Earthpages.org

The Real Alternative


8 Comments

Theology Of Religions: Pluralism, Inclusivism, Exclusivism

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


Leave a comment

Peter, Paul and Women – Another look at the Early Church

Peter and Paul by El Greco via Wikipedia

Among Christians, St. Peter is often compared to St. Paul.

Peter is seen as the rule man. Paul, the innovator. Together, they are usually cited as the two most important early Christians after Jesus Christ, himself.

Women in Early Christianity

Feminists say the primacy of Peter and Paul is a male take on early Christianity. A male take in a male world—in New Testament times and, to some degree, now.

Women, in fact, performed essential work among the early Christians. Food preparation, laundry and other domestic chores were not accomplished through miracles. And there’s no New Testament record of manna falling from heaven. No, women usually took up these necessary duties.

Scholars also realize that women played key inspirational, pastoral and organizational roles within the early Church.¹

Read More

 Christianity is Wild (leeduigon.com)

 Serve God diligently and obey the law (vanguardngr.com)


Leave a comment

Pelegianism and authoritarian personalities

Click on image to read more


1 Comment

Smart people see through the bias in religion and in science


Leave a comment

Christian conservatives and their flawed reasoning about “natural”


Leave a comment

Hacking the mind… without technology?

Vector drawing of the five kinds of Zener card...

Vector drawing of the five kinds of Zener cards used for parapsychology research. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Backstory

After finishing my doctorate on Carl Jung’s concept of synchronicity at U Ottawa, I wasn’t overjoyed when the university library listed my thesis under the subject heading of parapsychology.

I was concerned that many years of serious study would be dismissed as fodder for fantasy fiction writers and sensational paranormal researchers.

Embed from Getty Images

Also, my thesis doesn’t defend nor debunk the alleged truth of synchronicity. Instead, it offers a postmodern analysis of how Jung advances and legitimizes this fringe topic within the larger scientific community. The library might equally have listed my thesis under sociology, psychology, philosophy and religion.

Despite my initial misgivings, I came to accept, almost embrace the library listing. I’ll be an expert on parapsychology, my young enthusiastic self thought. This could be my niche!

Today, I’m neither a zealot nor a hard-nosed skeptic about parapsychology. I just want to learn more and share any discoveries for the common good.

Mind Hacks? 

Over the years I’ve come to wonder if the mind might be hacked without any direct technological link. Could a person (or spiritual power associated with that person) influence another person at a distance?

I’m not talking about the art of persuasion. That involves words, maybe images and music; some kind of physical or symbolic contact. Nor am I thinking about those headline news pundits concerned about tech interface and implant abuse.

No, I’m talking about parapsychology, just as the library suggested.

Two examples

Usually when we’re fed up with something or someone, the Jungian shadow emerges.

For example, once on social media I made a comment that might have contained some truth but also wasn’t too polite.

More recently, just before the solar eclipse I posted a headline that wasn’t terribly positive.

In both instances it was like the shadow momentarily eclipsed my usual positive attitude—a kind of ‘eclipse’ of my normal way of doing things. Almost immediately after, my total self re-emerged and I began to make amends.

So what happened? Did my mind/brain short from stress overload and accumulated resentment? Or was I hacked by a disruptive spiritual power? To me, it felt like both.

And possibly both scenarios are right. Evil could seize upon opportunities of perceived weakness in our psychological armor. Like hacker bots sensing firewall vulnerabilities, the devil might watch, wait and pounce when ready and, oddly enough, when permitted by God.

This perspective probably wouldn’t fly with most psychiatrists. And that’s unfortunate because, in my opinion, psychology and spirituality demand better integration. Not just the hopeful ‘save the world’ stuff. But also the darker, less admirable elements.

Jung believes that ignoring the shadow prevents us from mastering its powerful, collective energy, which then erupts when we least expect it.

English: Example of a subject in a Ganzfeld ex...

Example of a subject in a Ganzfeld experiment. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What do you think?

Spiritually speaking, is no woman or man an island? That is, are we all subtly linked? The light and the dark?

Or is humanity only connected through more verifiable factors like family, friends, society and the media?

I won’t say only the shadow knows but I suspect it has a pretty good idea.

 How to Live our Wildest Fantasies in the “Real World.” (elephantjournal.com)

 Embracing darkness and shadow that we might also be light and joy (beyondmeds.com)

 War games: South Korea undertakes anti-terror exercises, in pictures (telegraph.co.uk)

 Someone broke down the color psychology behind your favorite Disney characters (mashable.com)

 ‘MEET ITS TRAGIC DOOM’ NoKo says it’s ‘on standby to launch’ in new warning (foxnews.com)

 Psychological abusers don’t go for the weak – they choose strong people because they ‘like a challenge’ (businessinsider.com)


1 Comment

Apples and Oranges: The Comparison Game

Noah and Sons Making Wine via Wikipedia

By Rabbi Simcha Weinberg

“Why can’t you be like other kids who behave perfectly?” is a refrain I often hear parents complaining to their children. Yes, there were and are certainly moments when I wish my children were as “perfect” as other kids, but those moments are rare. I am more than happy for my kids to be individuals, albeit imperfect.

People do not do well when they are compared to other people. The damage increases when we begin to compare ourselves to others. “Why do other people have it so much easier than I?” “Why are they successful when I am not?” are not productive questions.

It becomes even worse when we compare ourselves to others in order to measure our spiritual success: “She said to Elijah, ‘what is there between me and you. O man of God, that you have come to me to call attention to my sins and to cause my son to die!” (Kings I 17:18) The Ralbag explains that she felt that Elijah’s presence in her home, with his impeccable standards of piety and Godliness, caused God to take note of her sins. When God compared her to her neighbors, she was considered righteous. However, compared to Elijah, she was a sinner.

The woman believed that God only judged her in comparison to the people around her, not as she was as an individual. How many of us could stand up to such comparisons?

And yet, the Sages understand that God did compare Noah to others: “Noah was a righteous man, perfect in his generations.” (Genesis 6:9) Some Sages maintain that the stress on ‘HIS’ generations is intended as praise: Noah was righteous even in his corrupt environment. How much more righteous he would have been if he had the companionship of Abraham!

According to others, the verse is critical of Noah. He was considered righteous only when compared to his generation. Had he lived in Abraham’s time, Noah would not have stood out as a righteous person. (Rashi)

That sure sounds like the comparison approach to me!

I suggest that the verse is not describing how God judged Noah, but rather how Noah set his sights on achieving his status as a righteous man. Some Sages read the story and understand Noah as someone who strove to be righteous only in comparison with his generation. He did not strive to achieve objective righteousness. He was satisfied with being more righteous than those around him. It was Noah who played the comparison game, and limited himself by so doing.

Other Sages read the story and picture Noah as someone who strove for true Righteousness. He did not play the comparison game. He set his sights on achieving the highest level of Tzidkut. He did not measure himself against his generation but against the highest levels of righteousness, the levels, we know, that were achieved by Abraham.

Rashi seems to prefer the former approach and understands the verse as limiting Noah’s praises. He comments on the next phrase, “Noah walked with God,” and says, Noah needed to walk with God because he could not maintain his standards without someone holding him up. Whereas the verse says of Abraham, “Walk before Me,” Abraham was able to walk on his own.

Harry Chapin closes his song “Greyhound” with, “It’s got to be the going not the getting there that’s good.” It seems to me that Noah was focused on ‘getting there’, he wanted to walk with God. Abraham, on the other hand, was focused on the ‘going’, the journey of his life. He knew that ultimately he would walk with God. He wanted to make sure that the ‘going’, the journey was good and productive.

Abraham was focused on the journey. His goal expanded and grew as he extended his trip and developed himself. Abrahams ‘getting there’ constantly changed as he grew as a human being and servant of God. His ‘there’ was not defined until the end of his life.

Noah was only interested in the ‘getting there’. He needed to define his ‘there’ where and when he was. Such a person can only set his sights by comparing himself with others. That was the only way that Noah could define his ‘there’.

We, the children of Abraham, follow Halacha – we are walkers and see life as a journey. We do not compare ourselves to anyone or anything other than our highest aspirations, which constantly expand and rise as we continue our journey in life.

About the Author:

Learn & discover the Divine prophecies with Rabbi Simcha Weinberg from the holy Torah, Jewish Law, Mysticism, Kabbalah and Jewish Prophecies. The Foundation Stone™ is the ultimate resource for Jews, Judaism, Jewish Education, Jewish Spirituality & the holy Torah.

Article Source: ArticlesBase.comApples and Oranges: The Comparison Game

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

 There’s a rift growing between Israel and American Jews (businessinsider.com)

 Unconditional Christian Love for Israel (americanthinker.com)

 Historic Jewish cemetery in Massachusetts vandalized (bostonherald.com)

 Sign at Swiss hotel directed to ‘Jewish guests’ draws anger (stripes.com)

 Taking Responsibility: (brothersjuddblog.com)

 My Big Gay Jewish Conversion was a hipster’s guide to theology – review (telegraph.co.uk)

 Feds to help police find caller after bomb threat at Jewish Family Services (mlive.com)

 Four Rappers Traveled to Israel to Find a Culture ‘Dramatically Different’ From the Negative Narrative They’ve Heard (ijr.com)

 Experts make Holocaust find (foxnews.com)

 Docs: Bomb threats suspect offered services on dark net (bostonherald.com)