Essay Sample on Religion: Pluralism, Inclusivism, Exclusivism

It is important that everyone is allowed the freedom to practice and believe in what they want to. There are three main responses to the ways that belief can be shown which includes: Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism. Exclusivism allows for a great sense of identity because a person of faith believes in their ideology with great fierceness (Eck p.27). It is important to mention that through this greater sense of identity, it becomes harder to listen to the thoughts of others, which eventually results in isolationism (Eck p.37). Isolationism can be fatal to humanity as it allows for more discrimination against other ideals in society, which eventually locks them out with healthy communication among the different groups in the world. Pluralism allows for interreligious dialogue that exceeds a person’s own internal conversation, which allows people of different faiths to understand and broaden their self-understanding of other faiths in an environment comfortable to their specific needs (Eck p.83). The main thing that pluralism gets wrong is that it tries to morph everyone into one single understanding, and this often results in the loss of one’s own religious traditions because of the effort it takes to accept all other traditions (Eck p.37). There will less constructive dialogue among members of the community and the human sense of communication will falter. Inclusivism has a different perspective to offer amongst the two extremes, offering a great middle-ground for people to explore and grow on. It offers a healthier community to converse in because while people acknowledge the diversity, they have a better understanding of boundaries and do not cross them in their interpretation of religious ideologies (Eck p.31). Offering a greater amount of talking space comes with the downside of the hierarchal thinking which makes people think their beliefs are better than the other (Eck p.36). Although this sense of superiority is present, someone is still listening and it offers less damage than totally ignoring a view or totally throwing away a view because it doesn’t fit. I lean more towards the inclusivist point of view because it allows a person of faith to keep all their religious traditions intact while also not chastising others about their religious beliefs. They keep themselves separated from dissolving their beliefs and dissolving the beliefs of others because they command a sense of respect for their ideals and others. They do not try to cross the line by putting themselves on others. This provides more harmony than the other two positions because those are extremes on both sides while Inclusivism offers a balance in the middle. There is no blatant ignorance toward other faiths, which allows all faiths to practice in peace. Eck mentions "All can be included in the great fellowship of love" (Eck p.31). This strengthens the idea of inclusion and diversity because everyone has a chance to find their truth even though people might vary on the meaning of that. It's a single worldview that embraces self-understanding while making sure that no one is left behind in the melange of ideals (Eck p.31). The main point is that there is no compulsion in beliefs which really allows true understanding to prosper. Inclusivism allows for people of different faiths to reach the common goal of becoming a person of spirituality while also acknowledging a whole world of unique traditions that should be respected.

Christians and Muslims have different meanings of God and this is one of the greatest points of contention in their relationship with each other. Christian Inclusivists invite people of other faiths to partake in what they call “their” God’s mercy because they believe that this opportunity has come from “their” God himself as a “free gift” (Bennett p.29). As it can be seen here, the followers of the faith do not take it in their hands to constantly advocate for their religion, but they leave it in God’s hands. Acts 4:12 vouch for an inclusivist statement that says that Jesus’s name is the “saving name” that all human beings share which is the nature of God (Bennett p.29). Even though Muslims will disagree with the use of Jesus in this statement, it cannot be denied that Christian Inclusivists are not attempting to force this on Muslims, but just inform them of their interpretation that their religion provides. Muslim inclusivists might say the same line but with no mention of Jesus, saying Allah is the ultimate saving grace for humanity not just Muslims. No one group is chastising the other for their ideals, they are just stating what they believe and listening to the other. Inclusivists of all faiths believe that their God is also the God of others and this is what makes them more universally in line with the needs of society. Muslims and Christians also have different views regarding the meaning of being a monotheistic religion. Muslims say that Christianity could be seen as not being a monotheistic religion because of the belief in the Trinity, which goes against the Islamic doctrine of one God (Bennett p.18). Christianity rejects this because of the belief that the Trinity is one entity. It is then important to mention that the Quran goes on to say that Christians and Muslims worship the same God (Bennett p.18). This can be interpreted as another inclusivist statement because it argues the essence of their respective “Gods” is the same but the difference stems from the different interpretations and traditions which contributes to each faith trying to give their religion the higher ground and current tensions. Inclusivism represents a middle ground in which faiths can ask for understanding but have real, honest expectations and conversations. It is hard to expect different faiths forcing their ideals on others as much as it is to tell them to throw away a piece of their tradition; both extremes are never favorable. Conflict mainly stems from the fact that every faith wants to have a domineering grasp on other faiths to assert their legitimacy. The topic of salvation in Christianity also offers an inclusivist approach which helps solidify that intention matters and that faith doesn’t have a specific checklist. James 2:20 mentions that people not baptized as Christians but live like Christ have the possibility of entering “the kingdom” even before baptized Christians calling Jesus Lord but oppressing the disadvantaged could (Bennett p.35-36). This again shows that the nitpicking of each specific detail should not be relevant in most interreligious relations because there will be elements that will be unchangeable in Christianity and Islam. What is important is that perspectives remain open so that all Muslims and Christians feel welcome and apart of a bigger community that wants to practice whatever they want with the right intentions.