Pluralism vs. Particularism
Pluralism is a hot buzz word today both inside and outside evangelical circles which centers around “the relation of Christianity to other religious traditions.” [1] The presence of different religious traditions is significant because each of these religions makes conflicting truth claims about the nature of ultimate reality, the condition of mankind and thus salvation as well. These last two follow naturally, for a different diagnosis of humanity’s problem will necessitate a different treatment. Thus the question for believers (and unbelievers) what is man to do with all these conflicting truth claims?
Christians have generally sought to answer this question in three different ways. First there is the position of particularism. Particularism is a claim that the only religion which is true is the one to which that individual adheres to. Thus, a Muslim particularist would be one who believes that the only true religion is Islam. Netland argues specifically for Christian particularism claiming that it is Christianity alone which adequately answers the questions most fundamental to religion. Christian particularism was the position of the early church and the dominant position of the church throughout its history.
However, following the enlightenment and then continuing on through the Industrial Revolution another position began to be espoused which departed from this position. Christian inclusivism thus became an alternative which claimed that “while the central claims of Christian faith are true…God’s salvation is available through non-Christian religions.”[2] Christian inclusivism serves as a sort of half-way house between the two extremes of particularism and pluralism.
Pluralism is the third position adopted regarding the relation of Christianity to other religions. Pluralism rejects the idea that God has revealed himself in any special way through Jesus and claims instead that God is revealing Himself through all religions.[3] Both inclusivism and pluralism would argue against particularism by claiming that it is “inherently intolerant” and “based upon faulty notions of religious truth.”[4] However, Netland argues both of these objections and claims that if our view of religions is “epistemologically sound and accurately portrays the values and beliefs of respective religions, something like traditional Christian exclusivism is unavoidable.”[5]
Netland writes that there are three basic criticisms of particularism. First, exclusivism is intolerant or otherwise morally blameworthy. Second, that it is somehow epistemologically deficient. And third, Scripture does not demand it.[6] The third objection to particularism is clearly wrong as long as a plain reading of Scripture is practiced. Netland argues against the first objection, that Christianity is intolerant by pointing out that there is a difference between intolerance and arrogance. Netland freely admits that Christianity has been arrogant and abusive in working out the implications of its exclusivist position but argues that this is not sufficient grounds for dismissing Christian exclusivism. Netland then goes on to argue that the very idea of tolerance has an idea of condemnation built into it because “tolerance involves acceptance in one sense of something toward which one has a negative estimation.”[7] Simply put you are only tolerant of what you disagree with. Thus Netland concludes that there is a difference between affirming someone’s belief and their right to hold that belief. Tolerance only implies the former.[8] Netland points out the implication of this truth by reminding us if tolerance is not accepted in this manner than any time we engage in dialogue concerning what we hold to be true and why, we are being intolerant.[9]
The second objection to particularism, that it is epistemologically unsound also fails to undermine Christian particularism. Some will attempt to argue against Christian particularism by trying to undermine the law of noncontradiction. However, arguing against the law of noncontradiction is pointless because the law must be true for the argument to be true and therefore the argument is necessarily false. Another argument made against Christian particularism on this front claims that truth is not propositional but rather personal. However, Netland destroys this argument as well by showing that while beliefs are held personally they are based upon propositions which a person believes. In other words my actions and personal beliefs are based upon certain propositions which I hold to be true. Belief always has an object and that object is always in religion some proposition. Thus one cannot argue that religious belief is solely a personal matter.
While David Clark also argues convincingly for Christian particularism he does so in a less direct way. Netland seems to approach the issues of pluralism from a more head on position whereas Clark seems a bit unclear when it comes to defining terms. Along these same lines Netland is more concise in defining the limits and claims of Christian particularism. Because of this his arguments are not only easier to catch but also more convincing.
[1] “Exclusivism, Tolerance, and Truth” Harold Netland Missiology 15.2 (April 1987) pg. 77
[2] “Dissonant Voices” Harold Netland Eerdman’s: Grand Rapids 1991 pg. 10
[3] Ibid., pg. 10
[4] “Exclusivism, Tolerance, and Truth” pg. 77
[5] Ibid. pg 77
[6] Ibid. pg 78
[7] Ibid. 80
[8] Ibid. 81
[9] Ibid. 82
