Gerald R. McDermott. Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions?: Jesus, Revelation & Religious Traditions. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2000.
I would like to thank Intervarsity Press for my review copy of this book.
Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions? Professor
Gerald R. McDermott answers yes. McDermott sees examples in Scripture
of God using concepts or people from non-Israelite religions to teach
God’s people. There is Abraham’s equation of the Canaanite god of
Melchizedek with his own God, the ancient Israelite appropriation of the
Canaanite god El, the way that God functioned as Abraham’s personal
deity (a type of deity that was common in ancient Mesopotamia), and
Jesus’ appeal to certain Gentiles as exemplars of faith. McDermott
looks at church history, noting times when concepts in non-Christian
religions helped notorious Christian thinkers through intellectual
snags, providing them with resources to arrive at reasonable
explanations for puzzles in the Christian faith. McDermott also
discusses how concepts from Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Islam
can instruct evangelical Christians, as they highlight to evangelicals
elements of Christianity that might be neglected, teach evangelicals a
new way to understand and apply their tradition, or demonstrate piety
and devotion to evangelicals.
Another significant feature of this book is that McDermott interacts
with the question of how God might be involved in world religions.
McDermott notes that non-Christian religions have concepts that overlap
with Christianity, and McDermott believes that God is somehow behind
that, revealing himself to non-Christians. Why doesn’t God provide
people in non-Christian religions with a fuller revelation, rather than
just dropping some concepts here-and-there that overlap with
Christianity? McDermott notes that there are times when God does
provide a number of people with a revelation that is incomplete: Jesus,
for example, spoke to the multitudes in parables, while offering fuller
explanations to his disciples; ancient Israel had a conception of God
that was incomplete, at least in comparison with the revelation in Jesus
Christ. According to McDermott, God may be using “veils to protect His
pearls from being trampled by swine” (page 102), or God may be basing
his level of revelation on where people are spiritually. God may not
want to reveal grace fully to some cultures, preferring instead to allow
them to be in a system of salvation by works so that they can learn
human inability. McDermott also refers extensively to Jonathan Edwards,
who offered reasons that God put Israel through a system of animal
sacrifices rather than revealing to them grace through Jesus Christ at
the outset: so that ancient Israelites could learn respect for God’s law
and the necessity for atonement, whereas ancient Israelites might take
God’s mercy for granted had they been permitted at that time simply to
flee to God’s mercy. Similarly, McDermott contends, God has reasons for
giving an incomplete revelation of himself within non-Christian
religions.
Does God reveal bits and pieces about himself within world religions
to bring non-Christians to salvation? McDermott says a couple of times
that his focus in this book is revelation within world religions, not
the question of whether or not non-Christians can be saved within those
religions. But McDermott does say on page 103 that “some of the
religions may be providential preparations for future peoples to receive
the full revelation of God in Christ” (page 103). Whether or not
McDermott believes that people in non-Christian religions can be saved
with the light that God gives them, or that non-Christian religions can
provide the soil for non-Christians in the afterlife to receive
salvation through Jesus Christ, McDermott does appear to maintain that
God’s incomplete revelation of himself in non-Christian religions may
have a salvific purpose: that God could be setting the stage for future
generations to receive Christ.
On some level, I have encountered the sorts of arguments that
McDermott presents in other sources. C.S. Lewis stated in his chapter
“Nice People or New Men” in Mere Christianity that “There are
people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to
concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement
with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it.”
(Not that McDermott explicitly believes that those non-Christians are
saved, for he does not take a position on that in this book, but C.S.
Lewis, like McDermott, talks about people in world religions responding
to Christian-like themes within their own religions.) David Marshall’s
books talk about areas in which world religions overlap with
Christianity. Ron Dart, a preacher I listened to growing up, said that
the sacrificial system within the Old Testament was designed to
reinforce to ancient Israelites that they needed a substitutionary death
to atone for their sins. (I don’t know if I agree with Dart on this,
for I don’t think there is evidence that the animals were expiating sin
by dying in place of the sinners, but I don’t want to get too deeply
into that topic here.) Paul Knitter and William Placher discuss what
Christians can learn from non-Christian religions, and how non-Christian
religions can deepen Christians’ appreciation of themes within the
Christian faith.
I cannot say, however, that McDermott’s book was boring to me, or
that it was a “Been there, done that” sort of book, as far as I was
concerned. I learned from McDermott’s book about the differences
between fundamentalism and evangelicalism (since I, as one who is rather
liberal, tend to conflate the two), and the significance of the filoque
(the idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son) to the
question of whether God is involved in other religions. I also found
McDermott’s discussion of practical ways that world religions can teach
evangelicals to be quite edifying. As one who is insecure about whether
people like me or not, I especially appreciated McDermott’s discussion
of how certain Asian religions address what attitude one should have
when one is disliked.
I was recently telling my Mom that McDermott’s book is actually one
of the best books about theology that I have read as of late. (I distinguish theology from biblical studies.) I have
been reading more liberal theologians, and their language is often
dense, plus I wonder where exactly they are going with their arguments,
if anywhere. McDermott, however, managed to be deep and scholarly, and
yet lucid and practical. While some of his abstract discussions were
not exactly neat (since, well, conceptualizing things accurately with
all of the exceptions to the rule can be a difficult task), I did
appreciate that he provided examples from church history of the sort of
thing that he was talking about: Christians learning from other
religions.
Do I have any disagreements with McDermott’s arguments in this book?
Well, I have questions that are rooted in some of my own outlook. I
tend to gravitate towards the historical-critical method of interpreting
the Bible—-a method that interprets the biblical writings in light of
their own historical contexts. I believe that there are areas in which
the historical-critical method overlaps with and diverges from
McDermott’s approach. Where the two overlap is that both essentially
acknowledge that biblical religions have been influenced by other
religions. (Well, some scholars would minimize that influence, but my
impression is that many biblical scholars acknowledge it.) Where the
two diverge is that historical criticism would say that we should
attempt to understand the Hebrew Bible in light of its ancient Near
Eastern context, while denying that we can understand it in reference to
early Christianity, Asian religions, Neo-Platonism, or Islam. My
impression is that historical criticism would also treat the biblical
writings as rather static—-that they meant something to their original
authors and audiences, within their historical context, and that is
their meaning—-whereas McDermott presents a more dynamic process in
which the Spirit supposedly highlights fresh implications to the
biblical writings and brings the church to newer understandings (without
contradicting earlier orthodoxy). A historical critical reading, to
use an example, would probably say that the Hebrew Bible was okay with
slavery, and that’s that, whereas McDermott argues that the Spirit
brought the church to the realization that slavery was wrong. McDermott
also apparently disagrees with how historical criticism highlights tension within
the Bible, for he believes that the Bible has a coherent narrative.
I wouldn’t exactly say that McDermott should have devoted a section
to the topic of historical criticism, but I do believe that the topic is
relevant to the sorts of issues that he is discussing. How can we
justify hermeneutical approaches that go beyond the historical-critical
method, as McDermott's approach seems to do? On what basis can we justify
interpretations of the biblical text that don’t limit themselves to the
text’s original, historical meaning? Reader response? Intertextuality? McDermott's approach is arguably rather intertextual in that McDermott,
as a reader, juxtaposes the Bible with the teachings of other religions,
allowing the latter to influence his understanding of the former. But,
in contrast to many reader response and intertextual approaches,
McDermott does not seem to locate interpretive authority in the reader,
but rather he appears to believe that the Spirit helps people to
interpret the text as God desires. I find that approach rather
subjective, but I do admit that McDermott's intertextuality does
generate interesting thoughts.
I also question whether McDermott should be so quick to dismiss the
tension within Scripture (if I am correct that he does that). Perhaps biblical diversity has the same
theological significance that McDermott sees in the existence of diverse
religions throughout the world: that God is interacting with people in
different ways, based on where they are.
That said, this is an excellent book. Click here for information that Intervarsity Press provides about it.