Theologies of Religious Pluralism
INCLUSIVISM
Religion
has played a major role in creating cohesion among the people. It is an established fact that a
religion binds together members of the same faith or community but at the same
time it separates people of a particular faith or community from the members of
other faiths or communities. In a pluralistic society it challenges
Christianity towards theology of religion. It attempts to account theologically
for the diversity of the world’s religious quest and commitment in a dynamic
approach. This paper deals with one of the significant threefold typology[1] in
religious pluralism i.e. inclusivism
and its model (method) from renowned theologians.
The
term “inclusivism” comes from the idea of including the other; it covers many
possible methods and justifications for an attitude of including others in
one’s faith or belief. Inclusivistic approach of any religious community
towards others has much to do with willingness to include the other or
something of the others.[2] According
to The New World Encyclopedia the term Inclusivism is ‘characterized by the belief that while one set of belief is absolutely
true, other sets of beliefs are at least partially true.’[3]
Inclusivism speaks continuity between other faiths and Christianity or it sees
Christianity as the fulfillment of what is looked for or hidden or being
prepared for in other faiths.[4]
The inclusivist view has given rise to the concept of the anonymous Christian
by which is understood an adherent of a particular religion whom God saves
through Christ, but who personally neither knows the Christ of the Bible nor
has converted to Biblical Christianity. This position was popularized by the
Roman Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner (b. 1904).
Johann
Figl in his ‘Inclusivism in New Religious
Movements’[5]
explains three types of inclusivism.
(a) Essentialist-mystical: A central thrust from the foreign religion
to be identical with something central in the home religion from which
differing forms of religion have all derived.
(b) Historical-revelatory: The home tradition is the last and most
ultimate of a series of historical revelations, so that other religions are
judged as good but provisional and surpassed by the superior home religion
(c) Inclusivistic universalism: This form of inclusivism seeks a common
essence among the religions in question, but the difference is that no one
previously existing religion serves as the frame of reference for inclusion;
rather in this kind of inclusivism, all traditions are supposedly relativized
and transcended in favor of a newly articulated, mystical spirituality.’
(1) Private
inclusivism: Private inclusivism contends that one who is accepted by God
apart from the preaching of the Gospel is saved in spite of whatever religion
to which he may be an adherent.
(2) Corporate
inclusivism: It argues that the non-Christian religions mediate the work of
Jesus Christ.
Further, some of renowned scholars postulate other types of inclusivism by means of projecting their models such as: Strategic model (Robert De Nobili), Fulfillment Model (J.N.Farquhar) and Anonymous Christianity Model (Karl Rahner). These types (model) of inclusivism will be discussed in detail in the following pages.
In India
Nobili was known by the Tamil name Tattuva
Podagar Swami. He came to India as a missionary in 1605 and in January 1606 he went to Cochin and from there
he went to Pearl Fishery Coast where he stayed there for six months than in
November 15, 1606 he visited Madurai. After a year he changed his residence and
dress, and became an Indian sanyasi and founded a Madurai mission.[7]
Robert de
Nobili started the new methods of evangelism by adopting many Brahmin customs
which were not, in his opinion, different to Christianity, so that the gospel
is made relevant. He used a strategic
model in his mission. His goal was to win India through its natural
leaders.[8]
When he was
in Madurai he observed that the Sadhus are respected in the society, and he
assumed the robes of a Hindu sadhu. He then began wearing saffron robes and
carrying a kamandalu (a water jug) like Brahmin monks.[9]
He first
became an expert in Tamil, and eventually, he was able to convert twelve
Brahmins. Because the main concern for him was to win the heart of the Brahmins
in Madurai since he considered their conversion as the better way of carrying
out the mission in India. He also shaved his hair and kept a tuft, white dhoti
and wooden sandals to look like a typical Brahmin priest of the time. It is
also said that he wore a three-stringed thread across the chest just like
Brahmins. He claimed the three-stringed thread represented the Holy Trinity of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[10]
He
encouraged the converts to retain their caste and other traditional practices,
because he believed that all these practices are nothing to do with the faith.
This sense of cultural accommodation attracted many converts from a higher caste
Indians.[11]
J.
N. Farquhar[12]
model of inclusivism is called ‘Fulfillment
Model’. He developed all these ideas
in his book ‘The Crown of Hinduism’. According to J. N. Farguqar ‘Christ, the Son
of God actually becomes man, shares our pains and sorrows, our temptations and
moral difficulties, and lives under the same conditions as we do. Thus, Jesus
fulfills the Indian thought He is the realization of the Indian ideal; but in
this case, as in every other, the reality sent by God is far better and more
wonderful than the imagination of man’.[13] Because Jesus Christ fulfills the Old
Testament, other scriptures, and faiths, so, the concept that Christ was of
fulfillment arose from his teaching, life, and death, both the law and the prophets
found their fulfillment. So Farquhar argues that it could be a great advantage to
Christian thought if it were found possible to use came conception to other
religion and peoples.[14]
Drawing
the similarities of Jews and Hindus as – both regard their people are holy,
religion is God-given and literature as divine, both have temple worship with
fixed laws, its priestly caste, its animal and vegetable sacrifices, its
rituals, its liturgy, also the Jews has its law so also the Hindu has dharma as
a rule of conduct with regard to birth, marriage, death, food, purification. [15]So,
recognizing that Hindus do right in following Hinduism until the great light of
Christ reaches them. Thus, there is a case in favor of the use of the principle
of fulfillment.
For Bibliography--CISRS-
The Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society
5. K. Rahner
Vatican II was influenced by the contribution of the
German Jesuit Karl Rahner (1904–84) (although the Council did not go as far as
Rahner when it came to see other religions as being capable of saving their
members). Rahner’s approach is related to his anthropology. Rahner thinks that
all of humanity is related to God because the presence of God is already deep
within the unconscious. Paradoxically, it is more natural for a human person to
be ‘supernatural’ than it is for them to be purely natural. The Spirit of God
is already in close communion with every human being.[16]
Additionally, God’s presence in a human person is already ahead of the person’s
self-awareness. In an analogy that Rahner uses himself, it is as if God is the
‘horizon’ that is the point of reference that guides our understanding and
apprehension of the world. It lurks at the background of our perceptions, even
in the encounter with everyday things. Our ‘supernature’ naturally reaches
beyond our perception of ordinary things. This natural ‘supernature’ is
intimately connected to God’s universal presence. Rahner’s word for this
presence is ‘grace’, by which he means God’s ‘self-communication.[17]
Rahner’s understanding has emerged from his reflection on what it is to be a
human being rather than his encounter with other religions in particular. Along
with seeking to present the universal aspect of God’s revelation, Rahner wishes
to stress the particular aspects. Although he wants to reconcile the
exclusivistic expression of Christianity with God’s universal love for all
humankind, he is clear that this universal aspect is explicitly revealed in
Christ. He is committed to a Trinitarian perspective: thus, the God encountered
in other religions is not the God of the philosophers which is an abstract
deity; rather, it is the Christian God. Rahner organizes his thinking around
four ‘theses’ which set out his inclusivist position. In the first thesis, he
states his foundations: ‘Christianity understands itself as the absolute
religion intended for all men, which cannot recognize any other religion beside
itself as of equal right.’[18]
As with the Protestant thinker Karl Barth (1886–1968), Rahner begins by clearly
stating his commitment to Christianity as ‘absolute’. This is an important
starting point for Rahner because it identifies that his theology of religions,
however expansive and universal in other respects, remains rooted in a firm
commitment to the normativity of the Christian revelation. However, Rahner adds
the caveat that we must also consider the fact that Christianity has a
historical starting point. Thus, he writes: ‘Nevertheless, the Christian
religion as such has a beginning in history; it did not always exist but began
at some point in time.’[19]
Despite Christianity’s absolute status, those who lived before Christ as well
as those who are currently outside the historical or geographical scope of the
proclamation of the gospel are not necessarily understood to reside in total
darkness. Thus, Christianity is a ‘historical quantity’. Although the
revelation of Christ is absolute, this revelation is set in the context of time
and place.[20]
Rahner’s second thesis contains the most important details concerning his inclusivism: Until the moment when the Gospel really enters into the historical situation of an individual, a non-Christian religion (even outside the Mosaic religion) does not merely contain elements of a natural knowledge of God, elements, moreover, mixed up with human depravity which is the result of original sin and later aberrations.[21] It contains also supernatural elements arising out of the grace which is given to men as a gratuitous gift on account of Christ. For this reason, a non-Christian religion can be recognized as a lawful religion (although only in different degrees) without thereby denying the error and depravity contained in it. he describes lawful religions as legitimate institutional forms that can be used by people at certain periods of time and represent a ‘positive means’ of entering into a relationship with God. Rahner goes as far as to state that lawful religions are vehicles ‘for the attaining of salvation, a means which is therefore positively included in God’s plan of salvation.[22] Thus, as we indicated earlier, he sees religions as salvific and it is this that separates his inclusivism from other more cautious types which, while acknowledging that people may obtain salvation despite being members of other religions, hesitate when it comes to recognizing the religious structures themselves. Rahner does not embrace non-Christian religions in an undiscerning way. In this sense, he is only suggesting that salvation in other religions is possible, not necessarily guaranteed. Thus, he is clear about the mixture of light and darkness, grace and sin that exist in religion.[23] As religions possess ‘grace-filled’ elements they are recognized as already containing the presence of God and the gospel encounters them in that condition. Rahner’s third thesis argues that we should see a member of a non-Christian religion as an ‘anonymous Christian’.[24] This anonymity is connected to Rahner’s ideas about our basic humanity as supernatural. If ‘grace’ is present in all of creation and anonymously in other religions, then we might think that this makes the Church redundant in Rahner’s inclusivist scheme. Nevertheless, consistent with his picture, Rahner sees the Church as the peak of the grace that is already present everywhere.[25] So, in his fourth thesis, he speaks of the Church as the ‘historically tangible vanguard and the historically and socially constituted explicit expression’ of the full revelation of God. Indeed, once the fullness of the gospel is heard, anonymous Christianity should be transformed into an explicit profession of Christian faith. Rahner does not consider anonymous Christianity to represent an adequate substitute once the gospel has been encountered and understood.[26]
Inclusivism is the view that people actually appropriate God’s gift of salvation only on the basis of Jesus Christ’s atoning work, but that the sinner need not explicitly believe the gospel in order to actually receive this salvation. Inclusivism teaches that Christianity is the only true religion (including the belief that Christ is the only Savior of men), but that this salvation could be made available through means other than explicit faith in Christ. The inclusivist believes that adherents of other religions and even atheists can be saved by responding to God’s revelation in creation or through the elements of truth contained within their non-Christian religion.
Conclusion
From the standpoints of Inclusivist all are saved on account of the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the conscious faith in Jesus Christ is not absolutely necessary. The proponent of this view, embraced the diversity of the World’s religious quest and commitment, a diversity which shows all signs of continuing to exist. Inclusivism argues that explicit knowledge of Christ is not necessary in order for one to be saved. Inclusivism holds that an implicit faith response to general revelation can be salvific. However, the biblical perspective of salvation and its dogma is our standpoint [as a group]. As D. A. Carson in his book ‘The Gagging of God’ states that the idea of inclusivism needs an evangelical postmortem to dissect the biblical dilemma of salvation and faith principle. We should cultivate a biblio-centric Christian faith and be a responsible Christian witness in pluralistic context.
[2] Lalji Chacko, Christian Response to Multi-Faith Issues
(Kolkata: SCEPTRE, 2016), 96.
[3] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Inclusivism#Christianity. Access on
15/11/18
[4]Christopher J.H.
Wright, “Theology of Religion,”
Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions (Manitoba Education, 2007), 952.
[5] Johann Figl, “Inklusivismus in Neuen Religiösen
Bewegungen,” in Inklusivismus: Eine
indische
Denkform, ed. Gerhard Oberhammer (Vienna: De
Nobili Research Library, 1983), 135.
[6] Ken Keathley, “None Dare Call It Treason: Is an
Inclusivist a Paul Revere or a Benedict Arnold?” in Journal for Baptist Theology
and Ministry, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Fall 2003): 101-114.
[7] S. Rajamanickam., Robert de Nobili on Indian Customs (De Nobili research institute: Palayamkottai, 1972) iv.
[8] Laji. Chacko, Christian Response to Multi-Faith Issues (ESPACE: Kolkata, 2016) 108.
[9] Laji. Chacko, Christian Response to Multi-Faith Issues (ESPACE: Kolkata, 2016) 108.
[10] C. Joe Arun. Ed., Interculturation of Religion: Critical Perspectives on Robert de Nobili’s Mission in India, (Asian Trading Corporation: Bangalore, 2007) 6.
[11] C. Joe Arun. Ed., Interculturation of Religion: Critical Perspectives on Robert de Nobili’s Mission in India, (Asian Trading Corporation: Bangalore, 2007) 2,3.
[12] Farquhar was
born in Aberdeen, Scotland, in 1891 he arrived in India as a lay educational
missionary for the London Missionary Society.
[13] J. N.
Farquhar, The Crown of Hinduism (London: Oxford, 1920), 433.
[14] Kaj Baago,
Pioneers of Indigenous Christianity (Bangalore: CISRS, 1969), 177-178.
[15] Ibid., 178.
[16] David Cheetam, “Inclusivisms:
Honouring Faithfulness and Openness,” in Christian
Approaches to Other Faiths edited by Alan Race (), 45.
[17] Cheetam, “Inclusivisms:
Honouring Faithfulness and Openness,” 50.
[18] Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, translated
by K. H. Kruger (New York: DLT and Seabury Press, 1966), 120.
[19] Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 118-119.
[20] Cheetam, “Inclusivisms:
Honouring Faithfulness and Openness,” 50.
[21] Cheetam, “Inclusivisms:
Honouring Faithfulness and Openness,” 51.
[23] Cheetam, “Inclusivisms:
Honouring Faithfulness and Openness,” 52.
[24] Cheetam, “Inclusivisms:
Honouring Faithfulness and Openness,” 52.
[25] Rahner, Theological Investigations, vol. 5, 131.
[26] Cheetam, “Inclusivisms:
Honouring Faithfulness and Openness,” 53.
.jpg)