My last few posts have combated a particularly popular and attractive (a)theology called "inclusivism." Basically, this (a)theology views all religions as either substantially the same or right in their own ways. By saying this, it denies that any real distinctives exist between say Christianity and Islam or Islam and Mormonism.
But this is not true to the claims of those religions. Christianity, like other religions, claims a monotheistic view of God. This means not that it believes in one God, but that it believes in only one God and no others. It is exclusive by default. Inclusivism does not exist within the semantic domain of the prefix mono- and the stem -theism. Christianity goes further and explains the relationship of this one and only God to his people in terms of one word: covenant. No other religion explains this relationship by this term and therein Christianity establishes one of its many uniquenesses.
Herman Bavinck noted this uniqueness long before me and so I'll give him the floor and allow him to explain this all-important point:
Covenant is the essence of true religion. If religion is called a covenant, it is thereby described as the true and geniune religion. This is what no religion has ever understood; all peoples either pantheistically pull God down into what is creaturely, or deistically elevate him endlessly above it. In neither case does one arrive at true fellowship, at covenant, at genuine religion. But Scripture insists on both: God is infinitely great and condescendingly good; he is Sovereign, but also Father; he is Creator but also Prototype. In a word, he is the God of the Covenant. -- Reformed Dogmatics, II.570
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
2 comments:
Slightly tangential, but have you read G. Lindbeck's The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age? He addresses the (popular) concept of what he calls "Experientialist" definitions of religion (the idea that religions all address the same underlying human issues) and proposes the idea that a religion is more like a language. It's actually very fascinating and a compelling read. He uses it primarily to discuss Ecumenism, but the ideas are there.
It just seemed slightly relevant to your discussion.
-Jake
Jake,
I have it on my shelf, but have not yet read it through. I have scanned some parts and gained access to other parts through Vanhoozer's "The Drama of Doctrine" which is a "Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Theology" as opposed to Lindbeck's "Cultural-Linguistic Approach to Theology." I suppose he is following some of Wittgenstein's proposals?
Anyway, I will check it out. Thanks for the input.
Post a Comment