Pluralism / Theo Flashcards
Exclusivsim
Only those within own faith/ own sector of faith saved
Inclusvisim
God desires and has the power to save individuals irrespective of the tradition in which they are born.
Pluralism
how all religions are human atttempt to ineract with the real, not competing truths
Universalism
Idea that God saves all because of Gods benevolence
Baggani
sufficient conditions are enough for something to be the case, while necessary conditions are required for something to be the case
Eg) it is necessary for the prime minister to be a uk citizen but it is not sufficient, because he needs to be chosen by the party and win the election alongside being qualified.
from a Christian perspective the key question in the theology of religion debate is: what are necessary and sufficient conditions for salvation?
Bannister
all people are equal, but all beliefs are not equal
truth, by its nature, is exclusive, e.g. 2+2=4, it cant = 5.
you could remove all leading figures from all/most major religions and their beliefs would still stand. this does not apply to Christianity. only faith through Christ leads to salvation
*Other religions cannot lead people to the right relationship with God
*Jesus Christ brought salvation to the world
*Only through hearing the Gospel and responding with faith in Christ can you be saved
*Including rite of baptism – being cleansed of sin and reborn as a Christian
*Salvation requires giving up old way of life
*No other path available
Kraemer
*Leading figure in the Netherlands to bring different Christian denominations together – Ecumenical Movement.
His book ‘The Christian Message in a Non Christian World’ (1938) was very influential for Christian missionaries working in non Christian countries
This book emphasized that non Christians cannot achieve salvation through their own faith systems but must convert to Christianity
John 14:6: Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Von Balthasar
He argued that the Church should not go into hiding in the modern secular world or present a watered – down version of the Christian message in order to appease people of other faiths or of no faith.
*Instead it should be able to stand out in the open and be courageous in its claims that salvation is to be found only in Christianity.
there is salvation in no one else – acts
Augustine
Grace is what saves humans and thereby allows them into heaven. Election refers to God’s choosing to grant grace. St Paul calls grace a “gift” which we cannot ‘take credit’ for earning (Ephesians 2:8). That suggests that getting into heaven is not something that human beings have the power to achieve.
Dominus iesus,
the church makes it clear that the position of pluralism undermines the unicity of the church.
the catholic church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions
- many consider the catholic position actually as inclusive, not exclusive, because it recognises rays of truth in other religions. this indicates ambiguity in the model of inclusive/exclusiv
Barth
a good example of this ambiguity is found in Karl Barth. Although writing in Calvinist exclusivism traditions, he departs from it and even challenged the UAE position.
Protestant Theologian can be seen as an exclusivists thinker (however never used the term to describe himself)
*Barth believes that people cannot know God through their own effort but that God chooses to reveal himself through Jesus (living Word of God) , the Bible (‘witness’ to the revelation of God) and the Church (spreading the gospel so that everyone has a chance to respond).
considers the teaching of the trinity as uniquely christian and it ‘fundamentally distinguishes’ it.
*God can only be known through Christ and cannot be found through human efforts, however sincere people might be.
However - the holy spirit opens us to accept christian truth, but there is no restriction on who it opens. so barth considers the church to be anyone who lives by the holy spirit and thus he may be inclusive.
criticisms of exclusivism
RAE has been the cause of Christian imperialism ,conflict and suffering.
Christianity has persecuted others for not having their version of the truth, fought wars against non-believers and been used by states to convert and control others.
See in American colonialism
Undermines other cultural tradition/faith
RAE Presents god as unjust
those who through no fault of their own have not received god.
UAE Lacks consistency
because other religions may have ‘rays of truth’ which are sufficient but these are not sufficient outside of the church
Hans kung-only look to others to presuppose truth of own
Wrongly judges pluralism - when it actually recognises god’s love for all creation and all humanity’s ability to enter the beatific vision
Barths Exclusivism often vague
barth’s emphasis on the unknowable nature of god leads to incoherency. it is not satisfactory to conclude that we can’t know, and it undermines all attempts to compose a theology of religions
Rahner
structural inclusivism: karl rahner
the SI position is that any religion whose structures develop an openness to god’s grace in jesus may receive salvation
Christianity is unique: founded on God’s ultimate act of revelation through Jesus = is the ‘absolute’ religion, setting the standard by which other religions should be measured.
However this view seems to exclude anyone who:
*Lived before Christ
*Anyone that has never heard about God’s revelation through Christ.
*This exclusivism does not seem inline with God’s omnibenevolent nature
*Some people do not hear gospel
*However once someone hears about Jesus then they must become a Christian in order to be saved, as there is no longer an excuse for rejecting the gospel.
Heidigger
existential openness to grace
Rahnner was influenced by martin heidegger, from whose analysis of the human experience, rahner argues that:
all human knowledge is limited and finite
because it is finite, humans have to accept that they can only have an unconditional ‘openness’ to existence
this ‘openness’ suggests all humans, even subconsciously, desire grace and salvation
the final assertion is like calvin’s claim that humans have a sensus divinitatis. but really what rahner is arguing is that deep down all humans are aware of their mortality and limitations, and it prompts them to think about their existence, and encounter gods grace
Implicit and explicit knowledge
See how cannot prove we encounter god
However Religions implicitly support this claim when they encourage us to behave selflessly, lovingly and charitably
Structures create an openness, grace seen explicitly in Christianity as main means of salvation
Anonymous christians
Anonyomous Christian
Abraham, Moses and Job never experienced the teachings of Jesus yet they were aware of the Grace of God.
Such people Rahner calls ‘anonymous Christians’.
They do not call themselves Christians (they have not be baptised, go to church or read the bible) but in the decisions they make and the attitudes they adopt, are turning to Christ without knowing it.
Rahner develops aquinas’ notion of the votum ecclesia, that wanting grace by faithfully following a non-christian religion is sufficient for grace.
not all other religions are equally legitimate. for a religion to be lawful, it must be judged by the quality of salvation it offers.
Rejects Catholics church’s exclusivism
- he cites Paul’s story about the temple to the unknown god made by the Athenians as the basis for his argument that although they worshipped what they could not see, this is the god that Christians know explicitly through Christ
D costa
D’Costa created a version of inclusivism that built on the doctrine of the Trinity.
He said that to claim that you can only know God through Jesus is binatarian and ignores the role of the Holy Spirit. To be truly Trinitarian you must recognise that God can be known through the Holy Spirit.
D’Costa says that Jesus is fully God but God is not fully Jesus. Wholly God but not the whole of God. He uses the word Christomonism for the idea that Christ is the only way to God.
D’Costa thinks that Christians can learn from non-Christian religions.
– It is not just that these religions reflect things already known in Christianity. God is revealed in them in a way which might actually add to the Christian understanding.
–D’Costa says that the revelation of God in Jesus is normative but not exclusive. The process of revelation is ongoing and there is always more to learn about God
D’costa cricticisms
Exclusvism as weak because
Incompatible with God’s love
Ignores the examples of revelation in the Old Testament which occur outside Christianity.
Ignores the importance of moral action and behaviour (as set out in the parable of the sheep and the goats).
Outlines pluralism as weak because
.–pluralism is internally incoherent, because it makes a privileged claim for its own position as the greatest truth
– Hick’s claim could only be sustained if all religions were re-interpreted, thus requiring that all religions conform to his demand that they abandon ultimate ontological convictions
– There is no such proposition as pluralism, it is technically a disguised form of exclusivism – sees on authoritarian truth above all
Lumen Gentium
“[Through] no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or h
is Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and loved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience… these too may achieve eternal salvation.
Inclusivism criticisms
RI is not much different from UAE, it is really exclusivist but respects some other ways toa christain salvation
Rahner makes Christianity imperialist and offensive to non-Christians,
-as if he is telling them ‘you might think you’re Muslim but really you’re Christian deep down’
-it might be more accurate to say that Christians are anonymous Buddhists, has a biased view
Undermines Exclusivism
-he has focused too much on brace independent from Christ, putting the principle of sola Christus behind a general experience of god
-it is unbiblical
-the fides ex audit principle clearly says it is not possible, and salvation also requires repentance and admission of sins, how can they do this?
he has misused the votum ecclesia,
-because it requires a conscious desire, not a desire of something when they don’t even know what it is
-are anonymous Christians better of just not being Christian? is it not better to have not heard the gospel than to reject it?
Kung
Catholic inclusivism actually undermines dialogue.
genuine & sincere non-Christians would find it ‘presumptuous’ to be labelled an anonymous Christian
It is a ‘theological fabrication’ designed to give a surface-level positive spin to the traditional Catholic claim that outside the Church there is no salvation - (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).
Broadens definition of inside the church to involve all who are morally good
John Paul 11s inclusivism is damaging
Aim to learn and find value in interfaith dialogue
Is paradoxical – Only value of other religion is to presuppose the truth of their own
‘deep respect’ and ‘dignity’ as hollow
As believes god has merely placed some Christian truth in other religions
unitary theological pluralism
-John Hick
Whilst working in Birmingham, he was impressed by the faith and service of his fellow Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims.
essentially the same kind of thing is taking place in them as in a Christian church – namely, human beings opening their minds to a higher divine Reality,
For Hick, this raised a serious question: Would the God of love really deny such people salvation?
*Hick suggested a need for what he called a ‘Copernican Revolution’ in theology.
*Copernicus caused a huge shift in the way scientists of his day understood the universe by proposing that the earth was not the centre but one of many planets orbiting the Sun.
Kant and the an-Sich:
In Kants work nomuenal reality is a thing in itself – Ding-an-sich in German
Hick sees that not all religions are theistic.
finds a solution in kant’s distinction of noumenal and phenomenal knowledg
Argues that although religions are phenomenally different, noumenally they are referring to the same underlying an-sich, or the Real.
wittgenstein, religious experience and ‘seeing-the-world-as’:
Phenomenal-nomuneal relationship is seen through religious experience
The An-sich or reality doesnt reveal itself to humans
but rather we experience it in culture
using Wittgenstein’s analysis of language we see that expressing this experience is ambiguous, find truth in individual langauge game, but share in the religious language game as a whole
Hick refers to the drawing of a duck-rabbit illusion to show how come see it as a duck and others as a rabbit. the an-sich is subject to the same ambiguity
Thus the ‘brahman’, trinity and ‘tao’ are all the same.
Keith Ward – pluriform theological pluralism
argues that there are many reals experienced in different religions, nor one underying real as hick argues as no one religion has a definite knowledge of the real, each religion has its own authentic salvation, liberation and knowledge.
Accepts differences but keep them equally valid.]
since knowledge is gained through re and not revelation, there cannot be competition for the truth
as experience changes in any religion, so does its truth claims over time.
Knitter - ethical theological pluralism
paul knitter developed ETP -the view that all humans share a soteriological aim of liberating humans from injustice, suffering, intolerance and falsehood; so all religions and soteriocentric. his argument is that because all religions understand soteriology in different ways, dialogue can be especially fruitful.
- inspired by the method of liberation theologians, especially with praxis in dealing with social injustice. knitter argues all religions have the same aim for justice and caring for others.
- the purpose of theology is to provide the means by which they can share their perspectives
- dialogue will enhance and develop each religion’s interpretation of reality.
Criticisms of Pluralism
hick’s UTP is a form of exclusivism. his UTP claims a superior position of knowing the real and judges other religions by this.
-pluralisms promotes an imperialist global power-based ideology just like exclusivism used to
Undermines cultural beliefs - by suggesting particular religious claims are myths, pluralism destroys beliefs. global theology has no specific content.
- undermines the sola christus. christian pluralism tries to avoid special beliefs about christ, which makes it un-christian from a controlling-beliefs point of view.
- undermines traditional christian ideas on salvation. is it enough for people to seek moral liberation, or a better understanding of reality?
hick builds UTP on a Kantian basis but why should Kantianism be superior to truth from religions independent of Kant?
hick’s use of Kant leads to agnosticism, Kant never proposed the an-sich with certainty like hick does, whom points to an unownable higher reality
UTP presupposes that all religions have a sense of the real but Buddhism rejects this, while others say their god is the ultimate reality
although it is right to judge religions by their moral outcomes, this is a restrictive notion of religious claims. this is true of ETP which claims all religions only care about praxis and social liberation
Hume
Denies objective fact -All religions cannot be true however since they make contradictory truth claims. Either Jesus was the son of God or he wasn’t. If he was, Christianity is true. If he wasn’t, then Judaism or Islam could be true. Hindu and ancient Greek/Roman religions believe in multiple Gods, whereas the Abrahamic religions believe in just one
Hick responds that they can all be right. He argues that those particular theological details such as the divinity of Jesus or number of Gods believed in are part of the ‘conceptual lens’ that different cultures project onto reality
Pannikar
Pluralism Without Relativism
- affirms pluralism without attenuating the particularities of Christian faith.
God makes himself known to humans in a variety of ways. Humans need to be open to wherever truth may be found.
- opposes different types of truth or the idea that different religions all represent the one truth
- did not claim to have uncovered a truth about how religions should relate to one another.
Inability to know a universal truth
He believed in openness rather than making any claims to know what ‘the truth’ is or where it might be found
*He came from a mixed family: Father – Indian Hindu, Mother - Spanish Catholic
“I left Europe as a Christian, I discovered I was a Hindu and returned a Buddhist without ever having ceased to be a Christian.”
New York Times
Taught that the divine was mysterious and you discovered truth by living it.
This includes choosing actions with a vision of harmony
Our opportunity and obligation is to speak and to listen, so that heart will speak to heart across and by means of our differences.
Everyone has an experience of God (even the secularist, especially the secularist) and that everyone seeks God in the form of some absolute
Absolute is known in a concrete way or absolute embodiment
Mystery of the divine
*He emphasised the mystery of the divine without destroying different cultural traditions and diversity
- You find your religious identity by losing it not holding onto dogmatic ideas.
- He believed it was necessary to respect the freedom of God to work in ways beyond our understanding and attempts to define it.
The divine does not fit into man-made doctrines.
- Ultimately pluralism is a spiritual position not an intellectual one.
- To relativize faith is intellectualizing destruction that reduces the living God to an object.
