“Whose Religion is Christianity?” – Book Review

Lamin Sanneh. Whose Religion is Christianity? Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

INTRODUCTION

      In an age of global Christianity, Western believers (especially those in America), have failed to recognize the contributions of the church outside of their own cultural sphere. This is the very matter that African theologian Lamin Sanneh attempts to address in his aptly titled book, Whose Religion is Christianity? Throughout the text Dr. Sanneh makes a series of statements and arguments that both condemn and praise the western church. Further, he makes an appeal for the church outside of the West to have a greater voice at the roundtable of global Christianity. Are his arguments and accusations valid, accurate, and realistic?

AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT

      From the onset of the text, Lamin Sanneh hinges much of his case for greater influence of the non-Western church by stating that the West is inevitably becoming more and more secular. He also believes that the influence of the West is declining in global Christianity and will continue to do so.[1] I would disagree with this assertion. Despite the fact that much of Europe has embraced secularism, the American church has battled this shift on every front. America has never been dominated by Bible believing Christians, and she has withstood the onslaught of secularism and moral compromise numerous times in the past. However, in reading through the content as a whole, I cannot help but feel as if Lamin Sanneh sees this shift as inevitable and unchangeable.

      The second issue I have with Sanneh’s otherwise excellent work is the format. Early in the book Sanneh states that the reader may “join the conversation at any point without feeling disjointed.”[2] However, I would disagree with this assessment. The question and answer format, which numbers well over 100 hundred instances, causes the reading experience to become very disjointed. While much of what has been discussed is helpful, informative, and innovative; it is completely spoiled, in my opinion, due to format.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

            Despite the horrid structure of the book and what I believe to be a faulty presupposition, much of the information discussed by Lamin Sanneh cries out for careful consideration. For instance, Sanneh excels when discussing the issue of translation. He makes the case for the indigenizing of theology by examining the necessity of theological “translation” from the inception of the Gospel message.[3] According to Sanneh, the fact that Christ did not write the gospels himself necessitates translation in order to produce the biblical text.[4]  In taking Christ’s command seriously, to spread the gospel to the surrounding cities and nations, the apostles moved to preach the gospel not through religious discourse but instead through the voice of volk.[5]  In the words of Lamin Sanneh, “Christianity could avoid translation like water can avoid being wet.”[6] Further, in his estimation, the Gospel message proves that there does not exist a single culture that carries special access to God. Rather, God is speaking and can be approached through a wide range of cultural contexts.[7]

      A second proposition by Sanneh is that in witnessing the development of world Christianity, the church in the west is given a sort of “sneak peek” into what the early centuries of church history and expansion looked like.[8]  In observing the processes taking place in cultures facing a Christian transformation, the West is provided with an opportunity to observe people groups who must for the first time grapple with theological issues that the West has viewed as long settled. This can present the careful observer with an occasion to develop a deeper appreciation for the struggles the early church faced in developing a theological framework. Further, witnessing how theological “infants” answer the problems presented by the world around them could instigate those in the West to develop a far more “inclusive” and expansive approach to the theological method.

      Another area of observation at which Lamin Sanneh shines, centers on the discussion of Christian expansion within the continent of Africa.[9] He notes that the removal of colonialism from the continent, and its correlation with Christianity, has led to a rapid increase in converts. Many in the West feared that removing this influence would result in the final triumph of Islam; however, the opposite has proven to be true. In Africa during the 1980’s more than 16,000 conversions were taking a day, contrast that to the over 4,000 Westerners who were abandoning the church daily and it will be found that African Christianity has not only survived the post colonial environment, it has thrived. It would appear that the growth of Islam in Africa during the colonial period was actually in response to what seemed to be a Western, cultural invasion. Once this point of contention was removed the Gospel was welcomed with open arms. This Christian revival, according to Sanneh, resulted from three factors: First, as was already discussed, the removal of colonialism. Second, the Bible was translated into popular African vernacular. Last, Africans stepped forward to lead this Christian expansion themselves.[10] This eliminated the sense of foreign invasion. In my estimation this provides the Western church with a test case, a real life example of what importing culture along with the Gospel message and theology can and cannot accomplish. Perhaps, in light of what occurred in Africa, it would be appropriate to rethink the mission strategy currently employed by most mission boards.

CONCLUSION

      Through this book, Lamin Sanneh has set out to draw attention to the West’s virtual refusal to acknowledge the contributions of the church throughout the rest of the world. I believe on a small scale he has accomplished this goal. I disagree, however, with his contention that the West is on a path that will eventually cause it to lose its sense of “theological seniority.” Instead, I envision a soon to be revitalized Western church that will find that it has not lost its influence but instead recognize that the rest of the church is now strong enough to survive without our constant care. This realization would result in the American church returning her focus to the mission field she has failed to impact over the last fifty years, the un-churched people of North America.

      Sanneh succeeds in pointing out that an evangelized people flourish when nationals stand up and lead the indigenized church. Also, he makes a case that instead of scoffing at the global church’s theological growing pains; the West should stand up and pay attention. This growing process provides scholars, historians, and theologians alike a unique opportunity to witness a similar process to what the early church experienced. Observing this will aid in rethinking the rationale behind the methodology employed by the early church to settle theological questions. Finally, Sanneh’s case for the necessity of translating the gospel into any and every culture must be seriously considered by those within the mission movement. As Sanneh has noted, there is no revealed language or culture, by the very act of incarnation God has shown that the message of the gospel can and must be presented in a way that all people groups can freely recognize.

---

      [1] Lamin Sanneh. Whose Religion is Christianity ? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 1-10.

      [2] Ibid, 12.

 

      [3] Ibid, 97.

 

      [4] Ibid.

 

      [5] Ibid, 98.

 

      [6] Ibid, 99.

      [7] Ibid, 105-105

 

      [8] Ibid, 26.

 

      [9] Ibid, 13-20

      [10] Ibid, 18.

ONE GOD – MANY NAMES? Apologetic to Baha’i

INTRODUCTION

The Baha’i faith has become the great “unifier” of the world’s major religions. Founded during the nineteenth century by Ali Muhammad (the Bab), it began as an offshoot of Shiite Islam, and did not become a major force until late in the nineteenth century when a new “prophet” appeared, Baha’u’llah.[1] Under his guidance and through his “sacred” writings the movement gained steam. He wrote The Most Holy Book (Kitab-i-Aqdas), The Book of Certitudes and The Hidden Great Manifestation. Through the teachings of Baha’u’llah, Baha’i attempts to unite the world under the belief that there is One Creator, One God, who has manifested himself through the world’s great religions.

GOD HAS MANY NAMES

According to Baha’u’llah there have been nine Babs, or manifestations of God. These include Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab (Ali Muhammad) and Baha’u’llah.[2] Each manifestation carried God’s message to the culture and people in which they appeared. However, the Bab’s message takes precedence over that of the previous manifestations. Further still, Baha’u’llah is today’s manifestation and his message reigns supreme for today. According to him, the ultimate revelation has come through him.[3]

In Gleanings, a book based upon Baha’u’llah’s writings, these manifestations are described as follows;

These sanctified Mirrors, these Day Springs of ancient glory, are, one and all, the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe, its Essence and ultimate Purpose. From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty…. By the revelation of these Gems of Divine virtue all the names and attributes of God, such as knowledge and power, sovereignty and dominion, mercy and wisdom, glory, bounty, and grace, are made manifest. These attributes of God are not, and have never been, vouchsafed specially unto certain Prophets, and withheld from others…. That a certain attribute of God hath not been outwardly manifested by these Essences of Detachment doth in no wise imply that they who are the Day Springs of God’s attributes and the Treasuries of His holy names did not actually possess it.[4]

According to this passage each manifestation represents an attribute of God’s transcendent essence. Each of these manifestations is described as a “sanctified mirror” of the Divine. Also, the message of this “God” has not been reserved or revealed through the ministry of one prophet. Instead, a type of pluralism is espoused. Though nearly all of the manifestations contradict one another we are told that this is only superficial. Just because one prophetic message does not entail the same details as a previous one does not mean that they are different, but rather that the latest message contains different material than the previous. This would seem to be a convenient “out” for the inherent contradictions of the manifestations individual messages.

Further, Baha’u’llah states that distinctions in the messages of these manifestations should not be made or else it would appear to compromise this inclusive God;

Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation….Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God … are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God… and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.[5]

This passage concisely describes the essence of the Baha’i teaching regarding revelation and abrogation. In spite of the differences in message the adherent is told that this actually reflects the “purpose” and “will” of God. To focus on these contradictions is tantamount to rejecting God.

In a world that has fully embraced the concept of politically correct tolerance; the Baha’i faith appears to be the solution to the age old “religion wars.” However, logic alone seems to disqualify the claims of Baha’u’llah. What response could a Christian give to the assertions of those within Baha’i?

THE CHRISTIAN RESPONSE

Prior to examining the Scriptural reasons for rejecting the manifestations proposition, it would be beneficial to discuss the inherent logical contradictions taught in Baha’i. First, it should be noted that Baha’i requires its adherents to suspend logic and to adopt in its place a form of relativism. This method is used to overcome the inherent contradictions that each of the nine manifestations has brought through their individual messages. However, the assertion that one must not concentrate on the contradictions of each of the manifestations defies its own premise. In asserting that one position is wrong and another is correct Baha’u’llah is making a judgment on the legitimacy of various epistemological methods. In other words, to condemn those who point out contradictions and embrace absolutes, Baha’u’llah also embrace an absolute position. If holding to an exclusive position is wrong, then pluralism is exclusively correct. He does this despite the fact that this does not fit within the necessary form of relativism that must be adopted in order for Baha’i to be true.

A second extra-biblical reason for rejecting Baha’i centers on one of the supposed nine manifestations of God, Gautama Buddha. According to Baha’u’llah, the Buddha is a manifestation of God. However, such an assertion seems to be incorrect, this is because the Buddha did not profess that there was a God at all. Instead, his system was primarily agnostic; some would even go so far as to call it atheistic. How then could he be a manifestation of the Divine? How can a God be ignorant, or depending upon the interpretation, be in denial over his own existence? Baha’u’llah claims that each of the manifestation’s messages represent the Divine “Purpose” and “Will.” However, the Buddha’s theology is not only different from the other manifestations; it denies the very existence of the God who is being manifested. This issue cannot simply be ignored.

In examining the Gospel accounts, can the message of Jesus Christ really be considered as just one of many “revelations?” To claim as much would require a great deal of hermeneutical acrobatics. For instance, Christ claimed to be the sole path to God. In John 14:6 He declared to that he alone is the way to God the Father. Christ states “…I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”[6] If He is just one of nine manifestations then how does one explain His exclusive claims? To suggest His statements to be merely overturning His own Hebrew culture fails to recognize the nature of His claims. What Christ proposed about Himself was a trans-cultural proposal that stood in direct opposition to the prevailing theology of not just the Hebrews but also the entire Hellenized world. It is also significant that Christ did not claim to know a way to God or to have special insight to reaching a specific spiritual path, but He is personally the avenue to salvation.

Continuing further, Christ also made other exclusive statements. For instance, in John 10:9 He states, “I am the door; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.” If Jesus Christ is the single door by which man reaches the Father, then no other path that ignores the exclusive message of Jesus Christ can be true. Either Christ is wrong or else every other path is wrong. There can be no middle ground.

Not only did Jesus Christ claim to be God, the only Savior for mankind, but His own disciples echoed this fact. In Acts 4:12 Peter stood before the Sanhedrin defending his presentation of the Gospel. In verse eight of the narrative, the text states that Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit, the third member of the Godhead. Therefore, Peter’s statements, following this filling, were guided by God Himself. This means Peter’s declaration in verse twelve that Jesus alone is Savior came from God directly, Peter states; “…there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” This statement is not ambiguous; Peter, when pressed by religious authorities, made it very clear that Christ alone is the incarnate God.

CONCLUSION

The challenge presented by the Baha’i faith must be taken seriously. In this age of pluralism Christianity must maintain its insistence upon the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ alone. This must be done in a spirit of love, yet without relenting.

Reviewing a few facets of Baha’u’llah’s claims: First, according to Baha’i Jesus Christ is but one of nine manifestations of the Divine. This, however, is entirely incompatible with Christ’s own understanding of Himself. He, along with His disciples, repeatedly claimed that salvation and access to the Father came exclusively through Christ. Second, Baha’i teaches that these nine manifestations each bring messages that represent an attribute of this transcendent Divine. In order to make this position plausible Baha’u’llah retreated to a state of relativism. However, such a position defies its own premise by stating that its position is exclusively correct. Last, the nine manifestations not only contradict one another but one of the manifestations, Buddha, did not even acknowledge the existence of a God of any kind. How can one who denies or ignores the existence of God be a manifestation of said God? Would this not render this deity as than self aware? Then if this is the case how could this same deity manifest itself?

A further problem exists in Baha’i theology, the problem of uncertainty. There is no safeguard in-place to assure one that no new revelation has been given. Baha’u’llah claimed that there was yet another manifestation to come, yet the criteria for establishing who this is remains so vague that there is virtually no way to falsify any claims one could make to being that manifestation. In summary, any person, who so desired, could claim to be a manifestation and could then completely rewrite the doctrines of Baha’i.

As this movement grows the church must respond with a legitimate apologetic that sensitively handles the teaching of Baha’u’llah. In a world that values pluralism and politically correct tolerance, the church must be sure that her objections to Baha’i are clearly stated and entirely accurate. If we engage in dialogue with the Baha’i and fail to treat them fairly we run the risk of appearing hateful and bigoted before the watching world. We must defend truth and logic, but with love and reverence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The New American Standard, Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 2001.

Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah Wilmette: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1976.

Corduan, Winfried. Neighboring Faiths. Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

---

[1] Winfried Corduan, Neighboring Faiths (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 270.

[2] Ibid, 272.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah (Wilmette: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1976), pp. 47-48.

[5] Ibid, 59-60.

[6] All references to Scripture come from The New American Standard (Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 2001).

SCRIPTURE…what I think…

I have received a number of questions regarding what hermeneutic I ascribe to in reading the Scriptures (Especially the first 11 chapters of Genesis). I could spend a great deal of time describing my method but I believe it is fairly summarized by the following excerpt. I agree with the statement that follows:

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (Articles 19-22)

• We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it.
• We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.

• We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.
• We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.

• We affirm the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature.
• We deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.

• We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.
• We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

Updates coming…

Due in the coming days…

Review: Whose Religion is Christianity? by Lamin Sanneh.

Globalizing Theology: Introducing the Trinity to Muslims (includes powerpoint presentation).

Pure Land Buddhism charts.