THEIR ROCK IS NOT LIKE OUR ROCK: A THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n Daniel Strange is Academic Vice Principal and Lecturer in Culture, Religion, and Public Theology at Oak Hill College (London, UK).\u00a0 The following interview is based on Dan\u2019s book, Their Rock is not Like our Rock<\/em><\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n The interview was conducted by David George Moore.\u00a0\u00a0 Dave blogs at www.twocities.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n Moore:<\/strong> What does it mean that you lecture on \u201cpublic theology\u201d?<\/em><\/p>\n Strange:<\/strong> Great question. When I took the post I didn\u2019t really know what it was, and if I\u2019m to be honest, neither did the college! They just had a gut feeling that it needed to be covered. Ten years on, I think they\u2019ve been vindicated. John Bolt\u2019s definition is as helpful as any when he talks about public theology being \u201cthe careful, theological thinking about why and how Christians should bear witness in the public square. Included here are questions about how a believer personally relates to public institutions, how Christians think about the best way public order should be constituted, how and to what extent a Christian should strive to influence public policy\u2026it is useful to use the term \u2018public theology\u2019 to indicate those aspects of theological reflection that are intentionally directed to the interface between the Christian faith and public life, understood now as the equally intentional efforts of life in the public civic community, a community shared by many who do not share our faith.\u201d<\/p>\n Given I teach in a seminary, my Evangelical Public Theology<\/em> module is focused on how public theology relates to those going into church leadership and ministry. There are lots of thorny questions to reflect upon: How can gospel ministers best disciple their people in the vocations to which God has called them? What is the responsibility of church as church<\/em> to their community as distinguished from Christians in the world? What\u2019s the relationship between evangelism and social action? How do themes of continuity and discontinuity (between creation and new creation, between Old Testament Israel and the church, between now-and-not yet) shape our public engagement.<\/p>\n Moore:<\/strong> Give us a feel for some of your main goals in writing Their Rock is not Like our Rock<\/em><\/p>\n Strange:<\/strong> Both within the academy and the church, \u2018religion\u2019 is not going away. Therefore the discipline known as the \u2018theology of religions\u2019 has never been more relevant and urgent.\u00a0 In my autobiographical prologue to the book, my own life and ministry has been surrounded by questions posed by religious diversity. I wanted to write something substantial from a conservative evangelical position that was not just looking to critique pluralism, or inclusivism and which I think has been done well elsewhere. I also didn\u2019t want to focus too much on the \u2018salvation\u2019 question, not because it\u2019s not of central importance, but because I feel I have dealt with this in previous writings especially my doctoral thesis The Possibility of Salvation Among the Unevangelised. <\/em>Rather I wanted to write a constructive theology which asked questions about the existence of other religions: what are they, where do they come from, how does the gospel relate to them, what\u2019s their purpose in God\u2019s plan.\u00a0 I wanted to be ambitious in pulling on lots of theological disciplines: biblical studies, systematics, missiology etc. In that sense I wanted to provoke specialists in their fields to build on the work of the book and push it further. As I say in the introduction, in terms of theological sophistication and nuance with regards to the theology of religions, and with notable exceptions, we are long way beyond some other Christian traditions.<\/p>\n Moore:<\/strong> Who is your book geared to reach?<\/em><\/p>\n Strange:<\/strong>The book is for Christians. It is on the more meaty academic side but I know from early reviews and comments, that \u2018non-academics\u2019 have benefitted from reading it. Therefore I really hope pastors, leaders all those interested in theology will benefit from it. It will take some perseverance in places but I think it pays off. As alluded to above, I would love biblical studies specialists to engage with some of my exegesis and biblical theological framework. In particular I would love missiologists and those engaged on the front-line with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs etc. to take my \u2018subversive fulfilment\u2019 model (if they agree with it) and apply it those whom they encounter daily.<\/p>\n Moore:<\/strong> If I am not in the Protestant Reformed camp theologically, or if I am part of the Roman Catholic or Orthodox tradition, will I benefit from reading your book?<\/p>\n Strange:<\/strong> I am quite explicit in the opening chapters of the book about the confessional stance I inhabit and the theological methodology I am employing. We all come from somewhere I want to get this on the table. Does this mean the book has nothing to say to those who are not Reformed Evangelicals? I hope not. As a systematic theologian I want to show how our theology of religions is build out of other basic theological materials: the doctrine of humanity, doctrine of sin etc. Moreover, whatever one\u2019s doctrine of Scripture, I would hope that all would have some place for discussing relevant texts and frameworks. My Roman Catholic PhD supervisor Prof. Gavin D\u2019Costa inhabits a very different theological paradigm but we have been able to discuss issues arising from the book particularly around the area of theological anthropology. It\u2019s stating the obvious but different theological \u2018roots\u2019 lead to different theological \u2018fruit\u2019 and it\u2019s good to see these connections. For evangelicals who believe the Bible is their ultimate authority but who maybe are not \u2018Reformed,\u2019 there are some exegetical and hermeneutical decisions which can be discussed and debated. I hope and pray I am open to be persuaded that Scripture might say something different regarding the nature of the religious Other.<\/p>\n Moore:<\/strong> The idea of idolatry figures big in your book.\u00a0 How does the concept of idolatry help us frame other important themes in Scripture?<\/p>\n Strange:<\/strong> Idolatry is a pervasive theme throughout Scripture and it\u2019s also a sophisticated concept which encompasses the entirely of the human experience \u2013 heads, hands and especially the heart.\u00a0 Its usefulness is that its \u2018make up\u2019 brings together in complex relationship a number of doctrinal truths about humanity, the good the bad and the ugly! This complexity though has to be held with a simplicity that the Bible only speaks of two types of people, those worshipping the Living God which leads to life, and those worshipping idols that leads to death. There is no middle ground. The parasitic and counterfeit nature if idolatry means that there is always a link between the idol and the truth it parodies.\u00a0 I make a lot out of this in the book in terms of the gospel of Jesus Christ being both the \u2018subversion\u2019 and \u2018fulfilment\u2019 of idolatrous religion, both confronting and connecting at the same time.<\/p>\n Moore:<\/strong> It seems that too many Christians either ignore interacting with those from other religions or to use your words wield a machete in their approach.\u00a0 You are all for engagement, but you trumpet the idea of the subversive.\u00a0 Unpack what that would look like.<\/p>\n Strange:<\/strong> As I\u2019ve just indicated, because of the idolatrous nature of the religious Other, we need to both confront and connect in our gospel proclamation. It means recognizing that there will always be a point of contact (or maybe better \u2018attack\u2019) to show how the gospel both subverts and fulfils the religions of the world. This means we need to spend time with those of another faith recognizing that we can read all the textbooks we want to on Islam or Hinduism (and doing this is important), but that every Muslim or Hindu on the ground will be different. While we can generalize we must not caricature. Of course while we must be bold here, we must be loving. There is no room for vain glory or malice in our engagement with those of other faiths. As the saying goes, we are one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread.<\/p>\n Moore:<\/strong> Stephen Prothero of Boston University says all Americans ought to know<\/p>\n something about the major religions of the world.\u00a0 What are a few books that offer helpful introductions to world religions?<\/p>\n Strange:<\/strong> The new eds. Muck, Netland and McDermott, Handbook of Religion<\/a><\/strong><\/em> (Baker 2014) is a good place to start, as is Irving Hexham\u2019s Understanding World Religions<\/em><\/a> <\/strong>(Zondervan, 2011).<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" THEIR ROCK IS NOT LIKE OUR ROCK: A THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS Daniel Strange is Academic Vice Principal and Lecturer in Culture, Religion, and Public Theology at Oak Hill College (London, UK).\u00a0 The following interview is based on Dan\u2019s book, Their Rock is not Like our Rock. The interview was conducted by David George Moore.\u00a0\u00a0 Dave […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":197,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57991","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n