The Gospel in a Pluralist Society

Last updated on: June 15, 2007 at 6:04 pm by Tim Suttle

The Gospel in a Pluralist Society 2007-06-15T18:04:00-06:00 Tim Suttle

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

by Lesslie Newbigin

This is just a quick review of one of the best books I’ve encountered in years.

Possibly the foremost thing I could say about Lesslie Newbigin is that he is a gifted writer with an amazing intellect and a gift for covering a wide range of issues with a remarkable economy of words. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society is not a long book, but it is concentrated with theological, philosophical and cultural reflection. His positions seem to defy conservative/liberal labels and while his approach is thoroughly postmodern, I think his aim is true as he examines the full scope and measure of epistemology and the gospel in the context of the pluralist society. It would be impossible to go into depth in this short review, given the scope of the information covered. I will attempt to engage the parts of the book which were most meaningful to me and offer critique and appreciation throughout.

Newbigin begins by expounding on the role of plausibility structures within a given culture. He laments the false dichotomy of “facts” and “beliefs.” Beliefs are generally judged by “sincerity,” but not so with physics; even though they are both patently subjective and interpreted through the reigning plausibility structures.[1] He then launches into a fascinating section on the nature of science. Citing the essential role of imagination and intuition in science, Newbigin borrows from thinkers such as Einstein to show that there is no objectivity even in scientific knowing. Even the so-called laws of nature seem to only work within a sort of mid-range of phenomenon. They break down, as relativity shows, in quantum or macro-levels.

This was actually my favorite section of the book. The reason I liked this section so much is that it is a good example of the sort of apologetic which is still quite necessary within a postmodern ministry context. The plausibility structures, objective nature of all knowledge, and the information about the true nature of scientific knowledge will be unbelievably useful. It is not a modern apologetic so much as a rational explanation of the subjectivity of all knowledge.

Newbigin delves into reason, revelation and experience by attempting to debase them as ultimate sources of knowledge. He argues that when reason and tradition are set in opposition to one another as rival criteria for truth, then reason is actually being considered as a “source” for truth. The problem with this is that reason is always imbedded in a particular linguistic tradition and as such it is contingent upon that tradition. He then probes the limits of reason, showing that knowledge is revealed – even knowledge passed from one human to another – and thus all knowledge is personal in nature. What Newbigin suggests is that one must become somewhat bi-lingual between the biblical tradition which we takes as reliable and the plausibility structures of our culture which we do not accept, though we know how they work and can be conversant with them.[2]

I just think this section is brilliant. The necessity of bi-lingual believers who can navigate the plausibility structures of society and the language of revelation and gospel is prophetic. The idea that reason cannot be a source of knowledge but only a medium through which it is transported is a reality which our world does not currently encounter. Learning to converse with the plausibility structures and to translate the gospel in those situations seems like an essential skill which should be developed.

Next, Newbigin redirects the conversation about election away from election to “salvation” by stating that all of humankind is elected to disobedience so that God might have mercy on everyone.[3] Under that arrangement the mission of the church is Christ’s mission and is characterized not only by preaching and teaching but learning as well. This is an essentially humble posture.[4] The point of mission is not saving souls from perdition, but sharing the story universally and this requires simply that we be with him and “give him the service of our lives.”[5] In this service there seems to be a split over the two sides: one where the gospel is proclaimed and salvation of souls is the end in mind, one where justice and mercy are the goal. Newbigin suggests that both sides need to recover a sense of the “prior reality, the givenness, the ontological priority of the new reality which the work of Christ has brought into being.”[6] Mission requires preaching the need for justice and community but it must embody the salvation and “new being” which Christ has won for each person.

I’ve included this section because I think Newbigin is addressing one of the key issues of the church in our time. The church seems to be waking up to the task of leveraging America’s prosperity and affluence on behalf of the poor, sick and oppressed people of the world. Compassion is cool again. Yet allowing this to descend into some sort of liberal social gospel would be a mistake. Newbigin helps us to see that the prior reality of the kingdom insists that we not divorce mercy and justice from new life in Christ.

Newbigin explored question of exclusivity claims within pluralistic societies and cultures. He explained that any attempt to unite the world religions by Soteriology is doomed to fail because the basis for making those judgments would require an appeal to some universally recognized standard. That standard simply does not exist, (see Chapters 1-3). To the Christian, truth has persona. It is concrete and historical.[7]

Bringing Rahner’s “anonymous Christians” concept into the discussion, Newbigin shows how framing the question of exclusivity in terms of “where non-Christians go when they die” is a trap. This question is illegitimate because: First, it encroaches on territory only God should tread. Second, it is based on an abstraction of soul and whole person. Third, it makes the individual the starting place, not God and God’s glory.[8] He proposes that we should begin with the question “How shall God be glorified?”[9] This question has four positive effects. 1) It can welcome all of the signs of grace at work in those who do not recognize Jesus as Lord. 2) Christians can become more eager to cooperate with those individuals of other faiths. 3) In cooperation, the areas of separation actually become opportunities for respectful dialogue. 4) It restricts the Christian response to simply telling the story. By framing the discussion this way Newbigin makes it possible to deal with all three views on the exclusivity of Christ by affirming his view as:
– Exclusive about uniqueness of Christ, not about denying salvation to non-Christian.
– Inclusive about refusing to limit salvation to members of Christian church, not about viewing other world religions as a vehicle of salvation.
– Pluralist in acknowledging God’s grace at work in all human persons, not about denying the uniqueness of what God has done in Christ.[10]

Though far from the last word on exclusivity I think Newbigin’s thoughts were quite helpful. In my ministry context there are few questions which are more volatile than this, yet it seems to come up with alarming regularity. Affirming ways in which we can still call Christ the “only way” and yet leaving room for the sovereignty of God in the situation seems helpful. I think the simple introduction of a new question – How shall God be glorified? – will dramatically change my future encounters with questions of exclusivity.

Few books I’ve read in the past few years seem to demand another read quite like this one. To “make no claim to originality or to scholarship,”[11] seems like sandbagging. This is an obvious masterpiece from one of the great missionary thinkers of our time.

[1] Lesslie Newbigin. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. p. 14-21. [2] Ibid. p. 65.
[3] Ibid. p. 83.
[4] Ibid. p. 118.
[5] Ibid. p. 127.
[6] Ibid. p. 136.
[7] Ibid. p. 170. Interestingly Newbigin says that if strictly exclusivist claims are correct, then it would require that Christians convert the world by any means necessary which would include violence and practices such as brainwashing.
[8] Ibid. p. 177-179.
[9] Ibid. p. 179.
[10] Ibid. p. 182-183.
[11] Ibid. p. x.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 2, 2007

Fuzzy Theology

Next Post

June 25, 2007 Paul among the Postliberals by Douglas Harink

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abortion corruption Donald Trump elections Empire Entertainment Ezra Klein ideology Justice Lacan politics race Sports Ta-Nehisi Coates Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 March 2026 September 2025 March 2025 June 2024 January 2024 December 2023 May 2023 February 2023 October 2022 April 2022 March 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 September 2020 July 2020 June 2020 March 2020 September 2019 July 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 August 2010 July 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I hid two spies on my roof and tied a scarlet cord in my window to save my family. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Deborah Rahab Ruth Tamar