A THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION ON RELIGIOUS PLURALISM By Kosuke Koyama Professor Emeritus of Ecumenical Studies, Union Theological Seminary, New York City This paper, reprinted from an Occasional Paper of the National Campus Ministry Association, Pentecost 2000, is a revised version of a presentation Kosuke Koyama first gave to the Bishops’ Theological Conference of the Lutheran Church in Minnesota, USA and appeared in The Ecumenical Review, World Council of Churches, April 1999. Truth and Truth Claims We live today in a world that is religiously and morally pluralistic. According to one recent reference book, religious pluralism is “the view that different or even contradictory, forms of religious belief and behaviour could or even should coexist. The problem with religious pluralism arises when one particular tradition (the mainstream) dominates society, denying the legitimacy of other streams and marginalizing them as sectarian phenomena.”1 Stanley J. Samartha writes. “Pluralism does not relativize Truth. It relativizes different responses to Truth which are conditioned by history and culture. It rejects the claim of any particular response to be absolute.”2 The acknowledgment that no one can hold the truth in the palm of his or her hand is the basic orientation of sound religious pluralism. Truth is not identical with our truth claims. In a pluralistic world, those who embrace a particular position must be enlightened about positions other than their own. It takes critical intellectual effort to understand and appreciate the plural reality of truths and their meaningful co- existence. There are Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Jewish, Christian and Islamic religious experiences and expressions that inform respective truth perceptions. This challenges the conviction of “no other name” (Acts 4:12) which has guided Christian theology for centuries. It is a worthy and serious challenge. Anyone who believes (credo - “I place my heart”) in Jesus Christ is Christian. There is, however, a bewildering plurality in the experience and expression of the Christian faith. This plurality is disturbingly numerous and can be dangerously divisive. For some Christians, miracles are essential, while for others they are not. For some, the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible belongs to the core of the faith, while for others it is of little significance. For some, sacraments are at the centre of the faith experience, while for others (like the Christians of the Japanese Non-Church Movement) they are peripheral. For some, the papacy is an integral part of the faith, for others it represents a huge obstacle to the faith. The same scripture has been used for and against slavery, abortion and capital punishment. Each denomination has its central confessional theme and its history - often defensive and closed to other traditions. The church itself is experienced and defined differently. Even the person of Jesus Christ is differently experienced and expressed. The 5th-century Chalcedonian definition created two families within the Orthodox Church. From 1054 to 1965—more than nine centuries—(the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople remained in a state of unfriendly non-communication. In Asia and elsewhere, an inordinate amount of suspicion exists between “evangelicals” (conservative Christians) and “ecumenicals” (liberal Christians)—so much that one is tempted to say they belong to two different antagonistic religions. In fact the tensions inside Christianity are often more intense than the tensions we find in the inter-religious context. Not infrequently within one religion, one school denies another school the validity of its truth claim. 1 R.J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, Oxford, Oxford UP, 1997, p. 537. 2 S.J. Samartha, “The Holy Spirit and People of Other Faiths,” The Ecumenical Review vol. 42. nos. 3-4. Oct. 1990, p.253. The basic reason for such often painful diversity within religious life is that the truth and our truth claims are not identical. Yet we mistakenly treat them as though they were identical. There will be always some person or group of persons who names any particular truth. No truth is untouched by humans. No truth, subjected to human language, is perfectly received or perfectly communicated. The biblical prophet’s advice to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8) suggests that we should humbly recognize some distance between our naming of the truth and truth itself. This must also be the apostolic meaning of seeing the truth only “dimly” now (I Cor. 13:12). Tillich’s Warning Among Christians today, pluralism has become a subject of serious concern, particularly in relation to human sexuality and the truth claims of other religions. Many fear that pluralism will erode God-given moral truth. If there are plurally truthful positions on moral issues, does that not cloud our moral judgment on what is right and what is wrong? Can a theological seminary admit students regardless of their sexual orientation? Can religions other than Christianity have saving truth? It is little wonder that such fears arise given the history of unchallenged Christian moral hegemony in the West for the last 16 centuries. Often pluralism is discussed in terms of inclusivism and exclusivism. Exclusion and inclusion are central to religious discourse. “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14). It is also basic to human experience. “Am I included or excluded?” is an ever-present existential question for all of us. Usually inclusion is more positively valued than exclusion. We like to be included in, not excluded from, salvation, be it eternal or temporal. Often inclusion and exclusion are understood in terms of the law of contradiction. To say that I am a Buddhist suggests the impossibility of my being a Muslim. If heterosexuality is right, then any approval or homosexuality must be excluded. If Christianity is the true religion then Islam cannot be a true religion (exclusion) In this context, pluralism appears as a third position, presumably over-coming the limitations of inclusion and exclusion. Truth includes. Truth excludes. Truth is plural. There are within pluralism two different approaches to the nature of truth: (1) there are not one but many truths from the beginning (“hard pluralism”); (2) truth is one but it appears in many forms (“soft pluralism”). The difference between (1) and (2) is unclear because we cannot really grasp what “the truth” itself is. Pluralism must acknowledge (1) some common ground on which all humanity stands, without which any pluralism, inclusivism or exclusivism would be meaningless; (2) the fact that the same truth can appear in different religious traditions through their respective symbols and thought forms; and (3) whatever is said about pluralism, inclusivism and exclusivism, the religious life is one of commitment: Christians are Christians because they hold Christianity to be true, and so are Muslims, and so on. In the context of (3) above, it is nearly inevitable that there would be conflicting claims to “ultimate truth.” But when those claims are made, transcendence is domesticated and violated. Theology is authentic and helpful when it acknowledges that our grasp of the truth is not identical with the ultimate truth itself. What is the ultimate truth of the Buddhist dharma, Islamic shahada, Jewish shekhinah or capital punishment, abortion, sexuality, race, nation, war-and-peace? We may have strong views on each of these. Are our strong views identical with ultimate truth? Paul Tillich makes us cautious: Idolatry is the elevation of a preliminaiy concern to ultimacy. Something essentially conditioned is taken as unconditional, something essentially partial is boosted into universality, and something essentially finite is given infinite significance.3 We see the truth only “in part” now (1Cor. 13:9: cf 1 Cor. 4:5). In my own experience, I have seen Japan destroyed because “something essentially finite”—the Japanese imperial cult—“was given infinite significance”. Truth grasps us, not the other way around. “You did not choose me but I choseyou” (John 15:l6). Discredited by its involvement in slavery, inquisition, wars, racism and genocide, Christian civilization has lost what it perceived as its universal moral authority. In the eyes of humanity, it has failed to live by its own Golden Rule: “Do to 3 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1953, p. 16. others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31; cf. ‘Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire,” TheAnalects of Confucius, Book XII.2). In the mental map of humanity, there are a number of oikoumenes each respectively presenting its own perception of truth. The imperialism of one truth over another is not appreciated. Is Buddhism a false religion? The answer would depend on to whom the question is addressed. And what do we mean by “false?” Again, the answer would vary widely. When and where are we asking questions of religious truth? Responses would differ widely. “The historical and the relative are identical,” wrote Ernst Troeltsch.4 There is no objectively valid absolute answer to the question regarding religious truth. The demand for absolute objective truth in religion is a move towards idolatry. A Christian congregation that prays “Forgive us for neglecting your mercy as we condemn others who do not understand your gospel exactly as we do” expresses the spirit of the theology of pluralism. The prayer, “God, I thank you that I am not like other people” (Luke 18:11) turns its back on pluralism. What Is the Gospel? Christian discourse must stand upon the fundamental question: What is the gospel? The answer is Jesus Christ. “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ. and him crucified” (I Cor. 2:2), says Paul. This name is the core essential of the Christian life.