Sep

9

Harold Netland’s critique of Religious Pluralism

Filed Under Religious Pluralism | 2 Comments 

For one of my seminars I am reading Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission by Harold Netland (2001). I would highly recommend this book to anybody interested in religious pluralism. Netland begins by discussing the cultural context that has given rise to postmodernism and religious pluralism (the belief that all religions are more or less equally salvific).  Netland then proceeds to analyze and critique religious pluralism, focusing extensively on the model proposed by John Hick, one of the leading proponents of religious pluralism.  Netland finishes by proposing an Evangelical theology of religions. 

In one of his chapters Netland presents what he sees to be some of the problems with religious pluralism. I would like to present a few of them:

1. Pseudopluralisms: some advocates of religious tolerance and what appears to be religious equality are actually “covert inclusivists.”  That is, although they appear to be saying that they accept all religions, they actually believe that their own is superior.  For example, the Dalai Lama is a known proponent of religious tolerance, yet for him “salvation” is ultimately attained within Buddhism.  He does not overtly seek to convert people to Buddhism because of his belief in karma and reincarnation; it is not because he thinks that all religions are equally true.

2. Reinterpretation of beliefs and Reductionism: Religious pluralists in order to make their model “work” are forced to reinterpret religious beliefs in a way that would be unacceptable to orthodox believers of the various traditions.

3. Personae/Impersonae: The problem of whether God/the Real/Ultimate Reality that religious pluralists describe is personal or impersonal is another weakness of religious pluralism.  Pluralists are unable to convincingly explain how “the Real” can be personal for theists like Muslims and Christians and impersonal for others like Zen Buddhists and Advaita Vedantists.  If pluralists end up attributing either a personal or impersonal nature to “the Real” they will be privileging some traditions over others, which is what they are supposedly trying not to do.

4. Ineffability: Religious Pluralists argue that “the Real” is ineffable and has a nature that is beyond the concepts that we have.  Although we are unable to fully comprehend God, this does not mean that literally none of the properties attributed to God actually apply to God. According to Netland, this is “self-referentially incoherent” since at least the property of being ineffable would apply to God.  Thus, God would not be beyond all our categories of thought and language.  Moreover, Netland points out that if no substantial qualities can be properly applied to God then the appropriate response would be “agnostic silence” since we would know nothing about God.      

To conclude, Netland argues that a genuinely pluralistic model must be coherent and must not privilege any particular religious perspective.  When discussing with so-called pluralists remember that pluralists are usually forced to either distort the religious beliefs of others or they unintentionally end up privileging a particular religious tradition (usually it is their own).

Aug

26

Sign at Lotus Temple

Filed Under Baha'i, Religious Pluralism | 2 Comments 

 

As you enter the grounds of the Baha’i Lotus Temple in New Delhi this stone sign is set into a grass incline. Of the temple it states:

“This House is a place for prayer and meditation for the peoples of all religions and races. From within its portals the voice of mankind will ever be raised in praise and glorification of the creator of the universe.”

As you can see, the temple is intended to be a place of worship for people of all religions. You can also see that they tried to get to what they saw as the common denominator of all religions, namely, worship of “the creator of the universe.”

The problem with this is that belief in the creator of the universe, much less the worship of this creator, is not found in all religions. For example, Hindus and Buddhists do not believe in the creator of the universe. They may believe in a deity who formed this age, but the universe has always existed according to Hindus and Buddhists. It is uncreated and eternal.

I point this sign out just as an example of another weakness in the pluralist position.

Aug

23

Baha’i Lotus Temple in New Delhi, India

Filed Under Baha'i, Religious Pluralism | 8 Comments 

In my last visit to India I had the opportunity to visit the Baha’i Lotus Temple in Delhi. The temple was built in 1986 and is known as the Taj Mahal of the 20th century.

The Lotus Temple is open to people of all faiths and each day they have a prayer time where representatives from different religions like Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Christianity are invited to come and offer prayers up to God.

This pluralistic outlook is at the heart of the Baha’i faith. Nevertheless, they still claim that they are the closest to the truth since the last prophet that God sent was their own, namely, Bahaullah (1817-1892). He claimed to be “the Supreme Manifestation of God.” Although they take pride in their pluralistic position, they cannot live it out consistently.  This is evident by the fact that they end up claiming superiority over all other religions.

Aug

14

Jesus and Krishna

Filed Under General religion, Hinduism | 1 Comment 

This is an image of the Hindu god, Krishna. Actually, the god is Vishnu and Krishna is one of his avatars. An avatar is a manifestation of a god; literally it is a “down-coming.”

According to Vaishnavites (worshipers of Vishnu), Vishnu has had nine avatars and one is yet to come. He has appeared as a fish, tortoise, boar, man-lion, dwarf, warrior with an axe, Rama (epic hero from the Ramayana), Krishna (as seen in the Bhagavad-Gita), and the Buddha. Finally, he will come as Kalkin, a man riding on a white horse, who will take away all evil. Krishna is by far the most popular of Vishnu’s avatars. Interestingly, some Hindus believe that Jesus Christ is actually an avatar of Krishna.

Often, people incorrectly equate the Hindu doctrine of avatars with the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. Although these doctrines appear similar on the surface (the divine is made manifest in human form), differences abound:

1. Vishnu has manifested himself multiple times while the Son of God took on flesh once for all.
2. Vishnu appeared in animal and human-animal forms.
3. In the incarnation, the Son of God took on the frailty of humanity while avatars retain their divine power.
4. Avatars are triumphant over evil, while Christ did suffer and die because of evil.
5. Avatars pass away after their job is done while the Son of God remains as a man.
6. Avatars come to restore the balance of good and evil, while Christ is understood to have defeated evil once for all.
7. The Son of God’s incarnation is rooted in history while Vishnu’s avatars are loosely connected with history.

These are just some of the differences between the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation and the Hindu doctrine of avatars. This is another example of how religions might seem similar on the surface but when looked at closely are much different than previously thought.

Aug

5

Who Speaks for Islam?

Filed Under Islam | Leave a Comment 

I recently came across a very interesting book, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed. This book is based upon a Gallup’s World Poll in which they “surveyed a sample representing more than 90% of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims” (xi). The book provides great information on what the worldwide Muslim community thinks about politics, radical Islam, gender issues, and the west.

In the first chapter of the book, Esposito and Mogahed introduce the reader to the basic beliefs and practices of Islam.  Unfortunately, a few of their statements reveal an apologetic bias.  For example, they write that “Islam means a strong commitment to God and shares the same Arabic root as the word for peace, or salaam” (7).  Actually, Islam means submission (to God). Thus, a Muslim is one who submits to God.  A couple of pages later they write, “Jesus’ mother, Mary, is mentioned by name more times in the Quran than in the New Testament” (9). I am not sure exactly what point they were trying to make, but they are clearly trying to make their Christian readers feel more comfortable with Islam. This apologetic bias does call into question how the Gallup’s poll data was presented in the book.  Nevertheless, the book is still valuable.

Instead of summarizing the book I just want to list a few of the findings that I found the most interesting:

1. 7% (91 million) of the Muslim world is radicalized (They believe that the 9/11 attacks were “completely” justified) (97).
2. Radicals are not more religious than the general population (98).
3. On average, the radicalized are more educated than moderate Muslims (71), disproving the idea that radicalism comes from the poor and uneducated.
4. The attributes most associated with the U.S. are: ruthless (68%), scientifically and technologically advanced (68%), aggressive (66%), conceited (65%), and morally decadent (64%).

I would recommend this book to those who want to better understand what Muslims believe (just beware of the bias of the authors).

Jul

8

Who can use the word “Allah”?

Filed Under Communicating with those of other faiths, Islam, Sikhism | 1 Comment 

I recently came across a story in the Times of India which describes how in Muslim-majority Malaysia, Sikhs are going to court for the right to use the word “Allah” in their sacred scriptures.  The Malaysian government has banned non-Muslims from using the word.  What is even more interesting is that the Sikhs are not the only ones fighting for this right; even a Roman Catholic newspaper is going to court to keep its right to use “Allah” for God.

As you might know, the use of “Allah” by Christians when referring to the god of the Bible is a controversial issue in missiology.  Some argue that ”Allah” is simply the generic Arabic word for god and as such, it can be used by Christians.  On the other hand, others argue that the word “Allah” is too closely tied to Islam, and using it leads to doctrinal confusion.

There are many issues to consider:

1. Can the word “Allah” be separated from Islam?
2. What do you do if you are in an Arabic-speaking context and there is no other word for God?
3. What word have Arabic-speaking Christians used for God through the centuries?
4. How would using “Allah” for the god of the Bible confuse a Muslim, a new believer, etc?
5. How would the issue be different in a Muslim context as opposed to a non-Muslim context?
6. How would the issue be different in an Arabic-speaking context as opposed to a non-Arabic speaking context?
7. How would this issue affect Bible translation? Translation of Christian materials? Evangelistic materials?
8. How would using “Allah” facilitate or detract from the communication of the gospel?
9. How would not using “Allah” facilitate or detract from the communication of the gospel?

These questions are by no means exhaustive, but they do show how the issue is more complex than many make it out to be.  No matter where you stand on this issue, the reality is that a new believer needs to be taught about the nature of God as revealed in the Bible.  If the new believer was a Muslim then he must be taught the difference between the god of the Bible and the god of the Qur’an.  Similarly, if the new believer was an atheist then he must be taught the difference between what the Bible says God is like versus what he has heard about God from those around him.  This is true for all believers.  We should continually check to see how our view of God lines up with God’s self-revelation in the Scriptures.  As A.W. Tozer once wrote, “What comes into our minds when we think of God is the most important thing about us.” (The Knowledge of the Holy, Chapter 1) 

Jul

2

Why do Muslims not like dogs?

Filed Under Islam | 4 Comments 

Well, not all Muslims.  However, traditionally Muslims have avoided dogs since they are ritually unclean. Here are two interesting stories I saw about Muslims and dogs:

From my studies I had learned that Muslims are usually not that keen about dogs, but I had never really seen documentation about where this came from. So, I decided to do some investigation. Here are a few of Muhammad’s sayings about dogs found in Sahih Bukhari (the most respected collection of Hadiths in the Muslim world):

1. Volume 1, Book 4, #173

Narrated Abu Huraira: “Allah’s Apostle said, “If a dog drinks from the utensil of anyone of you it is essential to wash it seven times.””

2. Volume 1, Book 9, #490

Narrated ‘Aisha:  “The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. For I disliked to face him.”"

3. Volume 3, Book 39, #516

Narrated As-Sa’ib bin Yazid: “Abu Sufyan bin Abu Zuhair, a man from Azd Shanu’a and one of the companions of the Prophet said, “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘If one keeps a dog which is meant for guarding neither a farm nor cattle, one Qirat of the reward of his good deeds is deducted daily.” I said, “Did you hear this from Allah’s Apostle?” He said, “Yes, by the Lord of this Mosque.”"

4. Volume 4, Book 54, #448

Narrated Abu Talha: “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying; “Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal).”” 

5. Volume 4, Book 54, #450

Narrated Salim’s father: “Once Gabriel promised the Prophet (that he would visit him, but Gabriel did not come) and later on he said, “We, angels, do not enter a house which contains a picture or a dog.””

 On the blogroll to the right I added a link to an electronic concordance of the Qur’an and Hadith.

Jul

2

Mason Jennings: Great Musician, Not-so-good Philosopher of Religion (Part II)

Filed Under Religious Pluralism | 3 Comments 

Second, Mason rejects the idea that there is only one way to God for a variety of reasons, but I wanted to respond to a couple of them. He says about God, “you are un-namable, unknowable, all we have is metaphor.” I agree that the human mind is incapable of fully grasping God. Thus, he is incomprehensible, but that does not mean that we can know nothing about God. In his song Mason actually claims to know a lot about God.

I also agree that much of our language about God must be in metaphor since God is completely above and beyond us. We must use figures of speech, yet this does not mean that the differences between religions are simply linguistic differences. For example, monotheistic religions believe that God created the universe and is distinct from it. In Buddhism and Hinduism there is no creator God because the universe has always existed. God is either identical to the universe or he does not even exist. These differences cannot be explained away by appealing to semantics.

Moreover, Mason, as religious pluralists must do, must reject the idea that God has objectively revealed himself. If God has not revealed himself to humanity then all differences between religions can be attributed to people holding false ideas (i.e they made it up or just got it wrong).

However, if God has revealed himself and has taught truth about himself and creation then we no longer are at liberty to say that all religions lead to God unless he has said so. If God has revealed himself, what he has said about the way to him is very important. For example, according to Islam, Allah teaches that the way to heaven is earned by following the 5 Pillars or by becoming a martyr. In contrast, according to the New Testament the way to heaven cannot be earned but is received by trusting in Jesus Christ’s death for one’s sins. Moreover, in the Qur’an, Allah says that he has no offspring (i.e Jesus is not the Son of God) and that the worst sin one can do is adding anything to Allah (i.e Trinity). In the Qur’an, Allah condemns Christian doctrine. On the other hand, when Jesus was on earth he said that he was the only way to heaven; thus, he excluded all other paths to God. Repentance of sins and trust in him are the only ways to heaven. The Qur’an and Jesus cannot both be right. They both can be wrong, but they both cannot be right since they clearly contradict each other.

Ignoring these differences is an affront to both religious traditions. The main problem with those who hold to religious pluralism is that they do not take any religion seriously and they somehow think that they can stand above all religious traditions from the past and present and say to them “You are all pretty much the same. You are simply different paths to the same God.” They accuse religious exclusivists of being arrogant simply for believing what their sacred texts say while they see themselves as humble when they place themselves above all religious traditions and declare them all equally valid.

Jun

26

Mason Jennings: Great Musician, Not-so-good Philosopher of Religion (Part I)

Filed Under General religion, Religious Pluralism | 3 Comments 

In his newest album, In the Ever, Mason Jennings includes this provocative song:

“I Love You and Buddha Too” 

Oh Jesus, I love you
And I love Buddha too
Ramakrishna, Guru Dev
Tao Te Ching and Mohammed
Why do some people say
There there is just one way
To love you God and come to you
We are all a part of you
You are un-nameable
You are unknowable
All we have is metaphor
That’s what time and space are for
Is the universe your thought
You are and you are not
You are many, You are one
Ever ending, just begun
Alright, alright, alright
I love you and Buddha too

Mason Jennings is probably my favorite musician. I have listened to him for years and always enjoy his songs. Actually, my favorite concert of all time was a concert of his I went to in Tucson, Az a few years back.

In “I Love You and Buddha Too” Mason is clearly promoting Religious Pluralism, i.e. all religions are equally valid ways to God. The problem with Religious Pluralism and with Mason’s view is that many religions contradict each other. Thus, Mason is forced to reshape the teachings of various religions in order to make his point.

1. First, he incorrectly applies the Christian teaching about loving God (i.e by loving Jesus) to other religions. Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, never taught that people should love him. This would imply desire and attachment, which is the opposite of what he wanted. The Buddha actually diverted attention from himself at all cost.

I am not sure why Mason included “Tao Te Ching” (maybe because it fit in the song) because this is the title of a collection of works from philosophical Taoism. There is no concept in Taoism about loving “Tao Te Ching.”

Moreover, in Islam there is no concept of loving Muhammad. He is the last prophet, the perfect man, but he is not seen as an object of love and adoration (at least in orthodox Islam). There is not even the idea of loving Allah in Islam (except in Sufism).

Mason adopts the Christian belief that God is a personal deity that is to be loved and erroneously tries to apply it to other religions.

Jun

13

Is it ok to “baptize” the Buddha’s Four Noble Truths?

Filed Under Buddhism, Communicating with those of other faiths, Great Commission | 4 Comments 

The Buddha’s teachings can be boiled down to The Four Noble Truths and The Eight-fold Path. The Four Noble Truths are:

1. Life is dukkha (suffering, dislocation, transience. Life is not the way it should be)
2. Dukkha is caused by tanha (desire, thirst for permanence)
3. Dukkha can cease when tanha is removed…cessation of tanha is Nirvana.
4. Tanha is removed through the Eight-fold Path:

                1. Right views
                2. Right intent
                3. Right speech
                4. Right conduct
                5. Right livelihood
                6. Right effort
                7. Right mindfulness
                8. Right concentration

In “Evangelism in the New Millennium: An Integrated Model of Evangelism to Buddhists Using Theology, Anthropology, and Religious Studies” Ubolwan Mejudhon advocates presenting the gospel to Buddhists with a Christian version of the Four Noble Truths.* His “baptized” Four Noble Truths are:^

1. Suffering is a fact of life
2. The cause of suffering is sin
3. The cure for sins is the suffering of Christ
4. The way to deliverance is through faith in Jesus Christ

At first I thought it was a clever idea. However, I then began to question my initial judgment since these Four Noble Truths clearly do not contain the full gospel message. They contain truth but not the entire truth. Nevertheless, I still think these “baptized” Noble Truths can be useful in communicating the gospel to Buddhists as long as they are supplemented with the rest of the message.

*Article is in Sharing Jesus in the Buddhist World, edited by David Lin and Steve Spaulding (2003).
^He credits J.T. Seamand with this version of the Four Noble Truths. Seamand, J.T.. Tell It Well: Communicating the Gospel across Cultures (1981).

← Previous Page — Next Page →