Introduction
When
beginning the study of pluralistic theology, the author realizes her study has to
be in the context of this question from Goodman, as written in his article Religious Pluralism, “What should it
mean to us that others cherish beliefs and norms unlike our own?”[1] Historically this question has always been
posed to her as ‘What can you do to make them cherish OUR beliefs and norms?’
This created a conflict of emotion and made the continued research hard on the
author. It was difficult to look internally at the black and white world of ultimates
in which she resides. Pondering ideas like “an admission of fallibility,
especially about ulitmates, is never out of place.” [2] This
examination is excruciating.
How does a hybrid evangelical, desiring a
ministry in a world of differing opinions, make peace with her core beliefs and
maintain an open eye and heart to all others core beliefs? Peace between the two might seem contradictory
at first glance, since after all evangelicals “evangelize” and that seems to be
contrasted by the inclusive nature of the pluralist. However, this paper will
strive to show that Pluralism, encompassing inclusivism and tolerance, is not
in fact a theology but a philosophy of religious existence. The philosophy of
pluralism is by nature able to co-exist with any theology or religious practice.
It is the conclusion of this writer that this balancing act between the
philosophy of pluralism and theology is the very foundation of successful
evangelism.
Common Terminology
The
basis of this paper is the belief that there is a basic difference between
philosophy and theology. In order for
readers to follow the train of thought of the author, defining theology and
philosophy and the practice of each will be important.
Theology
The
first examination will be Theology. Definitions of theology all center around
the idea that it represents the totality of the study of a god and his relation
to the world. When examined this way it
is clear that all world religions that believe in a higher power that can be
defined as “god” can and do possess a theology.
Theology can then include all the pieces of the system of religion that
explain god and his relationship to man, which leads to the development of
attitudes about the rites and rituals that are used to express these
beliefs. This very broad definition of
theology allows for an enormous amount of variety in the domains of theological
study.
Theological Practice
Since
theology is the system of study of God and his relationship to the world, then
theological practice is the system of practice that develops from the
study. Specifically this would include
the rites and rituals that are a direct response to the credos and statements
of faith that are generated by the study of God. These rites and rituals are
personal interpretations of the generalized themes of the study of the specific
line of theology. They represent the faith that the practice places in the
theological definitions of God. They are not the essence of the belief system
but are a direct outpouring of the human emotional nature in response to the
belief in a supreme being. Some of these practices are prescribe by the
writings of the theologians, historical importance or requirement by god for
those who follow him.
Philosophy
Philosophy
is the body of thought that encompasses the knowledge and experience in a
specific area. It is the examination of
thought and experience to explain the natural world and our response to it. It
represents the body of thought that determine what is truth and how to live
based on that truth. While at the
surface it may appear to be the same as theology. I propose that philosophy is
the foundation of theology. It is the questioning that arrives at the logical
conclusion from observing nature that there is a higher power. This statement of truth that there is a
higher power then requires the creation of a theology about how it interacts
with the world. The philosophy breeds the theology by questioning the nature of
the world and our experience of it. Diogenes Allen states it well when he says
“because theology could not exist as a discipline without the kind of
intellectual curiosity which was unique to ancient Greece.” [3]
Unlike
theology there is not practice to philosophy as it is simply the collection of
the experience and knowledge in a specific area. For example, one does not practice a
philosophy of pain, but might possess a philosophy of pain that incorporates
both knowledge of how pain occurs and personal experiences with pain. But there
is a defense of philosophy and the truth held in a particular philosophy. At
the core of philosophy is the desire to remain open to question of truth. This
ability to question the truth and open up to new ideas sets philosophy apart
from fundamentalist theology which deals with moral absolutes and absolute truth. These absolutes make practice and defense
necessary for the theology practitioner while openness and inclusion necessary
for the philosopher.
Theology or Philosophy
Now
that there is a common definition between reader and author, we can begin to explore
and classify the two systems of thought.
Evangelicalism Theology
Evangelicalism theology finds its”
roots in reformation as well as the awakenings of the eighteenth century.”[4] The theology is characterized by adhering
to historical doctrines and can be interchanged with the term fundamentalist in
some sectors.[5] Key
to the doctrinal beliefs of the evangelical are the inerrancy of scripture, the
trinity and the “disciplined and faithful presentation of the Gospel to those
who have not yet named Jesus as Savior and Lord.”[6] The
gospel is defined by evangelicals as the redemptive price paid by Jesus on the
cross for all who have partaken in original sin at birth, and the subsequent
rising from the dead on the third day.
This sacrifice and redemption are satisfaction of the demand for justice
by a holy God. Clearly when one looks at the characteristics of the evangelical
and the practice of evangelicalism it falls in the realm of theology and not
philosophy. The basis of all evangelical
belief is the presence of God and his interaction with the world.
Evangelicals have an inherent
understanding that the theology offers only one way to God and restoration of
relationship with the maker. This
inability to accept other forms of truth is another affirmation that
evangelicals are not philosophers but in fact theologians. They believe that as
part of the reconciliation of the individual to the God of the universe there
should be a change in the way of life of the new convert. This is response is
seen also in the commandment to then go in to the world and share the basic
theology of Jesus and his redemptive act.
The evangelical will often refer to this as the great commissioning and
refer to Matt 28:28 as the commissioning statement from the historical religious
writings.
Pluralism
This
brings us to pluralism and the question of theology or philosophy. The definition of pluralism can be allusive
so here it will be defined in context of those who have spent time writing and
documenting the nature of the pluralist view. Lenn Goodman begins by stating
partially what pluralism is not. She
states “sharp divisions between faith and practice are often artificial and
unnecessary for a wholesome pluralism.”[7] Her she gives us the first element of
pluralism which is unity of all beliefs where there is tolerance without
division. Her thoughts come from the writings and thoughts of Plantinga who was
a proponent of beliefs resting in argument and that belief must be separate
from practice.[8] Paul Knitter lists two ideas that
characterized the pluralistic view. First is the placing of value on diversity.
“We have come to realize that ‘manyness’ is part of the way things work in the
universe,”[9] Secondly,
he encourages an awareness of the danger of absolutes. “Absolutes are dangerous
because by their very nature, they squelch diversity.”[10]
Knitter concludes that in actuality all religion points to truth but is not
truth.[11]
Fridlund
takes a slightly different tone in defining pluralism. His supposition is that it is possible to
“allow for positive consideration of other religious ends” while making “a judgment
in favour of one road towards a particular goal.”[12] This coincides with the thoughts of Richard
Mouw who states. “we have become quite polytheistic in a very fundamental
way…quite capable of moving back and forth between diverse, and inconsistent,
worldviews…”[13] All of these ideas lean
toward a welcoming of thought that is diverse and require that one be open to
altering our version of the truth as we know it currently. This is classically
the ideology of philosophers.
Clearly
we can see that theology of evangelicalism is different from the philosophy of
religious pluralism. But it is equally
clear that pluralism cannot be a theology as it is inclusive of all truths and
the idea that truth could possibly not exist.
As Heim points out “Neither is it possible to adopt one of them (another
ideology), and at the same time keep one’s own original one. We cannot act
concurrently on two different orientations, even if we understand both of them
to plausible.”[14] Which brings us to the
idea of balance between philosophy and theology and living in co-existence
between evangelical theology and pluralistic theology.
Defining Balance
Creating
balance will encourage evangelical Christians to “think about the ways in which
philosophical reflection can strengthen the Christian community in its life and
witness.”[15] The ultimate goal of
balance is to be able to effectively practice the beliefs of the evangelical
Christian in a pluralistic world. This implies that the responsibility for
balance lies on the shoulders of the evangelical Christian and must fall in the
realms of two worlds. Absolute truth and
conviction on the part of the evangelical Christian and tolerance of the
diversity of truth in the world.
Truth
When
talking about truth with an evangelical, in regards to evangelism and the pluralistic
world, the church has often created a scenario where the adherents to evangelical
theology must “convince” others of the absolute truth as they know it. The
careful examination of the scripture shows that this is not the intent of the great
commission. The bible clearly states that the life of the believer should reflect
the redemption of the sacrificial Jesus in his/her life in such a way as to
create a desire for the other to glorify God.[16]
Unfortunately, the Christian church has tried to “force” others to glorify God.
But John 6:44 clearly shows us that none
comes to Jesus but that the Father draws him.
When following the great commission it is clear that evangelicals go
awry when they try to create an absolute truth for those around them and deny
the power of God to bring the increase in the kingdom. Grace is not of
ourselves for ourselves or for anyone else.
Grace is God’s to give for His glory. Evangelicals who adhere to this
absolute truth do not feel the need to eradicate other ideas of truth. Instead
they, like philosophers, embrace the chance to exchange and share their truth
knowing that God will bring increase in the world because He never allows the
word to return void.[17]
Tolerance
If
we compare evangelical faith to building a house then we can see that Muslim
faith then might be building a bridge, while Hindu faith might be arranging an
elaborate feast for friends. Each taken on its own is a worthwhile endeavor
given a specific set of circumstances.
The ultimate question then becomes does one want to build a house, a
bridge or host a party. If you
ultimately want a house then building a bridge or a hosting a party might be an
interesting but lesser goal. But once
one is valued as of highest value, the others cannot be the same value and must
be discarded as a path toward the goal of building a house. “This means that
another religion can be considered a true and valid path to the religious fulfilment
IT (emphasis the author’s) seeks, even though it is not necessarily considered a
valid path to the end sought by one’s own tradition.”[18] It
must be left up to the God evangelicals seek to serve to help others make the judgment
that building a house is of higher value than building a bridge or hosting a
party.
John
Hicks is quoted by Goodman as saying, “Despite the fact that I reserve the
right to believe things not believed by Muslims, I leave it to the Muslims to
decide what is and what is not essential to Islam.” [19] This is the crux of tolerance. It is more
than entertaining the differences of others but reserving judgment of what is
or is not important to them while holding fast to what is of utmost importance
to you. Philosophical discussion creates opportunity for the evangelical to
better understand the personal elements of his/her faith. This “openness takes seriously the value of
diversity.”[20] It teaches us “how to speak our own Christian
language without jeopardizing a capacity to learn to speak other religious
languages.”[21] After all this is how Paul commends the
follower of Christ to live, being all things to all men. [22]
Conclusion
In
summary, we must be unwavering in what we believe but open to what others
believe thereby being all things to all men in order that He may save some.
When we practice this tolerant, non-violent sharing of our absolute truth, “People
will know where we stand and what we are for.” [23] In
the end will be do no harm to anyone either physically or verbally and will
honor the creation of God in all of His people regardless of the truth they
believe. Upon finishing this paper the
author is relieved to realize that her faith is intact and that pluralism and
post-modernity are not the death toll for the evangelical but in fact the
essence of the gospel. After all God
desires that all men be saved up understands that the very humanness of our
nature will prevent this choice in some. Evangelicals must realize that the
only have one choice for their own lives and that all others must chose for
themselves alone. The beauty of the response to the gospel is that we each are
called to “work our own salvation”[24] and
are not responsible for the salvation of others.
[1] Goodman,
Lenn Evan. “Religious Pluralism.” Political Theology 13, no. 4 (2012):
463.
[2] Ibid,
461
[4] Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014,
653.
[5] Ibid, 653.
[8] Ibid,
459.
[9] Knitter,
Paul F. “Christian Theology in the Post-Modern Era.” Pacifica: Journal of the
Melbourne College of Divinity 18, no. 3 (Oct 2005): 324.
[10]
Ibid, 324.
[11]
Ibid, 328.
[12] Fridlund, Patrik “A More
Pluralistic Pluralism?” Svensk missionstidskrift 93, no. 1 (2005): 48-9.
[14] Fridlund, Patrik “A More
Pluralistic Pluralism?” Svensk missionstidskrift 93, no. 1 (2005): 46.
[15] Mouw, Richard J.
“Evangelicalism and Philosophy.” Theology Today 44, no. 3 (1987): 334.
[16] Matt
5:16
[17] Isaiah
55:11
[18] Fridlund, Patrik “A More
Pluralistic Pluralism?” Svensk missionstidskrift 93, no. 1 (2005): 48.
[20] Knitter,
Paul F. “Christian Theology in the Post-Modern Era.” Pacifica: Journal of the
Melbourne College of Divinity 18, no. 3 (Oct 2005): 326.
[21]
Ibid, 328.
[22] I
Corinthians 9:19-23.
[23] Knitter, Paul F. “Christian
Theology in the Post-Modern Era.” Pacifica: Journal of the Melbourne College of Divinity
18, no. 3 (Oct 2005): 333.
[24] Phil
2:12.
