So, it’s been a day or two since I did part one of this little series, on John Hick’s chapter. Well on to chapter two, a treatise on inclusivism, from Clark H. Pinnock.
The basic, one sentence description of Pinnock’s position is: “Salvation in Jesus, with an optimism about the fate of non-believers.” It’s similar to the way ELCA Presiding Bp. Hanson characterized ECUSA Presiding Bp. Schori’s position in response to an email I sent him at the beginning of last year. Both views are based heavily on the outcomes of Vatican II.
Pinnock has a lot to say that I agree with. I’m in complete agreement with the idea that the Spirit is going ahead of us into the mission field to prepare our hearers for the Gospel. I agree that general revelation and common grace exist, and are given to everyone. I also agree with his critiques of pluralism. But there is much there that I disagree with, and plenty of confusion to go with it.
He seems to be supporting several different, and not really converging, views. The first is that God’s grace - saving grace - can be experienced in [some?] other religions, though that grace is from Christ. The second is that general/natural revelation can lead people to Christ. The third is that those who haven’t heard the Gospel can be saved through faith in God.
Interspersed within are recollections of people who, once they encountered Jesus, saw how their previous religious background had prepared them for Him(that fits with traditional particularist theology). There’s also this curious sentence:
What about those who, when presented with the gospel, still choose to remain within their own faith - a Muslim, for example, who is drawn to Jesus but cannot break with his people?
The answer seems straight forward to me (”Reject me, and I’ll reject you at the last day. If you’re ashamed of me, I’ll be ashamed of you at judgment.” - Jesus), but Pinnock says that his fear of reprisal might be a valid reason to turn from the Gospel, so he’s unsure.
It seems to me through the whole chapter that Pinnock is just afraid of being seen as the bad guy. His theology seems to rest on “maybes” (maybe God saves through other religions, maybe he saves with no religion at all…), because to assert the certainty expressed by the New Testament writers seems harsh in today’s cultural climate. Geivett and Phillips, the writers of the final chapter, offer this critique:
Christian theologians living in a generation for with feeling and the popularity of a position s the measure of truth must be especially cautious in their response to the lure of the bandwagon.
He also hides behind Vatican II, as if implying that it’s outcomes are the most reliable authority available.
In the end I think his discussion of whether some non-christians will be saved through Christ is like arguing over whether or not a square peg will fit into a round hole. No matter how much you talk about it, you’re going to have to make the peg (that’s us) round, or the hole (that’s God) square. Pinnock looks to be spending all of his time on the hole. What he’s not noticing is that the hole is in the Rock of Ages, and the peg is made of Play-Doh.
Technorati Tags: four views, inclusivism, pinnock, religions, salvation, vatican ii
Blogs4God
