Tag Archives | relativism

The Abolition of Man

By on in Literary

C.S. Lewis’s “The Abolition of Man” is a defense of objective values against the encroachments of subjectivism and relativism. While Lewis’s arguments are informed by various sources, the classical Greek philosophies of Plato and Aristotle can be seen as offering foundational support to many of the principles Lewis defends. The following review is an interpretive understanding of the subject matter.

Introduction

This written work by C.S. Lewis is a profound philosophical and moral critique of modern subjectivism and naturalistic reductionism. It is a short book, consisting of three interconnected essays, which aim to defend the idea of objective values and natural law against modern relativistic trends.

Christian Worldview

While the book isn’t written from a Christian perspective, it refers to biblical and Judeo-Christian principles and values in various locations throughout the text. The book consists of three interconnected essays, which aim to defend the idea of objective values and natural law against modern relativistic trends.

Men Without Chests

Lewis starts with a critique of an English textbook for students, which he feels promotes subjectivism, the idea that values and meanings are purely the product of personal feelings and have no objective basis. This subjective approach, Lewis argues, produces “men without chests” – individuals without a moral compass or appreciation for objective value and beauty. He contends that the “chest,” symbolizing the heart or moral sentiment, should be educated to resonate with universal truths and values. Such education should shape character and virtue rather than just intellect.

The Way

In the second essay, Lewis dives deeper into the philosophy underpinning his critique. He discusses the Tao, an Eastern concept, which he uses to describe the universal moral law or Natural Law that many cultures and religions have recognized throughout history. This Tao represents objective values that are inherent to human nature. These values aren’t arbitrary but grounded in a moral order, which Christianity would recognize as being rooted in the nature of God. He suggests that all major religions and ethical systems share a core understanding of these basic principles, which provide the framework for human flourishing and moral behavior.

The Abolition of Man

In the concluding essay, Lewis presents a vision of the future if society continues down the path of rejecting objective values. He warns that the “Conditioners,” those who reject traditional values in favor of constructing their own, will have the power to reshape humanity according to their whims. This could be through psychological conditioning or even biological manipulation. By rejecting the Tao and believing that they can define and create their own values, these individuals ironically become slaves to their own base instincts and desires. Lewis argues that this trajectory could lead to the “abolition” of genuine humanity. From a Christian perspective, this can be seen as the consequence of humanity turning away from God and the inherent design and purpose He established.

Throughout the book, Lewis, a Christian apologist, underscores the dangers of a world divorced from God-given objective moral standards. He argues for the timeless relevance of natural law, suggesting that humanity’s well-being is rooted in aligning with these eternal truths. The rejection of this moral framework doesn’t lead to greater freedom, as some might believe, but to the potential dehumanization of mankind.

In essence, “The Abolition of Man” is not just a critique of educational trends or philosophical shifts, but an urgent call for a return to understanding and valuing the objective moral order that Lewis, from a Christian worldview, believes is woven into the very fabric of the universe by its Creator.

Humanist Worldview

C.S. Lewis further provides a philosophical critique of subjectivism and the growing trend in the mid-20th century to view human values as mere social constructs or personal feelings, devoid of any objective foundation. From a humanist perspective, the book can be seen as a defense of universal values and the importance of cultivating moral sentiment in human beings, even if one might not necessarily agree with all the religious implications Lewis brings in.

Men Without Chests

Lewis starts by examining an English school textbook, which he believes encourages students to see values and aesthetic judgments as merely subjective. He argues that this approach risks producing individuals (“men without chests”) who lack a strong moral compass and an appreciation for things of objective value. For humanists who believe in the importance of ethics and moral cultivation, this critique underscores the necessity of education that nurtures not just intellect but also character.

The Way

Lewis delves deeper into the philosophy underpinning his arguments, introducing the concept of the Tao. While he borrows this term from Eastern philosophy, he uses it to represent what he sees as a shared, universal moral law or Natural Law recognized across various cultures and times. While humanists may not ascribe these shared values to a divine origin, many would agree with Lewis on the importance of recognizing a set of core ethical principles shared by humanity, principles that form the basis for human rights, justice, and moral reasoning.

The Abolition of Man

In this final essay, Lewis offers a cautionary vision of the future, suggesting that if society drifts away from these shared values, it might end up in the hands of “Conditioners” who, freed from any moral constraints, could manipulate humanity according to their own desires and ideologies, potentially through psychological or even biological means. For Lewis, this could lead to the “abolition” of true humanity. From a humanist viewpoint, this is a reminder of the potential dangers of unchecked scientific and technological progress without a guiding ethical framework.

Throughout “The Abolition of Man,” Lewis’s central contention is the importance of recognizing and upholding objective values that he believes are inherent to human nature. While his defense is rooted in a Christian worldview, humanists, who emphasize the importance of ethics, reason, and shared human values, can find much to appreciate in Lewis’s critique of moral relativism. The book underscores the dangers of a world that loses touch with shared human values and the importance of moral and ethical education.

To a humanist, “The Abolition of Man” might serve as a reminder of the inherent worth of every individual, the universality of certain moral principles, and the necessity of grounding advancements, be they in education, science, or technology, in a framework that prioritizes human well-being and ethical considerations.

Philosophical Alignment

Objective Reality and Forms (Plato)

Plato: Plato believed in the existence of the Forms (or Ideas), which are eternal, unchanging, and objective realities or ideals of which things in the material world are but imperfect copies. For instance, there’s an objective Form of Beauty, and individual beautiful things partake in this Form.

Lewis: This aligns with Lewis’s defense of objective values. When Lewis speaks of the universal moral law or Tao, he references a kind of objective standard beyond individual or cultural opinion, much like Plato’s Forms.

Moral Virtue and Reason (Aristotle)

Aristotle: Aristotle’s ethical theory, as presented in his “Nicomachean Ethics,” is centered on the idea of virtue and the role of reason in achieving eudaimonia (often translated as “flourishing” or “well-being”). For Aristotle, virtues are objective qualities of character that individuals should cultivate to live by reason and achieve the good life.

Lewis: Lewis’s critique of “men without chests” can be seen in light of Aristotle’s emphasis on virtue. Lewis laments an education system that fails to cultivate the “chest” or moral sentiment, leaving individuals with raw emotion (the belly) and cold reason (the head) but no guiding moral sentiment (the chest). This aligns with Aristotle’s emphasis on moral virtues as guiding principles.

Moral Universals (Both Plato and Aristotle)

Plato and Aristotle: While they had different approaches to ethics, both Plato and Aristotle believed there are objective truths about morality. For Plato, these were grounded in the Forms, while for Aristotle, they were derived from understanding human nature and purpose.

Lewis: His concept of the Tao aligns with this idea of moral universals. For Lewis, the Tao represents the universal moral truths acknowledged by various cultures across history, which he sees as evidence of their objective reality.

Rational Souls and the Hierarchical Nature of Reality

Plato and Aristotle believed in the soul’s rational aspect, distinguishing humans from other creatures. They also viewed the universe as having a hierarchical structure, with different levels of beings possessing different levels of reality or actuality.

Lewis: This aligns with Lewis’s view of human nature and his concerns about “conditioners” reshaping it. For Lewis, attempts to redefine or “condition” human nature without referencing its true, objective essence (as understood through the Tao or traditional morality) are doomed to fail and lead to dehumanization.

In summary, while C.S. Lewis doesn’t exclusively rely on Platonic or Aristotelian thought in “The Abolition of Man,” the principles of objective moral values, the cultivation of virtue, and the rational nature of humanity advocated by these ancient philosophers offer strong support to Lewis’s arguments against modern subjectivism and in favor of universal moral standards.

CHAPTER 1

Men Without Chests

“Men Without Chests” is the opening chapter of C.S. Lewis’s philosophical book, “The Abolition of Man.” “Men Without Chests” begins with Lewis critically examining an English textbook for students, which he pseudonymously names “The Green Book” and its authors as “Gaius and Titius.” This textbook, he says, embodies and promotes a certain kind of subjective relativism, which he believes is dangerous. Lewis uses the book as a starting point to delve into deeper philosophical issues.

One particular excerpt from “The Green Book” that draws Lewis’s attention involves a story about a tourist who calls a waterfall “sublime.” The authors correct the tourist, stating that he isn’t actually commenting on the waterfall itself but rather on his own feelings about it. They argue that he’s merely saying he has “sublime feelings.” Lewis takes issue with this interpretation. He believes it represents a broader educational trend, which teaches students to dismiss objective value in favor of mere subjective feelings. By doing so, Lewis argues, we create “men without chests” – that is, individuals who lack the heart, the moral compass, to discern objective value and beauty in the world.

For Lewis, the “chest” represents the seat of sentiments or moral feelings that should be cultivated and educated to align with objective virtues. It serves as a mediator between rational thought (the head) and basic, instinctual desires (the stomach). If the chest, or moral sentiment, is removed from the equation, then it’s just pure reason trying to control base desires, and this, Lewis claims, is bound to fail. We are left with either sheer egoistic pursuit or cold, detached reasoning, both of which neglect true humanity.

Lewis further criticizes modern educators for producing analytical and skeptical minds at the cost of cultivating virtue. He argues that such an education doesn’t liberate the student but instead enslaves them, for they are left without the guiding star of moral objective values. He touches upon the role of tradition, claiming that the time-tested values and sentiments that were passed down through generations were not arbitrary but grounded in something real. Modernity’s rejection of these sentiments, Lewis warns, could lead to the abolition of genuine humanity, setting the stage for the arguments he’ll develop in the subsequent chapters.

In essence, “Men Without Chests” is a critique of modern relativism and a defense of objective values. Lewis argues that we are stripping humanity of its ability to recognize and appreciate objective beauty, virtue, and morality by relegating them to mere subjective feelings. This, he believes, is a deeply dehumanizing trend.

CHAPTER 2

The Way

This chapter delves deeper into the philosophical underpinnings of his argument against moral subjectivism and his defense of objective values. Here is a summary of this chapter:

The Concept of the Tao

Lewis introduces the idea of the Tao, a term borrowed from Chinese philosophy, to represent the overarching moral and philosophical tradition that spans across various cultures and times. In this context, the Tao is akin to what many might call Natural Law or Universal Morality. It’s the collection of moral principles recognized as true and valid across diverse civilizations, regardless of their cultural, historical, or geographical differences.

The Universality of Moral Principles

Lewis argues that when we look across different cultures and civilizations, from ancient to contemporary, from East to West, we find a remarkable agreement on core moral principles. Whether it’s the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Greeks, or Chinese, certain values like courage, justice, and honor are universally esteemed, while treachery, cowardice, and injustice are universally condemned.

Implications of Rejecting the Tao

If one tries to establish a system of values outside of the Tao, Lewis argues, it becomes either arbitrary or self-contradictory. One cannot justify any value or moral stance without implicitly appealing to some aspect of the Tao. For instance, any argument for a “new” morality based on the welfare of the majority ultimately relies on the pre-existing Tao principle that human welfare is good. This means that every attempt to define a morality apart from the Tao either collapses into incoherence or merely modifies the Tao, rather than replacing it.

The Limitations of Instinct

Lewis counters the argument that our moral behaviors are merely a product of instinct. While humans have various instincts (like the instinct to protect one’s young or the instinct to compete), these instincts in themselves do not tell us what we ought to do. Often, instincts conflict, and choosing between them requires some higher moral framework. This framework, which helps us judge between competing instincts, is what Lewis identifies with the Tao.

The Danger of Modern Innovations

The “innovators” of morality, those who advocate for moralities outside of the Tao, often do so believing that they’re advancing human welfare. However, Lewis warns that their innovations can often lead to disastrous consequences because they are unmoored by the tried-and-true moral realities in the Tao. Detached from this foundational moral code, they might justify all sorts of actions that, in the long run, could be detrimental to humanity.

Lewis concludes “The Way” by reemphasizing the importance of the Tao as the only solid foundation for morality. Without this grounding, any attempt at moral philosophy becomes untethered and risks leading society astray. For Lewis, the Tao isn’t just a relic of the past but is essential for humanity’s moral and philosophical health. Moreover, Lewis presents a powerful defense of traditional morality, asserting that objective moral values exist and are recognized universally across different cultures and times. In doing so, he challenges modern trends that dismiss or seek to replace these foundational principles.

CHAPTER 3

The Abolition of Man

In the third and final essay of his book, C.S. Lewis extrapolates from the philosophical and educational trends he critically traverses in the earlier essays to present a cautionary vision of the future.

Conditioning the Conditioners

Lewis begins by contemplating a future where those in power, whom he terms “Conditioners,” utilize science and technology to modify humanity’s basic nature, thus effectively controlling and reshaping the fabric of human thought and feeling. This future, for Lewis, becomes possible once the objective values and traditional morality (represented by the Tao in the previous essay) are rejected.

Moral Relativity and Power

When objective values are discarded, the Conditioners don’t have any external moral compass to guide their actions. Instead, they operate based on their own whims, desires, or what they believe is best for humanity. But, as Lewis argues, without an objective standard, notions of what’s “best” are rendered meaningless. Hence, the Conditioners’ actions become solely about power and control.

Man’s Conquest of Nature

One of Lewis’s key arguments is that, in seeking to conquer nature, man ultimately conquers himself. With advancements in science and technology, especially those that allow for the manipulation of human biology and psychology, humanity attempts to gain power over its own nature. However, this “power” is always held by some humans over others. It’s not humanity mastering nature in general, but rather some people mastering their fellow humans.

Loss of True Humanity

With the rise of the Conditioners and their unchecked power, humanity risks losing its essence. The modifications made by the Conditioners, whether biological, psychological, or societal, could strip away the very qualities that make humans unique, leading to the “abolition” of man in a metaphysical sense. Humanity might continue, but it would be a version shaped and defined by the Conditioners, detached from the traditional moral and philosophical heritage (the Tao) that, according to Lewis, has underpinned human civilizations for millennia.

The End of Progress

Lewis sets fire to the notion of “progress” as understood by the innovators and Conditioners. True progress, for him, would be moving closer to a deeper understanding and embodiment of the Tao—the universal moral law. By contrast, what the Conditioners see as progress is mere change, chaotic or dangerous change at that. By detaching from the Tao, they lead humanity into an abyss of relativism and certain destruction from impulses of the moment that result in accumulated evil and corrupted power. To more fully grasp Lewis’s point about the outcome of Conditioners’ detachment from Tao, he articulates the dire and inevitable specifics about the destruction sought along the way. More specifically, as Conditioners who self-detach from Tao pursue “progress” (which is really just arbitrary change by visceral impulses), they seek the use of magic (that does not work)and applied science to subdue reality to the wishes of men – efforts of the Conditioners accordingly described by the fitting metaphor of Man in futility digging up and mutilating the dead.

Summary

In “The Abolition of Man,” Lewis pronounces a warning that spans decades concerning the consequences of abandoning belief in objective values, and the dangers of technological and scientific power sought for the purpose of subduing natural law and reality. He argues that true human dignity, freedom, and virtue lie in alignment with the Tao—the traditional moral law—and that deviations from it, especially those driven by a desire for power and control, threaten the very essence and existence of humanity.

Throughout this essay, Lewis combines philosophical rigor with a deep concern for the trajectory of human civilization, presenting a compelling case for the timeless relevance of objective morality and the utmost necessity for humanity to reject people of influence or in positions of power who actively seek to reshape people and what they believe to serve their own impulses and evil desires.

A Defense of Objective Truth

By on in Theology

Truth is subjective to many people and relative to Christians and atheists alike. Subjectivism, as such, is the rejection of objective truth for a wide array of reasons. Atheists and anti-theists generally share a secular creed tacit in nature to declare there is no God. There is no objective truth. There is no ground for Reason. There are no absolute Morals. There is no ultimate Value. There is no ultimate Meaning. There is no eternal hope.¹ In the mind of those who hold a worldview of subjectivism, everything is permitted without social constraints—notably, including people who attend and lead churches who do not accept the authority and truth of Scripture as God’s word. To “believers” or “Christians” who live as there is only limited objective truth, do so from a position of upholding the mantra of diversity, equity, and inclusion as a necessary and overriding social doctrine to shape false faith and errant practices.

Anti-theists or atheists outright opposed or indifferent to the existence of God make it clear and consistent that Christians who believe in God are deluded, misguided, or just people who never really grew up. Christians, across the board among every denomination or tradition without exception, hold varying degrees of acceptance concerning the objective truth of the gospel and Scripture. Consequently, most congregations are egalitarian. Very many favor same-sex marriage, tolerate promiscuous lifestyles, advocate homosexuality, ordain female pastors, adopt critical theory, accede to social justice violence, liberation theology, feminism, and numerous other conditions of social decay within the church. In contradiction to Jesus, our Messiah, and Apostles James, John, Peter, Paul, and others were crystal clear about objective truth concerning the gospel, repentance, sin, and Godly living. A survey of social media interaction among too many clergies and laity across a wide swath of denominations, from conservative to liberal ideologies, informs the culture of social positions opposed to objective truth as made clear through the authority of God’s word as His voice of instruction, redemption, and warning to humanity. The poison of subjectivism is thoroughly ingrained within the culture and the church. Where C.S. Lewis informs his readers that beliefs about moral judgments which are exclusively subjective to the individual or community are the poison of subjectivism that eventually leads to the destruction of society, beginning with traditional Christian morality.²

This post offers a defense of objective truth as made clear through the intent and meaning of canonical Holy Scripture as transmitted from ancient manuscripts. Conversely, when Pontius Pilate asked Jesus, “what is truth,” he spoke from a position of cynically subjective understanding to show itself as spiritually vacant from Christ and His word as Truth. To define truth is itself an objectivist position. An alternative or relative definition of truth per se to the subjectivist is unwanted or strained at best. According to Aristotle, truth is defined in terms of ordinary people in a pragmatic sense, “To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false.” ³

Jesus defined Himself as the embodiment of Truth (Jn 1:14, 17, 14:6, 1 Jn 5:20). As transliterated from Greek as alētheia, He spoke of Himself in conformance to reality. His being as the embodiment of truth concerns Himself as Messiah and all He claimed, especially about a person’s access to eternal life and God the Father. True God revealed in Christ Jesus was and is made objectively evident “as what is is, and what is not is not, is true,” as Aristotle has put it. Not from subjective rationale stemming from alternate theories of truth to escape revelatory details of actual reality with corresponding metaphysical and philosophical support. “Telling it like it is” corresponds to facts about a matter objectively ascertained independently of a knower and his consciousness. Truth, in general, presupposes commonsense notions of reality, and if anything does not conform to reality, as a practical matter, theory or otherwise, that is by definition false.⁴ Therefore, a person can consequently frame observation of reality and its corresponding truth in terms of denial or acceptance.

Alternative theories of truth to counter subjectivistic thought, or subjective truth, can offer some perspective as conversations involving disbelief among atheists or unbiblical and sinful behaviors from Christians become evident or come up in conversations. The “what is true for me is not necessarily true for you” holds no credibility in opposition to objective truth. Four theories are generally understood to render universal and religious subjectivism meaningless.

First, a pragmatic theory of truth is Truth that works relatively. It’s a relativistic form of thought that ultimately becomes impractical because it devolves into an unending pursuit of pragmatic or destructive outcomes as an ongoing means to an end until circularity or exhaustion is reached. Second, the empiricist’s theory of truth is what someone would view truth as a function of sensory perception. Without empirical evidence to support rationalistic assertions concerning God and spiritual or supernatural objects of faith, false conclusions are made a priori that such terms and meaning are incomprehensible. Third, rationalists’ view of truth concerns human reason as the judge of reality and must distinctly be understood within cognitive reasoning alone. It is the denial that many truths cannot be proved, such as the law of noncontradiction. Finally, the coherence theory of truth that considers various sets of ideas can yield contradictory conclusions that are actually incoherent. Facts the way they really are can correspond to coherence theory, while a situation evident from another perspective can demonstrate otherwise to produce another contradiction. Coherence theory generally relies upon presuppositions of truth without objective and comprehensive facts as evidentially valid.

Individual abandonment of objective truth would cause a further precipitous decay within society and civilization in general. Atheist and Christian denials of truth as revealed through Creation and God’s word for purposes of convenience, preferences, or social utility erode an ability to comprehend revelation by grace either way. People are not created as necessary beings, but contingent beings grounded by actual alētheic existence with objective truth as a divinely instituted construct and requirement. Without being in fellowship with God, who expects acceptance and adherence to objective truth, both atheists and professing Christians naturally arrive at a place of confusion and misery, often eternally. The objective truth of the gospel and Scripture points to Jesus, who wants people to accept objective truth and come into fellowship with Him and the Father for salvific purposes. People who deny objective truth, or passively dismiss it, have no room for repentance and recognition of sin as made explicit by the authority of Scripture.⁵ To deny objective truth is what Apostle Paul warns about as a matter of principle with eternally damning consequences (Rom 1:18-32).

Paradoxical truth does not contradict objective truth as revealed and made evident in a natural sense throughout creation. Collisions in faith and reason do not somehow run up against the consistency of logic, but merely point to an inability to process observations and arrive at coherent conclusions due to the limitations of human cognition. While Richard Niebuhr’s (1894-1962) theological work attempted to shape knowledge of objective truth within a relativistic framework, he reasoned that universal truth could be obtained through historical traditions and relativism. Partially to explain the Western drive of denominationalism, he took a specific long-term interest between unity and diversity within the church. It was splintering at a growing rate in the 1950s, and he sought to bring the church into wider cultural acceptance within secular society to suit modern life.⁶ The proliferation of church denominations is in the thousands. The largest convention in the U.S. (Southern Baptist Convention) is in a crisis of unity due to its partial acceptance of objective truth. For the same reason, Episcopalian and Lutheran churches have lost hundreds of thousands of members over the course of recent years. Other denominations have become more fragmented.

By further comparison, John Stott (1921-2011), an Anglican priest of evangelical tradition, wrote, “In our post-modern era, the self-confidence of the Enlightenment has gone, the very concept of objective ‘truth’ is rejected, and all that remains are purely personal and subjective opinions.” He wrote this perspective in 2001 to indicate the trajectory of social culture downstream from the church. Consequently, the state of civilization is in upheaval with violence, gender dysphoria, political unrest, political corruption, wars, and corporate greed, unlike any time before in history. Every bit of which serves as evidence of a departure from objective truth as the grounding of faith and morality in obedience to God’s prescriptive order. Consider entertainment and the state of academic institutions. Consider the widespread and deep infestation of subjectivism within local churches at the hands of leaders who believe what God has revealed in His Word but have not surrendered to objective truth to the growing demise of society at large.

Citations

________________
¹Gary DeMar, ed., Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007), 67.
²Dr. Alan K. Snyder, “Lewis’s “Poison of Subjectivism” in Our Day” Southeastern University, Lakeland Florida, Accessed 11 April. 2022. https://ponderingprinciples.com/2017/12/16/lewiss-poison-of-subjectivism-in-our-day/
³ Aristotle, Metaphysics, Books I–XIV; Oeconomica; Magna Moralia, ed. Jeffrey Henderson, trans. Hugh Tredennick and G. Cyril Armstrong, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1933–1935), 201.
⁴Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics, The IVP Pocket Reference Series (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003), 135.
⁵John R. Franke, “Recasting Inerrancy: The Bible as Witness to Missional Plurality,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick, Stephen M. Garrett, and Stanley N. Gundry, Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 288.
⁶Daniel G. Reid et al., Dictionary of Christianity in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).
⁷John Stott, The Incomparable Christ (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001), 66.

Contours of Particularity

By on in Theology

People’s religious convictions inform their social, cultural, and political perspectives and preferences. What people highly care about is significantly influenced by what they believe, either through faith or humanistic concern. Even secular people have religious questions about atheism or agnosticism (i.e., everyone is spiritually vested in what they care about).

Everyone has a “religious” commitment. In a loose sense, secular and faith systems’ values bear on social and political matters of interest. Particularly around culture and what rights, liberties, and freedoms exist to live with the power to impose and live as one wants with progressively deepening immorality, destruction of the family, cultural chaos, and perpetual war. Secular worldview categories of subjectivism and relativism are means by which divisions of thought and understanding exist to ply their will through policy and distribution of resources.

In a general sense, subjectivism is a way to limit knowledge to personal or private meaning and experience. While subjective facts are valid, subjectivism as the target of secular reason toward belief systems isolates and attempts to erode absolute truth. It’s a way of thinking that exalts itself against God because it’s a way of thought that says what is supremely good and right can only be ascertained by individual feeling or apprehension.

Relativity is another concept that is valid in a limited sense. However, relativism as a secular theory denies humanity any ability to possess objective truth and universally meaningful knowledge concerning metaphysical realities (i.e., God, Creation, spiritual realm, supernatural incidents, etc.). Relativism is a way for secular humanity and culture to insulate themselves from ultimate truth to escape moral absolutes. Meaning and truth become relative to each culture, person, situation, relationship, and outcome.

Both subjectivism and relativism are subordinate to religious and secular pluralism theory and doctrines. They’re together systems of contradiction against absolute truth, moral certainty, and unwanted political power. To develop and maintain social cohesion and order, religious diplomacy, not interfaith initiatives that give an equal weight of credibility, is, in my view, the most sensible and orderly way to preserve freedom and conviction of absolute truth. While love for God and people is not mutually exclusive from a Christian perspective, secular society doesn’t have the authority or capacity to steer Christianity to keep itself safe from Islam or other harmful religious beliefs. The godless mind is subject to the absolute interests of God.

Excerpt:
Pluralism, Inclusivism, Exclusivism Continuum

Isolating the philosophical theory called religious pluralism raises a question. If religious pluralism is one class of meta-religious theories about religious variety, are there other classes? The typical typology of responses to religious variety contrasts pluralism with two other general classes of meta-religious theories called “exclusivism” and “inclusivism.”¹

[[[ Religious exclusivism maintains that only one religion is genuine or true; only one faith actually brings a believer into contact with God. For a Christian exclusivist of the strongest sort, God will save only people who hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, know about his death on the cross, and explicitly confess him as Savior. This strong form of exclusivism is also called “restrictivism.” ]]]

Exclusivism comes in various subtypes. First, one sub-form of exclusivism modifies restrictivism by allowing for a few exceptions. One such exception is a provision for the universal salvation of all who die before they reach some cognitive age of accountability. Second, another sub-form of exclusivism asserts that God ensures an opportunity to believe for those who he knows would believe. This uses a middle knowledge view of divine foreknowledge (where God knows what every person would do in every hypothetical situation). God makes sure that the message of salvation gets to every person who would believe if he heard the gospel. God ordains that all who would receive salvation if given the chance actually do get that chance.² Third, yet another sub-form of exclusivism affirms that all people have an opportunity to hear the gospel, and this could include the chance to receive salvation after death.³

As a midway point between exclusivism and pluralism, some follow religious inclusivism. Inclusivism agrees with exclusivism that only one religion is ultimately true. But it shares with pluralism the conviction that sincere adherents of religions other than the true faith may still come into contact with God, find spiritual life, or achieve the religious goal. So, for example, a person who adopted Muslim inclusivism might say that Islam is actually the only true faith, rooted in the one, valid revelation of the ultimate Reality, Allah. Still, this hypothetical Muslim inclusivist might say, a faithful Jewish follower of the Mosaic law could still receive a heavenly reward, if he is faithful to the dictates of Judaism. For the Muslim inclusivist, Judaism is not the true faith, and yet the faithful Jew who follows Torah may still go to paradise. Paradise is achievable due to such things as the Jewish believer’s religious sincerity or piety, the truth of Islam, and the good will of Allah. For the Christian inclusivist, Christ is the ultimate revelation of God. Salvation is possible for people who explicitly follow other faiths. But this salvation is always from or through Christ.

Inclusivism also admits of sub-divisions. The most important is a distinction between “constitutive inclusivism” and “normative inclusivism.” In both versions of inclusivism, Christian inclusivists agree that a person can be saved without explicit saving knowledge of Jesus. Constitutive inclusivism affirms that Christ’s work is the necessary ground of all salvation, and other religions cannot provide the ontological power for salvation. Anyone who is saved receives salvation only because of the power and atonement of Jesus Christ. Yet someone could fail to accept Jesus Christ, follow a religious path that is in no way Christian, and still receive salvation by following what light she does have. Again, the metaphysical ground of this salvation is always the work of Christ.

A version of constitutive inclusivism called the “implicit faith view” is closest to exclusivism. The Christian version of this view says that a person can be saved if he meets these conditions: he knows nothing of Christ, he rejects the false religion around him, and he follows any valid natural revelation he does have. He implicitly follows Christ by worshiping the Creator. This is the most restricted form of constitutive inclusivism because it holds that anyone who explicitly rejects Christ cannot receive salvation in this way, irrespective of his sincerity. In other words, those who have never heard of Christ, and so never have a chance to reject him explicitly, can trust him implicitly by following whatever light they do have. So, unlike more liberal inclusivists, defenders of an implicit faith view will say that a person who does not explicitly follow Christ can be saved in spite of, but never because of, anything that another faith might offer him. Even though historical accident keeps him from hearing explicitly of Christ, he may receive salvation by rejecting the false religion he sees around him and calling on God. And he is saved solely on the basis of the reality of Christ’s work.⁴

Normative inclusivism goes well beyond constitutive inclusivism. A Christian defender of normative inclusivism will deny the necessity of Christ’s work for salvation. Instead, Jesus offers one valid religious path among several. Initially, this sounds like a form of pluralism. But it differs slightly. In normative inclusivism, one religion is the “norm.” This one normative religion is the best, the clearest, the least ambiguous path to God. Still, other religions possess validity though to a lesser degree. So the one valid religious path is the first among several valid equals. This norming religion functions as the normative example, the paradigm, by which all paths to God are judged as more or less salvific. But it is not the only path through which people may come to God.

The three-part typology—exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, along with the various subtypes—is not without difficulties. Though many people use this vocabulary for discussing the relationships among religions, it is subject to several objections. First, some object to a priori typologies in general. Paul Griffiths, for example, pointed out that those who develop general typologies of responses to the world’s religions are often not sufficiently knowledgeable about the religions to categorize them adequately.⁵ And he rightly warned us to look at how the theological axioms of an interpreter’s religion influence his definitions of the categories.⁶ But while Griffiths’ point is valid, it is also limited. His argument cuts against analyses developed by people who lack a complete knowledge base. But it should not undermine typologies developed by people who do have the requisite knowledge. It does not point to some in principle difficulty with developing typologies. And the fact that our typologies will always fall short of perfect categorization, with no gray areas between categories, does not mean that typologies are completely useless. The lesson here is that while typologies are useful, their categories should not run roughshod over carefully researched descriptions of the world’s religions. Fair enough.

A second and much more important objection is this: different thinkers use the threefold continuum to answer two entirely different questions. This leads to different accounts of the meaning of the three categories. This is a major problem that causes significant confusion. Take exclusivism, for example. On the one hand, Alvin Plantinga defined ‘exclusivism’ in this manner: “the tenets or some of the tenets of one religion—Christianity, let’s say—are in fact true … [and] … other religious beliefs that are [logically] incompatible with those tenets are false.”⁷ On the other hand, John Hick used ‘exclusivism’ in this way: “only those who follow the teachings of a particular religion are saved.”⁸ In the abstract, these two definitions themselves are perfectly in order. Both Plantinga and Hick describe relatively clear meta-religious, philosophical ideas. But they offer very different definitions of ‘exclusivism’ because they tacitly use the threefold typology to answer two conceptually distinct questions. Both of these two questions are attempts to analyze the theology of religions discussion. But the two questions analyze very different aspects of the theology of religions discussion. It is very easy to get them confused.

[…..]

Having sketched a representative way of explaining the concepts of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism (along with some subtypes), I turn to the core issue of prolegomena: What are the implications of these theories for evangelical theology? The fact of religious variety and the rise of varied philosophical interpretations of that fact pose questions that need answers in their own right. This is the issue of religious pluralism per se. But as evangelicals, we are unalterably committed to the uniqueness of Christian revelation. This certainly includes exclusivism and may allow for constitutive inclusivism. [….] Yet commitments to pluralism are pervasive in our postmodern cultural milieu. So that leads to the fundamental question for theological methodology.

[….]

Finally, if we do conclude that evangelical theology is a rationally responsible discipline in this context, then how should we live in a pluralist world? Can evangelicals live as neighbors with adherents of other faiths as well as those who reject all faiths? Gilkey says that the awareness of religious variety requires a new ethic of relationship that includes respectful dialogue, acknowledgment of truth in other perspectives, and a willingness to listen and learn. But does the awareness of religious variety require religious pluralism? In the minds of some contemporary people, exclusivism is incompatible with an ethic of respect and dialogue. This is true both of some pluralists who value respectful dialogue (and therefore reject exclusivism) and of some exclusivists who disavow pluralism (and therefore renounce respectful dialogue).

David K. Clark and John S. Feinberg, To Know and Love God: Method for Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003), 320–324.

Clark Citations
___________________________
¹ The standard threefold typology can be traced back to Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1983). Race himself argues for pluralism. But in “John Hick’s Pluralist Philosophy of World Religions” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Marquette University, 1999), Paul Eddy points out that the essence of the threefold typology was implicit in John Hick’s “Copernican Revolution” a decade earlier, for example, in Hick’s God and the Universe of Faiths (London: Macmillan, 1973).
² William Lane Craig, “Middle Knowledge and Christian Exclusivism,” Sophia 34 (1995): 120–139.
³ This view draws on 1 Peter 3:19–20
⁴ This is built on A. H. Strong’s suggestions. For discussion, see David K. Clark, “Is Special Revelation Necessary for Salvation?” in Through No Fault of Their Own, ed.
⁵ Paul Griffiths, “Modalizing the Theology of Religions,” Journal of Religion 73 (1993): 382–389; idem, “Encountering Buddha Theologically,” Theology Today 47 (1990): 39–51; idem, On Being Mindless: Buddhist Meditation and the Mind-Body Problem (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1986).
⁶ Idem, “A Properly Christian Approach to Religious Plurality,” Anglican Theological Review 79 (1997): 3–26.
⁷ Alvin Plantinga, “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism,” in Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith, ed. Thomas Senor (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1995), 194.
⁸ Examples of others who assume a soteriological definition are Anne Hunt, “No Other Name? A Critique of Religious Pluralism,” Pacifica 3 (1990): 45–60; John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992); and the authors of More Than One Way? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995).