Among present commentators, how is Jesus related to other figures of religious devotion like the Buddha or Muhammad or even New Agers?
One popular response is to reduce the relationship between Jesus and, say, the Buddha, to one of Right versus Wrong. Let’s call this view the “many paths, one goal” model of thought. Usually, it turns out that Jesus is Right and the Buddha is Wrong. Ravi Zacharias, a popular Christian theologian, philosopher and commentator recently gave a talk that focused explicitly on the zero-sum relationship between Jesus and Eastern religions. And in turn, Tom Gilson over at the Thinking Christian blog used Zacharias’ insight to declare followers of New Age deities “contradictory” and wrong. For folks standing with Zacharias and Gilson, then, the empirically apparent plurality of religious figures is reducible to a single relationship of either Right or Wrong.
On their view, it simply doesn’t matter that Buddhists aren’t actually seeking their salvation or attempting to follow in the way of Jesus Christ. These factors are irrelevant. The sole factor that seems to matter for Zacharias and Gilson is their publicly unwavering sense of certainty about their ultimate Rightness and the others’ ultimate Wrongness. Their position almost appears to be a kind of dogma, which is another way of defining “what you have to believe…whether you believe it or not” (Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy, xiii). If these authors and those that stand with them reduce all relations between Jesus and other religious figures of devotion to one of Right or Wrong, I believe that there is a great risk of imperialistic overreach reminiscent of many 16th through 20th century missionaries.
A second less popular response was recently extolled by John D. Caputo. He describes our current condition as one of “irreducible pluralism.” This is a condition in which “the very idea of a ’spiritual journey’ seems to suggest that there is more than one, that each of us must find a way, which itself presumes that we are all a bit lost” (What Would Jesus Deconstruct?, 42). For the sake of this essay, let’s call this view the “many paths, many goals” model of thought. Compared to the first model of thought, the many paths, many goals understanding of the relationship between Jesus and other figures of religious devotion yields a more nuanced and complex set of relationships. For folks standing with Caputo (and I count myself in that lot), then, the empirically apparent plurality of religious figures is irreducible to any one single relation. Faith in Jesus is not a win or lose contest between religions, but a way of living (2 Corinthians 5:7) or a “gift” from our Lord God (Ephesians 2:8) that does not claim to be objectively true. Rather, faith in a context of irreducible pluralism is a matter of embracing one perspective in the face of rivals. It is a “position where one will stand at cost and at risk, so that in the end, the test of its validity is no longer logic or fact, but the expenditure of one’s own life, which is the only thing that finally has worth” (Walter Brueggemann, Texts Under Negotiation, 10).
From the many goals, many paths perspective of life, it matters a great deal that Buddhists aren’t actually seeking their salvation or attempting to follow in the way of Jesus Christ. Compared to those following Jesus the Christ, Buddhists are walking different paths and seeking different goals. The irreducibility of the differences between Jesus and the Buddha means that relations between these two faith circles are open to multiple possible interpretations depending on the context at hand. Most often, for instance, it may be appropriate to love Buddhists you encounter as your neighbor but, at other times and places, it may well be legitimate to love Buddhists as your enemy. But in all instances, we are called to go forward in love and praise of God our Father, to become a living parable of the word and way of Jesus Christ in the context in which we live. Or as Paul phrased the dynamism of a believer and how he relates to others, make yourself “a slave to everyone,” which means to “become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” through the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Believing in and following the way of Jesus is not a matter of proving all the other religions in the world wrong, but a matter of affirmatively living your commitment to Christ in the face of the “many gods and many lords” (1 Corinthians 8:5) that we face everyday.
**Addendum
Recently an article was published by Christianity Today that illustratively gets at the point that I’m making. It’s title is "Salvation through Buddhism?" And it is an article that comments on the recent poll produced by the Pew Forum for Religion in Public Life. The article and the Pew poll itself basically ignore the eschatalogical storyline articulated by present day practioners of Buddhism and, instead, affix a Christian storyline of salvation in its place.
My point is that Buddhism does not offer salvation. Buddhism offers a more impersonal state of zen. Christians seek salvation; Buddhists do not. To ignore this, to overwrite the Buddhist, is to do a violence that is unwarranted for us following in the Way of Jesus. Speak boldly that Jesus is the truth and the light, but do not silence neighbors boldly shouting a different storyline. Dust off your sandels and move on. We are warranted in inviting, not compelling.
Re: Pluralism: Reducible or Irreducible?
I was surprised to see the results of a recent survey of American religious beliefs and attitudes. Among evangelicals, 57% agreed that "many faiths can lead to eternal life," whereas only 38% said that "my religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life." These findings are particularly startling given that 59% of evangelical respondents said they believe that the Bible is "the word of God, literally true word for word." Summary findings of the survey can be found here.
Re: Pluralism: Reducible or Irreducible?
Jacob, that’s a wonderfully lucid statement. I have one question. What epistemological status does the resurrection of Jesus have in a ‘many goals, many paths’ scenario? Would you regard it as a ‘real’ event?
Re: Pluralism: Reducible or Irreducible?
I trust in what the Bible says.
As a rule of thumb, I usually don’t argue that anything in the Bible is ‘real’ or, conversely, ‘fake.’ These terms are more rhetorical than anything else. I’m more inclined to ask: do you trust the bible or not? Because what I know about the Bible is not knowledge in the standard epistemological sense of the word—it’s not testable. What I know about the Bible is revelatory. Through revelatory experiences that I’ve had, I’ve come to trust the words of the Bible.
Re: Pluralism: Reducible or Irreducible?
I understand, and I entirely agree that pluralism is irreducible and that that fact must affect how we understand the relation between Jesus and other religious figures. But what does it mean to trust the assertion that Jesus rose from the dead? If in order to trust it we must make it mean something other than what it ostensibly means, is that really trust? Actually it would be distrust. But doesn’t the resurrection, which is interpreted by the biblical witness as an objective, real and unique event, make it difficult to pursue a ‘many goals, many paths’ strategy?
Re: Pluralism: Reducible or Irreducible?
What does it mean to trust the assertion that Jesus rose form the dead? I thought that my quote from Brueggemann described my view on the matter.
What is "the biblical witness"? I’m not sure what exactly that means. But it seems to imply that the meaning of Jesus’ resurrection is somehow set in stone and meaningful in and of itself. I disagree with that. What the crucifixion and resurrection meant to many of the followers was ambiguous and unclear to many? Remember Cleopas? It took some time after the resurrection and active interpretive work to solidify the narrative of Jesus’ resurrection that we so often take for granted today.
There is nothing inherently more difficult about pursuing either strategy—many paths, many goals or the many paths, one goals. What makes it more socially, politically, and theologically difficult is the entrenchment of one strategy over the other. We have forgotten what Paul and his fellow followers clearly said:
Trust, I think, is looking at those rival gods and lords in the face and asserting one’s fidelity to Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with objectivity. Trust is an action, a deed that one lives.
Re: Pluralism: Reducible or Irreducible?
I agree with this emphasis on trust as an action and, for that matter, with Brueggemann’s characterization of faith as a costly stance towards rivals. I’m not so sure we should be so nervous of speaking about objectivity. In the end the New Testament does solidify the resurrection narratives - though that process is inseparable from the commitment to radical and risky trust that is called forth, so perhaps even that brings us back to your position. The resurrection mattered because it gave people a basis for trusting their sense of calling even in the face of death. So yes, good thoughts.
Re: Pluralism: Reducible or Irreducible?
I think that you would be surprised at what Brueggemann has to say about objectivity. As he insists, our knowing is contextual and perspectival, even "those that claim to be objective and noncontextual." Indeed, "Objectivity is in fact one more practice of ideology that presents interest in covert form as an established fact." To be clear, Brueggemann doesn’t want to do away with the concept of objectivity, but he does "regard relativism as less of a threat than objectivism" because "it is such a deception." In short, Brueggemann seems pretty nervous about relating the term objectivity to his faith.
"In the end the New Testament does solidify the resurrection narratives," which is a promise that we live by and not an objective fact of the matter. Believing that that promise is objective is to deceive oneself, I think. The covenant between our God and his people is no more objective than the rainbow that symbolizes it.
Re: Pluralism: Reducible or Irreducible?
Folks like Zacharias are worried that the particularity of Jesus will be compromised by any accommodation with pluralism. We have too often fallen into the trap of thinking too much of our own doctrine and negatively about what God may be up to that we don’t know anything about.
Of course there is a fundamental difference in approach when we compare Eastern religions with either Christianity or Islam. On the other hand I don’t see that our shared traditions with Islam have made it any easier to get along together either, so acknowledging difference really doesn’t get us any further away that we have already placed ourselves!
Indeed as John Doyle points out, the supposed monolith of evangelical Christianity itself is filled with a surprisingly active array of beliefs.
One is almost tempted to see a bit of desperation in the attempts to shore up a (hopefully disintegrating) defensive and separatist path as the only sufficiently narrow way to go…
Live to serve : Serve to live