Comparative Religion

P1

Deon Howard (1495)

The Best way to Approach Religious Diversity After reviewing the different approaches that one can take to approach religious diversity, I believe that the best way to approach religious diversity is by Exclusivism. The exclusivist approach falls under the universal scope of knowledge which says what a person knows about a certain religion, applies to all people even if they dont accept it. Just being a Christian should make one an exclusivist if they are really grounded in their faith. Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world and those who accept Jesus and fully rely on Him will obtain eternal life. This statement is biblical and has an exclusivist approach to it. One person that does not agree with me is Dr. James Kraft, who is also Christian, but feels that the best approach to religious diversity is through Contextualism. In my recent

interview with Dr. Kraft, he stated that the Contextualist approach is a more humble approach to religious diversity. The contextualist approach to religious diversity says that they can support their belief to a certain extent, but when challenged by a person from another religion, the view of their context changes. No human being as all knowledge about one particular subject, but the contextualist seems like they are blown by all kinds of winds; they never stand their ground. I believe you can make a persons level of confidence downgrade if they have never experienced what they believe. However, if a person is tested in their faith and has experienced what they believe, but cant answer all of the questions that one may have, I believe their experience would cause them to stand their ground. Dr. Kraft says that this approach of Contextualism is humble, but I believe that it is weak in a sense. An exclusivist can be humble in their belief, but also confident at the same time. Confidence is not prideful; it is just the assurance or boldness of ones faith.

Comparative Religion

P1

Deon Howard (1495)

I would have to agree with Kim Valentine on the following statement: I believe that if one is truly convinced or certain of ones religious belief, one would think that it is right for everyone, whether they accept it as the truth or not. (Valentine 13) I dont believe that you can be a Christian and approach religious diversity through Postmodernism, Contextualism, or Skepticism. These three approaches fall under the non-universal scope of knowledge, which says that no religious knowledge applies to all. I believe if you claim to be Christian or any other religion, then if what you believe were really the truth, then you would desire all to believe what you believe. I find it hard for someone to call themselves a Christian, but they dont believe that Jesus is the way for all people. If they dont believe that Jesus is the way for all, then they are not really a Christian because what they believe does not line up with the Bible, which says that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Being a Christian has nothing to do with being a Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, or Methodist; these are denominations that are man made. I believe what these denominations have done is taken scripture from the Bible that they want to use, rather than accepting the whole word of God. Its not about being in a religious institution; its about having a personal relationship with Jesus. Its about being intimate and truly knowing who He is. I believe this concept goes for all religions; if what they believe is really true, they would encourage all to follow in that way. Another person that does not agree with me is James Carroll. Mr. Carroll believes that the exclusivist approach to religious diversity causes a religious war. The definition of religion is a set of beliefs, or values and practices (dictionary.com). The word that sticks out to me in this definition is the word value. When we value something we classify it as something of high importance. It is something that is dear to us; something that is worth much. There are many different religions and many beliefs, but only one truth. The war that is between different

Comparative Religion

P1

Deon Howard (1495)

religions today is based on the knowledge of what is wrong, and what is right. Rightness for one religion might be to kill others that dont believe in what they believe. Rightness for another religion might be to love others even when they harm you, and persecute you. But our own conscience apart from religious beliefs can discern between what is right and wrong. The reason why the battle rages between the different religions is because it determines the outcome of ones destiny. It is preparation for the life that is to come after this life on earth; it is preparation for our eternity. So I would have to disagree with Mr. Carrolls statement of Exclusivist being the cause of religious war. If the exclusivist approach was done away with today, there would still be a war in the religious communities because of the different approaches and beliefs. Mr. Carroll feels that the Pluralist approach, which says that all religions are aiming towards the same ultimate reality, is the best way to keep the peace between religions. It might be true that all religions are aiming towards the same ultimate reality, but there is only one truth, so there can only be one way. For example, Hindus believe that they themselves are gods, but from a

Christian perspective, God is God alone. Hindus also worship statues, but worshipping graven images is a sin in the Christian perspective. So we have various religions, but only the truth will stand in the end. John Ankerberg and John Weldon, two Christian Exclusivist, also agree with me on this concept. They believe that Christian salvation is unique because Jesus is exclusively Gods son and salvation can only exclusively be obtained through Jesus. They also believe that since Jesus was the only one that died for sins, He is now the only one who can forgive sins. When we consider all the great religious teachers, leaders, and prophets who have ever lived, who is the equal of Jesus? Not Moses, Confucius, Buddha, or Lao Tze (Taoism), who never claimed to be anything other than sinful men. Not Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Zoroaster, or Guru Nanak

Comparative Religion

P1

Deon Howard (1495)

(Sikhism), who never gave any proof they were true prophets of God. Not Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, or Krishna, who were only mythical deities. Not Mahavira (Jainism) or the founder/leader of any other religion the world has known has ever been like Jesus. Neither Animism,

Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Mormonism, Shinto, Sikhism, Sufism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism nor any other religious belief outside Christianity has anything that can even be slightly compared to Jesus. (Ankerberg and Weldon) For example, the Muslim prophet Muhammad acknowledged in the Koran (the sacred text of Islam) as being sinful and asking God for forgiveness, and even being rebuked by God. Muhammad confesses to be sinful, but Jesus confesses to be sinless. When looking at the Postmodernist approach, they believe that what is true for one person might not be true for the other person. As I stated earlier, there can only be one truth when it comes to eternity. I believe that a postmodernist really doesnt value what they believe or they may have never really experienced what they believe in. When you experience the power of something, in this case the power of God, your experience would cause you to tell others. Even though some may not believe your testimony, it would be truth to you because you have had an experience. For example, say one believes that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world and they have experienced the cleansing power of His blood and His Spirit. Even if others dont believe it, they will uphold their testimony because of what they have experienced. Like Contextualism, Postmodernism is also weak in a sense. Jim Leffel believes that

Postmodernism is The Death of Truth. Mr. Leffel feels that the Postmodernist approach rejects modern character, tendencies, and values. I agree with Mr. Leffel and feel that the Postmodernist approach is lost all together. They dont really have confidence in what they

Comparative Religion

P1

Deon Howard (1495)

believe so they just think that people can live any kind of way, and believe anything and still survive. Although there are many religions and many approaches to religious diversity, people must be confident in what they believe. The exclusivist approach to religious diversity is one that I feel is best out of all the alternatives because of the confidence that it upholds. The exclusivist approach is not an arrogant approach as others think, but it is an approach that stands for what they believe. Im not just an exclusivist just to be one; I have experienced the power of God through Jesus Christ, and this is the reason that I hold my position as an exclusivist.

Comparative Religion

P1

Deon Howard (1495)

Works Cited Ankerberg, John, and John Weldon. Christian Exclusivism. InPlainSite. 11 Feb. 2009 <http://www.inplainsite.org/html/christian_exclusivism.html>

Carroll, James. The Cult of Exclusion is the Enemy of Peace. CommonDreams. 23 Oct. 2003 <http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1023-12.htm>

Kraft, James. Contextualist Viewpoint. Huston-Tillotson University, Austin Texas, February 13, 2008.

Leffel, Jim. Postmodernism: The Spirit of the Age. Xenos. 11 Feb. 2009 <http://www.xenos.org/essays/relrev2.htm>

Valentine, Kim. Exclusivism as the Best Approach to Religious Diversity. Logos James Kraft, and Kevin Callahan. Austin: 2008. 12-15