Religious pluralism and theology
Inclusivism - Rahner
Acts 10:34: "God does not show favouritism." Matthew 25:40: "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me." • Parable of the sheep and the goats - in the parable, Jesus is talking about those who help the poor, visit people in prison and look after the sick. The passage can be interpreted as saying that any people who treat others with altruistic love are working for Christ, whether or not they realise it. Romans 2:14-16: "show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts." although one's own religion is the normative means of salvation, those who accept its central principles may also receive salvation. Inclusivists take a middle path between exclusivism and pluralism. It makes space for other religions as rather than seeing them as degradations or denials of the truth, they are to be seen as important milestones along the road to the Christian faith. God's omnibenevolence leaves open the possibility of salvation even for non-Christians. They state that non-Christian religions hold a degree of truth and God in his wisdom will make allowances for those who choose to follow him but are doing so in the context of the wrong religion. Some state that the truth found in religions other than Christianity is the work of Christ, even though people might not recognise it as such and might attribute this truth to a different understanding of God. They might call Christ other names, but still be following him and accepting him even though they have given him a different label. Karl Rahner: Described Christianity as the 'absolute' religion, setting the standard by which other religions should be measured. However, explained that an understanding of Christ as absolute seems to exclude from salvation anyone who lived before Jesus came to earth, and anyone who has not been able to hear about God's revelation through Christ. For Rahner, this exclusion did not seem to be compatible with an omnibenevolent God. For Rahner, God is able to offer salvation to those who, through no fault of their own, have not been able to respond to God in the Christian message, therefore he rejected the exclusivist view that there can be no salvation outside of Christianity. However, once someone hears about Jesus they must become a Christian in order to be saved, as there is no longer an excuse for rejecting the gospel. Also believed that people can be 'anonymous Christians', following Christian ideals without realising they are actually following Christ, they have not been baptised and do not go to church or read the Bible; but in the decisions they make and the attitudes they adopt, they are not excluded from salvation. Vatican II: "through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ..but nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart..those too may achieve eternal salvation." Rahner rejected the idea that all religions are in some ways equal as paths to God. Argues Christianity holds the truth but the grace of God makes allowances for those who have not been able to access this truth.
Exclusivism - Augustine, Calvin, D'Costa, Kraemer
Acts 4:12 "Salvation is found in no one else." John 14:6 "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." 1 Corinthians 3:11 "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Christians have a unique kind of relationship with God, made possible through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Christianity is holding the key to salvation. They tried to convert as many people as possible to the Christian faith as an urgent task as otherwise, those people would miss the opportunity for salvation. Only through hearing the gospels and responding to it by faith in Christ can a person be saved (meaning they will reach heaven). Solus Christus - doctrine that salvation is obtained through the atoning work of Christ alone, and that Christ is the only mediator between God and man. This is the basic belief of Protestant Reformers. Exclusivists would argue that missionary work and trying to convert others to Christianity is a duty, not a sign of ignorance. The Catholic Church was often associated with the motto 'extra ecclesiam nulla saus' - 'there is no salvation outside the Church.' Dominus Iesus - Roman Catholic declaration which reasserts and clarifies that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ, the Church makes it quite clear that the position of theological pluralism or relativism undermines the unicity of the Church and the 'fullness' of Christ's salvation.
Criticisms of inclusivism
Gavin D'Costa: criticised inclusivists like Rahner who he said upset both exclusivists (who thinks it undermines Christianity) and pluralists (who think it is arrogant). People who have made free choices to have beliefs that are not Christian should not be labelled as 'anonymous Christians'; if they wanted to be Christians, they would say so. The Christian message is diluted if there is the suggestion that Christ need not be necessary for salvation. Hans Urs von Balthasar - fierce critic of the idea of 'anonymous Christians. • Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection are central for salvation. The church should not go into hiding in the modern secular world or present a watered-down version of the Christian message in order to please people of other faiths or of no faith. It should stand that salvation can only be found in Christ. • He claimed that Rahner has reduced being Christian to acting virtuously. His ideas almost promote the idea that you are saved because you are a good person. John Hick - it is paternalistic, offering "honorary status granted unilaterally to people who have not expressed any desire for it," which makes those Christians feel righteous and generous, when in fact they are just imposing their religion on people who don't want to follow it, as well as people who have made a conscious decision to reject Christianity. Society of St. Pius X have separated themselves from the Catholic Church in part because of the Vatican's move towards Inclusivism. They view Inclusivism as wrong because it suggests "redemption is guaranteed to all, as if sanctifying grace were ontologically present in each man just because he is man." Hans Küng - "It would be impossible to find anywhere in the world a sincere Jew, Muslim or atheist who would not regard the assertion that he is an 'anonymous Christian' as presumptuous."
Weaknesses of pluralism
It is clear that religious traditions are radically different in their beliefs and practices. The beliefs of non-Christian religions make it difficult to accept that they are all speaking about the same God. • However, Hick deals with this point by suggesting that these differences should be interpreted as "both/and" instead of "either/or". They should be understood as complementary, rather than contradictory. Barth, who emphasises the centrality of Jesus as God's self-revelation, would almost certainly consider Hick's depiction of a fully human Jesus as damaging to Christianity. • However - Hick argues he is adopting a theocentric, rather than christocentric, however for a number of critics, Hick's desertion of Christ means abandoning any claim to speak from a Christian perspective. Chris Sinkinson - pluralism empties Christianity of any content and in its own way disrespects other religions more than his own exclusivist stance. Harold Netland - Hick's theory requires many religions to radically reinterpret their key claims so that Hicks account of religions is not compatible with how the religions see themselves. "The outcome of Hick's escape from particularity leads to nothing in particular." Gavin D'Costa 'Christianity and World Religions'.
criticisms of exclusivism
It is not compatible with an omnibenevolent and forgiving God as it suggests that God loves some people more than others as some have more opportunities to become Christian/follow the teachings of Christ than others. Is it just or loving to deny salvation to those who either lived before the time of Jesus and his teachings or lived in a society/country where his views were not preached? It fails to recognise the richness and wisdom of different world religions. It is arrogant in its assumption that Christians know best. John Chau - attempted to proselytize the people of North Sentinel Island - people who had made it abundantly clear they want no part of the outside world. They were successful in repelling his invasion, killing him with arrows. He thought he was doing these people a huge favour by persuading them to abandon the ancestral religions that they had followed for hundreds and in some cases thousands of years. Restrictive access exclusivism - cause of Christian imperialism, religious conflict and suffering. Christians have persecuted other Christians for not believing in their version of the truth. Christians have fought wars against unbelievers; Christianity has been used by states to convert and colonise communities. Universal access exclusivism lacks consistency - Vatican II appears to argue that non-Christian religions may have 'rays of truth' which are sufficient for salvation, but Dominus Iesus argues extra ecclesiam nulla salus - i.e. that without being a member of the Church the rays of truth are deficient for salvation. D'Costa - exclusivism ignores the idea of the Trinity. To say that God can only be known through Jesus is binatarian because it ignores the role of the Trinity. exclusivism is incompatible with God's love and ignores moral actions and behaviour. John Hick - Jesus himself never claimed to be the Son of God and the title was used in a honourific sense to make the point that he acted in a God-like way.
Narrow exclusivism
Roman Catholics hold a narrowly exclusivist view, holding that salvation is available only to people who belong to their own particular denomination in Christianity. Augustine and Calvin - taught and believed that God elects through grace only a small number of Christians for heaven, so simply adopting Christian beliefs is not enough for salvation. God chooses who he will save. Augustine: • Argues that human will has been weakened by the Fall and it lacks the capacity to achieve sufficient merit for eternal life; salvation is only possible because of God's mercy and grace. • God's grace is freely given, uncoerced and unprompted. • He supports limited election. • Argues that God knows who will be saved and who was going to receive saving grace from Original Sin. • Election is a sign of grace from God - all people are born with Original Sin and therefore no one deserves eternal life with God. It is evidence of God's love and mercy that he allows anyone to be saved. Calvin: • Supports limited election and double predestination - God has predestined people to both heaven and hell. • God has control over everything and therefore chooses the destiny of each human life before it began. • Christians have a duty to preach the Gospel to all kinds of people, even though God has chosen specific people to save. Both the elect and non-elect have to act morally. • Believes that, since humans are inherently sinful, God is under no obligation to save anyone. However, as he is a just and loving God there are some whom he does elects because of their virtuous and devoted lives.
Pluralism - hick, pannikar, knitter
The Blind Men and the Elephant analogy is one way to explain pluralism: • Six blind men are trying to work out what an elephant is like. One feeling the side said it is like a wall, another grabbing the legs says it's more like a tree, the third with the trunk said an elephant is more like a snake, the fourth holding the tail says it's more like rope, the fifth holding the ears says it's more like a fan and the sixth holding the tusks says an elephant is like a sphere. • They got into argument about who had correct image of the elephant. A sighted man heard the argument and said none of you have seen the whole elephant, while the elephant's side is like wall elephant itself is not a wall etc. • Each person was partly right but were all wrong about how they were entirely right and others entirely wrong. Elephant is like God, each religion has different ways to get to God, all correct. All describing God just interpreting it from a different cultural perspective. John Hick (1922-2012) - Unitary Theological Pluralism: tries to provide a method of approaching theology which accounts for all religions. questioned whether it was really true that an omnibenvolent God would condemn such people and deny them salvation just because they were serving God in a religion other than Christianity. Hick argued for a need to move away from a Christ-centred to a God-centred approach and he described this change as a 'Copernican revolution'. necessary to move away from "the dogma that Christ is at the centre to the realization that it is God who is at the centre and that all religions...revolve around him." Hick argued that religion is a human, phenomenal attempt to understand and relate to God. Every religion, according to Hick, falls short of the truth because none is capable of a noumenal understanding of God. This is why religions can have different and sometimes contradictory beliefs- we have a limited understanding. Therefore, Hick came to the conclusion that the truth-claims of Christianity, such as that Jesus was God incarnate, that Jesus rose back to life after death and that Jesus' mother was a virgin when she conceived Jesus through the Holy Spirit, were not cognitive claims about literal facts but should be understood as myths. These are pictorial ways of expressing the human relationship with 'the Real' and should not be understood as historical truth. Once they are understood as myths, differences between the truth claims of different religions become different symbols, each meaningful in their own contexts rather than contradictory. Need to look at faiths as symbolic rather than contradictory. Keith Ward - Pluriform Theological Pluralism: argues that there are many 'reals' as they are experienced by each religion. Therefore, as no single religion can have a definite knowledge of the Real, each religion has its own particular authentic version of salvation, liberation or knowledge (whatever term is used to describe a religion's overall aim). sometimes we just have to conclude that beliefs between religions are different and conflicting, but reasons for them can be equally valid. Ward makes the important point that as knowledge is gained through religious experience and not revelation, there cannot be a competition for exclusive truth. Furthermore, as experience changes in any religion so does the presentation of its truth claims over time. Paul Knitter - Ethical Theological Pluralism: developed an ethical theological pluralism. This is based on the view that all humans share a soteriological (the study of religious doctrines of salvation) aim of liberating humans from suffering, injustice, intolerance and falsehood; he argues that all religions are 'soteriocentric' not Reality-centred. Knitter is inspired by the method of Latin American liberation theology, especially its central idea that the primary purpose of a religious community is praxis - or action - in dealing with social injustice. Knitter argues that all religions have the same primary aim, which is for injustice and concern for others. The purpose of theology is to provide the means whereby the different religions can share and discuss their differing perspectives of justice according to their belief systems. Raimon Panikkar (1918-2010): explicitly did not believe that there are many different truths or that the world's religions are different ways of expressing that truth. Instead he talked about the need for openness, rather than making any claims to know what 'the truth' is or where it might be found. He thought it was necessary to respect the freedom of God, or of whatever one understands to be the divine, to work in ways that go beyond human attempts to define it and make it into a system of doctrines. Emphasised the mystery of the divine without destroying different cultural traditions and diversity. Panikkar did not like title of 'pluralist' as he believed that the title suggested that he had taken up an intellectual position on the relationship between Christ and other religions, whereas he believed that religious pluralism is more of a spiritual position.
Broad exclusivism
people who accept Christ through faith are saved, regardless of the kind of Church to which they belong or the style of worship they prefer. Some broad exclusivists hold that truth can be found in other religions, but it is only partial truth, which is not enough for salvation. Salvation can still only be found in Christianity. D'Costa - Christ's salvation is offered to all and that it is the will of God that everyone should come to love him. There is a possibility that there is also a chance of salvation after death (purgatory). D'Costa accepts the view that although there is an exclusive way to salvation, it is the will of God that this one route is available and it is offered to everyone. Hendrick Kraemer: • Believed non-Christians cannot achieve salvation through their own faith systems but have to convert to Christianity. • Believed that God's revelation can be seen by others outside the Christian faith, e.g. they can understand the existence and creativity of God through human reasoning and through observing the beauty and order of nature. However, salvation can only be found in Christianity. • religion, therefore, as a whole either accepts the salvation offered by Christ or it does not, there is no middle ground or 'partial truth' to be found.
