by Jims | January 6th, 2010
Pluralism, in regards to its influence on missions, is defined by different authors that emphasize various aspects of its influence. A general starting point in finding common ground in the multiple definitions of pluralism is provided by Chris Wright. Wright states that pluralism is the view that “salvation / enlightenment / liberation is said to be a reality in all major religious traditions and no single religion can be considered somehow normative or superior to all others. All religions are in their own way complex historically and culturally conditioned human responses to the one divine reality.”[1] Wright’s definition contains some key components of pluralism that are characteristic of others discussed in this paper.
It seems a debate over the definition of pluralism is ensuing in philosophical, theological, and missiological circles. The debate over the definition of pluralism is as challenging as formulating a strategy to conduct mission work in a pluralistic setting. Lamin Sanneh states, “Contemporary theology is marked by a lively debate about the call to abandon any claim to Christian uniqueness, a claim viewed as offensive and outmoded in a religiously pluralistic world.”[2] This debate, according to Ruth Tucker, began late in the twentieth century when John Hick began to speak in terms indicating that Christianity was not the center of all religious beliefs, but rather one religion among many, all of which led to God.[3]
Charles Forman presents a case for the origin of the issue of pluralism in developing mission strategy. He notes that the entrance of pluralism as a part of the missionary equation for planning started when, “Christianity began to appear alongside the traditional religion of each land and created a pluralistic situation where there had previously been none or increased pluralism where it already existed.”[4] Forman notes that the challenge to missionaries that interact in a pluralistic setting is to develop a way in which all religions can uniformly create a society that adapts to each faith practice.[5] Martin Forward’s view concurs with that of Forman. He believes pluralism occurs not just as a cultural influence on Christianity, but rather as a mandate for the Christian missionary. Forward states, “We Christians need a theology and commitment suitable for a global village, enabling us to live together as a single human race in love, joy and peace.”[6] Forman and Forward take the issue of pluralism as a means to an end for the Christian missionary further than do most authors on the subject.
Douglas Groothuis’ view disagrees with Forman’s analysis stating, “Pluralistic environments do not allow for a fixed sense of personal identity, or one best way of life. Identity should be fluid and flexible, in order to adjust to the kaleidoscopic features of postmodern culture.”[7] Louis King provides a summary statement that encompasses the primary issues that often lead to the division between men like Groothuis and Forman noting, “No particular religion possesses anything final or absolute.”[8] Evangelicals seeking to convert culture find tension between the pluralism that denies all forms of absolute truth and the pluralism that seeks to build bridges between existing relgions. Wismoady Wahono somewhat softens the tone in the debate stating, “Globalization can be understood as the process of making uniform or homogenizing many aspects of life for all people around the globe.”[9] Wahono does not move to the far extreme of negating absolute truth, but rather pleads for a middle ground, allowing a truth that is acceptable to all religions within the missionary context.
David Bosch notes that a modern version of the World’s Parliament on Religion may define pluralism as an effort among missionaries “where rival truth claims are simply part of the mosaic, where there is no longer such a thing as orthodoxy, where we were all heretics in the original sense of the word.”[10] Bosch’s reflective definition is characteristic of those proponents of an ecumenical approach to missions, where the methodologies of mission work do not originate nor are evaluated by one’s theology, but rather by the united effort of the religious community. This migration away from a theological foundation is characteristic of all definitions of pluralism in the context of missions.
Paul Hiebert notes that the philosophical shift in definitions of pluralism results in a scenario where “theology must emerge out of human historical and sociocultural contexts, and out of felt human needs, not out of a study of Scripture.”[11] Martha Franks states, “Mission theologians once held that Scripture has a unified, objective meaning that could be directly conveyed on the mission field. That view has given way to recognition of diverse scriptural voices . . . .”[12] Leslie Newbigin comments on this approach to missions stating that when pluralism rules out theology it “is celebrated as the proper social implication of the fact that truth is unknowable.”[13] Newbigin goes on to say that there are two primary types of pluralism. He calls the first “agnostic pluralism” and the other “committed pluralism.”[14] The former is stated as a pluralism whereby truth is unknowable. Newbigin states, “We only know what it means to say, ‘Jesus is Lord’ when we have embarked on the enterprise of obedience to him in all the infinite various contexts that make up the tapestry of human life.”[15] The ecumenical movement takes Newbigin’s statement a step further. In the ecumenical movement truth is not just defined by cultural interaction, but rather all truth is rooted back to the elements of Christianity. Eric Fife notes, “Their viewpoint is as follows: Since there is the good in all religions, Christianity in its ultimate form, as it unfolds from the reconciliation and reunion of all Christendom, will then become the fulfillment of all heathen religions.”[16] Results of this view, detailed later in this paper, are a lack of foundational doctrinal statements and the dismissal of missionary activity that seeks to convert people involved in other religions. David Filbeck presents a polemic in favor of embracing this view of pluralism, for in his view, it causes mankind to see God in a manner He chooses, rather than in man made systems of revelation.[17]
Eugene Nida states that in regards to missionary activity pluralism must be viewed from two perspectives. He notes that these two perspectives are the way in which the “Western group views the cultural differences of the Third World” group, and “Christian in – groups view the cultural differences of the Christian out – groups.”[18] Nida notes that these two perspectives are key in determining methodology and strategy for missionaries interacting with both the secular culture in which they live as well as the existing Christians within the mission context.[19] Darius Swann includes some of the same perspectives as Nida in his definition of pluralism. Swann notes that pluralism is more about society than a philosophical or missiological issue. He notes that the pluralistic society is one “in which there is no officially approved pattern of belief or conduct.”[20] Swann believes that there is freedom within pluralism to maintain one’s own uniqueness, while allowing others to fully embrace their own beliefs without a critical spirit from without their group.[21] This is also the view of pluralism supported by Edward Schroeder. Schroeder maintains that pluralism allows for Jesus to be a way to heaven, but one among many. He notes that pluralists see the benefits of grace in all religions, which have as their goal the perfection of mankind.[22] Those who espouse a pluralist approach to missions favor a belief system that negates any possible foundation on which the missionary can stand and proclaim truth.
Pluralism’s core value is that truth cannot be isolated to a set of propositional statements. Propositional truth is not possible within pluralism because dogmatism, a result of propositional truth, is forbidden. David Allen states, “In the eighteenth century . . . the old road was marked with the old sign ‘Authority of Revelation’ . . . the new road sign reads ‘Autonomy of Reason.’”[23] The reasoning of pluralism is that all religions may invest in a common pool of truth, but no absolute truth can emerge from such a pool. Allen traces pluralism’s subjectivity back to Karl Barth, noting that Stanley Grenz mimics Barth’s view of scriptural authority, which view suggests that the Bible is “revelation in a derivative sense” and that the “Bible is functional revelation.”[24] Pluralism contends for the functionality of revelation when it works in conjunction with truths from other religions and does not serve as a standard by which such truths are judged as valid.
Many of the premises under girding the pluralistic operations in missions today are traced to debates over liberalism. Carl F. H. Henry noted the dangers in negating a propositional truth from the Christian faith as well as the trends occurring in the middle of the twentieth century that were leading to such a demise. In a 1981 interview, Henry indicated that he believed the greatest challenge among evangelicals in that decade was the problem of biblical authority.[25] Although the opponents Henry challenged did not go fully towards the pluralism of some proponents noted earlier, they nonetheless, according to Henry, “dissolved the authority of the written revelation into a vague mysticism.”[26] This mysticism is an evident outcome of radical pluralism that embraces all religious beliefs. A major catalyst for the intended demise of scriptural authority emerged from Harry Emerson Fosdick and Birney Smith’s removal of the validity of authority and elevation of one’s own subjective experience, which Henry called a compromise to the authority of Scripture and biblical teaching.[27] It is this very compromise that is emanating from mission activity that embraces pluralism as a valid means of propagating the gospel.
[1]Chris Wright, “Christ and the Mosaic of Pluralism’s Challenges to Evangelical Missiology in the 21st Century,” Evangelical Review of Theology 24 (July 2000): 222.
[2]Lamin Sanneh, “Particularity, Pluralism, and Commitment,” Christian Century 107 (January 31, 1990): 107.
[3]Ruth A. Tucker, From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 440.
[4]Charles W. Forman, “Religious Pluralism and the Mission of the Church,” International Mission Bulletin of Missionary Research 6 (January 1982): 5.
[5]Ibid., 6.
[6]Martin Forward, “The Reconciling Spirit and Mission in the Context of Religious Pluralism,” International Review of Mission 79 (October 1990): 461.
[7]Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (Illinois: Intervarsity, 2000), 28-29.
[8]Louis King, ed., Donald McGavran, Critical Issues in Mission Tomorrow (Chicago: Moody, 19720, 105.
[9]S. Wismoady Wahono, “Identity and Plurality,” International Review of Mission 91 (October 2002): 504.
[10]David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (New York: Orbis, 1991), 486.
[11]Paul G. Hiebert, Missiological Implications of Epistemological Shifts (Harrisburg: Trinity, 1999): 57.
[12]Martha Franks, “Election, Pluralism, and the Missiology of Scripture in a Postmodern Age,” Missiology 26 (July 1998): 329.
[13]Lesslie Newbigin, A Word in Season: Perspectives on Christian World Missions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 159.
[14]Ibid., 168.
[15]Ibid., 174.
[16]Eric S. Fife and Arthur F. Glasser, Missions in Crisis (Chicago: Intervarsity, 1961), 130.
[17]David Filbeck, Yes, God of the Gentiles Too (Illinois: Billy Graham Center, Wheaton College, 1994): 208.
[18]Eugene A. Nida, “Why Are Foreigners So Queer? A Socioanthropological Approach to Cultural Pluralsim,” International Bulletin of Missions Research 5 (July 1981): 102.
[19]Ibid.
[20]Darius Swann, “Christian Mission in a Pluralistic World,” Journal of the Interdenominational Theological Center 23 (Fall 1995): 83.
[21]Ibid.
[22]Edward H. Schroeder, “Pluralism’s Question to Christian Missions: Why Jesus at All?” Currents in Theology and Mission 26 (June 1999): 165.
[23]David L. Allen, “A Tale of Two Roads: Homiletics and Biblical Authority,” JETS 43 (2000): 489.
[24]Allen, 496.
[25]Carl F. H. Henry, “The Concerns and Considerations of Carl Henry,” Christianity Today 25 (March 13, 1981): 19.
[26]Carl F. H. Henry, Fifty Years of Protestant Theology (Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1950), 101.
[27]Ibid.
