  One can be faithful to Christ’s commission to go out and teach all the world while accepting that the world may not entirely take up the message as taught, especially as people become aware of the mixed messages that are coming out of the Christian world about who Jesus really was and what he really taught.  However, the rays proceeding from the enlightened teaching and behaviour of Christians where this occurs may well radiate into the epistemologies and ethical systems of other faiths and cultures.

Dupuis also wrote of a theocentric, rather than christocentric basis for understanding and dialogue among faiths.[18]  This seems to have been based on the notion that all the major religions have a common orientation towards God,[19] despite their differences regarding how or by whom God was revealed and the content of the various revelations.  I’m not sure how valid this is, given that Buddhism – at least in its Theravada form – considers God as a hypothesis, and speculation re God’s attributes, motives, etc. as potentially a distraction from the pursuit of enlightenment through non-attachment and right practice.[20]  One senses in Dupuis’ writing a dependence on the Indian religious milieu that he experienced for so many years.  Even the use of the term ‘Asian’ can be highly subjective.  For me the term conjures up East and Southeast Asia.  For others (British social commentators; perhaps Dupuis?) it suggests South Asians.[21]  High Christologists, in any case, as Dupuis acknowledges, argue that Theocentrism must, by its very nature, incorporate Christocentrism.  And, for low Christology advocates, a demarcation between Jesus the man and the immanent God may be seen as excessively dualistic.[22]

I am attempting to show that, first of all, the question of who Jesus really was/is is an issue in regard to inter-religious dialogue and respect.  Secondly, the question of how one views the salvific effectiveness of other religions without compromising one’s own faith in Jesus as the Christ has been canvassed very briefly in terms of the main categories used in discussion by theologians on the issue.

These questions highlight two critical issues for Christians.  To rephrase the issues as questions in consequence:

(1)  Who indeed was Jesus and in what way is he our saviour?

(2)  How in fact can Jesus be related to the saviour figures and salvation paths of diverse religions?

If Jesus was essentially just a first century Jewish prophet and wisdom teacher, filled with the presence of God and charged with the mission of inaugurating God’s kingdom first among the Jews (and, maybe later, the gentiles), then it is not so difficult to place him in relation to the sages and prophets of the other great religions.  One could hold that, to our way of thinking, Jesus was the most remarkable of all religious leaders and that his proclamation of God’s reign of justice, love and equality both enlightens and liberates us.  One could claim that Jesus is for us the consummate saving figure because he demands our co-participation with God and with the blessed company of the faithful in building God’s kingdom and personal divinisation[23] – a genuinely triune community of interests reflecting the economy of the blessed Trinity.  This could all be declared without too much offence to most people who follow another human leader and find satisfaction in doing so for themselves and their communities.  It does not offend them because it does not threaten them or belittle their beliefs.  They would expect us, as Christians, to have faith in our own Faith, but they would see such a position as enabling dialogue, convergence in some respects, and an improvement in mutual understanding.

On the other hand, if Christ has been revealed as proclaimed by the canonical scriptures and the magisterium, I am inclined to think that Cardinal Ratzinger is right, or at least logically sound, in opposing pluralist theologies.[24]  If Christ is the Word made Flesh, as declared by Nicaea and Chalcedon, Christians are obliged to proclaim him as Lord of the universe and saviour of all.  One can be respectful of and humble before the wisdom and prophecy traditions of the major non-Christian religions and one can acknowledge the anthropological constraints on people’s religious experience and expression, but one’s faith in Christ as Son of God has to take precedence.  One must believe, together with Cardinal Ratzinger, that faith in Christ is a more advanced form of Enlightenment than either the secularising 18th century version or the wisdom-based and mystical forms of other religions.[25]  Ratzinger argues that Christianity, from its earliest diaspora days, confronted the synthesizing and relativist tendencies of the pagan world with a higher form of faith and knowledge and that this is still part of its mission. [26] From this perspective, proselytising, the fear of most religious others, remains an imperative for Christians committed to traditional orthodoxy.

The Hellenistic language and philosophical categories and metaphors of the fourth and fifth centuries can and need to be radically recast into language that is not only comprehensible and palatable to 21st century men and women, but also coherently translatable into the languages of the world.  To translate literally some metaphorical language (eg the words of the consecration in the Mass) into Thai, for example, is most artificial and very hard to explain.[27]  To proclaim Jesus as saviour in the context of diverse religions is possible at present because many people around the world are happy to function within a mythical (founded on mythos rather than logos) and ethically-based religious framework intensified by belief in miracles and watered with the blood of martyrs,[28] but that will not always be the case as secularism and skepticism start to make their presence felt in increasingly urbanized and educated societies of the former ‘third world’.

Bibliography

Borg, M. & Wright, N. T. (1999) The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions.  San Francisco. Harper.

Casey, D. (n.d.) The Nature of our Salvation in Christ: Salvation as Participation and Divinisation. http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/research/theology/ejournal/Issue3/Casey.htm

Catholic News Agency, 18 April, 2005. Cardinal Ratzinger prays for ‘a pastor to lead us to knowledge of Christ, to His love, to true joy’

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=3668

Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. (2000) Dominus Iesus. Vatican.

Doyle, D. (2005) Review of Ratzinger, J. (2004) Truth and Tolerance: Christian Beliefs and World Religions. Ignatius Press.  Reviewed in National Catholic Reporter, 22 April 2005,

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2005b/042205v.htm

Dupuis, J. (1990) Religious Plurality and the Christological Debate.

http://www.sedos.org/english/dupuis.htm

Hall, G. (2002) Jacques Dupuis’ Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Pacifica 15 (February 2002): 37-50.

Hall, G. Jesus Christ for Today. THEO555-660 Readings. Australian Catholic University.

Nostra Aetate (1965). Vatican.

Phan, P. (2003) If Jews are Saved by their Eternal Covenant, How are Christians to Understand Jesus as Universal Saviour?

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/sites/partners/ccjr/phan03.htm

Vermes, G. (2004) The Authentic Gospel of Jesus.  London. Penguin.

 

[28] Such as the Seven Blessed Martyrs of Thailand, executed for their faith in 1940, and Blessed Fr Nicholas Bunkert Kitbamrung, who died in prison in 1945.

 

ADRIAN JONES is a student in Theology at the Australian Catholic University.  He has an MA from ACU and an MEd from the University of Southern Queensland.  Currently, he is External Liaison Officer at Sarasas Ektra School, a bilingual school in Bangkok, Thailand.

Email: "Adrian  Jones" <adrian@ektra.ac.th>

 

 

© Copyright is retained by the author