Posted by Dave on December 15, 1999 at 14:06:44:
In Reply to: Re: Another heretical essay for U posted by Jason on December 15, 1999 at 10:52:53:
: : "The Latest Vatican Statement on Christianity and Other Religions" by John Hick. Please read and give feedback, good or bad.
: I read. I offer feedback...
: My thoughts about this subject (i.e. acceptance of other religions) are similar to the Interesting Theologian (if I understand the essay correctly). My feelings, however, address an issue broader than the scope of this article: I extend this acceptance to other beliefs, as well as "religions."
: The Interesting Theologian intelligently addresses the state of non-Christians by making the claim, "...that non-Christians are on a lower religious level because the saving grace that Christians presently enjoy is only available to others at the end of their lives." I'm not sure if that correctly reflects my feelings (right or wrong). I believe that there are religious beliefs that, although not "...based on the unique salvific mediation of Jesus," are on a higher "religious level" because of a direct revelation from Christ. Perhaps my definition of religion is a bit looser than most, but I do not see "religion" as exlusively Christian. Perhaps this is an argument of semantics, but I feel that clarity in communication is equally as vital as complete acceptance of another and his or her beliefs (or religion).
: Now, to complete my thought, I must address "acceptance." This is where we look in to the Interesting Theologian's thoughts. When he is confronted with members of other religions, how does he interact. How does he "...show that [Christian] theology in no way undervalues or does not appreciate the other religions when it affirms that everything true and worthy of value in the other religions comes from Christ and the Holy Spirit"? (My brackets to replace "Catholic"). I think the unspoken, principle force here is Love. The essay does not satisfactorily mandate Love as the primary "acceptance engine." Acceptance is good, but acceptance without Love is empty.
: I agree that, "The religions can be carriers of saving truth only insofar as they raise men to true love," but where does the Interesting Theologian fit into this equation? Am I to assume that he, personally, is a "carrier of saving truth" because he exemplifies true love? Perhaps. If no, then I would call his own "religion" into question.
: I agree that the Absolute Dogmatist is by nature, exluded from expounding deeper than any "pre-critical" discussion. The Accurate Reporter, obviously, has no opinion, other than to extract fiction from Truth -- his own Love, if you will. (I must admit, though, that as I was reading, I was waiting for a discussion about the Accurate Reporter. Aren't essays, and sermons for that matter, supposed to have 3 or 5 points, then a conclusion? Maybe Steve will know the answer to that one!). This brings us back to the Interesting Theologian, standing alone on the cliff of desolation, the cruel wind whipping his savage hair into curls of sorrow. He looks over the site of an ancient battlefield, the cries of desperate warriors echo ad nasaum. Ad nasaum...
: hehe
: Jason
Jason,
I think the reason Hick didn't explore the view of the Accurate Reporter is that he is himself arguing from that position. Hick is a theocentric (also known as unitive) pluralist. He has written many books defending this position.
You identified yourself as a Christocentric inclusivist (the "Interesting Theologian"). I have for years held that position as well. But I have to admit to finding the view of the Accurate Reporter to be an attractive one. Actually, I feel a great deal of ambivalence about this issue; I'm reluctant to "abandon" Christ as the mediator between God and man, and yet I've always (for a long time, at least) been plagued by the question, "How can I believe that the God who created this vast universe chose to reveal Himself only to a small country on the coast of the Mediterranean, effectively ignoring the rest of the world?" I have to confess to having great problems with this exclusivist view. And the inclusivist view (Interesting Theologian) offers some relief, but not much. The inclusivist still maintains that those who are saved in other religions are saved by Christ alone. And Hick asks the pointed question, "... any Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Taoist, etc. who deliberately adheres to his or her own faith, although well aware of the Church's claims, is presumably culpable of not belonging to the Church. What, then, is their fate?"
The inclusivist position, while allowing for the possibility that eternal life may be granted to sincere "heathen", rules out the possibility that any of those souls can enjoy God's abundant life in the Here and Now. I , for one, find it difficult to consider the Dalai Lama estranged from God. His holiness and love are too evident. From whence come they, if not from God? If I read your letter correctly, you have some ambivalence about this as well.