What do you think?
Rate this book
A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World #1
Christ and Reconciliation: A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World, vol. 1
Christ and Reconciliation Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen develops a constructive Christology and theology of salvation in dialogue with the best of Christian tradition, with contemporary theology in its global and contextual diversity, and with other major living faiths.
Kärkkäinen's Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World is a five-volume project that aims to develop a new approach to and method of doing Christian theology in our pluralistic world at the beginning of the third millennium. Topics such as diversity, inclusivity, violence, power, cultural hybridity, and justice are part of the constructive theological discussion along with classical topics such as the messianic consciousness, incarnation, atonement, and the person of Christ.
With the metaphor of hospitality serving as the framework for his discussion, Kärkkäinen engages Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism in sympathetic and critical mutual dialogue while remaining robustly Christian in his convictions. Never before has a full-scale doctrinal theology been attempted in such a wide and deep dialogical mode.]]>
Kärkkäinen's Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World is a five-volume project that aims to develop a new approach to and method of doing Christian theology in our pluralistic world at the beginning of the third millennium. Topics such as diversity, inclusivity, violence, power, cultural hybridity, and justice are part of the constructive theological discussion along with classical topics such as the messianic consciousness, incarnation, atonement, and the person of Christ.
With the metaphor of hospitality serving as the framework for his discussion, Kärkkäinen engages Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism in sympathetic and critical mutual dialogue while remaining robustly Christian in his convictions. Never before has a full-scale doctrinal theology been attempted in such a wide and deep dialogical mode.]]>
- GenresTheology
469 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 26, 2013
14 people are currently reading
59 people want to read
About the author
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen
58 books28 followersVeli-Matti Käkkäinen is professor of systematic theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. He has published numerous articles in international journals of theology.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
May 23, 2017
Christ and Reconciliation is the first of a (most ambitious) five-volume set--A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World (CCTPW). Here, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen's fourfold focus (coherence, inclusive, dialogical, and hospitable) in light of Christian tradition (biblical and historical) is put to the test, and the results are impressive. This is truly an inclusive, dialogical, and hospitable work of systematic/constructive theology--probably one of the most without significant compromise--in recent decades. Kärkkäinen, professor of systematic theology (Fuller) and docent of ecumenics (Helsinki), displays his near-breadth-less vault of information--it is just absolutely staggering. However, this might be the set-back for such an impressive work: it reads more as a theological survey than a constructive ('building up') work of theology. So, as a resource, the CCTPW is absolutely invaluable for our 'post- everything' world (just see the endless bibliography at the end of each volume).
Christ and Reconciliation, arguably the heart of Christian theology, limits itself to the life and works of Jesus. Though both are inseparably linked, each is considered separably for heuristic purposes. Kärkkäinen is readable, though, at times, dry due to his expansive treatment.
cf. www.sooholee.wordpress.com
Christ and Reconciliation, arguably the heart of Christian theology, limits itself to the life and works of Jesus. Though both are inseparably linked, each is considered separably for heuristic purposes. Kärkkäinen is readable, though, at times, dry due to his expansive treatment.
cf. www.sooholee.wordpress.com
January 1, 2025
More than 5 stars! Fantastic! How have I missed this for 10 years? A superb resource to bring traditional theology into a modern pluralistic world. Very Highly Recommended. Part of a 5 Volume series, but the Fuller Seminary theologian.
The big question is, how to do theology in a pluralistic world? A world not of foreign religions, but multiple religions practiced cheek by jowl. Kärkkäinen proposes a methodology of integrating input from other religions by engaging in dialogue with them. By that, he means having a full commitment to Christian faith but engaging others with humility. As he quotes Moltmann, one must be ‘worthy of dialogue’, meaning they must have a specific belief and position with which to engage. A nebulous, all-accepting void of content position cannot engage in dialogue.
He proposes a dynamic position that balances on as is grounded in Biblical and 2,000 years of tradition but also attempts to gain insight and truth outside of ‘mainstream’ theologies, i.e. the contextualized theologies of the Global South. He is fully aware, of course, that all theology is contextually, but marginalized theology is self-consciously so. He interacts with liberation theology, Black theology, feminist theology, African theology, as well as many other strains. Seeking insight and multiple contexts to deepen our understanding of God and his works, while also entering a dialogue with tradition and of course the ground of theology the Biblical text.
He begins his systematic theology, what he calls constructive theology, with Christology. His methodological approach is immediately evident. The first methodological issue he raises is the Christology from above or below. He notes how systematics tends to ignore the life of Jesus between the virgins birth and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate (an insight attributed to Moltmann, with whom he interacts frequently).
He engages in the theology of the life of Jesus and his attention to the poor, the sick, and the marginalized. A theme of non-Western theology in particular. He also engages with Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, and other religious traditions on how they see Jesus and what insights we can gain and what lines are positions that we cannot incorporate into Christian Christology.
He begins the Christology proper with the concept of Messiah and Kingdom, a concept not usually discussed in systematic theology. In this chapter, he relies heavily on NT Wright, especially his work Jesus and the Victory of God. There is no more reliable work on which to found this discussion. He examines the Chaledonian formulation of Christology. Clearly, it is not the last word, but it must inform our discussions and cannot be dismissed out of hand.
He spends a fair amount of time on incarnation and related topics. How this relates to his divinity, how it relates to his sinlessness, as well as a fruitful discussion on the relationship of the natures of Christ. He looks at kenotic theologies and how to think of Christ as emptying himself. He closes this chapter with a discussion on the virgin birth, which he concludes is an object of faith rather than a ground of faith.
He reviews the tension between Logos Christology and Spirit Christology. Both aspects are necessary for a full picture of Jesus and his work. Spirit-only Christologies tend to lean very close to adoptionism, and Logos Christologies can be all about identity and little about work. The integration of the preexistence Son with obedience and filling of the Spirit builds a more robust Christology that brings together identity and work.
He then engages with pluralistic Christologies, particularly of John Hick and Knitter, as well as Hindu Christologies. While they offer some insight, for the most part, these Christologies change the incarnation as a unique historical event tied to Jesus of Nazareth and reinterpret incarnation in Jesus as only differing in degree from the incarnation or God presences in all people. Ironically, this move, rather than facilitating inter-religious dialogue, kills it with an imperialistic affirmation that all historically held religious beliefs, when they are Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic, must give up their individual historically based beliefs and take on this new super-religion of quasi pantheism. A new meta-religion that attempts to water down any differences in historical and culturally developed beliefs.
He interacts with the four major living religions one at a time, beginning with Judaism. One of Judaism’s stumbling blocks to the Messiahship of Jesus is that the world is clearly not restored and redeemed. And to that, Christians would concur, but propose that the process has begun. The ideal of incarnation of Yahweh as a human is also a point of contention.
With Islam, which recognized Jesus as a prophet from its beginning, takes a position similar to nineteenth-century liberal theology that Jesus was a good teacher. But Islam, of course, rejects the notion of incarnation and the deity of Jesus.
Buddhism doesn’t have much history of interaction with Jesus, but the historical, unique dwelling of the creator God in Jesus is hard to reconcile with Buddhism. The idea of a personal God who exists before and outside of creation conflicts with the basic teachings of various Buddhisms. By extension, this God uniquely dwelling in one historical human is hard to imagine in a Buddhist context. The kenotic theology has some overlap with the self-denial of Buddhist teaching.
Similarly, Hindu teachers, while very open to and accepting of Jesus, as one of the gods, even one of the primarily god. They tend to separate the historical Jesus from the “Christ consciousness”, a consciousness that they see as available to all through enlightenment with Jesus being an exemplar. Given the differences in Eastern and Western ways of thinking, it can sometimes be seen that there is agreement in words, but the concepts behind the words are different.
This comparative study with other religious teachings is fruitful in that it defines the boundaries of Christian belief. It also helps clarify thinking and leads to areas of fruitful dialogue. But only, as mentioned earlier, when both sides bring their beliefs and cultures to the table and not empty acceptance of everything.
In part II, he looks at reconciliation or what is traditionally called atonement theory. He begins by tracing the development of atonement doctrine from the NT through the reformers and post-Enlightenment thinkers. He focuses on an important turning point in the history of the doctrine, Anselm’s substitutionary theory. He notes that it is very contextualized in feudalism. The near-contemporary example theory of Abelard is briefly examined, and some of its weaknesses noted. Anselm’s theology, which became dominant through Aquinas and the Reformers, has some potential weaknesses, particularly in a pluralistic context.
The first potential weakness he spends the next chapter on is the violent aspect of penal substitution or better, as he says, vicarious substitution. In his discussion on violence in atonement, he acknowledges and addresses much of the criticism primarily of feminist theologians. He also extensively interacts with René Girard’s theories of mimetic violence.
In the chapter on reconciliation, he spends a lot of time interacting primarily with modern ‘contextual’ theologians who are critical of vicarious substitution. In this analysis, he develops some insight from the criticism but points out that the alternative theologies are lacking any kind of complete picture of atonement. He also emphasizes the trinitarian aspects of atonement. An aspect often overlooked or misrepresented in traditional penal substitution. In this trinitarian view of atonement, God the Father is an actor in atonement, not in a passive stance of receiving a sacrifice, but in the active love of making a way for humanity. The atonement is driven by the love of the Father. The Spirit’s role is especially evident in the resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost elements, elements that are integral to atonement. Atonement or reconciliation does not end on the cross. Resurrection is the validation of creation, the validation of the Son, the initiation of the new humanity, and the new relation between God and man.
He goes on to discuss how reconciliation fits into the mission of the church. Where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. Here he engages with feminist and liberation theologians, even going back to Rauschenbusch and the origin of the social gospel concept. He recognizes that the critiques of Gutierrez and Cone are perhaps a necessary correction to the overly abstract ideas of atonement. He includes a helpful outline of Amos Young’s framework of the circles of reconciliation, beginning with the individual extending into society and ending eschatologically.
The final chapter looks at reconciliation in relation to other religions. Judaism has some obvious parallels with the sacrifice concept in atonement, but the differing views of the Fall and sin make the idea of a once-for-all sacrifice incompatible with Judaism. Islam teaches that Jesus was not crucified and did not die, making any idea of reconciliation through Jesus incomprehensible. Buddhism, particularly in the Pure Land variety, contains the idea of a person sacrificing himself for the ‘salvation’ of others. While Hinduism has some vague notions of sacrifice and grace, like Buddhism, salvation is entirely reliant on the effort of the individual. While atonement is a particularly divisive religious topic, there is insight to be gained from other religions even here.
Simply outstanding.
The big question is, how to do theology in a pluralistic world? A world not of foreign religions, but multiple religions practiced cheek by jowl. Kärkkäinen proposes a methodology of integrating input from other religions by engaging in dialogue with them. By that, he means having a full commitment to Christian faith but engaging others with humility. As he quotes Moltmann, one must be ‘worthy of dialogue’, meaning they must have a specific belief and position with which to engage. A nebulous, all-accepting void of content position cannot engage in dialogue.
He proposes a dynamic position that balances on as is grounded in Biblical and 2,000 years of tradition but also attempts to gain insight and truth outside of ‘mainstream’ theologies, i.e. the contextualized theologies of the Global South. He is fully aware, of course, that all theology is contextually, but marginalized theology is self-consciously so. He interacts with liberation theology, Black theology, feminist theology, African theology, as well as many other strains. Seeking insight and multiple contexts to deepen our understanding of God and his works, while also entering a dialogue with tradition and of course the ground of theology the Biblical text.
He begins his systematic theology, what he calls constructive theology, with Christology. His methodological approach is immediately evident. The first methodological issue he raises is the Christology from above or below. He notes how systematics tends to ignore the life of Jesus between the virgins birth and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate (an insight attributed to Moltmann, with whom he interacts frequently).
He engages in the theology of the life of Jesus and his attention to the poor, the sick, and the marginalized. A theme of non-Western theology in particular. He also engages with Buddhist, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, and other religious traditions on how they see Jesus and what insights we can gain and what lines are positions that we cannot incorporate into Christian Christology.
He begins the Christology proper with the concept of Messiah and Kingdom, a concept not usually discussed in systematic theology. In this chapter, he relies heavily on NT Wright, especially his work Jesus and the Victory of God. There is no more reliable work on which to found this discussion. He examines the Chaledonian formulation of Christology. Clearly, it is not the last word, but it must inform our discussions and cannot be dismissed out of hand.
He spends a fair amount of time on incarnation and related topics. How this relates to his divinity, how it relates to his sinlessness, as well as a fruitful discussion on the relationship of the natures of Christ. He looks at kenotic theologies and how to think of Christ as emptying himself. He closes this chapter with a discussion on the virgin birth, which he concludes is an object of faith rather than a ground of faith.
He reviews the tension between Logos Christology and Spirit Christology. Both aspects are necessary for a full picture of Jesus and his work. Spirit-only Christologies tend to lean very close to adoptionism, and Logos Christologies can be all about identity and little about work. The integration of the preexistence Son with obedience and filling of the Spirit builds a more robust Christology that brings together identity and work.
He then engages with pluralistic Christologies, particularly of John Hick and Knitter, as well as Hindu Christologies. While they offer some insight, for the most part, these Christologies change the incarnation as a unique historical event tied to Jesus of Nazareth and reinterpret incarnation in Jesus as only differing in degree from the incarnation or God presences in all people. Ironically, this move, rather than facilitating inter-religious dialogue, kills it with an imperialistic affirmation that all historically held religious beliefs, when they are Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic, must give up their individual historically based beliefs and take on this new super-religion of quasi pantheism. A new meta-religion that attempts to water down any differences in historical and culturally developed beliefs.
He interacts with the four major living religions one at a time, beginning with Judaism. One of Judaism’s stumbling blocks to the Messiahship of Jesus is that the world is clearly not restored and redeemed. And to that, Christians would concur, but propose that the process has begun. The ideal of incarnation of Yahweh as a human is also a point of contention.
With Islam, which recognized Jesus as a prophet from its beginning, takes a position similar to nineteenth-century liberal theology that Jesus was a good teacher. But Islam, of course, rejects the notion of incarnation and the deity of Jesus.
Buddhism doesn’t have much history of interaction with Jesus, but the historical, unique dwelling of the creator God in Jesus is hard to reconcile with Buddhism. The idea of a personal God who exists before and outside of creation conflicts with the basic teachings of various Buddhisms. By extension, this God uniquely dwelling in one historical human is hard to imagine in a Buddhist context. The kenotic theology has some overlap with the self-denial of Buddhist teaching.
Similarly, Hindu teachers, while very open to and accepting of Jesus, as one of the gods, even one of the primarily god. They tend to separate the historical Jesus from the “Christ consciousness”, a consciousness that they see as available to all through enlightenment with Jesus being an exemplar. Given the differences in Eastern and Western ways of thinking, it can sometimes be seen that there is agreement in words, but the concepts behind the words are different.
This comparative study with other religious teachings is fruitful in that it defines the boundaries of Christian belief. It also helps clarify thinking and leads to areas of fruitful dialogue. But only, as mentioned earlier, when both sides bring their beliefs and cultures to the table and not empty acceptance of everything.
In part II, he looks at reconciliation or what is traditionally called atonement theory. He begins by tracing the development of atonement doctrine from the NT through the reformers and post-Enlightenment thinkers. He focuses on an important turning point in the history of the doctrine, Anselm’s substitutionary theory. He notes that it is very contextualized in feudalism. The near-contemporary example theory of Abelard is briefly examined, and some of its weaknesses noted. Anselm’s theology, which became dominant through Aquinas and the Reformers, has some potential weaknesses, particularly in a pluralistic context.
The first potential weakness he spends the next chapter on is the violent aspect of penal substitution or better, as he says, vicarious substitution. In his discussion on violence in atonement, he acknowledges and addresses much of the criticism primarily of feminist theologians. He also extensively interacts with René Girard’s theories of mimetic violence.
In the chapter on reconciliation, he spends a lot of time interacting primarily with modern ‘contextual’ theologians who are critical of vicarious substitution. In this analysis, he develops some insight from the criticism but points out that the alternative theologies are lacking any kind of complete picture of atonement. He also emphasizes the trinitarian aspects of atonement. An aspect often overlooked or misrepresented in traditional penal substitution. In this trinitarian view of atonement, God the Father is an actor in atonement, not in a passive stance of receiving a sacrifice, but in the active love of making a way for humanity. The atonement is driven by the love of the Father. The Spirit’s role is especially evident in the resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost elements, elements that are integral to atonement. Atonement or reconciliation does not end on the cross. Resurrection is the validation of creation, the validation of the Son, the initiation of the new humanity, and the new relation between God and man.
He goes on to discuss how reconciliation fits into the mission of the church. Where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. Here he engages with feminist and liberation theologians, even going back to Rauschenbusch and the origin of the social gospel concept. He recognizes that the critiques of Gutierrez and Cone are perhaps a necessary correction to the overly abstract ideas of atonement. He includes a helpful outline of Amos Young’s framework of the circles of reconciliation, beginning with the individual extending into society and ending eschatologically.
The final chapter looks at reconciliation in relation to other religions. Judaism has some obvious parallels with the sacrifice concept in atonement, but the differing views of the Fall and sin make the idea of a once-for-all sacrifice incompatible with Judaism. Islam teaches that Jesus was not crucified and did not die, making any idea of reconciliation through Jesus incomprehensible. Buddhism, particularly in the Pure Land variety, contains the idea of a person sacrificing himself for the ‘salvation’ of others. While Hinduism has some vague notions of sacrifice and grace, like Buddhism, salvation is entirely reliant on the effort of the individual. While atonement is a particularly divisive religious topic, there is insight to be gained from other religions even here.
Simply outstanding.
December 13, 2017
Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary and an ordained Lutheran minister, provides an easily readable, comprehensive, and well-researched introduction to his projected five-volume constructive theology. As Kärkkäinen defines it, “Systematic/constructive theology is an integrative discipline that continuously searches for a coherent, balanced understanding of Christian truth and faith in light of Christian tradition (biblical and historical), and in the context of the historical and contemporary thought, cultures, and living faiths. It aims at a coherent, inclusive, dialogical, and hospitable vision.” (13) The first volume begins, appropriately for a Christian-based systematics, with the theological topics of Christ and Reconciliation (usually part of the traditional topic of Christology and Atonement). Kärkkäinen pays careful attention to the interaction of his theology with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism (at least in this volume). He displays a strong preference for the Chalcedonian definition of Christ and adherence to scripture and tradition. This admirable norm, however, also influences the weakest arguments of the book, where Kärkkäinen critiques feminist and other contextual theologians for being insufficiently faithful to tradition (and occasionally summarizes their theologies in unfortunately straw-dog terms). Nonetheless, this volume is an excellent resource for professional theologians interested in examples of interfaith writing based consciously in the Christian tradition without being defensive or apologetic. Kärkkäinen’s treatment of salvation as communal- and planetary-wide reconciliation rather than individualism is a particular strength of the second half of the volume. Also a great text for graduate-level theological schools and religious studies students.
Read
November 28, 2014Kärkkäinen has written a very ambitious and in many ways impressive book with "Christ and Reconciliation." It is ambitious in that not only does he work out a theology of reconciliation with respect to both biblical interpretation and doctrinal history, but he also tries to work consistently with the idea of "A constructive Theology for the Pluralistic World"- as the subtitle has it.
To say something about the first, biblical interpretation and doctrinal history. Kärkkäinen is certainly well sad and has a considerable grasp of the history of doctrine from the councils up until today. He starts by an emphasis on the person and life of Christ in the first part. In that he takes a fairly traditional route methodologically speaking. He begins by looking and questions of method in studying Christology and then moves on to look at early Church Christology and then a little onward in history. Following that are some more topic focused chapters on Resurrection, Incarnation, Jesus and the Spirit and so on. Ending with Jesus in a global contemporary perspective (but more on that later).
This part is followed by a part on Resurrection, second and final part of the book, where Kärkkäinen applies much of what was said about Christ on the question of reconciliation. He points out that salvation could be seen as a greater topic than reconciliation, or rather that atonement is a more precise topic than salvation in general. Kärkkäinen is very clear with his starting assumptions here. He wants to work out a doctrine of reconciliation that respects the Trinitarian relational understanding of God so that atonement is something that involves the whole of God. He also has a clear focus on the question of violence in atonement, and then not only about/against penal substitution, but about the question of why there had to be death and suffering involved over all. A good and interesting point is that Kärkkäinen points out that the 'penal' part in substitutionary theologies should not be placed at Anselm's feet, even though doctrines about substitution surely are influenced by him, and worked out by him. My understanding of Kärkkäinen on this topic is that (p. 348) violence and death is the point of total Jesus' total acceptance of the condition of humanity. That is the point where the kenosis thought is realised and Jesus even shares the anguish of godforsakenness. It appears then that violence is not needed in terms of appeasing an angry God for Kärkkäinen, but it is there to show the divine complete and utter recognition of the suffering (very Moltmann).
This brings me on to a second, and a very interesting point - namely the how Kärkkäinen deals with the subject of kenosis. One strong point is, first of all, how he wants to bring in the whole of incarnation into the question of reconciliation. He critiques Protestants and Reformed that there has been a far too strong emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus, but there surely must have been a point for Jesus to have lived as well. Following on from that (and following Stanley Grenz' interpretation of Phil 2) Kärkkäinen argues that Paul in Phil 2 is not talking about kenosis in the pre-incarnate Son, giving away his divinity in order to become human. Rather, kenosis is related to the already incarnated Christ - it is a way of showing how Jesus lived his life. And it is not simply a comment about general 'self sacrifice'. But when Jesus so fully accepted the human plight, he also showed his divinity. This hinges on the thought that Jesus was without sin, but when Jesus had lived a life that could not have been condemned by the law, then he should not have died, but he died so that more could live. But the death was real and the anguish was real and it this that was the kenosis (if I understand Kärkkäinen correctly) - and the paradox is that it is in the most exposed human situation that Jesus also proves to be divine since God is characterized as a God who utterly and fully gives of him(?)self.
To show that God is a giving God Kärkkäinen then also points out the importance of the Trinity and the joint work of Father, Son and the Spirit, but I feel like I don't quite have time to go in to that. I want to mention something about the global aspect of the book as well. What makes this book rather unique is how actively Kärkkäinen brings in a global aspect in his theology. He wants to work out Christian reconciliation in relation to other world religions, and he does that fairly successful I must say. It is, of course, a close to impossible task, but, as he acknowledges, someone has to start before it can really take off. But relating Christianity to other religions has been done, which he is fully aware of, but this is not really a comparative study, neither is it an attempt to reconcile Christian thinking with other religious thinking (as in Hick?). Kärkkäinen positions himself against these, as he sees it, pluralistic and synergistic attempts. Kärkkäinen wants, instead, to be honest with what he considers to be truly Christian thoughts and the bring that into a mutual conversation with aspects in other religions, grace (or potential lack thereof) in Islam, or view of salvation within Buddhism and Hinduism, Messiah and Boddhisathva, and so on. This probably reflects his evangelical context fairly well, but I also think think that this is a very refreshing way of doing it. Because I fully agree with Kärkkäinen that a dialogue is much more real and genuine if the people involved states their positions clearly.
Just to bring in a personal note. When I lived in India for two years I came in to discussions about faith and religion a lot of times. A few times I happened to do so with university educated people and we started to talk about globalization and pluralism and so on and what was interesting was that what they reacted against West was not so much the fact that Christianity (if we equate that with West for now) has truth claims. What they reacted against was, rather, the Western type of relativism. Instead of trying to blend all in to one happy, but bland, pot, they argued that, of course, there are differences, that's what's so difficult with a pluralist society. But the differences are real. So, as one speaker at the Jaipur literature festival stated, tolerance is costly. In this way, my view is that Kärkkäenen acknowledges that dialogue between religions does not need to lead to mutual agreement on statements of faith, it can still be worthwhile. And also, if we don't try to sweep over differences, or dilute the particularity of one's own religion, it will be painful, and there will be some controversy, but the dialogue might be more true.
Anyway, back to the book, at the beginning I was not so convinced about the success of this aspect because his examples were very basic. But as the book progress I was more and more convinced about the importance of this aspect of the project (Kärkkäinen has, after all, lived for a considerable time in Thailand and speaks Thai, so he must surely have some insights into, at least, that culture). The discussions that I thought were really insightful were those about the person of Christ in other religions and also the more general discussion about Christianity, salvation and evangelisation in relation to other religions. Here I think he treated the issues with clarity, yet also with sensitivity.
There are many, many aspects I would like to bring up, and it is a long book, but I think I have to bring this to an end. And I will do so with some general remarks. The overall impression of the book is very positive and I will, not too far in the future, read the second part of this series, on the Trinity (which is also my area of research). Kärkkäinen clearly wants to bring biblical theology to the front and a prime point is how the Bible should guide theology normatively. Not anything surprising for an evangelical, but not something completely self evidential for theology in general. This I find positive and I think he does a good exegetical job. But in his exegesis I think that something becomes evident that is a general shortcoming of the book, namely, the reliance on a very particular amount of sources. Kärkkäinen is widely read, but my impression is that when it comes to Biblical exegesis, NT Wright is the prime authority for him. And I like NT Wright and think his is a very competent scholar, but his presence is a little too obvious in a book like this. The same goes with Kärkkäinen's use of Pannenberg and Moltmann. They are, no doubt, towering figures in theology the last 50 years, but is it necessary to rely on them so heavily as Kärkkäinen does? And overall, my impression is that Kärkkäinen has, sort of, a favorite book for each section, that he has read carefully and relates to and then 'fleshes out' the section with some other references. This is probably how one has to go about things with an ambitious work such as this, and it is to Kärkkäinen's credit that he is so honest with his sources. The downside is that even though the book is certainly, and successfully so, wide in its span, there is also a streak of narrowness to it.
To say something about the first, biblical interpretation and doctrinal history. Kärkkäinen is certainly well sad and has a considerable grasp of the history of doctrine from the councils up until today. He starts by an emphasis on the person and life of Christ in the first part. In that he takes a fairly traditional route methodologically speaking. He begins by looking and questions of method in studying Christology and then moves on to look at early Church Christology and then a little onward in history. Following that are some more topic focused chapters on Resurrection, Incarnation, Jesus and the Spirit and so on. Ending with Jesus in a global contemporary perspective (but more on that later).
This part is followed by a part on Resurrection, second and final part of the book, where Kärkkäinen applies much of what was said about Christ on the question of reconciliation. He points out that salvation could be seen as a greater topic than reconciliation, or rather that atonement is a more precise topic than salvation in general. Kärkkäinen is very clear with his starting assumptions here. He wants to work out a doctrine of reconciliation that respects the Trinitarian relational understanding of God so that atonement is something that involves the whole of God. He also has a clear focus on the question of violence in atonement, and then not only about/against penal substitution, but about the question of why there had to be death and suffering involved over all. A good and interesting point is that Kärkkäinen points out that the 'penal' part in substitutionary theologies should not be placed at Anselm's feet, even though doctrines about substitution surely are influenced by him, and worked out by him. My understanding of Kärkkäinen on this topic is that (p. 348) violence and death is the point of total Jesus' total acceptance of the condition of humanity. That is the point where the kenosis thought is realised and Jesus even shares the anguish of godforsakenness. It appears then that violence is not needed in terms of appeasing an angry God for Kärkkäinen, but it is there to show the divine complete and utter recognition of the suffering (very Moltmann).
This brings me on to a second, and a very interesting point - namely the how Kärkkäinen deals with the subject of kenosis. One strong point is, first of all, how he wants to bring in the whole of incarnation into the question of reconciliation. He critiques Protestants and Reformed that there has been a far too strong emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus, but there surely must have been a point for Jesus to have lived as well. Following on from that (and following Stanley Grenz' interpretation of Phil 2) Kärkkäinen argues that Paul in Phil 2 is not talking about kenosis in the pre-incarnate Son, giving away his divinity in order to become human. Rather, kenosis is related to the already incarnated Christ - it is a way of showing how Jesus lived his life. And it is not simply a comment about general 'self sacrifice'. But when Jesus so fully accepted the human plight, he also showed his divinity. This hinges on the thought that Jesus was without sin, but when Jesus had lived a life that could not have been condemned by the law, then he should not have died, but he died so that more could live. But the death was real and the anguish was real and it this that was the kenosis (if I understand Kärkkäinen correctly) - and the paradox is that it is in the most exposed human situation that Jesus also proves to be divine since God is characterized as a God who utterly and fully gives of him(?)self.
To show that God is a giving God Kärkkäinen then also points out the importance of the Trinity and the joint work of Father, Son and the Spirit, but I feel like I don't quite have time to go in to that. I want to mention something about the global aspect of the book as well. What makes this book rather unique is how actively Kärkkäinen brings in a global aspect in his theology. He wants to work out Christian reconciliation in relation to other world religions, and he does that fairly successful I must say. It is, of course, a close to impossible task, but, as he acknowledges, someone has to start before it can really take off. But relating Christianity to other religions has been done, which he is fully aware of, but this is not really a comparative study, neither is it an attempt to reconcile Christian thinking with other religious thinking (as in Hick?). Kärkkäinen positions himself against these, as he sees it, pluralistic and synergistic attempts. Kärkkäinen wants, instead, to be honest with what he considers to be truly Christian thoughts and the bring that into a mutual conversation with aspects in other religions, grace (or potential lack thereof) in Islam, or view of salvation within Buddhism and Hinduism, Messiah and Boddhisathva, and so on. This probably reflects his evangelical context fairly well, but I also think think that this is a very refreshing way of doing it. Because I fully agree with Kärkkäinen that a dialogue is much more real and genuine if the people involved states their positions clearly.
Just to bring in a personal note. When I lived in India for two years I came in to discussions about faith and religion a lot of times. A few times I happened to do so with university educated people and we started to talk about globalization and pluralism and so on and what was interesting was that what they reacted against West was not so much the fact that Christianity (if we equate that with West for now) has truth claims. What they reacted against was, rather, the Western type of relativism. Instead of trying to blend all in to one happy, but bland, pot, they argued that, of course, there are differences, that's what's so difficult with a pluralist society. But the differences are real. So, as one speaker at the Jaipur literature festival stated, tolerance is costly. In this way, my view is that Kärkkäenen acknowledges that dialogue between religions does not need to lead to mutual agreement on statements of faith, it can still be worthwhile. And also, if we don't try to sweep over differences, or dilute the particularity of one's own religion, it will be painful, and there will be some controversy, but the dialogue might be more true.
Anyway, back to the book, at the beginning I was not so convinced about the success of this aspect because his examples were very basic. But as the book progress I was more and more convinced about the importance of this aspect of the project (Kärkkäinen has, after all, lived for a considerable time in Thailand and speaks Thai, so he must surely have some insights into, at least, that culture). The discussions that I thought were really insightful were those about the person of Christ in other religions and also the more general discussion about Christianity, salvation and evangelisation in relation to other religions. Here I think he treated the issues with clarity, yet also with sensitivity.
There are many, many aspects I would like to bring up, and it is a long book, but I think I have to bring this to an end. And I will do so with some general remarks. The overall impression of the book is very positive and I will, not too far in the future, read the second part of this series, on the Trinity (which is also my area of research). Kärkkäinen clearly wants to bring biblical theology to the front and a prime point is how the Bible should guide theology normatively. Not anything surprising for an evangelical, but not something completely self evidential for theology in general. This I find positive and I think he does a good exegetical job. But in his exegesis I think that something becomes evident that is a general shortcoming of the book, namely, the reliance on a very particular amount of sources. Kärkkäinen is widely read, but my impression is that when it comes to Biblical exegesis, NT Wright is the prime authority for him. And I like NT Wright and think his is a very competent scholar, but his presence is a little too obvious in a book like this. The same goes with Kärkkäinen's use of Pannenberg and Moltmann. They are, no doubt, towering figures in theology the last 50 years, but is it necessary to rely on them so heavily as Kärkkäinen does? And overall, my impression is that Kärkkäinen has, sort of, a favorite book for each section, that he has read carefully and relates to and then 'fleshes out' the section with some other references. This is probably how one has to go about things with an ambitious work such as this, and it is to Kärkkäinen's credit that he is so honest with his sources. The downside is that even though the book is certainly, and successfully so, wide in its span, there is also a streak of narrowness to it.
April 22, 2016
Dit is het eerste boek van vijf die K. wil schrijven in een reeks over A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World. Dit ambitieuze project wil het wezen en de taak van de christelijke systematische (constructieve) theologie op nieuwe wijze belichten door pluraliteit (cultureel, economisch, religieus, …) expliciet in ogenschouw te nemen op fundamenteel niveau. Een belangrijk onderdeel van dit project is dus methodologisch, waarbij christelijke theologie zich opent in dialoog met interne en externe diversiteit. De perspectieven van bevrijdings-, feministische- , postcoloniale-, Aziatische-, Afrikaanse-, en andere theologieën worden niet gewoon als aanvullingen beschouwd op de mainstream visie, maar als gelijkwaardige dialoogpartners. Daarbovenop bestaat K.’s project erin om de religieuze diversiteit diep in haar constructief-systematisch te verwerken, zonder daarbij de religieuze particulariteit te verdunnen.
Na dit volume over Christologie komen er werken over de Triniteit & openbaring, Schepping & antropologie, Geest & redding, en Gemeenschap & eschatologie. Daarmee wil K. de klassieke dogmatische onderwerpen behandelen.
Na een inleidend hoofdstuk waarin K. zijn methodologie voor het ganse project beschrijft, volgen er twee delen (1: Christus, 2: Verzoening). Ook Deel Een (‘Christ’) start met een methodologisch hoofdstuk over Christologie, gevolgd door negen hoofdstukken (‘Jezus als profeet-leraar-wonderdoener’, ‘Jezus in ‘glocale’ theologie’, ‘Messias & Rijk Gods’, ‘Chalcedonische Christologie’, ‘Verrijzenis & identiteit’, ‘Incarnatie en pre-existentie’, ‘Logos- en Geest-Christologieën’, ‘Contra pluralisme’, en ‘Jezus Christus tussen de religies’).
Deel Twee (‘Reconciliation’) bevat vijf hoofdstukken (‘Verzoeningstradities’, ‘Geweld-Kruis-Verzoening’, ‘Een hedendaagse trinitaire verzoeningstheologie’, ‘Verzoening als de zending van de Kerk in de wereld’, en ‘Christelijke redding tussen de religies’). Het boek sluit af met een epiloog waarin enkele methodologische aspecten terug worden opgenomen.
Na dit volume over Christologie komen er werken over de Triniteit & openbaring, Schepping & antropologie, Geest & redding, en Gemeenschap & eschatologie. Daarmee wil K. de klassieke dogmatische onderwerpen behandelen.
Na een inleidend hoofdstuk waarin K. zijn methodologie voor het ganse project beschrijft, volgen er twee delen (1: Christus, 2: Verzoening). Ook Deel Een (‘Christ’) start met een methodologisch hoofdstuk over Christologie, gevolgd door negen hoofdstukken (‘Jezus als profeet-leraar-wonderdoener’, ‘Jezus in ‘glocale’ theologie’, ‘Messias & Rijk Gods’, ‘Chalcedonische Christologie’, ‘Verrijzenis & identiteit’, ‘Incarnatie en pre-existentie’, ‘Logos- en Geest-Christologieën’, ‘Contra pluralisme’, en ‘Jezus Christus tussen de religies’).
Deel Twee (‘Reconciliation’) bevat vijf hoofdstukken (‘Verzoeningstradities’, ‘Geweld-Kruis-Verzoening’, ‘Een hedendaagse trinitaire verzoeningstheologie’, ‘Verzoening als de zending van de Kerk in de wereld’, en ‘Christelijke redding tussen de religies’). Het boek sluit af met een epiloog waarin enkele methodologische aspecten terug worden opgenomen.
February 20, 2014
Karkkainen healthily anticipates the future of global Christianity. Each topic explored goes deep enough to satisfy the theology for which the book calls, but also spreads wide enough to touch on practicalities and equal-grounded dialogues with other faiths and belief systems.
I had to read the book for class, but I would not be shocked if I picked up book two in the five part series at some point in the future!
I had to read the book for class, but I would not be shocked if I picked up book two in the five part series at some point in the future!
January 12, 2019
Others are probably more qualified to review this book than I am; but I found it to be a valuable read, and look forward to the rest of the series. I appreciate the breadth of eccumenical and interfaith perspectives presented; and I have a feeling that this will be a good one-stop resource for global and inter sectional perspectives on the faith for future reference.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews