DEFENDING OR DEFRAUDING THE FAITH: A
PRADIGMATIC COMPARISON OF THE "THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS" OF
HENDRIK KRAEMER and JOHN HICK
Enoch Wan,
Editor of Global Missiology & Director -
D.Miss. Program, Western Seminary
Published under “Research Methodology”
at www.globalmissiology.org,
October 2007
Table
of Contents
1.1 The
Importance of the Study of the "Theology of Religions"
1.2 The
Purpose and Significance of this Study.
1.3 The
Methodology of "Paradigmatic Comparison"
2.1 "Theology
of Religions, TOR"
III. PERSONS
AND PUBLICATIONS OF JOHN HICK AND HENDRIK KRAEMER
3.1 The
Person and Publications of John Hick
3.2 The
Person and Publications of Hendrik Kraemer
3.3 Reasons
for the Choice of Hendrik Kraemer and John Hick
IV.
PARADIGMATIC COMPARISON OF KRAEMER AND HICK
4.1
Comparison: The Two Basic Systems of Kraemer and Hick
V.
CONCLUSION: AN EVANGELICAL EVALUATION
5.1 Defending
the Christian Faith: Hendrik Kraemer
5.2 Defrauding
the Christian Faith: John Hick
APPENDIX I
Hans Kung's Classification of Positions on the "Theology of
Religions"
APPENDIX II
Ken Gnanakan 's Systematization of Various Positions
APPENDIX III
Paul Knitter's Models of the "Theology of Religions"
APPENDIX IV
Harvie Conn's Analysis of Positions on the "Theology of
Religions"
APPENDIX V
David Bosch's Categorization of the "Theology of Religion"
The
theologia religionum ("Theology of Religions," hereafter as
"TOR") is one of the most important missiological tasks today. The importance of TOR is acknowledged by
contemporary missiologists (Anderson 1993, Bavinck 1960, Bosch 1991, Conn 1990,
Knitter 1985, Küng 1988, Newbigin 1989, Rommen and Netland 1995, Verkuyl 1978).
For examples;
Theology
of religions and missiology, both being branches of theology, also complement
each other. If a theologian of religions lacks missionary motivation and
perspective, he has actually traded in the real foundation of his discipline
for something which provides no basis at all. On the other hand, if a
missiologist both in his method and his conclusions fails to take theology of religions
into account, he will be blind to what is actually transpiring among human
beings and religions and thus tack only in thin air and grope about in a fog
(Verkuyl 1978:361-362).
No
issue in missiology is more important
more difficult, more controversial, or more divisive for the days ahead
than the theology of religions...This is the theological issue for mission in
the 1990s and into the twenty-first century (Anderson 1993:200-201).
Contemporary evangelical Christians in
are faced with an unprecedented challenge of other religions due to
socio-cultural factors (e.g. demographic shift, popularity of pluralism, etc.)
and theological shift from within, e.g. Pinnock (1991, 1992, 1994) in North
America, Bosch (1991) of South Africa, Neil (1961) and Newbigin (1988, 1989) of
the United Kingdom.
Contemporary
missiologists are aware of the problem that,
many different understandings and approaches to other religions, brings
confusion to the Christian Church and missionaries (Beyerhaus 1971, 1972,
Fellows 1988, Knitter 1985, Küng 1987, Gnanakan 1992, and Scheid 1992). As a missiological task, it is necessary
to clarify the content and nature of representative contemporary models of the
TOR. The purpose of this study is to analyze and compare the views of
Hendrik Kraemer and John Hick on the TOR.
The significance of this
study is that it will provide essential information regarding the mission
strategy necessary to evangelize adherents of other religions.
Different
scholars have proposed possible Christian attitudes to, and
preferred relationship with,
other religions. Hans Küng
classifies "four basic positions" regarding this issue (Kung 1988,
230-237, see Appendix I - Hans Kung's
Classification of Positions on the TOR). Klaus Nürnberger classifies the
Christians' attitudes towards other religions into three major categories
(Nürnberger 1970, 13-43). While
both Küng and Nürnberger give philosophical classifications concerning the
Christians' attitudes towards other religions, Ken Gnanakan, an Indian
missiologist, uses practical terminology to classify this issue. In his book, The Pluralistic
Predicament (1992), Gnanakan subdivides the attitudes
into three positions (see Appendix
II - Ken Gnanakan's Systematization of Various Positions). Paul Knitter, a contemporary Catholic
scholar, classifies the TOR into four models expressing Christians' various attitudes
toward other religions. (sSee Appendix III - Paul Knitter's Models of the TOR). ). (sSee
Appendix IV - Harvie Conn's Analysis of
Positions on the TOR). David
Bosch, late professor of missions at the . See Appendix V - David Bosch's Categorization of the TOR). Figure
1 below is a summary of the various
paradigms.
|
Issue |
Exclusivism |
Inclusivism |
Pluralism |
|
Christ's uniqueness |
Constitutive
uniqueness |
Normative uniqueness |
Relational
uniqueness |
|
Function of religion: for salvation |
None: Religion is
unbelief |
Ways of salvation |
Ways of salvation |
|
Relationship between Revelation and Religions |
No
relationship; religion is human achievement |
Religious
phenomena are related to general revelation |
Every
religious phenomenon is valid revelational work |
|
Major Supporting Group |
Conservative
evangelical |
Roman
Catholic |
Diverse individuals |
|
Continuum between Christianity and Religions |
Discontinuity |
Continuity:
anonymous Christians |
Continuity:
Parallelism of all
|
|
Key Representative |
H.
Kraemer,
|
K.
Rahner, |
J. Hick |
Figure
1
Three
Paradigms of the TOR
(Kim
1995, 35)
This The essence of this study is derived
from Y. J. Kim's (1995) Doctor of Missiology dissertation
at the Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS),
chaired by who is tDirector of the
Doctoral Program. This study is
condensed from Cchapter
five 5 of
thate
dissertation.
"The
discipline which deals with the Christian's approach to non-Christian
religions."
"Cconceptual,
observational or instrumental model of reality and for this study applying to
classification/ categorization of Christian attitudes toward other
religions" (Knitter 1985, Pinnock 1992).
"Comparative
study with the use of 'paradigm' for the sake of conceptual clarity and
analytical convenience."
John
Hick (A.D. 1922-), an English Presbyterian minister, "is the most
radical" and most controversial of the proponents of a contemporary model
for Christian approaches to other faiths (Knitter 1985, 147). His opinion represents the model of
pluralistic approach (Gnanakan 1992).
He experienced a "Copernican revolution" in his Christian
self-understanding, a revolution that he has been urging all of Christianity to
launch since 1973 (Hick 1980, 1-5).
Though he retains his personal commitment to Jesus as his Lord, he
proposes a "new map for the universe of faith" (Knitter 1985). From his study of the major world
religions, he Hick thoroughly
remodeled the TOR. He has expressed
his opinion through his many books, including Faith and Knowledge
(1961), The Existence of God (1964), Philosophy of Religion
(1973), God and the Universe of Faiths (1973), Evil and the God of
Love (1977), God Has Many Names (1980), Problem of Religious
Pluralism (1985), and An Interpretation of Religion (1989).
According
to Hick, Christianity is set "in a new and to some an alarming light in
which there can no longer be any a priori assumption of overall superiority"
(Hick and Knitter 1987, 23).
For the Christian tradition is now seen
as one of a plurality of contexts of salvation, contexts within which the
transformation of human existence from self-centeredness to God-centered (or
Reality-centeredness) is occurring.
Accordingly, if it is now claimed that Christianity constitutes a more
favorable setting for this transformation than the other traditions, this must
be shown by historical evidence. Today we cannot help feeling that the question
of superiority has to be posed as an empirical issue, to be settled (if indeed
it can be settled) by examination of the facts (Hick and Knitter 1987,
23).
Hick insists that all religious
traditions, including that of Christianity, were constituted by our partial and
fallible human ways of relating to the "Eternal One." Christianity was formulated with past
"cultural glories" and so functioned at times in the past when things
seemed to "work."
Therefore, "as vast complex totalities, the world traditions seem
to be more or less on a par with each other," and none "can be
singled out as manifestly superior," including the doctrines of Christian
theology (Hick and Knitter 1987, 30).
The central doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the
Atonement, according to Hick, "eventually became established" and
"pervade Christian theological and liturgical language," though
"there was a period before" when these doctrines co-existed with
different opinions on these theological subjects (Hick and Knitter 1987,
31-34).
H.
J. Na, a Korean theologian, evaluated Hick as "an advocator of religious
ecumenism" (Na 1991, 154).
Hick's position, being heavily inclined toward the cooperation and
co-existence of religions, finally expects religious ecumenism throughout the
earth.
What we are picturing here as a future possibility is not a
single world religion, but a situation in which the different traditions no
longer see themselves and each other as rival ideological communities. A single world religion is, Hick would
think, never likely, and not a consummation to be desired. For so long as there is a variety of
human types there will be a variety of kinds of worship and a variety of theological
emphases and approaches (Hick and Hebblethwaite 1981, 189).
Evaluations
of Hick's TOR are expressed from negative and positive perspectives. Ken
Gnanakan criticized Hick for having no regard for the biblical doctrine of
salvation by grace and for speaking on an empirical level (Gnanakan 1992,
103). As another negative response,
Gavin D'Costa pointed to the weakness of Hick's argument, saying that his
theo-centric propositionalism paid little attention to the importance of
particularity concerning the revelation of God in Christ (Ford 1989, 280). Paul Knitter,
however, as a positive evaluation, felt that Hick's approach held the greatest
promise for the future of inter-religious dialogue and advocated the validity
of his model (Knitter 1985, 167).
Hendrik
Kraemer (A.D. 1888-1965) was "a scholar of the first rank" whose opinion represents the model of
the exclusivistic approach (Nicholson 1978, 9). As a Reformed missiologist, he was recognized
by the modern missionary leaders of the International Missionary Council that
asked him to write a book on the TOR.
The result of that request was his book (The Christian Message in a
Non-Christian World) which became his magnum opus in missiology
(Jathanna 1981, 68). He became
known as the "leading conservative protagonist in the field of the theology
of missions" (Nida 1990, xvii).
His many books included Religion and Christian Faith (1956), The
Communication of the Christian
Faith (1957), World Culture and World Religions (1960), and Why
Christianity of All Religions? (1962).
For
Kraemer, "Christianity is to be distinguished from the other
religions" and arises "out of the Revelation of God in the Person of
Jesus Christ" (1962, 114). His
TOR was applied in a practical manner as the motive for enthusiastic
evangelism. The Christian Church
has not only the right, according to Kraemer, but also the "duty to take
conversion and evangelization as prime necessities for mankind" (1963,
295).
Kraemer
insisted that "there is no natural religion," therefore he denied the
scientific research of religions (1963, 112). To him, the non-Christian religions are
merely human achievement (Conn 1990, 11).
However, he did not deny, but stressed, the "point of contact"
as the primary concern of the missionary.
Man is, even in his fallen condition, God's creature, in whose heart God
"has laid eternity."
He knows about God; therefore he seeks God and at the same time in his
seeking tries to run from Him. This
tragic contradictory position is his deepest problem and testifies to his
indestructible relatedness to God.
The quest for God, even when man tries to surpass it in himself, is the
perennially disturbing and central problem of man. Therefore, there is here undeniably a
point of contact for the message of the Gospel. To deny it is virtually to deny the
humanity of man (1938, 130).
Evaluations
of Kraemer's TOR are expressed from different perspectives. J. Verkuyl considered Kraemer's idea of
"Biblical realism" which emphasizes the unique
Wilhelm
Anderson determined that Kraemer's contribution to the understanding of the
nature of revelation was opposed to that of Barthian theology (
Eugene
Nida, a linguist and missionary anthropologist, introduced Kraemer as the
"leading conservative protagonist in the field of the theology of
missions" (Nida 1990, xvii). Nida
recognized the fact that Kraemer emphasized "the radical distinctiveness
of Christianity in comparison with other religious systems" (Nida 1990,
xvii).
Paul
Knitter stated that Protestants' attitudes toward other religions were
"championed and propagated by Hendrik Kraemer" during the 1940s and
1950s (Knitter 1985, 82). Edward
Scheid set a high value on Kraemer's contribution, believing his theology of
religions to have been laid as the foundation of the evangelical approaches
toward other religions (Scheid 1992, 51).
Generally,
Kraemer is blamed or criticized for placing too much emphasis on the
exclusiveness of the Christian message (Hoedmaker 1989), and his TOR sometimes
is criticized as Christo-centric with an abhorrence of syncretism (Jongeneel
1988). Interestingly, the Roman
Catholic side (since Vatican II) has shown interest in Kraemer's work because
it thinks there are common fundamental preoccupations in his theory and praxis
(Frei 1988).
The
perplexing diversity of the approaches and ongoing discussions of this
discipline give an appearance that there is "no clear
direction"(Bosch 1991, 478).
From the brief review of the related literature, the following results
are obvious: First, the TOR is of great concern to all Christians today,
whether they have direct personal experience with other religions or not. Second, it is evident that it has become
customary to classify models on the relation of Christianity to the other religions
as "pluralism," "inclusivism," or
"exclusivism." The
positions of these three paradigms are summarized in Figure 1. The
representative figures of these three positions are, respectively, John Hick, Karl Rahner, and Hendrik Kraemer
(Newbigin 1989, 182; cf. Scheid 1992).
Third, the position of inclusivism has an ambiguous character when
compared with the other two models, exclusivism and pluralism. Furthermore, inclusivism is not of much
concern to major Protestant scholars.
Therefore, it is evident that contemporary discussions on the TOR in the
Protestant community are wandering between two extremes, exclusivism and
pluralism. In order to clearly
grasp the scope of the contemporary TOR, it will be necessary to examine the
representative figures of these two extremes in detail.
Hendrik
Kraemer and John Hick are chosen to be representatives of the two poles (i.e.
the "exclusive" and the "pluralist" models) of the three
paradigms of Figure 1.
In
order to examine or understand the religions or religious phenomena, Kraemer
and Hick assert different starting points for epistemology: God or his
revelation, and humankind and its existence.
For
Kraemer, God is the source of knowledge
or its starting point, since to him alone is known the truth and truth
is "never in the first place an intellectually demonstrable
proposition" (Kraemer 1962, 74).
His concept of truth is definitely derived from the faith that God has
revealed the Way and the Truth and the Life in Jesus Christ and wills this to
be known through all the world (Kraemer 1938, 107). The revelation of God, "the divine
initiative," cannot be identified with any ideas, concepts and experiences
that are engendered in the course of history. To Kraemer any value judgment or
truth-claim for religion can be carried out only by its adherence to the
revelation of God.
The
weakness of Kraemer's epistemology, as understood by rationalists, is that
there may be a possibility that it may run into the danger of agnosticism. As a critic of Kraemer's view, C. J.
Bleeker highlights this point (Bleeker 1965, 102-103). Nevertheless, Kraemer's understanding of
the Bible, as the unique witness regarding the Person of Jesus Christ, can
easily avoid this problem (Kraemer 1962, 20). Rather, his treatment of revelation,
based neither on the empirical statement of men nor the phenomenology of
religions, remains its strong point in regard to his epistemology of religions.
Furthermore, the ontological consistency of the metaphysical world is a strong
proposition of exclusivism (Stetson 1994, 115-116).
In
contrast to Kraemer, Hick begins his epistemological inquiry with "human
understanding." Hick goes on
to distinguish his epistemology of religion from that of Kant.
Thus
for Kant God is not experienced, but postulated. However I am exploring here
the different and very non-Kantian hypothesis that God is experienced by human
beings (Hick 1980a, 142).
Thus,
for Hick, the "starting
point" of understanding of religious phenomena is the "ultimate concern" of humanity
(Hick 1989, 4). He defines religion
as "human responses to the Transcendent" (1989). Based on this epistemology, Hick
criticizes the traditional conceptions of Christian doctrine, i.e., Trinity,
Incarnation, two natures of Christ, due to their "unintelligibility."
The
problem with Hick's empirical epistemology is the inconsistency of the
reality. In his Copernican TOR, one
may find there are many realities in his "universe of religions." Ward J. Fellow points to this dilemma
for Hick:
In Hick's
pluralism there are many suns: the many images of and beliefs about the
Godhead, around one of which each of the religions is organized...in operation
each religion moves around its own little sun, not the one big SUN. The SUN is
the basis of Hick's pluralism of religions as a group, precisely because it is
both unknown and absolutely unrelated in any significant way to any specific
religion (Fellow 1988, 184-5).
To
Kraemer, however, though religions are sincere human
expressions directed toward Ultimate Reality, they do not guarantee arrival at God. Thus
Therefore,
religion is, to Kraemer, not a genuine path to God,
but misguided human endeavor.
Because of his pessimistic stance regarding the validity of human
reason, Kraemer's view is vulnerable to the critical attack that its end would
be skepticism or exclusivism. The
ontological judgment of religious phenomena for these two paradigms is derived
from and related to their ethical aspects.
Kraemer's exclusive view, based on his insistence upon man's total
depravity, may easily lead to the criticism that it posits a morally incorrect
attitude and behavior. This sort of
moral attack comes primarily from the pluralist camp with its humanistic
perspective. Pluralists conceive of
exclusivists as arrogant and imperialistic because they believe their religious
doctrines to be ultimately true and others' ultimately untrue. John Hick denounces the errors he
believes are propagated by exclusivism:
This conviction [exclusivism], with its
baleful historical influence in validating centuries of anti-Semitism, the
colonial exploitation by Christian Europe of what today we call the third
world, and the subordination of women within a strongly patriarchal religious
system, not only cause misgivings among many Christians but also alarms many of
our non-Christian neighbors, creating invisible but powerful barriers within
the human community. (Hick 1993a, viii)
This
criticism, of course, from a representative of pluralism, is based on a
humanistic understanding of human disposition: all men naturally possess innate
goodness. But pluralism's morality is not guaranteed by its insistence upon a
universal human morality. Rather, its embracing universalism--universal
salvation of humanity--is problematic.
Its non-theistic approaches to the "Real," shown in its
soteriological perspective, ultimately leads to immorality. John Sanders powerfully criticizes it:
If
the words "God will save" are to have any meaning, they must have a
particular content. When Hick and Knitter claim that God will save all, do they
have a Christian understanding of God and salvation in mind? If so, then they
are not true pluralists: they are smuggling in a Christian conception and
making it definitive. If not, then what exactly do they mean? If they are
genuinely including Hinduism or Buddhism, then they are radically altering the
Christian understanding of the assertion that "God will save," since
these non-theistic Eastern religions posit a non-personal God who cannot do
anything and a non-individualistic existence after death that is quite
different from the Christian conception... Pluralists such as Hick remove the
God of Christianity via the front door with much fanfare only to smuggle him
quietly in the back door, and it is for this reason that they are not
successful in completing the revolution from a Christo-centric to a
theo-centric theology. (Sanders 1992, 120-121)
Hick
proposes a definition of religion
as "an understanding of the universe," because it involves reference
beyond the natural world to God (Hick 1973a, 133). Above those general
illustrations about the function of religions, Hick tries to put his
pluralistic reflection on this functional view of religion. Religion "works" as a means of
God's revelation. In this regard,
all religions function in their own distinct ways. This means that the different world
religions have each served as God's means of revelation to a different stream
of human life. (Hick 1980a, 71)
If
religion is "God's means of revelation" and a "way of
salvation," then how is God to be known within various religions? To answer this question, it is necessary
to examine Hick's understanding of revelation. Hick does not use the term "revelation"
exclusively, nor does he give a clear definition of it. However, he explains the nature and
content of it from time to time. He
advocates the possibility of many-faceted perceptions of revelation: “I have spoken of the ultimate divine
reality as everywhere 'revealing' itself to human beings, this universal
revelatory activity being differently perceived and responded to within the
different cultural ways of being human” (Hick 1985, 97).
Kraemer expresses his understanding of revelation, which he likes to express
as "Biblical realism."
He understands this to be God's Self-disclosure in the Person of Jesus Christ. It is the focal point of his
revelational activity (Kraemer 1956, 237, 353, 363). Other modes of his revelatory works in
nature, history or conscience, which scientific researchers argue are God's
revelation in other religions, are of a different order. These modes, therefore, according to
Kraemer, may not be called "revelation" or even "general
revelation."
To
Hick, the Bible is not the "revelation of God," but a
"record of the stream of revelatory events" (Hick 1973a, 50). Inspiration, which he refers to as the
"faith of the biblical writer," makes the Bible differ from a secular
historical record.
The uniqueness of the Bible is not due to any unique mode or
quality of its writing but to the unique significance of the events of which it
is original documentary expression, which became revelatory through the faith
of the biblical writers. As such the Bible mediates the same revelation to
subsequent generations and is thus itself revelatory in a secondary sense,
calling in its own turn for a response of faith. (Hick 1973a, 51)
Because
Hick clings to a non-propositional view of revelation, especially concerning
the Bible, he denies the exclusive manifestation of God's revelation. To him, any religious tradition has the
same degree of authenticity as others, and therefore, differences cannot
support religious exclusivism (Hick 1985, 93). Furthermore, in his pluralistic point of
view, all religious modes and ways are possibilities leading to the affirmation of the
ultimate Reality (Hick 1985, 94).
Therefore, for Hick, the revelation is that which in a wider sense does
not necessarily entail divinely disclosed propositions or miraculous
interventions in the course of human history, but in which is found all
authentic religious awareness in a response to the presence and pressure of the
divine Reality. (Hick 1985, 97-98)
The
difference in the epistemological
presuppositions of these two paradigms is advanced in their ontological
understanding of religious phenomena: one statement -- the appearance of
religious phenomena does not supply the guidance to God -- vs. the other -- all
religious phenomena are legitimate and workable guides to the Reality. For Hick, all religions are ways to
humanity's salvation. He insists
"the great religions are all, at their experiential roots, in contact with
the same ultimate divine reality" (Hick 1974, 151). In Hick's pluralistic schema, the
different religious traditions, in their variegated doctrines and practices,
actually center upon the same subject.
This implies that all religions, or any kind of religious phenomena of
humanity, are valid and valuable appearances.
These
two paradigms on the TOR manifest in their philosophical presuppositions
different beliefs. Figure 2 clearly demonstrates their
different presuppositions.
|
Theme |
H.
Kraemer |
J.
Hick |
|
Sources of Religious
Knowledge |
God and the Bible |
The Bible and other
religious literature |
|
Starting Point of
Religious Epistemology |
God and his revelation |
Humankind and their
existence |
|
Ontological Status of
Religion |
Religion
is a human endeavor Religious phenomena -
not guarantee guidance to God |
Religion is the
legitimate way to the Reality |
|
Human Condition |
Man's disposition is
basically bad |
Man's disposition -
naturally good |
Figure
2
Paradigmatic
Comparison of the Basic Systems of Kraemer and Hick
(Kim
1995, 121)
Kraemer's
theo-centric understanding of Christ
appears to reflect the situation of the mission field. Only an exclusive
understanding of the Logos concept can make clear the message of the Christian
gospel (cf. John
Hick
criticizes traditional Christology as not being authorized by Jesus himself,
believing the religious-cultural milieu of the early church as having provided
its manner of expression, and asserting that the meaning of the dogma has never
been shown to have any precise meaning (Hick 1993a, 49; cf. 1993b, 1-79). What, then, is the content of Hick's
"revised" Christology?
Following the lead of D. Baillie and G. Lampe, Hick introduces his "inspiration"
Christology (Hick 1993a, 35ff).
His "inspiration" Christology can be analyzed as follows:
First,
Hick describes Christ as the highest degree or example of grace-inspired
humanity. As a human being, Jesus,
throughout his life, reflected God's grace. In other words, Hick insists that in
Jesus, God's love, agape, was incarnated, and Jesus' spirit was inspired
by God's grace (Hick 1993a, 54-55).
Jesus is the fullest or most complete realization of human life as it is
meant to be lived by the divine inspiration of God's spirit (Hick 1993a, 53).
Second,
in Hick's Christology, Christ is understood in a functional rather than an
ontological sense. Jesus is,
according to Hick, a man of the Spirit who is a model of human response to
God's principal activity. He
exemplifies human life thoroughly lived in faith and freedom within the grace
and inspiration of God (Hick 1993a, 54-55). Third,
the "inspiration" Christology implies that Jesus' exemplification
might also be found and verified by observation and judgment in other religious
traditions. Jesus' exemplification of divine inspiration does not lay a
priori claim to the superiority of Christianity in relation to the other
world religions. It allows for historical observation and evaluation to decide
if this highest degree of inspired life represented in Jesus is also discovered
and exemplified in other religious saviors or traditions (Hick 1977b, 46-65;
1993a, 52-56).
Finally,
the goal and direction of Hick's Christology are to correct the Christian faith
by promoting both pluralistic spirit and vision, thereby renouncing the claim
of its uniqueness. Hick
suggests:
The alternative is a Christian faith
which takes Jesus as our supreme (but not necessarily only) spiritual guide; as
our personal and communal lord, leader, guru, exemplar, and teacher, but not as
literally himself God; and which sees Christianity as one authentic context of
salvation/liberation amongst others, not opposing but interacting in mutually
creative ways with the other great paths. (Hick 1993b, 163)
The
greater conflict between these two paradigms on the TOR is clearly manifested
in their differing understandings of the divinity of Christ. For Kraemer, the divinity of Christ is
the unshakable foundation and "the absolutely distinctive and peculiar and
unique element" of Christianity (Kraemer 1962, 80). Kraemer and Hick, these two experts of
religious study, reflect well prior centuries' theological debates in their
respective TOR.
CATEGORY |
H.
KRAEMER |
J. HICK |
|
LABEL |
"Theo-centric
Christology" |
"Inspiration
Christology" |
|
POINT
OF EMPHASIS |
Christ's Divinity |
Jesus' Humanity |
|
THE
HUMANITY OF CHRIST |
Jesus Christ is
totally human |
Jesus Christ is
totally human; Incarnation = a mythological concept |
|
THE
DIVINITY OF CHRIST |
Jesus Christ himself
is fully God |
Jesus himself denied
his deity; to assert it is "blasphemous" |
|
CHRIST
and RELIGIONS |
Christ is the unique
revelation of God (the only Way) |
Jesus is a religious
leader. He is a model/ideal religious man. |
|
PREFERRED METHODOLOGY FOR CHRISTOLOGICAL
STUDY |
"Christology from
Above" |
"Search for the
historical Jesus" |
Figure
3
Paradigmatic
Comparison: Christology
(Kim
1995, 126)
The
character of Kraemer's soteriology is exclusive because it demands an explicit
belief in Jesus Christ alone as leading to salvation (Kraemer 1938, 211). This is why his thinking is labeled as
"exclusivism" by many scholars (Newbigin 1989; Conn 1990; Scheid
1992).
Hick
argues that the central tenet of Christianity as a "way of life" is
its self-perception as a way of salvation.
The teaching of Jesus is presented as "a Way" (Hick 1973a,
109). The Christian way is a
practical way of life, but it is not simply an ethic as many modernists
understand. The important element
of this Way is "belief or faith" (Hick 1973a, 110), expressed in the
activity of worship. But this expressive activity, according to Hick, has been
changed in its form, organization or worship, according to the influence of its
immediate environment.
Nevertheless, there is the unchanging element that is to be found in the
originating event. In this event
Christian faith sees God acting self-revealingly for the salvation of the
world. It is the
"Christ-event" (Hick 1973a, 111).
Both
paradigms propose a decree of God in which is expressed his salvific will
toward fallen humankind. But they
differ in dealing with God's action in achieving his purpose. First, they disagree over the definition
of the word "salvation."
To Kraemer, salvation has
legal implications, necessarily involving "restoration." For Hick, however, it is a
"transformation" of human existence in which no judicial
process is required or necessary.
Two
different views of the salvation of
humanity are based upon and derived from their understanding of human
nature. For Kraemer, humanity is fallen and corrupted, having definitely lost
its sensus divinitatis. It
cannot save itself nor rightly recognize its problematic nature, being
separated from God by personal sin.
Humanity needs God's action and God's Mediator for salvation. God's loving intervention is the unique
hope of humankind. But for Hick, humans are autonomous beings. There is no "original fall" or
the like; hence human nature itself is basically good. It does not need any
mediator nor God's action.
Humankind can save itself by its own right response to the Reality.
Such
contrasting interpretations of the nature of humanity require different
provisions for salvation. For
Kraemer, the "atonement" is inevitably necessary for the
"restoration," in which God's initiative is involved. However, for Hick, there is no need of
any redemptive work by a mediator nor for a mediator at all, inasmuch as
humanity transforms itself by itself into the "likeness of God"(Hick
1993b, 130).
Another
contrast between these two views of soteriology is the understanding of
faith. For Hick, Christians'
faith in Christ, evidenced by serving him as God Incarnate, is very subjective. On this point, he basically agrees with
the existential view of faith. Hick
interprets the inspiration given to biblical authors as their faith in
Jesus. Therefore, inspiration also
is a very subjective response on the part of the biblical authors. In contrast to Hick, Kraemer,
though not denying there is a subjective element in the
As
a final observation upon these differing soteriologies, the subject of salvific operation in these
two paradigms on the TOR is evidently different. For Kraemer, God and God alone is the
subject of salvation, inasmuch as only he can perform the
"restoration" or heil of humankind. To him, the decisive factor in
determining who is to be saved is the sovereign grace of God. On this point, Kraemer's soteriology, from
a theological standpoint, corresponds well to the Calvinistic or Reformed
perspective of soteriology.
For
Hick, however, since humanity has some sense of divinity in its nature,
humankind itself controls the operation of salvation. Thus a Calvinistic doctrine such as
predestination is, for Hick, merely a product of religious elitism and cannot
"claim to represent the message of the great spiritual traditions"
(Hick 1989, 207-208). Figure 4 shows how greatly these two
paradigms differ in their understanding of salvation and its operation.
|
Theme |
H.
Kraemer |
J.
Hick |
|
Nature
of Man |
Humanity
is fallen and corrupted |
Humans are autonomous
beings; no "original sin" |
|
Nature
of Salvation |
Salvation
is the "restoration" of the lost normal, original divine order of
life. |
Salvation is full humanization. It is maximization of
human nature's potentiality. |
|
Provision
for Salvation |
"Atonement"
which God initiates |
Humanity's
self-deification |
|
Nature
of Faith |
Faith is
both subjective and objective |
Faith is subjective |
|
Decisive Factor or Role in
Salvation |
God's
sovereign grace |
The individual's
personal decision |
Figure
4
Paradigmatic
Comparison: Soteriology
(Kim
1995, 129)
One
of the important things in Kraemer's ecclesiology is his distinction
between historical Christianity, which he generally expresses as
"empirical Christianity," and the true invisible Church, which he
sometimes refers to as "biblical revelation," "true
Christianity," or "biblical realism" (Kraemer 1938, 368;
1956, 336-337; 1962, 110). The
content of "empirical Christianity" is the "mixture of 'true'
Christians and Christians in name" (Kraemer 1956, 336). The latter, nominal human expression of
spiritual life can be brought into line with the other religions in some
aspects like psychological, moral or mystical phenomena (Kraemer 1938,
285). Therefore, Kraemer does not
deny the possibility that "the demonic aspect of religion" could
appear within "empirical Christianity" (Kraemer 1956, 335, 337).
Nevertheless,
the Christian Church is in a
special position, differentiating it from non-Christian religions (Kraemer
1938, 145). The unique element of
the Christian Church is "the fact of Jesus Christ," who invites
humanity to genuine communion with God.
Though the Christian Church itself is not the standard or criterion of
truth - Christ is - it is constantly called and standing under the direct
influence of God's revelation in Christ (Kraemer 1962, 76-80). The Church must
keep its unique character, so that it does not lose its element of uniqueness
in a multi-religious society. Though its mode of expression may at times be
similar to other religious societies, its meaning differs radically.
The Christian Church, according to the
conception of the New Testament, is a community sui generis. The unique
character of the Christian Church is entirely misunderstood if it is conceived
as a welfare or goodwill society on a religious basis. In its mode of
expression, in its ministry, it may make in some respects the same impression
as such societies, but in reality it is something
quite different. (Kraemer 1938, 415-416)
The
unique character and position of the
Church definitively implies its missionary obligation. The Church is the center of
missions. The Church, as an
official institution, must be aware of its essential missionary character
because it exists for the sake of the Lord of the world and not for its own
sake (Kraemer 1938, 34; 1962, 22).
The
church is, rightly understood, the greatest agency for continual change and
renewal of the world and its life, for it obeys a Lord who is the
"hidden" Lord of the world, and who is bent upon the redemption and
renewal of the world, of this world. (Kraemer 1965, 34)
For
Kraemer, the primary interest of the Christian Church is its mission toward
other religions. According to Hick, though the Christ-event serves as the origin of
Christianity, there is a fundamental problem in understanding it, inasmuch as
it only happened once, and is not reconstructible, i.e., his physical
appearance and actual words. Only
the reports of the witnesses, the New Testament writers, remain. Because of the difficulty of historical
reconstruction, according to Hick, different Christian circles have understood
Jesus very differently (Hick 1973a, 113). Those with faith in the Christ-event
interpreted it under the influence of the religious environment within their
immediate community. They formed
doctrines, intellectually fixed systems of beliefs and diverse
terminologies. Their theological
systems, as diversifications of the modes of Christian thought, developed
through a complex interaction between religious and non-religious factors.
Therefore,
according to Hick, Christian systems of
beliefs, or theologies, are ever changing. Christian theology is part of the
culturally and historically conditioned response to the Christ-event. Only the essence of Christianity, which
is the way of life and salvation originating in the Christ-event, will
continually exist as the Way (Hick 1973a, 119). Christianity is an open-ended history
that has taken diverse forms in diverse circumstances as well as heralding the
way of salvation. Hick himself
confesses his faith in the uniqueness of the Christ-event.
I
believed that God has made himself known to mankind with unique fullness and
saving power in Christ, and has ordained that all men must come to him through
Christ (Hick 1973a, 122).
However,
this way of Christianity is not the unique way of salvation. According to his "Copernican revolution" in the TOR, this kind of
salvation can be found outside Christianity. The
position and role of the Christian Church is described differently in
these two theological paradigms.
For Kraemer, who accepted the traditional understanding of the nature of
the Church, it is to be distinguished from the world, advancing its spiritual
nature over the world. Thus the
Church is "the apostolic body" (Kraemer 1956, 17) and is commissioned
to proclaim the message of God (1956, 18).
For
Hick, however, while accepting the validity of Christianity's confession and
faith (Hick 1973a, 111), there is a denial of its unique nature (1993a,
77-99). To him, the Church is a
faith community such as other religious congregations. Therefore, according to Hick, the role
or contribution of the Christian Church, from his pluralistic view, is partial
and insufficient as a guide for the salvation of humankind.
The
priority of the functions for the
Church is different between the two paradigms, as well. For Kraemer, the supreme function of the
Church is evangelism; for Hick, the humanistic service is the most important
role of the Church. Actually, Hick
denies the evangelistic task of the Church.
Their
understanding of the Church's position in the pluralist society makes for a
strong contrast. In Kraemer's view,
the Church is the unique container of God's revelation. According to Hick's view, however, the
Christian Church is merely one of many religious organizations in the
world. This differing understanding
of the Church's position is linked to the content of the message that the
Church will deliver. According to
Kraemer, the Church's message to the non-Christian religions is one of
"conversion to Christ."
For Hick, the Church must take off her exclusive truth-claim and
cooperate with other religious organizations. Thus the Church needs to maintain an
ecumenical spirit.
These
two paradigms of the TOR present conflicting directions for the Christian Church. In Kraemer's TOR, it is demanded that the Christian Church be
faithful to the revelation of God.
That is what he suggests through his biblical realism (Kraemer 1938,
368; 1956, 336-337) and the Church must be obedient to the Word of God. In contrast, Hick's suggestion to the Christian Church is implied in the title
of his "Copernican revolution"
that the Christian Church abandon traditional doctrines and its exclusive
truth-claim. Christians must give
up their prejudiced "ecclesio-centric" understanding of religions
(Hick 1973a, 131). In other words,
the Christian Church must radically change its attitude from one of
absoluteness to one of relativeness in the face of religious pluralism (Hick
1985, 86; 1980, 38).
Figure
5 summarizes how significant
the difference is between these two paradigms in their understandings of
ecclesiology.
|
Theme |
H.
Kraemer |
J.
Hick |
|
Nature
of the Church |
The
Church is the sole agency of God |
The Church is a faith community
that was influenced by Jesus' life |
|
Role or Function of
the Church |
The
Church is commissioned by God to proclaim his message |
The Christian Church
is one of many faith communities, a response to the divine Reality |
|
The Church's Position among
Other Religions |
The
Church is the unique container of divine revelation |
The
Church, as one of many religious organizations, needs Cooperation and mutual
acceptance with other religious/institutions. |
|
The Church's Primary
Task |
Evangelism |
Humanistic service |
|
The Church's Message for Non-Christians |
Conversion
to Christ and regeneration |
Charitable cooperation |
|
Ideal Model of the Church |
"Biblical
Realism" - faithfulness
to God's Revelation |
"Copernican
revolution" - abandonment of
exclusive truth-claim |
Figure
5
Pradigmatic
Comparison: Ecclesiology
(Kim
1995, 132)
All
religious phenomena, according to Hick, are encounters "with the one
infinite reality" (Hick 1973a, 139). In other words, all religions are
responding to the one God, the one Divine Reality or Absolute. Therefore, for Hick, every religious expression is relative. But this relativity neither means that
every expression is true, nor that all is equal. Hick himself argues that religious
phenomena can be graded (Hick 1985, 67-87). But this grading can be applied only to
their religious phenomena. Grading
of great world religions as totalities is impossible, because the human mind
cannot weigh up and compare their merits as systems of salvation (Hick 1985,
86). In summary, Hick's "Copernican revolution" in the TOR implies
that Christians must respect the ways and systems of other religions, rather
than claim exclusive validity for their own way and system. Second, according to Hick, this
Copernican revolution is required not only for the Christian, but also for the
adherents of other great religions of the world (Hick 1973a, 132). In other words, every religion must take
off its attitude of Ptolemaic thought which assumes that its own system is
alone fully true and that all the others are more or less true according as
they approximate to or diverge from it. (Hick 1973a, 132)
Hick
insists that since this Ptolemaic thought normally originates wherever the
believer happens to have been born, he is not provided with a sufficient basis
for a conviction with which to assess all other convictions due to the contextual limitations of his birthplace.
Each Ptolemaic theology of great religions tends to posit its center on the
basis of the accidents of cultural geography (1973a, 132). Therefore, it must be aware of its
historical relativity. Hick
develops his argument based on this insistence: namely, that any conversion
from one religion to another, including that of Christianity, could not have
been successful in the past (Hick 1980a, 60-61). What then is the valid theory to which
this Copernican revolution points?
It is religious ecumenism, which Hick calls "the new map of the universe of faiths"
on the earth (Hick 1973a, 133-147; cf. Na 1991, 154). On this new map, the different religions
will constitute a global religious life.
The relationship between these religions will be like the appearance
between the different denominations of Christianity today.
What, then, is the implication for
Christian missions of this "Copernican revolution" in theology? According to Hick, Christianity has the right to claim its distinctiveness, but
it must be practiced under the "pluralistic
vision."
For each of the great traditions has
developed its own absolute claim which in principle relegates other relations
and ways of salvation to a secondary status. To varying extent the kind of
rethinking that is going on fairly vigorously within Christianity is also going
on within the other major traditions; and the gradually emerging outcome will
be a new pluralistic world consciousness. But the rethinking has to be done
within each tradition, developing its own resources in the direction of the
pluralistic vision. (1985, 101)
In
other words, the mission of Christianity in a pluralistic society is, first, to
abandon its claim of absoluteness, and second, to take off the ego-centric or
exclusive understanding of salvation and recognize that its way is not the only
way but one way of many ways (Hick 1985, 53,86; 1980a, 38-39).
Since
Hick's TOR claims a pluralistic view of the religions, the inter-religious or
inter-faith dialogue is an inevitable and important subject in the theological
paradigm. According to Hick,
theological dialogue comprises a spectrum ranging between two extremes:
"confessional dialogue" and "truth-seeking dialogue" (Hick
1980, 117).
Hick
introduces Hendrik Kraemer as the representative of the Christian
"confessional" attitude.
But this attitude, Hick argues, can only result either in conversion or
in a hardening of differences (1980a, 121). Ideal patterns of dialogue must be
accompanied by the possibility of mutual change. “In order for dialogue to be mutually
fruitful, lesser changes than total conversion must be possible and must be hoped
for on both (or all) sides” (1980a, 122).
Hick
argues that Christians may engage in dialogue with a changed attitude in which
they perceive themselves not "as adherents of historical Christianity but
simply as adherents of Jesus" (Hick 1980a, 123). Of course, here, Jesus refers only to
the human Jesus. Hick suggests "ecumenical dialogue"
(Hick 1980a, 124-136), which can be analyzed as follows: First, Hick's ecumenical dialogue means
an abandonment of the confessional faith of Christianity and its
uniqueness. It is neither seeking
for the point of evangelism nor witnessing to the gospel. Rather, Hick insists that Christianity must "turn out" its
traditional doctrine or reconstruct it for effective truth-seeking
dialogue. Second, in ecumenical
dialogue the process of inter-religious dialogue involves formulating "a
global theology." “A global theology would consist of
theories or hypotheses designed to interpret the religious experience of
mankind as it occurs not only within Christianity but also within the other great
streams of religious life” (1980a, 21).
Finally,
the expected goal of this ecumenical dialogue is the integration of world religions.
The religious traditions are consciously interacting with
each other in mutual observation and in inter-faith dialogue, it is possible
that their future developments may be on gradually converging courses. For
during the next few centuries they will no doubt each continue to change, and
it may be that they will grow closer together, and even that one day such names
as 'Christianity,' 'Buddhism,' 'Islam,' 'Hinduism', will no longer describe the
then current configurations of man's religious experience and belief. (1974,
151)
For
Kraemer, men like Gandhi, Tagor and Radhakrishnan, although expressing in their
peculiar ways strong similarities to ideals and ideas derived from
Christianity, were not Christians.
The dissemination of Christian ideas, as well as other social services,
cannot be the goal of Christian missions (Kraemer 1938, 291,295). The valid motive and purpose of missions
is "to call men and peoples to confront themselves with God's act of
revelation and salvation" as taught in the Bible and to build up a
community of those who have surrendered themselves to faith in and loving
service of Jesus. (Kraemer 1938, 292)
Therefore,
"evangelism, proselytism and conversion" are the core of the
missionary enterprise (1938, 296). For this reason, someone has called
Kraemer's attitude towards religions an "evangelistic approach"
(Jathanna 1981, 110, 144).
Kraemer
warned the Christian Church that the contemporary inter-religious dialogue
movement may be used as a counter agency to the world mission of
Christianity. As the agency of God,
the Christian Church should first and foremost set her own house in order,
because the greatest service she can render to the world, the West and the
Eastern world, is by being resolutely the
The
two paradigms exhibit a difference in
the purpose for religious studies.
In Kraemer's theology of religions, the concern is not with a comparison
of the empirical phenomenon of Christianity as a religion with other religions,
but with the relation of the gospel to the world of religions. In other words, he has respect for the
relation of the Christian gospel to the universal religious consciousness of
humanity and its various manifestations in the religious forms (Jathanna 1981,
102). Thus Kraemer's main purpose
is to develop an effective mission theory or strategy for the evangelization of
the adherents of world religions.
But in Hick's TOR, the major concern is the comparison of religious
phenomena. The goal of Hick's endeavor
is to build religious ecumenism through the comparative study of religions,
while Kraemer wished to proselyte the adherents of on-Christian religions.
Kraemer's
radical exclusive opinion concerning the revelation of God supports the view
that there is no continuity between Christianity and other religions. Therefore, Kraemer did not view the
scientific comparative research of religions (a preference of Hick's) to be
a logically acceptable method for
supporting mission strategy. To
him, only a power-encounter style of evangelistic approach, using the
missionary as "the point of contact," was the most effective mission
strategy.
Figure 6 displays the great contrasts between
these two paradigms in their suggested directions for Christian missions.
|
Theme |
H.
Kraemer |
J.
Hick |
|
Purpose
of Religious Studies |
For the evangelistic
task and strategy |
Comparison of
religious phenomena |
|
Method
of |
Spiritual Power
encounter: Evangelistic approach |
Humanistic approach
and cooperation |
|
Goal
of |
Proselytism and
conversion |
Religious ecumenism |
|
Point
of Contact |
Missionaries
themselves |
Commonalities
of religions based on scientific research of
religions |
|
Continuity/Discontinuity: Christianity
and other Religions |
Discontinuity |
Continuity |
|
Inter-Religious
Dialogue |
Dialogue is basically
impossible so far as the missionary claims his faith in Christ |
"Ecumenical
dialogue" is inevitable for building the integration of world religions and
for formulating a "global theology" |
Figure 6
Paradigmatic
Comparison: Missiology
(Kim 1995, 134)
Kraemer
is a proponent of an exclusive model
of the TOR, rejecting all approaches--whether speaking of fulfillment, continuity,
or even a radical break-- that see the encounter between religions and an
affair taking place within the realm of human religious self-expression. He has been influential among
contemporary evangelical theologians such as Lesslie Newbigin and John Stott.
Kraemer's
TOR declares: Jesus Christ, the self-disclosure of God, is the criterion of all
truth and value, and, therefore, no criterion from outside can be used to judge
him; the world religions cannot be paths of salvation because only through an
explicit link with the gospel of Christ can true salvation be found;
Christianity is radically discontinuous with the rest of the world and the
religions; the Christian gospel is the message of truth; an explicit relation
with Christ is required; the Christian Church's primary task is evangelism;
Messianic salvation cannot be identified with development, earthly progress, or
social change.
Kraemer's
legacy has been succeeded well in evangelical Christian movements. The
"Frankfurt Declaration" (1970) and "Lausanne Covenant"
(1974) are examples of the
exclusivistic approach tied to Kraemer.
John Stott, a speaker at the Lausanne Congress (1974), praises Kraemer's
rejection of the notion of Christ as the fulfillment of non-Christian religious
tendencies and his call for "persuasive and winning" proclamation of
the Christian gospel (Anderson and Stransky 1981, 167-8; cf. Anderson and
Stransky 1975, 241ff).
This
legacy of Kraemer continued through the Lausanne II meetings in
We affirm that the Jesus of history and the Christ of glory
are the same person, and that this Jesus Christ is absolutely unique, for he
alone is God incarnate, our sinbearer, the conqueror of death, and the coming
judge... We affirm that other religions and ideologies are not alternative
paths to God, and that human spirituality, if unredeemed by Christ, leads not
to God but to judgment, for Christ is the only way (LCWE 1989).
Kraemer's
TOR, with its strong biblical foundation, is a good example of how Christian
theology approaches Scripture as the normative expression of the Christian
faith. His academic tasks
illustrate, in one way, how every dimension of theology is to serve the written
Word of God in a changing world.
The missiological conduct that he formulated and advocated through his
theology of religions gives the Christian Church a fine example of the tasks of
Christian theology: Christian theology and theological task must reckon with
the uniqueness and decisiveness of Jesus Christ in relation to the religions of
the world.
Kraemer's
recognition as a great missiologist is deserved since he focused on the
distinct identity of the Christian mission in an age of uncertainty and opened
many eyes to the possibility of a truly worldwide evangelism through his
contribution on the theology of religions.
Hick, having been brought up and trained in
English Presbyterianism and having taught in many universities in both the
Hick's
TOR is summarized by his
call for a "Copernican
revolution." This revolution means the abandonment of
the exclusive truth-claims of Christian doctrines, such as the Divine
Incarnation or Trinity, and
understanding the Bible or Jesus as one set of religious symbols in the
diverse manifestations of "Ultimate Reality." For Hick, Jesus is neither God nor the
Lord of the world, but merely a man divinely inspired who opened his followers
to the moral demands of conversion from self-centeredness to
"Reality-centeredness."
Hick's revolution requires the suspension of the traditional Christian
teaching proclaiming Christ as the unique savior of the world.
Hick's view also asserts that Scripture is regarded as a religious
book containing a limited story of the Divine. The Bible cannot convey absolute truth
about the nature of God, and all religious literature is assumed to bear
witness to some functional or partial truth about how human beings are to
relate to the Divine. For Hick,
Scripture must be interpreted mythologically. The resurrection story of Jesus is an
example of such mythic language, relating the subjective experience of grace
that the encounter with Jesus of Nazareth meant to his followers.
According
to Hick's understanding, salvation is the liberation of
humankind, which is understood to be the common ground to which all the
religions of the world can contribute through inter-religious dialogue and
collaboration. The nature or
disposition of humankind is not necessarily sinful, rather it contains the
sense of deity by which all humankind can make a proper response to "the
Reality" through religious practices.
In
Hick's pluralistic formulation,
the Christian Church must
attempt to dialogue with the great world religions and have its theology
formulated by the reflection of these dialogical activities. Hick's perspective presents serious
problems. It is based on human
philosophies, denies the particularity of the Bible, and destroys the
foundational doctrines of Christianity.
It distorts the role of the Christian Church, thereby hindering
Christian missions (cf. Hick 1980a, 132).
Denying the lordship and divinity of Jesus Christ, it is questionable
whether it can be the theology of a Christian.
A
comparison of two paradigms on the TOR, represented by Kraemer and Hick (see
Figure 7), demonstrates the great differences in their approaches. Philosophically,
Kraemer's model defines religion as a human endeavor, while Hick's values it as
a legitimate way to the Reality. In
Christology, Hick's position sees Jesus as a human religious leader, while
Kraemer's insists upon the lordship and divinity of Jesus Christ. Soteriologically, Hick's system supports
universal salvation, while Kraemer's emphasizes the particularity of the
redemptive atonement of Jesus Christ.
In ecclesiology, Hick's formulation denies the particularity of the
Christian Church's position, while Kraemer's sees it as God's unique agency for
salvation.
TOPIC |
H. KRAEMER |
J. HICK |
|
Bibliology |
Bible = the Unique Witness |
Bible = one of the many sacred books |
|
Christology |
Christ = the Unique Revelation of God |
Christ = one of the many human religious
leaders |
|
Soteriology |
salvation: Christ = the only Way |
salvation: many ways in various
religions |
|
Ecclesiology |
Church = the sole agency of God |
church = one of the many forms of
religious institutions |
|
Eschatology |
Christ's 2nd coming: separation of Christians
and non-Christians |
Christ's 2nd coming: universal
salvation of humankind |
Figure 7
A Simplified
Paradigmatic Comparison: Systematic Theology
The
two paradigms of Kraemer and Hick present contrasting directions for Christian
missions (see Figure 8). For
Kraemer, the supreme mission of the Christian Church is the proclamation of the
message of God and the evangelization of unreached peoples, while Hick
understands it to be merely a service agency, thereby denying its evangelistic
task.
|
ISSUE |
H.
KRAEMER |
J.
HICK |
|
Presupposition |
Epistemologically based on God's Revelation
in the Bible |
Epistemologically
based on human understanding |
|
Proposed
Methodology |
"Biblical Realism" |
"Copernican Revolution" |
|
Parallelism
of All Religions/ Uniqueness
of Christianity |
uniqueness of Christianity |
parallelism
of all religions; non-absoluteness of Christianity |
|
Preferred
Relationships between
Religions |
evangelistic claim and conversion to
Christ |
dialogue/religious ecumenism |
|
Practical
Guidelines Relating to
Other Religions |
spiritual
power encounter evangelism by words and deeds |
humanistic and humanitarian
co-existence and co-operation |
Figure 8
A Simplified Paradigmatic Comparison: "Theology of Religions"
(Kim 1995, 16)
|
Position |
Viewpoint |
Representative |
|
Atheistic
Position |
All religions are equally untrue |
F. Nietzsche |
|
Traditional
Catholic Position |
Only one single religion is true. All
other religions are untrue |
4th Lutheran Council (1215) |
|
Relativistic Position |
All religions are equally true |
Contemporary pluralists |
|
Inclusivistic Position |
Only one religion is true. All
religions have a share in the truth of the one religion. |
K. Rahner |
(Kim 1995, 19)
|
Position |
Viewpoint |
Representative |
|
Exclusivism |
There is no salvation
outside of Jesus Christ |
|
|
Inclusivism |
All religions are under
the redemptive influence of Jesus Christ |
K. Rahner, M. Thomas, and R. Panniker |
|
Pluralism |
Every religion has an
independent validity for salvation |
P. Knitter, J. Hick |
(Kim 1995, 21)
|
Model |
Viewpoint |
Representative |
|
Conservative Evangelical |
Christianity is the true religion |
H. Kraemer, K. Barth |
|
Mainline
Prostantant |
All religions play a part in salvation
history, but it is not the way of salvation |
P. Athaus,
E. Brunner, P. Tillich, and L. Newbigin |
|
Catholic |
All religions are many channels of
God's grace |
K. Rahner, H. Kung |
|
Theo-centric |
Religions are the many ways to the
Center |
J. Hick, R. Panikkar |
(Kim 1995, 22)
|
Model |
Viewpoint |
Representative |
|
Exclusivism |
Christ-against-religions: Christianity is the true religion |
K. Barth, H. Kraemer |
|
Inclusivism |
Christ-of-religions: All religions working for salvation |
K. Rahner, P. Knitter |
|
Pluralism |
Christ-alongside-religions: Every religion has a saving power |
K. Cragg, J. Hick |
|
Accommodation |
Christ-above-and-in-religions: Religions are preparation for
evangelism |
T. Aquinas, M. Ricci, and |
|
Possessio |
Christ-transforms-religions: all religions need transformation |
J. Bavinck |
(Kim 1995, 23)
|
Paradigm |
Viewpoint |
Representative |
|
Exclusivism |
Religion is a concern of godless human
beings |
K. Barth |
|
Fulfillment |
Christianity is the fulfillment of
other religions |
W. Hocking, K. Rahner |
|
Relativism |
All religions are different human
answers to the one divine Reality |
J. Hick, R. Panikkar |
Published
in the July issue of www.globalmissiology.org.
Presented at the 47th Annual Meeting
of the ETS,
Allen, E. L.
1960. Christianity Among The Religions.
Anderson, G.
H., and T. F. Stransky, eds. 1975.
, eds. 1975.
, eds. 1981.
, eds. 1981. Christ's Lordship and
Religious Pluralism.
Anderson, J. N.
D. 1984. Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge Of of Pluralism.
, ed. 1976. The
World Religions.
Anderson,
Wilhelm. 1957. Dr. Kraemer's Contribution To The Understanding Of of The
Nature Of of Revelation.
International Review of
Barth, Karl. 1956. Church Dogmatics. Vols 1, 2.
Translated by G. T. Thomas and H. Knight.
. 1957. Kirchliche Dogmatik:
Ausgewahlt und eingeleitet von Helmut Gollwitzer.
. 1959. Dogmatics in Outline.
Translated by G. T. Thomas.
Bavinck, J. H.
1960. An Introduction tTo tThe Science Of
Reformed
Publishing Co.
. 1981. The Church Between
Benz, Ernst,
and Minoru Nambara, eds. 1960. Das Christendum und die Nicht-Christlichen
Hochreligionen.
Berkhof, Louis.
1941. Systematic Theology.
Beyerhaus, Peter.
1971. Missions: Which Way? Humanization or Redemption.
. 1972. Shaken Foundations:
Theological Foundations for
Bleeker, C. J.
1965. Christ in Modern
Bosch, David J.
1991. Transforming
Braaten, C. E.
1977. The Flaming Center: A Theology of The Christian Mission.
Brunner, Emil.
1946. Revelation and Reason: The Christian Doctrine of Faith and Knowledge.
. 1958. The Philosophy
of Religion.
Bühlman,
Walbert. 1977. The Coming of The
. 1983. God's
Calvin, John.
1989. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge.
Camps, Arnulf.
1983. Partners in Dialogue: Christianity and Other World Religions.
Cobb, John, Jr.
1982. Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and
Buddhism.
Cragg, Kenneth.
1986. The Christ and the Faiths.
Davis,
D'Costa, Gavin,
ed. 1990. Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered.
Denziger, H.
1960. Enchiridiom symbolorum, definitinum et declarationum de rebus fidei et
morum.
, 1988.
Theology for the Third Millenium.
Erickson,
Millard J. 1985. Christian Theology.
Fellow, Ward J.
1988. The Dilemma of Universalism And Particularism in Four Christian
Theological Views of the Relation of
Christianity
to Other Religions. Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary.
Fernando,
Ajith. 1987. The Christian's Attitude Toward World Religions.
Ford, David,
ed. 1989. The Modern Theologian.
Frei, Fritz.
1988. Die Katholische Stellung zu Hendrik Kraemer Werk [The Catholic
attitude toward Hendrik Kraemer's work]. Nederlands
Theologish Tijdschrift 42 (4): 288-306.
Glasser, Arthur
F., ed. 1971. Crossroads in Missions.
Glasser, Arthur
F., and D. A. McGavran. 1983. Contemporary Theologies of
Gnanakan, Ken.
1992. The Pluralistic Predicament.
Gualtieri,
Antonio R. 1978. The Failure of Dialectic In Hendrik Kraemer's Evaluation of
Non-Christian Faith. Journal of Ecumenical
Studies
15(2): 274-290.
Gunawan, Yusuf.
1994. The Myth of An Inspiration Christology: An Analytical Investigation and
Critique of The Christology of John
Hick.
Th.M. thesis, Reformed Theological Seminary.
Hallencreutz,
Carl F. 1966. Kraemer Towards Tambaram: A Study in Hendrik Kraemer's
Missionary Approach.
Gleerup.
. 1969. New Approaches to Men of Other
Faiths.
Hankook
Kidokkyo Hakhoi (Korean
Christian Institute), ed. 1991. Gospel and Culture (Korean).
, ed. 1991. Religious Pluralism and
Theological Task (Korean).
Hesselgrave,
David J., ed. 1978. Theology and
Hick, John, and
Michael Goulder. 1983. Why Believe in God?
Hick, John, and
Brian Hebblethwaite, eds. 1981. Christianity and Other Religions: Selected
Hick, John, and
Paul L. Knitter, eds. 1987. The Myth of Christian Uniqueness. Maryknoll:
Orbis Books.
Hick, John, and
Arthur C. McGill, eds. 1967. The Many-faced Argument.
Hick, John.
1957. Faith and Knowledge: A Modern Introduction To The Problem of Religious
Knowledge.
. 1964. The Existence of God.
. 1973a. God and the Universe of
Faiths.
. 1973b. Philosophy of Religion.
, ed. 1974. Truth and Dialogue In
World Religions: Conflicting Truth-Claims.
. 1977a. Evil and the God of Love.
, ed. 1977b. The Myth of God Incarnate.
. 1980a. God Has Many Names.
. 1980b. Toward a Philosophy Of Religious
Pluralism. Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religions
Philosophie 22:
131-149.
. 1983. The
. 1984. Christian's Understanding of
Suffering. TMs [photocopy]. Special Collections,
University,
. 1985. Problem of Religious Pluralism.
. 1989. An Interpretation of Religion.
. 1993a. Disputed Questions in
Theology and the Philosophy of Religion.
Hick, John.
1993b. The Metaphor of God Incarnate.
Hoedemaker,
Bert. 1989. Kraemer Reassessed. The Ecumenical Review 41: 41-49.
Hoedemaker, L.
A. 1980. The Legacy of Hendrik Kraemer.
Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research 4: 60-64.
Hogg, Alfred G.
1938. Towards Clarifying My Reactions to Dr. Kraemer's Book.
Holsten,
Walter. 1932. Christentum und nicht-christliche Religion nach Auffassung
Luthers. [Christianity and non-Christian religion
by
Luther's interpretation].
Houwert, F.
1988. Hendrik Kraemer en het rveil in de Hervormde Kerk [Hendrik Kraemer and
the awakening in the Reformed
Church]:
1937-1947. Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 42:276-287
Jathanna, O. V.
1981. The Decisiveness of The Christ-Event and the Universality of
Christianity in a World of Religious Plurality.
Jongeneel, J.
A. B. 1988. Kraemer und Samartha. Zeitschrift für Mission 14 (4):
197-205
Judd,
Kim, Myung H.
1987. Trends of Contemporary Churches: Focus on Theology of
Kim, Yun Jin. An
Analysis and Comparison of the View of Hendrik Kraemer and John Hick on the
Theology of Religions. Doctor of
Missiology
dissertation, Reformed Theological Seminary.
Knitter, Paul
L. 1974. Towards a Protestant Theology of Religions.
. 1985. No Other Name?
, ed. 1991. Pluralism and Oppression.
Kraemer,
Hendrik. 1938. The Christian Message In A Non-Christian World.
Kraemer,
Hendrik. 1943. The Riddle of History: Thought on Romans IX- XI. International
Review of Missions 31: 78-87.
. 1954. Syncretism as a Religious and a
Missionary Problem. International Review of Missions 43: 253-273.
. 1956. Religion and the Christian
Faith.
. 1957. The Communication of the
Christian Faith.
. 1958. A Theology of Laity.
. 1960. Islamic
Culture And Missionary Adequacy. Muslim World 50: 244-251.
. 1960. World Culture and World Religions: The Coming Dialogue.
. 1961. Permanent Renewal or Temporary
Revivals? Foundations 4: 144-153.
. 1961. The Meaning of Renewal For
. 1962. Why Christianity of All
Religions?. Translated by Hubert Hoskins.
. 1965. The Bible and Social Ethics.
Küng, Hans.
1976. The Challenge of the World Religions. In On being a Christian.
. 1986. Christianity and the World
Religions. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company.
. 1988. Theology of the Third Millenium.
Larkin, William
J. 1994. Luke's Contribution to A Biblical Theology of Religions. TMs
[photocopy]. A paper to the 1994 EMS Annual Meeting,
Lindsell,
Harold. 1968. Missionary Imperative. In Protestant Crosscurrents in
Machen, J.
Gresham. 1923. Christianity and Liberalism.
McIntosh, John.
1994. Biblical Exclusivism: Towards a Reformed Approach to the Uniqueness of
Christ. Reformed Theological Review 53: 13-27.
Na, Hak J.
1991. Christianity in Multi-Religious Context. Ministry and Theology
(Korean) 26(8): 134-157.
Neill, Stephen.
1984. Christian Faith and Other Faiths.
Neuner, Joshep,
ed. 1967. Christian Revelation and World Religions.
Newbigin,
Lesslie. 1989. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society.
. 1969. The Finality of Christ.
Nicholson, Wayne
Issac. 1978. Toward a Theology of Comparative Religion. Ph.D. diss., The
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Nida, Eugene A.
1990. Message and
Nürnberger,
Klaus. 1970. Systematisch-theologische Losungsversuche zum problem der
anderen Religionen und ihre missionmethodischen Konsequenzen. Neue
Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 12: 13-43.
Oxtoby,
Willard. 1983. The Meaning of Other Faiths.
Packer,
PCUSA. 1986. The
Minutes of 198th General Assembly, Part I: Journal.
Pinnock, Clark
H. 1990. Toward an Evangelical Theology of Religions. Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 33: 359-368.
. 1992. A Wideness In God's Mercy: The
Finality of Christ in a World of Religions.
Presbyterian
Layman. 1984.
January/February.
. 1987. March/April.
Presbyterian
Outlook. 1987. 16 March.
Quinn, Philip.
1994. Religious Pluralism and Religious Relativism. The Scottish Journal of Religious
Studies 15.2: 69-84.
Race, Alan.
1983. Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology
of Religions.
Rahner, Karl.
1957. Schriften zur Theologie.
. 1966. Christianity and the
Non-Christian Religions. Theological
Investigations 5: 115-34.
. 1974. Anonymous
Christianity and the Missionary Task of the Church. Theological
Investigations 12: 161-178.
Ri
Rommen, Edward,
and Harold Netland. 1995 Christianity and the Religions: A Biblical Theology
of World Religions.
William
Carey.
Sanders, John
E. 1992. No Other Name: An Investigation in the Destiny of the Unevangelized.
Scheid, Edward
G. 1992. Scripture and Theology of the Religions: On the Theological
Interpretation of Sacred Scripture in Christian
Attitudes
Toward World Religions. Ph.D. diss.,
Schlette, H. R.
1966. Toward a Theology of Religions.
Scott, Waldron.
1978. Karl Barth's Theology oOf
Sharma, Arvind,
ed. 1993. God, Truth And Reality: Essays In Honour oOf John Hick.
Song, C. S.
1993. Jesus and Rreign
of God.
Stetson, Brad.
1994. Pluralism And Particularity In Religious Belief.
Tillich, Paul.
1957. Dynamic of Faith.
Tillich, Paul.
1963. Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions.
. 1968. Systematic Theology.
. 1969. What Is Religion?.
Thomas, Owen
C., ed. 1986. Attitudes Toward Other Religions.
Toynbee, Arnold
Joseph. 1956. An Historian's Approach To Religion: Based on Gifford Lectures
Delivered in the
. 1957. Christianity
Among the Religions of the World.
Troeltsch,
Ernst. 1971. The Aabsoluteness
of Cchristianity
and the Hhistory
of Rreligions.
Trotti, John B.
1980. Christian Faith Amidst Religious Pluralism: An Introductory
Bibliography.
Theological
Seminary. in Virginia.
UPCUSA. 1962. The
Minutes of the 174th General Assembly, Part I: Journal.
Verkuyl, J.
1978. Contemporary Missiology: An Introduction. Translated and edited by D. Cooper. Rapids
Whitson, Robley
E. 1971. The Coming Convergence of World Religions.