I was reading an article (chapter) by Kang-San Tan, “Hans Frei’s Typology of Theology for Religious Encounters in Asian Contexts.” It is in the book, Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives, edited by Timoteo Gener and Stephen Pardue.
As I was reading the five types of theology, it occurred to me that it sort of fit into a spectrum I developed for understanding various theories regarding the relationship between the Social Sciences and Theology in Christian Counseling. The modified diagram is below.
The thick black curved line is the spectrum but it moves through four quadrants made by two axes. One axis refers to Focus— one extreme being focused on (and committed to) science or philosophy, or “secular worldview” with the other extreme being focused on/committed to classic or dogmatic theology. The vertical axis looks at how Christians relate to those of other faith commitments. At one extreme is Dialogical Tendency— discussing with the focus of mutual understanding, insight, and clarification. The other extreme is Didactic Tendency— focused more on teaching and preaching with little interest in learning from the other.
Type One— secular beliefs take a dominant role with religious fitting in as it fits in. Members of this group tend to be pretty confident of the truth of their beliefs. Others, may be wrong, or perhaps looked at in a sense of “common ground” where areas of differences are ignored and similarities are seen as the most relevant. In terms of Christianity, such members may see all religions as essentially Christian since there are many areas of commonality. Because the allegiance is to secular or modernist (or similar) beliefs, the tendency is to drift away from Christian beliefs or teachings that don’t fit into their own worldview.
Members of Type One are likely to be more didactic in relating to others since they tend to believe that what they believe is true and don’t need to learn much from others. And since this commitment relativizes some aspects of Christianity, the same can happen with people of other faiths. Similarities are identified, often simplistically, while differences are ignored or undermined.
Type Five— This has many similarities to Type One, except that the high commitment is to a specific creed, faith tradition, or theological perspective. Those in this category are likewise pretty confident that they have the truth and that others don’t have much of anything to offer except confusion or lies. Because of this, the focus is on changing other people’s minds, rather than listening to others. As such, the preferred communication is preaching and teaching… with debate also done but with little interest in truly listening to the other.
Type Three— This is in the middle where there little commitment either to secular learning or a classic theology. Members of this group are most likely to have open-minded dialogue with those of other beliefs. Of course, because of the lack of commitment to a perspective may mean that this dialogue may occur with a high level of relativization of beliefs. Conversation with those of other faiths is a mutual path with the other side in a quest for truth. Due to low commitment to a perspective, a risk is that the Christian of this type has little to offer in terms of faith and belief.
Type Three Christians would often seek to correlate the beliefs of other religions to Christian beliefs. There may be value in this… but there is the risk of disrespecting the other faith by ignoring nuances. This can happen because Type Three Christians would tend not to be strongly committed to the nuances of their own faith, so why would they care about the nuances of others. Therefore, Christian Heaven may be correlated carelessly with Muslim Paradise, Hindu Mokshe, and Buddhist Nirvana. There may be important similarities in these ideas, but the differences are also important.
This leads to two more mediating positions.
Type Two. Type Two Christians take their Christian faith more seriously than Type One, but tend to relate to other religions in a more pragmatic way. Rather than embracing differences or similarities seriously, they may tend to focus on practical commonalities. For example, interaction may focus on activities like addressing drug problems, social justice, poverty, and the like. This pragmatic focus stems from the focus on a more secular worldview that is informed by the Christian faith. Thus the most important focus would tend to be on ethical concerns or societal evils as it relates to religious perspectives. The social sciences, for example, define the primary problems and different faiths give insight into addressing them.
Type Four. Type Four Christians are committed to their faith, but are open to the possibility that God can reveal Himself through interaction of people from other faiths. As such, while there is certainly a commitment to one’s faith and to evangelism, there is a tendency to focus on both commonalities and differences.
Two terms that Tan uses when speaking of Type Four Christian— one is “Faith Seeking Understanding,” and the other is commitment to “Dialogue-as-Witness.”
So where are we when we speak of Evangelical Christians?
I think most Evangelicals are either Type Five, or at least mouth Type Five priorities. There is great suspicion that taking seriously words of others who are not evangelical can be a trap. The goal is to talk, while not really listening— or perhaps listening only to figure out how to talk some more.
That being said, I think there is a growth of Type Four Evangelicals. Focus is more on Dialogue and Clarification of beliefs for mutual understanding, breaking down misunderstandings, and being open to insights.
I do think that Type Four is the best place to be as an Evangelical Christian. That being said, there are times when a Type Two-type strategy can be of benefit. There are times when we can benefit in relating to people of other faiths in terms of shared responsibility in addressing social ills. One may be reminded of William Carey working with Raja Ram Mohan Roy (a HIndu) in working in a two-prong attack on suti (widow-burning). This pragmatic work work avoided focus on theological differences. Of course, later on, Carey and Roy were in more direct conflict as Roy supported a Unitarian understanding of (a Hindu conception of) deity, while Carey was Trinitarian and Christian.
