In Response to John Hick and Religious Pluralism/Relativism

Religious Pluralism, in various forms, has been present for centuries and even millennia. However, it has been propagated, as of late, by Professor John Hick. He has refined and forged Religious Pluralism into what it has become today. It is now widely accepted and has become a formidable opponent of Christianity. Pluralism is often referred to by many as Religious relativism. Although complex theological and philosophical differences occur between Pluralism and Religious Relativism, they can, for general and common use, be interchanged. These worldviews often accuse other religions, specifically Christianity, of being exclusivists and more vaguely of being judgmental. These claims are guilty of self-refuting fallacy which is simply explained. Relativists, especially, believe that there are no absolutes and furthermore that Christians are intolerant for asserting that they alone hold truth. These statements are themselves absolutes and moreover the Relativists are believing themselves to hold the only truth: that there is no truth. With this information we can explore a key difference between Relativism and Pluralism. Where Relativism says all religions are only true to those who believe them, Pluralism says all religions are partially true and useful for morality in society, however no religion is complete. John Hick, father of modern Pluralism, after an early life as a part of the Christian church, came to this conclusion of Pluralism after discovering similar and generally homogenous levels of morality in people form different cultural and religious backgrounds. This experience placed in him an inability to accept any religion to claim to hold a monopoly on truth, because it seemed apparent to him that no religion produced any “morally superior” persons. Since he could not accept that any religion holds exclusive right to total and transcendent truth, he conjectures that these beliefs and religions point us to an unknowable “Real.” What is bothersome about Pluralism, in its quest to be consistent, which is at least more honorable than that of Relativism, is its necessity to manipulate the quintessential tenets of a religion that may in some way contradict the views of Pluralism. For example, Pluralism disputes and denies the resurrection and deity of Christ. Now belief on this doctrine is the utter foundation the whole of Christianity is built upon, however, for Pluralism to not dispute thus would be inconsistent and therefore unnecessary. For if they agree that Christ was God, the Ultimate Reality, became flesh, and revealed himself to us, would that not be complete? The unknowable “Real” has then become knowable and has said that He, Christ, is the only media of salvation. In this hope can be found, however, Pluralism provides no hope, no knowledge and no viable help to man. Pluralism, it would seem, is yet another way man tries to avoid true reality and a way man can shape his beliefs around himself rather than shaping himself around his beliefs.

In Response to Religious Pluralism

Religious pluralism is loosely defined as peaceful relations among different religions. Most Christians would eagerly concur with this concept. However, this "concept" is becoming a religion in its own right. It is being taken to heightened levels of classification. Not only now do religious pluralists believe in peaceful relations, but they also consider all religions to be equal along with their teachings.

John Hick, the "father of modern religious pluralism", mainly began his push for religious pluralism out of pity. He once was a Christian, and then he saw and met people of other faiths. He saw that these people, too, had good morals (just as good as his fellow Christians), but according to his faith weren't going to be able to go to heaven as well. He thought this was very unfair and his heart went out to them. So he found this way to believe where everyone of different faiths could go to heaven and be merry... Religious pluralism.

As a Christian I believe in one absolute truth; Jesus is God and the only way to heaven. This would contradict the teachings of religious pluralism. For a pluralist to look at Christianity and what I believe and say it can sit side by side with other religions is ridiculous. A pluralist must either distort my beliefs and Christianity to make them fit pluralism or deny them and realize one cannot be an inclusive pluralist. You see Christianity does not accept other beliefs as being truth. They may have some truth in them or good teachings, but it comes down to basic contradicting statements. Christianity believes in one way to God, and religious pluralism believes in many ways to God. If Christianity is true then pluralism cannot possibly be true because Christianity believes in one way to heaven. If pluralism is true then it negates Christianity as being true, which in turn gives pluralists an issue to deal with. Because then there would be a fallacy in that not all religions can be accepted by a pluralist.

This is not to say that Christians should live at unrest with other religions. We still believe in treating people of different faiths with respect and tolerance. But tolerance does not have to mean accepting what they believe to be true. It just means that we can recognize that, yes; there are people with different beliefs, and we should respect them. We should love those people and try to direct them toward Jesus and His love for them , thus helping those people that John Hick felt bad for. We don't have to join a false religion that suits everyone's needs supposedly, just lead them to the one absolute truth of Jesus.