note -- I never liked Philosophy. I loved history. These two disciplines think very differently. This class, however, I did like. It was one of the few classes which didn't entail major aspects of review for me. I learned some contemporary philosophers I liked, and was forced to stretch my brain in directions I wasn't used to. I don't like apologetics really, not my cup of tea, I'm more of a contemplative. It's good to know, and good to try and work out a cogent defense of the faith for one's own.

Religious Pluralism

The cultural context in which we find ourselves as Christians is now in a state of flux. Over this past century, the domination of Christianity as a belief, and cultural force, has withered and lost much of its former glory. The 1960s were a time of rebellion, with the youth of this era realizing that the faith of their parents during this time was not worth the effort to follow, and intellectual developments of the past century giving to them the reasons to follow their emotions. So they left the church in droves. Faith was considered irrelevant in both social and academic circles. This secularization of society fought for the removal of religious thinking from all public spheres and sought to move beyond the religious tyranny which had bound society for so long. This is, truth be told, no longer a secularized society. [1] The decline of the social strength of the American church has continued, leading to further movement along the cultural spectrum in this post-Christian society.

Although far from being either irreligious or totally pagan, the current generation and society in which it operates can be called secularized pluralism. That is, there is still a strong vestige of the desire to keep religion and belief out of the public spectrum, and to one’s own self in general, but there is a definite increase of interest in Spirituality and Religion which is shaping and guiding my generation. There is a renewal of interest in the transcendent, but not necessarily in Christianity. In this brief essay I will seek to examine this state we find ourselves, and in doing so attempt to find how a pluralistic world can be beneficial to Christianity, and how we can respond to this pluralism in an effective manner.

There are a multiplicity of viable belief systems in our society, which has not been seen in the western world since the Roman Empire thrived on this planet. This great exposure arises from the massive immigration into this country, especially in our era from non-western countries. It also arises from the modern media’s ability to bring the world to our home in ways which were never possible to such an extent prior to this generation. Secularization left a gap in the hearts and minds of the people who rejected the religion of their youth. So, the disenchantment with traditional forms of Christianity, coupled with a new and almost overwhelming exposure to other sources of ‘truth’ have brought about a new pluralism which pervades our society.

The thought which guides this pluralistic mindset is that God has revealed himself to all religions. To assume, then, a position of knowing absolute and universal truth to the exclusion of a great number of those who do not assume this position is now generally thought of as abhorrent and arrogant in the extreme. With this idea comes the conclusion of the unethical dimension of proselytizing. If all religions and philosophies are equal and lead to God, or gods, than there is no reason to convince others of one’s own correct stance. The true goal of the missionary enterprise is then thought to be to convince all peoples of the importance of global unity and peace, to transcend mere religious form and thought, and realize that we need to help each other become better people no matter what philosophy or religion we pursue in order to accomplish this.

There are some definite challenges to overcome in combating this pervasive pluralism, but what is less thought about are the possibilities and gains that can occur in a pluralistic society. The challenges and opportunities oddly tend to go together. The first challenge comes in the aspect of “truth” itself. As Christians who believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life for all people we are placed under attack for not accepting the viability of other religions. This, of course, is not a new challenge, as few things are anymore. The early church was persecuted not so much for believing in Jesus as God, but rather more for believing in Jesus as God in exclusion to every other religion. The magistrates did not mind their meeting together as long as they would offer the requisite sacrifices to the emperor. How did the early church respond to the crisis? The strongest Christians stood and continued to stand up for the exclusivity of Christ, even facing excruciating tortures and executions. There were those who did sacrifice, who did turn away, who did become nominal. But, those who stood up against the charge of being arrogant for claiming Christ as God alone, attracted positive attention and drew interest in what they were claiming, leading Tertullian to say what initially appears to be a paradoxical statement, “Martyrs are the seed of the Church.”

In our era, the challenge of being accused of arrogance seems daunting. Even committed Christians see the attractiveness and vestiges of truth to be found in other religions, the similarities that they share with Christianity, and the seeming source of spiritual satisfaction which these religions provide. It might be well, oddly, to embrace these similarities. C.S. Lewis states, “I couldn’t believe that nine-hundred and ninety-nine religions were completely false, and the remaining one true.” [2] It is not an “us versus them” mentality that we must acquire, but rather we must embrace and even learn from what other religions have to teach and remind us. Lesslie Newbiggin states, “Our thought must therefore be directed not just to the religions so called; we must ask about the relation of the gospel to all who live by other commitments, whether they are called religious or secular.” [3] Yet, it must be kept in mind that where Christianity and other religions differ, that is the view of Christ, we claim exclusive knowledge.

The message of the truth of Christ himself, not the ethics, not the encouragement, not the spiritual satisfaction, must be proclaimed, asserted and defended at every step. Newbiggin sums up the situation nicely in saying that “in a pluralist society such as ours, any confident statement of ultimate belief, any claim to announce the truth about God and his purpose for the world, is liable to be dismissed as ignorant, arrogant, dogmatic. We have no reason to be frightened of this accusation.” [4] The fact is that pluralism is essentially correct, world religions are fairly equal in their ability to convey truth and life, with one exception. They are equal, because they all leave out one crucial fact, that it is only in Christ that the whole truth is found. We must be confident in maintaining this truth, and in doing so may induce people to inquire into the arrogant claims of Christ and his church.

Simply being confident about our beliefs is not sufficient, however. For while we may be bold and indeed correct, the mission of the church is not to be an impenetrable fortress, but rather to seek out and engage those who do not yet believe. This can be accomplished not only by developing apologetic strategies for reaching out to other cultures, but also it is vital that we re-examine some of our own stances, determining what is vital and what is simply cultural baggage. In developing strategies we must look first to how Christianity understands its own claims. What exactly is Christianity based on, and thus what are its best areas of defense and challenge? Essentially, this answer is history. Christianity makes a claim on certain historical events as the defining characteristic of its beliefs. [5] First it adopted the history of the Jewish religion as found in their sacred Scriptures. This history shows that God has revealed himself to be of a certain character and personality, who not only proclaimed a new philosophy and attitude, but is actually claimed to have continually interceded on the people that he chose. The Jews did not dismiss other religions or gods as being totally false, but rather claimed that their God was simply the highest and best.

Christians add to this, maintaining that a real, breathing man was born in Palestine around the first century. They claim that this man did not have a natural father, but was instead born to one who was a virgin, whose seed miraculously developed into a child. As this child grew up, he was full of wisdom and indeed a doer of great miracles. This young man not only claimed to speak on God’s behalf, but with God’s authority. He was crucified for this stance, but Christians claim he was not long in the grave but in fact rose again and appeared physically to a great number of people. Because of his claims, and power, this man inspired new understanding of the person of God, and brought a great movement which now circles the globe. Christians do not claim to possess any theological writings or philosophical stances written by this man, but are rather dependent on the writings of his closest companions for all that they know.

With these basics facts in mind, Christians have developed patterns of thought and practice which reflect these historical events. The philosophy of Christianity has arisen from the events, rather than the philosophy shaping the events. [6] It is an historical religion in that it’s claims rest on whether or not certain events happened. Because of these historical claims, the argument is raised whether or not these events happened, and what these events signify if they did happen. If these events actually did happen, if Jesus was who he said he was, than Christianity is claiming an insight into the very nature and person of God which is unique than other religions and is claiming to have in it’s hands the key to understanding both human history and indeed the human future. If these events did not happen, than Christianity is offering nothing because its insights are false and worthless. There does not seem to be a middle ground.

It is vital to understand exactly what Christianity is seeking to say in order to even begin seeking to interact with other religions. It is also vital to understand the answers other religions are giving to the questions they are asking. In doing this one cannot map out the philosophical assumptions which create a web of knowledge of each religion, finding not only what a religion is claiming, but even plotting how close each claim or belief is to the central core. In many cases these different webs of belief will not share certain claims or will hold to something which is not translatable to another tradition. These are issues to which other religions do not or cannot address for whatever reason. These webs are not however totally distinct and not relatable in every way. Rather, because each religion is seeking to say something about both the human state and condition there are areas of overlapping, with basic assumptions being shared in different traditions. As Newbiggin states, “every missionary knows that it is impossible to communicate the gospel without acknowledging in practice that there is some continuity between the gospel and the experience of the hearer outside the gospel.” [7] Certainly, some traditions share more than others, but the key point is to acknowledge that there are points of reference from which dialogue can start.

John Hick and others who may embrace a purely pluralistic view would say that these points of reference are not only the beginning, but also the totality of what we need as a global culture. If there are points of disagreement, than these are unessential accumulations on the basic human story and should be disregarded, though maybe not forgotten totally. [8] However, the difficulty with this is that by saying this, Hick and others are essentially gutting the central claims on each of these religions, assuming that they have an objective stance and insight that virtually no real adherent of these various religions would accede to. By stating that the particulars are unimportant, they are making the claim that history is invalid, that what we believe is in fact wrong and needs adjustment to their enlightened view. Though of course they would not actually admit to making this demand. Dialogue cannot happen by ignoring the central claims and simply encouraging people to simply “get along”. In doing this the religions are gutted of the very perspectives and values which encouraged their developments and expansions to begin with.

Rather, in sharing some basic characteristics we cannot simply ignore all other assumptions. In sharing these points, each religion does not analyze it from the same perspective, rather the sharing creates a tension on the web, trying to pull and reorient that assumption to match its own perspective and become oriented towards its particular central claim. As the various religions increase their interaction, this tension increases causing various reactions from the adherents. One is the retreat into some form of fundamentalism, essentially refusing to dialogue on or examine those points of sharing, essentially rejecting the tension as even existing rather than dealing with it. This was the Christian reaction to much of enlightenment thinking especially in the earlier to mid part of the 20^th century, and is now seen as very prevalent within the Muslim world.

Another reaction is to examine this tension, daring to put one’s perspective at risk of breaking and to make a “tug”, either snapping one’s own tradition or breaking that which is putting tension on it. This tension from shared assumptions but with different perspectives creates a limitation for both traditions that must somehow be overcome if the religion or worldview is to proceed. In this “tug” each tradition seeks to show how it better explains the world, including both human and divine existence. However, it must be said that each tradition does not fully explain the same answers to the same questions. Rather in many cases different traditions can provide something to the overall dialogue that is missing or forgotten in another tradition. Thus the difficulty arises in dealing with claims or beliefs in one tradition which simply do not arise in another to be either accepted or contradicted.

It is these points at which true dialogue and growth for both traditions can occur and which provide a real benefit of a pluralistic society. It is the tendency for a dominant tradition to simply ignore all others, to reject everything which goes with a competing way of belief. Christians claim to hold a overarching view on the purpose of history and humanity, yet would hard pressed to state that the church holds to a set of beliefs which are set in stone and correct in every way. The simple view of diversity within the Christian tradition makes this clear. The foundation of Christianity claims an insight into the “emerging pattern” of history and humanity rather than an intimate understanding of every detail. [9]

In the dialogue between various traditions each point of belief and assertion is examined, beginning first and most effectively with those shared points, progressing to points that are disagreed with (i.e. the answer to the question “who was Jesus”) and then dealing with points not shared or discussed. In this last point, a tradition can either reject a perspective as being essentially irrelevant or contradictory, or it can adopt a belief or position, adding this truth to its own web and thus helping it better explain the world. At some point intense interaction will result in the breaking of one web by another, with points of sharing or addition being taken and the other points being disregarded totally.

For example in its earliest days pluralism for Christianity meant dealing with Greek paganism. While this tension went on, apologists either had to better bolster their own Christian claims or accede to various truths of the other as being satisfactory for their own use. Thus early writers such as Justin Martyr or Clement of Alexandria adopted and promoted Plato, Socrates, and others as being true precursors to Christian beliefs rather than competitors. The pluralistic society in which they found themselves forced them to engage questions which may not have otherwise been raised from within the Christian community, but which if could not be answered would result in a degeneration of the belief structure. In answering these questions, the Christians found themselves in a better state than before and better aware of what they believed.

In a place of weakness, these writers were forced to find places where they could acknowledge the truth and insight of another culture and belief structure, while staying resolute on points of disagreement. In the modern world, we are wise to follow the same course. Rather than simply dismissing various traditions we must learn them, adopting those points which are useful if they do not contradict basic Christian beliefs. This attitude then will not be one of arrogance, but will be a willingness to learn from other traditions, acknowledging that truth is not limited, nor are we in control of all knowledge. I would assert that each religion has points of reference which can be beginning points of dialogue, and has areas which can be used to strengthen Christianity or remind us of forgotten traditions or emphases from our history. Yet we maintain that we hold to a key to understanding human history in our perspective of Christ and the Triune God.

It is vital, however, in a pluralistic world that Christians first understand the essentials of what is believed in order to be able to best engage other beliefs in way which is not competitive but in fact draws others into the “web” of Christianity, and with them bring insights and perspectives which help to add to the overall structure of Christian thought and practice. [10] In engaging others with our assertions of an “emerging pattern” and historical claims, we must also be aware that God is active everywhere and be humble in listening to what others assert. If Christian claims are correct than pluralism can only aid us in our theological development and future challenges, if Christian claims are not, then other religions may in fact be better able to explain the overall structure of the world in way that would bring true unity. This is a risk that must be taken in seeking after truth.

[1] See Leslie Newbiggin, The Gospel in a Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), ch.17.

[2] C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 54.

[3] Newbiggin, 173.

[4] Newbiggin, 10

[5] See Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob, Telling the Truth About History (New York: WW Norton and Co., 1994) for a discussion of how historical claims can once again be understood as valid and the journey of the last centuries to get to this point.

[6] Though certainly this eventually became a circular pattern within the church. With philosophy affecting events, which affected the philosophy, and so on.

[7] Newbiggin, 174.

[8] See John Hick, “A Pluralist View”, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World edited by Dennis Ockholm and Timothy Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 27ff.

[9] See William C. Placher, Unapologetic Theology(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1989), 123ff. for an expansion of this understanding.

[10] Andrew Walls argues that the essentials of Christianity are precisely those things which can be translated to other cultures as seen in the great success of cross-cultural missionary enterprises in The Missionary Movement in Christian History (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), ch. 1.