Review of CAMEL Method of Evangelizing Muslims

I was asked again just the other day about the CAMEL method for evangelizing Muslims. I tried to explain that the CAMEL method is a bridge, but just like any man-made bridge, it has some spots that might need repair. A bridge is useful to cross a barrier, but traffic flows both ways. The materials used to build that bridge will either stand the test of time or they will succumb to the elements. Therefore, it would behoove any bridge builder to give great care in how he builds such an instrument.

Kevin Greeson describes the bridge that the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention has tailored for work among Muslims in his book, The Camel – How Muslims are Coming to Faith in Christ. In this work, Greeson argues for the use of an old Muslim proverb and one particular Quranic text, Al-Imran 3:42–55. According to the book, there is much frequency in God granting supernatural and revelatory dreams about himself, but Greeson claims that God is using this conversational method more than any other means for bringing Muslims to Christ. This method opens the door for controversy as to how much credence a Christian can give an extra-biblical text, especially that of another world religion, to be utilized for evangelism. Questions of both Christology and biblical authority can be raised.

The CAMEL Method

Greeson claims that the CAMEL method is a mnemonic device for remembering the words chosen, announced, miracles, and eternal life when exegeting Al-Imran 3:42-55. It would be similar to using the Southern Baptist acronym for FAITH (forgiveness, available, impossible, turn, and heaven) in evangelism. In this passage from the Quran, Greeson claims that it is possible to find a message about Jesus Christ. Almost tongue in cheek, he also employs an old Islamic proverb about only a camel knowing the last of the hundred names of God. He insists that the Quranic passage speaks about Jesus (Isa) as holy, as born of a virgin, as victorious over death, and as having knowledge of the way to heaven. The book places a great deal of stock in the conversion results that have occurred from using this method. Greeson’s thesis is that this method which he learned from a Muslim-background believer (MBB) is best program for finding a man of peace among Muslims (p. 13). He insists that “reaching Muslims for Christ is not the ultimate goal” in this method (p. ii). Instead, the method is to be a useful tool for finding the man of peace.

            In his book, Greeson cites Paul’s message at the Areopagus as biblical proof that Christians should use non-Christian cultural texts in building a bridge for establishing communication that can turn toward evangelism. He claims that Paul quoted Greek poets as sources for what immediately communicated the gospel message and later became biblical text itself. He sees this biblical precedent as no different from a modern missionary or MBB using the Quran for expressing truths about Jesus Christ.

            Greeson claims that the CAMEL method is a mere bridge for sharing the gospel. He then takes great great pains in the opening chapter to reiterate that it is only a bridge and should not be a parking lot. Throughout the book he reveals that method itself is potentially dangerous if not abandoned early enough in the evangelistic conversation.

Observations and Criticisms

Although the book has some strong points about engaging Muslims with their own cultural texts and perhaps even disarming the traditional animosity by citing their holy scriptures, Greeson’s book reveal some areas for potential criticism. Greeson claims that the Quranic texts reveal truth about Jesus Christ that can be cited for a gospel presentation, but the question immediately arises as to what kind of Christology can be formulated from the texts of a non-Christian religion. This in turn raises questions as to the authority that can be granted to non-Christian texts as well as the possibility of syncretism.  Yet another question is the semantic nature of Christian terms.

Greeson admits openly that a Christian theology cannot be formed from a Quranic understanding of God. However, he toys with this premise by saying that these Quranic verses can be used to communicate truth about Jesus Christ. The very verses that are employed in the CAMEL method may communicate that the Islamic Isa is holy also may communicate that he is “one of those who are near to Allah” (vs. 45), thus contradicting the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. They also communicate that Isa was a man who was created (vs. 47) as opposed to being God himself. These verses, by implication, formulate a Christology that denies the divinity of Christ.    

            The dialogue used to converse with a man of peace might not be easily abandoned. The use of Quranic verses for finding a person of peace among Muslims might be akin to using the lyrics of Black Sabbath or AC/DC for finding a person of peace among head bangers. At some point the person of peace must come to understand that the very words used to attract him to an evangelistic conversation are in reality anti-Christian and therefore must be denied for his conversion. And yet the question remains as to whether the verses or lyrics used ever held any authority at all.

            Greeson seems to imply that the Quran, albeit having no authority for salvation, still is a source for salvific truth. When Greeson poses the question, “May I show what I have found about peace and salvation in the Koran?” (p. 48) he is in essence still granting some semblance of authority for finding God and salvation through that Islamic text. In yet another place, Greeson tells a story which posits that the Quran’s translation “into all the languages of the world” provides the means for which we can “know what God wants us to do and believe.” Although he quantifies his statement with a clarification as to truly understanding God through further means, his implication is that the Quran is still useful for being introduced to Jesus Christ. The question arises as to conversion through this conversation, namely at what point a convert, if ever, renounces his former religion.

            This problem is exacerbated by his instruction to “make some vocabulary changes” (p. 58). The word for God should be replaced with Allah, the generic name for a higher deity in the Muslim world. Jesus should be identified as the Isa of the Quran, and thus followers of Jesus would be called Isahi instead of the historical term Christian. In fact, Greeson admits that the term Christian carries a very negative and immoral connotation. The word church becomes jamat, and instead of having identification with the Christian churches of the western world, they are seen as specialized branches of Islam giving preference to following Isa. 

Missiological Considerations

These aforementioned observations carry some huge missiological implications. The question of biblical authority must be addressed at some point. Questions about Christiology and soteriology also must be clarified. Moreover, the issue of Christian identification is at stake.

Whatever tool employed to reach the lost becomes, by necessity, an instrument for ongoing discipleship. This has been seen historically in the western church as more and more elements of non-Christian culture have become staple forms for worship and entertainment among modern Christians. Extra-biblical texts and songs become forms of communication by which gospel truth as well as personal discipleship is passed on. Thus, any texts, lyrics, or speeches from extra-biblical sources are open media for communicating God’s truth, but they must be judged as to their ongoing value for growth in Christ.  

Is it possible to exegete the Book of Shadows from the Satanic Bible or other non-Christian texts to witness to a Satanist? The question is the basis for general verses special revelation. Are there other ways outside of the Christian Scriptures useful to make a person wise unto salvation? Are dreams, visions, and other non-biblical sources truly valuable for missiological purposes? Greeson seems to believe they are.

Albeit attractive, these same sources can produce a faulty Christology and a heretical soteriology. Greeson seems to indicate that these Isahi have truly left Islam and have identified themselves with Christ alone. It could be argued though that building a Christology on such extra-biblical parameters has in reality created a new sect, one that arguably is more syncretistic than biblical. The missiological test of any church planting is the openness to not only identifying with Christ himself but also the universal Christian church. Anything less would be unhealthy.

Greeson places a great emphasis on this bridge, perhaps too great an emphasis. He is to be commended in identifying this method as a possible means for which to initially relate to persons of peace. His book has value as it opens a dialogue for further discussion about the ways for communicating the gospel to Muslims. Missiologically, it is a pioneering work in that it opens the door for dialogue about the means for gospel communication using cultural texts in an unprecedented way.

            Unfortunately, there are theological grounds for rejecting the CAMEL method that Greeson fails to answer in his text. He also does not completely address the reaction of Muslims to his prooftexting of their sacred writings. It would be interesting to read a Muslim’s reaction to Greeson’s book. If Greeson’s purpose is to be simply descriptive of a possible method for reaching some Muslims through a nonbiblical text, the book has missiological warrant. However, it seems that he wrote the book to describe the method as normative and prescriptive, as a valid method to be indiscriminately employed. If this is the case, then at best the book is reckless.

Critical Evaluation of Morgan & Peterson

On Monday, I gave a brief summary of Morgan & Peterson's Faith Comes by Hearing. Here is a little more critical evaluation of the work. Keep in mind that I like the book, but I'm writing this from what I hope is an unbiased perspective.

            The book is definitely one-sided, and the nine biblical scholars who contribute their essays believe this is rightly so. Probably best understood as an introduction to exclusivism, it presents the case of exclusivism as the superior and more biblical position. More of a theological survey than an apology, it never attempts to defend its position apart from scriptural claims. Although weighted in favor of exclusivism, the authors give fair treatment to the inclusivist position and do a thorough job in surveying the overall dialogue between the two camps. Beyond the superficial layer of cultural dialogue in the debate, though, Morgan and Peterson expose the deeper issues of revelational sufficiency, God’s sovereignty and categorical inadequacy.

Sufficient Revelation

The editors highly acclaim Daniel Strange as one who has best answered the question of revelational sufficiency. Strange exegetes Psalm 19 and three chapters of Romans to clearly show how general revelation gives enough knowledge about God to condemn mankind, but he shows that only the special revelation of Jesus Christ is sufficient to provide salvation. As such, Strange’s essay becomes the heart of the argument for all of the other essays.

            Strange cites both the inclusivist and exclusivist arguments as presented in the four key Scripture texts in the debate over revelational sufficiency. When he attempts to identify six distinguishing points in the debate, however, he hones the dialogue into a manageable conversation. Strange distinguishes God from his nature and his work. He places a primacy on external objective revelation, and he marks a distinction between prelapsarian and postlapsarian special revelation. He also defines pneumatological operations as different for regeneration and general work. These distinctions are very helpful in drawing the debate into a more focused look at what the Bible actually says.   

  

Holy Pagans

Walter Kaiser argues that Old Testament saints may not have had the fuller picture of Jesus’ advent, but they did respond to special revelation from God. As such, he insists that these as well as any believing Gentiles were saved through the same response of faith to special revelation. He bases his exegesis on texts as early as Genesis 3:15; therefore, he rejects the concept of holy pagans who were saved by another kind of non-Christological revelation.

            At the very heart of the issue is the question of salvation under Jewish law. Neither Kaiser nor any of the other writers identify Scofield or traditional dispensationalism as evidence for their argument against inclusivism. Instead, they tend to uphold that there is no difference between saints before or after Christ. Interestingly, they also do not contend with any eschatological perspective on salvations during the tribulation. Perhaps this is an oversight, or perhaps the writers do not see its place in the current debate. For a more robust response to inclusivism, however, it would behoove the authors to include these perspectives as well.

God’s Fairness and Sovereignty

William Edgar’s argument is one of the basic sovereignty and independent justice of God. He blatantly states that if God decided to save no one, he would still be completely just. Since God is not obligated to save anyone, any salvation only goes to show his absolute grace. However, Edgar’s argument raises the ethical issue of studying God’s behavior.

            The larger question becomes whether humans have the right to judge God’s behavior. It also poses the question as to the means by which to judge God. Edgar argues for a biblical standard, thus placing any judgment outside of human hands. Inclusivist arguments, however, give merit to extrabiblical sources. Apart from Scriptural reference, to say that God would not be fair if he acted a certain way is to place the sovereignty of God under the judgment of men. This is something that Edgar cannot uphold. Therefore, exclusivism’s claims are grounded in Scripture alone.

 

Inadequate Categories

In the first chapter of the book, Morgan describes the three traditional approaches to understanding the relationship between the gospel and the lost. But he readily confesses that these three approaches are not enough to adequately describe the wide range of nuances among popular camps. As such, he offers nine positions in a spectrum of potential responses.

            Although Morgan’s contribution is a praiseworthy addition, it may still be inadequate. Sanders, Erickson and Tiessen also offer varying classifications. Morgan’s spectrum ranges from pluralism at the one end to church exclusivism at the other. However, there may yet be another more defined response, more narrow even than church exclusivism which defines salvation only within the universal church. There are some independent churches who see their particular church as potentially the only faithful body and therefore the only saved ones. Although Morgan briefly hints at ecclesiocentric exclusivism existing among some Roman Catholics, there are arguably even more narrow responses than the nine he presents.

Western Culture

The book exposes the Western cultural milieu in which the current debate exists. In a society where intellectualism has traditionally been the hallmark for scholarly dialogue, this particular debate has ironically been subjected more to emotional responses. Interestingly, Morgan devotes his opening comments to the feelings that “sometimes run deep in the debate” (17). Moreover, his spectrum of potential responses could be argued to provide a more tolerant or at least benevolent attitude to the current diversity.

Why cultural response plays a role at all in the book’s apologia is unknown, especially considering the final verdict is that men must not judge God’s decisions. Yet the authors insist throughout the book that our cultural feelings are important. They are somehow challenged by interpretations that require “us to broaden our hermeneutic of Western individualism and to understand that God deals not just with humanity as individuals, but as families, peoples, nations and cultures” (72). On the one hand, the authors make clear statements in support of exclusivism, but on the other they seem hesitant to apply the exclusivist perspective to infants who die or to the mentally challenged. It is this hesitancy that unfortunately weakens the overall biblical argument.

Summary of Morgan & Peterson's Faith Comes by Hearing

So what does it take to get saved? What about those who have never heard the gospel? What does the Bible have to say about these things?

            Christopher Morgan, Mid-America graduate and associate dean of the School of Christian Ministries at California Baptist University, and Robert Peterson, Drew University grad and professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary, compile a variety of essays that make up a conservative evangelical response in the debate between exclusivists and inclusivists in Faith Comes By Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism (Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press, 2008). Not so much a dialogue as a rebuttal, the book seeks to be more of an answer to the inclusivist position. The largest questions at play are the fate of the unevangelized and the potentiality of salvific grace within general revelation.

The book exhibits three natural divisions. The first section is introductory with a chapter on the categories and terminology involved in the debate and then a chapter defining the inherent weaknesses of those rigid categories. In this latter chapter, Morgan cites Sanders, Erickson, Strange and Tiessen as opponents of the classic threefold classification. To highlight what most theologians would say are nuances, Morgan presents an alternative spectrum of nine potential responses.

As a continuation of this line of questioning, Morgan and Peterson employ five traditional Reformed evangelical essayists to answer specific issues related to inclusivism. In chapter three Daniel Strange answers the question as to the salvific value of general revelation. He presents three overarching responses to general revelation–namely, totally sufficient, sufficient but not salvific and finally insufficient. For the total sufficiency position, he cites Pinnock and Sanders as the supporters of synergistic inclusivism and Morgan and Tiessen as proponents of monergistic accessibilism. For the non-salvific suffiency position, he interacts heavily with Clark and Tiessen to show that general revelation simply “does not contain the truth content necessary for saving faith" (68-69). He then closes the insufficiency argument with an appeal to reject the inadequacy of revelational categories while yet being positive about the gospel.

In chapter four William Edgar seeks to answer the question of God’s fairness by briefly delving into the nature, origin and conquest of evil. After asserting God’s sovereignty, Edgar underlines the value of the gospel and the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrificial death. He identifies the condemnation of the lost with their refusal of God as opposed to any refusal of the gospel. However, he makes exceptions for believers before Christ and with the mentally handicapped.

Eckhard Schnabel highlights Paul’s theological exclusivity in chapter five. Looking at Paul’s own interaction with the Isis cult, with the religious debate on Mars Hill in Athens and with Jewish pride, Schnabel draws comparisons that relate to the current debate. According to Schnabel, Paul was critical, condemning and confrontational with other religious views. Instead of an accommodating religionist, Paul is painted as a missionary with exclusivist Christology.

Because inclusivists have argued for non-Christian believers who were seemingly saved by a different kind of faith, Walter Kaiser demands a more correct exegesis of Genesis 15:6. In his essay in chapter six, he claims that the focus of faith must be Jesus and that merely fearing God cannot result in salvation. Kaiser takes each of the biblical personalities cited by inclusivism and redirects the argument by focusing on the object of his or her faith.

Stephen Wellum handles the fifth question in chapter seven. To deal with the issue of implicit faith, Wellum revisits Pinnock’s synergistic inclusivism and Tiessen’s monergistic accessibilism. Wellum exposes Pinnock’s pneumacentrism as the source of his error, as it places the Holy Spirit above the work of Christ. He then interprets Tiessen’s theology as one based upon hypothetical situations. Wellum concludes his critique with an admonition to avoid such extra-biblical speculation.

The book then takes a turn from these essayists answering specific questions to more broad implications of exclusivism based on exegetical study. In chapter eight Peterson takes eight specific Scripture texts and presents both the inclusivist and exclusivist hermeneutic in each one. Interestingly, Peterson concludes that the inclusivists reckless handling of Scripture makes it impossible to refute theologically and fruitless to engage with dialogue.

Andreas Kostenberger argues in chapter nine that the gospel is most central to the Bible’s message and thus necessary for salvation. In doing so, he places a primacy upon biblical theology and the urgency of Christian missions. In his concluding thoughts related to inclusivism, he highlights the salvific nature of the gospel, the Christocentricity of the gospel and the missions mandate of the church.

Nelson Jennings outlines a similar argument in chapter ten, but he bases his tenets upon God’s own passion for mankind. He states that God’s zeal to reach lost men is much greater than man’s need to believe. He interacts somewhat with Tiessen’s monergistic accessibilism, but he concludes that real faith in God can only come through the exclusivity of the gospel.

Almost as an addendum, Morgan and Peterson attach chapter eleven to re-answer questions related to the fate of the unevangelized. They cast blame upon the faulty assumption that condemnation is based on interaction with God through general revelation. They do respond to the question of infants who die and the mentally challenged. They also speak to the issue of other world religions and the purposes of general revelation. However, in the end they reaffirm saving faith as being only actualized as a response to the message of the gospel.

Regardless of your theological palate, I highly recommend this book as a primer on the conservative evangelical stance in the exclusivism/inclusivism debate. I make no apologies for being an exclusivist personally, in that I believe no one can ever be saved apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ. But later this week, I'll do a critical evaluation of the book. Suffice it to say, though, this book should be a staple in any library of a serious student of theology.

Review of Chung's Christ the One and Only

In a world rapidly moving to twin extremes, pluralism and athiesm, there are unfortunately fewer and fewer voices who bring intellectual dialogue to the religious roundtable. Whereas pluralism says there are many ways to God and whereas athiesm denies His existence, the Christian evangelical message is that there is a God and that there is only one way to know Him. If Christians are going to continue to share the Good News that Jesus saves the sinner from sin, they had better get used to speaking within these ever increasing conversations as well.

             Sung W. Chung’s Christ the One and Only: A Global Affirmation of the Uniqueness of Jesus Christ is a collection of essays by a variety of Christian writers from varying evangelical positions on the subject. Each writer draws attention to a different aspect of the advent of the Christ and how that relates to the major world religions. Beginning with Jesus’ birth and taking various facets of his life, teaching, and salvific work, the authors establish Christ’s uniqueness as a starting point for conversation with other faiths. The latter essays attempt to establish talking points for the major world religions and Christianity by invoking Christ’s uniqueness as the leverage for dialogue. Chung closes the book with his own essay related to the dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism, but he also provides a framework for productive interfaith dialogue.

The first essay highlights the uniqueness of Jesus’ incarnation.  Elias Dantas takes an historical approach to show how the Christian church has affirmed the reality and necessity of the virgin birth. He lists alternative views like Ebionism that has denied the deity of Christ and Docetism that denied his humanity. He shows how Gnosticism was dealt with during the Reformation period and how the great ecumenical church councils rejected Arianism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism and Eutycheanism. What was finally affirmed was the church’s official position on Christ being fully man and fully God in one Person.

Clark Pinnock then attempts to establish the uniqueness of Christ’s teaching.  In short, Pinnock believes Jesus’ vocation was successful because his teaching was successful. Although he is personally against a literal interpretation of Scripture, Pinnock places a great emphasis on the didactic work of Christ. His teaching about God set him apart from other teachers of his day and throughout history.

The symbol of the cross, handled by Graham Tomlin, has been received in different ways throughout history. During the medieval times, it was seen as a sign of Christian aggression. However, Paul and the early church made it central to their teaching and identity. Martin Luther made it the crux of both his doctrine and spirituality. Pascal used it to unlock the mystery of understanding God. Christ’s crucifixion is unlike any other soteriological symbol.

Gabriel Fackre takes Jesus’ assertions of being the only way, truth and life to apply to a grand narrative. He sees God beginning his work in creation, man rejecting God and yet God accepting man. Through the cross Jesus’ offices of prophet, priest and king are defined. The church is the body of Christ by which mankind enters into communion with Christ. Then Fackre issues a call for hope in universal salvation through a post-mortem evangelism and possibility of temporary hellfire. All in all, Fackre sees Jesus’ resurrection as the guarantee for this salvation.

Mark Thompson takes two approaches to defining the uniqueness of Jesus’ revelation. Exegetically, God made himself “known at particular times to particular people” (92). In the Torah, he revealed himself in part through the ark of the covenant and the temple. In the New Testament, he revealed himself explicitly through the Person of Jesus Christ as the one and only who came from the Father. Thompson takes the claims of Christ’s exclusivity to answer the question of pluralism by stating that “those outside of Christ do not know the God who created them” (107).

Veli-Matti Karkkainen promotes the uniqueness of Christ’s role in the Trinity. Like Thompson he also deals with the challenge of pluralism, but he believes placing the Trinity in the dialogue is a great resource for the exclusivist. Only in the Trinity can the Christian God be defined in a historical context. Karkkainen surveys various positions, but he takes specific issue with Hick for his denial of the Trinity and with Knitter for his denial of absolute truth. In the end his “general dissatisfaction with pluralism includes critique of their either too general a view of salvation (the ‘self-realization’ of Hick) or the particularist (the eco-liberation of Knitter)” (129).

            These unique characteristics are then applied to various world religions. Ellen Charry

deals with what she calls an eternal crusade by looking at Christianity through Judaism’s eyes and Judaism through Christian eyes. The basic points of conflict revolve around the uniqueness of Christ in relation to what must be accepted soteriologically and thereby what constitutes the true people of God. Christians do not understand why Jews would not want to accept Jesus as their Messiah. However, Jews already seeing themselves as God’s people do not see a need for salvation. Moreover, to accept a man in God’s place would constitute blasphemy. Charry leaves these two religions incompatible, except for the notion that Jesus is still unique to Christians.

            Paul Chung believes that Buddhism shares some common elements with Christianity. Using the doctrine of justification, he compares Luther with Shinran. This interfaith dialogue might not bring the two world religions any closer together, but Chung believes that it focuses the adherent to his own beliefs in a newer way.

            Accordingly, Ng Kam Weng discusses the commonalities between Islam and Christianity. Muslim acceptance of Jesus as a lesser prophet to Mohammed offers a dialogical inquiry into what an Old Testament prophet really was. Admittedly with certain difficulties, presenting Jesus as an eschatological prophet who still has a work to complete could be a starting point for this discussion. Weng believes that when Muslims can see Jesus as God in Christ they may move beyond the fatal sin of shirk and begin to see Jesus’ soteriological role.

            In his essay, K.K. Yeo does not deal as much with the uniqueness of Christ as with agape love and the law as Confucian concepts of ren and li. Yeo says that “to be a full Confucianist is to be a Christian” (203). According to Yeo, Jesus’ teachings can be best understood through Confucianism’s teachings and vice versa.

            Finally, Sung Wook Chung also tackles a dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity by noting several points of contact. He promotes a missional model for interfaith dialogue that “allows Christians to explore the possible points of contact between Christianity and other religions and to employ these points of contact to share the gospel with those who are adherents of other religions” (225). By relating to Buddhism’s tenets of suffering, craving, cessation and moral cultivation, Christianity can find dialogical touch points for sharing a clear gospel message. 

My Take on Chung's Approach

Chung’s presentation of such a wide variety of evangelical positions in this book seems to stem from the fact that even evangelicals differ on main points, but the uniqueness of Christ still brings them together. It is for that reason that there is hope in anchoring the evangelical message on this one point and thereby finding the window for the evangelical community to interact with other world religions. Chung states early on that the essays he has gathered for this book are by writers who adhere to the “absolute uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Savior of humanity” (x). Moreover, a reaffirmation of this common tenet then becomes the sticking point in defining who will contribute to the discussion.

            Because of the varying authors, each chapter has its own unique style and flow. Some of the writers produce an essay that reads more like a survey, while others engage directly in a comparative study of religions. The writers also have varying backgrounds, theologically covering the spectrum of evangelical Christianity and geographically representing the globe. But the thing that unifies their contributions is the mainstream evangelical stance that Jesus is unique.

Furthermore, although the writers do vary in their stances, extreme positions are not represented. Karkkainen seems to lean somewhat in his Trinitarian stance toward a greater openness to pluralism, but the extreme ecumenical pluralist would not appreciate the book’s tendency toward recognizing the absolute truth found in Jesus Christ. Thompson seems to be more of an exclusivist in his questioning the very value of an interfaith dialogue, but the extreme separatist would not appreciate the books openness to find elements of Christian contact within other world religions.

            Chung’s main thesis is that Christianity can indeed find those points of contact with other religions by holding the advent of Jesus as a banner for comparison. Chung admits there are limitations to these contact points, but he encourages their exploration nonetheless. Still he holds Christ’s uniqueness in high regard, and that seems to be the strongest point for this book.

The book presents a theology of religions that is clearly Christocentric as opposed to bibliocentric or theocentric. The centrality of the cross is self-evident, but Chung goes further to promote a more comprehensive Christology from a much broader perspective than just the soteriology of the cross. The whole advent of the Christ, from his incarnation to his future eschatological role, is brought into play in this conversation. Tomlin promotes the cross as a symbol that can find value in other religions. Fackne suggests that Christ speaks through a range of religious interpretations. Karkkainen goes further to say that the Spirit of Christ is at work in other religions. 

Although this Christocentric approach informs Chung’s theology of religions, there are nonetheless some writers who seem to toy with pluralism. Clark Pinnock’s stance against bibliocentric Christology, for example, seems to hurt his own argument for Christ’s uniqueness. When he says that the Magi visits recorded in Scripture are not factual or that the church has placed an undo emphasis on the virgin birth of Christ, he unwittingly destroys whatever evidence he might have appealed to for the uniqueness of Christ’s teaching. Because it could be argued that a proper Christology must be founded in Scripture, Pinnock’s rejection of biblical historicity dances dangerously on the edge of the very tenets that fuel pluralism.

In response to this tension between pluralists and exclusivists within the evangelical camp, Chung proposes a “missional model” (225) for dialogue with other religions. The weakness of this model, however, is that it is still somewhat ambiguous in its application. Chung attempts to apply the model in a dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism in his final chapter, but it still falls short of communicating the “solid and clear” (238) salvific truth that he desires. He acknowledges that limitation by disclaiming his missional model as the final conversation, but he nevertheless promotes it as a starting point in the dialogue.

Chung’s attempt to synthesize a Christological perspective across the evangelical spectrum is important. Although some have complained that his essay collection omitted crucial conversation partners like Western secularists, folk religions or Hinduism, it is sufficient to test his theory that a high Christology can be useful in interfaith dialogue. In a day when pluralism and tolerance are being promoted as the only means for a round table discussion, Chung sets a chair for the intelligent evangelical who cannot deny the strong claims of Christ as the only way, truth and life. Chung admits that mutual love and concern must be the atmosphere for exchanging ideas, but his book shows where exclusive truth claims can find conversation partners with other world religions.