Is it possible to understand Christian revelation in a way which also allows for divine revelation in other religious traditions? Paul Mulqueen
Synopsis
For centuries the old extra ecclesiam model of salvation prevailed in the Church, which still exists basically among fundamentalists today. Karl Rahner produced a new inclusivist model for Vatican II, which has been extended, especially by Jacques Dupuis and Raimundo Panikkar. John Hicks has in recent years produced and refined a new pluralist model. Never was a working model to enable dialogue between the major religious traditions more needed How efficient and how much mileage can we get from these models?
Introduction:
Christianity was born into a hybrid world of Judaism and Hellenism, of monotheism, polytheism, and paganism and, from the outset, had to adapt its unique universal message to particular cultural and historical circumstances. Early Christian history gives evidence of a continuous movement of assimilation, by means of which different forms of culture were integrated into Christian tradition. The historian, Arnold Toynbee said that one reason for the success of Christianity was that it did not really eliminate the higher religions in the Roman Empire but absorbed into itself what was valuable in them. [1] In time, however, as the African, Asian and Orthodox churches separated from the Western church and the Western church itself split, Christianity did not remain as open to the new cultures it encountered but drew sharp lines between what was "in" and what was "out," represented in the famous dictum extra ecclesiam nulla salus. [3]
The result of this was that by the middle of the 20th century, although the Church had expanded considerably in Asia, Africa and Latin America on the back of colonial expansion, it was very still very Euro-centric. New and proper relationships were necessary between Christianity and other cultures and religions. Theological presumptions in relation to the language and nature of revelation were in need of revisiting and reformulating. The Second Vatican Council recognised that revelation is evolutionary, and that it needed to be considered and worked through, if the unique revelation of God in Jesus Christ was to be brought to the whole world. [4]
Nostra Aetate [5] shows an openness to and sensitivity towards religious diversity, though its identity and focus remain firmly Christian. Not only did it recognise that there was a salvific path available to millions of non-Christians," but it also acknowledged that there are elements which are "true and holy" in their religions. The idea that non-Christian religions represent the working out of the divine plan for the salvation of the world was recognised in so far as they reflected the “ ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” [6]
This Declaration went beyond mere recognition, however, to an exhortation to Christians, as Christians, to engage in “dialogue and collaboration” with members of other religions, and to “acknowledge, preserve and promote” the good aspects of their spiritual and moral life, as well as “the values in their society and culture.” [7] It altered the church’s attitude and relationship with other religions and set it once again on a path of mutual involvement, influence and enrichment. [8] [9]
Salvation Paradigms:
On what basis was this dialogue
and collaboration to occur? Jacques Dupuis
indicates that there are different ways of approaching the salvation
paradigms and suggests the use of existing categories, in a way
which is indicative rather than rigid : an ecclesiocentric universe
and an exclusive Christology; a Christocentric universe and an
inclusive Christology; a theocentric universe and a normative
Christology; and a theocentric universe and a non-normative Christology.
Although for the sake of simplicity these are reduced to three:
ecclesiocentrism, Christocentrism, and theocentrism; or, equivalently,
exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. [10]
For centuries the old extra ecclesiam model of salvation had prevailed. After Vatican II there was still a strong element of this exclusivism in Protestant evangelism and some aspects still remained in the Church itself. [11] This approach relied on a special perception of the distinction between God's general and special revelations. God is present in creation (general revelation), but Man has offended by going against this revelation and therefore stands guilty of sin before God. However, God has shown a compassionate forgiveness through His word and deed, fulfilled completely in Jesus Christ. The historical person of Jesus is the unique, final, decisive, and normative self-revelation of God to Man (special revelation). Jesus Christ is the sole norm by which all religions, including Christianity, should be understood and evaluated. The task of theology is to unfold the revelation attested to in the Bible. Different religious paths do not adequately reflect the way of God and do not lead to truth and life. Jesus is not, therefore, just the greatest lord among other lords. There is no other lord besides him. [12] Jesus' death is a once-and-for-all reconciliation and justification. Acceptance of this death by faith is the operative and saving response explicitly taught. [13] Thus the exclusivist argument, while allowing the notion of a general revelation of God to the non-Christian, would deny any special divine revelation on the basis that it is only through a personal commitment to Christ in response to the gospel that anyone can be saved. [14]
Inclusivism is defined by D.A. Hughes as “the belief that it is the same ‘God’ [15] that is worshipped in all the religions, but that the fullest knowledge of him is to be found in the Christian tradition. Christianity fulfils the vague longings that are expressed in other religions.” [16] It is a response to the problem that the desire God has for all people to be saved, combined with the physical limitation of mission, raises questions about the possibility of a loving God condemning people for not responding to a message that they have not heard through no fault of their own. [17] Thus, salvation, although still posited wholly in Christ and his salvific work, is available to all cultures. Specific knowledge of this work, however, is not necessary for salvation to apply to those within a different religious culture who have responded to the general revelation available. Thus there is an acknowledgement of the possibility of salvation outside of Christian faith or outside the visible church, but the agent of such salvation is Christ, and the revelation in Jesus is definitive and authoritive for assessing that salvation. The role of Christian revelation in the missions is not conversion, as such, but to help people discover and reveal the Christ already within their religious tradition. [18]
The theologian who provided the
underlying theology for inclusivism is Karl Rahner,
who began his argument by assuming that an all-loving God would
not exclude the majority of human kind from salvation simply
because they have no knowledge of him. At the same time, he insists,
“salvation comes only through the grace of God mediated
in his Church.” [19] His
explanation and contribution to the unravelling of this conundrum
is based on four arguments.
The first is that the fundamental claim that Christianity makes on everyone to their adherence is qualified by their opportunity to participate in its revelation, that is in their historical and existential situation. [20]
Starting with a not totally pessimistic view of mankind, Rahner acknowledges that non-Christian religions may contain both “error and depravity” as well as supernatural aspects, “arising out of the grace which is given to men as a gratuitous gift on account of Christ.” [21] He further argues that if this offer of grace is to mean anything it must be offered to a person in that society through “the specific form of his social and historical life.” [22] The example that Rahner gives is that of the Jews of the Old Testament whose religion contained both elements, but which nevertheless provided the means by which many attained salvation. [23] Rahner then suggests that in principle this situation may apply to other non-Christian religions, to varying degrees [24] .
Rahner’s third argument follows from the first two, in that, if a non-Christian, having salvific grace available to him through his religion, accepts that grace in his heart, then that person has accepted “the God that is historically and definitively revealed in Christ.” [25] This really means that all men, who sincerely want to live in accordance with God's will and have accepted his grace into their being, could be considered as though they were already members of the Christian community, and therefore sharers in Christ’s salvation, even though they themselves may not be aware of it. Rahner regards these people as "anonymous Christians" [26] Fullness comes for the “anonymous Christian” when this implicit acceptance becomes explicit, since this brings with it “other things being equal, a still greater chance of salvation.” [27]
Rahner finally argues that while it is true that non-Christian religions may possess many "true and holy" things, they do not possess the fullness of divine truth. For Rahner the Church is the tangible sign of the fulfilment of all their spiritual aspirations, of Christ present in the world.
Pluralists generally criticise this inclusivist approach as being unpractical and unnecessary. [28] In particular, John Hick describes Karl Rahner’s inclusivism as “a brave attempt” and questions whether “in this new context the old dogma has not been so emptied of content as no longer to be worth affirming.” [29]
For some non-Christians Rahner’s notion of the "anonymous Christian" could be considered offensive. It may seem to such persons that the Church is trying to spiritually "baptise" all those who either by design or by coincidence have nothing to do with Christianity in order to maintain Christianity's claims to universal significance and to Christ's role as sole Saviour and mediator. [30]
Certainly, John Hick
argues that it is both offensive to non-Christians and creates
a stalemate in the process of dialogue. [31] D’Costa
replies that the context in which Rahner is expressing his reflections
is from a Christian point of view and is on the relationship
of Christianity to other religions, namely that if a person is
saved, then such salvation is by the grace of God. Gerard Hall
comments that Rahner is establishing the presumption that salvation
could occur through these religions [32] and
then leaving it up to experts on religious history to see if
it does. D’Costa further argues that dialogue is actually
facilitated by Rahner’s notion, in that it avoids on one
hand the classification of the non Christian’s beliefs as
automatically erroneous and on the other attributes the possibility
of grace to that person’s beliefs. [33]
John Hick begins his case against Christian exclusivism and for pluralism on two assumptions. The first is on the basis that religious truth is culturally relative and the second is that one’s religious attitudes are primarily conditioned according to where one lives. [34] Hick argues the case for pluralism on the grounds: that ethically, it is the only way to promote justice in an intolerant world; that in terms of the "ineffability of religious experience", no religion can claim an absolutist stance; and through the understanding that historical and cultural attitudes filter the underlying reality (‘the Real’) of any absolute religious claim. [35] His argument is that all world religions attempt to relate to the unknowable Real, but because of their various cultural and historical contexts these attempts are all naturally different, as are the various conceptions of the Real and the salvation(s) sought. The common soteriological goal, toward which all religions strive, is rooted in the desire to transcend self-centeredness and encounter a new ineffable experience with the Real (“Reality-centeredness”). Hick postulates that there is no obvious evidence that any one religion is soteriologically unique or superior to others and thus has closer access to the Real. [36]
Christological Models:
At the theological heart of the Christian approach to inter religious dialogue is what has been called “the Christological problem”. Nostra Aetate though opening many avenues of investigation, left unanswered the question as to how the saving mystery of Jesus Christ operates in the members of the other religious traditions. [37] In our particular context of religious plurality, a number of questions arise. How is Christ revealed in other religious traditions? In our discussions, do we start from the proposition that Christ was Man, or that Christ was God? Is Christ a saviour, one among many, or is he the unique Saviour of the world? Will the millions of people who do not acknowledge him be excluded from salvation?
Part of the problem is the cultural idiom in which early Christian experience was expressed. This was based on Semitic revelation as expounded though the principles of Greek philosophy, and to which was assimilated the culture of Imperial Rome and later that of the barbarian peoples of Europe. [38] Traditional Christian theology in which Jesus is conceived of as God, and as God, he became Man, became crystallised in the Creeds of the 4th century. [39]
Karl Rahner affirms the traditional theology of Chalcedon but argues for “the legitimacy of a plurality of Christological models” [40] , both on the grounds that these existed during the early period of doctrinal formulation and on the basis that Christ as definitively revealed may be expressed in different forms. [41]
Jacques Dupuis states that the questions revolve around Jesus Christ, not the Christian churches themselves. Only of Jesus does the Gospel of John [42] say that he is ‘the way, the truth and the life’ and only of the ‘man Christ Jesus’ does Paul [43] affirm that he is the ‘one mediator between God and men’, and Peter [44] that ‘there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’. [45] Dupuis argues that we must shift from an ecclesiocentric to a Christocentric model of theology, which “ must bring out the full dimension of the mystery of Jesus Christ and put in evidence its cosmic significance.” [46] This would appear to work well within a Christian tradition.
Contemporary religious plurality, though, has forced a renewed interest in questions concerning the "key" tenet of the Christian faith, namely the role and/or necessity of Jesus Christ in salvation. The pluralist feels justified in tweaking theology, hence, the pluralist imperative to re-interpret Christology. In his 1994 book, The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age, John Hick rejects the traditional Chalcedonian understanding of incarnation and uses biblical data to support his supposition that the Incarnation was a metaphor created by the early church. Christians are encouraged to abandon any claim of Christian uniqueness and the possibility of absolute revelation, accepting the fact that the Christian faith is one among many options. [47]
However, Raimundo Panikkar,
while prepared to move to a theocentric model to
accommodate other-than-Christian traditions, draws a distinction
between the universal Christ (the “Cosmotheandric reality”),
who is both symbol and substance of a dynamic non-dualistic unity
between God, humanity, and world, and the particular and historical
form of this Christ-in-the-world, who took the name “Jesus”.
Panikkar recognises Jesus as the ultimate form of Christ, but
also acknowledges that “all religions recognize in one way
or another” this Christ, who can go by many names. [48]
Mysticism:
One other area where divine revelation can occur across Christian/ non-Christian boundaries is in the area of mysticism, which is concerned with obtaining a knowledge of God by means of subjective rather than by objective revelation. For example, the Asian religions have numerous insights to contribute in the area of mystical and ascetical revelation, which are never abstract, but relate to the difficult work of inner transformation, one of the chief goals of the spiritual life in any tradition. Here the Church recognises that authentic mystical experiences of non-Christian ascetics bear "a remarkable resemblance" to the traditional teaching of Catholicism. [49]
Griffiths refers to the mystical tradition of the Church, which was important in the writings of Thomas Aquinas and in that of the great mystics, but was downplayed after the Reformation. This is the God who is “beyond all names, all images and all concepts, beyond being itself”, who can only be approached “by unknowing”, in a negative or apophatic theology that makes no positive statements about God, and who is revealed in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Raimundo Panikkar says in Nine Ways Not to talk about God that despite what he has said, he could be accused of having a precise idea of God, but that he has rather “a very precise idea of what God is not- and even that idea falls under attack “from his nine- pointed critique. [50] Karl Rahner suggests that even in the afterlife God will remain an unfathomable mystery. [51]
Conclusion:
We are living in a unique moment of history; just when world conditions seem to be converging which favour dialogue between religions. The globe is quickly shrinking, and men of various faiths are beginning to realize that they must work together for the well being of civilization. Tremendous problems face modern man which, it seems, can best be solved through united effort. Global crises such as ecology, famine, war, terrorism, racism, human rights and poverty represent a latent incentive for "getting together." [52]
Another powerful incentive, which tends to draw world religions together, is that they are all threatened with a common enemy. Organized religion of all kinds is being assaulted by a deadly combination of materialism, religious indifference and fundamentalism. The Church, in particular, is facing problems of globalisation, cultural diversity, and the insignificant size and influence of Christianity in various parts of the world, especially Asia, and de-Christianisation in places like Europe where it had formerly thrived.
How non-Christians can be related to Christ in some way is an attempt to make sense of Christ's own purported claim that he came that "all might be saved." The Church admits in all humility that she does not know how God works out this universal plan of salvation; that is known only to God. As the Indian Bishops say the Church becomes truly catholic when she is transformed by entering into dialogue with the cultures and religions of Asia and transforms them with the power of the Spirit. [53]
For some it may be that Rahner’s notion of the ‘Anonymous Christian” is paternalistic, and indeed, opportunistic, but, as D’Costa points out, this discussion is meant basically as intra-church. Rahner says that the grace, which is given to everyone, is a gratuitous gift on account of Christ. [54] Whether they accept it or not is ultimately between them and their God. D’Costa’s argument that grace (salvation) is the unique and inestimable gift given by God to Mankind through the person, Jesus Christ, reduces the impact of Hick’s ineffable Real as an alternative soteriological foundation.
Hick’s thesis is fascinating in its attempt to establish a rational universalist interpretation of religion. He characterises his theory as “the most reasonable, the least problem-prone, explanation of the data” [55] He seems upset by Christian exclusivism, but hasn’t been unduly worried by his rejigging of Christian revelation of the Incarnation in order to attack it. It is difficult, in the light of the conflicting truth-claims that the various religions make, to accept as universal his argument that all religions are manifestations of the same ultimate reality. [56]
As Raimundo Panikkar states the pretension of the great religions to possess all truth can be understood only in a limited and contingent context. The Christian Church's claim to be the custodian of divine revelation does not mean that the Christian has exhausted God's disclosure of himself to mankind. After all, who are we to limit the works of God?” [57]
Bede Griffith’s comments that we have to acknowledge that the Church has not only to teach but also to learn from other religions, and his pragmatic approach that Christian revelation should proceed from the point of view of the New Testament itself, that is, to start from Jesus as Man, rather than Jesus as God, which is how Jesus refers to himself, is to be applauded. [58] .
These approaches open the possibility that, partial contradictions notwithstanding, the various religious traditions both intra-Christian and other-than-Christian may complement each other in their differences and attempt to arrive at some universal understanding of God in the World. Clearly, one's Christology is the key component to understanding Christian revelation and the importance one gives to revelation in other religious traditions.The debates and lines between exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism will probably intensify before they subside. Attitudes, caricatures, and misconceptions are abounding, and will continue as long as the debate proliferates. What is required from all players is neither mutual exclusion nor inclusion of the many into one, but reciprocal enrichment through open interaction and sincere dialogue. [59]
[1] Arnold Toynbee, Christianity among the Religions of the World (London: Oxford University Press, 1958), pp.111-12.
[2] See for example the Question of the Divine Names and the Chinese Rites in Catholic Encyclopaedia: Matteo Ricci http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13034a.htm
[3] “Outside of the Church there is no salvation” or as Gavin D’Costa prefers to put it (in God and the Universe of Faiths) “Without grace there is no salvation” in Critical dialogues with John Hick http://www.faithnet.freeserve.co.uk/critical_dialogues_with_john_hic.htm
Boniface VIII, in his bull, Unam Sanctam, stated this in the strongest possible terms: WE ARE COMPELLED, OUR FAITH URGING us, to believe and to hold—and we do firmly believe and simply confess—that there is one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins;… Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
http://www.catholicism.org/pages/unam.htm The necessity of being in the church for salvation was also explicitly taught by Innocent III and the Fourth Lateran council
[4] Looking back at the Second Vatican Council, Karl Rahner said that the most important result of the council was that the Church became aware that it had become a World Church. Karl Rahner, Towards a Fundamental Theological Interpretation of Vatican II, I Theological Studies 40 (1979) 716 in Frans Wijsen: Intercultural Theology and the Mission of the Church. 7th March 2001 http://www.sedos.org/english/wijsen.htm
[5] The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Proclaimed Oct 28th 1965)
[6] “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions.” (Nostra Aetate.2) “Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God; for the Saviour wants all men to be saved. Those who, through no fault of their own, are still ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of His Church, yet sincerely seek God, and with the help of Divine grace strive to do His will as known to them through the voice of their conscience-those men can attain eternal salvation.” (Lumen Gentium.16)
[7] Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Proclaimed Oct. 28th 1965)
[8] The Church’s commitment to dialogue with the Asian Reality of the plurality of cultures and religions finds expression in the documents of both the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) and the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conference (FABC). The statements of the CBCI and the FABC reveal the struggle of a Church come of age to liberate herself from the burden of her links with the colonial powers in the past, her claims about possessing the monopoly of truth, her imported theology and forms of worship, her eurocentrism, her cultural alienation and her desire to become authentic local Churches with an Asian face. The Church becomes truly catholic when she is transformed by entering into dialogue with the cultures and religions of Asia and transforms them with the power of the Spirit who makes everything new. Jacob Parappally: Church’s dialogue with Cultures and Religions. http://www.sedos.org/english/parappally.htm
However Frans Wijsen comments that: “the export firm that the church used to be, has become a multi-national import firm” and notes that: “European theologians treat third world theologies as if they are exotic fruits that supplement their traditional European dishes.” in Frans Wijsen: Intercultural Theology and the Mission of the Church. 7th March 2001 http://www.sedos.org/english/wijsen.htm
[9] It certainly didn’t come too soon, as one prominent academic putting it into historical perspective has said, the pressures of this century have demanded that we mobilise “the resources of the great religions for dialogue and peace, purposes which have historically often seemed marginal.” Jorgen S. Nielsen: The Contribution of Interfaith Dialogue Towards a Culture of Peace. Paper given at International conference on Dialogue and Civilization. Institute of Islamic Studies, London 27th Oct. 2000. http://www.sedos.org/english/Neilsen.htm
[10] Jacques Dupuis SJ: Religious Plurality and the Christological Debate. p.1 http://www.sedos.org/english/dupuis.htm
[11] Jacques Dupuis SJ: Religious Plurality and the Christological Debate. p.3 http://www.sedos.org/english/dupuis.htm
[12] Brad Johnson, A Three-Pronged Defense of Salvific Exclusivism in a World of Religions, p.3 at http://www,leaderu.com/theology/salvific.html
[13] The verses of the Bible most commonly used to support this are: Colossians 1:19; John 1:1,14, John 14:9-10; Hebrews 1:1-3, 1 Timothy 2:5-6, John 14:6, 1 Corinthians 3:11, Acts 4:12, 1 Peter 3:1; and Romans 3:21-26
[13] Alister E. McGrath: A Passion for Truth in Critical dialogues with John Hick http://www.faithnet.freeserve.co.uk/critical_dialogues_with_john_hic.htm Alister McGrath criticises
the pluralist approach to religious dialogue on the basis of its religious reductionism, as for him dialogue is only possible when it assumes not everyone is saying the same thing. The basis of the dialogue is respect for another’s position not necessarily agreement. According to Karl Barth, the task of theology is to unfold the revealed word attested in the Bible. There is no place for natural theology or the influence of non-Christian religions. Karl Barth: mwt_themes_750_barth http://www.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_75
[15] See Is God a good translation for Brahman? http://www.faithnet.freeserve.co.uk/articles2.htm
[16] Critical dialogues with John Hick http://www.faithnet.freeserve.co.uk/critical_dialogues_with_john_hic.htm
[17] See footnote 6
[18] The fundamental belief of the Church is that God wills all persons to be saved. All persons are in fact saved in and through Christ. God accomplishes this through the Church for those who know Christ, and "in ways known to himself, God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him" (Ad Gentes7).
[19] D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.83-4
[20] D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.84
[21] Karl Rahner, Investigations, vol 5 p.121 quoted in D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.85
[22] Karl Rahner, Investigations, vol 17 p.42 quoted in D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.85
[23] D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.86
[24] “We must… rid ourselves of the prejudice that we can face a non-Christian religion with the dilemma that it must either come from God in everything it contains, or be simply a human construction.” He acknowledges also that this consideration should apply to Christianity itself. Karl Rahner, Investigations, vol 5 p.127 quoted in D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.87
[25] D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.87
[26] Karl Rahner, Investigations, vol 5 p.132 quoted in D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.86
[27] Karl Rahner, Investigations, vol 5 p.132 quoted in D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.86-7
[28] Jacques Dupuis SJ: Religious Plurality and the Christological Debate. p.3 http://www.sedos.org/english/dupuis.htm
[29] Hick, J. 1990, ‘A philosophy of religious pluralism’ in A John Hick Reader, ed. P. Badham, Macmillan, London, p.166
[30] see comment in Gerard Hall: Jacques Dupuis’ Christian Theology of Religious pluralism. P.10
[31] D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.89
[32] Gerard Hall Module 9 Notes p.7
[33] D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.89-91
[34] An Introduction to John hick’s Pluralist Hypothesis: http://www.faithnet.freeserve.co.uk/johnhick.htm
[35] John Hick, The possibility of religious pluralism: a reply to Gavin D’Costa. Religious studies. Vol.33 No.2 (June 1997) http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/hick.htm and also An Introduction to John hick’s Pluralist Hypothesis: http://www.faithnet.freeserve.co.uk/johnhick.htm
[36] Hick, J. 1990, ‘A philosophy of religious pluralism’ in A John Hick Reader, ed. P. Badham, Macmillan, London, p.162-3
[37] Jacques Dupuis SJ: Religious Plurality and the Christological Debate. p.3 http://www.sedos.org/english/dupuis.htm
[38] As Raimon Panikkar says: “The whole history of Christianity is one of enrichment, and renewal brought about by elements that came from outside itself.” See Eruption of truth: An interview with Raimon Panikkar. http://www.emptybell.org/panikkar.html
[39] Jews and Judaism in Christian Writings of the II Century. The Ecole Initiative. http://cedar.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb/articles/earlyrel.html
Early Christian faith on Trinity, deity of Christ, personality of the Holy Spirit.
http://www.binle.ca/H-trinity.htm
A Chronology of the Arian Controversy. The Ecole Initiative.
http://cedar.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb/arians/arianchr.htm
[40] D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, P.97
[41] D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, P.97
[42] John 14:6
[43] 1 Tim 2:5
[44] Acts 4:12
[45] Jacques Dupuis SJ: Religious Plurality and the Christological Debate. p.1 http://www.sedos.org/english/dupuis.htm
[46] Jacques Dupuis SJ: Religious Plurality and the Christological Debate. p.6 http://www.sedos.org/english/dupuis.htm
[47] “[I am] offering an hypothesis to explain how it is that the great world religions, with their different concepts of the ultimate, nevertheless seem to be equally effective (and of course equally ineffective) contexts of the salvific human transformation.” In John Hick, The possibility of religious pluralism: a reply to Gavin D’Costa. Religious studies. Vol.33 No.2 (June 1997) http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/hick.htm
A major weakness of Hick’s pluralism lies in his non-acceptance of religious data on its own terms. He tends to reinterpret truth-claims (religious data) to make his theory work, especially by the extensive use of mythology. See Keith e. Johnson: John Hick’s Pluralistic Hypothesis and the Problem of Conflicting Truth Claims. P.12 http://wri.leaderu.com/theology/hick.html
[48] Raimundo Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, 1981, Maryknoll: Orbis in Paul F.Knitter, Theocentric Christology, Theology Today, Vol.40, No.2-July 1983 at http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1983/v40-2-article2.htm
[49] Mystical Theology.Catholic Encyclopaedia. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/CE_MYST.HTM
[50] Raimundo Panikkar: Nine Ways Not to Talk about God. http://www.crosscurrents.org/panikkar.htm
[51] Quoted in Bede Griffiths: A New Vision of Reality. Western Science, Eastern Mysticism and Christian Faith edited by Felicity Edwards. HarperCollins, London. 1992 pp.164-5
[52] However there are still major problems to be overcome: According to Fuller and Lesser (Fuller, Graham E., Lesser, Ian O., Kusatilanlar–Islam ve Bati’nin Jeopolitigi (trans), Ist. 1996, p. 41-2) Historical experience leads even educated and conscious Muslims to believe that the West is continuing its thousand-year-old systematic aggression against Islam and, even worse, that it is doing so now with much more subtle and sophisticated methods. Consequently, the Church’s call for dialogue meets with considerable suspicion. The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue: A Muslim Perspective. http://www.fethullagulen.org?articles.html
[53] See footnote 8
[54] Karl Rahner, Investigations, vol 5 p.121 quoted in D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, p.85
[55] John Hick, The possibility of religious pluralism: a reply to Gavin D’Costa. Religious studies. Vol.33 No.2 (June 1997) http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/hick.htm
[56] Keith E. Johnson: John Hick’s Pluralistic Hypothesis and the Problem of Conflicting Truth Claims p.16 http://wri.leaderu.com/theology/hick.html
[57] Eruption of truth: An interview with Raimon Panikkar. http://www.emptybell.org/panikkar.html
Panikkar: "Christians and So-called Non-Christians,' " Cross Currents 22 (Summer-Fall 1992): 283.
[58] Bede Griffiths: A New Vision of Reality. Western Science, Eastern Mysticism and Christian Faith edited by Felicity Edwards. HarperCollins, London. 1992 pp.113-127
“If we look for the basic inspiration which underlies Christianity, it is to be found in the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth…He chose twelve disciples…and by all accounts gave Peter a position of leadership among them. He also left behind a ‘memorial’ of his death and resurrection…but beyond that it is difficult to discern with certainty any other formal structure. What he communicated to his disciples was the gift of his Spirit, which was to lead them into all truth.” Ibid. p.104
[59] Jacques Dupuis SJ: Religious Plurality and the Christological Debate. p.4 http://www.sedos.org/english/dupuis.htm
Perhaps the surest sign that this is happening was the issuing last year of Dominus Iesus which, without naming them, attacked Catholic theologians such as Jacques Dupuis, Paul Kitter, Raimundo Panikkar, Hans Kung and others like them who have been attempting for some years, with mixed success, to articulate a Christian approach to salvation outside the Church. See Richard P. McBrien. Dominus Iesus. An Ecclesiological critique. 11th Jan 2001. http://www.sedos.org/english/McBrien.htm
_________________________
Bibliography
1. Catholic Encyclopaedia: Matteo Ricci http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13034a.htm
2. Critical dialogues with John Hick http://www.faithnet.freeserve.co.uk/critical_dialogues_with_john_hic.htm
3. Frans Wijsen: Intercultural Theology and the Mission of the Church. 7th March 2001 http://www.sedos.org/english/wijsen.htm
4. All Vatican II documents were down loaded by zip.file from http://www.stjosef.at/council/
5. Jacob Parappally: Church’s dialogue with Cultures and Religions. http://www.sedos.org/english/parappally.htm
6. Jorgen S. Nielsen: The Contribution of Interfaith Dialogue Towards a Culture of Peace. Paper given at International conference on Dialogue and Civilization. Institute of Islamic Studies, London 27th Oct. 2000. http://www.sedos.org/english/Neilsen.htm
7. Jacques Dupuis SJ: Religious Plurality and the Christological Debate. http://www.sedos.org/english/dupuis.htm
8. Karl Barth: mwt_themes_750_barth http://www.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_75
9. Is God a good translation for Brahman? http://www.faithnet.freeserve.co.uk/articles2.htm
10. D’Costa, G. 1986, “The inclusivist paradigm”, Theology and Religious Pluralism. The Challenge of Other Faiths, Basil Blackwell, Oxford
11. Hick, J. 1990, ‘A philosophy of religious pluralism’ in A John Hick Reader, ed. P. Badham, Macmillan, London
12. Gerard Hall Module 9 Notes, http.//www.mcauley.acu.edu.au/staff/ghall
13. An Introduction to John hick’s Pluralist Hypothesis: http://www.faithnet.freeserve.co.uk/johnhick.htm
14. John Hick, The possibility of religious pluralism: a reply to Gavin D’Costa. Religious studies. Vol.33 No.2 (June 1997) http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/hick.htm
15. Brad Johnson, A Three-Pronged Defence of Salvific Exclusivism in a World of Religions, at http://www,leaderu.com/theology/salvific.html
16. Eruption of truth: An interview with Raimon Panikkar. http://www.emptybell.org/panikkar.html
17. Jews and Judaism in Christian Writings of the II Century. The Ecole Initiative. http://cedar.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb/articles/earlyrel.html
18. Early Christian faith on Trinity, deity of Christ, personality of the Holy Spirit.
http://www.binle.ca/H-trinity.htm
19. A Chronology of the Arian Controversy. The Ecole Initiative.
http://cedar.evansville.edu/~ecoleweb/arians/arianchr.htm
20. Keith e. Johnson: John Hick’s Pluralistic Hypothesis and the Problem of Conflicting Truth Claims. http://wri.leaderu.com/theology/hick.html
21. Mystical Theology. Catholic Encyclopaedia. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/CE_MYST.HTM
22. Paul F.Knitter, Theocentric Christology, Theology Today, Vol.40, No.2-July 1983 at http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1983/v40-2-article2.htm
23. Raimundo Panikkar: Nine Ways Not to Talk about God. http://www.crosscurrents.org/panikkar.htm
24. Bede Griffiths: A New Vision of Reality. Western Science, Eastern Mysticism and Christian Faith edited by Felicity Edwards. HarperCollins, London. 1992
25. The Necessity of Interfaith Dialogue: A Muslim Perspective. http://www.fethullagulen.org?articles.html
26. Richard P. McBrien. Dominus Iesus. An Ecclesiological critique. 11th Jan 2001. http://www.sedos.org/english/McBrien.htm
___________________________
Paul Mulqueen: Doing the Master of Arts (Theology) via ACUweb.; Solicitor and company director based in Melbourne. Married, 4 children: He may be reached via email: "Paul M." <paulmulq@hotmail.com>
