Christianity

Theme 3 D, E and F and AO2 (Booklet 2)

Knowledge and understanding of religion and beliefD The relationship between religion and society: respect and recognition and the ways that

religious traditions view other religions and non-religious worldviews and their truth claims. Historical developments in religious thought – challenges from secularisation:

The conflicting religious and non-religious views on Christianity in the UK (the value of Christian faith schools; whether the UK can be called a ‘Christian country’); beliefs conflicting with laws of the country; perceived challenges to Christianity (decline of role and status of Christianity; reduced impact in public life; restricted religious liberty).

E

The relationship between religion and society: respect and recognition and the ways thatreligious traditions view other religions and non-religious worldviews and their truth claims.Historical developments in religious thought – challenges from science:Richard Dawkins’ and Alister McGrath’s contrasting views on the relationship between religion and science, and the nature of proof; the limits of science; the ‘God of the gaps’ argument

f Historical developments in religious thought – challenges from pluralism and diversity within atradition:Difference between religious pluralism and tolerance of religious diversity; the exclusivist and inclusivist views expressed in the Christian Bible (Deut 6:5; Joshua 23:16; John 14:6; Acts 4:12); the contribution of John Hick and Karl Rahner to Christian inclusivism (and the difference between their positions); the differences between Christian universalism and pluralistic universalism.

Issues for analysis and evaluation will be drawn from any aspect of the content above, such as:

The effectiveness of the Christian response to the challenge of secularism. The extent to which the UK can be called a Christian country. The extent to which a scientist must be an atheist. Whether science has reduced the role of God in Christianity. The extent to which it is possible to be both a committed Christian and a religious pluralist. The extent to which the Christian Bible promotes exclusivism.

1

D: The relationship between religion and society: respect and recognition and the ways that religious traditions view other religions and non-religious worldviews and their truth claims. Historical developments in religious thought – challenges from secularisation

Challenges from secularisation

Whether the UK can be called a ‘Christian country’

Imagine a tourist visiting the UK. Prior to her visit, she has watched some royal weddings on television, enjoyed performances of Shakespeare and read the Chronicles of Narnia to her children. Now she is going to see that things are ‘really like’. What might she conclude about the importance of Christianity in Britain?

Like many tourists, she visits Cathedrals, some of which have seen continuous worship for almost a thousand years. Then, driving through the countryside, our tourist notices the prominence of church buildings in nearly every town and village. Not only are there the expected churches of the Anglican Communion, but Roman Catholic Churches and a variety of other non-conformist churches such as Baptist, Methodist, Quaker and Utilitarian – many Christian movements that began in Britain and spread to the rest of the world. Furthermore, she discovers that the entire geography of Britain is divided up into parishes in which the Church played a central role in governance. As she travels, she realises that even the English language itself has been shaped by the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer!

If our tourist really keeps a close eye on her surroundings, she might notice that up to 30% of all primary and secondary schools in some regions have a Christian affiliation and that 26 Bishops sit in the House of Lords, one of the main decision-making bodies in the UK.

When she turns on the TV, there are re-runs of the Vicar of Dibley and new episodes of Songs of Praise. She remembers that the Chronicles of Narnia were written by C.S. Lewis an evangelical Anglican, and the Lord of the Rings were written by J.R.R. Tolkein a Catholic Christian. J.K. Rowling has shared that her plot for the final Harry Potter book draws on the Christian Gospels. When she turns on the radio she hears ‘Thought for the Day’ on Radio 4.

2

1. Considering these experiences would she conclude that the UK continues to be a thoroughly Christian country?

3

What is underneath the ‘Christian surface’?

But would she be justified in this conclusion? Many would argue that this tourist has formed a false impression. First: how many people are inside those churches? The 2011 Census indicated that 54% of the population affiliated with Christianity. But, that does not mean that 54% of the population actively participates in Church. The British Social Attitudes Survey shows that less than 15% report attending religious services on a weekly basis. This number includes all religions and may be inflated since people tend to think they attend more than they do. Some estimate that Christian attendance in churches is less than 5%; attendance in the Church of England has recently fallen to under 2%.

Though it is true that over half of the population say that they believe in God, studies indicate that these beliefs do not affirm anything like traditional Christian notions found in the creeds or embodied in the doctrine of the Trinity. In the year 2000 an ORB survey commissioned by the BBC discovered it might be accurate to say that the population is less Christian but more ‘spiritual’ with the following percentages responding to the question, ‘which of these would you say you are?’:

A spiritual person – 31% A religious person – 27% An agnostic person – 10% Not a spiritual person – 7% Not a religious person – 21% A convinced atheist – 8% Don’t know – 8%

2. What do you think? Where would you put yourself? Do you think that in 2019 the data would look any different?

The decline of Christianity

The decline of Christianity can be seen dramatically in terms of those participating in rites such as baptism, marriage and funerals. Before the beginning of the twentieth century it would have been normal to have undergone each of these life passages in the Church; now it is increasingly rare. In the Church of England, for example, 67% of the population were baptised in 1950 but only 12% in 2011. In 1957 72% of all marriages in England and Wales were conducted in churches; by the year 2000 this had dropped to 36.3%. Whilst religious funerals remain quite common, many families now choose to have a ‘celebration of life’ perhaps conducted by a representative from the British Humanist Association.

There may be Bishops in the House of Lords but former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has been clear that he ‘is not a man of faith’ and does not practise religion. British politicians are often silent about matters of religion. When it comes to popular culture there is at least as much evidence (if not more) of criticism as there is of acceptance of religion. Just think of the disapproval of Christianity in shows such as Monty Python, Dave Allen and Father Ted.

4

The God Delusion, a book advancing atheism and science over religion was a national bestseller and on the New York Times bestseller list for 51 consecutive weeks and BBC Radio 4’s ‘Thought for the Day’ has an increasing number of presenters from other religions.

There are additional points that can be explored and debated in relation to the UK as a Christian country.

Seeming to support the notion of the UK as a Christian country:

Some studies have shown that numbers are growing at cathedrals amongst worshippers, pilgrims, tourists and visitors.

It is relatively rare for someone to die without some form of religious ceremony. There is a Christian presence through Chaplains in many areas of our social life: healthcare, the

Prison Service, the armed forces and higher education. A study by the AHRC/ESRC in 2010/11 showed that just over 50% of undergraduate students self-

identified as Christians (55.7% think of themselves as religious or spiritual; 33.1% are neither and 11.2% don’t know).

There are many popular Christian festivals such as Greenbelt, Spring Harvest, New Wine and Soul Survivor.

77% of British believe that ‘there are things in life that we simply cannot explain through science or any other means.’ – Only 18% disagree.

Seeming to challenge the notion of the UK as a Christian county:

According to the Census for England and Wales, between 2001 and 2011 there has been a decline in those saying they belong to Christianity from 72% to 59% and an increase in those professing ‘no religion’ from 15% to 25%.

There is a continuing shift away from those who believe in a personal God towards those who prefer a less specific formulation.

Over the last several decades, there has been a dramatic shift from what one cannot do to what we can do on Sundays, with increasing participation in sports, shopping and work.

Churches are being turns into commercial spaces, dwellings, temples and mosques. Atheism and humanism are now presented more widely in British schools. Data from the British Social Attitudes survey reveals that for every single convert, the Church of

England currently loses twelve people, mainly through death.

3.

UK is a Christian country UK is not a Christian country

5

What does it mean to have no religion in the UK?

One of the most striking results from the recent census was growth in the ‘no religion’ category. Many believe that the census figure of 25% underestimates the true number. This is because the question used on the census led people in the direction of giving a positive answer: ‘what is your religion?’ (Seemingly to assume that people had one). However, the British Social Attitudes Survey asked, more straightforwardly, ‘Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?’ In 2013 this led to over half of those surveyed answering ‘no’ (50.6% - up from 31.4% in 1983). The dramatic shift to ‘no religion’ in, perhaps, over half the population may provide some insights into whether the UK can be called a Christian country.

Sociologist Linda Woodhead has conducted further research into this category and shows that 18-24 year olds make up 60% of those stating ‘no religion’; only 27% adhere to Christianity in this age group. This contrasts with 34% of those who are 60 and older declaring ‘no religion’, with 60% of this age group stating that they adhere to Christianity. It appears, therefore, that no religion is expanding as Christianity is diminishing.

But what are the beliefs and attitudes toward religion for those in the ‘no religion’ category? Woodhead shows that less than half in this category are atheist (41.5%); the largest group is composed of those who doubt the existence of God or think that ‘maybe’ God exists. Only 13.5% are hostile to public forms of worship and religious belief. Many in this category have a positive opinion for religious leaders such as the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu and Pope Francis. About a quarter of those in this category even report taking part in some sort of religious or spiritual practice at least monthly (such as praying). What binds this group together is not, therefore, hostility to Christianity or religion but, simply, not being part of a religious community.

The value of faith schools

The UK has many ‘faith schools’; these are primary and secondary schools affiliated with a religious tradition. In England and Wales these are called ‘schools with a religious character’ and in Scotland and Northern Ireland these are known as ‘denominational schools’. Most faith schools are affiliated with Christianity and, in some regions of the UK, account for over 30% of schools.

These schools may receive their funding (or some of it) from a religious organisation, which may own the school buildings and the land. A certain number of the school’s governors are appointed by the school to represent its religious ethos. Often it is the governors, rather than the LA who are responsible for the school’s admissions policy and appointing staff. This means that there can be a preference for hiring teachers and support staff who adhere to the school’s religion.

In terms of admission, some faith schools might prioritise students who are affiliated with the school’s faith. They may ask for a baptismal certificate and or letter from a religious leader who certifies their attendance at worship.

This has led some families attending church to simply get a place at the school to the detriment of those who live nearer to the school but do not have a religious affiliation. However, many faith schools have removed any faith criteria from their admissions policy to avoid this issue.

Faith schools must follow the National Curriculum in all subjects; however, in RE these schools can focus on their religious tradition, though many do present other religions. Faith schools are inspected regularly by Ofsted.

6

Those who support faith schools point to several advantages:

Parents who want their children to have a religious grounding in their education can have this need met.

Faith schools tend to be amongst the best-performing state schools. They add an element of diversity and choice to the educational landscape. The values and ethics of the religious tradition these schools represent fosters inclusivity,

tolerance, love and justice.

Objections to faith schools:

The British Humanist Association, however, actively campaigns against faith, invites the public to petition the Government against the creation of new faith schools and urges that existing faith schools be made more inclusive. They believe that faith schools, by their very nature, contradict the principle of a fully inclusive and integrated education system that does not exclude staff, students or governors based on belief. In other words, they belief that faith schools create a segregated future and public funds should not be spent promoting religion.

The BHA has raised the following objections in relation to the curriculum at faith schools:

The teaching of religious education in faith schools is not specifically inspected by Ofsted. Religious education aims to instruct children in the doctrine and practices of a particular religion

rather than taking a more objective approach. Religious education in faith schools does not have to cover other religions and ‘almost certainly

fails to give a fair account of non-religious views’. Ethical issues such as abortion or assisted dying might be approached from an explicitly religious

perspective. PSHE might teach the sex and relationship components in a way that is homophobic or gender

discriminatory. Some faith schools have taught creationism and intelligent design as scientific theories.

How important is ‘faith’ to those who send their children to a faith school? Many say that their main motivation have little to do with the religious element. Linda Woodhead’s study suggests that the reasons are a) academic standards (77%), b) locations (58%), c) Discipline (41%), d) Ethical Values (23%), e) Prestige (19%), f) exposure to a faith tradition (5%) and g) Transmission of Belief about God (3%).

4.

For faith schools Against faith schools

7

Beliefs conflicting with Laws of the Country and perceived challenges to Christianity: the declining role and impact of Christianity and restricted religious liberty

Ban on the Lord’s Prayer at Star Wars

In 2015 the Church of England produced an advertisement to be shown in cinemas at the beginning of Star Wars, the Force Awakens. The ad shows several people in different settings saying the Lord’s Prayer – including weightlifters at the gym, refugees, a sheep farmer, a Gospel choir and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.

The company that administrates media ads in cinemas, Digital Cinema Media, banned the advert because it transgressed its policy of not promoting ads with political or religious messages. It was thought that the film could offend people of ‘differing faiths or no faith’. This caused an outcry from several leaders and personalities including Sadiq Khan, Stephen Fry and the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron. The Equality and Human Rights Commission spoke in favour of the ad saying, ‘There is nothing in law that prevents Christian organisations disagreed saying that the public did not want religions preaching to them. The C of E is perfectly entitled to make its view known, but it should do so from the pulpit. But of course, they can’t get many people to go to Church so they want to take their messages to the cinemas.’

5. The ad was not shown in the cinemas but was released, instead on YouTube. Does the decision to ban an advert of the established Church of England reflect the decreasing influence of Christianity in Britain, or does the outcry against its banning show widespread support for Christianity?

Illegal to wear a crucifix?

In 2006, British Airways suspended Nadia Eweida because she refused to cover up a crucifix whilst at work. This contravened BA’s uniform policy for jewellery, though the company allows hijabs and turbans to be worn. In 2007 BA changed their rules to allow Ms Eweida to wear a symbol of faith, but it refused to pay her for her period of suspension.

She and three Christians brought cases against the UK government for not protecting their rights: in her case the UK argued that wearing a crucifix is not a requirement of Christianity and that therefore this reflected only the personal belief rather than disadvantaging a group. She then took her case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which heard her case at the same time as three other cases:

Shirley Chaplin, 57 a nurse – her employer stopped her wearing necklaces with a cross because this could be unsafe around patients and possibly spread disease.

Gary McFarlane, 51, a marriage counsellor for the group relate was dismissed for saying that he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples.

Lillian Ladele, a registrar for a Local Authority, was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies.

Ms Eweida won her case. The EHCR declared: ‘in these circumstances where there is no evidence of any real encroachment on the interests of others, the domestic authorities failed sufficiently to protect the applicant’s right to manifest her religion’. According to the BBC, the Prime Minister at the time David

8

Cameron, said he was delighted that the principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld’, adding that people shouldn’t suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs’.

However, Ms Eweida’s case hinged on the fact that, her cross was discrete and was judged to not adversely affect BA’s corporate image. Significantly, the three other cases were not successful.

‘Ordinary Christians’ and same-sex civil partnerships

Hazelmary and Peter Bull own a hotel in Cornwall; in 2008 they refused to let civil partners Steven Preddy and Martyn Hall stay in a room. They based their decision on their Christian beliefs: ‘We are just ordinary Christian who believe in the importance of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Our B&B is not just our business, it’s our home. All we have ever tried to do is live according to our own values, under our own roof.’ Their court case was based on their right to ‘manifest their religion’ under the European Court of Human Rights.

The Bristol court found that they had acted unlawfully and were ordered to pay damages. The Supreme Court upheld this decision after an appeal, affirming the rights of all people to have relationships with others regardless of sexual orientation. The homosexual rights group Stonewall suggested that it might have been more ‘Christian’ for the Bulls to have fought the evils of poverty and disease worldwide than to have pursued this case. In fact, many Christians in Great Britain have re-interpreted the Bible in such a way to support acceptance of homosexual relationships. Surveys show that whereas in 1989 most Christians disagreed with same-sex marriage (70-80%), by 2014 this had fallen to less than 30%. This dramatic change in belief means that the Bulls now represent a minority position amongst those who call themselves Christians in Britain.

To be or not to be….secular

The word secular means not to be connected to the Church or religion. Secularisation is the process of a society once dominated by religious institutions becoming non-religious. Few people would deny that there has been a process of secularisation at work in the UK – this is shown, as we have seen, by decline in several areas: attendance, the performance of rituals and influence in government and society. However, there is disagreement as to whether secularisation is a good thing.

There are many who are committed to an ideology of secularism, the belief that religion is ‘otherworldly’ and that less of a religious focus entails a more humane society. Those who embrace secularism believe that it is both natural and good that a society should become secular. It is not uncommon to see that ‘Christianity’ and ‘religion’ are associated with ‘superstition’, ‘violence’, ‘authority’, ‘monarchy’, ‘control’, ‘repression’, ‘intolerance’ and that science is associated with ‘progress’, ‘peace’, ‘humanity’, ‘tolerance’, and ‘democracy’. The assumption that some secularists make is that the more ‘modern’ society becomes, the less religious it will be. In other words, one cannot be both religious and modern.

6. What is secularisation and why do some scholars believe Britain is becoming a more secular state? Include legal cases in your answer.

9

Is Christianity merely a relic from the past?

There are some reasons for questioning this viewpoint. First, many people are disillusioned with ‘modern science ‘: prosperity and health care have not been delivered for all, famine persists, and there is global warming and the threat of nuclear warfare.

Furthermore, there are not always strong boundaries between ‘Science’ and ‘Religion’. For instance the ‘Occupy movement’ (protesting about the excess of global capitalism) moved from Fleet Street to the grounds of St Paul’s Cathedral, hoping that the church would be an ally to their cause. Some of the protestors asked ‘what would Jesus do?’. The campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is just another example of a social cause that brings together both believers and those with no religion.

Some are suggesting that rather than the decline of religion, what we are seeing is a movement from religion as duty and obligation to religion as a choice. Even though this may mean fewer numbers in church, it also means that those who believe in and practise their faith may find it more meaningful.

There are several Christian initiatives which might be seen as progressive, positive, ‘modern’ and also reflecting the time honoured values of traditional belief. One example is the ‘street Pastor’ movement - a church response to urban needs. Volunteers are trained to provide a positive and helpful presence on the streets of cities on a Friday and Saturday night, offering a helping hand, a listening ear and practical assistance. Their mission is to ‘listen, care and help’. At present street pastors work in over 300 towns and cities across the UK. Over 20,000 volunteers are associated with this initiative.

Of course, these points could be described as the last gasps of a dying religion. However, sociologists Elisabeth Arweck and James A. Beckford name six factors that committed secularists should consider before they reach this conclusion:

1) Religious vitality – religion is fervently followed through the charismatic movement, Cathedral worship and creative forms of spiritual expression.

2) The nature of modernity – religion is more seen as a resource for modern life, particularly when people recognise the limitations of Science.

3)De- Privatisation – rather than seeing religion as a personal belief, some are observing that religion brings about positive social change.

4) Globalisation – religious organisations are now often transnational. They can be focused on human rights and faith. This can give Christianity a boost in some locations which may have been lacking in these areas.

5) Gender – Christianity has a wide range of views on women’s roles in leadership and in Christian communities, those movements with more progressive attitudes towards gender equality are growing.

6) Rational choice –some suggest that religion is a ‘market’ that thrives when state regulated religion is less. This suggests that the decline of the state church does not signify the decline of Christianity.

Analysis –

1) The effectiveness of the Christian response to the challenge of secularism

10

Reflect on those Christians who believe that the state should be secular!

2) The extent to which the UK can be called a Christian country

Reflect on what criteria is necessary for this

Give three pieces of evidence that suggests the UK is a Christian country

Give three pieces of evidence that suggest the UK is not a Christian country.

What percentage of the UK population were baptised in 2011?

What percentage of people said they had no religion in 2011?

Are young or old people more likely to say they have no religion?

What is a faith school? Three arguments in favour of faith schools?

Three arguments against faith schools?

What was banned at the Star Wars film?Why?

Why was Nadia Eweida suspended from work? What was the outcome?

Why do some people support secularisation?

How is Christianity trying to be relevant in the 21st Century

11

12

13

14

The effectiveness of the Christian response to the challenge of secularism.7. ‘Christianity has not been very effective in its response to the challenge of secularism.’ Evaluate this view.

Secularisation means . . .

If the Church was effective then we would expect to see . . .

Christianity has not been very effective in its response to the challenge of secularism

Christianity has been very effective in its response to the challenge of secularism

Evaluation

Surveys Growth in some churches and social aid

Challenges to alleged growth

Court cases Important in society

15

16

17

8. ‘The UK is still a Christian country.’ Evaluate this view

18

E. Challenges from science

Use these notes in conjunction with your previous notes on new atheists and Alister McGrath.

Overview:

Scientists such as Richard Dawkins maintain that science which is based on evidence, sense observation and testing of observations is the only way to arrive at convincing theories and thus ascertain facts. They would say that religion fails to do this and that this failure to do so is its downfall in terms of being credible. Others such as Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath (neuropsychologist, lecturer in Psychology and Spirituality and writer) insist that this unfair as there is evidence for their Christian faith and that faith and science are not mutually exclusive.

Dawkins accuses religion of offering no real answers to the questions we ask and is prone to anti-intellectualism and violence. Science on the other hand is steadily unlocking the mysteries of life. McGrath refutes this depiction of religion and argues that not everything can be answered by science but that religion and science need each other.

The relationship between religion and science.

Dawkins says that the typical human response to the complexity of the universe is to give a religious answer. ‘We don’t understand it – so God must have done it’. He agrees that the chances of life being as it is now by chance is to all intents and purposes, impossible. William Paley used the example of the watch to show that there must be an intelligent designer of everything (giving the example of the eye amongst other things). Dawkins used the example by Fred Hoyle who said that it would be absurd to believe that a tornado could blow through a scrapyard and by chance construct a Boeing 747. However, the improbability of chance explaining the universe need not, he argues have a religious answer. He speaks of the God hypothesis to describe the claim that there is an interventionist God in the universe. He insists that this should be treated like any other scientific hypothesis.

The two problems with the ‘God hypothesis’ as are identified as:

(i) The choice is not between chance and God. Natural Selection adequately explains how and why things are complex, due to evolution from simple beginnings over long periods of time as a result of the survival of the fittest. The problem of improbability is broken down into small pieces (resulting in ’Climbing Mount Improbable’ as he phrased it).

(ii) Saying that God designed complex things is no answer at all as God would then have to be hugely complex himself – ‘the ultimate Boeing 747’! You cannot explain complexity with complexity. Since Natural Selection shows that complexity comes from simplicity, God’s existence is therefore non-sensical and is no answer at all. Natural Selection is the alternative and sufficient answer.

‘The designer himself, in order to be capable of designing, would have to be another complex entity of the kind that, in his turn, needs the same kind of explanation. It’s an evasion of responsibility because it involves the very thing it is supposed to be explaining.’ R Dawkins

19

How did life originate?Natural selection explains the development of life on our planet, but not why there is life in the universe or how there came to be life on our planet. However, it should spur us on to find scientific answers to those questions rather than to default to the ‘we don’t know, so God did it’ mentality. He proposes the anthropic approach: since we exist, earth is a life-friendly planet. Since there are billions of planets in the universe, it is reasonable to think that the conditions on at least one of these could be life-friendly. The anthropic principle states that, since we are alive, eukaryotic (having the kind of cells with features not present in bacteria) and conscious, our planet has to be intensely rare as it has bridged all three difficulties. Instead of invoking God when we ask why the universe is able to support life, we should consider the multiverse theory – that there are an infinite number of universes, each with different variations. Ours happens to be the one with variations which make it able to support life. Dawkins says that there is a ‘Darwinian’ feel to this kind of thinking – explaining life in terms of developments and variations rather than just positing a God.

Religion is an aberration.Religion is unreasonable as it has been flawed from the very beginning. Belief in God, he argues began as a misfiling in the brain of an otherwise useful activity. In the same way that ta moth’s navigation system that is orientated to celestial light and lead them to survive, it can also lead them to a flame and to death, religion is a destructive by-product of two qualities that can provide survival value:

(i) The human tendency to obey elders. This can protect a tribe, increasing safety – except when the elders are wrong.

(ii) The biologically programmed tendency to assign meaning and purpose to animals and objects. Dawkins gives the example of a snarling lion. In this context it is necessary to survival to assign meaning and purpose to this and to conclude that it wants to eat you. However, humans assign meaning and purpose to things erroneously, such as ‘the being that made this universe loves me’.

In other words, these traits explain a psychological disposition that can favour religious belief. To explain how we constructed the details of our beliefs, Dawkins speaks of memes – an element of culture that is passed from one person to another by imitation and non-genetic means. Many elements of culture include God alongside other appealing memes. Such memes can be manipulated by religious leaders, giving rise to varieties of religious belief. Thus we inherit all kinds of beliefs, which include belief in God.

Dawkins finds it hard to understand how any scientist can be religious as he considers science to give clear and reasoned answers, while religion does not. He argues that those scientists who define themselves as Christians are actually not. Either they are afraid of speaking out about their real beliefs or they are confusing Christianity with cultural values of goodness or kindness. He denies that Einstein was a theist and sees contemporary scientist who win acclaim as passing themselves off as ‘faith-friendly’ whilst they do not really believe in a creator God.

However, Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath who wrote ‘The Dawkins Delusion’ note that there are numerous scientists who are entirely clear about their Christian faith. They point to polls taken in 1916 and again in 1997 in the USA, which show that the number of scientists who believe in a God that communicates with humanity, has held steady at around 40%. Dawkins’ claims suggest that he knows better than these people, writing off almost half of scientists as mentally deficient in some way.

20

Some extra arguments against Dawkins:

The McGraths point out that many thoughtful people become Christians in their adult years, in contrast to childish beliefs being left behind, such as fairies or Father Christmas. Antony Flew (of the ) changed from his strongly held atheism in his 80s to write ‘There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind’. They point out that the problem with atheism is the very prevalence of belief in God. If belief were really a virus of the mind with a biological foundation, one would expect some scientific evidence to support this, but this is not the case. Indeed, many of his assertions are similarly without evidence, such as claiming that religious belief reflects as deficient psychology, leading to mistaken assumptions about the natural world, or to violent or irrational behaviour. Dawkins, as a scientist insists on empirical evidence and attacks religion for not being as rational and thorough as science, but is often guilty of the very ‘faults’ he claims to be those of religious beliefs! For this reason, the McGraths say that ‘The God Delusion’ is a work of polemic (an aggressive verbal attack) not of reasoned science as Dawkins would have us believe. That is, it is a work designed to attack religion and reassure atheists whose faith might be faltering rather than engaging in any fair or rigorous way with religious believers or anyone seeking truth.

‘The God Delusion is a work of theatre, than scholarship…’ A McGrath & J Collicutt McGrath

The evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, despite being a sceptic of religious belief, argues that science and religion are ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ (NOMA). That is, the domain of science and the domain of religion focus on different realms of enquiry when answering questions about ultimate meaning. The McGraths say that this is the prevalent view amongst scientists. For instance, the astrophysicist Martin Rees says that ultimate questions of lie beyond the remit of science and that evidence will never be sufficient to answer them. The biologist Sir Peter Medawar says that there are three questions that science can never answer: (i) how did everything begin? (ii) what are we here for? and (iii) what is the point of living? The McGraths, themselves, prefer the concept of POMA (partially overlapping magisteria) allowing for science and religion to address and inform each other. They argue that Dawkins confuses natural selection with atheism. Natural Selection can be interpreted atheistically, theistically or in numerous other ways depending on our pre-existing worldviews. Dawkins is not neutral in approaching natural selection (or anything else) but is imposing his worldview of atheism on the fact of natural selection.

‘Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind’ A Einstein

‘Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious belief – and equally compatible with atheism’ S J Gould

‘There can be no question of scientific “proof” of ultimate questions. Either we cannot answer them, or we must answer them on grounds other than the sciences…Scientific theories cannot be said to “explain the world” – only to explain the phenomena which are observed within the world’ A McGrath and J Collicutt McGrath.

21

The God of the gaps argument.

Dawkins, of course, uses the God of the gaps argument to defend his position - the idea that God is invoked to fill the gaps in our understanding and that God is gradually being eliminated as scientific knowledge fills these gaps. He attacks those who speak of ‘intelligent design’ as evidence of this. Theorists, such as Michael Behe, point to what they say is ‘irreducibly complex’ and therefore cannot have evolved as part of natural selection e.g. the underdeveloped wing of a creature offers no survival benefit, or the flagellum of e-coli bacteria which depend on a complex arrangement of different parts to propel them forward. This is similar to the argument of William Paley, who with his watch analogy concluded that there has to be a designer and that has to be God. Dawkins sees this as unthinking and unscientific. He insists that there are answers that science has already found or will find in explaining seeming anomalies. For instance, half a wing can increase the height that a creature can jump or glide and therefore still be valuable in terms of survival. Once again, he argues, theists have to reach for a complex answer to the issue of complexity as opposed to the simplicity of natural selection. It certainly falls into the God of the gaps analogy of theists clinging onto increasingly small aspects of evolutionary argument for the necessity of a designer.

Dawkins believes that science can fill all gaps – including the need to find inspiration and meaning – which he says it can do in four areas traditionally filled by religion:

(i) Explanation. Natural selection and scientific ideas can explain the existence of life in the universe without the need for religious answers.

(ii) Exhortation. While religion has in the past exhorted us to lead moral lives, it is clear that religious people are no more moral than non-religious people. Indeed, religion leads to violence and segregation (which he backs up with anecdotal evidence of hate mail received from Christians). In other words, we do not need religion to be moral – and are more moral without it.

(iii) Consolation. Religion offers consolation but this does not make it true. Atheists are often consoled by discoveries by science or new ways of thinking about the world.

(iv) Inspiration. Dawkins believes that religion actually robs people of imagination and inspiration by the natural world. The more we know scientifically, the more awe-inspiring the universe becomes. We can marvel far more at how unlikely it is that we are alive than if we merely say ‘God did this’.

Along with other theologians, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the McGraths reject the God of the gaps theory, pointing out that a very small percentage of Christians look for the gaps that science has not filled, letting go of others, rather, they believe that God is intimately and actively involved in all areas of life. They say that the gaps in our knowledge are not the focus for theists. Instead, the very fact that we live in an intelligible and explainable universe requires explanation. They point to Richard Swinburne who says that the best explanation for the intelligibility of the universe is that it has been created by an intelligent God. (Ockham’s razor?)

The claim that religion is the axis of evil.22

The McGraths say that it is surprising and disappointing that a fine scientist such as Dawkins could so easily misrepresent religion as evil and violent. They believe that it is his allegiance to his mission to eradicate religion that has over-ruled any concern for truth. They point to several facts that Dawkins ignores:

The prophetic critique of religion. Religion is capable of critiquing itself, as proved by the Old Testament prophets who denounced social injustice and immorality as a departure from religious edicts. Religion is neither mindless nor beyond self-criticism.

The inclusive ministry of Jesus. Dawkins characterises Jesus as having an in-group mentality, but ignores Jesus’s teaching to love your enemy and practice of eating with society’s rejects (sinners, tax collectors, prostitutes) and having open dialogue with Gentiles. Religion is not synonymous with bigotry.

The capacity of religion to transcend and transform human conflicts. Some of the biblical passages condemned by Dawkins appear alongside passages exhorting compassion, hospitality, forgiveness, a prohibition of slavery, the forbidding of child sacrifice (The story of Abraham and Isaac – which Dawkins pillories.) In other words, Dawkins takes biblical passages out of context to make an argument for inherent violence and immorality.

The danger of an absence of religion. Without religion society can turn ideas into idols and commit violence against those who do not subscribe to the new system of belief. They cite as examples the extreme violence in the French Revolution as well as Communism (see previous notes) or those killed by Pol Pot in Cambodia in the genocide of approximately 25% of the population in the name of Socialism. Even when religion seems to be the root of violence (such as the Twin Towers) studies show that the reasons behind them are more complex than merely a religious belief, such as social oppression, foreign occupation, disenfranchisement etc. Dawkins is wrong in asserting that a religion-less word would be a more peaceful one and that religion has ‘a corner in the market’ for violence. Furthermore, studies show that religious belief and commitment have positive effects on human well-being and longevity (see previous notes). Again, Dawkins uses selective evidence that is deeply flawed and unscientific.

The fact that religion is more than a belief. Dawkins reduced religion to a set of dogmatic beliefs and ignores the many dimensions of religion which go beyond the merely intellectual assent to propositions that Dawkins attacks. In other words, Dawkins hugely misrepresents religion for his own ends.

Ultimately, the McGraths say that Dawkins confuses scientism with science. Scientism is the belief that science will provide answers to all questions, including areas investigated by philosophy, the social sciences and the humanities. The McGraths claim this due to the lack of evidence provided by the assertions made in ‘The God Delusion’. Dawkins, on the other hand, is adamant that he is committed to the evidence, wherever that may lead. Thus far it has led away from religion. He believes he is justified in his approach, as if there is no metaphysical reality beyond this world, it is only right that we focus on scientific facts rather than religious assertions.

9.

23

a. Who are you most persuaded by – Dawkins or the McGraths? Why?

b. Do you think atheists necessarily side with Dawkins and theists with the McGraths? Why / why not?

c. Identify the three strongest and three weakest arguments put forward by each side (if you can)

Dawkins McGraths

10. Make bullet-point answers to the following;

a) Explain the relationship between religion and science according to Richard Dawkins.

Draw up tables for and against the following statements. Include analysis / critique of claims, named scholars, quotations and sources.

a. A scientist must be an atheist. To what extent do you agree with this position?

b. Science has demonstrably reduced the role of god in Christianity.

c. Religion is a destructive and violent force in the world that we would be better without.

d. Religion is antithetical to science.

24

25

26

11. ‘A scientist must be an atheist.’ Evaluate this view.

A scientist must be an atheist A scientist must not be an atheist Evaluation

27

28

29

‘Science means the God of Classical Theism cannot exist.’ Evaluate this view

A science reduces God A science reduces God Evaluation

30

F: Challenges from pluralism and diversity within a tradition.

The exclusivist and inclusivist views expressed in the Christian Bible.

There are essentially three views:

1. Exclusivism.

Salvation belongs exclusively to Christians – there is no other way to God. You must be a Christian to be saved – to go to heaven. The implication is that all others will go to hell - though not all exclusivists believe this (to incorporate those who have never heard the Gospel, for instance).

Certain biblical passages seem to support this position. In the Hebrew Scriptures the election of Israel as God’s chosen people is presented in itself as unique and exclusive. The Jews are called to the exclusive worship of God and to turn away from the worship of other gods. Joshua 23:16 makes this injunction clear:“If you violate the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them, the LORD’s anger will burn against you, and you will quickly perish from the good land he has given you.”

In the New Testament, Jesus appears to establish this exclusivist position, saying in John 14:6:

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

The Early Church makes it quite clear that this was their understanding, as seen in Acts 4:12:“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

Fundamentalists and many evangelicals, argue that these are far from the only exclusivist passages in the Bible and that many passages reflect this position, for example:

“This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:49-50“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son”. John 3:16-18

“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.” Revelation 21:8

In the 3rd Century CE, the theologian Cyprian of Carthage wrote concerning the ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ – ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’. This dogma continues to be part of the teaching of the Catechism (although quite what ‘outside the Church’ means is debated). Many Protestants who adopt this view will be more likely to express this in terms of ‘There is no salvation outside belief in Christ’.

2. Inclusivism.

31

Christ’s work brings salvation to all people, whatever their faith. The fullest expression of salvation is through Christianity, as Christ was God incarnate and his death is meaningful, however, God’s love means that he reaches out to all who seek him whatever their understanding of him / faith tradition.

The contribution of Karl Rahner.

Karl Rahner (1904-1984) was one of the most significant Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th Century. His views were a major influence on the documents produced by Vatican II, (the council of Catholic leaders that met between 1962-65 to consider the relationship between the Church and the modern world, and reconsidered Church theology and practice). He believed that it was possible to combine modern philosophy with traditional Church doctrine. One of his central ideas was that all humans have an awareness of something beyond the finite realm and have an innate yearning for this, reaching out to the infinite reality that is God. It is possible that people have an implicit awareness of God without explicitly recognising it as such. Additionally, he argued that god actively offered grace to all people, whatever their religious affiliation.

‘Rahner’s rather daring claim then, is that everyone is in some sense aware of God whether they realise it or not, and that all our most pedestrian dealings with the world would in fact be impossible without this awareness’. K Kilby.

‘…grace… always surrounds man, even the sinner and the unbeliever, as the inescapable setting of his existence’. K Rahner.

Anonymous Christianity.

Instead of viewing those outside the Church as non-Christians, Rahner regarded them as ‘anonymous Christians’. The idea was that people could respond to God without realising it and without recognising Christ as the full revelation of God. All of this was possible as God’s grace and was universal as he continually reached out to all people in love. In one of his most famous essays, ‘Christianity and the Non-Christian religions’ he developed his ideas into four theses:

1st Thesis: ‘…Christianity understands itself as the absolute religion, intended for all men, which cannot recognise any other religion beside itself as of equal right’. For Rahner this must be the starting point due to the belief in the revelation of God in the person of Jesus, as his own incarnation. As this had a starting point in history, it is clear, he argued, that prior to this God did not demand explicit assent to Christianity! Instead there were other ways to come to God, despite God having a single plan. This raises the question as to whether there are other ways to come to God today and whether God might not accept those who have no association with Jesus and with Christianity as a result of their personal history or culture.

2nd Thesis: ‘… a non-Christian religion can be recognised as a lawful religion (although only in different degrees) without thereby denying the error and depravity contained in it.’ By ‘lawful religion’ he meant that a religion could provide a way for people to find a right relationship with God – whilst different religions may do this to greater or lesser degrees. He pointed to passages in the Old Testament where people outside the Jewish faith (the lawful religion) pleased God. He coined the phrase, ‘the God-pleasing pagan’. Inevitably such pagans would have been involved in other religions and religious practices, yet God was pleased with them. In a similar vein, Paul referred positively to those of pagan religion in Acts 17 when he preached to the men of Athens:

32

“People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you…”

The significance of Paul’s preaching is that he recognised and affirmed the Athenians’ devotion to ‘an unknown god’ and revealed to them that all the time they had in fact been revering the one true God, as revealed in the person of Jesus.

Rahner argued that God’s nature is to reach out to all people, desiring that they be saved, as explicitly stated in Scripture. This then means that every person must have the possibility of a genuine saving relationship with God. Since there are many geographical places and personal situations where people cannot hear the message of Christianity, we must be open to the idea that God uses other religions to reach people. This does not mean that everything within those religions is right, but merely that God in his mercy uses them as part of his plan of salvation.

3rd Thesis: ‘If the second thesis is correct, then Christianity does not simply confront the member of an extra-Christian religion as a mere non-Christian but as someone who can and must already be regarded in this or that respect as an anonymous Christian’. This was the insistence that before missionaries came to proclaim their message, God had already been at work and ahead of them! They were not bringing God to the people for the first time. However, this did not mean that the Christian Gospel was not needed. Becoming a Christian was the final process that begins with anonymous Christianity. The Church needed to adopt an attitude of respect towards those it was trying to reach with the Gospel and trust that some anonymous Christians would recognise God’s desire for them to experience the ‘higher stage of development’ of their faith through acceptance of Christ and participation in the Church.

4th Thesis: ‘…the Church will not so much regard herself as the exclusive community of those who have a claim to salvation, but rather as the historically tangible vanguard and the historically and socially constituted explicit expression of what the Christian hopes is present as a hidden reality even outside the visible Church’. This is a deliberate challenge to the Church to change its attitude. It should not see itself as the sole possessor of truth and goodness as opposed to all outside it. God is greater than the Church, working beyond its walls. At the same time it can be thankful for the privilege of knowing the full expression of God. Catholic Christians should have the attitude of St Paul when he said “What therefore you do not know and yet worship (and yet worship!) - Rahner’s emphasis - that I proclaim to you”

Rahner’s stress on God’s work outside the Church was one of many contributing factors to statement s that emerged from Vatican II in texts such as ‘Nostra Aetate’ (In Our Time) and Lumen Gentium (Light for the Nations).

33

3. Pluralism. Religious pluralism views Christianity as one way to know God amongst others. All are equally valid paths to God, none is more ‘true’ than another. If you are born into a particular faith tradition, conversion to another faith is unnecessary.

The contribution of John Hick.

Hick notes that for many centuries humans believed the earth to be the centre of the universe. The Greek astronomer Ptolemy, had proposed that the sun and other planets rotated around the earth. When evidence suggested otherwise, astronomers conceived convoluted theories to maintain this belief, with other planets moving in a series of smaller circles within their orbit – epicycles. Once Copernicus made known his discovery that the earth and other planets rotated around the sun, the complicated theories could be abandoned. A similar ‘Copernican revolution’, he argued, was needed in theology. For centuries the Church had believed in Christ as the centre of the religious universe and that all world religions were circling Christianity. This was a ‘Ptolemaic’ way of thinking. Instead, we should realise that Christianity, like other religions, was circling something else – ‘Ultimate Reality’. We need to move from a Christocentric or ecclesio-centric universe to a theocentric one.

‘… the Copernican revolution… involves a shift from the dogma that Christianity is at eh centre to the realisation that it is God who is at the centre, and that all the religions of mankind, including our own, serve and revolve around him.’ J Hick

‘Let us begin with the recognition, which is made in all the main religious traditions, that the ultimate diving reality is infinite and as such transcends the grasp of the human mind’. J Hick

Hick accused theologians of creating their own epicycles – adjustments of their previous insistence on Christianity as the only truth – when they recognised spirituality outside the Christian faith. This entailed viewing God as forgiving those in other religions who couldn’t know Christ. Those outside the Church were seen as having ‘implicit faith’ – the idea that they would embrace Christian faith if they had a chance. Their desire to live well became a ‘baptism of desire’ which was counted then as a baptism into faith. Rahner’s anonymous Christians and Vatican II statements about truth in other religions was tantamount to epicycles – desperate, complicated re-workings of theology in a vain attempt to preserve the distinctive truth of Christianity. Ptolemaic theology is dependent upon where one is born as to how one views religion – Inhabitants of India who are born into Hindu culture will be inclusivists, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs etc. will be exclusivists. Hick calls for us to see this approach to theology to be seen as an outdated and potentially imperialistic way of looking at the world and religion.

Hick also attacked the inclusivist approach for continuing to argue for the supremacy of the Church / Christ, making overly complicated attempts to label as Christian people who had no conscious connection with the Christian faith. He objected to this and said that the so-called inclusivist approach was in reality still exclusivist in saying that one still needed to be saved through the Church (Catholics) or Christ (Protestants). This new attempt to rescue Christianity as central, whilst changing its original meaning in exclusivist terms, was nonsensical. Indeed, if it were true that Christianity were a greater truth, we should expect Christians to demonstrate greater morality and saintliness than adherents to other religions. This is not clearly demonstrated, though rather hard to measure! Instead, once it is recognised that there is truth elsewhere, leading to fulfilled lives, it makes more sense to abandon the first model and to adopt a new, clearer, more coherent one – that is, that all religions equally lead to the Ultimate Reality.

34

Pluralistic Universalism.

Hick believes that there is a common experiential basis underlying all the major world religions, which moves us from self-centredness to ‘Reality-centredness’. He came to this conclusion as a result of both his philosophical reflections and his experiences of attending worship in different religious communities.

Philosophically, he echoed Kant in saying that whilst there is a reality beyond our sense perception (the noumenal realm), we can never have direct access to it but interpret knowledge through our senses in our historical, social and cultural contexts: the noumenon (that which is beyond our senses) is always phenomenon (something we grasp through interpretation). Even statements we make about God are phenomenal – coloured by our experiences, yet when one studies other religions, one finds, despite this, a common core. He calls this a ‘noumenal reality’. Hick uses the analogy of refracted light from the sun, suggesting that the universal divine presence is refracted by our different cultures into the spectrum of different faiths. The Sufi mystic Rumi phrased it as: ‘The lamps are different but the light is the same: it comes from beyond’.

In his visiting of different places of worship in Birmingham, he discovered amongst all the obvious differences, a common experience of hearts and minds being drawn to a higher reality, calling them to live an ethical life. He took this to indicate different ways of bearing witness to one noumenal reality.

Hick’s theory of religious experience.

Hick believed that at the heart of religion is an experience of the divine world that raises us above the mundane, material world of self-centred lives. When we try to communicate this experience we fall back on culturally conditioned language and concepts. Over time, religious traditions fix this language into doctrine, which in turn is viewed as absolute by believers within that tradition. This absolutism breeds intolerance and violence. The problem is not adhering to a religion but turning away from religious experience which is more important than scriptures or tradition. Hick believes it is religious experience that is a force for good in the world and an antidote to religion that becomes inhumane and harsh by its insistence on clinging absolutely and exclusively to its doctrines, scriptures and traditions.

Hick uses the Buddhist parable of the blind men feeling the elephant and describing git in different ways according to which part of the anatomy they had access to. Different accounts of God, he argues, are merely reflections of partial insights into the Ultimate Reality which can never be fully known.

He acknowledges that the biggest stumbling block for Christians regarding religious pluralism is the issue of the incarnation. This unique claim would seem to demand exclusivism. Hick points to the philosophical difficulties concerning Jesus being both fully God and fully human. He also takes a liberal position on miraculous elements in the Bible, rejecting the birth narratives of Jesus as being historical. The resurrection similarly is regarded as a spiritual event rather than a physical or literal one. Instead of seeing Jesus as ‘God-Man’, he views Jesus as a human being on a spiritual journey where he reached a degree of God-consciousness. He calls this a ‘degree Christology’ which enables Christians to see Jesus as an example that they can follow, one who opens the reality of God for them, just as other religious leaders have done in other religious traditions, who have also reached a degree of God-consciousness.

35

How does a Christian pluralist deal with biblical language that is exclusive?

The Catholic theologian and pluralist Paul Knitter argues for several considerations to be kept in mind regarding these passages.

Absolutist language is a result of historical factors. The disciples had a lack of historical awareness of other religions, teachings and traditions. They were also part of a persecuted minority which needed absolute positions to keep this new faith distinctive and strong. They had an apocalyptic mentality which encouraged all-or-nothing thinking. He argues that if it had not been for these factors the Apostles might have preached ‘God really acted in Jesus’ rather than ‘God only acted in Jesus’.

Titles given to Jesus are not propositional truths but literary or symbolic expressions of experience. The disciples had experiences of Jesus which led them to have their own experiences of God. This resulted in them giving titles to Jesus as a result of their awe and admiration for Jesus’ role in this and was never meant to be fixed as absolute dogma.

‘Christ’ is more than ‘Jesus’. The prologue to john’s Gospel speaks of the divine ‘Logos’ – the Word that permeates the universe and reveals God. If God revealed himself in Jesus, he could reasonably be expected to reveal himself in other ways, with Jesus being one expression among many of the Logos – the Christ.

In fact, Knitter says, the Bible supports pluralism. The Greatest Commandment, Jesus teaches, is to love your neighbour as you love yourself. Too love someone is to seriously consider differing views of others, rather than assuming that you are starting from a positon of greater wisdom!

The difference between Christian universalism and Hick’s universalistic pluralism:

Christian universalism is simply the belief that through Christ, all will be saved. Certain biblical passages seem to support this:

“…God our Saviour, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”. 1 Timothy 2: 4“He [Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world”.1 John 2:2

“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive”. 1 Corinthians 15:22

“… at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”. Philippians 2:10-11

Universalism appeals to the logic that God cannot fail. If he desires all to be saved and enabled this through the death of Jesus, God must be able to accomplish this. Many early theologians raised this issue, including clement of Alexandria, Origen and Gregory of Nyssa. Origen even went so far as to claim that Satan would, after a time of punishment, be purified in heaven. In 543CE at Constantinople, the Church condemned universalism but it has been a belief that has continued to emerge in the writings of various scholars and believers. Towards the end of the 18th century, the Universalist Church was founded in the USA, making its distinctive claim that there is no hell but that all are saved. The Church of England, being ‘a broad church’ allows for universalism to be accepted, whilst it is not the official line.

36

More recently, the debate has been reopened by the publication of the controversial book ‘Love Wins’ by Rob Bell. In this he asks ‘Does God get what God wants?’ and argues that God’s love will always reach out to all people. This cannot be limited by a deadline such as the moment of death but salvation must be offered beyond this moment. This overcomes the objection that universalism denies free will. Stephen Fry famously insisted that he would not want to be with God in heaven. For Rob Bell, all must have the choice to reject God’s love and offer of salvation but insists that God’s nature is eternally forgiving and the offer of salvation never closed.

Hick’s universalistic pluralism is very different in that it does not depend on Christ at all but is the argument that all major world religions are paths to God, without one being more true than another. He insists that this is not mere relativism, in that religions can be judged as to how effectively they help people to become less self-centred and more Reality-centred.

Tasks:

Fill the table detailing the arguments for the three positions of the Church on who is saved.

Bullet-point all arguments for and against inclusivism being acceptable as Christian teaching.

Debate: Can a religious pluralist be a passionately committed Christian?

Jesus said ‘I am the way, the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except by me’. How might this be interpreted by an exclusivist, an inclusivist and a pluralist?

37

Exclusivism Inclusivism PluralismBiblical evidence

Branches of the Church associated with this

Scholars /Sources

Arguments

Problems

38

39

40

41

42