Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World

Chapter 1 - A Pluralist View

John Hick offers a theologically weak view of salvation embedded in a story of pilgrimage. I, like Pinnock, was offended by his purpose behind the story. I appreciate that he was sharing his own journey, but it was evident to me that his goal was to demonstrate a more enlightened position. I respectfully disagree. His definition of salvation smacks of post-modern smoke and mirrors by deconstructing the definition that he knows most people undersand in the term. He chose to view salvation as "total submission", or more specifically, living morally (whatever that means in his view). The responses by McGrath and Geivett/Phillips were helpful in understanding the position and what he was actually saying. What is most striking about Hick's view is that it is not properly pluralist - only the ones he considers to be 'moral'. It seems that he has lost the very thing he is trying to protect.

Chapter 2 - An Inclusivist View

Pinnock offers some interesting arguments. He seems to set up a series of straw men to knock down unsuccessfully. He makes several hasty generalizations and offers little Biblical support, which I can only assume the purpose for which this book was written. I appreciate the idea that 'All truth is God's truth, wherever it may be found' and the idea that the Spirit is moving all over - outside the church. I agree with these things. Like McGrath, though, I believe Pinnock has taken it a step too far. The question I was left with is "if I adopt this view, should I study Buddhist and Muslim theology?" Also, "how do I know which religions are NOT being moved by the Spirit?" I appreciate the responses, particularly by Geivett/Phillips. As evidenced in Pinnock's conclusion, he was stirred by it as well.

Summary

As I take a step back from the book, what is clear to me is just what an impact Immanuel Kant had on our approach to knowledge. Both Hick and Pinnock assume that we cannot know objectively truth about God as revealed in Scripture. Hick, appealing to Aquinas, tries to make that very point.

What is left out in their views, for me, is the fact that Jesus did show up on earth and declare objective truth. There seems to be a myopia of culture that assumes we cannot escape our situation to understand anything outside of ourselves. There is an assumption of agnosticism which is heartbreaking.

What is most heartbreaking, though, is that most people in my ministry context buy into this type of thinking. While Hicks and Pinnock at least are dialoguing about it, my people do not know how to even put words to these thoughts. It would be good to discuss these things with the people of my church and challenge them on the conclusions of such views.

I am thankful for opportunities to read well-written responses to such views. Thinking through these matters is important and I feel like I had the opportunity to sit in on some very important conversations. What I desire, though, it to create similar dialogue among my people and maybe even pastors in my area.