Theological issues in working with people from other faiths.
Introduction
The rapid changes in our world affect every area of life. Changes in technology, taste and public values all impact the way we live and work. Many changes create fresh questions and challenges for Christians to deal with. Discoveries in genetics, the technologies available for euthanasia and the possibilities of life in space all generate very real theological questions for Christians to deal with. There is no reason to be afraid of these challenges. We have confidence that God's Word is sufficient to deal with the problems we face. We learn much from past Christian history. We also strike out on our own as we try to apply the Bible to the unique issues of the twenty-first century.
For much of the twentieth century a key theological challenge has stood out in the western hemisphere: atheism. This challenge has affected all areas of life. In Marxist politics, Freudian psychology and Darwinian biology the common theme of atheism has been apparent. Despite its infiltration into the Church, through the so-called 'death of God' theologies of the 1960s, atheism has normally been seen as a challenge to Christianity. Books have been written and powerful apologetic responses have been delivered. The writings of C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer provided comprehensive critiques of atheism.
However, the world does not stay still. The challenge of the twenty-first century is no longer atheism. Words like 'god', 'spirit' and 'salvation' have a new found popularity. The idea that there is no god seems to be losing ground in favour of a vague notion of a common 'god' behind the diversity of all the world religions. A recent survey has shown that only 4.4% of Europeans claim to be atheists (See Vinoth Ramachandra, Faiths in Conflict, Leicester: IVP, 1999, page 142). However, the remaining 95.6% of Europe are hardly claiming or demonstrating themselves to be Biblical Christians! No, atheism has given way to religious pluralism.
The Meaning of 'Pluralism'
The term 'pluralism' is a slippery one and deserves some careful consideration. In one sense, to describe our culture as 'pluralist' is simply a statement of fact. It means that our culture is not unified by a single world-view or belief system. A hundred years ago our culture was unified by a broadly Christian world view. For example, in 1900 55% of children regularly attended Sunday school. In 2000 that percentage has dropped to 4% - and that during a period when the total population has increased from 39 million to 60 million. Christianity has become one option among many - including cults, other religions and various forms of secularism. A century ago your colleague was likely to have been to Sunday school and share with you a Christian vocabulary even if they didn't really hold to the beliefs. Today, it's a surprise to find a colleague who attended Sunday school. They might be Muslim, Hindu or be an enthusiast for feng-shui. This is what we mean by pluralism as a fact. No-one can argue against the statement that we live in a pluralist culture.
However, the term also has a more loaded meaning - particularly in the world of theology. A number of prominent theologians have developed arguments for what is called a pluralist theology. These theologians include Keith Ward, John Hick, Paul Knitter and Wilfred Cantwell Smith. In important matters of detail their theories differ, but in broad terms they share a common outlook that allows them to be classed together. They use the term 'pluralism' to describe a theory about the relationship between religions and not just to describe the state of affairs in our culture.
Pluralism as a Theory
Wilfred Cantwell Smith is primarily a historian of religion. In his work he has done a great deal to argue how the world religions have never been sharply defined from one another but have always shared and pooled a range of ideas and practices. Smith gives evidence to show how the labelling of different traditions as 'Hindu', 'Buddhist' or 'Christian' is a peculiarly modern, western practice. He argues that traditions have always been in a state of flux, influencing and being influenced by one another. Smith's work has been subjected to significant criticism (for example, Dewi Arwel Hughes Has God Many Names?, Leicester: Apollos, 1996). Nonetheless, he has made a popular case for treating religions as having more in common with each other than we might otherwise think.
The arguments of Smith laid the ground-work for much pluralist theology. John Hick, for example, was deeply indebted to him. Hick is an ordained minister in the United Reformed Church. He is now retired but has lectured for many years around the world and continues to do so. Since the 1970s he has been one of the most influential pluralist theologians. Hick's argument is that the world religions are all partial, limited, human ways of responding to a common divine reality. Divine reality is so infinite and complex that it cannot be fully appreciated by men and women. Therefore, over the centuries we have developed symbols, rituals and stories to help us comprehend that reality in a way that makes sense to us. Taken as exclusively true Hick considers any religion to be false, but taken as partial insights into a mysterious reality they are all partially true.
There is an ancient Buddhist story that often emerges in various forms as a way of describing the pluralist case. A king had ten of his servants blindfolded and then an elephant brought into his courtyard. The servants were told to feel the object and describe what they think they have found. One caught hold of its tail and described it as a rope. Another touched the trunk and thought it a snake. A third felt the tusk and said it was a spear. In this way each servant gives a picture for how limited human descriptions are of things that lie beyond us. John Hick's more recent work has developed to include most of the major belief systems into his theory. Even Marxism offers another, partial, insight into the ultimate nature of the universe.
Pluralism in the Workplace
It does not take much imagination to see why this theological position has become so popular. Many men and women working alongside people of other faiths have noticed their integrity, sincerity and devotion. Surely they cannot all be wrong? Furthermore, Christians in particular are called to love and respect those with whom they disagree. Is it not respectful to assume they also have insights into the truth? In fact, does not the Christian lifestyle require that we tolerate and respect other religions? Life is a whole lot easier if we adopt the pluralist theory. No longer do we need to tell others about the cross of Christ. No longer do we have the worries of their eternal destinies. No longer do we need to challenge their beliefs or religious practices. We can happily live alongside each other and discuss our beliefs as truth-seekers together rather than thinking of ourselves as in anyway superior.
I would suggest that this approach is only really compatible with some forms of Hinduism. Thoughtful Buddhists and Muslims - along with the cults and secularists - are likely to think the approach a disaster!
Why Pluralism doesn't Work
When I was teaching a course in Christianity and other Religions at Bristol University I invited a Buddhist nun from Thailand to join me for a dialogue. Many students thought that she would adopt a largely pluralist position. However, she did not. She argued that my beliefs were good and valuable but not as helpful as Buddhist beliefs. She made a comparison with a train journey from Bristol. She claimed that Buddhist practice would lead to enlightenment - like a journey to London. Christianity would only take us as far as Reading. That's not a bad journey - and commendable in itself - but it's still not our final destination. The practices of Buddhism would be necessary if Enlightenment is to be our goal. This dialogue helpfully showed how an evangelical Christian is not alone in believing certain things to be absolutely true. We disagree with the believers in other traditions about what is true but not over the concept that we have some true beliefs and that others are mistaken in at least some of their beliefs.
In contrast, the pluralist assumes an extreme form of relativism. Most religious beliefs are seen as compatible because they are held to be only relatively true. No one belief can claim precedence over any others. Most people who are devoted to one religion or another see a major problem in relativism. The problem with pluralism is that it is itself claiming to offer an absolute truth. The claim that most of the major world religions are relatively true is itself an absolute claim. Returning to the parable of the king and the elephant, the pluralist is taking the position of the king. On what grounds? Why should the pluralist be able to sit in a position which it denies to religious believers? What gives the pluralist this superior vantage point? The pluralist is pretending to be a kind of neutral arbiter - a sort of referee for the religions. However, that image is pure pretence. The pluralist is committed to certain beliefs about god, salvation and religion. The pluralist god is an unknowable reality. It is neither 'personal' as in Christianity nor 'non-personal' as in Buddhism. The pluralist knowledge of God is the result not of divine revelation but of human speculation. Salvation is a matter of becoming kinder people in a way expressed by whatever basic moral beliefs one might describe as the common essence of the world religions. These conclusions have caused some thinkers to conclude that pluralism is itself another form of religion. It has its own doctrines and tenets amounting to a kind of reduced form of Hinduism.
Tolerance and Respect
Pluralism does not work because in an important way it is intolerant. To tolerate another person or religion usually means that we are dealing with someone with whom we disagree. Despite our disagreement over beliefs or dislike over behaviour we choose to respect them and live alongside them. We choose to try and understand why they believe the things they do and live at peace with them. We might still disagree with them and challenge them but this can be done in a friendly and respectful way. Pluralism does not allow this. It presses upon us a cheap version of tolerance. We have to accept that our own beliefs are only relatively true and also inform our friend that their beliefs are only relatively true too. Indeed, we must imagine that, deep down, we really agree despite any appearances to the contrary. In this way, the pluralist only offers tolerance based on agreement. This is as tolerant as Henry Ford offering his cars in any colour customers chose, as long as they chose black.
In contrast with cheap tolerance, the Christian has a better way. The Christian is to respect and love those with whom they disagree. Is there any reason to think a non-Christian might actually be right about many things? Of course! From the Bible we learn that all of humanity was originally made in the image of God. Though that is now marred it is not destroyed. Non-Christian men and women have discovered all kinds of truths about the universe. Furthermore, the Bible offers a concept of general revelation. God has revealed certain things about himself through the natural world and our inner conscience (Romans 1:20). While our sinful nature distorts this revelation, one might still expect non-Christians to be correct in certain beliefs.
However, though we respect and love those with whom we disagree, we must still be true to our convictions. We expect those of other faiths to be true to their convictions too. With regard to the way of salvation, the nature of God and the person of Christ there are many truths which are non-negotiable. For example, salvation is not the on-going quest to try and be nicer people. According to the gospel, we are simply incapable of such a transformation. One Buddhist teacher writes; 'No-one can be redeemed by another. No God and no saint is able to shield a man from the consequences of his evil doings. Everyone of us must become his own redeemer'. This is flatly contradicted by the Christian teaching that Christ's death was an atoning sacrifice for our sins (1 John 4:10). Furthermore, according to traditional Islamic understanding of their scriptures, Jesus never died on the cross at all. John Hick offers lengthy discussion over how Muslims and Christians may come to agreement on this issue. His resolution is essentially that both should admit it is simply a historical question about something which happened so long ago that we cannot know what really happened. Such a capitulation makes a nonsense of historical methods which can clearly establish the crucifixion beyond the shadow of a doubt. Furthermore, if Hick were right then he would have robbed Christianity of its central concern - the message of the cross.
The unique identity of Jesus as God incarnate, the atoning work of the cross, and the doctrine that we are saved by grace are all non-negotiable elements of Christian belief. Our challenge in the workplace is to live and speak with these convictions while remaining loving and respectful towards all those with whom we disagree. Furthermore, we long that they might come to know God in the way that we do. If they do not then we continue to respect their God-given right to exercise freedom of belief. Our calling in the workplace is not to promote cheap tolerance but to demonstrate love and respect.
Chris Sinkinson, PhD in Theology
Article originally printed in Interact, Autumn 2000 – Multicultural Therapy
