Tattva-viveka

Religious pluralism in Christianity

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - November 9, 2007 10:49 am

Does any one know John Hick? I found recently his website and I'm really impressed by his articles.

Any toughts?

http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article2.html

Robertnewman - November 10, 2007 7:38 pm

My eloquent two cents: "Wow!"

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - November 10, 2007 10:35 pm

My eloquent two cents: "Wow!"

Yes , that was my first reaction too

I didnt expect such openness from Christian, I had impression that it is purely exclusive (or at most inclusive) religion, but it seem have other branches too, that are more open.

Robertnewman - November 11, 2007 1:03 am

I didnt expect such openness from Christian, I had impression that it is purely exclusive (or at most inclusive) religion, but it seem have other branches too, that are more open.

There is a minority in every religion that is pluralistically minded, but Hick speaks more eloquently and scientifically about it than anyone I have come across before. No sentimentalism there, no "Let's just all get along, shall we?", but a philosophically sound presentation of just why pluralism makes sense. Thanks for providing that link, prabhu. I had heard of Hick before, but never read any of his work. It's a treasure.

Swami - November 11, 2007 3:32 am

For the sake of discussion:

Pluralism may work for getting along in this world, but at the same time it may not serve to foster the important discussion concerning the nature of transcendence and what constitutes a viable means to arrive there. Futhermore, where does one draw the line in pluralism? With regard to its religious application, who is included and who is not? At what point by not including a particular tradition in one’s sense of what constitutes a genuine spiritual path does one cease to become a pluralist? Does Hicks' rejection of fundamentalism on which he takes his stand disqualify him from being a pluralist? Furthermore, Hicks makes certain claims about Biblical language (Son of God) that may not be considered accurate by his peers. If these claims are not accurate, his argument for Christian pluralism becomes nothing more than heresay by Christian standards. There may be good reasons that the Catholic theologins opted for an inclusivist position as opposed to a pluralistic one.

Robertnewman - November 11, 2007 4:34 pm

Pluralism may work for getting along in this world, but at the same time it may not serve to foster the important discussion concerning the nature of transcendence and what constitutes a viable means to arrive there.

How so? Pluralism to me means fundamentally the openness to acknowledge that one's own religion may not be all-in-all, may not exhaust all the possibilities of knowledge and experience of transcendence, and that it's possible that a different religion could have stumbled on a valuable point that one's own has not, or may present certain points in different but useful ways. This openness may not foster the attainment of transcendence (it may even endanger it in some cases), but how could it fail to foster discussion and understanding?

Furthermore, where does one draw the line in pluralism?

Pluralism to me doesn't mean one never rejects a religion; it means one doesn't reject it simply by virtue of its being different, before examining it.

Does Hicks' rejection of fundamentalism on which he takes his stand disqualify him from being a pluralist?

No, because fundamentalism is not a religion, it's an attitude; an attitude which is the opposite of pluralism.

There may be good reasons that the Catholic theologians opted for an inclusivist position as opposed to a pluralistic one.

I think the main reason is self-preservation. The word "catholic" means universal, and to admit that Catholic theology may not be complete and perfect after all would be to admit that the Church is not really universal. I don't think they are ready for that, and I'm not sure they will ever be.

Swami - November 11, 2007 8:13 pm

I think that fundamentalist Christianity is a particular religion with a very defined belief system that says it’s the only way, etc. Thus it is a different religion that that of Hicks. To the fundamentalist Christ is the only begotten son of God. Whereas to hicks he is not so, and for Hicks the whole idea of Christ being the son of God is a misinterpretation of the Bible. I would add that it is likely that many Christians other than fundamentalists would strongly disagree with Hicks on this bit of doctrine and many other points he takes the liberty to interpret as he likes. Personally I agree with him on some of the doctrinal changes he suggests, but I suspect most Christians, including a number of theologians do not. I would, however, tend to defer to those far more learned than myself in Christian dogma as to what Christianity stands for, while I have my own belifs regarding who Jesus is that true docrinal Christians would consider heretical.

I think that Catholics and others gravitate towards inclusivism because the have a strong conviction in the nature of their goal and means to attain it. Hicks touched on this in his article, but asked his readers to look at it from another angle than that of the nature of salvation. His argument here was not entirely satisfying to me.

For him the downside of inclusivism is that it sees other faiths as being somewhat less of a direct route to transcendence or as perhaps leading to a lesser status in transcendence. He did not mention this second point, but coming from a tradition that acknowledges a gradation of trancendent realities I could not resist. Anyway I am not sure veiwing other traditions in this way is such a bad thing. It certainly does not stop one form being generous with other religions and even learning something from them. Realizers on any path have something valuable to say, even of they have not realized everything one seeks for oneself.

Brian Peterson - April 21, 2008 2:21 am

Interesting topic!

I've been attracted to the writings/work of Thomas Merton for several years and, based on what I've read, he seemed to have a very inclusive approach to a variety of spiritual paths. He was a Catholic, of course, so that was his ultimate form of spirituality; however, he studied and corresponded with Buddhists, Sufis, Orthodox Christians, Hindus, etc. He deeply respected these other traditions and, in turn, incorporated some of their teachings/practices into his own spirituality. The older he got he continued to gravitate toward the "East" and even spent his final days in Asia. Overall, Merton has been very inspirational to me in terms of inspiring me to seek out the commonalities we have in the realm of the spiritual aspects of our experience as humans.

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - April 21, 2008 9:23 am

Personally I dont have any specific sentiment for Christianity, but the idea of sincer spiritual seekers in different religious paths seems to me very appealing and heart warming. It shows in my opinion the deep desire of the soul for the spirituality, freedom and real love and this desire seems to be independent of external circumstances. In the same time I like a lot what Swami said in some other topic: "While discussing other traditions we come to find out more about or own, and this may be more beneficial for the spiritual progress of a sadhaka than sentimentally waxing uttama, if you will, and decrying discrimination. An authentic embrace of all spiritual traditions is only really possible for an uttama adhikari Vaisnava. Cultivating such a realization is important for the neophyte and intermediate Vaisnavas, but it must be done such that passion for one's own path is not sacrificed. This is so because it is this passion that fuels one's practice and ultimately leads one to the realized position of the uttama Vaisnava."

Zvonimir Tosic - April 22, 2008 10:12 am

I like a lot what Swami said in some other topic: "While discussing other traditions we come to find out more about or own, and this may be more beneficial for the spiritual progress of a sadhaka than sentimentally waxing uttama, if you will, and decrying discrimination. An authentic embrace of all spiritual traditions is only really possible for an uttama adhikari Vaisnava. Cultivating such a realization is important for the neophyte and intermediate Vaisnavas, but it must be done such that passion for one's own path is not sacrificed. This is so because it is this passion that fuels one's practice and ultimately leads one to the realized position of the uttama Vaisnava."

How can we recognise Mr Shakespeare hiding among many poets?

Just give them to write a Shakespearean-style sonnet and you'll clearly see who is the one.

How can we recognise uttama bhakta?

Just observe how bhakta describes an uttama bhakta. Only uttama bhakta can describe an uttama bhakta so beautifully.

Brian Peterson - April 25, 2008 9:46 pm

Madhavendra, I agree with your positive view of spiritual aspirants from varying paths. I've always felt that God can be understood in different ways, depending on one's background (karma?) and experiences. And why would God leave out entire populations from seeking the truth? But I also agree with your quote of Swami's in that appreciation must be done in a way in "that passion for one's own path isn't sacrificed." My life-long dilemma has been, "What path to choose? They are all so beautiful!" :Talking Ear Off:

Gaura-Vijaya Das - September 16, 2008 11:36 pm

recent violence in india due to conversion activity of Christianity may make it more difficult for evangelist missions to succeed in the current time.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/No_let-...how/3488484.cms

Syamasundara - September 17, 2008 2:40 am

What does this have to do with sanatana dharma? What a shame, they think the problem is the Christians, but it's the lack of sadhus.

Prahlad Das - September 17, 2008 4:40 am

From what I understand, the problem there right now is not just isolated to Christian converts but now to any person of a "converted" status.

Where does that put us? :Batting Eyelashes: