March 21
The myth of religious superiority
By Scot McKnightPage:
- 1
- 2
Christian thinkers divide into three groups: one group thinks a person has to believe in Jesus Christ at some conscious level to be saved (exclusivism), another group thinks a person is saved through Jesus Christ but a person who has never heard of Christ may be saved by the light they have received (inclusivism), and yet another group thinks Christianity is one way of salvation, a true way, but there are other ways too (pluralism). There are of course shades and nuances right through this spectrum.
As you read this sketch of Knitter’s pluralism, what is your response? What do you like? Where would you disagree?
Pluralists believe that one religion being superior to other religions is a myth, and in fact often it is said such a belief is imperialistic. A really good example of a pluralist is Paul Knitter, a former Catholic priest who is now at the vanguard of religious pluralism and someone who calls himself a Buddhist-Christian (and professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, and author of Without Buddha I Could Not Be a Christian). To sketch his view, I rely on his own study in Only One Way? Three Christian Responses on the Uniqueness of Christ in a Religiously Plural World (G. D’Costa, Paul Knitter, Daniel Strange). I have never seen such a lucid, brief sketch of pluralism this good, so I will do my best to re-sketch his sketch.
(1) Theology is a mutually clarifying and mutually criticizing conversation between Christian experience and beliefs on the one side, and ongoing human experience and understanding of self and the world on the other side (47-48). Thus, while the New Testament is given authority, it has authority only so far as it elicits and confirms our experience. And theological language is symbolic and never the thing itself.
(2) The singular issues for theology are the many religions in the world and the many poor in the world. Good theology, then, must be liberative and dialogical.
(3) God as Trinity is about our experience of God as one and many. This language symbolizes a “creating” and a “communicating” and an “animating” Mystery as Father, Son and Spirit. God and the world co-inhere, and this is a form of panentheism, in that God participates in everything. Reality is a “cosmotheandric” process — world, God and humans. God is the power of Inter-being. What we call God is Inter-being. We know God through the mysticism of silence (the Other) and the mysticism of service (the other).
(4) Creation is an outpouring of the God who is love, and God could not not have created because love inevitably creates into otherness. So evolution is inherent to God (and here Knitter refers to Teilhard). Sin — he’s not into original sin but into selfishness and social karma — is the corrupting social and cultural reality. What is needed is enlightenment.
(5) “Jesus is the decisive and transforming embodiment of the holy Mystery of love and Inter-being that pervades all of creation” (65). Jesus as Son of God means the disciples, when they met Jesus, met God. Jesus invites others into this relation with God. Jesus as Savior: one model sees Jesus as the Satisfaction (which is against pluralism) but Knitter’s model sees Jesus as the Sacrament (who mediates, makes real, makes known). Jesus is the primary Sacrament for the Christian. Jesus the Risen One means a spiritual event — a subjective experience of an objective event [not defined]. They encountered the Spirit of Christ after his death. Is Jesus unique? Jesus is “truly” Son of God and “truly” Savior but not in the sense of “only.”
(6) The Christian is called to salvation (the mystical experience of being “in” Christ) and justice (the prophetic experience of seeking the Reign of God). For Knitter, the Reign of God is cultural and social and not primarily, or even, ecclesial (church). The distinctiveness of Christian salvation is preferential option for the poor, without denying justice for all (even the powerful).
(7) Church is mission, and mission is dialogue. Dialogue is how the church is missional. The mission of God is bigger than the church, and therefore the church is only part of the mission of God in this world.
Page:
- 1
- 2
Comments
-
I assume most christians (including Mennonites) are inclusivist, in that they believe salvation comes through Jesus, yet they allow that those who never heard of Jesus will be saved (because God would not condemn anyone who never had opportunity to hear).
In my mind it then follows, logically, that missionary work is not only unnecessary but is actually harmful. If folks who are ignorant of Jesus are going to be saved by God's mercy, then introducing them to the Jesus story puts them in immediate peril. Why would good church people want to do that?
By this line of reasoning, missionary activities are actually responsible for damning far more souls than they rescue. Attempting to missionize the ignorant means that, as soon as they are told about Jesus, their eternal status switches from Saved to Lost. Because once they are told about Jesus they must respond positively or be damned. Wouldn't churches do more good by just allowing the ignorant to die in their ignorance, and thus be saved by God's mercy?
In this light, I think mission agencies would be wise to consider suspending all their proselytizing activities, in order to review their methodologies/motivations, and to evaluate the potential negative consequences of their work. For Jesus's sake.
-
I would say we need both conversions and social transformation. Without both occurring together the meaning of the other becomes perverse. To me writers like this are downsizing the nature of God and faith to fit the size of the unredeemed mind.
-
I don't have a huge problem with pluralism per se as an approach to inter-religious dialogue, but I don't think it is the best approach to individual faith. The intricacy and depth of particular theologies - as an expression of passionate faith - is overly diluted by pluralism. In my opinion, this restricts the spiritual possibilities of the individual. Better to follow the "narrow" way of an individual faith rather than try to be all things to all people.
-
Did McKnight compose the headline on this essay? Or was that you, Sheldon? I find it to be inconsistent with the text of the article.
If good theology "must be liberative and dialogical" as McKnight suggests in his second point, and if salvation and being saved is "the mystical experience of being 'in' Christ" and the "cultural and social" experience of seeking justice, as McKnight suggests in his sixth point, then why exactly is it inappropriate to talk about the superiority of one religion over another?
Didn't Jesus call for just such a stance of testing and evaluating when he said, "By their fruits you will know them?"
A question for you, Charlie: you appear to hold to the traditional understanding of "salvation" and "being saved". That is, it's all about securing a blessed immortality. Do I understand you correctly?
-
Berry, both. It is the original headline that McKnight used on his blog. I thought it was appropriate, so I used it. The blog is about pluralism, which as McKnight says, suggests that "one religion being superior to other religions is a myth." He goes on to describe how/why. So yes, I think the headline is appropriate.
-
Thank you for your reply, Sheldon.
I remain perplexed why McKnight would go to the trouble to articulate his seven points if he is of the opinion that they serve no purpose because, you know, we aren't making judgments here and all pathways are of equal value in leading to the Light.
Comment on the blog post The myth of religious superiority
Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download