Schmidt and Egler's critique of Christianity's exclusivist claim to truth rests on two suppositions: (a) that inter-religious pastoral care for dying patients requires a respect for their cultural backgrounds which necessitates accepting the equal validity of their respective (non-Christian) religions, and (b) that exclusivism is incompatible with the Christian love-of-neighbor commandment. In opposition to this critique, (a) the authors' own “pluralist” understanding of Christianity is refuted on two levels. First, it leads to inconsistencies in the authors' own (and very adequate) (...) understanding of pastoral care, especially with regard to their notion of intolerance, and second, it is irreconcilable with explicit New and Old Testament claims to absoluteness. In addition, (b) the authors' understanding of the way in which “exclusivism” justifies intolerance and missionary violence is shown to rest, first, on a secularized reduction of 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 that refutation, a reconsideration of the truly Christian sources of obedience and charity is recommended. (shrink)

Thomas Joseph; Secular vs. Orthodox Chaplaincy: Taking the Kingdom of Heaven Seriously, Christian bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, Volume.

The notion of hospital chaplaincy raises significant concerns, because it provides for the possibility that the chaplain becomes a generic chaplain rather than a member of a particular faith. Despite these reservations, however, I think that Mennonites should serve as hospital chaplains. Instead of seeing themselves as chaplains to all, though, Mennonites ought to see the service they provide as analogous to relief and development work. This would make Mennonite chaplaincy a form of what Mennonite scholar C. Norman Krause calls (...) “agapeic intervention,” which would allow for the ministry to the sick without requiring genericism. (shrink)

It is a mark of arrogance to try to minister in a liturgical or ritual way to individuals of other religions. A hospital chaplain is not a generic brand, all-purpose religious figure capable of fulfilling the religious needs of any. A chaplain should not try to fill in for specific religious ministers, but rather, he should see himself as a human companion to those who need human love and care. In doing this, he can surely be motivated, informed, and sustained (...) by his inner, spiritual life, but should not see himself as replacing the patient's own religious pastor. Excellent examples of how to carry out pastoral duties in pluralist communities come from two contemporary Christians: Mother Theresa and Father Porphyrios. Both of whom remained non-judgmental toward those for whom they cared, while maintaining a strict view of the historical teachings of Christianity and obedience to them. (shrink)

Generic chaplaincy is the result of a devaluing of religious worship and belief to the merely instrumental and experiential. It is an expectable consequence of non-belief in the unique object that would render religious worship intrinsically meaningful and valuable. Generic chaplaincy has no place because all desire God, yet not all have found Him in the fullness with which He has revealed Himself to us, or even in the fullness with which we may be aware of Him through natural reason. (...) In consequence, not all are equally aware of God. A chaplaincy that challenges patients respectfully, and encourages spiritual growth and awareness, including the overcoming of sin and error, is appropriate. (shrink)