MysteriousFaith

Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World

No word in the lexicon of Western Christianity is more loaded with meaning than that of the word “salvation.” Regardless of your religion, the word salvation denotes less the essence of faith and more the hoped upon result of faith. You may be a Christian, a Muslim, a Mormon or from some other religious perspective, but for each religion the desire to obtain salvation is of primary importance.

Book Review - Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World - contributors include John Hick, Clark H. Pinnock, Alister E. McGrath, R. Douglas Geivett, and W. Gary Phillips, Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips General Editors, Stanley N. Gundry Series Editor

No word in the lexicon of Western Christianity is more loaded with meaning than that of the word “salvation.” Regardless of your religion, the word salvation denotes less the essence of faith and more the hoped upon result of faith. You may be a Christian, a Muslim, a Mormon or from some other religious perspective, but for each religion the desire to obtain salvation is of primary importance. It is seen by some as a decision, a point in time where the acceptance of “truth” makes you a part of the family of God. To others, salvation is a process marked by growing in grace, that process many have labeled as “sanctification.” For some, the decision of salvation must be marked by baptism, to others it is marked by observance of Holy Sacraments. Some advocate the decision to “accept Christ” only, needing no other sign of sanctification to believe in one’s soul being saved from destruction. Others argue that salvation is through faith, but that faith that does not result in changes to your life is not real faith.

This book, a part of the Counterpoints series, has four positions on salvation in a pluralistic world presented and then dissected from four different theologians (the position of salvation in Christ alone is presented by two theologians writing together). Some would argue that all four of the positions are within the realm of orthodox Christian faith; others would strenuously disagree. In particular, the positions of normative pluralism and inclusivism would be seen by many Christians as being outside of the acceptable boundaries of traditional Christianity.

Prior to a discussion on the four positions of salvation in a pluralistic world, it is meaningful to stop and address what is meant by the very use of the word salvation: it is here that I believe much of what this book addresses can potentially be lost by a reader. The question of what salvation is was not addressed to my satisfaction within this book by any of the four theological positions. Granted, this book is not meant to address a comprehensive discussion on what salvation is; however, much of what can and should be debated about the positions presented in this book can not be fully developed without addressing the various concepts of salvation. If we are not debating from a shared agreement on the definition of the word, we are unlikely to agree on the outcome of said word. To structure such a dialogue properly, the debate should probably be three-fold: what do we mean by the use of the word “salvation”, comparisons and contrasts to views of salvation in a pluralistic world, and what our view of God is relative to our view on eternal punishment. Each of these three issues are inter-related. I would suggest that our view of God colors our view of salvation’s intent and salvation’s process. To debate an issue as complex as salvation without addressing our view of God seems to me to be missing too much. Within this book I found solace most in those positions that took the time to touch on how their view of salvation rests in their view of God.

The position taken by John Hick, the theologian writing to defend normative pluralism, is matched only by that of Clark Pinnock, the theologian who writes on inclusivism, in their association between what we know of the personality of God with their understanding of salvation. To those people who are violently against any line of reasoning that is extra-Biblical, the arguments of Hick & Pinnock will be offensive and wrong. In contrast, the position of salvation in Christ and salvation in Christ alone is based Biblically only; not taking into account any reasonable extra-Biblical reasoning related to what Scripture teaches as to the nature of God.

Normative pluralism is best illustrated by the story of four blind men all led to an elephant and made to describe in totality that which they can only feel tactilely. One blind man is led to feel the trunk; another, the leg; another, the ear; another, the tail. In much the same way, normative pluralism argues that the world religions each attempt to reach the divine, to relate to God, in a way that is incomplete - but individually a reasonable part of the story. Normative pluralism and inclusivism best address the issue of the salvation (keeping in mind this term is not one we each probably agree on as to meaning) of the un-reached. What happens to those who never hear the Gospel? Those who write from the position of salvation in Christ alone give verbal acknowledgement of the difficulty of their theology relative to the un-reached, but they quickly adopt a position that seems stridently out of character with what Scripture teaches of a loving, merciful and yes, even holy God. Calvin went so far as to write that God reveals enough of Himself to make the damnation of the unsaved that much more severe. I find such reasoning disgusting and incompatible with a proper view of God; it is entirely against the life, teachings and sacrifice of Jesus.

Hick’s defense of normative pluralism does a very good job of presenting a view of salvation that I believe is one of the more meaningful ways of looking at the purpose and outworking of salvation:

“…we should think of salvation in more universal terms than has been customary in Christian theology. This in turn leads to a new understanding of the function of the world religions, including Christianity. If we define salvation as being forgiven and accepted by God because of Jesus’ death on the cross, then it becomes a tautology that Christianity alone knows and is able to preach the source of salvation. But if we define salvation as an actual human change, a gradual transformation from natural self-centeredness … to a radically new orientation centered in God and manifested in the ‘fruit of the spirit,’ then it seems clear that salvation is taking place within all of the world religions - and taking place, so far was we can tell, to more or less the same extent.” (page 43)

Within Hick’s challenge to view salvation as taking place in other world religions is a perspective on salvation that is meaningful and worthy of considering. He touches on the view that salvation is best fulfilled by the teaching of Christ but not only fulfilled in Christ, a point that could have used more developing. He argues, in a limited way as does C.S. Lewis, that Hick can find parity between the Biblical view of God and the belief that an earnest Muslim child, raised in a Muslim country and knowing only Muslim teaching, who earnestly seeks God, will be saved. I find this argument very encouraging and very consistent with what I know of the God from Scripture.

Having said these things in defense of Hick’s thesis, I take serious umbrage with Hick’s unwillingness to accept the deity of Christ: I have long since settled the historicity of Christ in my mind and as such, find his departure into this part of his line of reasoning unsettling and unacceptable. It is here that I feel his argument goes astray and it is here that I can not fully accept normative pluralism as Hick presents it. I believe the position of normative pluralism could be supported without denying the divinity and historicity of the risen Christ.

Inclusivism is a position that I found much to celebrate, and much I personally resonated with. As with most passionate ideologues, Pinnock presents his position best, and so let me quote directly from his chapter:

“The conviction of inclusivism is that the Christian message is the fulfillment, not only of Old Testament religion, but in some way of all religious aspiration and of the human quest itself. The aspirations of the ancient world, the messianic hope of Israel, the quest of the Greek people, and the longings of the Orient can find fulfillment in Jesus Christ. They are among the many and varied ways by which God has spoken to nations.” (page 115)

Pinnock’s view of God is holy, divine and essential to any meaningful view of salvation. Where others seem to want to only use wooden literalism in their defense of what salvation is, Pinnock blends Scripture passages with Scripture teaching on the nature of God. He does not sacrifice what we are taught on the nature of God by issues of Biblical infallibility. Where Pinnock believes salvation can exist outside of religion, outside of the church, I would profoundly agree:

“Faith cannot be identified with adherence to Christianity or any other religion. God saves through faith, through a heart response not confined to a religious framework. God can relate to the human soul inside or outside these structures. It is not under our control where the Spirit breathes. There is no time or space where he is not free to move or where a person cannot call on God for mercy. God is free to speak his word at any time and in any way. God’s word is not bound or confined (2 Tim. 2:9) … Western theology since Augustine has been pessimistic about admitting God’s grace outside the church and salvific divine revelation outside of Christ.” (page 117)

In the postulation of Pinnock I found an argument I could most resonate with: his view of God is profound, is Scriptural, and addresses the thorniest questions of the un-reached and un-proselytized that those who take the position of salvation in Christ alone.

The positions of those who wrote on salvation in Christ and salvation in Christ alone were, in my opinion, unworthy of being separated logically. They overlap significantly; I am not clear why one would separate these two views from one-another, and not seek to explain nuances between those people who believe in normative pluralism but defend the historicity and divinity of Christ.

The positions of the salvation in Christ theologians is very traditional: salvation is only from faith in Christ. McGrath’s position is characterized as “agnosticism regarding those who haven’t heard the Gospel.” There is wisdom in this statement as it properly acknowledges that God is the ultimate arbiter of eternal salvation. Perhaps if McGrath were to address more what he means by the use of the word salvation, I would have resonated more with his argument. But I did not entirely.

I found the arguments of McGrath, Geivett, Phillips and Okholm very centered in Christology, but strangely lacking in any symmetry with a Christ-concentric view of God. What we are shown of God in the life of Jesus does not seem to find its way into their understanding of God. This very statement presents a loaded set of questions to many within the evangelical community, and I do so without a desire to be intentionally provocative or to be mean-spirited. Many Christians view the Bible as being used purely as reference material: passages are cited to support doctrines, enough passages are strung together to form systematic theologies. This provides ample opportunity for doctrines to be developed based on passages taken out of context, and as a means of understanding Scripture, mandates that doctrines have little tension or mystery within them - even if they obviously have such complications. I can not agree with this perspective and so I look both to specific Scripture, but also to what I believe Scripture tells me of the nature of God. It is here, in these paradoxes, that I believe the arguments of salvation in Christ, and salvation in Christ alone, need to be slightly more deferential.

While reading this book, I was cautioned by a wise teacher that accepting any one doctrine of salvation is not wise. I was properly warned to be very careful of “isms.” To the extent that I believe I can grasp the entirety of eternal salvation based on what I know of God is the extent to which I do not fully understand God. I must be content to place the issue of salvation into the hands of an all-loving, all-merciful God. Only He knows and only He will determine. This in no way negates the mandate to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling, nor does it change my view of evangelism. It does, however, challenge me to rightly define what salvation is and what it is not.

previous post: The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently … and Why
next post: A Man I Can’t Seem to Understand: Reflections on President Bush

• Posted in Theology
• no comments
• Trackback
• April 1, 2004

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website