1

Theology of Religions: Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism

Exclusivism

Exclusivism is the theological position that holds to the finality of the Christian faith
in Christ. The finality of Christ means that there is no salvation in non-Christian
religions. Notable among the exclusivists of this century are Samuel Zwemer, Hendrik
Kraemer, and Lesslie Newbigin.

Based on the Aristotelian concept of truth as one and not many, exclusivists regard all
other religious claims as false and invalid since the Christian revelation is accepted as
true. Exclusivists hold that salvation is through Christ alone. It is through a personal
experience of commitment to Christ that one receives assurance of salvation. The
non-believers cannot receive such assurance since they are neither aware of the
uniqueness of Christ neither do they acknowledge His lordship. The exclusivist begins
with the Bible as the source of all knowledge about spirituality and salvation. The
Bible is the criterion of all religious truth. The Bible relates the history of redemption,
gives a foundation to personal faith, is a guidebook of the Christian community, and
tells us of the future of the world that links up all history, life, and service with
meaning and purpose. Exclusivism, thus, establishes the uniqueness and identity of
Christianity among world religions. Such exclusivism can take either an extremist or a
moderate viewpoint. The extremist view regards all non-Christian religions as
demonic and enemies of Christian truth. On the other hand, the moderate view sees
some non-Christian religions as containing elements whereby a dialogue with them
can be initiated. However, all exclusivists in general agree that salvation is exclusively
only through Christ and received by a personal commitment to the Lord.

An exclusivist view is inevitable in any dialogue of truth. As has been seen, neither the
pluralist nor the inclusivist could avoid being exclusivist at some point. Truth by
nature is exclusive and any claim to truth is exclusive. The only way to deny
 2

exclusiveness of Christ is to deny the veracity of the Bible. The exclusivist view rightly
sees the exclusiveness of the Bible in its proclamation of Christ as the only way of
salvation. However, at the same time, it must be affirmed that the Bible also speaks of
God involved in the history of the nations. Therefore, it must not be thought non-
Christian religions are totally devoid of virtue. Thus, though being very vociferous in
his attacks on Hinduism, Nehemiah Goreh could say that ‘Most erroneous as is the
teaching of such books as the Bhagvadgita, the Bhagvata, etc., yet they have taught us
something of ananyabhakti (undivided devotedness to God), of vairagya (giving up
the world), of namrata (humility), of ksama (forbearance), etc., which enables us to
appreciate the precepts of Christianity.’

Thus, of the various schools of approach to the study of religion, theologically

speaking, moderate exclusivism proves to be the best, since it neither distorts the
meaning of truth, as pluralism does, nor forces itself over the other religions, as
inclusivism does, but remains true to its source of doctrine, viz. the Bible.

Inclusivism

Inclusivism is the belief that God is present in non-Christian religions to save the
adherents through Christ. The inclusivist view has given rise to the concept of the
anonymous Christian by which is understood an adherent of a particular religion
whom God saves through Christ, but who personally neither knows the Christ of the
Bible nor has converted to Biblical Christianity. This position was popularized by the
Roman Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner.

One important issue that Rahner raises is about the salvation of those who have never
had the opportunity to listen to the gospel Jesus Christ. To Rahner, then, people can
be saved apart from allegiance to the Christian church. It is God in Christ who
reaches out to the individual in his own personal religious history to same him.
Rahner used the term ‘anonymous’ to denote people who experience the grace of
 3

God in Christ regardless to what religion they belong to. Inclusivism is based on two
axioms: the first is that salvation is through Christ alone, the second is that God wills
the whole world to be saved. Consequently, God saves people through Christ alone;
however, he makes this possible through ways that extend to all humanity.

To Rahner, a non-Christian religion is a lawful religion for until its followers have a
Christian witness it is a means by which non-Christians gain a right relationship with
God. Also, the religion is included in God’s plan of salvation which God has ordained
for the communication of His grace.

Inclusivism has a great appeal to people because of its sympathetic approach to

religion. However, it ignores the fact of ungodly elements within religions. It would
only be a contradiction in terms to conceive of a God who reveals that he is against
idolatry and at the same time assert that he saves a person in his worship of idols.
Jesus said it is by knowing the truth that one is liberated. When the apostles spoke of
salvation by the name of Jesus, they never meant that people could be saved within
allegiance to the lordship of Jesus; on the contrary, they expressly meant that only by a
voluntary submission to the Lord could one be saved. The will of God for salvation
of all men in 1 Timothy 2: 4 is qualified by His desire that all of them will come to the
knowledge of the truth for which Paul testifies as being appointed a preacher. Thus,
the Bible is clear on the point that knowledge of Christ precedes the reception of
saving grace in faith.

Inclusivism is seen as arrogantly exclusivist, if seen from the perspective of other

religions. It tells that Hindus are not saved by their dharma, and Muslims are not
saved by their works, but all are saved unaware by Christ. This not only proves that
the salvation doctrine of all other religions are false but also that people are not saved
because of following the religious way of their religion. This is something like saying
that the neighbor is living by my money though it is he who earns his livelihood and
 4

lives by it. The claim is unwarranted. Finally, Christ assumes a nebulous and abstract
character and personal commitment to the historical Christ almost loses soteriological
value as can be seen in the case of M. M. Thomas’ Christ-centered syncretism.
Therefore, inclusivism cannot be accepted as Biblically warranted.

Pluralism

Pluralism is basically the belief that the world religions are true and equally valid in
their communication of the truth about God, the world, and salvation. The chief
expounder of this view is John Hick of Claremont Graduate School in California, who
first propounded it in his book God and the Universe of Faiths (1973). His view is
not different from the popular Hindu view capsulated in Krishna’s saying in the
Bhagavadgita:

By whatsoever way men worship Me, even so do I accept them; for, in all ways, men
walk in My path.

This is the popular view that all religions lead to the same God and all ways lead to
heaven. According to Hick, Christianity is not the one and only way of salvation, but
one among several. To a pluralist such as Hick, Christianity is not the absolute,
unique, and final way to God. While pluralists assert the validity of all religions, they
also deny the finality of all religions. According to Hick, in the evolutionary scheme of
things in which at isolated ages and places the early religions are succeeded by higher
religions, it is the same message of God that comes distinctly to a particular group but
as different from the others. Hick challenges the older view that Christ or Christianity
must be seen at the center of religions. Rather, he says, God must be seen at the
center of religions. The pluralistic contention is that all religions are fundamentally the
same though superficially different.
 5

‘The attraction of pluralism,’ says McGrath, ‘lies not in its claim to truth, which are
remarkably elusive and shallow, but in its claim to foster tolerance among the
religions.’ To an evangelical Christian, however, such pluralism only means the
abolition of kerygmatic mission, i.e., the mission of evangelizing the world with the
salvific gospel of Jesus Christ. However, the reasons for rejecting pluralism go beyond
the cause of evangelization. Any sincere study of world religions expressly reveals that
contrary to the pluralistic contention all religions look superficially the same but are
fundamentally different. Each of them differs from the rest in its view of God, sin,
salvation, death, and eternity. Obviously, the pantheistic notion of the world as God
and the monotheistic notion of the world as creation of God are not the same. The
only way to call them same is by jettisoning the notion of absolute truth itself;
however, that would mean that no absolute statements about anything can be made,
including the statement that all religions are the same.

Another point against pluralism is the counterfeit posture it assumes. Pluralism

contends that it is different from exclusivism in that it accepts the validity of all
religions. Thus, truth is both relativized and pluralized. However, one basic feature of
truth is exclusivity. Truth by nature excludes everything else contrary to it. Thus, every
statement in order to be meaningful must exclude all its opposite. Thus, pluralism by
contending the validity of all religions against the segregated contention of each to
validity excludes all other views contrary to it. For example, it excludes the view that
‘all religions are not true.’ Therefore, though assuming the form of pluralism, it is
none other than a variant of exclusivism itself.

Relativism

The traditional concept that truth is absolute, objective, and universal is something
that has undergone radical reinterpretation in the West. Truth is no longer seen as a
goal worthy to be pursued or discovered, it is rather something determined by the
 6

individual. Postmodern truth is considered something that is, “…inseparable from

politics, culture, psychology, biology, race, and gender.” The culture of relativism is a
place where nearly everything, from moral truth to the definition of terms, lacks
stability. In this present culture even human nature lacks stable meaning. The ideas of
tolerance and openness have been so stretched in their meaning that they have been
construed to oppose the existence of truth, rather than having a healthy dialogue and
debate concerning truth. The postmodern culture is one that at its core is easily
offended and non-confrontational. One could say that truth has been sacrificed on
the altar of tolerance and inclusion.

Relativism has become the religion of those who detest the notion of religion. In this
setting, one must not confuse the terms religion and spiritualism. Relativism allows
for the idea of spiritualism as long as there is no claim of religious superiority. In
essence, individuals can claim they are spiritual, but not religious. The claim of being
spiritual but not religious is a very open term, leading to a number of possible
meanings without having to adhere to any absolute or concrete doctrine or belief.
One that claims to be spiritual can worship nature, they can believe in some form of
universal energy, they can claim belief in a deity or many deities, or they can believe in
nothing outside of themselves. The term “spiritual” fits nicely into the vocabulary of
the relativist because it allows one a sense of individual spirituality without conferring
that belief as a truth on anyone else.

Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards
of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions
and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context
giving rise to them. For the relativist truth is subjective. This once again leaves all
truth and value to the discretion of the individual. Third, relativism creates an end-
around to all arguments. In other words, relativism allows the relativist to skirt the
 7

actual problem without dealing with it directly. No answer or rebuttal needs be given
for a truth claim when all truth is relative to the individual. “The freedom of our day
is the freedom to devote ourselves to any values we please, on the mere condition that
we do not believe them to be true.”

Relativism allows for all truth claims to be accepted even if it means that all views are
contradictory. One can believe in monotheism, pluralism, humanism, atheism, etc.
and find a place under the covering of relativism. Relativism is the natural destination
for a philosophy that seeks to validate all truth claims, with the primary goal of
inclusion and offending none. The umbrella of relativism allows for individual truths,
without necessitating any defense for said beliefs. A shared and common truth is not a
goal worthy of pursuit for the relativist.
 8

Exclusivism

• Core Belief: Exclusivism holds that there is only one true path to God or
ultimate salvation, typically asserting that only one religion (often Christianity)
has the complete truth needed for salvation.

• Theological Foundation: Exclusivism is often rooted in scriptural claims

about the uniqueness of God’s revelation to a particular group, as seen in
passages like John 14:6 ("I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to
the Father except through me"). This interpretation underscores the belief that
faith in Christ is the only path to salvation.

• View of Other Religions: Other religions are often viewed as incomplete or

even erroneous in their understanding of God, morality, and salvation. While
they may contain glimpses of truth or virtue, they are not seen as sufficient for
true salvation or eternal life.

• Missionary Focus: Exclusivism emphasizes the need for evangelism and

conversion, as those outside the faith are thought to be at risk of eternal
separation from God. This can lead to strong support for missionary work and
outreach efforts.

• Key Figures: Theologians like Karl Barth and Karl Rahner have articulated
exclusivist ideas, especially within a Christian context. Barth emphasized the
unique revelation of God through Christ, and Rahner argued that non-
Christians might be "anonymous Christians" whose salvation is still through
Christ, though they don't recognize it.

• Contemporary Challenges: In today’s multicultural and interfaith world,

exclusivism faces criticism for being potentially intolerant or dismissive of
other beliefs. Critics argue that exclusivism does not respect the sincerity and
 9

spiritual depth found in other traditions, and it can be seen as fostering a

divisive "us vs. them" mentality.

• Responses to Criticism: Exclusivists often respond by saying that truth is, by

nature, exclusive. They argue that if a religion sincerely believes in its truth
claims, it must logically reject contrary claims. From this view, genuine respect
for other religions does not require affirming their truth, only treating
adherents with dignity.

In summary, exclusivism strongly asserts the uniqueness of one’s own faith as the
sole, fully true path to God, leading to a focus on conversion and sometimes sparking
debate in the context of religious pluralism and diversity.

Inclusivism

• Core Belief: Inclusivism holds that one's own religion (often Christianity in
Western contexts) is the fullest expression of divine truth, yet it acknowledges
that other religions may also contain truth and pathways to salvation.
Inclusivists believe that God’s grace and salvation can operate outside the
explicit boundaries of their own faith.

• Theological Foundation: Inclusivism is often based on a belief in God’s

universal love and mercy, with the idea that God’s grace may extend beyond
explicit faith in Christ. This perspective argues that Christ’s redemptive work is
universal, potentially encompassing people of other religions—even if they do
not explicitly know Christ.

• View of Other Religions: Inclusivism sees other religions as having partial

truths and ethical teachings that can lead followers closer to God, even if they
 10

lack the complete revelation believed to be found in Christianity. Other

religions are thus seen as “preparatory” or as containing “seeds of truth.”

• "Anonymous Christians": The concept of the “anonymous Christian,”

proposed by theologian Karl Rahner, is a well-known inclusivist idea. Rahner
argued that non-Christians might unknowingly live in accordance with God’s
grace and therefore participate in salvation, even without explicit knowledge of
Christ.

• Approach to Mission and Dialogue: Inclusivists generally support dialogue

with other religions, seeing it as a way to learn from others while sharing their
faith’s unique insights. Inclusivism also tends to foster mutual respect and
peaceful coexistence, often seeing evangelism as possible through dialogue
rather than through conversion efforts alone.

• Criticisms: Critics argue that inclusivism can come across as patronizing, as it

may imply that other religions are only valid to the extent they resemble the
inclusivist’s own faith. Others feel it risks diluting doctrinal beliefs by making
salvation too accessible, potentially compromising the distinctiveness of one's
own religious identity.

• Response to Criticism: Inclusivists often respond by saying that inclusivism

allows for both commitment to one’s own faith and respect for others. They
argue that God’s love and mercy are expansive and inclusive, transcending
human understanding of religious boundaries.

In summary, inclusivism maintains a belief in the primacy of one’s own faith while
acknowledging that God’s grace may work through other religions, fostering a middle
ground between exclusivism and pluralism. This view encourages interfaith dialogue
and respect while affirming the ultimate truth found in one’s own tradition.
 11

Pluralism

• Core Belief: Pluralism holds that no single religion has a monopoly on truth or
the exclusive path to salvation. Instead, multiple religions are viewed as valid
and legitimate paths to the divine or ultimate reality, each contributing uniquely
to understanding God or ultimate truth.

• Theological Foundation: Pluralism is grounded in the idea that God or

ultimate reality is too vast and complex to be fully comprehended or contained
within any one religion. This approach often draws from theological and
philosophical arguments that recognize the limitations of human understanding
and the diversity of religious experiences.

• View of Other Religions: Pluralists regard each religion as expressing a

different but equally valid encounter with the divine. Instead of viewing other
religions as inferior or incomplete, pluralism suggests they are parallel paths
that lead to similar goals, often enriching each other in their diversity.

• Prominent Advocates: Theologians like John Hick and Paul Knitter are
notable pluralists. Hick, for instance, argued that all major religions are
authentic responses to a transcendent reality and that differences in doctrines
should be seen as culturally influenced interpretations rather than ultimate
truths.

• Approach to Mission and Dialogue: Pluralism emphasizes interfaith

dialogue, understanding, and mutual respect. Rather than focusing on
conversion, pluralists advocate for collaboration and learning, seeing the
diversity of religions as a strength that contributes to a fuller understanding of
the divine.
 12

• Criticisms: Critics argue that pluralism risks relativism by making all religious
claims equally valid, potentially undermining the unique beliefs and
commitments of individual faiths. Some believe it diminishes the doctrinal
integrity of religions by focusing on similarities and ignoring irreconcilable
differences. Additionally, traditionalists argue that pluralism can weaken
motivations for evangelism and mission work.

• Responses to Criticism: Pluralists argue that pluralism does not deny unique
doctrines but rather suggests these doctrines are partial insights into a larger
truth. They believe pluralism fosters true religious humility and that the
diversity of religions enhances understanding and promotes global harmony.

In summary, pluralism affirms the validity of multiple religious paths and embraces
religious diversity as complementary rather than contradictory. This perspective
encourages interfaith dialogue and learning, promoting the idea that each religion
holds valuable insights into the divine or ultimate reality.