Jesus Christ and Religious Diversity BY Harold A. Netland

Harold A. Netland is Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Intercultural Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, where he has taught since 1993. Prior to coming to Trinity, he was a missionary in Japan for nine years with the Evangelical Free Church of America and taught for four years at Tokyo Christian University. He earned his PhD in philosophy from Claremont Graduate School. His publications include Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism & the Question of Truth (Regent College, 1999); Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission (IVP Academic, 2001); and Can Only One Religion Be True? Paul Knitter and Harold Netland in Dialogue (Fortress, 2013).

The Christ on Campus Initiative exists to inspire students on college and university campuses to think wisely, act with conviction, and become more Christ-like by providing relevant and excellent evangelical resources on contemporary issues. We aim to distribute resources—prepared by top evangelical scholars, pastors, and thinkers—that are intellectually rigorous, persuasive in argument, appealing in tone, and consistent with historic evangelical Christianity.

The Christ on Campus Initiative is generously supported by the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding (a ministry of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) and the MAC Foundation. This essay is Copyright © 2008 by Christ on Campus Initiative (CCI). Readers and organizations may circulate this and other CCI essays without charge. Jesus Christ and Religious Diversity BY Harold A. Netland

Nathan the Wise, the last play written by and unusual powers. Whoever wore the eighteenth-century philosopher and the ring was beloved by God and man. dramatist Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, This ring had been passed down from contains a fascinating reworking of the generation to generation and now was classic parable of the three rings. The the possession of this man who had parable first appears in the fourteenth three sons, each of whom he loved century in Boccaccio’s Decameron, but equally. At one time or another, the Lessing modifies it slightly so that it man had promised the ring to each of expresses nicely the Enlightenment his sons. Sensing that he was about to call for religious toleration and die and realizing that he could not give condemnation of religious dogmatism.1 the one ring to each of the three sons, If it were updated slightly, it could be the man secretly asked a master jeweller taken as an expression of early twenty- to make two perfect copies of the ring. first-century views as well. The jeweller did such a good job that Lessing’s version of the story is set the man himself could not tell which in Jerusalem in the twelfth century was the original. At his deathbed, the during the Third Crusade. The man called each of his sons and gave play revolves around the complex him a ring and a blessing. After the relationships of three characters, each father’s death, the sons discovered that representative of one of the three great each one had a ring, and they began to monotheistic religions: Nathan, a argue among themselves as to which Jew; Saladin, the Muslim sultan; and a one possessed the original ring. Christian Templar Knight. Commenting on their bickering, Nathan finds himself in the great Nathan links their inability to identify Saladin’s palace. The sultan tests the original ring to our inability to Nathan by asking him which of the judge which is the one true religion: three monotheistic religions is the best. [The brothers] investigate, “You are so wise,” he says to Nathan, recriminate, and wrangle—all “now tell me, I entreat, what human in vain— faith, what theological law hath struck Which was the true original 2 you as the truest and the best?” Nathan genuine ring prudently avoids a direct response and Was undemonstrable— instead tells the parable of the three Almost as much as now by us is rings. undemonstrable There was a man, says Nathan, who The one true faith.3 had an opal ring of supreme beauty 3 The brothers then approach a wise religious options, both monotheistic judge to settle the dispute, but the judge and non-theistic. In place of Saladin, we responds by saying, would have the beaming face of the If each of you in truth received his Dalai Lama! ring Straight from his father’s hand, let each believe 1 His own to be the true and genuine ring.4 RELIGIOUS After admonishing the brothers to DIVERSITY AND quit trying to determine which is the CHRISTIAN FAITH original, the judge exhorts each son to accept his ring as if it were the true one and live a life of moral goodness, thereby Despite the predictions of some in bringing honor both to their father and the nineteenth century that religion to God. would eventually wither away under Lessing’s parable of the rings is the onslaught of modernization and an eloquent expression of eighteenth- science, the world today remains century Enlightenment sentiment vigorously religious. Eighty percent about monotheistic religion. Organized of people worldwide profess some 5 religion—especially the institutional religious affiliation. There are today Christian church—was dismissed as roughly 2.1 billion Christians, 1.3 billion corrupt and blamed for the bloody wars Muslims, 860 million Hindus, 380 of the previous century. Deep skepticism million Buddhists, 25 million Sikhs, and 6 greeted claims of any particular religion 15 million Jews. A complete picture of being the one true faith. Weariness with religion today would also include the religious in-fighting resulted in a kind many millions who follow one of the 7 of tolerance that regarded religions as thousands of new religious movements. worthy of acceptance only as long as Traditional Christianity: they promote goodness and virtue and Religious Exclusivism avoid dogmatism, which fuels religious Until the modern era, Christians largely strife. took it for granted that Christianity is Lessing’s parable sounds remarkably the one true religion for all humankind. contemporary. Today, as then, there is Allowing for minor modifications widespread skepticism about claims to for Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and exclusive truth in religion. Religions Protestant distinctives, the common are assessed pragmatically on their understanding went something like capacity to produce morally respectable this: God has revealed himself in a people. But there are also differences special manner to the Old Testament between Lessing’s day and our own. patriarchs and prophets, and his self- We are today much more aware of the revelation culminates in the Incarnation enormous religious diversity in our of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1–4). The world, so that if we were to update the written Scriptures—the Old and New parable, we would need several dozen Testaments—are the divinely inspired rings to symbolize the many available written revelation of God and thus 4 Despite the predictions of some in the nineteenth century that religion would eventually wither away under the onslaught of modernization and science, the world today remains vigorously religious. are unlike any other sacred writings. After the seventeenth century, the Salvation is a gift of God’s grace and broad consensus among Christians is possible only because of the unique concerning Christianity as the one true person and work of Jesus Christ on the religion began to fragment, although cross. Sinful human beings are saved it was not until the twentieth century by God’s grace through repentance of that the full effects of this became sin and faith. Thus, Jesus Christ is the evident. Many factors were involved in one Savior and Lord for all people at the erosion of confidence in traditional all times. Christianity: widespread disillusionment On this view there is an inescapable at the rampant corruption of the particularity concerning Jesus Christ. institutional church; ongoing fighting While God’s love and mercy are among various “Christian” factions; the extended to all, salvation is limited growing awareness of other peoples, to those who repent and accept by cultures, and religions as a result of faith God’s provision in Jesus Christ. the European voyages of “discovery”; Numerous biblical texts could be cited increased skepticism about our ability in support of this particularity: Peter to know religious truth; and the effects declares, “There is salvation in no one of higher critical views of Scripture else, for there is no other name under that treated the Bible as just one among heaven given among men by which many sacred texts. While Jesus was still we must be saved” (Acts 4:12); Jesus revered as a great moral teacher, many responds to a question from Thomas openly questioned orthodox teachings by stating, “I am the way and the truth about his deity, and suggested that Jesus and the life. No one comes to the Father was just one of many great religious except through me” (John 14:6); the figures through whom we might relate apostle Paul claims, “There is one God to God. and one mediator between God and By the mid-twentieth century, the men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy subject of the relation of Christian 2:5); and so on. faith to other religions was a central The particularity of the Christian concern of Christian theologians gospel has always been a stumbling and missiologists with a surprising 9 block to many. It was widely accepted variety of perspectives. Many, to be in the ancient Mediterranean world that sure, remained firmly committed to the same deity could take on various the orthodox position. However, more forms and be called by different names in liberal Protestants and post-Vatican II different cultures. According to historian Roman Catholics adopted far more Robert Wilken, “The oldest and most accommodating views of other religions enduring criticism of Christianity is an and modified their views of Jesus Christ appeal to religious pluralism. . . . All the and salvation. ancient critics of Christianity were united in affirming that there is no one way to Religious Inclusivism the divine.”8 Significantly, it was within “Inclusivist” theologians, as they were this context of religious syncretism often called, tried to keep in balance two and relativism that we find the New divergent themes: (1) God’s salvation is Testament putting forward Jesus Christ somehow based upon the person and as the one Savior for all people. work of Jesus Christ, and in this sense 6 Jesus has a special relationship with God is often the realization that Hindus, and is unlike any other religious figure; Buddhists, and Sikhs are not at all as and (2) God’s salvation made available previously imagined; they are often in Christ is also available to adherents intelligent and morally respectable of other religions just as they are, so people who are similar to Westerners in there is no need for followers of other many respects. Furthermore, in light of religions to be converted to Christ. Thus, the tragic history of Western colonialism while the fullest expression of God’s during the past four centuries, many truth and revelation are in Jesus Christ have a deep sense of “post-colonialist and the Christian Scriptures, other guilt” over past injustices. It is often religions can be accepted positively as assumed that the way to atone for the part of God’s plan for humankind. past sins of colonialism is to accept uncritically other cultural and religious Religious Pluralism perspectives. The desire to affirm the By the late twentieth century, increasing diversity of however, there were the West is often growing numbers accompanied by the of those identifying assumption that themselves as We ought to read today’s historians doing so means not Christians who rejecting other explicitly rejected with the same sort of critical suspicion as religions as false such inclusivistic they recommend we or somehow views and apply when reading deficient. It is called for a radical the ancient writers. not surprising, pluralism in which then, that religious Christianity is just diversity is causing one among many many, including possible ways of Christians, to responding to the divine. question traditional Christian Religious pluralism, as understood perspectives. Peter Berger captures the by these thinkers, means that all the spirit of the times when he observes, major religions are more or less equally We do have a problem of belief, and true and effective ways of responding it not only raises the question of to the religious ultimate; no single why we should believe in God but religion—including Christianity—can why we should believe in this God. claim legitimately to be superior to There are others, after all, and others in terms of truth or in relating today they are made available in an appropriately to the divine. unprecedented way through the There are many reasons that religious supermarket of modern religious pluralism, as defined above, is pluralism.10 so attractive today. We are much more Pluralistic perspectives are found today aware of religious diversity today, due not just among academics; they are to globalization, increased immigration, widely adopted in popular culture as international travel, and the impact of well. Based upon an extensive study of media and the World Wide Web. As the Americans’ views on religious diversity, West encounters religious others, there sociologist Robert Wuthnow reports 7 that 42 percent of all respondents agreed acceptance. At a minimal level there is with the statement, “All religions the legal acceptance of diversity. In many basically teach the same thing,” and democratic societies today, there is an 46 percent said that they believed that explicit legal commitment to freedom God’s word is revealed in other writings of religion. Sometimes, as in the United apart from the Bible, such as the sacred States, this is combined with the formal texts of Muslims or Hindus.11 prohibition of governmental sanction of any particular religion. Most Christians welcome such guarantees of freedom of 2 religion and acknowledge readily that such rights also apply to adherents of RELIGIOUS non-Christian religions. PLURALISM: Religious Diversity Should Be CLARIFYING THE Socially Accepted ISSUES But the legal acceptance of religious diversity is, at best, a minimalist kind of acceptance. One can, for example, When it comes to the subject of acknowledge the legal rights of, say, Christian faith and other religions, we Hindus or Muslims to live in the United are dealing not with just one question States but fail to grant them social but rather with a set of interrelated acceptance as full members of American issues. Thus, it is important that we society. This suggests the importance of clarify issues and make some basic what we might call the social acceptance distinctions. A helpful place to begin of religious others. is by considering the term “religious In a weaker sense, social acceptance pluralism,” for it is used in different ways. might involve developing friendships Religious Diversity Exists with religious others and cooperating “Religious pluralism” can be used in with them in a variety of social activities. a strictly descriptive sense to mean But in this sense, social acceptance can religious diversity. To say, then, that be somewhat ambivalent, for while Europe or North America is religiously it accepts social relationships with pluralistic means simply that they are religious others, it might also disapprove increasingly characterized by religious of, to some extent, what religious others diversity. This is undeniable, and by represent. There is also a sense in which itself is not particularly controversial. one does not approve of other religions. A stronger sense of social acceptance Religious Diversity Should Be includes an enthusiastic embrace of Legally Accepted religious diversity as something good. But more often “religious pluralism” Acceptance here goes well beyond mere includes more than merely the fact of tolerance to a celebration of religious religious diversity. The term usually diversity as something inherently connotes more or less positive attitudes positive. While the enthusiastic toward such diversity, or acceptance, affirmation of religious diversity can be in some sense, of religious diversity. compatible with orthodox Christianity But there are varying degrees of and the view that the Christian faith 8 is distinctively true, it is often found making common reference to a among those who have reinterpreted single, transcendent sacred reality. traditional Christian teachings in (2) All major forms of religion are various ways. Many in this category likewise equal in respect of offering regard other religions, along with some means or other to human Christianity, as instruments through salvation. (3) All religious traditions which God’s truth and saving grace are to be seen as containing are mediated. revisable, limited accounts of the nature of the sacred: none is certain All Major Religions Are Equally enough in its particular dogmatic True and Legitimate formulations to provide the norm As a technical term in religious studies for interpreting the others.12 and theology, however, “religious These points are foundational to the pluralism” refers to a view that goes perspective of religious pluralism well beyond just the social acceptance advanced by theologian and philosopher of religious others. Religious pluralism John Hick, perhaps the most influential in this sense is the view that all of the religious pluralist today. Hick began his major religions are (roughly) equally academic career in the 1950s as an able true and provide equally legitimate defender of Christian orthodoxy, but ways in which to respond to the divine by the early 1980s, he had abandoned reality. No single religion—including Christian theism for a thoroughgoing Christianity—can legitimately claim to religious pluralism.13 Three claims are be uniquely true and normative for all at the center of his model of religious people in all cultures at all times. It is pluralism: (1) there is a religious in this sense that we will be using the ultimate reality—what Hick calls “the term “religious pluralism” throughout Real”—to which the major religions this essay. are all legitimate responses; (2) the various religions are historically and culturally conditioned interpretations 3 of this divine reality; and (3) salvation/ enlightenment/liberation is to be JOHN HICK’S understood as the moral transformation MODEL OF of people from self-centeredness to RELIGIOUS Reality-centeredness, and it is occurring roughly to the same extent across the PLURALISM major religions. Accordingly, Hick claims that the religions can be regarded Peter Byrne, a contemporary advocate as culturally and historically conditioned of religious pluralism, states three human responses to propositions that are at the heart of an ultimate ineffable Reality religious pluralism: which is the source and ground of Pluralism as a theoretical response everything, and which is such that to religious diversity can now in so far as the religious traditions be summarily defined by three are in soteriological alignment with propositions. (1) All major forms it they are contexts of salvation/ of religion are equal in respect of liberation. These traditions involve 9 But if the religions all are responding to the same divine reality, why is there such bewildering diversity in the ways in which people understand this reality? different human conceptions of Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, or Sunyata the Real, with correspondingly or Emptiness in Buddhism, or the Dao different forms of experience of the in Daoism. Hick refers to the former as Real, and correspondingly different the divine personae and the latter as the forms of life in response to the divine impersonae. He maintains that Real.14 what is truly religiously ultimate—the The various religions, then, are to Real—transcends both the personae be accepted as, in principle, equally and impersonae and thus cannot be legitimate religious alternatives with characterized as either personal or choices among them being largely nonpersonal. So the Real cannot be functions of individual preferences and identified with Yahweh or the Holy sociocultural influences. The religions Trinity or Sunyata or the Dao. These “constitute different human responses are merely penultimate symbols to the ultimate transcendent reality to through which people in various which they all, in their different ways, religions understand and respond bear witness.”15 to what is actually ultimate, the But if the religions all are responding Real. Out of a desire not to privilege to the same divine reality, why is either personal or nonpersonal ways there such bewildering diversity in of thinking about the religious the ways in which people understand ultimate, Hick insists that none of the this reality? Why is there not greater characteristics of the personae or the agreement among the religions? Hick impersonae can be attributed to the Real. accounts for diversity in belief and The distinction between the Real as practice by appealing to historical and it is in itself and as it is thought and cultural factors. “[W]e always perceive experienced through our human the transcendent through the lens religious concepts entails . . . that of a particular religious culture with we cannot apply to the Real an sich its distinctive set of concepts, myths, [as it is in itself] the characteristics historical exemplars and devotional or encountered in its personae and meditational techniques.”16 Although impersonae. Thus, it cannot be ultimately it is the same divine reality said to be one or many, person or that is encountered in the religions, thing, conscious or unconscious, both the awareness of and response to purposive or non-purposive, this reality are shaped by contingent substance or process, good or historical and cultural factors. evil, loving or hating. None of the Now Hick is well aware of the fact descriptive terms that apply within that the religions do not all agree on the the realm of human experience can nature of the religious ultimate. Some apply literally to the unexperienced 17 religions regard the religious ultimate reality that underlies that realm. in personal categories, such as Yahweh Hick thus accepts a strong version of in Judaism, or God the Holy Trinity what is called the ineffability thesis, so in Christianity, or Allah in Islam, or that none of the terms and concepts that Shiva or Krishna in theistic forms of we ordinarily use in religious discourse Hinduism. Other religions depict the can be applied to the Real. religious ultimate in non-personal categories, such as Nirguna Brahman in 11 Given the clear differences in sick, and the “poor in spirit” were conceptions of the religious ultimate kindled to new life in his presence. in the religions, why should we . . . Thus in Jesus’ presence, we postulate the Real as the common should have felt that we are in ground of the religions? the presence of God—not in the My reason to assume that the sense that the man Jesus literally different world religions are is God, but in the sense that he referring, through their specific was so totally conscious of God concepts of the Gods and Absolutes, that we could catch something to the same ultimate Reality is of that consciousness by spiritual the striking similarity of the contagion.20 transformed human state described For Hick, then, the Incarnation “is a within the different traditions as mythological idea, a figure of speech, a saved, redeemed, enlightened, piece of poetic imagery. It is a way of wise, awakened, liberated. This saying that Jesus is our living contact similarity strongly suggests with the transcendent God. In his a common source of salvific presence we find that we are brought transformation.18 into the presence of God.”21 On this view, Understood as “the transformation could we not think in terms of multiple from self-centeredness to Reality- incarnations? Responding affirmatively, centeredness,” salvation is said to be Hick says that, “it becomes entirely evident in roughly the same degree in all natural to say that all the great religious the religions. figures have in their different ways It may be that one [religion] ‘incarnated’ the ideal of human life in 22 facilitates human liberation/ response to the one divine Reality.” salvation more than the others, but Hick’s proposal is obviously a very if so this is not evident to human different view of Jesus Christ and other vision. So far as we can tell, they religions than what the Church has are equally productive of that affirmed throughout the centuries. But transition from self to Reality it is easy to see the enormous attraction which we see in the saints of all that religious pluralism has for many traditions.19 today. For with Hick’s pluralism, all the Although a pluralist, Hick stills identifies major religions can be embraced as more himself as a Christian, and thus he or less equally true and effective ways of includes a place for Jesus in his model. relating to the divine. Religious disputes Hick, however, clearly rejects the can be avoided, and there is no need for traditional, orthodox view of Jesus as evangelism or conversion; Christians fully God and fully man, the unique can simply cooperate with those from Incarnation of God. Rather, he adopts other religions in alleviating the many a metaphorical interpretation of the problems confronting humankind. Incarnation and Jesus’ relation to God. But the crucial issue here is not [Jesus] was so powerfully God whether religious pluralism is attractive, conscious that his life vibrated, as but whether it is the best way to think it were, to the divine life; and as about the relation among the religions. a result his hands could heal the Despite its many attractive qualities, religious pluralism faces formidable 12 problems. Before exploring the Nevertheless, the following definition difficulties with pluralism, however, it by Roger Schmidt and his colleagues is will be helpful to consider further the adequate for most purposes: “Religions concept of religion and religious beliefs. are systems of meaning embodied in a pattern of life, a community of faith, and a worldview that articulate a view of the 4 sacred and of what ultimately matters.”23 Religions are multifaceted RELIGIONS AND phenomena, and there is some overlap RELIGIOUS BELIEFS between the concepts of religion and culture. This is made clear in the very helpful suggestion by Ninian Smart that Although discussions of religious we think in terms of seven dimensions pluralism typically focus upon the “great of religion.24 These include the ritual, religions”—by which is usually meant narrative, experiential, doctrinal, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, ethical, social, and material dimensions and Buddhism—it is important to of religion. If we are to understand a remember also the many other religious particular religion such as Buddhism or traditions that make up the religious Christianity, we must give due attention mosaic of the world, both past and to all seven dimensions. present. There are, for example, the Religions, then, include much religions of the ancient world, of the more than just beliefs or doctrines. ancient Egyptians and Babylonians, the Nevertheless, beliefs are central to Greeks and Romans, and the Aztecs and religion. A religious community is Incas. We must also include the many expected to live in a certain way and new religious movements of the modern to regard all of life from a particular world, some of which—such as Baha’i perspective. A particular religious and Mormonism—have developed into tradition can be thought of as expressing world religions in their own right. There a distinctive worldview, or way of are also the many less clearly defined understanding reality, and adherents of religious movements, such as “new that tradition are expected to embrace age” spirituality, as well as modernized that worldview. versions of ancient traditions, including At the heart of each religious Celtic Druidry or Maori religion. worldview are some basic beliefs about While it is easy enough to the nature of the cosmos, the religious identify examples of religions (Islam, ultimate, and the relation of humankind Christianity, Hinduism, etc.), it is to this ultimate. Religious beliefs are much more difficult to come up with significant, for as Smart observes, “The an acceptable definition of religion. world religions owe some of their living Definitions tend to be either too broad, power to their success in presenting thus applying to things that we do a total picture of reality, through not normally include as religious, or a coherent system of doctrines.”25 too narrow, excluding things that we Religious believers are expected to do regard as religious. The difficulty accept the teachings of their tradition here stems from the great diversity and to pattern their lives in accordance we find among religious traditions. 13 with such beliefs. The worldviews of thus a personal Being, and the world is the various religions can be clarified the “body” of Brahman. by posing three basic questions to the Buddhism originated from the religions: (1) What is the nature of teachings of Siddhartha Gautama the religious ultimate? (2) What is the (traditionally, 563–483 b.c.), who nature of the human predicament? (3) was determined to find the cause What is the nature of and conditions of suffering and pain. After much for attaining salvation/liberation/ meditation and ascetic discipline, enlightenment? We will consider briefly Gautama experienced an “awakening” how Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam or “enlightenment,” and for the next address these questions. forty years he traveled throughout India preaching the dharma (truth) What Is the Nature of the and attracting a large following. A Religious Ultimate? variety of terms are used for the Hinduism is a family of many different religious ultimate in Buddhism. For traditions that are the product of some the Theravada tradition it is nirvana, 4,000 years of development which alone is permanent, in India. Hinduism unconditioned, and includes a variety ultimately real. of views about the But nirvana is not religious ultimate. A heaven; it is the Hindu may believe Buddhism clearly state that obtains in one God, many rejects any idea of an when the fires gods, or no god. all-powerful creator of desire and The idea that the God; in this sense it is the conditions religious ultimate atheistic. producing rebirth can be understood are eliminated. The and experienced in ultimate reality many different ways in Mahayana is widely accepted. Buddhism is the Most Hindus, however, Dharmakaya, or the all- accept Brahman as the Supreme Being inclusive Buddha essence, sometimes and sustaining power of the cosmos. called the Void or Emptiness (Sunyata). But there is disagreement over the Neither nirvana nor the Dharmakaya nature of Brahman and its relation to can be thought of as a personal being. the human person. Hinduism includes Buddhism clearly rejects any idea of an both monistic and theistic traditions. all-powerful creator God; in this sense The Advaita Vedanta (Non-Dualism) it is atheistic. tradition, for example, claims that the Islam maintains that Muhammad sole reality is Nirguna Brahman, a (a.d. c. 570–632) was the last and nonpersonal reality utterly beyond greatest in a long line of prophets human concepts and categories. The sent from God. Muhammad received Vishisht Advaita (Qualified Non- revelations from Allah that are Dualism) teaches that there is only one contained in the Qur’an, which is reality, Saguna Brahman, or Brahman understood by Muslims to be the Word with personal attributes. Brahman is of God. All branches of Islam embrace 14 a strict monotheism. The religious (the Devil), it is within the power of ultimate is Allah, the one God, creator humankind to resist evil and to remain of everything else that exists. Islam calls faithful to the will of Allah. for total submission to Allah’s sovereign will in all of life. What Is the Nature of and the Conditions for Attaining What Is the Nature of the Salvation/Liberation/ Human Predicament? Enlightenment? According to classical Hinduism, the Traditionally in Hinduism there are human predicament consists in the three ways to attain liberation. (1) repeated reincarnation of the atman The way of right action (karma marga) (the soul) as it passes from one life to involves living in accordance with another. Repeated births are regulated one’s duty as determined by gender, by karma, a metaphysical principle caste, and stage in life. (2) The way of that determines current and future liberating knowledge (jnana marga) is states on the basis of past actions advocated by Advaita Vedanta, which and dispositions. The traditional teaches that what breaks the cycle of soteriological goal of Hinduism is rebirths is the existential realization moksha, or liberation from rebirths of one’s own essential identity with through breaking the causal conditions Brahman. (3) The way of devotion of karma. (bhakti marga) involves love, reverence, The human predicament in or adoration for a particular deity, and Buddhism consists in our being trapped performing ritual worship of deities in a cycle of repeated rebirths and the such as Vishnu, Shiva, or Krishna. fact that all existence—apart from Different schools of Buddhism nirvana—is characterized by pervasive have slightly different teachings, suffering or dissatisfaction. The goal but most Theravada traditions in classical Buddhism, then, is to emphasize strict adherence to the break the chain of causal conditions Noble Eightfold Path, which includes resulting in rebirths, thereby attaining proper understanding of the nature nirvana. The Four Noble Truths present of reality—including the Buddha’s a diagnosis of the cause of suffering teaching on the impermanence of (desire or attachment) and a way to the all things—and rigorous meditation. elimination of suffering. The Noble Mahayana traditions tend to emphasize Eightfold Path sets out ideals in moral seeking enlightenment in this life self-discipline, meditation, and wisdom through meditation. Theravada that provide the way to eliminate desire Buddhism emphasizes self-effort in and thereby suffering.26 attaining nirvana; each person is said to In Islam, the human predicament be responsible for attaining his or her consists of the fact that human beings own liberation, which is restricted to do not submit to Allah and his ways the few who can master the required but rather disobey his will, thereby disciplines. Mahayana opened the way producing the evil and suffering in our to the masses by acknowledging a vast world. Human beings have a weakness multitude of spiritual beings, such as of will and a general tendency toward the bodhisattvas, who assist in the quest sin. But although tempted by Iblis for enlightenment and liberation. 15 Islam teaches that our present there is—an account whose truth world will one day be destroyed by is assumed by the content of the Allah and that all humankind, past diagnosis and cure.27 and present, will then be raised to In other words, the concept of truth face divine judgment. In the judgment is central to the religions. But how each person’s deeds will be impartially should we understand religious truth? weighed in the balance. Salvation is In religion, as in other domains, truth is strictly on the basis of submission fundamentally a property of statements to Allah and faithful adherence to or propositions, and by extension, of the teachings of Islam. Some will beliefs. A statement or belief is true if be admitted to Paradise; others and only if the state of affairs to which consigned to hell. Islam denies the need the statement refers is as the statements for a savior and the substitutionary asserts. Otherwise it is false. Thus, the atonement, as found in Christianity. statement, “the universe was created by God,” is true if and only if the universe was in fact created by God. The belief 5 that “the only reality not undergoing continual change is nirvana” is true THE PROBLEM if and only if the only reality not OF CONFLICTING undergoing continual change is nirvana. TRUTH CLAIMS And so on. Religious beliefs, like other beliefs, can be clear or vague, easy to understand or difficult to interpret. As seen above, the major religions (True statements in physics or history acknowledge that our world is not can also be vague or difficult to as it should be; there is a deeply understand.) None of that affects their rooted problem that needs to be truth status.28 addressed. The religions offer different The fact of religious diversity perspectives on what the problem leads to the problem of conflicting is and how it can be overcome. The truth claims. Diversity by itself, of Indian religions—such as Hinduism course, does not necessarily indicate and Buddhism—typically adopt disagreement. Moreover, we should a medical analogy in expressing acknowledge that there are some their views. Using this analogy, the commonalities among the religions philosopher Keith Yandell reminds us (e.g., the ethical principle behind that the concept of truth is embedded the Golden Rule is reflected in in the deep structure of religious the teachings of many religions). worldviews: Nevertheless, it is clear that Buddhists, A religion proposes a diagnosis of Christians, Hindus, and Muslims adopt a deep, crippling spiritual disease fundamentally different perspectives universal to non-divine sentience on basic questions about the religious and offers a cure. A particular ultimate and our relation to this reality. religion is true if its diagnosis is Christians and Muslims, for example, correct and its cure efficacious. believe that the universe was created by The diagnosis and cure occur in an eternal Creator; Buddhists deny this. the setting of an account of what Advaita Vedanta Hindus maintain that 16 the ultimate reality is Nirguna Brahman; In this respect, differences among Buddhists reject this. Christians insist that the religions take the form of basic Jesus Christ was the incarnate Word of disagreements over the nature of reality, God, fully God and fully man; Muslims how we have arrived at the current dismiss this as blasphemous. undesirable state of affairs, and how While all of the religions acknowledge we can attain a more desirable state. that the present state of the world is not as Disagreements between Christianity and it should be, they disagree over the cause Theravada Buddhism, for example, over of this unsatisfactory state and its proper how to attain the desired goal—whether remedy. For Christians, the root cause one should repent of one’s sins and is sin against a holy God, and the cure accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior consists in repentance and reconciliation or follow the Noble Eightfold Path—are with God through the atoning work of not disputes over the proper means to Jesus Christ on the cross. For Buddhists a common goal but rather grow out of and Hindus the cause lies in a pervasive radically different understandings of ignorance, a fundamentally mistaken reality and thus different ends that are view of reality—although they disagree to be pursued. While there certainly are sharply among themselves over just points of agreement among the religions, which beliefs are false and should be it is clear that at least some of the claims rejected. Hindus believe in enduring, by the major religions are mutually substantial souls which are reincarnated incompatible. They might all be wrong, in multiple lives. Buddhists deny that but they cannot all be correct. there is an enduring, substantial soul It is sometimes said that this way which passes from one life to another. of thinking about religious beliefs—

While all of the religions acknowledge that the present state of the world is not as it should be, they disagree over the cause of this unsatisfactory state and its proper remedy. that religious beliefs, like other in China, are highly rational and propositions, are true or false, and that emphasize the importance of logical two contradictory beliefs cannot both consistency in belief. be true—is merely a “Western” way Consider, for example, the of understanding religion and that comments of the Sri Lankan Buddhist “Eastern” religions do not approach scholar K. N. Jayatilleke. After arguing religion in this manner. Rational that the Buddha actually embraced approaches to religion that emphasize the correspondence theory of truth, he logical consistency depend upon asserts that for Buddhists inconsistency “Western logic,” and other religions are is a criterion of falsehood: not necessarily limited by such logical Although correspondence with constraints. Therefore, it is said, the fact is considered to be the problem of conflicting truth claims is essential characteristic of truth, really a pseudo-problem, since it relies consistency or coherence is also upon logical assumptions that not all held to be a criterion. In contrast, religions share. inconsistency is a criterion of Although this perspective is fairly falsehood. In arguing with his common, it is inadequate and very opponents, the Buddha often misleading. First, there is the empirical shows that their theories lead to or factual question whether “Western inconsistencies or contradictions, thought” emphasizes rationality thereby demonstrating that and logical consistency and whether they are false, using what is “Eastern thought” rejects rational known as the Socratic method. approaches to religion. What exactly . . . This means that truth must is “Western” or “Eastern” thought? be consistent. Therefore, when a These are not monolithic entities but number of theories with regard to rather are broad abstractions that refer the nature of man and his destiny to large collections of people who in the universe contradict each display enormous diversity in thought. other, they cannot all be true, It is true that many people in Europe though they could all be false if and North America do emphasize none of them correspond with the importance of reason and logical fact.29 consistency, but many others do not. Similarly, the Japanese Buddhist scholar Particularly in religious practice and Hajime Nakamura claims, the academic study of religion, many Gotama was described as one who in the West today reject rational and reasoned according to the truth logical principles, maintaining that rather than on the basis of the religious “truth” somehow transcends authority of the Vedas or tradition. rational categories. Similarly, there Theravada and Mahayana are religious traditions in Asia, such as Buddhism have accepted two certain forms of Hinduism, Buddhism standards for the truth of a (especially Zen), and Daoism, which do statement: it must be in accord reject dependence on rational principles with the [Buddhist] scriptures and in the pursuit of religious “truth.” must be proved true by reasoning. But many other religious traditions, No Buddhist is expected to believe especially in India and to some extent 18 anything which does not meet these two tests.30 6 Thus, it simply is not the case that “Eastern thought” in general rejects RELIGIOUS rational principles such as the principle EXCLUSIVISM of non-contradiction. But even if a particular tradition The New Testament never suggests —perhaps Zen Buddhism or Daoism— that Jesus is one among many possible does reject the principle of non- saviors. The consistent witness of the contradiction, it does not follow that Bible is that God has revealed himself in such rational principles are merely an utterly unique manner through the Western and do not apply in other Scriptures and the Incarnation and that contexts. There is an important Jesus Christ is the one Lord and Savior distinction between rejecting a belief for all people. Such particularistic or principle and refuting it. All kinds themes are often taken as evidence that of beliefs have been rejected by people Christianity is exclusive in ways that at one time or another. The issue is other religions—such as Hinduism or not whether a belief is rejected but Buddhism—are not. whether it should be rejected. To But it is important to recognize refute a belief or principle is to show that other major religions, including that it is false or at least that there are the Indian religions, also have compelling reasons not to accept it as exclusivistic tendencies in that true. Although many people—both each regards its own perspective as in the West as well as the East—reject distinctively true and thus superior to the principle of non-contradiction other alternatives. In both Buddhism in religion, no one has refuted the and Hinduism, liberation is linked to principle. It is impossible to refute a correct understanding of the nature the principle, since any attempt at of reality, and each religion rejects refutation necessarily appeals to the what it regards as false views on the very principle one is trying to refute.31 grounds that they impede liberation. Any meaningful assertion about Buddhism, for example, claims to tell anything at all—including religious the truth about how things are, and assertions—if intended to be true, other accounts that are incompatible makes implicit appeal to the principle with Buddhist teachings are dismissed by ruling out its negation as false. as mistaken, resulting in ignorance and further suffering. For Buddhists, only Buddhism leads to release from the ignorance giving rise to suffering. There have been vigorous debates among Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains (Jainism is another Indian religious system distinct from Hinduism and Buddhism) over rival religious claims.32 Shankara (d. 820), who shaped Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, forthrightly 19 states, “If the soul . . . is not considered The theme in these passages is clear to possess fundamental unity with enough: Beliefs matter, and proper Brahman—an identity to be realized acceptance of the relevant teachings is by knowledge—there is not any chance essential for attaining liberation. Those of its obtaining final release.”33 In other who hold certain false beliefs cannot words, only if one accepts the central achieve liberation or enlightenment. teaching of Advaita Vedanta can one Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains, of course, be liberated. Early Buddhists rejected disagree on just which beliefs are false. Hindu assumptions about Brahman and the reality of enduring souls which reincarnate. Similarly, a text from the 7 Jaina Sutras, the authoritative texts of Jainism, bluntly states, PROBLEMS Those who do not know all things WITH RELIGIOUS by Kevala [the absolute knowledge sought by Jains], but who being PLURALISM ignorant teach a Law [contrary to Jain teaching], are lost themselves, Religious pluralism promises a way and work the ruin of others in of understanding religious diversity this dreadful, boundless Circle of without concluding that only one Births. Those who know all things religion is true and the rest false. All the by the full Kevala knowledge, and major religions are said to be more or who practicing meditation teach less equally true and equally legitimate the whole Law, are themselves ways of responding to the religious saved and save others.34 ultimate. Pluralism thus seems to be In other words, those who accept accepting the many religions just as they Jain doctrine can be enlightened and are, and in a world weary of religious liberated from rebirths; those who do competition and strife, this is indeed not, cannot be enlightened. enormously attractive. Nor are these merely ancient But can the pluralist model really perspectives. The Dalai Lama, for deliver what it promises? An acceptable example, in responding to the question model of religious pluralism should whether only the Buddha can provide do at least three things: (1) recognize “the ultimate source of refuge,” says, the clear differences in fundamental Here, you see, it is necessary beliefs among the religions; (2) affirm to examine what is meant by the different religions as more or less liberation or salvation. Liberation equally effective ways of responding in which “a mind that understands to the one ultimate reality, so that no the sphere of reality annihilates all single tradition is privileged; and (3) defilements in the sphere of reality” provide a coherent explanation of how is a state that only Buddhists these two points can be simultaneously can accomplish. This kind of maintained. John Hick’s proposal is moksha [liberation] or nirvana is the most sophisticated attempt to meet only explained in the Buddhist these requirements, but it is vitiated by scriptures, and is achieved only serious problems. Two issues will be through Buddhist practice.35 noted. 20 Some Truth Claims Cannot divine reality, the Real. So in one sense Both Be True John Hick’s pluralism does accept the Contrary to popular perception, not three religions, but it does so only by even the pluralist can avoid the changing in important ways the beliefs conclusion that large numbers of sincere of actual Christians, Muslims, and and devout religious believers are simply Buddhists. For on Hick’s model, it is mistaken in their religious beliefs. As the Real that is truly ultimate, and what we have seen, if the teachings of the Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists religions are taken as orthodox believers regard as ultimate—the Triune God, in the respective religions understand Allah, and Emptiness, respectively—are them, it is clear that the religions make only penultimate images or concepts very different, and at times mutually through which they respond to the incompatible, claims about the nature Real. If Hick is correct, then orthodox of reality. Each religion of course Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists are maintains that its own beliefs are true. all mistaken in their claims about the With religious pluralism, however, religious ultimate. no particular religion Or consider what Islam can be regarded and Christianity as distinctively say about Jesus of true. Thus, the Each religion of Nazareth. Although conflicting claims course maintains that Jesus is held in great of the religions are its own beliefs are esteem in both reinterpreted so true. With religious Christianity and that they can be pluralism, however, Islam, the two accommodated no particular religion religions disagree in a pluralist can be regarded as sharply over his framework. distinctively true. proper identity. Consider beliefs Christians accept about the religious Jesus as the unique ultimate that are Incarnation of the central to Christianity, Islam, and eternal, infinite, God—Jesus Buddhism, respectively. Christians was fully God and fully man. Muslims, believe that the religious ultimate, the on the other hand, reject this as highest reality, is the Triune God— blasphemous. Furthermore, Christians Father, Son, and Holy Spirit­—and that and Muslims disagree over the factual Jesus Christ was the incarnate Son of question whether Jesus was in fact God, fully God and fully man. Muslims crucified on the cross, for many Muslims also believe in one eternal creator interpret Surah 4:155–159 of the Qur’an God, but deny that God is a trinity as explicitly ruling out Jesus’ death on or that Jesus was God incarnate. Zen the cross. This cannot be dismissed as Buddhists deny the existence of any God merely a minor disagreement over an and maintain that ultimate reality is obscure historical fact, for the atoning Sunyata or Emptiness. On Hick’s model, work of Jesus on the cross is central to Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists can the Christian message of salvation. Thus all be said to be “in touch” with and it has traditionally been maintained responding appropriately to the one that Islam and Christianity cannot 21 both be correct in their respective beliefs Ineffability Is Incoherent about Jesus of Nazareth. At least one view Not surprisingly, Hick’s adoption of strong must be false. As we have seen, John Hick ineffability with respect to the Real has rejects the orthodox Christian teaching been the subject of much criticism. In of Jesus as fully God and fully man and order not to privilege either personal calls for a reinterpretation of the doctrine or non-personal views of the religious of the Incarnation in metaphorical terms. ultimate, Hick insists that the Real The implication of this, however, is that transcends all concepts and properties orthodox Christians are mistaken in their with which we are familiar. belief about the Incarnation. Thus, not By “ineffable” I mean . . . having a even religious pluralism can avoid the nature that is beyond the scope of our conclusion that large numbers of sincere networks of human concepts. Thus and intelligent religious believers are the Real in itself cannot properly be mistaken in their religious beliefs. The said to be personal or impersonal, critical issue here is which beliefs we purposive or non-purposive, good or should reject as false and on what basis we evil, substance or process, even one should do so. or many.36

Christians accept Jesus as the unique Incarnation of the eternal, infinite, God—Jesus was fully God and fully man. Muslims, on the other hand, reject this as blasphemous. There are at least three problems with criterion (transformation from Hick’s use of the ineffability thesis: self-centeredness to Reality- 1. Although Hick claims that none centeredness), both as a reason of the concepts or categories for postulating the existence of with which we are familiar the Real and for discriminating can be applied to the Real, he between legitimate and illegitimate repeatedly uses language that responses to the Real. Hick presupposes that at least some repeatedly tells us that the Real concepts do apply meaningfully itself is beyond moral categories to the Real.37 For the Real is said such as good and evil.39 But if the to be the “source and ground Real is beyond moral categories so of everything,” a “transcendent that it is neither good nor evil and reality,” “the necessary condition moral concepts and terms cannot of our existence and highest be applied to it, how can “moral good,” “that to which religion is a transformation” serve as a criterion response,” to “affect humanity,” to for an appropriate relationship have a “universal presence,” etc.38 If to the Real? Why suppose that such language is at all meaningful, moral transformation within a then clearly some concepts can be given religion is at all informative applied to the Real. Moreover, it about that tradition’s relationship seems that causality of some sort to the Real? Why presume that is implied in such language, as some behavior is appropriate the Real is portrayed as (at least with respect to the Real but other partially) causally responsible for behavior is not? The Real itself the human religious responses must have moral properties, be a being what they are. But in using moral being, if the moral criterion the language of causality in this is to be used in this manner. manner Hick is going well beyond Hick’s language about the Real strongly what ineffability allows. suggests that the Real is somehow 2. Furthermore, does it make any causally responsible for some of what sense to claim that there is a Real we see in the various religions and that but that no concepts of properties the Real is a moral being. Thus, despite with which we are familiar apply his efforts to depict the Real in terms to the Real? What would it mean which do not privilege any particular for an entity to exist without it religious tradition, Hick tacitly assumes having any substantial properties? certain theistic characteristics of the An agnostic silence concerning it Real (intentional action, creation, would seem the only reasonable revelation, moral goodness) even as he course. But then why postulate the states that no such attributes can apply Real in the first place? How does to the Real. Thus Keith Yandell—not “There is an X, but X is such that no inappropriately—characterizes Hick’s concepts of substantial properties proposal as “Protestant modernism can be ascribed to it” differ from minus monotheism” or “secularism “There is no X”? with incense.”40 3. Hick’s inconsistency is most apparent in his use of the moral 23 existence (e.g., Jainism, Buddhism, some 8 forms of Hinduism) as false. It then becomes impossible to affirm religious DOES GOD EXIST? pluralism, for if there are compelling grounds for accepting God’s existence, There are two critical questions then clearly not all religions can be confronting any version of religious accepted as equally true. pluralism: Does an eternal creator Is it really the case that the God exist? Who is Jesus Christ? The proposition “God exists” has no traditional Christian answers to these greater evidential or rational support questions are incompatible with than its denial? To be sure, there genuine religious pluralism. Religious is disagreement over the issue of pluralism makes sense—if it makes God’s existence. But deeply rooted sense at all—only on the assumption disagreement by itself does not entail that there is a pervasive “religious that no single perspective is more ambiguity” such that theism does not likely to be true than others nor that have any stronger rational credentials all religious perspectives have equal than non-theistic perspectives. Thus, epistemic support. An impressive list in defending religious pluralism, Peter of contemporary philosophers have Byrne observes, argued persuasively that there are The pluralist must, on reasoned strong reasons for believing that an 42 grounds, doubt whether the eternal creator God exists. If they detailed dogmatics of any are correct, and I think they are, then particular religion can be known religious pluralism should be rejected with sufficient certainty to enable and theism accepted. such a form of religion to be the means of interpreting the whole that is human religion. There is 9 not the certainty in any particular form of religion to enable its world- WHO IS JESUS? view to be the basis for a viable interpretation of religion.41 The question about the identity of Jesus Religious ambiguity means that it can be Christ is also a critical one for religious equally rational to interpret the universe pluralism. Pluralism requires that Jesus as a Christian theist or a Vedantin is in principle not significantly different Hindu or a Theravadin Buddhist from other religious leaders. If the would, depending upon one’s particular orthodox Christian understanding of circumstances and experiences. Jesus as found in the New Testament But why should we accept this is maintained, then it is impossible to assumption about religious ambiguity? affirm religious pluralism. This is clearly The question of God’s existence is thus acknowledged by John Hick: critical to any assessment of religious Traditional orthodoxy says pluralism. For if there are good reasons that Jesus of Nazareth was God for believing that an eternal creator incarnate—that is, God the Son, God exists, then there are good reasons the Second Person of a divine for rejecting religions that deny God’s Trinity, incarnate—who became 24 man to die for the sins of the world language of 2 Corinthians 5:19, God and who founded the church to was in Christ reconciling the world proclaim this to the ends of the to himself, and there is no hint in the earth, so that all who sincerely take Scripture that God was also doing this Jesus as their Lord and Savior are in other religious leaders and traditions. justified by his atoning death and It is not as though the first-century will inherit eternal life. It follows world was unaware of other religious from this that Christianity, alone ways. The idea that there are many among the world religions, was alternative paths to the divine with founded by God in person. . . . each people or culture having their own From this premise it seems obvious distinctive way was common in the first- that God must wish all human century Mediterranean world. Had the beings to enter this new stream of writers of the New Testament wished to saved life, so that Christianity shall say this, they certainly could have done supersede all the other world faiths. so. They didn’t. . . . Christianity alone is God’s own A comprehensive discussion of the religion, offering a New Testament portrayal of fullness of life Jesus is impossible that no other here, but what tradition can follows briefly notes provide; it is five ways in which therefore The question about Jesus is different divinely the identity of from other intended Jesus Christ is religious figures.44 for all men a critical one for and women religious pluralism. The Relation without Between Jesus exception.43 and History in Hick, as we have Christianity Is seen, rejects this Different from view and calls for a radical the Relation Between reinterpretation of Christology in History and Other Religious metaphorical terms. Leaders But why should we follow Hick The historicity of the events and sayings here? Our only substantial access to attributed to Jesus carries significance Jesus’ life and teachings is the New for the Christian faith that has no Testament, and so it must be the parallel in other religions. In many New Testament that controls our religions the relevant teachings can understanding of who Jesus is. The be considered independently of the comprehensive picture that emerges historicity of any particular individual from the New Testament witness is that or event. God was present and active in Jesus of In 1960, for example, the Protestant Nazareth in a way in which he is not theologian Paul Tillich visited Japan, and elsewhere. There is simply no indication he asked Buddhist scholars in Kyoto, “If that Jesus is merely one among many some historian should make it probable other great religious figures. In the that a man of the name Gautama never 25 lived, what would be the consequence what Jesus did on the cross and through for Buddhism?” The Buddhist scholars the resurrection, and not simply what responded by saying that the question he taught, that makes possible our of the historicity of Gautama had never reconciliation with God. The apostle been an issue for Buddhism. “According Paul unambiguously states that if in fact to the doctrine of Buddhism, the dharma Jesus was not raised from the dead, then kaya [the body of truth] is eternal, and so our faith is futile and useless, and we are it does not depend upon the historicity still in our sins (1 Corinthians 15:14–19). of Gautama.”45 In other words, whether The actual resurrection of Jesus Christ Gautama actually said and did what is from the dead—not merely the inspiring ascribed to him does not affect the truth idea of resurrection—is foundational of Buddhist teaching, which transcends to Christian faith. For the resurrection historical events. While most Buddhists is God’s stamp of approval upon the would insist that the teachings of life and teachings of Jesus, the defeat of contemporary Buddhism are consistent death and evil, and the inauguration of with what the historical Gautama taught, a qualitatively new form of life (Romans they would also acknowledge that the 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:26, 50–58). This Buddhist dharma is eternally true and distinguishes Christian faith from other thus not dependent upon anything in religions, such as Buddhism. Whereas the life of Gautama. it is possible to think of Buddhist Similarly, in Hinduism the doctrines teachings apart from the historical life are regarded as eternal truths that of Gautama, the Christian faith makes transcend history and thus are not no sense apart from the actual life, death, rooted in any particular individual or and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. event. Although Islam takes history The importance of historicity for seriously, we can still distinguish the Christian faith naturally raises the truths said to have been revealed by question about the degree to which Allah to Muhammad from Muhammad we can have confidence that the New as the particular recipient of this Testament writings are at all accurate revelation. There is no necessary in what they say about the life and connection between Muhammad and teachings of Jesus. Some complex the revelation; in principle, Allah could and controversial issues are involved have revealed the Qur’an to anyone. here, but there are strong reasons for The same cannot be said, however, accepting the New Testament witness about Jesus Christ. For Christian faith as a reliable account of Jesus’ life, 46 is inextricably rooted in the historical death, and resurrection. While we person of Jesus of Nazareth. Christianity cannot pursue the issues in depth, we is not merely a collection of inspiring can briefly note one major difference religious teachings; it is based upon between questions of history and the God’s active intervention in human New Testament as opposed to history history. At the center of Christian faith and Buddhist sources. is God’s revealing his purposes for the In terms of both the volume and redemption of sinful humanity and quality of early evidence, we have much providing the means for our salvation greater access to the historical Jesus and through the Incarnation in an actual the early Christian community than we human being, Jesus of Nazareth. It is do to Gautama and the early Buddhist 26 community. There is an abundance of years. Moreover, the early Pali writings early manuscripts of the New Testament consisted largely of instructions for so that we can be confident that what monastic life and sayings, stories and we have in the New Testament today is anecdotes of the Buddha and the early indeed what the original authors wrote. disciples; the “biographies” of the Scholars of almost every Buddha appear even later. theological stripe attest to the By contrast, the temporal gap profound care with which the between the death of Jesus and the New Testament books were writing of the New Testament is much copied in the Greek language, and shorter. It is generally agreed that Jesus later translated and preserved in was crucified in either a.d. 30 or 33.50 Syriac, Coptic, Latin and a variety The apostle Paul’s epistles were written of other ancient European and between about a.d. 50 and the late 60s (1 Middle Eastern languages. In the Thessalonians, arguably the earliest of original Greek alone, over 5,000 the New Testament letters, was probably manuscripts and manuscript written by Paul in a.d. 50). This leaves fragments of portions of the New a gap of only seventeen to twenty years Testament have been preserved between Jesus’ death and the earliest from the early centuries of New Testament writing, with Paul’s Christianity. . . . [O]verall, 97–99% writings falling within about thirty-five of the New Testament can years of Jesus’ death. The last of the be reconstructed beyond any New Testament books was probably reasonable doubt, and no Christian completed around a.d. 90, leaving about doctrine is founded solely or even sixty years separating it from the death primarily on textually disputed of Jesus.51 This, combined with the passages.47 abundance of manuscript evidence for Moreover, the gap in time between the text of the New Testament, provides the death of Jesus and the earliest New grounds for much greater confidence Testament writings is much smaller in the reliability of the New Testament than the gap between Gautama’s death portraits of Jesus than is the case with and the earliest written Buddhist texts. early Buddhist writings concerning Although there is little question about Gautama. the fact of Gautama’s existence, there is considerable dispute over when he lived, Jesus, Unlike Some Religious with dates for his death ranging from Leaders, Was a Monotheist 480 to 386 b.c.48 The earliest Buddhist Each religious figure must be scriptures were put into writing in Pali understood within the historical sometime in the first century b.c.; prior context of his time. Jesus was a Jew to that time they were transmitted living in a society in which the reality orally.49 Thus, assuming the Buddha’s of Yahweh, the one creator God, was death at 386 b.c. and the writing of the assumed. Like his contemporaries, Pali texts around 80 b.c., we have a gap Jesus was a monotheist who accepted of some 300 years between Gautama’s the Old Testament perspective that death and the first Buddhist writings. only Yahweh, the God of Israel, is the If the 480 b.c. date for his death is true God, the creator and ruler of all accepted, then the gap becomes 400 things. The importance of monotheism 27 is reflected in the Shema: “Hear, O God, there is no role for God, and Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is it is not difficult to find in Buddhist one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). When asked texts attacks on the existence of an by a religious expert which is the omnipotent, all-good Creator of greatest commandment, Jesus answered the universe.54 by quoting the Shema followed by Thus, one thing distinguishing Jesus the commands to love God and one’s from some religious leaders is his clear neighbor (Mark 12:28–31). There is no commitment to the reality of an eternal historical evidence that Jesus questioned creator God. the existence of God; to the contrary, God’s reality is presupposed in all that Jesus Identifies the Root Jesus says and does. Problem Confronting While some religious leaders, such Humankind As Sin; Others, as Muhammad, are also monotheists, Such as Gautama, Locate the many others are not. There has long Problem with Ignorance been debate over Confucius’ views As we have seen, the major religions all on God or the gods, with some claim that there is some fundamental interpreting him as a kind of theist problem afflicting humankind and the and others regarding him as agnostic cosmos at large. The religions offer on the subject.52 The Buddha rejected varying diagnoses of this problem and, the Brahmanical teachings about accordingly, different prescriptions for the reality of Brahman, the supreme its cure. According to Jesus, our root being in Hinduism, and Buddhism has problem is sin, the deliberate rejection generally been understood as rejecting of God’s righteous ways (Mark 7:1–22). the idea of a creator God. It is common It is not ignorance or some cosmic in the West to regard Buddhism as imbalance that causes the human simply agnostic about God, but this is predicament. Rather, it is a corrupt a misleading recent innovation. Most heart or a perverted inner disposition Buddhist traditions have historically such that “everyone who commits been atheistic. The Sri Lankan Buddhist sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). Sin, of scholar K. N. Jayatilleke observes that, if course, is more than merely moral by “God” we mean a supreme being and failure; it must always be understood as creator, then “the Buddha is an atheist an offense against a holy and righteous and Buddhism in both its Theravada God. In other words, sin is a concept and Mahayana forms is atheistic. . . . In that makes sense only in a theistic denying that the universe is a product of context. Furthermore, although Jesus a Personal God, who creates it in time consistently called others to repentance and plans a consummation at the end of (Matthew 4:17), he never repented for time, Buddhism is a form of atheism.”53 any sin. Not only does Jesus define the Paul Williams, a leading scholar of human predicament in terms of sin and Buddhism and former Buddhist who its consequences, but he assumes the converted to Roman Catholicism, states, authority to do what only God can do— Buddhists do not believe in the forgive sins (John 8:46; Mark 2:1–12). existence of God. There need be no The Buddha, by contrast, diagnosed debating about this. In practicing the root problem as deeply embedded Buddhism one never finds talk of ignorance. Gautama taught that it is 28 It is not ignorance or some cosmic imbalance that causes the human predicament. Rather, it is a corrupt heart or a perverted inner disposition such that “everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). ignorance about the true nature of appointed heir of all things and through reality—and in particular, about the whom he made the universe” (Hebrews impermanence of all things and the 1:1–2). The Gospel of John identifies corollary that there is no enduring Jesus with the preexistent Word (the person or soul—which results in Logos), who “was with God and who craving and attachment, and thus the was God” and through whom “all suffering of rebirth. The Buddhist things were made,” and it then asserts scholar Walpola Rahula says, “There that “the Word became flesh and made is no ‘sin’ in Buddhism, as sin is his dwelling among us” (John 1:1–4, understood in some religions. The 14). Throughout the New Testament, root of all evil is ignorance (avijja) and sometimes explicitly but often implicitly, false views (micchaditthi).”55 It should Jesus is placed in an unprecedented not be surprising that we do not find relationship of identity with Yahweh, in Buddhism the biblical concept of the everlasting creator God of the sin, for in Buddhism there is no holy Old Testament. Jesus is presented as and righteous God against whom one claiming the authority to do things might sin. Other that only God can Indian religions such do, such as forgive as Hinduism and sins (Mark 2:5–11); Jainism also locate In the human person judge the world the fundamental of Jesus of Nazareth, (Matthew 19:28; problem as one the one eternal God 25:31–46); give life, of ignorance, assumed human even to the dead although they nature: God became (John 5:21, 25–29; disagree over incarnate in Jesus, 11:17–44). Jesus the nature of this fully God and fully states that anyone ignorance. man. who has seen him has seen the Father The New ( John 14:9)—a Testament remarkable claim Presents Jesus in the context of Christ as God Incarnate, Fully Jewish monotheism. Jesus identifies Man and Fully God himself with the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14 Christians maintain that the and in so doing is understood by his comprehensive witness of the New contemporaries to be identifying himself Testament is that in the human person of with God (John 8:58). The apostle Paul Jesus of Nazareth, the one eternal God asserts that all of the “fullness” (pleroma) assumed human nature: God became of God is present in the human person incarnate in Jesus, fully God and fully of Jesus: “In Christ all the fullness of the man. The Incarnation forms the apex of Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians God’s self-revelation to humankind. 1:19; 2:9). Understood within the context The Letter to the Hebrews states, of first-century Jewish monotheism, the “In the past God spoke to our forefathers assertion that in Jesus of Nazareth the through the prophets at many times and one eternal God has become man is in various ways, but in these last days he unique in its audacity and is unparalleled has spoken to us by his Son, whom he in other religions. 30 It is sometimes said that Jesus not fit the data. To the contrary, he himself never taught anything like argues, the transition from invoking the orthodox Christian teaching on Jesus as revered Master to the the Incarnation and that this was a acclamation of him as divine Lord is much later doctrinal innovation of the best understood as a development in Christian church. The human Jesus, understanding according to which “the originally regarded by his followers various estimates of Jesus reflected in as just a great teacher and perhaps the New Testament [are], in essence, even the Messiah, over time became only attempts to describe what was revered as more than merely a man, already there from the beginning. resulting, under Greek influence, in the They are not successive additions of metaphysical conceptions of him as Son something new, but only the drawing of God, God the Son, and finally the out and articulating of what is there.” Second Person of the Holy Trinity in the Moule claims, “Jesus was, from the sophisticated Trinitarian formula. beginning, such a one as appropriately There is much that could be said to be described in the ways in which, by way of response to this claim, but sooner or later, he did come to be we will confine ourselves to two described in the New Testament related points. First, there simply is period—for instance, as ‘Lord’ and even, not sufficient time during the writing in some sense, as ‘God.’”56 Some of the of the New Testament for such a most elevated Christology and clearest dramatic evolution in understanding affirmations of the deity of Christ are the significance of Jesus. Second, while in the Pauline epistles, widely accepted some development within the New as the earliest documents in the New Testament writings themselves can Testament (cf. Romans 9:5; Philippians be traced, the “high Christology” that 2:5–11; Colossians 1:15–17, 19; 2:9). identifies Jesus with Yahweh, God the One way to determine early creator, is actually found in the earliest perspectives on Christology is to evidence we have of Christian belief and examine not only the language the New practice. Testament uses in reference to Jesus but As noted above, all the writings of also the practices of the early Christian the New Testament were completed community. Larry Hurtado has by about a.d. 90 (most considerably demonstrated that Christian worship earlier) so that at most there is a gap of Jesus is presupposed by the earliest of some sixty years between the death New Testament writings and thus that of Jesus and the completion of the last the practice of worshiping Jesus as book of the New Testament. This is not divine by his early followers—most of sufficient time for a radical evolution whom were Jewish—is even earlier than 57 from the view that Jesus is just an these writings. Hurtado claims that extraordinary man to that of him as within the first couple of decades of the in fact God-the-creator-become-man. Christian movement, “Jesus was treated New Testament scholar C. F. D. Moule as a recipient of religious devotion and maintains that the suggestion that was associated with God in striking 58 such “high” Christology evolved from ways.” He states, a primitive “low” Christology by a The origins of the worship of Jesus gradual process over time simply does are so early that practically any 31 evolutionary approach is rendered But with Jesus the situation is invalid as historical explanation. different. According to the Christian Our earliest Christian writings, Scriptures, we cannot save ourselves; we from approximately 50–60 C.E., are utterly helpless and hopeless apart already presuppose cultic devotion from the grace of God and the atoning to Jesus as a familiar and defining work of Jesus Christ on the cross for feature of Christian circles us (Ephesians 2:1–10; Romans 3:9–28). wherever they were found (1 Cor. Jesus is consistently presented in the 59 1:2). New Testament as the one Savior for Furthermore, Hurtado maintains, all people in all cultures (John 3:16; Acts This intense devotion to Jesus, 2:37–39; 4:12; Romans 3:21–25; 1 Timothy which includes reverencing him as 2:5–6). Jesus called upon others to believe divine, was offered and articulated in him and to find salvation in him (John characteristically within a firm 5:24; 6:35–58). Jesus does not merely teach stance of exclusivist monotheism, the way—he claims to be the way to the particularly in the circles of early Father (John 14:6). It is not simply that Christians that anticipated and Jesus has discovered the truth and that if helped to establish what became we follow his teachings we too can find mainstream (and subsequently, the way for ourselves. The Buddha can familiar) Christianity.60 be understood as saying, “Follow my teachings, follow the dharma and you Jesus Does Not Merely Teach too can experience the way leading to the Way to Reconciliation enlightenment.” But Jesus claims much with God—He Claims That He more than simply that he has discovered Himself Is the Way to Salvation the way to the Father and that if we As we have seen, it is possible with follow his teachings we too can find some religions to separate the religion’s the way. He puts himself forward as the teachings from the historical events in very embodiment of the way and the the life of the religion’s founder. This truth and the source of life. It is because is the case, for example, with Gautama of who he is and what he has done for and Buddhism. Moreover, there is us on the cross and in the resurrection within the teachings attributed to the that he is himself the way, the truth, Buddha a strong sense of each individual and the life. Thus, the truth of Jesus’ being responsible for his or her own teachings cannot be separated from the liberation. The Buddha did proclaim ontological grounding of this truth in the dharma, the teaching leading to the person of Christ as the incarnate liberation, and in this way he can be said Word of God. to assist all sentient beings. But it is up to each person to grasp the dharma, to act upon it, and thereby to attain nirvana.61 Rahula puts it this way: “If the Buddha is to be called a ‘saviour’ at all, it is only in the sense that he discovered and showed the Path to Liberation, Nirvana. But we must tread the Path ourselves.”62 Much of Buddhism teaches “self-effort” in attaining liberation. 32 A theology of religions must address two 10 basic questions: First, how do we explain theologically the sheer fact of human AN EVANGELICAL religiosity? Why are people incurably THEOLOGY OF religious? Second, how do we account RELIGIONS theologically for the particularities of religious expression, the many diverse beliefs and practices we find among the We have seen that religious pluralism religious traditions? Both similarities is inadequate as a general theory about and differences between Christianity the relationship among the religions. and other religions are to be explained Not only does it suffer from internal theologically. An evangelical theology inconsistencies, but it is incompatible of religions should be shaped by four with Christian commitments major biblical themes: creation, general concerning the reality of God and the revelation, sin, and demonic influence.64 person of Jesus Christ. But if religious pluralism is to be rejected, how should Creation and General Christians think about other religions? Revelation What theological principles should guide The religions, in varying degrees, do us in our approach to religious diversity? manifest elements of truth, goodness, Christians maintain that the eternal and beauty. The Confucian Analects, creator God has spoken to humankind for example, based upon the sayings in an intelligible manner in the of Confucius some five centuries Incarnation and the written Scriptures. before the time of Christ, contains two Thus, in thinking about other religions, statements of the Golden Rule.65 At a we are to submit to God’s revelation more basic level, it is because God has as truth, allowing it to control our created human beings with certain beliefs even when this truth may not be dispositions and capacities that we find particularly palatable to contemporary among humankind the capacity for tastes. religious expression, the recognition Thinking theologically about of a reality transcending the physical other religions involves us in what world, the yearning for the Creator is sometimes called the theology of and life beyond physical death, the religions. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen defines acknowledgement that the world as theology of religions as we experience it is not the way it is supposed to be, and the search for that discipline of theological ways in which to appease God or the studies which attempts to account gods and to attain a better existence. theologically for the meaning and Scripture teaches that human beings value of other religions. Christian are created in God’s image (Genesis 9:6; theology of religions attempts to 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9) and that think theologically about what it God has revealed something of himself means for Christians to live with and what he expects from humankind people of other faiths and about the in a general manner through the relationship of Christianity to other universe and the human person, religions.63 especially the human conscience 33 The emphasis upon Jesus Christ as the only Savior naturally raises questions about the scope of salvation and the destiny of those who do not hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Psalm 19:1–4; Acts 14:15–17; 17:22–31; to some, were in reality offered to Romans 1:18–32; 2:14–15). The fact that demons (1 Corinthians 10:20). all human beings are created in God’s Religions are complex phenomena image with a rudimentary awareness that include, in any particular case, of God’s reality and our obligation to varying degrees of truth and goodness him, as well as the biblical themes of along with much falsehood and evil. God’s general revelation throughout Chris Wright captures this dialectic the created order, help to explain the when he says, commonalities that we see between The fallen duplicity of man is that Christian faith and other religions. he simultaneously seeks after God Sin his Maker and flees from God his Judge. Man’s religions, therefore, But religious expression also includes simultaneously manifest both these much that is false, idolatrous, and human tendencies. This is what a perversion of God’s creation and makes a simplistic verdict on revelation. Thus, the biblical emphasis other religions—whether blandly upon human sin and rebellion against positive or wholly negative—so God (Genesis 2:16–17; 3:1–24; Romans unsatisfactory and indeed 5:12) is critical for a theology of religions, unbiblical.66 for this accounts for the fact that we find in the religions not only goodness but But to the extent that they distort God’s also much that is profoundly evil. Sin is a truth as revealed in Scripture and lead pervasive corruption of the human heart, people to place their trust in anything and it affects all aspects of our being. All apart from the living God, the religions, people are sinners. There is no one who like anything else that has this effect, are is naturally righteous before God and to be rejected as idolatrous. consistently does what is right (Psalm 14:2–3; Isaiah 53:6; Romans 3:10–18, 23). Sin is both personal and social in its 11 manifestation, and it is found both in the individual and collectively in cultures SALVATION: WHAT and societies. Not surprisingly, then, the ABOUT THOSE impact of sin is evident in the religions WHO NEVER HEAR as well as in other dimensions of life. ABOUT JESUS? Demonic Influence Finally, while it would be simplistic to According to the Scriptures, salvation attribute all of the phenomena of the is a gift of God’s grace, is based upon religions to the influence of demonic the person and work of Jesus Christ powers, it would be equally naive to on the cross, and comes through an pretend that the Adversary, Satan, is exercise of faith in God (Romans 3:25; not active through the religions. The 2 Corinthians 5:18–19, 21; Hebrews demonic is present in other religions just 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). Salvation is totally as it is active in the many domains of life. the work of God’s grace and is not the The apostle Paul reminded his readers result of human effort or good works that the pagan sacrifices of Corinthian (Ephesians 2:8–10). The Bible maintains religion, which seemed rather innocent 35 that Jesus is the unique, only Savior for lost, the church must be actively all of humankind; no one is reconciled to engaged in making disciples of all God except through Jesus Christ (John peoples, including sincere adherents 3:16, 36; 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5). of other religions. Moreover, most The emphasis upon Jesus Christ agree that the clear pattern in the as the only Savior naturally raises New Testament is that people first questions about the scope of salvation hear the gospel and then, through and the destiny of those who do not the work of the Holy Spirit, respond hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. While in faith to the proclamation of the this is a sensitive issue, we must form Word and are saved. our conclusions on the basis of what But is it nevertheless possible for some Scripture clearly teaches and be careful who have never heard the gospel of to avoid unhealthy speculation beyond Jesus Christ to be saved? There is some what Scripture affirms. Evangelical disagreement among evangelicals on Christians generally agree that the question of the unevangelized, the biblical witness is clear on the with evangelical responses falling into following points: three broad categories. The differences 1. All peoples in all cultures, between these positions do not including sincere followers of other concern the means of salvation (grace religions, are sinners and face versus works) but rather the amount God’s just condemnation for sin. of knowledge necessary for a saving 2. Salvation—that is, forgiveness of response to God.67 sin, justification and reconciliation 1. Many evangelicals hold that only with God, and all that this implies— those who hear the gospel and is available only on the basis of the explicitly respond in faith to the sinless person and atoning work of name of Jesus in this life can be Jesus Christ. All who are saved are saved. Explicit knowledge of saved only through Jesus Christ. the gospel of Jesus Christ is thus 3. No one is saved merely by being essential for salvation, and there is sincere, or by doing good works, no hope for those who die without 68 or by being devout and pious in having heard the gospel. following a particular religion. 2. A rather different perspective is 4. Salvation is always only by God’s that of the “wider hope,” which grace and must be personally maintains that we can expect accepted through faith. that large numbers of those who have never heard the gospel will 5. Ultimately, not everyone will be nevertheless be saved. Although saved. Some, probably many, will Jesus Christ is the one Savior for be eternally lost. all people and salvation is possible 6. God is entirely righteous, just, only because of Christ’s atoning and fair in his dealings with work on the cross, one need not humankind. No one who is know explicitly about Jesus Christ condemned by God is condemned and the cross to be saved.69 unjustly. 3. Many evangelicals, however, find 7. Both out of a sense of obedience themselves somewhere between to her Lord and compassion for the these two positions, convinced 36 that each of the above views goes those who have not yet heard the gospel. beyond what the biblical data Perhaps the wisest response to the affirm. Those in this group are issue is to acknowledge the possibility willing to admit in principle that that some who never hear the gospel God might save some who have might nonetheless, through God’s never explicitly heard the gospel, grace, respond to what they know of but they add that we simply do not God through general revelation and know whether this occurs or, if so, turn to him in faith for forgiveness. how many might be saved in this But to speculate about how many, if manner. John Stott, for example, any, are saved in this manner is to go states that on the basis of Scripture, beyond what the Scriptures affirm. we know that Millard Erickson observes, “There Jesus Christ is the only are no unambiguous instances in Saviour, and that salvation Scripture of persons who became true is by God’s grace alone, on believers through responding to general the ground of Christ’s cross revelation alone. Scripture does not alone, and by faith alone. The indicate how many, if any, come to only question, therefore, is salvation that way.”71 The pattern in the how much knowledge and New Testament is for people to hear understanding of the gospel the gospel of Jesus Christ and then to people need before they can respond by God’s grace to the gospel in cry to God for mercy and be saving faith. saved. In the Old Testament people were “justified by faith” even though they 12 had little knowledge or expectation of Christ. Perhaps LIVING AMONG there are others today in a RELIGIOUS OTHERS similar position, who know that they are guilty before God and that they cannot do We must remember that in theology anything to win his favour, of religions we are not dealing merely but who in self-despair call with abstract systems or beliefs but with upon the God they dimly real people who live in certain religious perceive to save them. If ways. What does it mean to be a disciple God saves such, as many of Jesus Christ in a world of religious evangelical Christians believe, diversity? How should followers of their salvation is still only Christ respond to religious others? through Christ, only by How do Christians acknowledge Jesus faith.70 Christ as Lord of all of life in modern, Those embracing this view maintain democratic societies increasingly that some knowledge of God, our characterized by religious diversity and sinfulness, and our inability to save that are committed to protection of ourselves is necessary, but they hold freedom of religious and non-religious that such minimal knowledge may be expression? The issues here are complex available through general revelation to and require proper navigation of two 37 sets of obligations: our responsibilities of reconciliation with God that must be as disciples of Jesus Christ and as good shared with a world that is desperately citizens. lost. The missionary statesman Lesslie Newbigin correctly links the recent The Great Commission: discomfiture over missions with a lack Make Disciples of confidence in the biblical picture of It is helpful to approach these questions Jesus Christ: in light of two specific instructions The contemporary from our Lord. The first is the so-called embarrassment about the Great Commission, given just prior to missionary movement of the Christ’s ascension: previous century is not, as we And Jesus came and said to them, like to think, evidence that we “All authority in heaven and on have become more humble. It is, I earth has been given to me. Go fear, much more clearly evidence therefore and make disciples of of a shift in belief. It is evidence all nations, baptizing them in the that we are less ready to affirm name of the Father and of the Son the uniqueness, the centrality, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching the decisiveness of Jesus Christ them to observe all that I have as universal Lord and Savior, the commanded you. And behold, I am Way by following whom the with you always, to the end of the world is to find its true goal, the age” (Matthew 28:18–20). Truth by which every other claim As followers of Jesus Christ, we are to truth is to be tested, the Life in to “make disciples” of all people. whom alone life in its fullness is Faithfulness to our Lord and compassion to be found.72 for the lost requires that we share the Similarly, the Dutch missiologist gospel of Jesus Christ with all people— Johannes Verkuyl remarks, “The including sincere followers of other subversion of the missionary mandate religions—urging them to embrace one encounters in various contemporary Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Disciple- missiologies and models of theology making thus includes evangelism, of religion must simply be called what although it involves much more than it is: betrayal of Jesus Christ.”73 The just sharing the gospel with others. issue, then, is not whether we engage Evangelism is controversial in evangelism with religious others, but today, as many Christians feel that rather how we do so. there is something inappropriate The Great Commandment: Love about trying to persuade sincere God and Your Neighbor followers of other religions to change This leads us to the second of Jesus’ their commitments and embrace the instructions for his followers, the so- Christian gospel. This is often linked called Great Commandment. to a certain embarrassment over And one of them, a lawyer, the modern missionary movement, asked him a question to test which is often dismissed today as him. “Teacher, which is the great simply the religious side of Western commandment in the Law?” And imperialism. But the Christian gospel is he said to him, “You shall love the inherently missionary. It is good news 38 Lord your God with all your heart the widespread perception that any form and with all your soul and with of “religious exclusivism” undermines all your mind. This is the great harmonious religious coexistence. Only and first commandment. And a ideological pluralism, it is said, can second is like it: You shall love your provide the framework for peaceful neighbor as yourself. On these two religious diversity. Monotheistic commandments depend all the religions—especially Christianity— Law and the Prophets” (Matthew are regarded as contributing to the 22:35–40; cf. Deuteronomy 6:4–5; problem of religious tensions, not part Mark 12:28–34; Luke 10:25–37). of the solution. The church must take As Christ’s disciples, we are to love God these perceptions seriously and show with our entire being and to love our a skeptical world that Christians can neighbor—including religious others— be strongly committed to Jesus Christ as we love ourselves. while also working to promote peaceful What does it mean to love our relations among religions. Christians neighbor? How do we love religious must take the lead and demonstrate others with whom we come into through concrete actions that we do contact? Among other things, surely accept in appropriate ways the ethnic, this means accepting Muslims, Hindus, cultural, and religious diversity in the and Buddhists as fellow human beings West. But at the same time, we cannot created by God and bearing the divine abandon our commitment to Jesus image, treating them with dignity and Christ as the one Lord and Savior for all respect, and seeking their welfare. It peoples. So even as we accept Buddhists includes building relationships with and Muslims as fellow human beings them and, to the extent that we are able, created in God’s image, we must also meeting their needs. On occasion it urge them to be reconciled to God by might also mean defending their rights acknowledging Jesus Christ as their and ensuring justice on their behalf. Lord and Savior. Part of what drives the agenda for religious pluralism in the West today is FOR FURTHER READING

The Gagging of How Shall They Be God: Christianity Saved? The Destiny Confronts Pluralism of Those Who Do Not D. A. Carson Hear of Jesus (Zondervan, 1996) Millard Erickson A comprehensive and (Baker, 1996) thorough discussion of A leading evangelical the many biblical and theologian provides a theological issues involved clear and comprehensive in religious pluralism discussion of the by a leading evangelical conditions for salvation New Testament scholar in Scripture. Carefully and theologian. Essential examines various views reading for anyone on the question of the desiring a biblically unevangelized. responsible approach to religious pluralism. Problems of Religious Diversity Is Jesus the Only Paul Griffiths Savior? (Blackwell, 2001) James R. Edwards A helpful introduction to (Eerdmans, 2005) the many philosophical A helpful examination issues in religious of the New Testament pluralism by a Christian understanding of Jesus analytic philosopher Christ in light of the who is also an expert in questions raised by Buddhism. Although the pluralism and radical discussion is primarily scholarship. Vigorously philosophical, the issues defends Jesus as the only addressed are relevant to Savior of the world. the theology of religions.

40 An Introduction Four Views on to the Theology of Salvation in a Religions: Biblical, Pluralistic World Historical and Dennis L. Okholm and Contemporary Timothy R. Phillips, Perspectives eds. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen (Zondervan, 1996) (IVP, 2003) An interesting exchange A very helpful general between John Hick, Clark overview of the subject of Pinnock, Alister McGrath, theology of religions, as R. Douglas Geivett, and well as a broad survey of W. Gary Phillips over the the many thinkers and question of the relation of positions found in the Christian faith to other current debates. Primarily religions. Clearly presents descriptive, without differences between the arguing for a particular various positions. view on theology of religions.

Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission. Harold Netland (IVP, 2001) An examination of the issues in the current debates over Christian faith and other religions as well as a critique of the religious pluralism of John Hick.

41 ENDNOTES 1 For background on the parable of the ring, see Alan Mittleman, “Toleration, Liberty, and Truth: A Parable,” Harvard Theological Review 95:4 (2002): 353–72. 2 Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Nathan the Wise, trans. Patrick Maxwell, ed. George Alexander Kohut (New York: Bloch, 1939), 243. 3 Ibid., 249. 4 Ibid., 252–53. 5 Joann O’Brien and Martin Palmer, The Atlas of Religion: Mapping Contemporary Challenges and Beliefs (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 14. 6 Ninian Smart and Frederick Denny, eds., Atlas of the World’s Religions, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 15. 7 See Christopher Partridge, ed., New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004). 8 Robert Wilken, Remembering the Christian Past (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 27, 42. 9 For a survey of different perspectives on other religions, see Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003). 10 Peter Berger, A Far Glory: The Quest for Faith in an Age of Credulity (New York: Anchor, 1992), 67, 146–47 (emphasis in original). 11 Robert Wuthnow, America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), 191. 12 Peter Byrne, “It Is Not Reasonable to Believe That Only One Religion Is True,” in Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion, ed. Michael L. Peterson and Raymond J. Vanarragon (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 204. 13 On Hick’s theological journey, see John Hick, John Hick: An Autobiography (Oxford: Oneworld, 2002), and Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001), 158–77. 14 John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 27. 15 John Hick, The Fifth Dimension (Oxford: Oneworld, 1999), 77. 16 John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent, 2d ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 8. 17 Ibid., 350. 18 John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions, 69. 19 John Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism (New York: St. Martin’s, 1985), 86–87. 20 John Hick, “Jesus and the World Religions,” in The Myth of God Incarnate, ed. John Hick (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 172 (emphasis in original). 21 John Hick, God Has Many Names (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980), 74. 22 John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 98. 23 Roger Schmidt, et al., Patterns of Religion (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1999), 10. 42 24 Ninian Smart, The Religious Experience, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996), 1–8; idem, Worldviews: Crosscultural Explorations of Human Beliefs, 2d ed. (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1995). 25 Ninian Smart, The Religious Experience of Mankind, 5. 26 The Four Noble Truths, which are said to have been expressed in the Buddha’s first sermon and comprise the heart of classical Buddhist teaching, are as follows: (1) All of existence is characterized by dukkha (usually translated as “suffering” or “dissatisfaction”). (2) There are discernible causes of suffering, and the root cause is tanha (desire, thirst, or craving). (3) The disease of suffering is curable, and when desire/craving cease, suffering ceases as well. (4) The cessation of desire/craving (and thus suffering) is achieved through following the Noble Eightfold Path, which is a series of highly disciplined steps that lead to enlightenment. They are clustered into three general categories: proper view (right understanding and right thought), proper conduct (right speech, right action, right livelihood), and proper practice (right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration). See Donald W. Mitchell, Buddhism: Introducing the Buddhist Experience, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 49–61. 27 Keith Yandell, “How to Sink in Cognitive Quicksand: Nuancing Religious Pluralism,” in Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion, 191. 28 Although the meaning of “truth” in religion is the same as that of “truth” in other domains, the ways in which we determine whether a given religious belief is true will of course be somewhat different from ways in which we determine truth in, say, physics or history. 29 K. N. Jayatilleke, The Message of the Buddha, ed. Ninian Smart (New York: Free Press, 1974), 43–44. 30 Hajime Nakamura, “Unity and Diversity in Buddhism,” in The Path of the Buddha: Buddhism Interpreted by Buddhists, ed. Kenneth W. Morgan (New York: Ronald, 1956), 372. See also Paul Griffiths, “Philosophizing Across Cultures: or, How to Argue With a Buddhist,” Criterion 26 (Winter 1987), 10–14; idem, An Apology for Apologetics: A Study in the Logic of Interreligious Dialogue (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991); and Keith Yandell, “Religious Traditions and Rational Assessments,” in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Chad Meister and Paul Copan (London: Routledge, 2007), 204–15. 31 See Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism, 293–97. 32 See Richard King, Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1999). 33 The Vedanta Sutras of Badarayanna with the Commentary of Sankara, trans. George Thibaut (1896; repr., New York: Dover, 1962), 2:399. 34 “Jaina Sutras,” in Sacred Books of the East, trans. Hermann Jacobi, ed. F. Max Muller (Curzon: Richmond, Surrey, 2001), 45:418. 43 35 H. H. The XIVth Dalai Lama, “‘Religious Harmony’ and The Bodhgaya Interviews,” in Christianity Through Non-Christian Eyes, ed. Paul J. Griffiths (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1990), 169. 36 John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions, 27. 37 See Keith Yandell, Philosophy of Religion (London: Routledge, 1999), 71–72. 38 See John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions, 27, 60, 63, 67. 39 John Hick, “Ineffability,” Religious Studies 36 (March 2000): 44. 40 Keith Yandell, “How to Sink in Cognitive Quicksand,” 194, and “Revisiting Religious Pluralism,” Christian Scholar’s Review 31:3 (Spring 2002): 319. 41 Peter Byrne, “It Is Not Reasonable to Believe that Only One Religion Is True,” 204. 42 For helpful discussions of arguments for God’s existence, see Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004); idem, Is There A God? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996); Stephen T. Davis, God, Reason and Theistic Proofs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997); Keith Yandell, Philosophy of Religion, 167–235; and Chad Meister and Paul Copan, eds., The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Religion (London: Routledge, 2007), 329–93. 43 John Hick, “A Pluralist View,” in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 51–52. 44 For a helpful discussion of the biblical data on Jesus as these relate to issues of religious pluralism, see James R. Edwards, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). 45 See Robert W. Wood, ed., “Tillich Encounters Japan,” Japanese Religions (May 1961), 2:48–71. 46 See Craig L. Blomberg, “Jesus of Nazareth: How Historians Can Know Him and Why It Matters” (Christ on Campus Initiative, 2008), available at christoncampuscci. org/77/. For helpful introductions to the issues of history, the New Testament, and Christian faith, see Colin Brown, “Historical Jesus, Quest of,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992), 326–41; Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 2d ed. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2007); Paul Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable?, 2d ed. (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003); and Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006). 47 Craig Blomberg, “The Historical Reliability of the New Testament,” in William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Faith and Apologetics, 2d ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 1994), 194–95. 48 On historical issues concerning Gautama the Buddha, see Donald W. Mitchell, Buddhism: Introducing the Buddhist Experience, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 9–32; Hajime Nakamura, Gotama Buddha: A Biography Based on the Most Reliable Texts, vol. 1, trans. Gaynor Sekimori (Tokyo: Kosei, 2000); and David Edward Shaner, “Biographies of the Buddha,” Philosophy East and West 37 (July 1987): 306–22. 49 See Donald W. Mitchell, Buddhism, 66. 50 On issues relating to the year of Jesus’ death, see Joel B. Green, “Death of Jesus,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 148–49. 44 51 For further discussion on dates and related issues for each New Testament book, see D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005). 52 See, for example, Julia Ching, Confucianism and Christianity: A Comparative Study (Tokyo: Kodansha International, 1977). 53 K. N. Jayatilleke, The Message of the Buddha, ed. Ninian Smart (New York: Free Press, 1974), 105. 54 Paul Williams, The Unexpected Way: On Converting From Buddhism to Catholicism (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002), 25. For more on Buddhist critiques of theism, see Gunapala Dharmasiri, A Buddhist Critique of the Christian Concept of God (Antioch, CA: Golden Leaves, 1988); and Paul Williams, “Aquinas Meets the Buddhists: Prolegomenon to an Authentically Thomas-ist Basis for Dialogue,” in Aquinas in Dialogue: Thomas for the Twenty-First Century, ed. James Fodor and Christian Bauerschmidt (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 87–117. 55 Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught, 3. 56 C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 2–4 (emphasis in the original). 57 Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); and idem, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005). 58 Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 2. As indicators of such worship, he points to the practices of calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ when believers gathered together (1 Corinthians 1:2); the use of hymns about or to Jesus as regular parts of Christian worship (Philippians 2:5–11); prayer to God “through” Jesus (Romans 1:8), and direct prayer to Jesus himself (Acts 7:59–60; 2 Corinthians 12:8–9; 1 Thessalonians 3:11–13; 2 Thessalonians 2:16–17); use of the formula “Marana tha!” (“O Lord, Come!”) as a prayer in worship (1 Corinthians 16:22); invoking Jesus’ name in healing and exorcism (Acts 3:16; 16:18) as well as in baptism (Acts 2:38); and the celebration of the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:17–34). 59 Larry Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?, 25. 60 Ibid., 3. See also Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 61 There are some striking exceptions to this pattern in Mahayana Buddhism, in which various bodhisattvas and buddhas are said to assist human beings in the pursuit of enlightenment and liberation. The Pure Land tradition, in particular, teaches that we cannot attain enlightenment and rebirth in the Pure Land through our own efforts and that we must rely solely upon the merit and “grace” of the Amida Buddha for such liberation. 62 Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught, 1–2. 63 Veli-Matti Karkkainen, An Introduction to the Theology of Religions, 20. 64 For further discussion of these points, see Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism, 308–48. See also Winfried Corduan, A Tapestry of Faiths: The Common Threads Between Christianity and World Religions (Downers Grove: IVP, 2002) and Ida Glaser, The Bible and Other Faiths: Christian Responsibility in a World of Religions 45 (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005). 65 Confucius: The Analects, 12:2 and 15:24, trans. D.C. Lau (London: Penguin, 1979), 112, 135. 66 Christopher J. H. Wright, “The Christian and Other Religions: The Biblical Evidence,” Themelios 9:2 (1984): 5. 67 For helpful discussions of the relevant biblical and theological issues in the debate, see D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) and Millard J. Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved? The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996). 68 See John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003); Ronald Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994); and Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, eds., Faith Comes By Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008). 69 See John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992); Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992); Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions (Downers Grove: IVP, 2004). 70 John Stott, The Authentic Jesus (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1985), 83. See also J. I. Packer, “Evangelicals and the Way of Salvation,” in Evangelical Affirmations, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 121–23; Millard Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved?; and David Clark, “Is Special Revelation Necessary for Salvation?,” in Through No Fault of Their Own?, ed. William V. Crockett and James Sigountos (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 40–41. 71 Millard Erickson, How Shall They Be Saved?, 158. 72 Lesslie Newbigin, A Word in Season: Perspectives on Christian World Missions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 122, 115. 73 Johannes Verkuyl, “The Biblical Notion of Kingdom: Test of Validity for Theology of Religion,” in Good News of the Kingdom, ed. Charles Van Engen, Dean S. Gillialand, and Paul Pierson (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993), 77.

46 OTHER TITLES AVAILABLE Atheism: Five Arguments for God A Christian Perspective on Islam Christianity & Sexuality Do Christians Have a Worldview? Homosexuality Human Flourishing Naturalism in a Biblical Worldview Sin: Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be Who Chose the New Testament Documents? Who Was Jesus of Nazareth?

FORTHCOMING TITLES Does the World Have a Future? The Intolerance of Tolerance The Thoughtful Christian

TO DOWNLOAD THESE AND OTHER RESOURCES, VISIT WWW.CHRISTONCAMPUSCCI.ORG. 47 www.christoncampuscci.org christoncampuscci ccioncampus