Where do the other religions come from? How can we understand these religions from a Christian point of view? What should our attitude towards the religious Other be? What is the link between other religions and the gospel? Dan Strange provides us with a biblical framework for understanding and interacting with the religious Other without compromising the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Here is Strange’s theology of religions:

“From the presupposition of an epistemologically authoritative biblical revelation, non-Christian religions are sovereignly directed, variegated and dynamic, collective human idolatrous responses to divine revelation behind which stands deceiving demonic forces. Being antithetically against yet parasitically dependent upon the truth of the Christian worldview, non-Christian religions are ‘subversively fulfilled’ in the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (42)

To demonstrate this thesis, Strange sketches a remarkable biblical theology of religions (chs. 1-6) before systematising his findings (ch. 7) and pointing out missiological and pastoral implications (chs. 8-9).

I invite the hurried reader to skip straight to point IV, which presents the final articulation of Strange’s theology of religions.

I. Religious Man: From Worship of the One True God to Idolatry        

Strange begins his account in Genesis 1, from which he draws the fundamental distinction between Creator and creature. There is only one God; the rest are creatures. He then dwells on the link between Creator and creature. Creation, being created by God, reveals God. This is particularly true of humanity, created in his image. This last element means, among other things, that man is fundamentally relational. He is created in relationship with God (a covenant relationship), with humanity and with the rest of creation, to whom he must represent God, his rule and work of creation (Gen 1.28). Man is therefore religious in his very being by virtue of the image of God (71). And this continues after the Fall[1]: man remains in relationship with God, even though the covenant has been broken. This ontological reality also explains the degrees of continuity that can be observed between cultures and religions: we are all made from the same religious mould. Every human being is religious.

The Fall shows us the break-up of the original “religion” and the introduction of a “false faith” (77). By giving credence to the serpent, Eve, and then Adam, believe a lie about God (Gen. 3). The relationship with God is broken (but it does not become non-existent). This first sin is an idolatrous act in that it manifests a distortion and denial of God’s revealed identity (75). From the good and true God he is, he becomes a tyrannical liar. Under Satan’s influence, Adam and Eve choose self-determination by taking the forbidden fruit, hoping in this way to become God’s equal. It is an idolatrous attempt to subvert the distinction between Creator and creature.

II. The promise of redemption, antithesis and common grace

God, in his grace, makes a promise of redemption to Adam and Eve that concerns all humanity (Gen. 3.15). But this promise also introduces the antithesis[2], with the separation between the descendants of the woman and the descendants of the serpent (82). The latter corresponds to humanity hostile to God[3]. An antithesis exists between the two offspring in that one submits to divine authority regarding the interpretation of reality, while the other follows the serpent’s lie (84). So here are two “fundamental orientations”, or “worldviews”, that oppose each other, rooted in the most fundamental presuppositions of the heart. Thus “the antithesis means that in reality there are only two categories of human beings that operate as bounded sets” (85). There is no ethical or epistemic neutrality between the two (86).

The doctrine of antithesis goes hand in hand with the doctrine of common grace, which “limits” or “completes” the first (86). Common grace is a “non-salvific manifestation of God’s grace” (87). It manifests itself in the limitation of evil and the divine commitment not to carry out the final judgement immediately, but also in the fact that unbelievers benefit from God’s goodness. Thus, non-believers can be ‘good’ people, know truth facts, etc… The Noahide covenant is a typical example (Gen. 8:21-22; 9:1-17). This covenant (and common grace) enables the continuation of History, and therefore the progression of the History of redemption for the salvation of God’s people.

Man is therefore made up of a ‘complex anthropological mixture’ (91). In principle, the antithesis makes dialogue and cohabitation between believers and non-believers impossible. But in practice, people’s worldviews and their implementation are often inconsistent (for non-believers and believers alike)[4]. This inconsistency among non-believers is partly explained by the image of God and common grace (92). All remain ontologically in the image of God and metaphysically dependent on God. In a sense, all know God (93; Rom. 1.21), although they suppress this knowledge and thus do not know him (Rom. 1.18). And all are beneficiaries of common grace, enabling them to manifest certain virtues and to do good in the world despite their fundamental opposition to God. This allows a common ground between believers and non-believers, although this ground is by no means neutral (94). The non-believer therefore lives in a permanent contradiction: being in the image of God but rejecting God; living in the reality of the biblical worldview but adhering to a false worldview.

III. Idolatry in the Old and New Testaments (ch. 5-6)

Following a discussion of the historical origins of religions (chs. 3-4)[5], Strange argues that “idolatry is perhaps the hermeneutical master key with which to unlock the nature of non-Christian religion and religions” (156). He begins by outlining the Old Testament’s attitude to religious otherness. From beginning to end, the Old Testament presents Yahweh as transcendentally unique (he alone is God) and all other religions as fundamentally idolatrous. Strange interacts with a number of theologians who see in the Old Testament a more inclusive stance towards other religions, particularly at the time of the patriarchs, or who think that the Old Testament simply presents Yahweh as the greatest among a pantheon of gods. He presents their arguments in detail before responding to them in a thorough and convincing manner.

Although the Old Testament defends the exclusive divinity of Yahweh and declares that idols are nothing, they are not nothing from a human point of view. What are they? Simply human creations which act as parasites and counterfeits (207). In fact, they are taken from God’s good creation to give what he alone can give: life, peace, and security. Consequently, idolatry is a supreme offence against God and always leads to the ruin of the idolater because of the futility of idols and divine judgement (209).

The New Testament corroborates and develops what the Old Testament teaches about idolatry. Yahweh’s exclusivism finds its focal point in Jesus Christ: there is no other Lord and no salvation apart from faith in him. Faith that requires knowledge of the historical facts of his death and resurrection. Other religions are idolatrous responses to divine revelation and cannot save.

IV. A theology of religions

                Chapter 7 summarises all the data and explains in detail Strange’s thesis stated in the introduction. If the religions of the world are fundamentally idolatrous, they are therefore in antithetical opposition to divine revelation (240). There are basically only two religions: the Christian faith and idolatry, taking various shapes and forms. Although there are similarities between Christianity and other religions, they are only superficial because the worldviews underlying these religions are radically opposed (242). To say that Christianity has 90% in common with Islam, for example, is therefore meaningless. Even if there are similarities in appearance, the substance behind the appearances is radically different.

However, the idolatrous nature of the religious Other implies a counterfeit of divine revelation and therefore a dependence on it (246), with “structural” or “formal” similarities (246) to Christianity. In fact, idolatrous man does not create anything new, but merely imitates divine truth. Thus, every worldview depends in its very structure on the biblical worldview (247). This is why every religion/worldview has its own story of beginning/fall/redemption/consummation: it is the story of the world, and there is no escaping it. Every religion therefore has a similar structure in relation to humanity’s perennial questions, what J.H. Bavink calls the “whatness” of religion[6]. The radical and immeasurable difference lies in the answer to these questions: the “thatness” of religion (250). The answers provided by the religious Other are idolatrous, and therefore false and incapable of saving.

Behind these idolatrous responses lie the influence of demons. The Bible says little about them, but we can distinguish some of their modus operandi with regard to idolatry. They “co-opt” the idols (264): they remain distinct from the idols, but can give them “life” by acting on their behalf. Those who worship these idols come under their sphere of influence[7]. They can also be the source of the revelations on which these religions are built (258).

Since world religions are a corruption of divine revelation that cannot fulfil they promises, the gospel of Christ is their ‘subversive fulfilment’ (266). The gospel is first subversive in that it does not add to or complete the religious Other, but rather condemns and overthrows it. The religious Other never leads naturally to the gospel or to Christ (as a preparatio evangelica). The “thatness” of the gospel subverts the “thatness” of the religious Other. But the “thatness” of the gospel fulfils the “whatness” of the religious Other. Indeed, the gospel alone can satisfy the longings of man expressed in the religions and fulfil his deepest questions and aspirations.

                In the last two chapters, Strange briefly raises practical implications of his theology of religions for evangelism and mission (ch. 8), and pastoral perspectives on the purpose of the religious Other in God’s plan. The contemporary example of “subversive fulfilment” with Sunnism (Islam) is particularly instructive (294-300). To see the practical implementation of this model in evangelism, I refer the reader to Strange more popular work, “Making Faith Magnetic” which elaborates on the points of contact between the gospel and Western culture.

Reflections

Strange’s work is intellectually rigorous and exegetically reliable. In a pluralistic age where the temptation to equate the gospel with other religions is growing, it reminds us of the uniqueness and exclusivity of the gospel. Moreover, this theology of religions gives a satisfactory account of the religious phenomenon, notably through the key concept of idolatry, and thus corrects any romantic vision we may have of the world’s religions. It also provides a biblical and theological framework for interacting with the religious Other, which both emphasises the gospel’s radical difference from the latter while allowing points of contact (or attack, p282) between the two. In this way, he lays a solid foundation for effective mission, maintaining the integrity of the gospel while opening ways to communicate it persuasively to the religious Other.

Filling a gap in contemporary evangelical theology, Strange draws brilliantly on the Reformed tradition, particularly the Dutch Reformed. In so doing, he brings to the surface the less-known thought of the missiologists J.H. Bavink and Hendrik Kraemer, who’s contributions to the field are well worth reiving and studying (especially Bavink).

Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock is a must-read for anyone training for mission. Indeed, although it is not practically oriented, it provides the biblical and theological framework necessary for sound biblical practice in interacting with the religious Other. It is also a valuable work in a globalized world where confrontation with the religious Other is more frequent, and can challenge and question the place of the gospel in the supermarket of religions.

In short, a dense work that provides rigorous answers to the question of the existence and persistence of the religious Other and its relationship to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Strange, Daniel. “For Their Rock Is Not As Our Rock”: An Evangelical Theology of Religions. 1st ed. London: Inter-Varsity Press, 2014.

[1]  Although there is a sharp ethical and epistemological break, the image of God remains structurally and metaphysically present (71).

[2]   The antithesis is a technical term in Reformed theology to speak of the radical difference between believers and unbelievers (82).

[3] In the following chatpers of Genesis, Cain and his lineage represent the descendants of the serpent, while Seth and his lineage represent the descendants of the woman. This theme continues throughout the Old Testament and into the New Testament (cf. John 8:44).

[4]   For example, materialists (who deny any reality beyond the material) will rarely deny the importance of not harming others, although nothing in a materialist worldview can justify such an ethical stance.

[5]  Strange defends the thesis of religious monogenism (or single-source theory) and argues that the diversity of world religions finds its source the Tower of Babel. These chapters are dense but worth reading, although they are not essential to the thesis of his book.

[6] J.H. Bavink classifies them into 5 magnetic points: man’s place in the universe, the intuition of a transcendent norm, the intuition that existence is directed by a providential power, the recognition of a need for redemption, the intuition of being connected to a higher being or power (252, see also ‘The Church between Temple and Mosque’, J.H. Bavink and ‘Making Faith Magnetic’, Dan Strange, who takes up Bavink’s model for today’s culture).

[7]  1 Co. 8.4-5 ; 10 :18-32 ; 2 Co. 11.13-15a ; in this section, Strange relies mostly on Mody, “Empty and Evil : the Worship of other Faiths in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Today”.