| Abstract: | Schmidt and Egler's critique of Christianity's exclusivist claimto truth rests on two suppositions: (a) that inter-religiouspastoral care for dying patients requires a respect for theircultural backgrounds which necessitates accepting the equalvalidity of their respective (non-Christian) religions, and(b) that exclusivism is incompatible with the Christian love-of-neighborcommandment. In opposition to this critique, (a) the authors'own "pluralist" understanding of Christianity is refuted ontwo levels. First, it leads to inconsistencies in the authors'own (and very adequate) understanding of pastoral care, especiallywith regard to their notion of intolerance, and second, it isirreconcilable with explicit New and Old Testament claims toabsoluteness. In addition, (b) the authors' understanding ofthe way in which "exclusivism" justifies intolerance and missionaryviolence is shown to rest, first, on a secularized reductionof Christianity, i.e., of Christians' own "religious identity"as well as of the Christian way of "helping those in need,"and second, on a merely theoretical (rather than also practical)view of Christians' commitment to God. As a corollary to thatrefutation, a reconsideration of the truly Christian sourcesof obedience and charity is recommended. |
