During the past century, there has been an unprecedented increase in the numbers of those who identify themselves as Christians and who reject the idea that God’s truth and salvation are available in Jesus Christ in a manner not found in other religions.
Those that identify themselves as Christians are continually hard-pressed to respond to the phenomenon of religious pluralism. “What is the most loving thing to do,” a Christian might ask, “to show love to people of other religions by my actions or to break the bad news to them that a lifetime apart from their loving creator is where they’re headed?” They might also ask, “We are told to cast our bread on many waters (Ecc 1: 1-6), but we are also told not to cast pearls before swine (Matt 7:6), so how do we reconcile these two teachings?” These questions reduce to two strategies for the believer which should be explored and understood: when and how do we share the Christian message?
Finding itself in the middle of a richly diverse culture, the Church has let down its arms in the fight for the exclusive claims of the Gospel message. It is the aim of this essay to show first that all world religions are exclusive in nature, two or more things that oppose each other cannot all be true, and in truth will be found only by what corresponds to reality.
On Religion
The term religion is one of those words that is often thrown around, but is rarely carefully articulated. What is religion? What counts as religious? What counts as a religion? If we begin with what are already accepted as religions and work our way up to what the definition of religion must be, we will fail. There are too many differences among religions that will lead us to a conclusion such as “religions are neither atheistic or theistic, they are not moral or amoral, that are not necessarily faith based, they do not necessarily revere sacred documents” etc., and we will get nowhere with our endeavor to define the word.
Harold Netland has advised that a religion will fall under a limited number of categories; that of inclusivism, exclusivism, and pluralism. Inclusivism is a bit ambiguous, and at times difficult to distinguish between pluralism. For this reason, we will mainly focus on exclusivism and pluralism as they main categories under which religions fall.
Exclusivism refers to those traditions which exclude anything that is contradictory to it. It affirms the nature of truth as exclusive. It also affirms that their tradition makes truth claims, and so they are necessarily exclusive. Closely related with exclusive nature of truth, is the universal nature of truth: not only is everything that contradicts the truth claims to be excluded, but the truth claims themselves apply to everybody universally. Sadly, cultural diversity has undermined the universal nature of truth. Because of this, exclusive traditions now carry an unflattering connotation. People associate it with being dogmatic, narrow-minded, intolerant, ignorant, and arrogant. However, I would argue that this is not appropriate, because it relies on a category mistakes: just because people respond to truth in different ways, has no ontological bearing on the nature of truth. “Truth theory is both complex and controversial, and the issues concerning religious truth involved contested questions about the nature of religious discourse, epistemology and ontology.”
Opposed to exclusivism is pluralism. Pluralism can be referred to in the descriptive sense, such as a statement commenting on the number of religions one could choose from and concluding that we live in a religiously pluralistic society. It can also be referred to in the normative sense, “the dizzying plethora of religious pluralism has led many to believe that no religion can claim to be the only way of salvation.”
Netland also advises that there are seven different dimensions of religions: the ritual dimension, the mythological or narrative dimension, the doctrinal dimension, the ethical dimension, the social or institutional dimension, the experiential dimension, and the material dimension. The major religions of the world will be described by using these dimensions as well as the three categories under which one of them they must fall. The Christian religion is one religion which falls under the category is exclusivism, and is the first religion to which we turn our attention.
On Christianity
Christianity is an example of an exclusive religion. It makes truth claims and excludes anything that is contrary and therefore false. There are certain rituals that Christians practice, such as praying and fasting, there is the narrative of a supernatural being who is creator of all, the doctrines of Christianity rely on the general and specific revelation from this supernatural being, the ethical dimension relies on this supernatural being to reveal what is good and what is evil, the social dimension is that Christians gather together for fellowship and worship and they acknowledge the institution of the Church, the experiential dimension is found both corporally and individually by relating on a personal level with this great being, and they regard the material world as this great being’s creation. Other certain traditions will align mirror Christianity in regards to one or more of these dimensions, and specific comments on these religions will be noted below.
One of the most controversial doctrinal claims of Christianity is in regards to the incarnation, that is, God manifesting himself in human form; this man is Jesus Christ. Though there are certainly more controversies over the details of this reality (the trinity, the resurrection, Jesus’ temptation, etc.) this portion of the essay will focus on the controversial claim that Jesus is the only savior and therefore the only way to God. Indeed, Jesus himself claims this (John 14:6). “The challenge of religious pluralism, which strikes at the central affirmation of the distinctiveness and exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the one Lord and Savior for all peoples.” In reference to the above not that exclusivity is closely tied with universality, if Jesus is in fact who he says he is, then his statement that he is the only way will apply to every people. “Jesus is the only Savior for all of humankind, including followers of other religions. No one is reconciled to God except through the cross of Jesus Christ”
As we will see below, obviously other religions do not affirm this. In fact, if they did and they wanted to remain internally consistent with respect to the dimensions listed above, they would in fact convert to Christianity. The reality is that this claim is very controversial, and is “regarded by many today – both inside and outside the church – as highly problematical.”What does this say about the view of truth held by these people? In the first century, Paul did not regard this concept as comprisable, nor did he ever think it appropriate for any Christian to not remain firm on this core issue. He claims that if Christ has not been raised [and therefore saved us], our preaching is useless and so is your faith… If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied (1 Cor 15:14, 19).
Comparative references among religions.
Though some people affiliated with other religions might, in conversation, to be of an inclusivist or pluralist persuasion, they cannot remain so as a consistent follower of whatever faith they are affiliated with. Every religion makes certain truth claims, and as was stated earlier, the nature of the truth claims are necessarily exclusive. Therefore, each religion is exposed for being exclusive at some point. “Orthodox followers of each of these traditions would resist the suggestion that their particular conception of the ultimate is in fact merely a penultimate manifestation of what is truly ultimate.”
Once this veil has been lifted, each religion can be studied in light of their actual truth claims. Once this endeavor has begun, it will be “difficult indeed to escape the conclusion that some of the central affirmations of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and Shinto are opposed.” Based on the laws of logic, specifically the law of non-contradiction, when two things are opposed only one of them can be true. First we will examine the specific claims that are being opposed throughout various religions, and then we will discuss how to determine which claim is true. Below we will focus on three major religions and outline one fundamental contradiction between the particular religion and the Christian religion which has been outlined above.
Islam is a faith which claims to be a fulfillment of Christianity and ultimately of Judaism also. However, one fundamental belief of the Christian faith is the trinity. The notion of the trinity affirms monotheism, however it asserts that this God is made up of three distinct parts. Though this is hard to a finite human to fully articulate, the Christian would affirm monotheism, the divinity of Jesus, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and would then continue with a study on Trinitarian theology. A Muslim, however, would reject the notion of Jesus’ divinity. In doing so, they would fundamentally oppose a doctrinal claim of Christianity, and therefore it would be impossible for Islam to complete Christianity without removing an essential claim of the Faith. Would it still be appropriate to use the word “complete” if in fact it has to abrogate such an essential part of Christianity? I would argue that it would not be appropriate, but would rather be best to say that Islam sets forth its own exclusive truth claim that Jesus was not divine because it would be a contradiction for a human prophet to be divine. In response to this, Netland has advised to acknowledge that“certainly it is mysterious, even paradoxical. But it is far from obvious that it is logically inconsistent or devoid of any significant meaning.”
Hinduism is a faith that allows a lot of freedom. However, at the end of the day there are still truth claims found essential to the faith which entail an exclusive nature. In order to be a faithful Hindu, one would have to subscribe to the authority of the Vedas, their sacred texts. What they would be more lenient to is individual belief about God. Hindus can be atheistic, polytheistic, and monotheistic which can sometimes include deists. This is fundamentally opposed to Christianity, which states that God is there, He is singular and He is immanent andpersonal. Though it is obvious that they are opposed, it is obvious that both are exclusive? At first glance it would seem that only Christianity is exclusive but Hinduism could beunderstood to be inclusive of Christianity. However, this would be a false interpretation because, though subtly, Hinduism does make an exclusive truth claim in its larger assertion that Hinduism in the only way to enlightenment. Hinduism can be exposed for what it is in spite of how inclusive a Hindu might make their religion sound.
Though Secular Humanism would be debated by some for whether it should be considered a religion or not, for the sake of this essay we will consider it as one so its fundamental claimscan be contrasted to Christianity. Secular Humanists have aprimary belief in naturalism with which everything else must agree. This obviously runs contradictory to the Christian belief in the supernatural. Secular Humanism excludes Christianity fundamentally, as is seen more obviously that in the case of Hinduism.
Engaging religious others
Religious others should be engaged in light of the exclusive nature of truth, and in regards to the nature of truth as being that which corresponds to reality. Because truth is exclusive, we should endeavor to show, as has been shown above, where the contradictions lie, and then continue to search for which claim corresponds to reality. Here in lies the first key test of truth claims: external consistency. Do the claims correspond to reality and are they livable? Correspondence to reality will be found within certain apologetic arguments. The moral argument for the existence of a good god and for monotheism will fly in the face of Hinduism. The case for the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus will show Islam as false, and the case for intelligent design and a first cause will give good reason to accept supernaturalism over Secular Humanism. Through these arguments “positive apologetics should seek to show not merely that Christians can be rational in believing as they do but also that Christian theism is preferable to other alternatives.”
The second key test for truth claims is internal consistency: Do individual doctrines within a religion cohere or not? For example, a Secular Humanist might say that they believe in the existence of a mind, but how would they account for it given their presupposed naturalism? A Hindu might have similar morals to that of a Christian, but how where would they say they came from if they are atheistic? Could a Muslim account for the problem of evil given their belief that there was no original sin in the garden? Because of general revelation believers should have no problem affirming that humans created in the image of God who have been led astray might have a portion of truth in their religion. “It is of great importance that all Christians, and missionaries especially, recognize and heartily acknowledge such truths as they may find more or less clearly admitted in the religions of those among whom they labor.”It is then our responsibility to use this as common ground to serve as a foundation for building to the Gospel, as we know that it is the only story which offers external and internal consistency. Truth should remain the primarily concern for ourselves and for our endeavors when engaging with others and therefore we should be willing to go wherever the truth leads.
Conclusion
How tragic it is that, whether justified or not, Christians are the ones perceived today as intolerant and bigoted. The church must demonstrate through its actions, not merely its words, that we do accept ethnic and cultural diversity, that we committed to justice for all and that we will support the rights of other religious communities to live and practice in our midst. But at the same time we cannot abandon our commitment to Jesus Christ as the on Lord and Savior for all human kind. So even as we accept Hindus and Buddhists and New Agers as fellow human beings created in God’s image, we must urge them also to be reconciled to God by accepting Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior.
Traditionally the notion of tolerance has been “the deliberate decision to refrain from prohibiting, hindering, or otherwise coercively interfering with conduct [or beliefs] of which one disapproves, although one has the power to do so.” However, now, disagreement in itself implies intolerance. As believers we should respectfully and winsomely be able to present to Gospel, affirming the piece of truth that are found in other religions but also showing that the Gospel is the only conclusions which appropriately completes the story. After all, “the religious impulse itself is from God; the varied religious expressions are due to human creativity and distortion.”
“The central truth claims of the Christian faith are significant and controversial indeed, and thus those who proclaim the gospel today should be prepared to respond in an appropriate and informed manner to questions that naturally arise.” As Peter has taught us, we should be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15). This is not a simple task, as we are facing an epistemic confusion plaguing this generation. We see “Individualism taken to the level of epistemology.” We see personal belief serving as the truth maker for truth claims. Because of this, it is “essential that the church understand and respond appropriately to the cultural changes driving pluralism”
As Netland has advised, “effectively meeting the challenges of pluralism requires going beyond merely ‘negative’ apologetics and that the church muse engage in appropriate forms of ‘positive’ apologetics.” However, as we engage in both negative and positive forms of apologetics, we are undoubtedly going to run into situations in which our endeavors are seeming to go nowhere; some people just do not want to listen are for whatever reason hard-pressed to understand the message of the Gospel. We must acknowledge that “at the heart of unbelief is sin, human rebellion against God and his ways and the pursuit of human autonomy…[religious pluralism] is a manifestation of the sinful drive for autonomy from God and his truth.” We must follow Timothy’s instruction to deal with these people will all gentleness and kindness (2 timothy 2:24-26). We must not prematurely give up on apologetics and simply love them through our actions, though we must remain sensitive to the spirit to realize when it is time to stop talking and simply to pray.
Bibliography
Bruce, Steve. Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Groothuis, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001.
Hornton, John. “Toleration,” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig. London: Routledge, 1998.
Kellogg, Samuel Henry. A Handbook of Comparative Religion.1899; reprint, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1927.
Netland, Harold. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment