Journal: Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry
Volume: JBTM 02:1 (Spring 2004)
Article: None Dare Call It Treason: Is An Inclusivist A Paul Revere Or A Benedict Arnold?
Author: Kenneth D. Keathley

---

JBTM 2:1 (Spring 2004) p. 101

None Dare Call It Treason:
Is An Inclusivist A Paul Revere Or A Benedict Arnold?

Ken Keathley

Assistant Professor of Theology and Philosophy
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
3939 Gentilly Blvd.
New Orleans, LA 70126

The question at hand is whether the corporate inclusivist is a Paul Revere heralding a revolution in the evangelical theology of religions, or if he is a Benedict Arnold betraying evangelicalism into the hands of its pluralist opponents. Is the corporate inclusivist a crier or a traitor? If corporate inclusivism is not a traitorous position, then at least it is a misguided and unacceptable option for evangelicals.

Catholic theologian and Vatican II architect Karl Rahner formulated corporate inclusivism as an attempt to hold off the advance of pluralism. He devised his version of inclusivism with the intention of safeguarding the integrity of a high Christology while taking an optimistic view towards the non-Christian religions, but in the process Rahner gave away the very non-negotiable he was trying to protect. This paper will argue that corporate inclusivism is an unacceptable option because it operates as a de facto pluralism. Advocating corporate inclusivism may not be an act of treason, but it is an act of appeasement.

The taxonomy used to describe the major views within the theology of religions of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism will be utilized in this paper in spite of the fact that it is

JBTM 2:1 (Spring 2004) p. 102

hard to find anyone who likes this system of classification.1 Several have attempted to provide alternatives, but the threefold typology remains dominant.2

This paper also makes the important distinction between private and corporate inclusivism.3 Private inclusivism contends that one who is accepted by God apart from the preaching of the Gospel is saved in spite of whatever religion to which he may be an adherent. His religious orientation plays no part in his salvation and in fact is a definite hindrance. The non-Christian’s ignorant beliefs, if sincere, are inculpable but have no positive role in his relationship with God.

Corporate inclusivism, in contrast, argues that the non-Christian religions mediate the work of Christ. Corporate inclusivists distinguish their position from pluralism by arguing that even though they agree with pluralists that the world religions can be conduits of saving grace,

JBTM 2:1 (Spring 2004) p. 103

t...

visitor : : uid: ()