26

Jun

pluralism

Posted by Matt  Published in church, failure, theology

For starters, I should lay out my beliefs on heaven/hell. I’m not a literal interpretation guy, I don’t think that there is actually a lake of fire that souls will burn in eternal conscious torment. I believe there is such thing as separation from God, but don’t necessarily think that the choice has to be made here. I think I’ll be spending quite a bit of time with some Hindus, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, members of many other religious in the life after death, and as Wright terms it “The life after life after death.”

Now that that’s out of the way… I’m not a pluralist either, at least not a religious pluralist. In fact, I’m downright against religious pluralism, at least in the sense that there are many ways to heaven. Let’s face it, the notion that any way is OK is a complete crock of contrived bull manure. I think there is only one way to heaven, or the New Earth after heaven (again if your an N.T. Wright fan), I think the whole “Way, Truth, and Life, No one comes to the Father but by Me” thing is true.

So to recap- I think that pretty much everyone gets to be in “Heaven” but I think the only way to “Heaven” is Jesus. (Please forgive my use of the quotes around Heaven, that whole issue is murky) So to repeat myself, I am not a religious pluralist.

Now, in case you missed it, a recent Pew Study shows that 70% of Americans (please note it says Americans here, not Evangelicals) believe that there are many paths to heaven (Religious Pluralism), and “57% of Evangelical Christians were willing to accept that theirs might not be the only path to salvation.”

This is actually bad news to me. In my opinion, we need to understand other religions, work with other religions, learn from other religions, but fully understand that Jesus is the only way to into “Heaven.” Some may say this is a good thing, and I hope they are saying it because it shows that Evangelicals and Americans in general are more accepting of other religions, but we need to understand that deeper than that acceptance is what appears to me as a weakening of our religious understandings.

I don’t want to come across as Fundamentalist or even Evangelical here, but I do what to emphatically state that we need to understand that if we believe the narrative of the Bible to be true, than Jesus is the only way of restoration, and that way is not narrow in the sense that not many people will be allowed through (as some Bible thumpers beleive) but is narrow in the sense that it is the only way.

Forgive me for the repetition, but I take this issue quite seriously, and I feel like it just shows another way that the church as we know it is failing to provide any sort of solid theology for the laeity to understand the gravity of “salvation theology.”

(HT: Blake Huggins)

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
email2friend

Tags: , , ,

  • "I think that pretty much everyone gets to be in “Heaven” but I think the only way to “Heaven” is Jesus."

    could you unpack the nuances of that statement a little? how exactly does that relate to other religions, if as you mentioned, hindus, muslims, etc. will be in "heaven?" obviously, they aren't christians, but still in some way attain salvation. how so?

    this may actually have more to do with christology than soteriology. i'm not sure. i'm wondering if its some sort of inclusivist position, perhaps related to something like karl rahner's "anonymous christian" concept.

    thanks for the link, btw.
  • obviously, they aren’t christians, but still in some way attain salvation. how so?
    Well, I'd say that the choice isn't made final here on Earth, or at least here in this life. I would qualify myself as a universalist more than an inclusivist, and I do draw a distinction between the two.

    And I hope I'm not stepping on your toes taking a somewhat contrary position to your own, I just felt like I needed to state out my opinion on the whole deal.
  • Hi Matt. In both places where Jesus talks about wide and narrow gates, he explicitly links the notion of the narrow gate with not many people finding it, or not many people managing to go through it. And indeed, he says that the other way leads to destruction, whereas the narrow way is the way of salvation. Now, those terms aren't necessarily aligned with what you're talking about, but the topics appear similar enough that I want to make an automatic link.

    I think there's a lot to be said for celebrating truth with all who find it, and that many will find the way of Christ without knowing him, or being able to articulate the gospel in the way that an Evangelical would. And the passage in Luke 13 seems open to all sorts of meanings, so I don't want to hold onto one too tightly. I like your "narrow as in particular" rather than "narrow as in inaccessible" interpretation, but I don't think the text allows it.
  • @Andrew- That's embarrassing point, but your right. I either have ignored, or forgotten the second part. It appears I'll have to wrestle with those passages.

    If only this were as easy as I was taught. Thanks for pointing out the error though! :)
  • i've had a hectic weekend and haven't had a lot of time to make follow ups like normal. i apologize.

    no worries dude. i just wanted to get a feel for where you were at. i enjoy this kind of dialogue.

    so if i'm understanding what you're saying correctly: everyone will end up in heaven (or whatever, it is) but because jesus is the only way, salvation is made universally possibly through him regardless of whether persons claim to be christians.
  • hmm. apparently i'm "blakeq" now. i'm tired.
  • Wow, I'm an awful blogger, how could I let that question sit out there for a nearly a week?
    You've got the essentials of how I view the issue, that's a broad swath way of looking at it. Honestly, I'm still working through it, I'm just not as focused on eschatology/soteriology as whats going on in the here and now. (Again sorry for the length between the question and answer).
  • no worries man. i've been pretty busy myself. i think it's good to still be working through it. in fact, i think we should always be working through it. your emphasis on the present is admirable too. sometimes i wonder how much thought (if any at all) is actually but into the practicality of doctrines -- like those concerning eschatology and soteriology and so on -- for persons' praxis in the here and now.

    my main concern (and i'm not saying you hold this position) is when that is taken too far, resulting in christian triumphalism and even worse, christian religious imperialism. now, personally, i have problems with the word pluralism myself because it has a certain connotation, like you bring up, that anything goes or that all religious beliefs are basically of the same value and worth.

    i'm just worried about the larger implications of any particular religious metanarrative -- because all religious narrative are culturally and socially conditioned -- and what tends to happen when that thought is pushed its full breadth.

    if that makes sense at all.
  • J.Horne
    Matt, I'm wondering primarily what biblical evidence you draw from to hold to a more Universalist approach (particularly the whole "decision after death" thing)? As a Calvinist, I disagree on many levels (as you probably guessed), but some of your thoughts are so left field I am genuinely curious as to what prompted them.
blog comments powered by Disqus