What is Catalyst?
Four issues of Catalyst are mailed each academic year to some 5,000 UM theological students in more than 100 seminaries in the U.S.A.

AFTE
Catalyst is a project of A Foundation for Theological Education (AFTE).

What is the John Wesley Fellowship Program?
Each year AFTE awards up to five John Wesley Fellowships to assist gifted United Methodists in their doctoral studies at the finest universities.

Back Issues
Several back issues of Catalyst are now available on-line.

Subscriptions
Subscription is free for UM seminarians, and is available to all others for $5 per year.

THE SCANDAL OF CHRISTIAN SALVATION AND RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Religious pluralism is a fact. Hindu religions, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are some of the more familiar religious traditions inhabiting our world. Consciousness of religious pluralism has escalated in North America in this century with the increase of travel, the improvement of communication, the acceleration of immigration, the advancement of international trade and world-markets, the alliance of political entities, and the proliferation of a relativistic-multicultural worldview within education. Any religious tradition that endorses a particular goal, a particular path to reach that goal, and a concomitant claim to universal validity can expect to offend the sensibilities of most thinking persons in this pluralistic-relativistic-multicultural climate.

The God of Israel and Jesus Christ, however, dares to offend human rationality by structuring the entire soteriological drama upon what J.A. DiNoia calls “a particularistic claim to universality” (The Diversity of Religions: A Christian Perspective [Catholic University, 1992] 75-82). The particular-universal structure of salvation is paradigmatically narrated in the Hebrew Bible by God’s call of Abram (who represents a particular nation, Israel). Abram is the particular individual through whom God has chosen to bless all families on earth (Gen 12:1-3). Likewise, the particular-universal structure of salvation is reflected in the NT by the claim that the life, death, and resurrection of a particular individual, Jesus of Nazareth, constitutes the ground for the possibility of salvation for all humanity. The proclamation of “the particularistic universality of salvation” (DiNoia) in Jesus Christ was no less offensive in the first century than in our own. Herein lies the origin of Paul’s shorthand characterization of Christian preaching as “the scandal of the cross” (Gal 5:11). Paul learned from experience that preaching “Christ crucified” was “a stumbling block to Jews” and “foolishness to Greeks” (1 Cor 1:22-23). It is no wonder, then, that Calvin, Kierkegaard, Brunner, and others emphasize that “scandal” is intrinsic to Christianity.

The particular-universal soteriological structure is not unique to Christianity. Other religious traditions teach that there is only one ultimate aim, that this religious aim can only be attained by specific means, and, concomitantly, that this religious aim and means applies universally to all people. For example, Buddhists teach that life is characterized by suffering and suffering originates in human craving. As a result, the only way to stop suffering is to stop human craving by detaching ourselves from what we desire. The state of existence achieved by detaching ourselves from our desires is called Shunyata (or Nirvana). Shunyata is the ultimate aim of human existence. The only way to reach Shunyata is by the eightfold path, which is composed by right views, right intentions, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. In order to attain Shunyata, one must exercise tremendous “self-power” and devote oneself to rigorous meditative and strict ascetic practices. This is best done by taking refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha. Mahayana Buddhists insist, “‘There is only one Way’, the Lotus Sutra says again and again, ‘not two or three.’ All human beings are to achieve Buddhahood through the same Great vehicle, Mahayana. No class or group is disqualified; there are to be no separate categories, such as the Hinayana and pseudo-Mahayana sects distinguish, for those of different social status or individual capability. No matter what means men [sic] avail themselves of, all find their ultimate fulfillment in the single, universal Way of Mahayana (W.T. de Bary, ed., The Buddhist Tradition: In India, China and Japan [Vintage, 1972] 314). The particular-universal soteriological structure found in Buddhism is as scandalous as that found in Christianity.

Some within “the pluralistic theology of religions” group seek to remove the scandal of the particular-universal structure of salvation. Religious language, it is said, depicts human consciousness, not objective reality. Hence, purely formal and generic conceptions of “God” and “salvation” are offered as better ways to understand religious diversity. John Hick, for example, maintains that there is an ineffable reality standing behind all the various symbols, images, and forms of transcendence. Hick calls this ineffable reality “the Real.” He argues that if the same generic reality stands behind the various conceptions of “the Real,” then one would expect that the various human responses to “the Real” would manifest generic features as well. As a matter of fact, Hick claims that “...the generic concept of salvation/liberation, which takes a different specific form in each of the great traditions, is that of the transformation of human existence from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness” (An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent [Yale University, 1989] 36). It is Hick’s judgment that all religious traditions do equally well in transforming persons from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. He therefore concludes that Christianity does not have definitive knowledge of God and that Jesus Christ does not constitute the unique basis for salvation.

Hick’s pluralistic hypothesis is fraught with problems that render it implausible. First, if “the Real” is ineffable in the strictest sense, how can Hick know that the various depictions of “the Real” point to the same transcendent reality? Second, it is reasonable to conclude further that if we cannot know that the same generic reality stands behind the various human projections of “the Real,” then we cannot reasonably know whether the various paths to salvation/liberation lead to “the Real.” Third, S.M. Heim correctly points out that pluralists like Hick fail their own test of plurality because they insist that the diverse religious aims and means to reach these aims are in reality pointing to the same aim and means under the guise of different symbols, images, and forms of language (Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion [Orbis, 1995]). Consequently, Hick simply replaces the scandal of the particular-universal soteriological structure found in Christianity with his own western-intellectual version of the scandal.

Exclusivists, on the other hand, have been the custodians of the Christian scandal. Exclusivists can be Catholic or Protestant. They are typically represented, however, by Neo-orthodox, Evangelical Fundamentalist, Charismatic, and Pentecostal theologians. Not all Exclusivists speak with one voice and many make modifications of classical Christian theology. Yet, most would affirm this definition given by RH. Nash: “Christian exclusivism can be defined as the belief that (1) Jesus Christ is the only Savior, and (2) explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. The first claim denies that there are or can be other saviors, a fact that distinguishes it from pluralism. The second claim denies that people may be saved without conscious and explicit faith in Jesus Christ, which sets it apart from inclusivism” (Is Jesus the Only Savior? [Zondervan, 1994] 11-12). Exclusivists base their views upon the authority of Scripture, the insufficiency of general revelation, and the primacy of Christian mission and evangelism.

I agree with Exclusivists that Jesus Christ is the unique Savior, but disagree that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for final salvation. First, many Exclusivists make exceptions for persons who are mentally-challenged and for children who die before making a conscious decision for Christ. Second, many Exclusivists also concede that some persons before the time of Christ were made righteous by faith without explicit faith in Jesus (Hebrews 11). Third, Exclusivists fail to acknowledge that the Bible itself is not entirely negative toward peoples from other traditions. For example, some prophets reprimand and shame the Israelites for forgetting God and mock that the nations honor God more than they do (e.g., Ezek 5:5-8; MaI 1:11). Fourth, the NT does not take as dismal a view of general revelation as do some Exclusivists, who argue that the only function of general revelation is to condemn people to hell without excuse (B. Demarest, General Revelation: Historical Views and Contemporary Issues [Zondervan, 1982] 246). Instead, the book of Acts has Paul exclaim that God “has not left himself without a witness” to the nations (14:17) and that God is “not far from each one of us” (17:27). In Romans, Paul says that God’s “eternal power” and “divine nature” may be known to all people through creation (1:18-21) and that Gentiles, who do not have the law, may act in harmony with the law because it is “written on their hearts” and “consciences” (2:14-1 6). Hence, while Pluralists err by removing the particularity of the scandal, Exclusivists err by restricting the universality of the scandal. Both groups collapse one side or the other of the soteriological structure of salvation.

A Trinitarian-Inclusivist approach provides a more balanced view of the particular-universal aspects of Christian salvation, for it is grounded in a vertical exclusiveness (= the Triune God) and it is manifested in a horizontal inclusiveness (= extends to all people). The Trinitarian-Inclusivist approach accepts the following as premises for further reasoning:

• There is only One True God and Creator of all humanity, who “desires everyone to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4).
• The One True God took the initiative to reconcile and restore fellowship to the whole world through the unique life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:2; Heb 2:9,10:10).
• It is the work of the Holy Spirit to elicit faith and complete the work of reconciliation in universal human history (John 16:8).

Trinitarian-Inclusivist reasoning infers from these premises that the Christian church ought to proclaim the gospel to every person. Furthermore, the fruitfulness of the proclamation of the Word is bound to the subjective work of the Holy Spirit. The question to ask here with regard to religious pluralism is whether or not the Holy Spirit is bound to the Word in the same way that the Word is bound to the Holy Spirit. It is the Trinitarian-Inclusivist view that God’s Spirit is not restricted to the walls of the Christian church, but is active in universal human history. Now if the Holy Spirit is active beyond the Christian community, then God the Spirit is at work among the world’s religions.

It makes sense to conclude, then, that: (1) if God desires everyone to be restored to divine fellowship; and (2) if the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ restored objectively the whole world to divine fellowship; and (3) if the Spirit of God is active subjectively among all people to elicit faith, including adherents of non-Christian religions; then (4) it is possible for those in the world’s religions, who respond in faith to the work of the Holy Spirit, to be restored to divine fellowship with the One True God on the basis of the reconciling work of Jesus Christ.

This is not a sentimental affirmation of unconditional universal salvation. On the contrary, an individual’s salvation is based upon the work of Jesus Christ and their own faith response to whatever light they possess of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Jesus. How can we tell if someone has the Spirit of Jesus in their life? A Trinitarian-Inclusivist will answer, “They will do the things that Jesus did and bear the fruit of the Spirit” (see Gal 5:22-23). The adequacy and coherence of the Trinitarian-Inclusivist approach resides in the fact that it preserves the scandal of soteriological particularity against pluralistic reductionism and it allows for universal access to salvation against exclusivistic restrictions. Only eschatological verification, however, can determine which approach is right. In the meantime, let Christians everywhere heed the words of John the Baptist: “Bear fruits worthy of repentance. Do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our ancestor’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Luke 3:8).

By Kenneth W. Brewer, John Wesley Fellow and Pastor of Oldwick UMC.