Inclusivism: The New Exclusivism

Lately, I have been amazed at some of the statements in the media on theological inclusivism. More and more, I have been seeing this shift from the academic sphere to the public sphere, perhaps because the academic community finds the position indefensible while the masses have not seen through it.

First of all, let me say that theological inclusivism would be the position that I would like to take, if I am honest with myself. In this view, I can rest easily at night because all faiths are the same and all theological truth claims are equally valid. This means that I do not have to wrestle with truth and I do not have to worry about my friends and family and neighbors and complete strangers because all of us are right and no one is wrong (except maybe Hitler and Genghis Khan). However, I do believe this position to be painfully misled and horribly incorrect. In fact, theological inclusivism results in the same biases that it attempts to overcome in more “exclusive” expressions of religion.

Theological inclusivism is an exclusive claim. By saying that all religions are the same, it effectually excludes the true and historical religions themselves, all of which are “exclusive” as they define it. By saying what it does, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. are thereby illegitimatized in their faith claims. If all are equally true, then the one religion which says that it and it alone is true (which all of these do say in their historical forms) is not true. Inclusivism is exclusive because by being inclusive it excludes the exclusive.

Furthermore, inclusivism is deistic at best and atheistic at worst. It is based upon a philosophical and theological presupposition that if God is even real (and he may not be), then he certainly cannot have revealed himself to humans in a definite form and thus cannot be known. Inclusivism does this by brushing off the blatant monotheism of at least Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. All of these religions believe that their expression of the identity of God is correct and absolute. This is the clear and undeniable teaching of their respective sacred books (Qur’an, Tanakh, and Bible).

These texts provides the rationale for why all of these religions are monotheistic; the prefix does not mean “one” but means “only one.” The mono- presupposes exclusivism. You cannot be a monogamist and have many wives. This would make you a polygamist, poly- meaning “many.” Inclusivism denies that God is knowable, thus spiraling into deism or atheism depending on the proponents.

The point I am trying to make is this: truth is by nature exclusive. The law of non-contradiction must be evoked here. Yahweh is not Allah, if we line them up according to what the sacred books say about them. Thus “God” cannot be Yahweh and Allah at the same time. He is either one or the other.

While I do agree that Christians, Jews, and Muslims should co-exist with relative harmony and fruitful theological discussion, I do not believe that this co-existence should devolve into the said “inclusivism” (which is really a perverted form of exclusivism). I have an itching suspicion that the popular bumper sticker is really arguing for the latter approach, not the former. It seems to me to be an automobilic accoutrement of inclusivism, having posed this question to those who've hybrids have been adorned in the said fashion. But the not-so-obvious truth must be emphasized: all of us are not right simultaneously. A helpful proposal would be to allow each group to pursue what they believe to be right, to respect the basic dignity and human rights of the other groups, and to wait for “God” to sort it out. All of the aforementioned faiths believe that he will, while inclusivism would suggest that we cross our fingers and get on with more “practical” things like social agenda. Again, inclusivism in deism at best and atheism at worst.