3 thoughts on “Our Attitude Towards Peoples of Other Religions

  1. Presently, there are three typical positions from traditional scholarly point of view. They are: exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. Exclusivism claims exclusivity of Christianity, and has three non-negotiables: unique authority of Jesus Christ, the historicity of death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and salvation only possible through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. This is a hall mark of oldest salvation history scheme. It is sometimes called “particularism,” even though particularism has a different connotation in a pluralist’s view. There are varied positions: extreme particularism or hard restrictivism, traditional particularism, or agnostic particularism. Fundamentalist Christians are close to extreme particularism, and agnostic particularism is sympathetic to inclusivism. Inclusivism affirms the first two non-negotiables, but allows flexibility on the third. Inclusivists allow the universality of God’s love, but they are not universalists. Universalists believe that everyman will be save one way or another because “God loves the world.” Many of the early church fathers and Vatican II are in line with inclusivism. The last position, pluralism, rejects all three non-negotiables, and says that all religions lead to salvation. Universalism has a close bearing to pluralism. There is a new position called “evangelist’s position” proposed by Charles Van Engen. This position says we should be a particularist faith-wise, a pluralist culturally, and an inclusivist ecclesiologically. This position was devised to fill the gap needed in evangelism and mission, and laudable thing to have such a position.

    However, I am not happy with any of these positions. They are not the position of Jesus Christ or Apostle Paul. All these are based on human logics, and are not based on grace. God is perfect love and at the same time perfectly just. Love and just is completely contradictory concept, yet that is what God does. I strongly believe that we should study the attitude of Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul in order to establish our position in stead of the “man-made” positions that so many scholars are writing about.

    Frank

  2. You describe several positions with which you are not satisfied. What is yours? It seems none of them address the question of what is your attitude toward peoples of other religions.

    The world does not have a unified voice or opinion. The western world (and probably most of the eastern world) views religion as a classical personal freedom. That is, I support and respect your personal religious choices, as long as they don’t unduly impinge on my personal freedom. I can think of only one major modern religious demographic which officially holds the opposite view: my religion is ‘right’ and I’ll force it upon you, whatever it takes. In this case, I support the majority view (not the latter).

  3. Frank N, you made an interesting comment, and expressed also an intersting view on religion, “a classical personal freedom.” I feel that Christians (maybe similar in other religions as well) should be personally touched by what Jesus Christ did and is doing for him or her above all things. Karl Bach calls this as “existential encounter with Christ.” In an easy common language, Christians’ heart should be completely absorbed into the life of Christ just as we do when we watch our favorite story or movie and cry with the main characters of the story. Therefore, we can follow Jesus joyously without compulsion. The basis of all this is the grace Jesus provides.

    All the present positions are judgment based: who can be declared “saved” based on their faith and deeds. Jesus and Paul never had this kind of attitude towards unbelievers or Gentiles. If Jesus judges people based on the modern scholarly theories, no one can be saved (we are condemned because of our sins). Jesus is God, but He did not use that fact to force his views upon us. If we examine His life style, He was humble as He (the second person of God) came down as a man, and chose the cross voluntarily for our sake. He had many training tours with His disciples so that His disciples may LEARN! His attitude was like a mother who nurses babies. Paul was similar:”I fed you with milk, not solid food” (1 Cor. 3:2) – this is an analogy for mother’s nursing, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” – he accommodated all people (1 Cor. 9:22). On the other hand, Jesus never sinned in His short personal life, and Paul is not likely to have committed many sins once he had been converted. To say it summarily, Jesus and Paul had the attitude of grace and humility towards the peoples of other faiths. They were strict against them, but forgiving and accommodating towards other people.

    My personal position is that I want to go much beyond the exclusive or particular positions for myself, but I want to be nurturing or accommodating towards others. I feel that this can be only done when I truly believe that God is with me and for me. Also because I am only a mere human being, I should be ready to learn from others. This last point could be the difference between Jesus and me (including all people + Paul).

    I made a long argument. I want to be nurturing and humble towards peoples of other faiths. I want to be strict against me but accommodating and understanding towards peoples of other faiths. I know I can do this because God is for me. I am ready to learn better things that peoples of other faiths do, if they do something better than I do, and incorporate into my Christian life. I would like to call my position NURTURING position.

    Frank

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.