Once again wholly in agreement (though lacking a dog in the fight). I understand the superficial “niceness” of inclusivity and saying that all faiths are valid, but from what I recall of the Bible, Christ is fairly explicit that there is one, and only one, path to salvation; and if you are a Christian (Francis is, right? It can sometimes be hard to tell) I don’t see how you can simply gloss over that. And I’m fairly sure that Islam is clear on its own claims to exclusive truth…
It really depends on how you read that section. Do you take it to mean the historical figure of Jesus, or the eternal Logos? If you adopt the second reading, you can still be a Christian and a religious pluralist.
I think one can be an inclusivist, as far as that paradigm goes, but would count pluralism out, since it requires making a universal truth-claim which overrides all traditional religious truth-claims, the truth claim that eternal Logos is one with the Father among them: a truly pluralist position could not advocate for such a Trinitarian theology, as non-Christians would be unable to subscribe to it. The eternal Logos is not, therefore, compatible with a strictly pluralist position.
This is a stimulating read, Father, but I wonder if your interpretation is slightly uncharitable. I think one can take the moral/metaphysical claims of other religions seriously while being a Christian and a religious pluralist. In a comment, you mentioned FX Clooney, who might be the best model for us in this matter.
Perhaps my interpretation is unclear, but I hope not uncharitable, because what I am trying to argue is that the charitable course is indeed to take the metaphysical and moral claims of other religions seriously, but that pluralism as a doctrinal position is incapable of doing that. As something of an acolyte of Fr Clooney, I would submit that he fits into the inclusivist paradigm rather than the pluralist, and that his laudable methodology of comparative theology - bringing two specific interlocutors into detailed dialogue through textual comparison in the original language - is quite the opposite of any broad-brush pluralist approaches, which instead posit a generalised, extra-traditional super-religion to which everyone is expected to subscribe. Is that a fair summary, and more charitable?
"To say that all religions are 'paths to God' is to say that ultimately, other people’s religions do not really matter, because they are all heading in the same direction anyway."
I bristled a bit. I think one CAN say that other people's religions do matter (and take their claims seriously, as Fr Clooney does) and that they have the same origin and telos, God. I do concede, though, this takes a huge amount of study and is not at all the same thing as the slightly patronising "why can't we all be friends we're postmodernists anyway" pluralist approach that you are responding to.
I would say that other religions may be pathways towards God, but do not think it is possible to say definitively that they all are; that they differ in the extent to which they reach God; that one must allow that some may definitely not be pathways to God, and indeed may lead directly away from Him; and I would acknowledge that defining the validity of religions in reference to God, namely God as I conceive of Him in my specific Christian tradition, is to make a tradition-specific truth-claim which excludes certain others - which means it isn't pluralism.
I wonder how someone like Kanzo Uchimura might see this statement. He, and others of his time, were big on emphasizing the naturally revelation of God to the Japanese people prior to their encounter with/accepting of Christianity. This strikes me as perhaps inclusivist on your threefold scale, but should we write off non-Christian religious experience simply because it isn't Christian? I do sometimes wonder if there better be some generosity in our line drawing insofar as we acknowledge the truth of God reflected in His Creation and experienced by others even if they are not fully aware of Him.
No, we shouldn’t write off non-Christian religious experience, I quite agree. We can frame it in terms of any one of many orthodox approaches: a Calvinist might approach non-Christian religious experience and/or doctrine from a different angle from, say, a Dionysian or Thomistic perspective. Likewise, a Zen Buddhist will interpret Christianity differently from a Shin Buddhist. It gets interesting in the specificity. But what doesn’t work, I think, is the sort of highly general, uncritical assumptions that I’m aiming at in this article. I could follow up with some more positive approaches, such as FX Clooney’s comparative theology method, if that were interesting!
Sounds fascinating! You'll have to fill me in another time as I'm up to my eyes in teaching (BCP seminary course!) and research at the moment. But certainly want to hear your thoughts.
This is a wonderful and thoughtful reflection Father, thank you. As RC myself, I am generally encouraged by Pope Francis' desire to engage the Church in inter-religious dialogue, but I agree that pluralism offers a path to uncertainty which only confuses the soul to its ultimate destination in Christ.
Once again wholly in agreement (though lacking a dog in the fight). I understand the superficial “niceness” of inclusivity and saying that all faiths are valid, but from what I recall of the Bible, Christ is fairly explicit that there is one, and only one, path to salvation; and if you are a Christian (Francis is, right? It can sometimes be hard to tell) I don’t see how you can simply gloss over that. And I’m fairly sure that Islam is clear on its own claims to exclusive truth…
It really depends on how you read that section. Do you take it to mean the historical figure of Jesus, or the eternal Logos? If you adopt the second reading, you can still be a Christian and a religious pluralist.
I think one can be an inclusivist, as far as that paradigm goes, but would count pluralism out, since it requires making a universal truth-claim which overrides all traditional religious truth-claims, the truth claim that eternal Logos is one with the Father among them: a truly pluralist position could not advocate for such a Trinitarian theology, as non-Christians would be unable to subscribe to it. The eternal Logos is not, therefore, compatible with a strictly pluralist position.
Is it true that we are all children of God?
Bravo, Fr Thomas;
This is brilliant.
And thanks for being so respectful: a sweet odour to the Lord without a wiff of _odium theologicum_.
This is a stimulating read, Father, but I wonder if your interpretation is slightly uncharitable. I think one can take the moral/metaphysical claims of other religions seriously while being a Christian and a religious pluralist. In a comment, you mentioned FX Clooney, who might be the best model for us in this matter.
Perhaps my interpretation is unclear, but I hope not uncharitable, because what I am trying to argue is that the charitable course is indeed to take the metaphysical and moral claims of other religions seriously, but that pluralism as a doctrinal position is incapable of doing that. As something of an acolyte of Fr Clooney, I would submit that he fits into the inclusivist paradigm rather than the pluralist, and that his laudable methodology of comparative theology - bringing two specific interlocutors into detailed dialogue through textual comparison in the original language - is quite the opposite of any broad-brush pluralist approaches, which instead posit a generalised, extra-traditional super-religion to which everyone is expected to subscribe. Is that a fair summary, and more charitable?
Ah, I may have misinterpreted you. When you said:
"To say that all religions are 'paths to God' is to say that ultimately, other people’s religions do not really matter, because they are all heading in the same direction anyway."
I bristled a bit. I think one CAN say that other people's religions do matter (and take their claims seriously, as Fr Clooney does) and that they have the same origin and telos, God. I do concede, though, this takes a huge amount of study and is not at all the same thing as the slightly patronising "why can't we all be friends we're postmodernists anyway" pluralist approach that you are responding to.
I would say that other religions may be pathways towards God, but do not think it is possible to say definitively that they all are; that they differ in the extent to which they reach God; that one must allow that some may definitely not be pathways to God, and indeed may lead directly away from Him; and I would acknowledge that defining the validity of religions in reference to God, namely God as I conceive of Him in my specific Christian tradition, is to make a tradition-specific truth-claim which excludes certain others - which means it isn't pluralism.
I wonder how someone like Kanzo Uchimura might see this statement. He, and others of his time, were big on emphasizing the naturally revelation of God to the Japanese people prior to their encounter with/accepting of Christianity. This strikes me as perhaps inclusivist on your threefold scale, but should we write off non-Christian religious experience simply because it isn't Christian? I do sometimes wonder if there better be some generosity in our line drawing insofar as we acknowledge the truth of God reflected in His Creation and experienced by others even if they are not fully aware of Him.
No, we shouldn’t write off non-Christian religious experience, I quite agree. We can frame it in terms of any one of many orthodox approaches: a Calvinist might approach non-Christian religious experience and/or doctrine from a different angle from, say, a Dionysian or Thomistic perspective. Likewise, a Zen Buddhist will interpret Christianity differently from a Shin Buddhist. It gets interesting in the specificity. But what doesn’t work, I think, is the sort of highly general, uncritical assumptions that I’m aiming at in this article. I could follow up with some more positive approaches, such as FX Clooney’s comparative theology method, if that were interesting!
Sounds fascinating! You'll have to fill me in another time as I'm up to my eyes in teaching (BCP seminary course!) and research at the moment. But certainly want to hear your thoughts.
This is a wonderful and thoughtful reflection Father, thank you. As RC myself, I am generally encouraged by Pope Francis' desire to engage the Church in inter-religious dialogue, but I agree that pluralism offers a path to uncertainty which only confuses the soul to its ultimate destination in Christ.