Exclusivism to Pluralism

"EXCLUSIVISM TO PLURALISM: WHY OUR AGENDA IS THREATENING"

The title "Working Group on Christian-Jewish Relations" is disarming and non-threatening. Superficially, all it seems to suggest is the encouragement of a little harmless bonhomie between Christians and Jews or those who have the truth in Christ and those who don't. 

However, the real issue is not relations between Christians and Jews, much as this might be worth encouraging. It is the relationship between two faiths: Christianity and Judaism. When the implications of this are appreciated, it becomes apparent that Synod's embrace of our group could prove as internally disruptive as the adoption into one's family of an incorrigible delinquent!

The reason why our agenda is threatening is that it leads inevitably to the requirement that our church develop a theology of pluralism and a self-concept which allows it to be purposive, intentional and dynamic without the necessity for believing it has a monopoly on truth. This can best be summarised in the following five propositions.

Rightly or wrongly, early Christianity quickly came to take the apostles' message as full, final and definitive revelation. Specifically, this meant that Christianity had replaced Judaism in salvation history. This allowed for Judaism and Jews to be regarded with contempt. 

Modern scholarship, along with suspending the literal and naive reading of scripture (both Hebrew and Christian), has led to a widespread 'reinstatement' among Christians of Judaism as a valid and worthy faith, deserving of respect and protection.

The corollary of this is that Christianity can no longer consider itself the sole repository of God's last word to humanity. To affirm that Judaism should be respected and protected means that Christianity has relinquished its claim to a monopoly on truth.

If it is the case that Christianity is not a monopolist faith, the further corollary is that other faiths must be recognised as having their own integrity, validity and right to claim 'ultimacy'. Recognition of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism et al must follow.

This moves us from theological exclusivism (only we have the saving truth) to theological pluralism - as an item of belief. Whether we affirm this or not, it is the inescapable conclusion from the foregoing. What implications for theological education, ordination vows, church's self-concept &c?

This is a terse and unvarnished summary of our agenda, whether it is palatable or not. We cannot engage in reflection on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism and escape the eventual task of challenging our church (and perhaps other churches) to develop a properly grounded theology of pluralism.

But this does make our agenda threatening to the church, and perhaps to us unless we decline to pursue it to the logical outcome! 

JOHN BODYCOMB

4th February, 1999