‘Theological pluralism undermines Christian belief.’ Discuss.

This essay is an excellent example of how to write a full-mark answer. It has a clear thesis statement, an excellent juxtaposition of scholarly views (see how John Hick is woven into the argument), and the argument is signposted with analytical link words and phrases like ‘furthermore’, “however’, “moreover”, “in conclusion”. Note also that asking questions in the opening paragraph is an excellent way of interrogating the question itself to make sure you answer it. 40/40 A* PB

As a theological pluralist believes that Christianity is but one path of salvation among many, is it really possible to accept that the two words ‘Christian’ and ‘pluralist’ can go together? Or, can pluralists who call themselves Christian be seen as having left the historic Christian faith in favour of a new form of spirituality which has nothing to do with the Bible, the creeds and the views of the Church? This essay will make the case that pluralism actually strengthens Christian belief, when the term ‘belief’ is defined more broadly than ‘dogma’ to include the ideas of faith and experience. It will do this by exploring the views of John Hick who sees the foundations of pluralism as in religious experience and contrasting these with inclusivist and exclusivist approaches to salvation and truth.

It could be argued that pluralism has nothing to do with Christianity because the major denominations of the Church agree on the doctrine of Council of Chalcedon in 451CE that Christ is unique among all humans – and all religions – for being the incarnation of God, one person with two natures, human and divine. Belief in Jesus as the God-Man is found widely across denominations in theology, statements of faith and hymns (consider the words of ‘O Come All Ye Faithful’). Furthermore, Jesus Christ came to offer salvation through his death on the cross to all human beings (I John 2:2). Therefore, to say that other religions offer a path of salvation is to deny Jesus’ universal status and thus, to deny the most important doctrine of Christianity. This is, in fact, heresy and explains why pluralism has been officially condemned by the Roman Catholic Church as well as by the majority of Protestant Church bodies.

The idea that Christian faith rests on the Chalcedonian formulation ignores the fact that many people were considered to have been Christians prior to 451CE. The Bible contains no clear statement of the ‘two natures’ and therefore it may be wrong to make this doctrine the standard for all Christians to believe. In addition to this, the doctrine of the two natures has never been explained – it is merely an assertion of the Church, a compromise in a larger and complicated philosophical discussion that may have surprised the historical Jesus.

John Hick says that there is an alternative way to think of Jesus than the ‘two-natures’ approach. Jesus could be considered someone who achieved a very high degree of God-consciousness, so much so that he became an example and inspiration for others. This means that a Christian can be led to God through Jesus without having to believe, literally, in the creeds. A Christian can therefore be open to the idea that figures in other religions could have achieved God/Reality consciousness. What makes them a Christian rather than, for example, a Buddhist, is not the uniqueness of their doctrine, but the fact that they came to a deeper understanding of life through Jesus rather than through the Buddha. If ‘belief’ is thought of in terms of experience rather than doctrine, then Christianity would not be undermined – according to Hick.

Of course, Christians who believe in the historic creeds could reply that while Chalcedon’s views may not be explicit in the Gospels, they are implicit – these ideas grew out of the real experience of the disciples with the miraculous life of Jesus. Therefore, it is no mere accident that it became a central doctrine of Christianity. Furthermore, the fact that Hick uses terms like ‘Ultimate Reality’, ‘divine reality’, and ‘transcendent reality’ alongside the term ‘God’ means that he has really departed from Christianity and its more definite view of a Trinitarian God.

The Catholic Church, for example, believes that there is a direct path from the Bible to church traditions and traditional beliefs about the nature of Jesus. For centuries ideas about salvation were expressed in an ‘exclusivistic’ way (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus – outside the church no salvation), though more recently theologians such as Karl Rahner have accounted for the fact that there are God-fearing individuals outside of the ‘household of faith’ in both the Old Testament and New Testament (Rahner spoke about those who worship the ‘unknown God’ in Acts 17; there is also Jethro, the Centurion at the cross, and others) so that is it more accurate to say that God ‘includes’ in the salvation of Jesus even those outside the church who are faithful to the truth that they know. He calls these ‘anonymous Christians’ to indicate that they are considered by God as Christian even though they are not aware of this. Of course inclusivism, like exclusivism is centred on the belief in Jesus as the unique God-Man who saves the world.

John Hick raises several challenges to these viewpoints. First, there are issues with the miraculous beliefs about Jesus’ life according to modern historical research. However, to focus only on these questions is to miss the fact that belief in the miraculous nature of Jesus is an expression of how important Jesus was to the disciples. Jesus opened up for them an experience of reality that was new, a less self-centered way of life that utterly changed them, gave them purpose and a sense of mission about sharing the love of God. Surely
 it is this experience that is at the heart of Christianity? In terms of having a more vague view of God, isn’t it true that God is a mystery? So, to define the word ‘God’ precisely would mean that we are turning God into an object of human enquiry.

Furthermore, if we say that an experience is at the heart of Christianity, then Christianity is more about having an authentic experience rather than believing in the ‘right things’. In fact, Christianity should be thought of in this way: individuals who are inspired by Jesus to have less of a self-centred life and more of a God-centred life. This person comes to know Jesus through their encounter with scripture, tradition and the Christian community – but it is not these things, but their experience, that should remain central.

After all, isn’t so much discord in the world the result of experience being hardened into teaching which then becomes further hardened into absolute doctrines? This then leads to people feeling ‘right’ and seeing others as ‘wrong’ which, in turn, fuels hatred, segregation and violence. We would all be better off, says Hick, by basing Christianity on our experience of Jesus and being open to the idea that those in other religions can have equally valid experiences which can also lead to less self- centred lives.

Of course, Christians who are root their beliefs in the Bible and tradition may object that this way of thinking can lead to an ‘anything goes’ philosophy. For instance, does this mean that all religions are automatically ‘good’? What about a religion that worships the devil and engages in all sorts of anti-humanitarian practices? Furthermore, the religious pluralist ignores that there are other Christian paths that can recognise goodness and wisdom in other religions – as well as hope that non-Christians will also make it to heaven. These paths do not require that Christians surrender what is truly unique about their religions, the incarnation of the God-Man Jesus.

However, there are a number of assumptions in these points that the pluralist could take issue with. First, Hick does not believe that his views are relativistic: you can judge a religion, but not on its doctrines alone. Rather, they can be judged on how well they enable people to be less egocentric. Therefore, a religion which has anti-humanitarian practices can be judged as less God/Reality centred than other religions. Furthermore, an inclusivist approach can be seen as patronising: ‘you have some truth, but I have more and better truth’. Is that really an attitude that is in line with the biblical mandate to love our neighbours?

In conclusion, it has to be recognised that most churches simply do not consider it possible to be a Christian and a religious pluralist. However, this does not mean that there are not religious pluralists sitting on the pews in those churches. Therefore, the reality ‘on the ground’ may be different than official Church views. When the word ‘belief’ is defined merely in terms of traditional dogma then, certainly, Christian pluralism can be argued to undermine Christian belief. However, when belief is seen to include the idea of ‘faith’ and the kinds of experiences that lead to an inspired and ethical life, then pluralism actually can be seen to strengthen Christian belief.