Earthpages.org

The Real Alternative

Theology Of Religions: Pluralism, Inclusivism, Exclusivism

8 Comments


English: Resurrection of Christ

Resurrection of Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Domenic Marbaniang

The term ‘theology of religion’ is to be understood here as the branch of Christian theology that attempts to theologically and biblically evaluate the phenomena of religion. Three important schools within this field are pluralism, inclusivism, and exclusivism. Each of them will be briefly examined here.

1. Pluralism

Pluralism is basically the belief that the world religions are true and equally valid in their communication of the truth about God, the world, and salvation. The chief expounder of this view is John Hick of Claremont Graduate School in California, who first propounded it in his book God and the Universe of Faiths (1973). His view is not different from the popular Hindu view capsulated in Krishna’s saying in the Bhagavadgita:

By whatsoever way men worship Me, even so do I accept them; for, in all ways, O Partha, men walk in My path. [IV.11]

This is the popular view that all religions lead to the same God and all ways lead to heaven. According to Hick, Christianity is not the one and only way of salvation, but one among several. To a pluralist such as Hick, Christianity is not the absolute, unique, and final way to God. While pluralists assert the validity of all religions, they also deny the finality of all religions. According to Hick, in the evolutionary scheme of things in which at isolated ages and places the early religions are succeeded by higher religions, it is the same message of God that comes distinctly to a particular group but as different from the others. Hick challenges the older view that Christ or Christianity must be seen at the center of religions. Rather, he says, God must be seen at the center of religions. The pluralistic contention is that all religions are fundamentally the same though superficially different.

‘The attraction of pluralism,’ says McGrath, ‘lies not in its claim to truth, which are remarkably elusive and shallow, but in its claim to foster tolerance among the religions.’ To an evangelical Christian, however, such pluralism only means the abolition of kerygmatic mission, i.e., the mission of evangelizing the world with the salvific gospel of Jesus Christ. However, the reasons for rejecting pluralism go beyond the cause of evangelization. Any sincere study of world religions expressly reveals that contrary to the pluralistic contention all religions look superficially the same but are fundamentally different. Each of them differs from the rest in its view of God, sin, salvation, death, and eternity. Obviously, the pantheistic notion of the world as God and the monotheistic notion of the world as creation of God are not the same. The only way to call them same is by jettisoning the notion of absolute truth itself; however, that would mean that no absolute statements about anything can be made, including the statement that all religions are the same.

Another point against pluralism is the counterfeit posture it assumes. Pluralism contends that it is different from exclusivism in that it accepts the validity of all religions. Thus, truth is both relativized and pluralized. However, one basic feature of truth is exclusivity. Truth by nature excludes everything else contrary to it. Thus, every statement in order to be meaningful must exclude all its opposite. Thus, pluralism by contending the validity of all religions against the segregated contention of each to validity excludes all other views contrary to it. For example, it excludes the view that ‘all religions are not true.’ Therefore, though assuming the form of pluralism, it is none other than a variant of exclusivism itself.

2. Inclusivism

Inclusivism is the belief that God is present in non-Christian religions to save the adherents through Christ. The inclusivist view has given rise to the concept of the anonymous Christian by which is understood an adherent of a particular religion whom God saves through Christ, but who personally neither knows the Christ of the Bible nor has converted to Biblical Christianity. This position was popularized by the Roman Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner (b. 1904).

One important issue that Rahner raises is about the salvation of those who have never had the opportunity to listen to the gospel Jesus Christ. To Rahner, then, people can be saved apart from allegiance to the Christian church. It is God in Christ who reaches out to the individual in his own personal religious history to same him. Rahner used the term ‘anonymous’ to denote people who experience the grace of God in Christ regardless to what religion they belong to. Inclusivism is based on two axioms: the first is that salvation is through Christ alone, the second is that God wills the whole world to be saved. Consequently, God saves people through Christ alone; however, he makes this possible through ways that extend to all humanity.

To Rahner, a non-Christian religion is a lawful religion for until its followers have a Christian witness it is a means by which non-Christians gain a right relationship with God. Also, the religion is included in God’s plan of salvation which God has ordained for the communication of His grace.

Inclusivism has a great appeal to people because of its sympathetic approach to religion. However, it ignores the fact of ungodly elements within religions. It would only be a contradiction in terms to conceive of a God who reveals that he is against idolatry and at the same time assert that he saves a person in his worship of idols. Jesus said it is by knowing the truth that one is liberated. When the apostles spoke of salvation by the name of Jesus, they never meant that people could be saved within allegiance to the lordship of Jesus; on the contrary, they expressly meant that only by a voluntary submission to the Lord could one be saved. The will of God for salvation of all men in 1 Timothy 2: 4  is qualified by His desire that all of them will come to the knowledge of the truth for which Paul testifies as being appointed a preacher. Thus, the Bible is clear on the point that knowledge of Christ precedes the reception of saving grace in faith.

Inclusivism is seen as arrogantly exclusivist, if seen from the perspective of other religions. It tells that Hindus are not saved by their dharma, and Muslims are not saved by their works, but all are saved unaware by Christ. This not only proves that the salvation doctrine of all other religions are false but also that people are not saved because of following the religious way of their religion. This is something like saying that the neighbor is living by my money though it is he who earns his livelihood and lives by it. The claim is unwarranted. Finally, Christ assumes a nebulous and abstract character and personal commitment to the historical Christ almost loses soteriological value as can be seen in the case of M. M. Thomas’ Christ-centered syncretism. Therefore, inclusivism cannot be accepted as Biblically warranted.

3. Exclusivism

Exclusivism is the theological position that holds to the finality of the Christian faith in Christ. The finality of Christ means that there is no salvation in non-Christian religions. Notable among the exclusivists of this century are Samuel Zwemer, Hendrik Kraemer, and Lesslie Newbigin.

Based on the Aristotelian concept of truth as one and not many, exclusivists regard all other religious claims as false and invalid since the Christian revelation is accepted as true. Exclusivists hold that salvation is through Christ alone. It is through a personal experience of commitment to Christ that one receives assurance of salvation. The non-believers cannot receive such assurance since they are neither aware of the uniqueness of Christ neither do they acknowledge His lordship. The exclusivist begins with the Bible as the source of all knowledge about spirituality and salvation. The Bible is the criterion of all religious truth. The Bible relates the history of redemption, gives a foundation to personal faith, is a guidebook of the Christian community, and tells us of the future of the world that links up all history, life, and service with meaning and purpose. Exclusivism, thus, establishes the uniqueness and identity of Christianity among world religions. Such exclusivism can take either an extremist or a moderate viewpoint. The extremist view regards all non-Christian religions as demonic and enemies of Christian truth. On the other hand, the moderate view sees some non-Christian religions as containing elements whereby a dialogue with them can be initiated. However, all exclusivists in general agree that salvation is exclusively only through Christ and received by a personal commitment to the Lord.

An exclusivist view is inevitable in any dialogue of truth. As has been seen, neither the pluralist nor the inclusivist could avoid being exclusivist at some point. Truth by nature is exclusive and any claim to truth is exclusive. The only way to deny exclusiveness of Christ is to deny the veracity of the Bible. The exclusivist view rightly sees the exclusiveness of the Bible in its proclamation of Christ as the only way of salvation. However, at the same time, it must be affirmed that the Bible also speaks of God involved in the history of the nations. Therefore, it must not be thought non-Christian religions are totally devoid of virtue. Thus, though being very vociferous in his attacks on Hinduism, Nehemiah Goreh could say that ‘Most erroneous as is the teaching of such books as the Bhagvadgita, the Bhagvata, etc., yet they have taught us something of ananyabhakti (undivided devotedness to God), of vairagya (giving up the world), of namrata (humility), of ksama (forbearance), etc., which enables us to appreciate the precepts of Christianity.’

Thus, of the various schools of approach to the study of religion, theologically speaking, moderate exclusivism proves to be the best, since it neither distorts the meaning of truth, as pluralism does, nor forces itself over the other religions, as inclusivism does, but remains true to its source of doctrine, viz. the Bible.

© Domenic Marbaniang, 2007

About the Author

Dean of Post-Graduate Studies, Professor of Theology, Religions, and Missions, Author, Editor of Theological Journal, and Pastor

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/Theology Of Religions: Pluralism, Inclusivism, Exclusivism

Note – Since this article was first published, there have been some changes to articlesbase.com. The original links have been left intact. 

 Catholic groups rise against Anti-NGOs Bill, say it will promote Islam above Christianity (sundiatapost.com)

 Sukuk: Labelling CAN Islamophobic is untenable, mischievous, NCEF replies NSCIA (vanguardngr.com)

 Collapse in Christianity in Britain blamed on mothers by former bishop (telegraph.co.uk)

 ‘Game of Thrones’ High Sparrow will play his popelganger Pope Francis in a Netflix film (mashable.com)

 Evangelicals draw critics with ‘Nashville Statement’ on sexuality (foxnews.com)

 Pregnant Teen Who Was Banned From Christian School Graduation Gives Birth – Now She’s Calling Planned Parenthood Out (ijr.com)

 Wednesday, 20 September 2017 : 24th Week of Ordinary Time, Memorial of St. Laurent Imbert, Bishop and Martyr, St. Jacques Chastan, Priest and Martyr, St. Andrew Kim Tae-gon, Priest and Martyr, St. Paul Chong Ha-sang and Companions, Martyrs (Homily and Scr (petercanisiusmichaeldavidkang.com)

Advertisements

Author: Earthpages.org

Earthpages.org is about dialogue, understanding and positive change. Make a difference. Submit your article today!

8 thoughts on “Theology Of Religions: Pluralism, Inclusivism, Exclusivism

  1. interesting because you swiped it from wikipedia?

    Like

  2. If you are interested in some new ideas on religious pluralism and the Trinity, please check out my website at http://www.religiouspluralism.ca, and give me your thoughts on improving content and presentation.

    My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

    In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universal Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

    The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:

    1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.

    2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or “Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the “body of Christ” (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.

    3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.

    Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.

    * The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.

    ** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.

    After the Hindu and Buddhist conceptions, perhaps the most subtle expression and comprehensive symbol of the 3rd person of the Trinity is the Tao; involving the harmonization of “yin and yang” (great opposing ideas indentified in positive and negative, or otherwise contrasting terms). In the Taoist icon of yin and yang, the s-shaped line separating the black and white spaces may be interpreted as the Unconditioned “Middle Path” between condition and conditioned opposites, while the circle that encompasses them both suggests their synthesis in the Spirit of the “Great Way” or Tao of All That Is.

    If the small black and white circles or “eyes” are taken to represent a nucleus of truth in both yin and yang, then the metaphysics of this symbolism fits nicely with the paradoxical mystery of the Christian Holy Ghost; who is neither the spirit of the one nor the spirit of the other, but the Glorified Spirit proceeding from both, taken altogether – as one entity – personally distinct from his co-equal, co-eternal and fully coordinate co-sponsors, who differentiate from him, as well as mingle and meld in him.

    For more details, please see: http://www.religiouspluralism.ca

    Samuel Stuart Maynes

    Like

    • Hi,

      Maybe you should try reading Gavin D’Costa and his 5 theses about using the Trinity to come up with a Christian theology of religions.

      Like

  3. Pingback: Pluralist/inclusivist verses Evangelist/exclusivist | Becoming increasingly relevant…

  4. Dear Domenic: Thank you for your very reasoned and insightful look at this complex issue. There are some very wise and wonderful exclusivists, like my hero Dr. Tim Keller of the Redeemer Church of New York. I listen to his sermons literally every day. One his sermons talked about how the complex doctrine of the Holy Trinity can be summarized in one word: Love. The theology of the Holy Trinity is critically important because it teaches as the love of the Three in One of the Holy Trinity means that love has existed always.

    I agree that pluralism is an illogical theological position because it assumes truth is relative, but I disagree with the assessment of why exclusivist theology wins out. I find it ironic that you describe inclusivists theology as “arrogant” when inclusivists are more inclined to see the good in other religions and the people who worship them. Your distinction between “moderate exclusivism” and “extremist exclusivism” is helpful. I think you leap to a conclusion about why inclusivism makes sense based on flimsy evidence that is obviously not based on scripture, since nowhere does the Bible say “Only those who worship in the name of Jesus can be saved.”

    Domenic, I want your honest reaction to what I see as two possible inescapable implications of exclusivist theology. If only those who worship in the name of Jesus are saved, then one of two facts must be true. First, all the heroes of the Old Testament are excluded from salvation. Not just the great heroes like Moses and Abraham, but the redeemed sinners like David and Tamar and Joseph’s brothers. Do you believe that? That seems ridiculous. Surely Jesus has the power of God, he is not limited by time, and he has the power to save with the Holy Spirit those who preceded him. Historians believe the Council of Nicea added “And descended into Hell” into the Nicene Creed to specifically go and save all the people of God who preceded Jesus.

    But if you believe that the Old Testament heroes can be saved, as an exclusivist then you must believe the second implication: that all those who followed the death and resurrection of Jesus are excluded from salvation if they don’t worship in the name of Jesus. If you believe that, that would make the resurrection of Jesus the greatest single human cataclysm of all time, because at that moment God and Jesus ceased to save those who don’t worship in the name of Jesus. I think you and I both agree that the resurrection of Jesus into this broken world is a good thing, but your theology from my point of view makes this ultimate act of Godly love a moment of punishment, anger, and lack of love.

    Have I been fair in describing these two implications of exclusivist theology? If not, why not?

    In any case, because of these dubious and inescapable conclusions of exclusivist theology, inclusivists have the stronger case. God’s grace and mercy is too mysterious and powerful to unequivocally conclude non-Christians can’t be saved. Of course God and Jesus have a preference for a personal connection with us where we worship with them directly. That comes out loud and clear in the Bible. They yearn for a close, personal connection with us the way we yearn for them. But that doesn’t mean they cease to care or love non-Christians. At the very least, salvation should be viewed as a holy mystery, like the time of the Second Coming. Much harm has come to Christianity from false prophets saying they know exactly the time of the Second Coming (a fact that Jesus himself didn’t know, ). As I will show, much harm is coming from the preaching exclusivist theology today. In short, it is theologically wrong to dogmatically preach an exclusivist view as many Christians do today, including Christians who use this flawed theology for political advantage.

    The exclusivist domination of this theological debate, especially in the United States, has real world consequences. First, exclusivists tend to love less and care less for non-Christians for the simple reason that human beings tend to think ill of people who aren’t like them, particularly persons that are seen as headed towards a certain and dismal end. Even Dr. Tim Keller has preached about the tendency of religion to drive people apart, to look down on others who aren’t like them. In contrast, an inclusivist Christian who views a non-Christian as potentially saved by Jesus Christ is far more likely to treat that non-Christian with love, understanding, and respect. However, inclusivists also tend to keep their faith private, in part because they are afraid of association with the conflict-generating actions of some exclusivist Christians. In contrast, exclusivist theology is limiting the power of compassion of Christians with a demonstrated desire and ability to spread the Gospel. As a result, the non-Christian world sees Christianity as increasingly hostile to peace and global cooperation.

    Expanding acceptance of inclusivist theology or even the “holy mystery” view of salvation, could lead to a spiritual revival in Christianity. Inclusivists would be emboldened to share the Gospel as a counter-culture movement in a world dominated by moral relativism, while exclusivists would be empowered to love non-Christians and to use the Gospel as an instrument of peace and healing in our increasingly broken world. Stronger defense of inclusivism and/or the holy mystery view of salvation could help build Christian unity and inter-faith unity to better address global issues.

    To begin this spiritual revival, inclusivists, including those who might be reluctant to engage non-Christians, should actively and positively engage exclusivist Christians to encourage them to consider 1) adopting inclusivist theology or at least the possibility that salvation is a holy mystery, and 2) the likelihood that exclusivist theology is contributing to a tendency of Christians to exclude, denigrate, revile, and not care for non-Christians—and thus to war, discord, and unsustainable development in the world. Inclusivist Christians should speak out against exclusivist Christians who use Christianity for political advantage without inclusivists themselves becoming a tool in America’s cultural and political wars.

    Domenic, I know you will disagree with me my Brother in Christ. But I believe this theological battle is an important one, and in the years and decades ahead I will work to win it. Many lives–and souls–are at stake in getting this right.

    Peace,

    David

    Like

  5. Very informative and interesting post. I have believed in Pluralism my who lives without knowing that it existed and that it had been researched before. Basically, I think that the spirituality phenomenon is way too wide and has been around for way too long for it to be attached to a single religion. All religions are different versions about the same phenomenon. If you study the history of religions you will realize that they have similar elements. Also, I believe that the people the originate the religion provides it with key features accordingly to their background and condition. In that sense, The Catholic religion is one that preaches kindness and compassion because it originated from persecuted people. Now the ancient Norse religions on the other hand value strength and bravery because it originated from war-like people.

    Like

  6. I think the Exclusive-Inclusive-Pluralist model is a very unsatisfactory and limited way of thinking about theology of religions, and asks all the wrong questions. See here theology religion pluralism | Search Results | Notes from underground

    Like

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s