Assessing Interfaith Christology's Viability

Introduction

The Vatican and U.S Bishops launched an investigation into a book that was written by a well known Catholic Theologian, Vietnam-born, Fr. Peter Phan. The book in question is Phan’s 2004 Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue. The book raises issues about the uniqueness of Christ and the Church and these issues have also resulted in the censures of other well-known theologians who have raised similar questions in their writings. According to the National Catholic Reporter, sources who have seen the correspondences issued to Phan, the central issues which were highlighted by the Vatican and US Bishops are:

1. Christ as the unique and universal saviour of the world.

2. The role and function of the Catholic Church in salvation.

3. The saving value of non- Christian religions.

Phan was asked to publish an article to address and correct these issues. However, Phan went one step further. To clarify and defend his book, he wrote another: Joy of Religious Pluralism: A Personal Journey. In the opinion of the congregation, Phan’s book did not adequately profess Jesus Christ as the unique and universal saviour or the role of the Church as the sign and instrument of salvation. Phan suggests that there is a divine spirit that is present and at work always and everywhere in human history and what he allows is that this divine spirit is actively present in non -Christian religions in and through the holy spirit, to the extent that these religions may be regarded as ways of salvation.

Initially, I will look at chapter 4 of Phan’s book because this explains what he means by an Interreligious Christology., So, my questions at this stage are;

1: What does it involve?

2: Is it possible?

3: What are the limitations?

I will then critically examine chapter 3 because this chapter focuses on the Divine Spirit and it is at the center of Phan’s argument. I will consider the value of this method of relating to other religions and its strengths and weaknesses. In order to undertake a balanced assessment of his proposed Christology, I will also engage with other scholars who have written on this subject. Following this, I will reflect on the argument, prior to concluding whether it is possible that Christian claims about Jesus as unique and universal saviour can be held alongside his proposal of “Interfaith/Interreligious Christology.” However, you would have to compromise your faith in the Gospel’s message in order to fully engage with and accept an Interfaith Christology.

Jesus Christ, the Unique and Universal Saviour

Phan begins by stating that he is not unique in his desire for interfaith dialogue, but he wants to go beyond this and into the realm of what he calls an Interreligious/Interfaith Christology. But, what is this? And what does it involve? Christology, as Phan states, is “ A faith-based reflection on the Christian confession in Jesus as the Christ.” (Phan P92, Year) Phan states that, in the context of religious pluralism, we can no longer rely on our faith-based claims. It is not surprising that Phan has this mindset considering that he grew up in South Vietnam in a culture of Catholicism and Buddhism and where people experience multiple religious belongings. Phan states that interfaith Christology “Rests on the kind of interreligious dialogue in which participants genuinely respect differences and try to understand religions other than one’s own as they present themselves, on their own terms, and avoid interpreting them through the lens of one’s categories and belief systems.” (Phan, P92, Year)

I can grasp the desire for interfaith Christology. But, how is it possible? And what are some of its limitations? Jesus is also known in other faiths such as Islam and Judaism. So, within these two religions, there is an opportunity for an interfaith Christology, however, for it to be possible, Phan believes that Christians have to avoid making “Christian claims about Christ, such as his divinity, resurrection, unique and universal role as Saviour, even though these claims must not be dissimulated by the Christian Partners-in- dialogue.” (Phan, year p93) All of this is suggested by Phan in order that we can arrive at a Christology which is based on how Christ is also affirmed and perceived in other religions. This type of Christology does not take into account the Jesus who is described in the Christian gospels. So as Phan states “In this respect, it lacks the historical specificity characteristics of for example, liberation Christology.” (Phan, P93, year) Furthermore, Phan makes it clear that Christian affirmations of faith are excluded from this proposed interfaith Christology, he states that “We can and should understand those terms- unique, singular, alone, exclusive, universal and absolute – in ways that do not make them sound like they are making an empirically verifiable statement or denying the many and diverse ways in which Divine spirit, can and does work in the world.” (phan, p98, year) So the most obvious limitation is that this form of Christology will not work for Christians who are exclusivists. At this point, I am also wondering whether the same restrictions regarding affirmations of faith also apply to other faiths such as Islam and Judaism.If so, then does this mean that we are basically saying that all religions are equally viable paths to God? Dr. Ambrose Mong seems to think so. In his book Dialogue Derailed: Joseph Ratzinger’s War against Pluralistic Theology, Dr. Mong states “Religious pluralism implies that we do not possess the whole truth about divine reality. It means that we cannot impose our beliefs on others. Pluralists claim that the truth of each religion is valid within its own context. In this sense, religious pluralism teaches that all religions are equally valid paths to God. “ (Mong, P213, Year)

Phan also informs us that, while his proposed Christology encompasses certain aspects of other forms of Christology, his way is still a distinctive form of Christology which should not be rejected at its early stages of development but should be embraced as a much-needed component of interfaith dialogue. Phan is keen to point out that we shouldn’t be quick to dismiss this form of Christology on the basis that it contains “potential errors or weaknesses” (phan, p94. Year)

Phan wants us to understand that the Christian concept of Christ is vastly different from the concept held by other religions. Therefore, one of the crucial purposes of an interfaith Christology is to ascertain the significance of Christ in any religious context. Having said that, we should keep in mind, that, not all religions acknowledge Christ. Still focused on Christ, Phan points out that the Jesus that we know in the gospels can also be described and identified in several ways. However, he is often associated with “Liberation, enlightenment, salvation, redemption, transformation, etc.” This is central to the notion of the “Christ” (Phan p95, year) The Gospels state that the Holy Spirit descended like a dove and remained on Christ during his baptism and it was primarily through this supernatural power of the holy spirit that he was able to demonstrate his divinity and connection with the father and it is this power that also becomes the focus of the interfaith Christology which Phan has proposed. Phan believes that the spirit of God is not “embodied in any particular historical person” (Phan p95, year). Therefore, we can also find this idea of God’s spirit in other religions which also makes it easier to incorporate it into this Interfaith Christology.

The role of the Divine Spirit

Phan starts his analysis of the role of the Holy Spirit by taking us back to the beginning, “Before Christ, religions, church, and mission, there is Divine Spirit.” (Phan p51, yr). Phan stresses that the word Divine is added to highlight that it is a unique spirit and not to be equated with the array of spirits that are mentioned in both Christianity and the major world religions. An important point to note is that this concept of a divine spirit is interpreted differently in various religions, however, Phan gives a clear definition of the holy spirit by stating that “In Christian Theology, “Divine Spirit” can refer either to God as “spirit” (with the lower-case S), and to the “Third Person” in God, the spirit, (with the upper-case S) often with the adjective “Holy” attached: The Holy Spirit. These two references must be kept in mind as we proceed to explore the foundation of Christian theology; God as spirit and the Holy Spirit. It is God, a spirit, which is the foundation of Christian Theology.” (Phan p54, year). In Christian theology, it is Jesus and the Holy Spirit who are the means by which men receive salvation, but in Phan’s explanation of interfaith Christology, he states that there is a “Theological conviction that Divine spirit is actively present in non-Christian religions, in and through the Holy Spirit and that, to this extent, these religions may be regarded as “ways of salvation”’. (phan, p59, yr) Furthermore, Phan highlights that, in Asia, the divine spirit is “expressed, believed, imagined and symbolized by believers themselves in these traditions.” (phan, p59, yr)

Phan is not the only one to express these views. Jacques Dupuis was a Jesuit Priest and Theologian, and in his book; Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, he writes “Relationship exists between the Path that is in Jesus Christ and the various paths to salvation proposed by the religious traditions and their members. Paths to God are laid by God, not human beings for themselves.” (Dupuis, 1997, P305)

These ideas are not unique to Phan. The primary source of his inspiration comes from a document that was issued in 1997 entitled The spirit at work in Asia, which is today also known as SWAT. This document is also the central focus of ideas relating to interfaith Christology and the role played by the Holy Spirit, subsequently, these declarations regarding the work of the Spirit are at the center of the Interfaith Christology which we are discussing about. Phan believes that there is a strong connection between the Christian concept of the work of the Holy Spirit and that which is expressed in other religions. Therefore, we should be open to this when in dialogue with people with lineages to religions other than Christianity.

Still focused on the statements made in the SWAT document, Phan moves onto discernment. The document asks the question, “Was the spirit present in the Indian Tradition?.” And it answers unequivocally, ”Yes”. If we are able to discern the signs of the Spirit, we can read the history of Hinduism as a holy history, where the Spirit has led our brothers and sisters to the depths of the mystery of God and leads them towards Christ today. The difficult challenge, of course, is for Christians to discern “the signs of Spirit in Hinduism.” (Phan p60, year) But are Hindu’s always led to Christ? If so, wouldn’t we have seen a significant increase in the number of Hindu’s converting to Christianity? Also, what is discernment? Is it a spiritual power/gift or is it something that is already within us? Discernment is the ability to make good judgments, however, scripture is full of references which suggest it is a spiritual power/gift, (1 Corinthians 12:10, 1 Kings 3:9). Therefore, it may not be present in everyone, so to some extent, he is right about the challenge of discernment.

This part of the chapter reminds me of a series that I watched recently called The Healer. The protagonist of this series is a person called Charlie Goldsmith who known as an energy healer. Charlie is not religious but he claims that he received his “gift” while he was meditating at a retreat. Charlie’s energy appears to be limited to the realm of healing. Where does his energy come from? Does Charlie have a degree of the Holy Spirit? Why is he able to heal people simply by focusing his energy and laying his hands on someone? If Charlie is experiencing the power of God’s spirit, then, I’m sure that some have questioned why God has allowed his spirit to work through a non Christian? Is there a deeper meaning behind Charlie’s healing abilities? Would Christians recognise the spirit at work in him or would they associate it with something else? I think that this could be a good example of God’s spirit at work in someone who is not religious, but, is this Spirit leading Charlie’s patients closer to Christ or God? That’s a question which has yet to be asked so it would be interesting to speak to his patients and assess their responses. I guess, one of the key questions would be, are his patients religious? Do they pray? Have they been drawn closer to God or Christ?

The next section that I will look at has certainly helped me to understand how this type of Interfaith Christology is achieved. Phan states that “The thesis of SWAT is that it is at the level of experiencing the Four Noble truths, which is by practicing and not merely discussing them, that an encounter between Buddhism and Christianity, vastly different though they are as conceptual systems, is possible. To put it in Christian terms, the experience of Divine Spirit or the Holy Spirit can be obtained in the experience of the four noble truths.” (Phan p61, year) An exclusivist Christian would probably disagree regarding the possibility of having an experience of the transcendent in this way especially because they may not agree with the four noble truths, namely:

(1) That all existence is “suffering” (dukkha).

(2) That the cause (samudaya) of suffering is “desire” or “craving” (tanha).

(3) That it is possible to “cease” (nirodha) this desire, and

(4) That there is an “eightfold path” (margga) to achieve liberation from suffering (nirvana).” (Phan p61, year)

For example, from a Christian perspective, I’ve heard many people suggest that the cause of suffering in life is not necessarily linked to desire or craving but it is due to external forces namely those that are of evil origin and whose desire is to hinder our salvation. SWAT further states that ultimately whoever practices these four noble truths will undergo the four sublime states, with Love being the ultimate. Phan states that “This universal love is the hallmark of the enlightened person (Bodhisattva) in Mahayana Buddhism, who vows to save all beings, destroy all evil passions, learn the truth and teach others, lead all beings towards Buddhahood.” (Phan p61, year)

This ultimate goal for love is definitely related to the teachings of Christ, especially in the gospel of John, “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this, everyone will know that you are my disciple if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35)

Phan states that the SWAT document “Clearly acknowledges the presence of the Holy Spirit in primal religions, albeit with some reservations, given their belief in evil spirits and practices to appease them.” (Phan, p63, year) In this chapter, we are also informed that the SWAT document has concluded that in non-Christian religions, we can clearly see the fruit of the spirit manifested and that, the “The Divine Spirit who works unceasingly to renew the face of the universe, is also active in the religion of Islam to produce the Spirit’s inimitable fruits in the lives of Muslims.” (Phan, p64, year) Apparently, it is not uncommon to search for the activity of God’s spirit in non-Christian religions, the SWAT document also urges its readers to try and discern the activity of God’s spirit, and it’s one of the key elements in interfaith dialogue. The question has to be asked if the Divine Spirit is present in other religions e.g Islam and this Spirit is supposed to lead us into all truth, then why Muslims fail to see the need for a saviour. Islam acknowledges Jesus as a Prophet, so, if this is true, and they listen to what all of the prophets say, then, why do they refuse to accept Jesus’ teachings especially concerning his unique role in their salvation? Furthermore, I cannot understand how an angel called Gabriel, who also appears in Christianity, can also give divine revelations that in essence result in Muslims denying that Jesus is the son of God.

In concluding his chapter on the role of the divine spirit Phan quotes from SWAT, “The spirit could be understood as the human or the divine spirit. In either of the cases, the diversity of tongues which defines the activity of the Spirit argues for religious pluralism.” (Phan, p74, year) Are we talking about works-based salvation? Just because people act in a way that demonstrates qualities of the fruit of the Spirit, does it necessarily mean that they have or are being led by the Holy Spirit as it is known in Christianity? Could it be that their fruits of the Spirit are simply associated with the moral and ethical principles which they abide by? Solicitors are supposed to abide by the SRA Code of Conduct, yet I have seen many who do not follow this ethical behaviour outside of their profession.

This chapter has highlighted the value of an interfaith Christology in that it is focused on the Spirit and as such, it is a good foundation that some non Christian religions can relate to. Focusing on the role of the spirit in the world can help us to understand how we can all be united spiritually. However, I still feel that by denying the application of the words of our saviour, we are, to some extent, compromising our faith in him and in his teachings.

Is Interfaith Christology a true path to salvation? According to Christianity, the answer is no, because Jesus emphatically stated I am the way the truth and the life, no one can come to the Father except through me (John 14:6). These words are not our declarations of faith but they are understood to be the words of Christ so there is no reason why they should not be considered when discussing an Interfaith Christology. Having said this, it has been argued that it is God alone who is the ultimate source of salvation. In her book, Trinity: Nexus of the Mysteries of Christian Faith, Anne Hunt confirms the position of Jacques Dupuis on this matter by stating that he believes that “The absolute saviour is the father, who is the ultimate source of the risen Lord and of all reality.” (Hunt, 2005, P73)

Alternative perspectives on Salvation

How can salvation be attained? What view should we take on other religions as a means of salvation? Is there any saving structure in those other religions? I will briefly examine these important questions with a view to assess this proposed interfaith Christology. How can salvation be attained? In his book, Christianity and World Religions, Sir Norman Anderson states that “In some religions or schools of thought “Salvation” must be achieved, won or attained by the one who is saved- by the moral quality of his life, the degree of illuminations he achieves, the merit of the sacrifices he offers or the depth of his religious commitment. In others, “Salvation can never be earned by man, but can come only from some divine “Saviour” Clearly Christianity’s form of salvation differs to the salvation referred to in some religions and schools of thought. When Phan speaks of the fruit of the spirit being present in other religions, I can’t help but see a connection between his statement and a person who is saved by the “moral quality of his life”. Regarding the question of what view should we take on other religions as a means of salvation, Anderson states that there are several perspectives which are maintained by Christians and they are summarised by Anderson as follows:

One perspective is that, “Christ was present in every age, to every race, but he was not known as such. It was only when the Word was made of flesh, however, that he could be known as a personal saviour and Lord.” ‘’Other religions can be seen as a preparation for the gospel, either as the revelation of deep wants of the human spirit, which the gospel alone can fully satisfy or as partial insights which are corrected and completed by the Gospel.” (Anderson, p170, year). Furthermore he states that a variant of this approach is that while it acknowledges that there are distinct moral principles or beliefs in non Christian religions, however, it is “In Christianity alone that all these values are found in their proper balance and relationship” (Anderson, p170, year). Yet, another twist to this statement is that the “Values of the religions do not together add up to him who alone is truth.” (Anderson, p170, year)

Another perspective puts these other religions at par with the Devil, Anderson states that “They do not emanate in any sense from God, but from the Devil and those rays of truth which they indubitably contain are explained in terms of the fact that even Satan himself can and does sometimes appear as an angel of light.” (Anderson, p171, year) Anderson goes on to highlight a concern that I had at the start of reading Phan’s book, which is that pluralism is opposed to any declarations of faith. Anderson sums up my concerns by stating that in this second perspective “A primary emphasis is put on the basic fact that they inevitably deny whether by explicit statement, as in Islam or by implicit teaching, as the great pre-Christian religions- the unique claims of the “word made flesh”, and that they hold themselves out to be substitutes for and alternatives to the only gospel that can save and satisfy.” (Anderson, p171, year)

I believe that the form of religious pluralism that Phan is endorsing comes under the category of Unitary Pluralism. In his book, Christainity & World Religions Professor Gavin D’Costa states that “Unitary Pluralists hold that all religions are or can be equal and valid paths to one divine reality. “Unitary indicates a single unitary divine being behind the different plural religious phenomena.” (D’Costa, P6, Year) In Phan’s interfaith Christology, this single unitary divine being is the spirit of God. Phan’s form of Interfaith Christology is also an inclusivist approach and it also falls under the category of Structural Inclusivism. D’Costa states that “Structural Inclusivists hold that Christ is the normative revelation of God, although salvation is possible outside of the explicit Christian Church. This type of Inclusivism contains the pluralistic legitimisation of other religions as salvific structures while also holding the exclusivist claims of the saving grace of Chist alone.” (DÇosta, P7, year)

I believe that the underlying reason for Interfaith Christology is our shared belief that God desires that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth as is stated in 1 Timothy 2:4. One of the key words in this statement is “desire” so it’s something that God would like to happen. However, we also know that human beings have free will; therefore, we can choose not to embrace Christianity and instead choose an alternative path which we believe will still result in our salvation.

Conclusion

Interreligious dialogue is important in Asia because several of the major world religions are present with Christianity being the minority. I understand the need to create an Interfaith Christology which will ultimately lead to peace between these major religions. One of the key elements to an Interfaith Christology is that Salvation can be achieved outside of the church through the power of God’s spirit, thus negating the need to acknowledge Christ as a personal saviour. However, I do not believe that we can know for sure that God’s spirit is at work in all religions and will, therefore, provide a means of salvation. I would say that this is also a faith-based statement because it is something that we cannot explicitly prove. Having read through two key chapters of Phan’s book, and considering the views of other scholars who have written about interfaith dialogue, I don’t believe that Phan’s argument that Christian claims about Jesus as unique and universal saviour can be held alongside his proposal of “Interfaith/Interreligious Christology.” Because it involves all participants abandoning all claims to the “absolute truth” and accepting that God’s Holy Spirit is at work in “all religions” and I’m not convinced that everyone involved in interfaith dialogue would be willing to do so. It is clear that Christians would have to be prepared to compromise their faith in the gospel message in order to accommodate another path to salvation and this compromise could untimely lead to our salvation also being compromised so you have to ask yourself is it worth it? Or should we just agree to disagree?