Pluralism and Society

What is the main focus when evaluating Christian engagement with a multi-faith society?

To assess how Christians should engage with interfaith dialogue and conversion, weighing traditional/conservative approaches (which allow conversion alongside dialogue) against modern/post-liberal approaches (which separate dialogue and conversion to promote social cohesion).

What are the five main approaches to dialogue and conversion in Christianity?

• Catholic inclusivism (John Paul II) – dialogue and conversion compatible; conversion is a goal.

• Traditional exclusivism (e.g., Church of England) – dialogue and conversion compatible; conversion encouraged.

• Liberal – all religions should follow universal rational ethics; dialogue acceptable, conversion limited or discouraged.

• Pluralist – religions are different expressions of the same truth; dialogue encouraged, conversion discouraged as socially harmful.

• Post-liberal/scriptural reasoning – dialogue and conversion must be separated; dialogue promotes social cohesion without conversion.

What is scriptural reasoning and how did it develop?

Developed by Peter Ochs and Anglicans like David Ford after the Holocaust. Aims to promote social cohesion by bringing different faiths together to read and discuss their sacred texts. Focuses on preserving religious particularity rather than subsuming faiths under a liberal or pluralist framework. Conversion and critique of other faiths are excluded during dialogue.

How does scriptural reasoning differ from liberal interfaith dialogue?

Liberal dialogue emphasizes similarities and shared ethics but risks relativism.

Scriptural reasoning emphasizes difference, preserving the integrity of each faith, allowing participants to express value and love for their own religion while fostering mutual understanding.

What is the main criticism of scriptural reasoning?

Gavin D’Costa claims it is relativistic: banning conversion and critique risks diluting religious truth and makes dialogue incomplete, as genuine interfaith dialogue involves engagement with the truth claims of each religion.

How can scriptural reasoning be defended?

It is context-specific, focusing on dialogue to promote mutual understanding rather than relativism.

This approach reduces prejudice and intolerance, addressing ignorance as a driver of social conflict. Conversion is restricted only in dialogue, not in wider religious practice.

What is John Paul II’s view on dialogue and conversion?

Catholic inclusivism: Christianity has the full truth, other religions have partial truth. Dialogue is mutually enriching and promotes social cohesion, but conversion is still a biblical obligation (1 Corinthians 9) and can be a goal of dialogue (“Dialogue leads to inner purification and conversion”).

How does Hans Küng critique Catholic inclusivism?

Dialogue aiming at conversion is presumptuous, implying that non-Christians unknowingly worship the Christian God. He prefers a global ethic approach, emphasizing shared moral principles like non-violence and respect for life to foster understanding.

How does the Church of England’s document Sharing the Gospel of Salvation approach dialogue and conversion?

Conversion and dialogue are compatible. Christians are encouraged to share faith respectfully (1 Peter 3:15), focusing on living virtuously to attract non-Christians. Dialogue contributes to the common good, reducing social prejudice while naturally creating opportunities for conversion.

How does pluralism approach dialogue and conversion?

Pluralists like Knitter argue all religions share a core commitment to peace and justice.

• Conversion undermines social cohesion; dialogue should emphasize mutual respect without attempting to convert.

• Conversion can be socially harmful, similar to how racial superiority threatens harmony in multi-racial societies.

How does William Lane Craig critique pluralism?

Claims pluralism arises from relativism, post-modernism, and diversity as ultimate values.

Tolerance and humility are sufficient for social cohesion; Christians do not need pluralism to engage productively with other faiths.

Evaluation of pluralism vs traditional approaches?

• Pluralism maximizes social cohesion and reduces tension, but may conflict with truth claims of Christianity

• Traditional approaches (JP2, COE) uphold religious integrity but may increase social tension in multi-faith societies.

How do secular liberal critiques view conversion?

Conversion is insensitive, potentially causing social tensions.

Christianity historically spread by violence, and modern Christians still benefit from these historical conversions in former colonies (Africa, South America).

How does Giles Fraser suggest Christians should respond to historical forced conversion?

Instead of attempting aggressive conversion, Christians should focus on reparation and reconciliation, acknowledging the injustices of the past while engaging respectfully with other faiths today.

What is the paradox of dialogue and conversion?

Conversion is central to Christianity, but promoting it in dialogue can undermine mutual understanding. Modern/post-liberal approaches (scriptural reasoning, liberalism, pluralism) argue conversion should be limited or excluded in dialogue to protect social cohesion.

How do traditionalists defend conversion in dialogue?

John Paul II and COE argue conversion can be part of respectful dialogue.

Christians should share faith gently while accepting others’ freedom of conscience.

Conversion is a biblical duty and compatible with dialogue if done ethically.

What is the conclusion regarding the best approach to dialogue and conversion?

For social cohesion, pluralist or post-liberal dialogue approaches are strongest.

For faithfulness to Christian truth, traditional Catholic inclusivism or COE approaches are strongest.

An ideal approach may balance mutual understanding and respect with a cautious witness of faith without imposing conversion.