When we ask what is the proper Christian view of other religions,
206 CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER FAITHS
cepted most uncritically in the Fundamentalist churches. On the other hand, liberal laymen and some ministers often accept the easygoing relativism of the Hindu syncretists. Their good-natured notion that all religions are right in their own way and that all take people to the same goal at last is doubtless due in part to a perversion of political religious tolerance and in part to loss of religious earnestness. But it has been affected also by the various forms of syncretistic Hinduism active in America, especially the Ramakrishna Society, and also by such related movements as Bahai and Theosophy. Such influences have been effective chiefly since the World Parliament of Religions, at Chicago in 1893, gave to Swami Vivekananda a platform from which his urbane message of universal religious acceptance was widely heard.
In Eastern Europe there has been a considerable penetration of many churches by Marxian ideas. Partly by the persuasive power of propaganda, and partly by coercive pressures, Communist governments are at times able to use churchmen as spokesmen for some Communist policies which are, to say the least, not implied by Christian faith. At the same time, American Christians are in a poor position to criticize such compromising of the Gospel so long
as the churches here, with complete political freedom and with
_ ready access to every kind of literature, still appear so often to be
_used as instruments of narrow nationalistic policy and, all too often,
of special class interests besides.
The Theological Issues Concerning Interpenetration
1. Possible Attitudes and Policies
When we ask what is the proper Christian view of other religions, relative to_interpenetration, we find that there are four main attitudes which have been recommended by various persons. ___ The first of these may be spoken of as total rejection with the purpose of radical displacement. This proposal is exemplified by
most of the earlier Protestant missionaries, They regarded non-
Christian religions as simply false and wholly evil. They thought that Hindus, Buddhists, and Moslems alike were in bondage to
_ Satan and could escape the wrath of God only by repenting of their __ heathen practices in toto and accepting Christ. Few missionaries
Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions 207
today, excepting some from the extreme Fundamentalist sects, would subscribe to so simple and extreme a view.}®
Even fewer Christian missionaries of this or any age would subscribe to a relativistic syncretism. Its advocates would say that all religions were paths to the same Reality. No one path would be entitled to universal preference, since different paths may be bet-
ter for different personal temperaments and social traditions. Such
a view is represented by the Ramakrishna Society. It is deeply con-
trary to Christian tradition, to the New Testament, and to a thor-
oughly serious concern with truth. Some of those churches which
have so far lost Christian identity as to debate the question whether
they wish to be called Christian may find such views attractive, but
relativistic syncretism can hardly be a live option to one who takes
Christian discipleship or even truth seriously. Only an uninstructed
or superficial sentimentality could regard the contrary teachings of
Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam as all true and worthy
of adherence. Good-natured assurances that good Buddhists will
go to heaven by their own path just as Christians do by theirs will
not please an intelligent Buddhist who is in earnest. He neither ex-
pects nor desires any such destiny as the Christian hope envisions. __. A subtler and more sophisticated view than the two previously discussed is that represented with greatest distinction and impressive learning by Hendrik Kraemer. With E. C. Dewick, we may call this the doctrine of discontinuity." Kraemer contends for Christian humility before adherents of other religions, and for appreciation of the high values to be found in them. He condemns efforts to mold the doctrines and practices of new churches in other lands after the image of our Western churches. However, while our Christian religion must be viewed in its finiteness and weakness, and stands under judgment as do the non-Christian religions, it is quite — otherwise with the Christian revelation. All non-Christian religions are based solely on human effort and wisdom—often admirable— never on revelation. The Christian revelation is absolute, incomparable and sui generis. Moreover, even "Empirical Christianity has stood and stands under continuous and direct influence and judges ao
2° Some statements in support of such a view are quoted by E. C. Dewick SS in his book The Christian Attitude to Other Religions gC amie Camx bridge University Press, 1953), p. 41.
* See ibid., p. 43.
208 CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER FAITHS
ment of the revelation of Christ and is in virtue thereof in a different position from the other religions." ** Therefore, Kraemer maintains, for the Church to cooperate with the non-Christian religions, or to engage in exchanges of views in search for further truth, would be simply a betrayal of the Word of God. In practical terms, then, Kraemer's view, too, implies a radical displacement, though with a somewhat more generous spirit and a different rationale than the view which we have designated by that name.
Kraemer shows no lack of confidence in his view, and his knowledge is formidable. But how do we know that he is right? We have only his word for it and the word of others holding similar
views. To be sure, he insists that faithfulness to the revelation requires it; but he offers no proof. All the religions, including Chris-
tianity, he says, are relative; only the Christian revelation is absolute. Yet he assumes that he knows this revelation. But does not his interpretation of the revelation and its requirement of us constitute a part of religion, if not the religion of the Church, then at least the religion of Hendrik Kraemer? On what ground does Kraemer's understanding of the Word escape the relativism of all religion? If his understanding of the Word is, even in some respects, human and relative, then why should we accept this part of it, namely the doctrine of discontinuity, without the proofs required of any other human idea which claims identity with divine truth?
The principal contemporary competitor, within the Christian Church, to the doctrine of discontinuity is the doctrine of fulfillment, represented in especially discriminating and convincing fashion by such a man as A. C. Bouquet.'® If Bouquet is right, then much as Jesus came long ago, not "to abolish the law and the prophets ... but to fulfill them," ?° so his Gospel comes today to the laws and prophets of other religions. It is freely granted that the revelation to the Hebrews is forever uniquely related to Jesus and the Gospel, for that revelation prepared historically for the historical event of the Incarnation. No other revelation or religion
* Kraemer, The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938), p. 145. Kraemer's later book, Religion and the Christian Faith (London: Lutterworth Press, 1956) reaffirms this basic position.
See his book, The Christian Faith and Non-Christian Religions (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958).
rooMt:-5317,