Theological Grounding: What is it for American Christians in Multifaith Encounters?
For many years now Christians have been writing books discussing various facets of multifaith engagement. This includes things like soteriology, hospitality, neighborliness, incarnational mission, and gift-giving mission. But what grounds us theologically in our encounters with those in other religions? I’ve thought about that quite a bit, and concluded an essay on ministry to new religions with some thoughts on it, and have blogged on it previously. Most recently I suggested that cruciformity might serve us well here. A few months ago I put out a call for submissions for a proposed book on the topic that would explore cruciformity in relation to various aspects of multifaith engagement. I received little by way of submitted abstracts, but along the way I did receive a small amount of negative pushback to the idea. Is it a stretch, and are some of the ideas mentioned above better candidates after all?
Before I attempt an answer to that question, for those unfamiliar with the idea, cruciformity refers to a cross-shaped spirituality, and it finds its clearest biblical exposition in Philippians 2:1-11 where Paul discusses the need for his listeners and readers to follow Christ’s example on the cross in exercising humility, which in turn resulted in his exaltation for his obedience even to the point of humiliating death. This idea of cruciformity was the focus of a three-volume trilogy by New Testament scholar Michael Gorman in the books Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology, and Becoming the Gospel: Participation, and Mission (The Gospel and Our Culture Series). This series of books has been very influential, and Gorman’s cruciformity scholarship, as well as other aspects of his writing, was the focus of a recent anthology volume titled Cruciform Scripture: Cross, Participation and Mission. (An accessible introduction to Gorman’s work on cruciformity can be downloaded here.)
Returning to my question above, what is a good theological grounding for Christians encountering other religions? I still maintain that cruciformity is the best way forward, and this conclusion is shaped in part because of my experience in the American evangelical context. As it turns out, the contextual aspect is very important. I was reminded of this in a recent blog post on Pete Enns’ website. This is the first part of a series by guest contributor Jennifer Bashaw, who teaches New Testament and Biblical Interpretation, among other things, at Campbell University. Previously, Bashaw was a guest on The Bible for Normal People podcast with Enns and Jared Byas where she discussed the history of atonement theories in the church. This topic is related to her forthcoming book Scapegoats: The Gospel through the Eyes of Victims. .
In the blog post Bashaw is looking at what Jesus’ death accomplished theologically in regards to salvation, and she notes how we often turn to Paul’s writings to answer this question. She suggests, however, “that if we want to understand salvation better, we need to stop constructing our theology of salvation predominantly (much less exclusively!) on Paul’s letters.” She lists three reasons why, including:
Epistles, or letters, are occasional literature
Paul provides a gapingly incomplete picture of Jesus’s life
Salvation vocabulary in the Gospels differs greatly from salvation language in Paul.
Whether the reader thinks Bashaw makes a convincing argument on this point or not in terms of depending less on Paul and more on the Gospels in understanding salvation, the point I want to draw attention to is that Paul’s letters are contextualized, each written with a specific audience and set of concerns in mind, and each crafted so as to best respond to those needs. Bashaw discusses how this contextualizing process took place in Paul’s writings, such as how “he emphasizes the importance of Jesus’s humble obedience on the cross when he writes Philippians (they were struggling with pride and division and needed an example of humility).” In light of this, what better way to make the point than to discuss the example of Jesus in obedience and death on the cross for a divided and prideful congregation? This contextualized theology is perfectly applicable to the situation of American Christianity, particularly evangelicalism, where we have tended to pursue confrontational and polemical ways of engaging those in other religions. Cruciformity and its resulting humility provides a much-needed corrective to American theological hubris. It also seems to be the theological bedrock out of which our other theological concerns can arise, including neighborliness, hospitality, and mission. (We should note at this juncture that the Gospels are contextualized as well, but this only reinforces the need to understand, interpret and apply the New Testament in light of local and contemporary concerns.)
One other thought in relation to Bashaw’s post is helpful. She concludes by suggesting that we need to pay greater attention to the metaphors for salvation in the Gospels that often don’t receive the consideration they should in light of our (over)emphasis on Paul. This suggestion also has application to American Christianity. In addition to practicing cruciformity in light of Paul’s contextualized theology, we can focus in fresh ways on the Gospel stories and the example of Jesus in his encounters with religious outsiders, a point made by Bob Robinson in his book Jesus and the Religions: Retrieving a neglected example for a Multi-cultural World.
As the discussion continues over how we should relate to those in other religions in an increasingly pluralist 21st century, I hope that ideas like these can become an increasing part of the conversation.
For more on Michael Gorman’s cruciformity see my past podcast with him here.
Bob Robinson and I discuss Jesus’ example in multifaith in a podcast episode here.
For a discussion on contextualized or localized theology see my past blog conversation with Robert Schreiter on his book Constructing Local Theologies.