Religious Pluralism & Theology Flashcards
Theology of religions
The branch of theology that examines the status of different religions in relation to each other
Gavin D’Costa agues the necessary (Required for something to be the case) & sufficient (It is enough for something to be the case) conditions for salvation depend on the ‘controlling belief’ of a specific Christian community or tradition. Different Christian responses might be;
Belief in one good is necessary, but it is not sufficient for salvation (belief in JC is sufficient)
Belief in JC as Gods son alone is necessary and sufficient
The six controlling beliefs that D’Costa references includes;
Sola Christus: Gods grace is only possible through Christ
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus: Salvation is not possible outside the church, as it is the continuing mediator of Christs presence on earth
Eschatology: God promises a future state of bliss after death for the elect & damnation for the wicked
The particular controlling beliefs depend on what tradition a person belongs to.
Restricted access exclusivism (RAE)
Often considered to be the most traditional version of the theology of religion, the controlling beliefs place emphasis on the sinfulness of human nature & sola Christus. Salvation is only possible through directly hearing the gospel (fides ex auditu) & accepting baptism into the church
‘Jesus said ‘… No one comes to the Father except through me’
For those who have not heard the Gospel before (Before the coming of Christ/living in a non-Christian culture) it may seem impossible for them to receive salvation. Superficially this may seem contradictory for a just & loving God to condemn a soul just due to the circumstances of their birth.
Calvinists argue that if humans are inherently sinful, then God is under no obligation to save anyone. He is a just & loving God so there are some he does elect because of their virtuous & devoted lives
Most other denominations tend to support the doctrine of limited election & double predestination, at the most extreme - the antelapsarian divine decree (God selected those for heaven & hell at creation)
Some contemporary scholars justify the criticism that double predestination limits human freedom & the purpose of faith by appealing to the middle knowledge argument, which states that although God is omniscient & humans have free will, God knows all that will happen. Therefore, it would be possible for God to know who would receive the Gospel had it been preached to them - including those who had not heard it.
Universal access exclusivism (UAE)
A key difference between RAE and UAE is that when St Paul wrote ‘in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself’ the RAE interprets ‘the world’ to mean the elect, whereas UAE considers it to mean everyone.
‘God our Saviour, who desires everyone to be saved’
UAE is supported by Roman Catholic & Protestant theologians. The problem posed is if God intends for universal salvation, how are those born before Christ/in non-Christian societies to be saved if they lack fides ex auditu;
Preparation: The following qualities might be considered good preparation for a person to receive the Gospel when it is finally preached to them; living the moral life according to conscience & natural law; practice & devotion to god (through a non-Christian religion); having a sensus divinitatis
Life after death: In Hell/purgatory a person may encounter the Gospel & accept Gods redemption in Christ
Importantly, most UAEs distinguish between universal salvation and universalism (The belief that God will restore the whole of the world to perfection; rejects the belief that hell is eternal) because there can be no salvation outside of the church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
The Roman Catholic Church
The official teaching is that there is every reason to be respectful & non-judgemental of non-Christian’s religions as they often ‘reflect a ray of that Truth’ these religions lack the necessary controlling beliefs as defined by the Catholic Church & be means of salvation. In Dominus Iesus the Church makes it quite clear that the position of theological pluralism undermines the churches unicity & the ‘fullness’ of Christs salvation.
Many consider the Catholic Churches position to be inclusive as it recognises the rays of truth in other religions
Karl Barth
Barths discussion of Christianity is a good example of exclusivist/inclusivist ambiguity. Although writing in the Calvinist exclusivist tradition there are many points where he departs from the RAE position & challenges the UAE position. The heart of his argument is that God may only be known and relevant himself to those who he chooses. From this point Barth appears to support the RAE position, supported by his passages on if Gods truth can be found outside of Christianity.
One interpretation of Barths arguments is that as only Christian revelation is true then the truth claims of non-christians should be ‘abolished’
To support this further, Barth considers that the teaching of the trinity is uniquely Christian - no other religion expresses God in this way, Christianity alone has exclusive access to this knowledge
But others offer a different interpretation of Barth as that of a UAE or an inclusivist, disagreeing that the word translated to mean ‘abolished’ actually meant transformed. They argue that Barths meant that Gods revelation transforms all religions, including Christianity, because all religions are human attempts to understand God, and none can claim to know the truth of God.
Structural inclusivism (SI): Karl Rahner
Any religion whose structures develop an openness to Gods grace may receive Gods salvation. Rahner argues that;
All human experience of knowledge is limited and finite, therefore humans have to accept that they can only have an unconditional openness to existence. This openness suggests that all humans, consciously or unconsciously have a desire for salvation
This is reminiscent of Calvins claim that all humans have a sensus divinitatus. However, Rahner is arguing that deep down all humans are aware of their mortality & limitations and this prompts them to think about the nature of existence. When they reflect on this, they realise that existed is something deeply mysterious, which is the unfathomable experience of Gods infinite grace - the source of existence
It is the relationship between explicit & implicit knowledge which characterises Rahners theology & alows him to explain the nature of salvation before/after Christ, the relationship between non-Christian religions to Christianity & the inculpably ignorant
Anonymous Christianity
Refers to any religious institution which through its structure values & practices is a means of grace, eg ancient Israel (in the OT). Although the incarnation occurred at a particular time & place among a particular group of people, its significance was a universal and timeless expression of Gods active place. The absolutism of Christianity must be questioned as the idea that God does not wish everyone to be saved is not compatible with experience of grace & Gods love for creation
Based on this, Rahner develops Aquinas notion of votum ecclesia (wanting or desiring to be a member of the church, Aquinas used this to refer to those who died while wishing to be baptised, while Rahner uses this to refer to anyone who faithfully follows their religion, who is therefore a member of the invisible church)
However, not all non-Christian religions are equally legitimate, they must be judged by the quality of salvation that they provide.
Anonymous Christian’s refer to people who are open to Gods grace, but are not Christian
For Rahner, the church cannot be an exclusive community, but has an important role in bringing the teachings of Christianity to the wider world
Restrictive inclusivism
Argue that although God made provision for individuals who have not heard the gospel, but respond positively to natural law, conscience and true elements of their religion, they do not consider a non-Christian religion to be salvific, merely a preparation for salvation.
Unitary theological pluralism (UTP)
John Hick aimed to develop a global theology (an overarching pluralist philosophical & theological framework to aid understanding between world religions). Hicks emphasis is on developing a natural theology;
Not all religions are theistic, Hick found the solution to this using Kants epistemological distinction between noumenal and phenomenal knowledge. Hick uses the distinction to argue that although religions are phenomenally different, noumenally they are all referring to the same underlying an-Sich (aka the real)
Hicks test for all authentic religions uses Kants categorical imperative test for moral behaviour, Hick argues that all authentic religions are those which uphold the categorical imperative & treat one’s neighbours as themselves
Hick then had to show where & how Christian theology has adapted for the present age;
The revelation emanates from God, not Christ. Hick suggests that Christianity should be theocentric, and not Christocentric. The task of theologians is to reinterpret the doctrines as myth, not fact
Hick provides reasons why Sola Christus should be abandoned, such as Jesus being the son of God was meant to be a metaphor to show how close he was to God, but over time this myth has been objectified
Christianity should rid itself of exclusivist doctrines, such as the ones from Nicaea, so that Jesus can be appropriated by other religions and take on his social teachings, as a contribution to the world
Pluriform theological pluralism (PTP)
Argue that there are many reals, as they are experienced by each religion as no one religion can have a definite knowledge of the real, each religion has its own particular authentic version of salvation (or liberation).
Keith Ward argues that sometimes we just have to conclude that beliefs between religions are different and conflicting, but reasons for them can be equally valid
Ethical theological pluralism (ETP)
Paul Knitter developed ETP based on the view that all religions shared a soteriological aim of liberating humans from suffering, injustice, intolerance and falsehood; all religions are soteriocentric, not reality-centric. His argument is that because each religion understands soteriology in different ways, dialogue between religions can be especially creative and fruitful, developing distinctive interpretations of reality.
