Time For Truth

A place to grow in the Grace & Knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ

Pluralism, Inclusivism, and Exclusivism – Are they all equally Christian? (Part 1)

Recently I have been reading on some of the Presbyterian blogs and web sites a discussion about whether there is such a thing as a “middle way” on issues that divide the PCUSA and most mainline churches in general. The current issue has to do with the ordination of homosexuals and the full acceptance of homosexual practice as good (not a sin). Many have indicated that the issue lies deeper in the differences in understanding the authority of Scripture. I agree that it has much to do with our view of Scripture, but the issues in my opinion are even deeper than this. I believe there is a fundamental difference in understanding what it means to be a Christian, and whether or not there should even be “beliefs” associated with Christianity. I will begin this series with a discussion in honor of Dr. Ronald Nash, who passed away two years ago, summarizing and reviewing some of the main points from Dr. Nash’s book “Is Jesus the Only Savior and interacting with those ideas. I recommend the book highly and hope that you will consider purchasing this wonderful book. 

Is Jesus the only way to heaven?
(In a world where we are likely to have neighbors, friends, coworkers, etc., of differing faiths, is it not arrogant and intolerant to profess Jesus as the only savior?) 

Pluralists answer the question: “NO.  Jesus is not the only way.”

Inclusivists answer the question: “Yes, but….”

Exclusivists answer the question: “Yes, period.”

Let’s look first at the pluralist position. 

Pluralists often begin with criticism of the exclusivist’s view of truth in the area of religion, by rejecting either-or language in favor of both-and.  Pluralists believe that while it might be impossible to dispense with either-or language in the everyday world, in the area of religion, we must be rid of it.  Here is an example: “either this mushroom is poisonous or it is not.”  It would be nonsensical to say; “both this mushroom is poisonous and it is not,” yet that is precisely how pluralists believe we must think about religion.  Pluralists want us to believe that fundamental laws of logic have no place in religious discussions.  Therefore there is a major problem for this perspective right from the beginning, because those logical laws are not something humanly created, but are the foundation for “all significant thought, action, and communication” (Nash, p.55).  For more on this topic I recommend Douglas Groothuis’ Truth Decay: Defending Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism.

 “Philosophers often distinguish between two kinds of believing, belief that and belief in…In belief that, my act of believing is directed toward some proposition (Barack Obama [I took the liberty to update the reference] is the current president of the U.S.A)…If I believe in my friend, Joe Smith, it means that I trust him…when I believe in God, it means that I trust God and have committed myself to him…It is very important to see that belief in presupposes belief that. If I believe in God, it is because of all the propositions about God that I believe are true (e.g. He is wise, loving, kind, forgiving, holy, etc.)” (Nash p.57). 

Many today believe that Christianity is a “belief in” religion and therefore does not require us to believe that…certain propositional truth statements are true.  The idea is this: Christianity depends on a relationship with God through Jesus Christ and that is all.  The rest has simply arisen from ignorance, or what-have-you, and not from the actual core of the faith.  If we simply see Christianity as a belief in… faith, then we can dispense with the prepositional truths that have normally been associated with Christianity.  What Ronald Nash points out in his book is that belief in… is meaningless without belief that…  How can one believe in God or another person, without believing certain prepositional truths about someone?  How can someone be asked to trust someone of whom you have no knowledge?  Biblically, belief in God requires knowledge of the character of God.  Therefore, I must believe that God is trustworthy, faithful, kind, loving, knowledgeable, full of wisdom, capable of accomplishing what he has willed, truthful, etc.

 Here is the form of a religious pluralists’ argument:

1)      All religions are ultimately myth.

2)      Most adherents of those religions are ignorant of this, since they believe that their truth claims accurately reflect reality.

3)      In actuality, reality is unknown (or for many a pantheistic worldview).

4)      Therefore, language like, “Jesus is Lord,” is just as valid as saying that, “the only God is Allah, and Mohamed is his prophet.”

5)      The experience of the divine of each adherent is what is important.

6)      Ultimately each one has a legitimate experience of the divine, and therefore all views are valid.

Pluralists such as John Hick (a leading writer in the pluralist camp), usually recognize that their views will not stand if certain historic positions of the Christian church are true, and therefore they will often go about the task of attempting to dispute them.  They often begin with criticism and deconstruction of the historical reliability of the New Testament documents, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the deity of Christ. All of these things are myth – not literally true, but practically true.

“Hick develops a clever analogy in defense of his view of myth: He tells the story of a man in love who declares that his Helen is the sweetest and prettiest girl in the whole world.  While such an exaggeration cannot be literally true, it may be mythically true if it expresses an appropriate attitude of the lover toward the person he loves.  In a similar way, early Christians took the simple expression ‘Jesus is my Lord and Savior,’ a psychological statement and transformed it into a metaphysical claim; ‘Jesus is the only Lord and Savior.’  Hick wishes people would stop thinking of the Incarnation as a metaphysical ‘truth’ and regard it as an ‘imaginative reconstruction’ that expresses ‘the Christian’s devotion to Jesus as the one who has made the heavenly Father real to him.’ Jesus is not the Savior; he is only my savior” (Nash, p.72). 

Christian Liberals, Neo-orthodox, and even many that consider themselves Evangelicals that ascribe to the pluralist view, relegate the views that Jesus atoned for people’s sins on the cross, that Jesus rose bodily from the dead, and that Jesus was literally God incarnate to the realm of myth with meaning.  Jesus was god-conscious (a human being who achieved a special awareness of God and God’s love), but certainly not the third person of the Trinity.  For pluralists, all of these things should be understood to be metaphorical language that speaks of experiences with the divine, rather than literally describing reality.

Next, I will be looking at inclusivism – the so-called middle way and a favorite of Barthian Neoorthodox and even many modern evangelicals, such as William Young (the author of The Shack) and Donald Miller (author of Blue Like Jazz).


February 8, 2009 - Posted by | Uncategorized


  1. Adel, This is good information and I like the way you have laid it out and your use of Nash. I am reading a book that deals with a few of the same thoughts on the Emergent Church, Why We’re not Emergent by two guys who should be
    When I finish the book maybe I will write on it. Also coming next-if I can get to it is Faith Comes by Hearing: A response to Inclusivism I wonder if you have heard of either.

    If I disagreed with anything it would be, “even many that consider themselves Evangelicals” as being inclusive. I don’t really believe that many Evangelicals hold that position.

    Comment by Viola | February 10, 2009

  2. Hi Viola,

    Thank you for your comments. The statistic is Nash’s, but from my experience I would say that if anything the statistic is low, especially among younger self-identified evangelicals.

    I have not yet read Why We’re not Emergent, but have read excellent reviews of the book, and it is on my rather long list of books to read. Faith Comes by Hearing is an excellent book, with contributions by many solid evangelical scholars. I recommend the book.

    Comment by Adel | February 10, 2009

  3. I was randomly seeing if a blog posting I did regarding the subject of pluralism in the Christianity would appear in a google search. It did, as did yours.

    I like the logical laying out of your beliefs regarding the pluralist view. I come from the liberal side of political spectrum and find fault with an analogy which would portray belief in an exclusivistic position re the Christian faith vs inclusivistic as the same as between a poisonous mushroom vs a non-poisonous one.

    I have attended a great peace and social justice church here in Pasadena that preaches an inclusive message. I also attend Fuller Seminary. I’m drawn to both poles of the tension between the more dogmatic faith perspectives of the exclusivists – because our faith is an historically rooted religion – and those of the inclusivist – because they offer a way to “make the human race into the human family”.

    I am interested in trying to see other ways to frame the perspectives of both poles so that we are left, not with a false unity that means nothing, but with a unity within the diversity of human efforts to understand that which transcends us as human beings.

    I’ll try to check back on your blog. Thanks for the post.

    Comment by pbriggsiam | March 13, 2009

  4. pbriggsiam,

    Welcome to my blog.

    You’ll have to excuse my ignorance, but I don’t follow your mushroom analogy.

    I would also like you to explain what you mean by “unity within diversity of human efforts to understand that which transcends us as human beings”. How is this different than the usual universalist unitarian mantra?

    Comment by Adel | March 14, 2009

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: