Introduction

It is evident that we live in a pluralistic world with regard to religious beliefs. While this has always been the case throughout world history, it is all the more evident today with the advent of instant communication, world travel and globalization. It is no longer possible to live in ignorance. The enlightenment was expected to bring about the decline of religion but the opposite has been the case with a renewed interest in all of the world religions.

Today the situation is much different than one hundred years ago with an influx of people from around the world, including Asia and the Middle East. These groups of people not only bring their customs and traditions but their religious beliefs as well, which are most often not Christian. The result of this interaction is that we often see them doing quite well without Christianity. This leads to the difficult question of what the Buddhists or Muslim's ultimate fate is, because even though they do not worship Jesus, they are holy and it is does not seem fair to condemn them to hell. To further the seriousness of the situation, the other major religions are often more aggressive than Christianity in missionary activity. Is Christianity special among the religions or is there saving value and alternative ways to God besides Jesus?

This paper will give an overview of the major views on religious pluralism, including the exclusivist position characterized by traditional Catholicism and contemporary evangelicals, the inclusivist middle position of Rahner, Pinnock, D'Costa and the Catholic Church as reflected in the Vatican two documents and finally the pluralist views John Hick. Dialogue, hospitality and mission out of joy will be discussed as appropriate responses to those of other faiths. The thesis of this paper is that out of these three views, the inclusivist view expounded by Pinnock is the one that can offer the most coherent way of affirming the centrality of Christ in our pluralistic world. The inclusivist position can serve as a starting point that neither downplays the otherness of the major religions nor the centrality of Christ and it is from this stance that true dialogue and mission can occur.

Religious Pluralism- The Exclusivist View

The exclusivist position seems to have fallen out of favor within mainstream Christianity; it is often relegated to small groups within evangelicalism or fundamentalism. This is perhaps a response to our post-modern world, which does not tolerate very well any position that claims absolute truth. Sinkinson notes two themes about our present-day culture that have great relevance for our discussion: tolerance and relativism. In essence, these two positions assume all positions are valid, as long as they are sincerely held. It should be obvious why any claim to the exclusiveness of Christ, such as that given by Nash is discounted so quickly. Nash defines Christian exclusivism as, "the belief that (1) Jesus is the only Savior, and (2) explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation." This involves not only a position, which emphasizes God's role in saving humanity (which almost all positions along the spectrum do) but also an explicit personal faith in Jesus Christ as savior.

This position is often argued from the Biblical record, more specifically from John 3:16-18, 14:6, Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:9-15. Their interpretation of the Bible comes from the scholarship of the ultra-conservative wing of Christianity of which mainstream scholarship is increasingly diverging from. While this is a concern, the major critique of this position is perhaps an extremely narrow view of the grace of God which does not take seriously the Biblical data found in the Old Testament (Melchizedek, Abimelech, and Job among many others) which shows pagans and Jews within God's mercy and grace. In the New Testament we see the stories of the Roman Centurion and the Magi, of which the exclusivist position makes no mention. As a result of this narrowness, the question that remains is whether God's grace is so narrow that it is only for those certain few who happen to be born in the right time and the right place so that they may have opportunity to respond to the explicit preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? No satisfactory answer has been given from the Christian exclusivists and hence this position is probably not able to aid us significantly in our discussion of religious pluralism in today's world. The negativity of the exclusivist position with regard to all other religions and the way in which this view ignores the Christian tradition of salvation outside the Church makes this position essentially irrelevant.

The Inclusivist Position

Inclusivism can be an important middle ground between the extremes of pluralism and exclusivism because it affirms the centrality of salvation through Jesus while also maintaining the universality of God's plan to save sinners. Inclusivism is able to offer hope that grace will prove stronger than sin and that God's grace is not restricted to those "lucky" enough to be born at the right time and place. Nash cites two axioms of Inclusivism which affirm both the particular and exclusive. They are: 1) Jesus is the only mediator of salvation and 2) that God intends salvation to be available to all. This maintains the core Christian belief that Jesus is necessary for salvation but effectively deals with the problem of what happens to those who die without hearing the Gospel because somehow, God will grant an opportunity for all to respond to His salvific grace through Jesus Christ. Though God's grace is present outside the Church, the Church is to be the bearer of God's saving purposes for the world. Even the pluralists such as John Hick and Paul Knitter concede that Inclusivism is the mainline model that represents the nearest to a consensus on the topic of religious pluralism that one is able to find. The nuances of Rahner and Pinnock's exposition of this middle way will be explored in further detail.

Rahner's Anonymous Christian

Rahner first proposed the idea of adherents to other faiths being "anonymous Christians" in 1961. Since that time, his idea has been basically discounted as insulting, offensive and not taking seriously the other major world religions. After all, how would Christians like to think of themselves as "anonymous Buddhists or Muslims?" However, Rahner is an important voice to our discussion and so will be mentioned briefly.

Rahner has four theses which introduce and explain this concept of anonymous Christianity. The first is that Christianity has no equal among the other religions. Secondly, other religions contain mixtures of natural knowledge of God as well as depravity because of original sin. Mixed in with this good and bad is the supernatural grace of Christ, which is given as a free gift. Therefore, other religions can be thought of as lawful, but not free from sin and error. Thirdly, Christians must regard adherents to other faiths not merely as Non-Christians but as anonymous Christians because they have been touched partially by God's grace and truth. Finally, while the Church is not the exclusive holder of salvation, it is a tangible expression of what is a hidden reality outside of it.

Rahner's theology of religion seems to satisfy no one and although it is a middle ground between exclusivism and pluralism it is not an adequate response. The exclusivists would accuse him of taking other religions too seriously by affirming that they are mediators of God's grace and that the particularity of Christ has been lost. The pluralists would argue that Rahner has not gone far enough by still leaving Christianity as the center to which all other religions yield. Although Rahner's approach to dealing with a plurality of major world religions in innovative it is still unsatisfactory with regards to his fundamental assumption that Christianity is superior to other religions. His theory implies a lack of respect for the devout Buddhist or Hindu who seeks salvation is his or her own religion and chooses not to be a Christian.

Clark Pinnock's Inclusivism

In contrast to Rahner's naivety with regard to other religions, Pinnock advocates for an Inclusivism that in a bit more moderate and appealing to a larger group of people. Pinnock believes that the Spirit is at work in other religions and works to prepare people to hear the Gospel of Christ, either before or after death. While this work of God in non-Christian religions is affirmed as a possibility, Pinnock offers some qualifiers. Firstly, he cautions against glorying other religions (as Hick does) because there are depths of evil and deception in them. Secondly, he does not go as far as to say that salvation can be found in these religions.

A look at the way in which Pinnock explores two key Biblical passages can be helpful with respect to how God works in other major world religions. From the Old Testament, Pinnock looks at the story of Melchizedek, which shows what God is doing in the religion of the Canaanites, so much so that Abraham accepts a blessing from him. In the New Testament, Cornelius is described as a devout, God-fearer even though he is a non-Christian Gentile and is a sign to Peter that God does not show partiality. God was at work in the world saving people before the incarnation and also at work today, perhaps in ways that we do not expect. Pinnock's model of Inclusivism lacks the naivety and offensiveness of Rahner and has significant potential to serve as a moderating voice in the debate about religious pluralism. Although exclusivist and pluralist scholars can raise some concerns about inclusivism, both sides seem to accept this as middle ground between them and are willing to take seriously and acknowledge the value of this more recent position.

John Hick's Pluralism

In the spectrum of thought on this topic of discussion, John Hick's Pluralism is a logical step along the path from Inclusivism. Pluralism stands in direct opposition to exclusivism. Pluralism has the potential to appeal to a wide range of people in today's post-modern world because of its extreme tolerance and its unwillingness to affirm any religion as the center. Hick wants to "move from a christocentric view of reality to a theocentric one." This is due in part to his observation that Christians and non-Christians alike seem to do good and evil in about the same proportion. If it is the case that Christians have special access to God by virtue of the Holy Spirit then why are they not holier or morally better than their non-Christian neighbors?

The other struggle that Hick has with traditional models of exclusivism or the more recent inclusivism is that by virtue of being born in South-East Asia, one will likely become a Buddhist. Is the West so arrogant as to say that by virtue of being born in a certain time and place one has the privilege of knowing the full truth while everyone else has only partial glimpse of it?

Our understanding of the universe underwent a dramatic shift when Copernicus postulated that the current Ptolemaic model of the Earth as the center contained serious flaws. The Copernican model sees the sun as the center and all the planets as moving around it. In the same way, Hick believes that our theologies of pluralism need to undergo a Copernican revolution to move away from Jesus-centered models of faith that inevitably place Christianity at the center and relegate all other religions to an inferior status. Instead Hick would place "the Real" at the center and Jesus as just one of the many orbits revolving around it; in essence no special status is given to Christianity.

The "Real" is beyond any human thought or characterization. By the very act of trying to attribute intrinsic characteristics to the Real, it would cease to be the Real. The question remains then, how do we worship the Real if we do not know what it is? Hick responds by saying that we do not worship the Real itself but we learn about it from various manifestations, whether Jesus, Buddha or the Rabbinic teachings. The concept of the Real is not meant to replace religions but instead it opens a path to dialogue among them, which will be fruitful if none of them claim a unique superiority.

According to Hick, salvation is "the transition to a life centered in…the Real…" It is a move away from self-centeredness to a life based on the true reality. If this is the case, then there should be signs of this transformation taking place in all the world religions to about the same degree. Hick affirms this to be the case. Our own experiences of other religions often shows us the same as well, that Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus are often holy and that they truly worship God in whatever form their God takes.

Criticism of Hick's theory comes from many places but in essence, they offer the same major critiques. A major concern is Hick's concept of the "Real." If this is the center of the universe and also unknowable, are we not just worshipping an idol when we follow the path of Christianity, Buddhism or Islam? Another issue is Hick's Christology in which he says that the incarnation is just a myth made up by the early Church and that Jesus is not divine in any way. Going further along this path, it is easy to see why Hick would place no value on Jesus as the central salvific figure for the world if He is only a man and not God.

Hick's hypothesis also does not take seriously the otherness of the major religions; how can monotheistic and polytheistic or primitive and highly developed religions all be lumped together? Although there is much within the religions that are similar, some things are contradictory and Hick does not give an adequate explanation for why these things are so if there is the same "God" behind it all. Although Hick's model is perhaps appealing to our post-modern sensibilities that wish to condemn no one, his theory still raises too many questions for many Christians to accept it in full. The person and work of Jesus Christ is central to the Christian faith and for Hick to devalue the divinity of Jesus so much is to perhaps move Christianity away from its very core. As such, Hick offers a view that can challenge our exclusive positions but that perhaps is not much use in our debate about religious pluralism.

Reaching Out-Dialogue

This paper has affirmed the centrality of Christ as the starting point of salvation. Although grace can be found within other religions, this does not lessen the missional mandate of the Church to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ, in word and deed. Three models for doing so, dialogue, hospitality and mission out of joy will be discussed.

While proclamation is a necessary and important part of Christian mission in this world, it has been sometimes used exclusively. This has been to the detriment of the mission and witness of the Church because it often does not take seriously the other world religions. Dialogue can serve as a corrective to this one-sided giving and receiving. Dialogue involves an attitude of humility because seeking the truth is central and the individuals "winning the debate" is not. The precursor to true dialogue is a willingness to learn something from another. In order for dialogue to be meaningful, both sides need to come with their own strong convictions because if they are not able to articulate their own position effectively, there will be no basis for discussion. This model of engagement with the other world religions holds great promise because it allows engagement at the macro-level in contrast to hospitality and mission out of joy which are essentially micro-level encounters.

Hospitality

Martin Marty advocates for a model of hospitality as opposed to one of tolerance. The problem with tolerance within pluralists setting is that, "…those who tolerate often have the power or will to remake "the other" into some manageable image." On the other hand, hospitality insists on the other as being truly different. Although hospitality is a risk, the potential for mutual benefit is great as the stranger can help us understand our own lives and place in this world. Marty's concept of hospitality to the "other" can assist us at the micro level as we seek to interact with our neighbors of other faiths. By inviting others into our Christian homes they can see our lifestyle, religious symbols and prayers before the meal and in this hopefully glimpse something of the God that we worship.

Mission out of Joy

If there is salvation in other religions as pluralists and some inclusivists affirm, then what is the point of proclaiming the Good news and baptizing them if their own religion is good enough? Amaladoss makes the point that we proclaim and baptize because we ourselves have experienced joy in hearing the Gospel and now have an internal urge and call to share this with the world. Newbigin talks about how traditionally the missional mandate of the Church has been seen as a burden, a work of obedience in response to a command. However, this misses the point in that the Gospel is a joy as we are free from the law that once enslaved us. He notes that, "mission begins with an explosion of joy" that cannot be kept within the Church walls. Salvation is not a private possession that should be held tightly by an exclusive group of insiders. If mission is to be effective to other faiths as well as to our faith family, there must be joy on the part of the one who proclaims. The life of the one who proclaims must be lived in intimate connection with and dependence upon Jesus, empowered by the Holy Spirit so that mission no longer is a burden but is instead a joy.

Conclusion

We live in a pluralistic world with regard to religious beliefs. This is all the more evident today with globalization and greater mobility of people and ideas. This raises the question of what is the relationship between the major world religions and more specifically how Christianity relates to the other major faiths. The traditional exclusivist position is not that helpful for our discussion because it is offensive and does not take seriously the goodness in the other religions. The pluralist position, while challenging is also not that helpful because it does not take the "otherness" of religions seriously and it also discounts the centrality of Christ. The inclusivist position, while far from perfect offers an alternative middle ground (as characterized by Pinnock and Vatican two) that affirms the centrality of Christ in salvation. This position also takes the other religions seriously and can serve as an appropriate model for which to base Christian interaction with the world. This interaction can take the form of hospitality, dialogue and mission from joy both at the micro and macro level.




Works Cited

Amaladoss, Michael. Making all Things New: Dialogue, Pluralism and Evangelism in Asia. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990.

Barnes, Michael. Christian Identity and Religious Pluralism. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989.

Bosch, D. J. Transforming Mission. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991.

Costas, Orlando. Christ Outside the Gate. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1982.

D'Costa, Gavin."Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality," in Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. Ed. Gavin D'Costa, 16-46. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990.

D'Costa, Gavin. Theology and Religious Pluralism. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

Dorr, Donal. Mission in Today's World. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2000.

Geivett, Douglas R. and Phillips, Gary W. "A Particularist View: An Evidentialist Approach." In More than One Way? Eds. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, 213-245. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Hick, John. "A Particularist View: Reponse by Hick," in More than one Way? Eds Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, 246-250. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Hick, John. "A Pluralist View," in More than One Way? eds. Dennis L Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, 29-59. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Hick, John. God Has Many Names. Philadelphia: the Westminster Press, 1982.

Hick, John. The Metaphor of God Incarnate. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1993.

Hick, John. "The Theological Challenge of Religious Pluralism," in Christianity and Other Religions. Eds John Hick and Brian Hebblethwaite, 156-171. Oxford: Oneworld, 2001.

Knitter, Paul. No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward World Religions. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1985.

Kung, Hans. "Is there one True Religion?" In Christianity and Other Religions. Selected Readings. Eds. John Hick and Brain Hebblewaite, 118-145. Oxford: Oneworld, 2001.

Kung, Hans. On Being a Christian. New York: Doubleday, 1976.

Kung, Hans. "Towards Ecumenical Theology of Religions," in Christianity Among World Religions. Eds Hans Kung and Jurgen Moltmann, 119-125. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986.

Marty, Martin. When Faiths Collide. Mass: Blackwell, 2005.

Nash, Ronald H. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Newbigin, Leslie. "The Christian Faith and the World Religions," in Christianity and Other Religions. Eds. John Hick and Brain Hebblethwaite, 88-117. Oxford: Oneworld, 2001.

Newbigin, Leslie. The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. "Religious Pluralism and Conflicting Truth Claims," in Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. Ed. Gavin D'Costa, 96-106. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990.

Pinnock, Clark H. "An Inclusivist View," in More than One Way? Eds. Dennis L Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, 95-123. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Pinnock, Clark H. "A Particularist View: Response by Pinnock." Eds. Dennis L Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, 251-255. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Rahner, Karl. "Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions." In Christianity and Other Religions. Selected Readings. Eds. John Hick and Brain Hebblewaite, 19-38. Oxford: Oneworld, 2001.

Ramachandra, Vinoth. "The Universality of Christ," in Grace and Truth in the Secular Age. Ed. Timothy Bradshaw, 265-276.. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Sinkinson, Chris. "Confessing Christ in a Pluralistic Culture." In Grace and Truth in the Secular Age. Ed. Timothy Bradshaw, 153-165. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Tan, Kim-Sai. "The Unique Christ in the Plurality of Religions," in the Unique Christ in Our Pluralistic World. Ed. Bruce J. Nicholls, 67-78. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Vroom, Hendrik. No Other Gods. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Wright, Chris. "The Unique Christ in the Plurality of Religions," in The Unique Christ in our Pluralistic World. Ed. Bruce J. Nicholls, 31-46. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.