Thoughts on Applying Ninian Smart’s Seven Dimensions of Religion to Christianity

Ninian Smart’s Seven Dimensions aims to capture the breadth of any religious or worldview system. In his words, he describes this framework as offering a realistic checklist of the numerous aspects of a religion (1996, 8), which, in itself, is descriptive; while also providing a functional delineation rather than a strict definition (1996, 9). The model is hence not used to evaluate truth-claims but only to bracket them. However, when applied to Christianity, the model captures the breadth of Christian religious life but struggles with the depth and determinative core of Christianity, downplaying what makes Christianity ‘true’ – its historical claim and significance. This crucial factor determines what Christianity ultimately is. In this essay, we will explore the strengths and limitations of Smart’s model and explain why this overall judgment is worth considering.

Smart aims to describe observable phenomena that vary across situations without using Christianity as the yardstick for other religions (1996, 8), thereby allowing fairer comparisons between worldviews. Christianity is highly historically and socially developed, and, using Smart’s framework, it allows for a fair description of what it is from the broadest perspective. For example, it can effectively outline Christian rituals and practices, such as the sacraments, and how different denominations may approach this differently. Notable sacraments include baptism and communion (or the Eucharist), which signify the believer's spiritual cleansing and adoption into God’s Kingdom, and the use of bread and wine in remembrance of Jesus’ sacrifice (McGrath 2015, 232, 234). This provides a picture of what is involved in Christian rituals, though the explanation of their underlying theological meaning is somewhat limited. It also shows how Christian belief structures can be mapped along the Doctrinal dimension, such as in creeds, which exemplify definitional clarity, notably in the doctrine of the Trinity and in the separate roles of the three persons in the Godhead. (McGrath 2015, 54). It also allows for an accurate illustration of the range and diversity within Christianity today, demonstrating comparisons and contrasts across denominations and differences in church governance. Smart’s model also acknowledges the emotional, experiential, and artistic dimensions well, with compelling visual descriptions of each that can be addressed within the model. These are all legitimate aims, but they are primarily descriptive, whereas Christianity is more than what appears in hindsight and cannot be explained merely by description. It is not just an outward phenomenon but also one that depends heavily on historical claims. In that case, we have to turn to evaluations of accuracy, not just to descriptions of its current form.

To evaluate Christianity accurately, a more sophisticated investigation is required, beyond the description that the model seemingly accounts for. While those observations are valid, the nature of Christianity is far deeper than a mere observable phenomenon. Smart’s model deliberately sidesteps the evaluation of validity (Smart 1996, 9), and although it is advantageous in avoiding controversy, it fails to account for the Christian claim to historicity. This matters as Christianity stands or falls based on a historical claim – that Christ was a real person who died on the cross under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate (McGrath 2015, 18). All that Christianity is today is based upon this historical fact, and its historical accuracy is of utmost significance because, as the apostle Paul describes, if Christ has not been raised, our faith is in vain, and we are still in our sins (1 Cor 15:14-19, NIV, np). Smart’s mythical and narrative dimensions fail to evaluate and critically address its historicity; they merely describe it. The later creeds in Christianity summarise this claim very well in an easy-to-read, easy-to-recite format. That, within Smart’s Doctrinal and Philosophical dimension, was explained conceptually, but fails to address why such a worldview is valid and appealing to adopt. It also fails to address the underlying significance of such worldview – the reason behind Christ’s willingness to suffer such death – to ‘atone for the sins of humanity’ (1 John 4:9-10) – the ultimate diagnosis and cure of the problem of evil, in which lies in the root cause of our corrupted human nature, one that we are incapable of fixing ourselves (Qureshi 2016, 35). In sum, the doctrinal/philosophical dimension outlines beliefs but not why they work, raising questions about worldview coherence and appeal. 

Smart’s ethical and legal dimensions capture the nature of ‘laws’ but fail to explain their underlying motivation. Christian ethics are not merely legal or rule-based from their appearance, but a change of heart. Such a description downplays why the laws matter, which risks reducing such ethics and morality to mere duty or those of consequence-binding. Instead, what it failed to capture was the reality brought about by Christ: because of what God has achieved, He frees humanity from trying to do good on their own behalf. Instead, it is out of love for God that Christian morality is based on, one that consequence-binding laws fail to do (Hebrews 8:10). It is out of God’s love that we act upon such deeds (1 John 4:7-8). Smart’s dimension merely describes the outward appearance but fails to explicitly explain this shift in mentality, which is not seen. 

The above critiques also suggest a critical flaw in Smart’s model – its fragmentation. Smart’s model artificially separates interdependent aspects, which is helpful for worldview comparison purposes, but fails to grasp the coherence of the Christian worldview. The different ‘dimensions’ are closely interlinked by the features of this worldview, especially the historical claim of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. By deciphering and analysing them separately, one fails to capture their interdependency, suggesting that Christianity, in its nature, resists neat compartmentalisation. 

To conclude, while Smart’s Seven Dimensions offer a neat comparison tool for different worldviews and religions worldwide, applying them to Christianity risks overlooking some of its defining characteristics, such as its central claim to a historical event that defines it as a whole. Its limitation ultimately lies not in error, but in its methodological scope: by sidestepping controversial claims on history, it also fails to recognise its utmost significance. While it is effective for analysing religion as a phenomenon, it is insufficient for engaging with Christianity's truth-claims and internal coherence. Ultimately, it is perhaps the validity claims that Smart attempts to set aside — claims fundamental to Christianity — that may in fact be central to understanding why such worldviews remain contested.

McGrath, A.E. 2015. Christianity: An Introduction. Newark, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Qureshi, N. 2016. No God But One: Allah or Jesus? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Smart, N. 1996. Dimensions of the Sacred: An Anatomy of the World’s Beliefs. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 8–14.

The Holy Bible. New International Version. 2011. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.