In my reading of Spong today, I came across this quote. It started as a two-sentence response to it that I was going to post on Facebook. But as so often happens, it turned into a full-fledged blog.
The Core of Spong’s Belief
“God is not a Christian, God is not a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist. All of those are human systems which human beings have created.”_
— John Shelby Spong, “Why Christianity Must Change or Die”
Spong’s Position in the Theological Spectrum
When discussing theological liberalism and religious pluralism, few figures are as divisive as John Shelby Spong. A retired bishop of the Episcopal Church, Spong is notorious for his challenges to traditional Christian doctrine. Evangelicals voice concerns over his rejection of foundational Christian tenets, such as Christian exclusivity, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, and the inerrancy of Scripture.
Religious Pluralism and its Implications
At the heart of Spong’s teachings is religious pluralism. Religious pluralism is the rejection of Christian exclusivity, believing that all (or most) religions lead to the same God. While he has maintained his identity as a Christian and operates within the Christian tradition, his views on other religions and his criticisms of foundational Christian doctrines (like the bodily resurrection of Christ and the virgin birth) place him squarely in a liberal/progressive “christian” camp.
A Paradox of Inclusivism
The quote above is his creed. But what Spong continually fails to realize is the exact same criticism could be levied at his statement. How is this not circular reasoning. On the opposite end of the spectrum, it is like the Church of Christ’s creed, “No creed but the Bible,” which itself is a creed not in the Bible. The statement above presents the framework for his religious system that he believes is correct to the exclusion of the other’s claims of exclusivity.
Spong’s central statement, which suggests that all religious systems are human-made constructs, inadvertently runs into a logical issue: it itself is an exclusive claim, presenting its own ‘system’ of belief. This is circular reasoning, where an assertion is both the starting point and the conclusion. For instance, when the Church of Christ claims, “No creed but the Bible,” it presents a paradox, as this very statement becomes a creed that isn’t found in the Bible. Similarly, while Spong seeks to break away from religious exclusivity, his statement inadvertently establishes its form of exclusivity, implying that his perspective is superior or more accurate. By diving deeper into this, we can see that while his intention might be to foster inclusivity, the very nature of his claim contradicts that goal.
Warrant: The Key to Validity
While this statement of Spong may seem sublimely inclusive, it is a claim. And like every other claim, it has to stand up to the scrutiny of critical evaluation to be warranted. Warrant is the key. It is the obligation we have to accept something due to the soundness of the evidence. Warrant is established by its own methodology and sources of input.
Emotional Foundations and Their Divergences
Does Spong believe what he says is true? I’m sure he does. But he seeks to convince you and me that his theological foundation is worthy of acceptance. Why should we accept it? The only reason he accepts it is because he does not like that traditional Christian theology leaves people out. I almost have the same emotional response. But it is different. While he doesn’t like that traditional Christian theology leaves people out, I don’t like that people are left out. See the difference? We both start with the same emotions. We don’t want people to be left out. But he changes the structure without warrant. I believe in traditional Christian theology and seek to change people based on warrant.
Anthropocentric or Theocentric?
Historically, liberal theology has been critiqued for its anthropocentric starting point. It starts with man and works its way upwards to God. In contrast, the traditional Christian approach is a theocentric method: beginning with God and cascading down to human understanding.
Either way, liberal theology’s inclusivism is self-defeating. Inclusivistic pluralism is always going to be an exclusive theology.
27 replies to "John Shelby Spong’s Paradoxical Religious Pluralism"
“…like every other claim, it has to stand up to the scrutiny of critical evaluation to be warranted. Warrant is the key. It is the obligation we have to accept something due to the soundness of the evidence. Warrant is established by its own methodology and sources of input.”
You and Spong are both rationalist foundationalists: so what really is the essential difference in your approach to theology?
What I think you need to do – and I mean no offence – rather than reduce the issue to mere sophomoric articulations of “circualrity” and “warrant” – the recently debunked Enlightenment foundationalism both you and Spong take for granted – is address seriously the question of exclusivist religious claims in a pluralistic world.
That sounds quite rationalistic to say, my friend. As if we can’t both be saying the same thing… only a foundationalist would assume such 😜. But, that is ironically true. No one can avoid some degree of foundationalism.
Yes, they certainly can. For example, the Classical Theism of Thomas Aquinas is not foundationalist. You can read Eleonore Stump’s assessment of claims by philosophers like Plantinga that Aquinas was a foundationalist: she certainly bursts that rationalist bubble.
Well, let’s stay away from the titles of the epistemologies that we like or dislike, if you don’t mind. What about the blog did you disagree with?
Well, to start with, rather than resort to what is basically a rant with the intent of labelling Spong as a progressive liberal who is on a PR campaign to promote his own brand of anti-traditionalist Christian theology – why not address the more serious question that Spong himself is trying to contend with – namely, the question of exclusivist religious claims in a pluralistic world?
Every religion feels they have warrant for the beliefs they hold; but you (and Spong, ironically), as a Westerner, understandably, privilege rationalist methodology above all else – as if it were the only valid way of knowing truth. And yet that same Western overprivileging of rationalist foundstionalism has led us into dire straits, not just theologically, but politically and socially as well. So what now?
So, you are saying that pluralism is true? That all roads lead to God?
What do you mean, is pluralism true? And how can you hope to understand the problems pluralism raises for Christianity if you caricature it as the position that “all roads lead to God”? That sounds more like universalims than pluralism anyway. And so you apparently aren’t even clear on what are the terms in this debate.
Allow me to join this discussion.
1. Michael differentiated Spong’s emotional response to traditional Christian theology was insightful. It points out the nuanced ways emotions and beliefs can intersect and influence one’s theological perspective. Spong’s discontent with the exclusivity of traditional Christian theology prompts him to adjust the structure while Michael chooses to maintain the structure and work within it to change perceptions.
2. Dichotomy between anthropocentrism and theocentrism is CRITICAL in this discussion. Why? Traditional Christian theology, is theocentric, it is CORE –Essential of essentials. Derives its beliefs and doctrines from divine revelation and scriptures, whereas Spong’s begin with human experiences and emotions, working upstream.
3. John 14:6 Underscores the exclusive nature of Christianity. In direct contradiction to the inclusivist claim that all religions lead to God. While one can argue for the inclusive nature of God and the universal paths leading to Him, doing so from a purely Christian perspective is challenging due to the foundational tenets of the faith.
4. Theological implications: a) Exclusivity of Jesus as the WAY—This firmly establishes the exclusivity of the Christian path to salvation. Jesus identifies Himself as the “Truth” He is not merely asserting to speak truthfully but to be the VERY essence and embodiment of truth itself. In addition, he ID himself to the “Life”—both eternal and abundant—is found only in Him.
5. Anthropocentric view (AV): The core foundation is rooted in human experience, logic, emotions, and hosts of other factors shaped by culture, history, society. It is not anchored in the divine but rather in human perspective. Thus, from AV Jn 14:6 could be seen as symbolic, metaphorical, or even as a philosophical assertion, varying with individual or cultural perspectives. Resulting challenges: a) Relative Truths—here truth becomes fluid and relative. Different individuals or communities might derive their own meanings from the same scripture, making it inconsistent. So interpreting scripture is influenced by contemporary societal norms, cultural backgrounds, personal experience. This could lead to myriad of biased interpretations.
6. Theocentric view (TV): This perspective anchors its foundation in God as the ultimate and unchanging source of truth and knowledge. No swayed by temporal factors. Through this lens Jn 14:6 is seen as declaration of Jesus’s unique and exclusive role in the salvation of humanity. It isn’t just a metaphor or philosophical statement, but as a divine truth.
7. You briefly touched on Thomas Aquinas and Eleonore Stump, may I also share my thoughts. When one does a deep dive into Aquinas classical theism and compare to modern discussion in epistemology beliefs in terms of foundationalism—the idea that beliefs are justified based on certain “foundational” beliefs and its alternatives presents a different view. Here is why: Aquinas’s epistemological framework doesn’t fit neatly into foundationalism as understood in modern analytic philosophy. His view is primarily theocentric. Yes, human reason and experience play crucial roles in his epistemological view, they are always seen in relation to the divine. God, to him, is the ultimate source of all truth, both discovered through reason and revealed through scripture. Reason, is a tool, a gift from God to humanity. As for Stump: Stump’s reading of Aquinas challenges the notion that his epistemology can be reduced to mere foundationalism. That reason, experience, divine revelation are interconnected. In today’s polarized climate, where faith and reason often seem at odds, Stump integrative approach is refreshing. Stump suggests that genuine pursuit of truth doesn’t compartmentalize but seeks harmony in all available knowledge.
8. John 14:6 Is a Cornerstone of exclusivist claim in Christian theology. From a theocentric standpoint, this isn’t about religious superiority but about the unique and specific revelation of God through JC. This exclusivity of JC to salvation is NOT man-made doctrine but one that stems from scripture—from Christ himself. A purely theocentric view would caution against an anthropocentric approach especially if it leads to relative truth as mentioned above. The fluidity of truth in the AV can be seen a undermining the fixed nature of divine revelation. Yes, human experiences and cultural contexts are essential for understanding and application, they should not supersede the core truths of the scripture. The TV view scripture as divinely inspired, with its core truths being constant across time and cultures. While interpretations might differ, the essence remains unchanged. Thus, this verse reinforces the divine plan of salvation through Christ, necessitating a relationship with HIM
9. Given the constraints of a blog post, it’s inevitable that complex topics like these cannot be explored in full detail. I did try to provide a comprehensive overview, at the risk of oversimplifying intricate theological matters like you and Michael in your dialogue.
Michael’s distinction between liberal and traditional Christian theology, as well as the assumed structure within which he chooses to work, can be more accurately described as the more recent and regional phenomenon certain Christian groups reacting to the challenge of modernity, all of which operate within the Enlightenment paradigm which he, like most evangelicals, assumes without question. What he thinks is traditional Christian theology is really just modern conservative theology: a hodge podge of arbitrarily selected ‘core doctrines’ which form the distinctives of the various protestant groups. That is not traditional theology: it is just the outcome of protestants privileging of Enlightenment rationalism: one group of protestants responded to the rationalist demand for certainty by inventing the doctrine of innerrancy and labeling itself as conservative Christianity by identifying the locus of certainty in the Bible; while the other group of protestants decided to locate certainty in personal experience and was consequently vilified by the conservatives as liberal theology.
So, this response – and much of Michael’s work on this blog – seems to be oblivious to the historical reality of the development of protestant Christianity in reaction to modernity. I would describe this blog and much of the commentary as a last ditch attempt to reinforce conservative protestant views – but not necessarily traditional Christian theology – in the face of the challenge from post-modernity which rejects the very foundationalism that has unfortunately been the cornerstone of so much protestant thinking about faith and reason.
The fact that both protestant conservatives and liberals have been operating within the same flawed Enlightenment paradigm assumed by sceptics, and the many problems this has caused for protestant theology, is something that cannot be so easily ignored.
One consequence of protestants assuming the rationalist paradigm as sceptics, is consistently setting the debate around religious pluralism in the narrow terms of inclusivity/exclusivity and finding “proof texts” in the Scriptures by reading any portion of sacred text through one or the other lens. Your claim that John 14.6 is a “cornerstone of Christian exclusivism” is a good example of reading a conservative bias into the interpretation of a given text.
Can you share with us : what is
Universalism and Pluralism : a) Definition, b) in religious context, c) in ethical context? Thank you
Univeralism goes all the way back to Classical Theism in Christianity even; the idea is also present in more ancient faith traditions, like Hinduism. Religious pluralism arose in the context of modernity and creates a space for dialogue across multi-cultural perspectives, and involves investigating aspects of cultural studies, mythology and anthropology.
*Typo: universalism
There are three parts to this. (Making sense of these dialogue)
Part 1
Highlights of discussion on “Core of Spong’s Belief” and it’s practical implication for Christians
First, I wish to express my thanks to: 1) Michael Patton, 2) Bibliophile for their dialogue on
“Core of Spong’s Belief”
Second: Take home message on their positions and disagreements
a) Michael’s position
• Aligns with traditional Christian theology
• Critique Spong for advocating religious pluralism and challenges to traditional Christian tenets.
• There is a risk in overly liberal or pluralistic views because they might dilute or contradict foundational Christian beliefs.
b) Bibliophile’s Response
• Michael was criticized for confusing modern conservative Protestant views with traditional Christian theology
• That Michael defends as “traditional” is a product of Protestant views with traditional Christian theology.
Underlying disagreement
• There is an inherent tension between tradition and adaptation. While Michael seems to advocate for maintaining certain traditional stances, Bibliophile suggests a more adaptive approach that recognizes the historical evolution of Christian thought.
• Both grapple with the challenges of modernity and post-modernity to Christianity. While Michael appears to see these challenges as threats to core beliefs, Bibliophile perceives them as an essential part of the faith’s ongoing evolution.
( I am open to either one of you to correct or add to my “take home” message…………”)
Part 2
My comments and critique on Bibliophile (B) response to Michale (M).
(B)
“Michael’s distinction between liberal and traditional Christian theology… can be more accurately described as the more recent and regional phenomenon certain Christian groups reacting to the challenge of modernity.” This is a sweeping assertion about M distinction without any specific evidence that his view is limited only to recent phenomena and regional movements. Your use of “more accurately described” suggests a definitive quality that is not justified without additional context of evidence.
(B) “…all of which operate within the Enlightenment paradigm which he, like most evangelicals, assumes without question.” This statement assumes that Michael and “most evangelicals” unquestioningly accept the Enlightenment paradigm. Here we have “Begging the question!” That M operates within an Enlightenment framework—as if it’s an accepted fact without offering evidence.
You use of the term “most evangelicals” is an overgeneralization because it lumps a diverse group of individuals with varying beliefs into a single monolithic category.
False dichotomy when you claim or insinuate that there is a strict binary between “liberal and traditional” Christian theology, in reality, theological beliefs can span a wide spectrum with many nuances.
“What he thinks is traditional Christian theology is really just modern conservative theology.” Here you assume that (M) defines “traditional Christan theology” and that you (B) have a clear understanding when (M) has not explicitly stated his definition.
“a hodge podge of arbitrarily selected “core doctrines: which form the distinctives of the various protestant groups. By labeling modern conservative theology as a “hodge podge” is both dismissive and assumes that there isn’t thoughtful theological grounding for the doctrines chosen by various Protest groups. This oversimplifies the extensive theological debates and scholarship in these traditions.
“it is just the outcome of protestants privileging of Enlightenment rationalism.” Yes, it is true that the Enlightenment had a profound influence on religious thought, claiming that modern Protestant doctrines are merely an “outcome” of Enlightenment rationalism oversimplifies the nuanced interactions between faith and reason throughout Chrisian history.
(B) feels that (M) defense is more about conserving Protestant views than genuinely upholding traditional Christian theology. This argument is faulty due to its genetic fallacy. –(B) criticizes a belief base on its origin or perceived origin rather than its merits. In addition, (M) conservative stance is mainly reactionary against modernity and the challenges of post-modernity. By this logic, it implied that these views might lack depth or genuine theological basis. (B) dismisses (M) conservatism purely on this perceived reactionary origin, is another instance of genetic fallacy. In other words, discrediting a conservative stance on biblical inerrancy merely because it is seen as a response to liberal biblical criticism, without addressing the scriptural or theological arguments for inerrancy.
“One consequence of protestants assuming the rationalist paradigm as sceptics, is consistently setting the debate around religious pluralism in the narrow terms of inclusivity/exclusivity and finding “proof texts” in the Scriptures by reading any portion of sacred text through one or the other lens. Your claim that John 14.6 is a “cornerstone of Christian exclusivism” is a good example of reading a conservative bias into the interpretation of a given text.” (B) here is asserting that the interpretation of John14:6 as exclusivist is due to a conservative bias, (B) is assuming what (B) need to prove. In addition, there is no offer of an alternative interpretation of John 14:6. While critiquing the exclusivist reading, it does not provide its reading or any evidence for why the verse should not be viewed as emphasizing the exclusive nature of Christ for salvation. I find that to be very problematic.
Part 3
In terms of daily living, practicality in regards to the blog that (M) wrote and response from (B).
Terms to understand before delving into practicality of “Spong’s episode”
Universalism in Classical Theism and Christianity—all souls will ultimately be reconciled to God and that there is a universal salvation for everyone, regardless of beliefs or deeds. Has always been a minority view. In regards to Hinduism, there are beliefs around the cyclical nature of existence and the eventual liberation of all souls. It is not accurate to equate Christian universalism with Hinduism perspective on salvation because of its complexities, like comparing oranges with banana.
Religious Pluralism—that multiple religions can co-exist in society and are valid paths to the divine or ultimate reality. Inclusive Christianity—some Christian might believe that a righteous and devout Buddhist or Muslim, who lives according to principles of love and compassion, might also be saved by the grace of God, even if they do not accept Jesus as their savior.
Exclusivism—only one religion is true and that salvation can come only through adherence to its beliefs and practices. All other religions are seen as false or inadequate.
Issues that need to be addressed.
Value of Free Will; The Role of Justice; Dilution of Gospel’s urgency.
FREE WILL: If everyone is ultimately saved regardless of their beliefs or actions, does this undermine the value and significance of free will? If Universalism is true does it mean our earthly choices to accept or reject God are inconsequential? Example: Mother Teresa, Roman Catholic saint and Nobel laureate compared to Jeffery Epstein –sex trafficking, sexual abuse of minor girls. One with deep relationship with God, other life of self-indulgence without remorse and actively rejecting any relationship with God. Question: Exclusivist –Mother Teresa results in eternal reward, while Jeff choices might lead to separation from God and punishment. Universalist view. Both are ultimately reconciled with God. Does this mean at the “end of the day” both will essentially have the same eternal consequence?
How about Mother Teresa in regards to mission? Jeff mission? Mother Teresa efforts are crucial because they directly impact the eternal destinies of those she reaches. Every soul turned to Christ is another soul saved from potential damnation. Consider Jeff mission—partying and sexual indulgence debauchery. If everyone is ultimately saved, the urgency and eternal consequences associated with Mother Teres mission might seem diminished. The question becomes, is her dedication and sacrifice still meaningful?
Role of Justice:
Biblical view—God is just and loving. His love seeks to save, His justice demand that wrongdoing be addressed. Punishment
Universalism—All are saved irrespective of their life choices or beliefs. Question? How does God’s justice manifest if there is no differentiation between those who live righteously and those who do not?
Dilution of Gospel’s urgency—The Great Commission. If universalism is true, all paths ultimately lead to salvation, then the specific message of the Gospel and the call to repentance might seem less crucial.
I suppose many would wonder why Spomg even bothered to retain his position given his rejection of ‘core’ Christian beliefs. But I suppose in the modern era he is not much different from many ‘Cristians’ who don’t really believe many of the teachings of their churches or in their own holy book.
I would like to take this conversation to another level, one that ties universalism, religious pluralism, and Christianity together, all while considering the profound implications of modern technological advancements. This exploration is inspired by blogs from Michael Patton, (B), and Ewan Kerr, who offer a starting platform. Key concepts on Universalism, religious pluralism, Christianity–see above blogs part 1-3 for further details.
As biotechnological advances, especially in fields like AI, longevity research, brain-machine interfacing (BMI), push the boundaries of human existence, questions arise. If technology offers a form of immortality or extended consciousness beyond biological death, how does this intersect with Christian beliefs about the afterlife or universalist views about salvation? If consciousness can be transferred or duplicated, what does this imply about the soul or the “Imago Dei” inherent in every individual from a Christian perspective?
Christianity rooted in biblical teachings, offers perspectives on life, death, and resurrection that seem at odds with technological advances. But, instead of viewing them as binary opposites, we could view them as a dialogue and explore—the ethics of “playing God” with technology–does genetic modification or brain augmentation encroach upon the divine design? How about purpose of life in an era where “death of death” might be a reality If mortality is no longer a certainty, how does that reshape Christian eschatology or universalist beliefs in ultimate reconciliation?
Can religious pluralism act as a bridge here. By recognizing the validity of diverse spiritual experiences and beliefs, religious pluralism foster a space where Christians, universalists and others grapple collectively with these technological advances. The shared ethical, philosophical, and spiritual questions arising from technology can be a unifying force in a pluralistic framework.
Whether one subscribes to universalism, embraces religious pluralism or have traditional Christianity view, the dialogue between these worldviews, in light of modern challenges, is not just beneficial–it’s imperative.
Yes, pluralism acts as a bridge between different faith traditions by creating the dialogue space necessary for comparison, critique and correction. It also gives further and raises the hermeneutical questions: Which interpretation? Which community?
Can I have your name, please. This way when I address you it would be more of personal than like Bibliophile.
Bibliophile is fine with me 🙂
Erik Quek. While your outline of this blog discussion is helpful and your analysis is extensive, your critique misses the mark because it fails to engage with the issues that post-modern scholarship addresses – namely, everything you left out of your glossary of terms, such as: contextualization, hermeneutics and foundationalism.
As far as the epistemological problem in protestantism is concerned – and by the way, Michael has admitted his own foundationalist bias above – this is a major problem for protestants. The post-modern critique has called into question the rationalist basis of protestant theology by showing that, for example, the fact/value distinction is a humanly constructed dichotomy, since there is no such thing as an “objective fact” independent of observer bias and value judgments embedded in interpretative frameworks.
So, since the post-modern critique admits that a plurality of frameworks and interpretations is possible, and each community will develop it’s own language rules and traditions, the question has now moved well beyond trying to decide which interpretation is correct – again, an impossible question for protestants to answer – and asks which community has the right and authority to pass judgment and choose from all the possible interpretations and decide on meaning – an even bigger problem for protestants.
In short, you have missed the point regarding what are the crucial issues in the debate.
Another item which needs to be included in your glossary of terms is: mission. Historically mission has been associated with imperial colonialism; so there has been in the past a misconception about mission pertaining exclusively to the unevangelized in foreign lands not conquered by empire; and in modern times mission was conceived of as being sent away from the local community. Post-modern missiological studies call into question these conceptions of mission
Bibliophile, thank you for your response in regards to the importance of post-modern scholarship, especially in relation to terms like contextualization, hermeneutics, and foundationalism. I value your insights and the depth you bring to our discussions.
However, it’s important to clarify a few points:
1. Intended scope–my primary focus was to elucidate the dynamics between universalism, religious pluralism, and Christianity in our current age. This necessarily means making certain delimitations in the scope to ensure the conversation remain focused and comprehensible.
2. Engaging with post-modern scholarship does not require an exhaustive exploration of every term and concept within it. While contextualization, hermeneutics, and foundationalism are indeed essential, they are part of a larger array of concepts and frameworks. The glossary I provided was meant as a primer, not an exhaustive list.
3. While post-modernism offers valuable critiques and methods, it is one of many ways to approach the topic at hand. Not all discussions on universalism, religious pluralism, and Christianity must necessarily be rooted in post-modernism. Other philosophical, theological and historical frameworks can be just as relevant, depending on the context of the discussion.
4. I would genuinely appreciate it if you could elaborate on how the post-modern concepts you’ve highlighted specifically relate to the main topic. How do they shape our understanding of universalism, religious pluralism, and Christianity? This would help in enriching our discussion and ensuring that we’re addressing the crucial issues you’ve pointed out.
To reiterate, my aim is to foster a constructive dialogue around our main topic while also acknowledging and integrating diverse perspective.
1. The limitation of scope would be too narrow to provide an adequate account if your analysis failed to countenance the post-modern context in which these issues arise.
2. While it is correct that an exhaustive exploration of the terms involved in the debate may not be necessary, it makes no sense to exclude those terms which are, as you say, essential and part of a larger array of concepts and frameworks.
3. The available theological, philosophical and historical frameworks are all developed within and must eventually interact with the broader cultural context of post-modernism.
4. Very briefly: Foundationalism and the post-modern critique of Enlightenment philosophy is a key concept to explore the rationalist basis of modern protestant theology; Contextualisation is a key concept to explore the intersection of faith and culture; Hermeneutics is a key concept to explore the ways in which both reader and text work together to generate meaning: all of these are fundamental questions when considering the issues arising in a context of religious pluralism.
Your emphasis on post-modernism has certainly offered a unique dimension to our discussion, Here are some of my reflections in response:
1. My initial intent was to deeply explore the dynamics between universalism, religious pluralism, and Christianity in the present context. By narrowing down the scope, I aim to offer a coherent analysis of these dynamics. While I appreciate the broader context that postmodern perspectives can provide, my primary focus remains on the intricate relationships between the aforementioned subjects. Nevertheless, I am receptive to weaving in postmodern insights in subsequent discussions.
2. Your assertion that all frameworks invariably converge with post-modernism intrigues me. Could you provide specific examples or reasons to substantiate this? It would greatly enrich our understanding.
3. While I value the breakdown you offered regarding foundationalism, contextualization, and hermeneutics, I was hoping for a deeper connection to the core subjects of our discussion: universalism, religious pluralism and Christianity.
4. I recognize and respect your dedication to post-modernism. However, it appears, at times, overshadows the main themes we are trying to address. I’d appreciate a more balanced integration of post-modernism with the primary subjects at hand.
5. I propose we approach our discussion in stages, starting with our primary topics and then progressively weaving in post-modern perspectives. This will ensure a comprehensive and structured exploration without losing sight of our main subjects.
6. Balance is pivotal in any discussion. While post-modernism holds its importance, it’s essential to directly address our main topics and integrate various perspectives without overemphasizing one over the other.