The ultimate background for the study of Christianity does
not lie merely within Christianity itself either in the sense
that it can be isolated from the general fact of religiousness
that includes other religions or in the sense that it is purely
the concern of theology rather than part of the humanities in
general. My contention is that Christianity, Christian faith,
and Christian conviction can be seen in a new and more positive
light not merely by being placed within a framework of general
religiousness and the study of humanity but also by taking note
of the work in world religions that has been done in recent years
in religious education. Before we attempt to explore the advantages
that can be gained by presenting Christianity as a world religion,
let us first examine why the teaching of Christianity has been
felt to be weak in recent years. One reason is that suitable provision
has often not been made for it in many schools. The result is
that it has often been inadequately taught. On the one hand the
job has been given to enthusiasts anxious to proselytise in the
school. Children have tended to feel instinctively that this approach
was not appropriate in the school situation; and if they have
not reacted in this way members of staff often have done so with
the result that religious education has been felt to be an unprofessionally
taught subject. On the other hand, in order to ensure that the
subject was taught at all Heads have sometimes been reduced to
giving the job to people who were not only amateurs but were also
without faith. The results were equally unsatisfactory. The situation
is now becoming better and faithful bands of teachers are bringing
higher standards to bear upon the subject. Religious advisers
have been appointed in a number of places and specialist teachers
and departments have been set up. New courses have been introduced
that are pitched at a high standard (for example the Religious
Studies degrees at Edinburgh University). Examinations and certificates
in Religious Studies have appeared in schools so that statutory
backing is given to the desire of Heads to promote the subject
(1).
Another reason is that too much knowledge is sometimes assumed
on the part of the students who may be completely ignorant about
the basic facts of Christianity. This is sometimes compounded
by the fact that some teachers have received a church-type training
(for example a Bachelor of Divinity degree) which may be good
for work in the church but maybe inadequate to the very different
atmosphere and conditions of the school. This does not mean that
the church should be ignored in this discussion; but it does mean
that Christian education programmes in churches geared for Sunday
School work and the like cannot just be repeated in schools where
the ethos, methods and aims are different.
Another reason is that Christianity has rarely been seen as a
whole. Sometimes the Bible was the focus of attention and the
beginnings of Christianity in the first century. It was not necessarily
related to modern day questions or to other dimensions of Christianity,
nor to notions of what scripture was all about. At other times
church history was seen to be equivalent to Christianity so that
the lessons became history lessons that omitted crucial aspects
of Christianity. At other times theological doctrines have been
the crux of the matter and the impression was given that believing
certain theological propositions amounted to ‘Christianity’. Occasionally
lessons on moral questions predominated so that Christianity was
viewed as a system of morals. The difficulty was that Christianity
was not seen as a whole. The individual work (say on the Bible)
might be done quite well but it was not related to other equally
important dimensions.
A fourth reason is that too parochial a view has often been taken
of Christianity, either at the denominational or national level.
Christianity was presented in terms of a particular church, or
it was presented as a western religion rather than a universal
one. We are now becoming increasingly aware that if Christianity
is to be presented at all it must be in ecumenical terms. We are
also becoming aware that Christianity is no longer a western religion
alone. Its mission has gone into every part of the world; Christian
theology is beginning to be influenced by ‘water-buffalo theology’
or Indian Christian theology or liberation theology or African
theology; (2) realisation is dawning that the Secretary of the
World Council of Churches has been a West Indian (3) and that
the next centre may be in a place outside the West.
A fifth reason relates to the role of critical studies in Christianity.
In some cases critical studies (of the Bible, for example) have
been ignored altogether and fundamentalist views given. In other
cases critical views have been given extensively so that the subject
became devoted to literary and historical criticism rather than
to the religious significance of Christianity as a humane subject.
The point lies not in the critical views themselves, but in what
they mean for Christians. The Myth of God Incarnate (4) is not
a facet of the first century but of the twentieth century — specifically
of a group of liberal Protestants of the twentieth century. If
the Myth of God Incarnate issue is mentioned it should be discussed
in these terms rather than in terms of ‘this is what Christianity
is’.
Sixthly, and related to the reasons given above, it was difficult
to promote a real empathy in regard to Christianity. If it was
presented in a proselytising way or an ignorant way, if it was
presented in a way appropriate to the church but not to the school.
If it was presented in a partial way, or in too parochial a way,
or in too critical a way, it was difficult to generate warmth
or interest. The subject which has a real capacity to generate
interest and involvement in that it deals with ultimate questions
of meaning, purpose, life vision, and wholeness had become a bore.
It was partly in response to this seeming impasse in presenting
Christianity that emphasis has become placed in recent years on
the teaching of world religions. The feeling has been growing
in certain quarters that the presenting of world religions is
right and positive and should not be neglected but that the time
has come to place emphasis, thought and vigour into the teaching
of Christianity — and the process may be aided and advantages
gained by learning from some of the work done in world religions
and by seeing Christianity as a world religion. What then may
be accomplished by seeing Christianity as a world religion? (5)
In the first place it can be seen as a whole. In a recent conversation
with an Edinburgh colleague, Professor William Montgomery Watt,
the question arose of what book on Christianity one could recommend
to a Muslim student who wished to learn what Christianity was
all about. The answer was that no book sprang to mind because
there was no book that treated Christianity as a whole. The nearest
possibility was the now dated one by Edward Bevan. At the simplest
level productions such as Broadberry’s Thinking about Christianity
(6) are valuable but are too slender to do more than scratch the
surface. Deeper works are presentations of partial aspects of
Christianity rather than the whole. Even the recently topical
book on The Christians by Bamber Gascoigne (7) is basically a
historical presentation rather than an attempt to see Christianity
as a whole. The same is true of other works which offer one dimension
of a many-dimensioned religion. It is at this point that it becomes
instructive to glance at the work done on world religions. Better
(although by no means perfect) attempts have been made to present
them as a whole. The series entitled The Religious Life of Man
published by the Dickenson Publishing Company of Belmont, California,
includes books on The Way of the Torah, The House of Islam, Japanese
Religion, Chinese Religion, The Buddhist Religion and The Hindu
Religious Tradition. (8)
In the space of approximately 150 pages these works manage to
convey an impression of Judaism, Islam, Japanese religion, Chinese
religion, Hinduism and Buddhism as whole entities. Interestingly
enough there is not a title on Christianity. Why is it not possible
to present Christianity as a whole? Perhaps we may hazard two
suggestions. On the one hand the need has not been obvious before.
It is only now, with our global village situation, that Hindus,
Buddhists, Muslims, and others, are becoming interested in the
question ‘What is Christianity’? The same is true of our own islands
where immigrants from other cultures are asking the same question
within the British context. Equally, and perhaps more importantly,
there are areas of our western civilisation, especially in inner
cities, where the same question is being asked from the same depth
of ignorance. And it is often a cry from the heart, a feeling
that something of deep value is being lost almost by default.
The assumption that everyone born in the West somehow knows what
Christianity is remains no longer valid yet it is a widely held
assumption. The response to this can only be in terms of a presentation
of Christianity in its wholeness rather than in its part or parts.
On the other hand, the scholarly work on Christianity has been
organised in disciplines which concentrate upon a particular aspect
of Christianity. For example, the divinity faculty at Edinburgh
(which has a high world reputation in the field) has departments
of Ecclesiastical History, Old Testament, New Testament, Systematic
Theology, Christian Ethics and Practical Theology. Other Divinity
faculties around the world tend to duplicate this pattern.
The danger is that stress becomes placed upon the discipline
and its boundaries rather than upon the wholeness of Christianity.
The different disciplines come to be seen as ends in their own
right rather than as interlocking bricks in the greater Christian
structure. Just as universities as a whole have come to stress
the different disciplines of sociology, psychology, history, etc,
as separate fields of expertise rather than humanity itself in
its social, psychological and historical aspects, so that the
emphasis has been placed on the discipline as though it were an
autonomous meaningful study in itself — so also the study of Christianity
has tended to become split into separate compartments as though
the compartments meant something in themselves rather than as
parts of the whole. If it be argued (as it will be) that there
is greater expertise in the study of Christianity than there is
in the study of other religions, we may at least partially agree
with this and indeed glory in it. It is a clear gain to have 24
people presenting Christianity as opposed to four presenting another
religion. Yet if the 24 are freed to specialise in their own smaller
fields of expertise, the temptation is to lose sight of the whole
in a way that the four who are studying the other religion will
not. The study and teaching of Christianity can gain from the
work done in other religions by regaining a vision of the wholeness
of Christianity. When this has been done the parts can be explored
more thoroughly.
In the second place, Christianity can be seen in its worldwide
and ecumenical aspect. Studies of world religions have given a
picture of all the groups within a particular tradition and of
the geographical scope of the whole tradition. This perspective
has been virtually taken for granted. Studies of Islam have mentioned
the Sunnis and the Shia’s, and all the law schools, studies of
Judaism have mentioned Orthodox, Conservative and Reform; studies
of Buddhism have mentioned Theravãda, Mahayãna, and Tantra; studies
of Hinduism have mentioned popular, Vedanta Bhakti, and modern
strands; studies of China have mentioned Taoist, Confucian, and
Buddhist elements; studies of Japan have mentioned Shinto, Taoist,
Confucian, and Buddhist groups; and so on. Moreover, the geographical
spread of the tradition has been outlined and seen as important.
As far as Christianity has been concerned the temptation has been
to present a denominational picture. Roman Catholic, Orthodox,
and Protestant then become not elements within Christianity but
foci of attention to the exclusion of other elements in Christianity.
The temptation has been to present Christianity as a western religion
whereas in fact the mission of the church has gone into every
single land of this earth and Christianity is a universal religion.
Bishop Stephen Neill asserts that Afghanistan, Tibet, and Nepal
are exceptions to this claim and yet Christians do exist there
even if missions are theoretically invalid (9).
Indeed not only does Christianity exist throughout the world,
it is being deeply affected by developments in non-Western lands.
Gandhi’s stress upon simplicity instead of opulence, non-attachment
instead of greed, and active non-violence instead of oppression
is being filtered by people such as Martin Luther King and his
heirs into world Christianity; Latin American Liberation Theology
is revealing for other Christians God’s concern for social structures
and poverty; Indian Christian practise is transferring a Hindu
discipline of interior prayer into world Christian circles; the
stress of African churches upon healing, dreams, symbols and visions,
often mediated through African primal religions, is producing
echoes in the world Christian psyche; water-buffalo theology in
Thailand is one among many prods to make Christians take nature
and ecology more seriously; Chinese Christians, influenced partly
by their Taoist and Confucian heritage, are showing that God,
humans and nature are inter-linked; the Korean Christian stress
upon religious emotion and Christian society, filtered through
the Korean Confucian and Shamanistic tradition, is not un-noticed
in the wider Christian world.’ (10)
A stress upon the universal nature of Christianity does not prevent
more attention being given to local features, For example in Scotland
more attention will obviously be given to the Church of Scotland
than to the Orthodox Church; more attention will be given to the
influence of Christianity upon western culture and Scottish values
and modes of thinking than to African or Indian Christianity or
the influence of liberation upon Latin America. Yet the local
significance will be presented within the overall picture of ecumenical
and universal Christianity.
In the third place Christianity as a world religion can be seen
empathetically. The study of other world religions has usually
involved the use of what the Germans call einfühlung (empathy),
that is to say an imaginative attempt to get inside the worldview
of the people concerned in order to see the universe as they see
it. The presentation of world religions has dwelt upon their positive
rather than their negative aspects. Other religions have not usually
employed complicated textual critical methods themselves, neither
have strenuous efforts been made to foist upon them methods they
did not feel to be relevant. In cases where this has been done,
for example McLeod’s book on Guru Nanak, (11) there have been
howls of protest from the community involved. In general, traditions
have been viewed sympathetically with a view to understanding
their religious significance. To be sure, this has not been an
easy process. To really understand another religion requires much
knowledge as well as sympathy. After four years in India, four
years of Sanskrit and three of Hindi and Hindustani, and four
years at Harvard completing a doctorate including a specialism
in Hinduism, I still wonder how deeply I understand the Hindu
view of life. Colleagues will doubtless share my reticence. And
yet the will to empathise has been there. When we come to consider
the study of Christianity we face the strange paradox that the
religion in regard to which empathy should have been most easy
has not been accorded the empathy it might have expected. There
are a number of reasons for this. Critical tools have sometimes
become ends rather than means. Discussion of the authorship of
a New Testament work has been given a prominence that should have
been given to the religious significance of that work; the geographical
date of St Paul’s journeys has received more attention than their
significance for Christians. More prosaically much time has been
spent on simply recounting biblical stories or church history
without seeing their relevance for the people concerned. They
have become items of information to be learnt rather than clues
to transcendence, to Christian faith, to humanity. By focusing
attention on ‘the facts’, critical studies have often taken attention
away from the significance of the facts. Another reason has been
the stress upon the belief factor in Christianity. It has become
almost a commonplace to state that Christians have stressed belief,
Jews and Muslims have stressed the Law, and Buddhists and Hindus
have stressed religious experience. There is an element of truth
in this in that Christians have stressed theology more than others
but the pistis of the New Testament and the credo of the medieval
church was not so much a believing in intellectual notions but
a putting one’s trust in God. (12) Intellectual articulation of
Christianity in the form of theology, important as it was, was
secondary to the faith that lay behind it. In any case it is difficult
to empathise with a set of intellectual formulations! A third
reason for lack of empathy towards the teaching of Christianity
has been the sometimes unthinking employment of the concept of
neutrality and objectivity. This is a complex topic worthy of
a book rather than a sentence. Part of the problem is that methods
appropriate (and good) for the natural sciences have been applied
to the humanities and the social sciences. The stress is thereby
laid on outward objects or phenomena which are treated as external
data to be analysed objectively and neutrally according to the
methods of science. The stress is placed upon the outward data
— rituals, institutions, beliefs, ethics, philosophies, churches,
scriptures, etc — as though they have a reality in themselves
structurally independent of the people (i.e. the Christians) who
hold them dear. This method is good for objects; it is not so
good for people. One can have empathy for people but not for objects.
Another part of the problem arises from attempts made by Christians
to grapple with the question of other religions. A few lines previously
we mentioned the word einfühlung which can be translated (although
not exactly) as ‘empathy’. This has often been coupled, within
the phenomenological method, (13) with the notion of epoché (putting
one’s own ideas into brackets in order to understand the position
of another). This method has served its purpose in enabling Christians
to gain insight into the religious position of others. However,
in practice, more stress has been laid upon epoché (negatively
putting aside one’s own ideas) than upon einfühlung (empathising
deeply with the inwardness of the position of others). Christian
understanding of others has too often been at the outward level.
At this point our argument links up with the point made previously,
namely the stress within science, the social sciences, and even
the study of religion upon outward structures and data rather
than what these have meant to people themselves. Perhaps semi-consciously
the same method has been applied in some quarters to the study
of Christianity. Teachers have employed epoché, they have put
aside their own convictions for the sake of neutrality and objectivity,
but they have not gone on to engage in einfühlung, empathy. Epoche
is good for a student or teacher who engages in the exciting occupation
of presenting Christianity, for he will bring with him a partial
background (for example Methodism) (14) a partial knowledge (for
example Sunday School and home), and a partial understanding.
By the use of epoché he can gain a full knowledge, a more comprehensive
grasp of the data of Christianity, and this is important. And
yet just as important is the need to convey an einfühlung for
Christianity, to indicate what the Christian data mean to the
Christian, to indicate the faith that lies behind the Christian
‘facts’.
It is not impossible that the agnostic or the Muslim may be able
to achieve this empathy for Christianity by recognising not just
the data of Christianity but what they mean for the Christian.
It is more likely that the Christian can achieve empathy for Christianity
because he or she brings to it a faith perspective that he or
she could not bring in the same way to a study of Hinduism. (15)
Nevertheless for methodological reasons this is often not done.
There are other reasons too for lack of empathy in the conveying
of Christianity, for example, an ignorance of the subject that
affects morale, and a naive proselytising that displays lack of
empathy for the hearers and is the opposite of true empathy. In
general the teacher of Christianity (including the Christian teacher
of Christianity) has been impeded for one reason or another from
applying empathy to his or her presentation of Christianity. The
same reticence has not been there in principle in the study of
other religions even though in practice empathy has been hard
to achieve.
We have glanced briefly at the development in the study of world
religions during recent years, and suggested that the presentation
of Christianity can be helped in three ways if it is seen in the
context of world religions. It can be seen as a whole rather than
in part; it can be seen as ecumenical and universal albeit important
in local situations; it can be seen empathetically. We are now
ready to consider, in the light of our discussion so far, new
directions for the study of Christianity in the years ahead.
At the present time there is a national discussion in progress
in Great Britain concerning the question of education. There is
talk about the need to get back to the three Rs, and to define
fundamentals once again so that students at school receive a basic
yet rounded education. The argument of this paper is intended
to feed into this discussion. A fourth R is important, namely
Religion. Religiousness is basic to humanity; religious studies,
when viewed in a wider light, deepen our understanding of the
meaning and purpose of life; religious studies are part of humane
studies and deal with persons rather than objects. Within religious
studies the study of Christianity is important and it can be strengthened
by learning from developments in the study of world religions
in the ways that have been suggested. The next step is to consider
the basic subject matter of studies in Christianity. Before we
commence this task three points need to be made. The first is
that this study should not be a separate watertight department
but it should open out into and help to integrate other studies;
however it is also important that a basic body of knowledge should
provide the parameters from which it will open out into wider
areas. Open-ness is not the same as vagueness, and it is important
to delimit the general subject matter a young adult of 18 should
ideally have grasped (or better have been grasped by) when he
leaves school. Secondly, there is the important question of how
much knowledge of other religions should be available to our young
adult. I will make no attempt to tackle this point in this paper.
It must be tackled elsewhere. Basically it is a question of weight
and it will be generally agreed that in the western world with
its Christian background more weight should be given to Christianity.
Thirdly, my intent is not to dwell upon teaching methods as such.
There is neither the time for this, nor do I particularly have
the competence to pronounce on this topic. At the end of the day,
each teacher ‘finds’ his or her own way of communicating or sharing
the relevant material. Our concern is that there should be some
general agreement about the basic body of knowledge that pupil
and teacher should be grasped by. In the last analysis it is more
important that methods should arise out of the subject matter
than that the subject matter should be subordinated to the demands
of methods. What then is the basic subject matter involved?
In our presentation to this point we have intimated certain criteria
which are relevant to deciding the nature of the basic data of
Christianity. These criteria are that Christianity should be presented
in its wholeness, that it should be presented in its universality,
that it should be presented empathetically, and that it should
be presented professionally. We have suggested that the data of
Christianity point beyond themselves to the faith of those for
whom they are meaningful and ultimately to the God who is known
through them. Nevertheless, the first requirement is that a body
of knowledge should be outlined whereby we can understand humans
in their religious dimension, just as there is a body of knowledge
whereby we can understand humans in their economic dimensions,
or in their social dimension. The trap we must try to avoid is
that of placing all the emphasis upon religion (or economics,
or politics, or sociology) rather than upon humanity, although
there is some overlap between the different bodies of knowledge,
and although their aim is the same (to deepen our knowledge of
man), even so the subject matter is not the same, and it is important
to establish professionally what is the core of that subject matter.
Our aim at the moment is to establish it in regard to Christianity
as the most important manifestation of the religiousness of humanity
in the western world.
The data of Christianity may to some extent be objectified like
any other academic data. This can be done according to the following
model (16) (which would hold true for other religious traditions
as well). The data are set within a historical context which indicates
the inter-denominational, international, and comprehensive nature
of Christianity. The historic process of Christianity is the framework
within which certain main sub-divisions of the data may be conceptualised.
These sub-divisions may be seen in the form of eight dimensions.
These dimensions are: the communal dimension, the Church and the
main denominations; the worship dimension, liturgy, sacraments
and preaching; the cultural dimension, the church and wider culture,
Christian attitudes to society; the ethical dimension, the nature
of Christian ethics; the scriptural dimension, the role of the
Bible, the main scriptural themes; the doctrinal dimension, the
role of doctrine, the main doctrines, philosophy of religion,
especially apologetics; the aesthetic dimension, music, painting,
sculpture, dance and literature; and the spirituality dimension,
ritual, devotional, mystical, and involvement spirituality. These
dimensions are not so much separate compartments per se but interlocking
approaches to the same tradition. The data may be separated for
convenience. However, they are not separate in principle; they
belong together within the wholeness of Christianity. Let us examine
the data a little more closely. In the first place the data of
Christianity are seen as part of a historical process. (17), (18)
The main elements in this are the fact of Jesus, St Paul and the
first generation of Christians, the change from the martyr church
to the imperial church from Constantine onwards, the work of missionary
monks in taking the message to eastern and western Europe, the
development of Christian institutions and life in medieval Europe
when it was cut off from the rest of the world, the Reformation,
the planting and spread of Christianity in North and South America,
the rise of modern missions and the growth of African and other
non-western Christianity, the impact of urbanisation, liberalism,
Marxism, and other religions upon modern Christianity, and the
present situation. The data of the communal dimension of Christianity
recognise the importance of the church and her denominations in
the life of Christianity. Christianity is far more than what an
individual does with his solitariness (to use Whitehead’s aphorism);
Wesley was nearer the mark when he said there was no such thing
as a solitary Christian. The main elements in this dimension are
the role of the church, and a glance at the main churches, Roman
Catholic, Orthodox, the main Protestant churches (especially those
locally present), indigenous non-western churches, and the ecumenical
movement.
The data of the worship dimension recognise that worship and
ritual are important in Christianity. The main elements in this
dimension are the importance and role of liturgy, the chief sacraments,
and the significance of preaching and of the great festivals.
The data of the cultural dimension recognise that Christianity
is embedded in a wider cultural setting. Christianity and surrounding
culture influence each other and are part of a process that takes
different forms in different places. There are certain main types
of Christian attitude towards culture. Christianity may be against
culture, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller were against
Nazism in Germany, or the Russian Baptists are against the restrictions
placed on them by the communist state; Christianity may agree
with culture as in medieval Christian Europe East and West; Christianity
may not agree with culture but acquiesce in it, as the Syrian
Christians of India acquiesced in the caste system, or as the
Polish Catholics acquiesce in the Polish communist state; Christianity
may see Christ as the fulfiller of culture and yet above culture,
as in the thought of Aquinas and later medieval Europe; Christianity
may feel that culture is the realm of Caesar and the Church is
the realm of God therefore the Christian should be wary of ‘culture’
but accept it as God-given, as in the thought of Luther and a
number of later sects; Christianity may see her role as that of
transforming culture from a defective into a more Christian state.
(19) The data used in this section will preferably be modern and
will raise the question of what is and what should be the Christian
attitude to culture in the British Isles and other areas of the
West. The theme of secularisation will also be relevant at this
point. The data of the ethical dimension follow on from the last
section. What is Christian ethics? What has it been and what is
it now? How is it related to the other dimensions? Relevant modern
examples would be race relations, ecology, medical ethics, the
nature of individual freedom, what attitude to adopt towards intimidation
and aggression, world poverty? What does loving one’s neighbour
as oneself, and loving one another as Christ has loved us mean
today?
The data of the scriptural dimension return us to the beginning
of Christianity but they also do more than that. They show the
role of scripture and why it became important; they see the Old
Testament as being integral to Christian scripture; they see the
main themes and stories of scripture; they show the new Testament
witness to Jesus through the synoptic gospels, St Paul, St John,
and Hebrews; they show how the canon arose; and they show the
use of the Bible in the Church.
The data of the doctrinal dimension show doctrine to be reflection
upon the biblical witness, and intellectual formulation of what
Christian faith is all about. They look at the main doctrines
of God, Christ, man, salvation, love and hope. They also look
at the main themes in Christian philosophy of religion. The data
of the aesthetic dimension demonstrate the importance of the architecture
of church buildings, of music such as hymns, of paintings, of
dance, of stained glass windows, and of general Christian literature.
Finally, the data of the spirituality dimension reveal how Christians
experience meaning, truth and God in their lives. This can be
done in ways that are sometimes inter-connected, namely through
mysticism, through devotion, through ritual prayer, through inwardness,
through practising God’s presence.
It is clear that these eight dimensions are interlinked, and
the temptation must be resisted of erecting them into eight disciplines
pursuing their separate ways. It is also clear that only in some
cases would it be possible to cover all this material in depth
because of timetable and other exigencies. The ideal would be
to cover the whole field in general and one or two areas in more
detail. The minutiae of this must be left to curriculum groups
working out their own priorities. Clear, too, is the fact that
some of these dimensions are more appropriate for younger children
than others. For example, some of the historical episodes, some
of the details of churches, some of the New Testament stories,
some of the festivals and sacraments, some of the prayers, some
of the ethical tales, would be more relevant than the more intellectual
doctrinal, philosophical and cultural matters. Again this must
be left to curriculum groups. However, this summary includes the
body of knowledge that constitutes the subject matter of Christianity,
and it can provide the starting point for new directions in this
exciting field.
And yet we must go further than this. Why it may be asked? Is
it not enough to set out the body of knowledge, the Christian
data, that must be grappled with? Is it not a step forward to
give an overall view of Christianity in regard to its content
and academic framework? Is it not good that we are agreed that
academic rigour and integrity is called for in this field, that
this study is not a soft option, that it must set up and maintain
its own academic standards, that it is seen to be professional?
Why must we go further? The point is that not only do we intend
to give an overall view of Christianity in regard to its subject
matter and academic wholeness, we propose also to bring out the
unique features of Christianity. In other words, we aim to be
true to the subject matter of Christianity. What then does this
entail? If our aim were to present Chemistry it would be sufficient
to set down the scientific data of Chemistry and to study them
objectively in order to gain an understanding of Chemistry. Doubtless
the personality of the person studying Chemistry would have some
influence upon his study in intangible ways and yet the chemical
data themselves are reasonably objective and can be studied in
themselves. The same does not apply to religious studies. It is
not enough to study the data of Christianity in themselves. Something
more is involved. What is this something more? For something more
is involved in the study of Christianity than the study of Christian
data ‘out there’ as though they were external and objective as
chemical data. The same is true incidentally of Hindu, Buddhist,
Jewish, or Muslim data. As we have intimated before, the crux
of the matter is that religious data are significant not merely,
perhaps not mainly, in themselves, but rather in what they mean
to the people concerned. Therefore our academic picture of Christianity
(or indeed any other religion) must take seriously not only the
Christian data but what those data mean to Christian people. In
other words, there is a ‘faith dimension’ built into Christianity
that is not built into Chemistry. The Christian commitment that
makes Christianity meaningful to Christians is part of the Christian
data. This is not to say that only committed Christians can study
or teach Christianity. In principle anyone can study or teach
Christianity just as anyone can study or teach other subjects.
However, to be academically true to the subject matter of religion
means taking seriously the meaning of religious data to the persons
concerned; it means taking seriously the faith element that is
built into religion. Our aim is not therefore merely to present
the content of Christianity as an integrated whole and to place
that content within a recognisable academic structure (which we
have already done), it is also to take seriously the faith element
that is important in any authentic academic presentation of Christianity.
This does not involve wrestling with any new data. It means looking
at the existing data in a deeper way. It means knowing the ‘objective
facts’ about the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper (the use of prayers,
the eating of bread, the drinking of wine, etc) but also enquiring
what taking part in the sacrament means for Christians. It means
knowing the shape of a church building but also why the building
is a sacred place for Christians. It means knowing that Martin
Luther King made ethical claims in his famous ‘I have a vision’
speech but also what were the Christian assumptions behind that
speech. It means knowing that Bonhoeffer died because he took
a certain attitude to the Nazi state but also what it meant to
him as a Christian to take that attitude. At the mundane level
of examinations, it means setting questions such as ‘Who was John
Knox?’ and ‘What is his significance for Christians?’ The first
part of the question requires knowledge of the data; the second
part requires insight into the faith element lying behind the
data. Both are important. In the answer to the first part of the
question we are saying something about the data; in the answer
to the second part we are saying something about humanity (and
indirectly something about God). Let us not labour the point but
simply reiterate that in studying Christianity we are not merely
studying the Christian data in themselves we are also studying
their significance for Christians, their significance for humanity.
To put it in other words, our concern is not just with Christianity
(after all ‘Christianity’ never did anything or saved anyone)
but with men for whom in large numbers the Christian data have
been symbols of the Transcendence that does save.
The study of Christianity is not like the study of a fossil that
can be laid out on a table and dissected as though it were a lifeless
object. It is a creative process which in grappling with the faith
element in Christianity involves (whether we are Christians or
not) a stimulus to the element of faith and conviction that lies
within ourselves. It speaks to the religiousness that is part
of our basic equipment. It opens up the question of meaning and
purpose and transendence in life. For we ourselves are part of
this study. Many of us have been born into the Christian tradition
in the sense of the wider community of Christian civilisation.
All of us have been born into the inheritance of religiousness
that is part of our human nature. Some may come to the study of
Christianity from outside the orbit of Christian civilisation
yet aware that Christianity is a significant response made by
man’s religiousness to the ultimate affairs of life. God may remain
the same; Christianity does not, it is in flux. In studying it
we may be involved (under God) in creatively changing it. In studying
it we ourselves may be involved in change. The teaching and studying
of Christianity is therefore an exciting occupation. It includes
professional awareness of an academic body of knowledge; it also
includes reflection upon what that knowledge has meant to men;
it also involves us in an ongoing creative process that has consequences
for our civilisation and our world as well as for us.
In this paper we have attempted to set out a universal model
for the conceptualising of Christianity in the framework of religious
studies. It encompasses worldwide Christianity yet can be adapted
to local needs; it views Christianity as a whole but allows expansion
into more specialist areas; it considers the basic subject matter
of Christianity but also the faith element underlying it; it establishes
it as a professional subject of academic standing yet fits it
in the humanities as deepening the study of humanity. It does
justice to the Christian community’s own self-awareness (for what
is said about Christianity must be subject to verification as
being a responsible statement acceptable to Christians of what
their tradition and faith is) (19) yet it meets the needs of the
members of another tradition or of a secular tradition who wish
to know what Christianity is all about.
In principle, it can be applied to the study of other religious
traditions, and it is important that this should be done, for
the study of other religions is in danger of being relegated to
the status of area studies wherein religious considerations are
subordinated to historical or other quasi-reductionist factors.
However, its main immediate service may be in regard to Christianity
as a world religion.
There is a growing interest that has recently emerged into the
light of day in new ways of speaking to the basic question, ‘What
is Christianity?’ The question itself has been with us in one
form or another for a very long time. Recent radical works, such
as those of John Robinson or The Myth of God Incarnate or Don
Cupitt have received much (perhaps undue) publicity, but the concern
has recently become more widespread in general church circles
and within the public at large. What is fresh is the realisation
that Christianity can be viewed in a wider and deeper sense as
a world religion. This realisation is shared at different levels
by those who are convinced Christians and those who are not. By
viewing Christianity in this different context new depths and
horizons are opened up that have significance at world as well
as national level. It is not so much a question of making sweeping
changes in the data of Christianity as the radicals have done,
it is rather a question of framework and context and the type
of questions we ask and the type of insights we desire. The significance
of these new insights is not confined to the obvious area of religious
education (although its main impact may be here) but is much wider.
To use the language of the New Testament writers, the present
time is a kairos for this new theme. In this paper I have briefly
established a framework for the discussion, the books, the dialogue
that will emerge over the years on this important theme.
Footnotes
1. Things have improved further since this was first written
but much remains to be done for Religious Education to attain
the status it deserves.
2. See K. Koyama, Water Buffalo Theology, London:
3. SCM, 1974. J. Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, London:
Heinemann, 1969. L. Boff, Jesus Christ Liberator, New York: Orbis,
1978. R. Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, Madras:
CLS, 1969.
3. Dr Philip Potter.
4. J. Hick (Editor), The Myth of God Incarnate, London: SCM,
1977.
5. E. Bevan, Christianity, London, 1953.
6. R. St. L. Broadberry, Thinking About Christianity, London:
Lutterworth, 1973.
7. B. Gascoigne, The Christians, London: J. Cope, 1977.
8. J. Neusner, The Way of Torah: An Introduction to Judaism,
1970; K. Cragg, The House of Islam, 1969; H. B. Earhart, Japanese
Religion: Unity and Diversity, 1974; L. G. Thompson, Chinese Religion:
An Introduction, 1969; R. H. Robinson, The Buddhist Religion,
1970; T. J. Hopkins, The Hindu Religious Tradition, 1971.
9. See S. Neill, Christian Missions, Harmondsworth: Pelican,
1964.
10. See Frank Whaling, Christian Theology and World Religions:
A Global Approach, Basingstoke: Marshall Pickering, 1986; Kim
Yong Bock (Editor), Minjung Theology, Singapore: Christian Conference
of Asia, 1984; J. Mbiti, Concepts of God in Africa, London: SPCK,
1970; Vandana, Gurus, Ashrams and Christians, London: Dartman,
Longman & Todd, 1978; G. Challiand, Revolution in the Third World,
Brighton: Harvester, 1977; K. Koyama, No Handle on the Cross,
London: SCM, 1976; J. V. Taylor, the Primal Vision, London: SCM,
1963; J. Sobrino, Christology at the Crossroads, New York: Orbis,
1978.
11. W. H. McLeod, Guru Nanak and the Sikh Religion, Oxford: O.U.P.,
1968.
12. See Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Belief and History, University
of Virginia Press, 1977.
13. Classical examples are: B. Kristensen, The Meaning of Religion,
The Hague, 1960; G. van der Leeuw, Religion in Manifestation and
Essence, London: Allen & Unwin, 1938; M. Eliade, Patterns in Comparative
Religion, London: Sheed & Ward, 1938; J. Waardenburg, Reflection
on the Study of Religion, The Hague: Mouton, 1978.
14. I use this example because I am a Methodist — any other would
have sufficed!
15. See Edward Hulmes, Commitment and Neutrality in Religious
Education, London: Chapman, 1979.
16. See Frank Whaling, Christian Theology and World Religions:
A Global Approach, Basingstoke: Marshall Pickering, 1986, chapter
2; F. Whaling, Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion:
The Humanities (Volume One), Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton,
1984 pp. 270—72.
17. This procedure holds true for any religious tradition. In
the case of Christianity there is also a stress upon history within
the tradition itself.
18. A slight variation of this is found in H. R. Niebuhr, Christ
and Culture, New York: Harper Torchbook, 1956.
19. In other words the church or its responsible representatives
are important links in the process.
|