Two common understandings regarding salvation are Exclusivism and Pluralism.

Christian Exclusivism can be pictured as “One path alone takes us to God. All others take is elsewhere.”

Pluralism can be pictured as “Many, and perhaps even all, paths potentially take us to God.”

These are not all of the options, but they are the most common. However, another option is Fulfilment. I am not sure how to turn this into an “ism.”

Fulfilment can be be described as… “There is only one BRIDGE to God and that is Christ. However, there are many potential PATHS to that bridge.”

This view presupposes that God is at work at all times reconciling all to Himself. As such the various cultures and faiths are NOT NECESSARILY a hindrance to the Gospel message. Potentially, they open the door to people understanding their problem and their need for Christ. I have friends from Myanmar who see their Christian faith not as an overturning of their ancestor’s beliefs, but fulfilling a belief system that lacked a Savior. I have heard Sikhism as the “gateway to Christianity.” Perhaps some would take offense at that… but arguably, it honors the truths associated with that faith. The Longhouse Religion of the Iroquois, arguably, connects their traditional beliefs with the place that bridges Christian faith.

Jesus used Judaism and Samaritanism as paths bringing them to the need for the Messiah. I am not sure what message He used to communicate with the 4000+ Gentiles He fed, but Matthew makes it clear that they responded joyously, praising the God of Israel. Paul used Greek beliefs to bring them to the need for Christ in Athens.

What does this imply? First, we don’t have to dishonor traditional cultures and associated ancestors to share the Gospel. Second, we can look for God’s work in the people and cultures leading people to Christ.

A challenge for me is how to apply this on a practical level. I have great respect for the Orality movement. The associated Chronological Bible Storying movement suggests that when entering a new culture, one should tell the grand narrative of the Bible. It is often framed as a competing story to that of the recipient culture. I do think there’s great value in people understanding the message of Christ within the broader Biblical story. God’s work and revealing within the context of Israel is, in some ways, unique.  BUT should the framing be that of a competitive or complementary story. The Creation story is, in some sense, everyone’s story. But is the history of, for example, the Filipino people a story that must be undermined or devalued to teach the Bible? Or is it part of their Salvific history as well. I feel the Grand narrative of the Bible is important for all

A couple of things to read to think on this:

“Jesus and Other Faiths” by Ivan Satuavrata. In Asian Cristian Theology: Evangelical Perspective.  Gener and Pardue, editors.

Eternity in Their Hearts. by Don Richardson.