Problems of Religious Pluralism

by John Harwood Hick

Book in good condition.

160 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 1985

Reviews

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked up a copy at the Haunted Bookshop in Iowa City, which specializes in theology (Judaica in particular), because the title caught my attention. I had never heard of John Hick, much less "religious pluralism" and was intrigued. The latter point is probably what I found most frustrating about this book, because, even writing in 1980, Hick assumes most of his general assertions about Christian attitudes toward other religions are common and accepted. Having been catechized by both Lutheran (Missouri Synod) and Methodist (Wesleyan) churches, I found his assumption that most Christians generally believe that nonbelievers are also saved by default, that the other great traditions are legitimate, and so on, dumbfounding. This was the first time I have ever read or heard someone express such ideas from an explicitly Christian point of view, or at least not without a lot of caveats. While reading this, I had the recurring thought, "Why didn't anyone tell me about this?!"

This is not an easy book and is, in fact, one of the most difficult books I have read recently. That is because it really is not a single work, but a collection of academic articles exploring problems and concepts of religious pluralism. What is religious pluralism? The easiest way I can describe it is that it is a philosophical position that reverses a simplistic assertion I often encountered from friends and acquaintances growing up, "Well, all the religions can't be right," and says, "Yes they can."

Reading this book, I realized that most of what Hick argues had been in the back of my mind in an embryonic state since I was very young. I have always been deeply uncomfortable with certain elements of Christian theology that I considered exclusionist and intellectually dishonest. The first, obviously, is the idea that religious pluralism explicitly rejects: that Christianity is the only Truth and that all other traditions are false and, therefore, harmful. Also, that an omnibenevolent deity's love is conditional, that something as abstract as intellectual assent to a proposition is necessary for grace, that anyone can honestly profess a belief if that belief will determine their eternal salvation or damnation, that the vast majority of humanity is damned through no fault of their own, that one can know "the Truth" about a professed ineffable reality, that the practice of religion is primarily about the selfish pursuit of a better afterlife rather than how to live better in this world, and so on.

I think Hick makes a persuasive argument for religious pluralism from a Christian point of view. Or, rather, he makes several. The one that really struck me is that which seemed rational to me even as a teenager -- that Jesus' sacrifice universally, permanently, and retroactively saved all human beings. The other one that I find more persuasive having thought and read about this more (and will endeavor to crassly paraphrase) is that my protestant upbringing asserts that God is utterly transcendent, which necessarily means that you should approach claims about the Truth with extreme trepidation. It can be reasonably argued that where the great traditions, which all agree on transcendentalism (generally, not the American philosophical movement), overlap seems to indicate a common awareness of what Hick calls The Real. Christianity, based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, expresses a True understanding of the universe and our place in it. And so does Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and so on. So, people of all faiths ought to be curious about and respectful toward other traditions, while they remain true to their own. I found this satisfying. Because I have to admit that I cannot view the world from outside the teachings I was raised with. It more eloquently expresses a sentiment Marcus Borg wrote explaining why Christians can still, in good faith, practice the tradition while acknowledging others: It's Home.

So what? Why should people like me who were disillusioned by and disaffiliated with Christianity consider religious pluralism when humanism accomplishes the same end? Because I agree with a sentiment expressed by Karen Armstrong in The Bible: A Biography, that interfaith understanding and cooperation are now essential to the survival of our species. And I am tired of fundamentalists and religious exclusivists having a monopoly on interpreting and defining the tradition I do feel is my own and believe they are misrepresenting and using for hurtful ends. Because this is a genuinely *useful* philosophy to healing and improving the world we live in now, which I feel was the heart of The Master's teachings.