Menu

86 Sermon Illustrations on Exclusivism

86 illustrations Page 1 of 2

Exclusivism in Christian preaching asserts that salvation is found only through Jesus Christ, emphasizing the necessity of faith in Him alone (John 14:6). Illustrations often use images of clear boundaries, closed doors, or narrow paths to convey the exclusivity of the gospel message and the importance of proclaiming truth amid pluralistic challenges (Acts 4:12). This theme addresses the tension between truth claims and accusations of intolerance.

By Any Other Name

Deuteronomy 5:6

Sometimes I feel like I spend a significant portion of my life on hold waiting for “the next available representative.” Customer service help lines are a feature of American life. We are accustomed to answering question after question about our personal data and account histories, often to get a simple question answered or a problem fixed. When I finally make it through the hold music and the identification questions, I feel like I'm at the mercy of the representative, fervently hoping they won't transfer me or tell me that they can't help me.

I've learned that when speaking to anonymous voices, it is helpful to ask for the name of the person on the other end of the line. After all, they already know most of what there is to know about me, the least I should know about them is their name! When you ask for a person's name, you personalize the conversation. They become less a person reading from a script and more a person who has probably been put on hold a time or two in his life as well. It's considerate to ask another person their name.

But I have to admit, what is often in my mind when I ask for the person's name is a hope for accountability. If I know a person's name, I can call and follow-up on whatever information they've given me. If they don't follow through on something they've promised me, they know I could report them to their supervisor. People are much more likely to keep their word when you know their name.

Several times in the Scriptures, biblical characters who encounter God ask for his name. This may seem curious to those of us who are steeped in monotheism. He is God; why should we expect Him to have a name? But when Jacob wrestled with God and when Moses encountered Him in the burning bush, both had been living in cultures where many gods were worshiped. Their reflexive instinct may have been to make sure they properly understood who this God that they were dealing with was.

But there is more to asking for a name than the mere purpose of identification. Both Moses and Jacob asked for God's name after He had promised them extraordinary things. It is almost as if they wanted to be able to hold Him accountable if the promises didn't come true. But when the name given is the name of God, all doubt in his promises should flee.

We serve a God who has a proper name: He is Yahweh. He also has numerous titles and metaphorical names: He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; He is the Alpha and Omega; He is the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. The Prince of Peace walked this earth, and his name was Jesus of Nazareth, who is called the Christ. The Scriptures give us over one hundred descriptive names and titles for Jesus. The titles of God tell us about his character. Each descriptive name reveals to us a different facet, reflecting the brilliance that is his glory.

But the fact that God has many names should not lead us to believe that any name will do for him. The culture of pluralism gives us even greater reason to know God's name. Because, in our day, we commonly refer to our Maker in somewhat generic terms (usually God or Lord, perhaps Father), some believe that we serve a generic God. They suppose that He is somehow revealed in the teachings of all major religions. But the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the God who said to Moses, “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods besides me” (Deuteronomy 5:6-7).

There is no God like our God, and there is no other name by which man can be saved. Do not confuse Him with any other, and do not neglect to call on the Name that is above all names.

________

Copyright © 2005 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

Conversion Controversy: Are Christians Intolerant?

John 5:23

When Pope John Paul II made plans to visit India last week, Hindu groups made a bizarre demand: They insisted that the head of the Roman Catholic Church declare that Christ is NOT the only route to salvation. One Hindu leader explained why: "An ideology that condemns all others to eternal hell," he said, "is selfish, exclusionist, and promotes hatred."

Since when did bearing witness of Christ turn into promoting "hatred"?

We hear the same criticism here at home, as well. Last September, during the Jewish high holiday period, the Southern Baptist Convention published a booklet urging Christians to pray for the conversion of Jews everywhere. Jewish leaders and others were outraged. As one newspaper columnist wrote, "These conversion efforts are reminiscent of the Middle Ages, when the Church burned at the stake anyone who refused to convert."

Praying for someone is like burning him at the stake?

And it's not just Hindus and Jews who take offense these days at the very idea of Christian evangelism. The Southern Baptist Convention has also angered Muslims by suggesting that Christians pray for their conversion.

How times have changed. It used to be understood that Christianity is a universalist religion, one that claims to be true for all people -- in contrast to pagan religions, which were often tied to a particular place or ethnic group. And since it is a religion for all humankind, Christianity is by nature a proselytizing religion -- one that seeks to convert others by sharing the Good News.

But in today's intellectual climate, people are offended because they have rejected the notion of any universal truth -- at least in the area of religion. Objective truth is found, if anywhere, only in science; in matters of religion and morality, all we have is subjective faith and belief. So, there can be different truths for different groups -- or in the words of law professor Phillip Johnson, writing in Touchstone, knowledge is considered "relative to particular interpretive communities."

Thus, to try to persuade others of universal truth claims is regarded as an insult. In today's postmodernist world, the attitude is: I have my truth, and you have yours, and for you to intrude on mine is a violation of courtesy.

Christians have to understand that when we preach the Gospel today, those listening will slot our message into postmodernist mental categories: They will regard Christianity as one more non-rational, subjective belief system. Hence, to try to persuade others of our beliefs is taken as an offense against the peace.

In this way, the traditional ideal of tolerance has turned into INtolerance -- where Christianity's universalist claims are denounced as "selfish, exclusionist, and promot[ing] hatred."

Christians face a huge apologetics task in order to preach the Gospel in today's world. Before we can persuade people that Christianity is true, we must first explain the very nature of truth. We must explain that we are not talking about a private, subjective experience, but about a truth that is universally valid and rationally defensible. Our God is a god of creation, who created every one of us in His image.

It would be easy to get angry at those who would deny us our right to exercise our own faith. Instead of getting angry, we ought to gently explain that we pray for them because we love them.

____________

Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

The Biblical Practice of Closed Communion In the Light of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

1 Corinthians 4:1

PART 1: PAUL’S TEACHING REGARDING THE REAL PRESENCE AND WORTHY RECEPTION

Briefly stated, closed communion1 means that the sacrament must not be given to the impenitent, the unforgiving, the heterodox2, and those who are unable to examine themselves, such as infants, the unconscious, and those improperly instructed. Since Holy Communion is a means of grace to be received by faith after proper self-examination, and, subordinately, a testimony to the unity of faith and confession, giving the sacrament to the above mentioned persons would violate the purpose of t he sacrament. Additionally, since unworthy recipients receive the body and blood of Christ to their judgment, it is an act of Christian love, and of responsible stewardship of the mysteries of God, to deny the sacrament to those not able to make proper use of it (1 Cor. 4:1).

This practice of closed communion has been the universal practice of the church3 from the days of the apostles through the Reformation4 up to the time when unionism reared its head. In the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, closed communion was the universal practice until around world war two. Since that time the practice has been gradually disintegrating, and in some parts of the synod, has nearly fallen into disuse. In recent years there has been a growing movement to restore or reintroduce the practice of closed communion to its rightful place. This movement has not proceeded without some considerable opposition throughout the synod, and there is at present a good deal of division among us regarding this question. This division will not be overcome by ignoring the issue and hoping it will go away. It can only be overcome by talking about closed communion in the light of the Word of God and our Lutheran Confessions, and by a willingness to submit to God’s truth regardless of the consequences.

It is my purpose here to contribute to this discussion by examining 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 and drawing out its implications for faithful stewardship of the sacrament of the altar. I hope to show that closed communion is the biblical practice, and that it is necessitated by Paul’s discussion of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament and the implications of this teaching for unworthy and worthy reception, self examination, and discerning the Lord’s body. I also hope to demonstrate that closed communion is further necessitated by the secondary purpose of the sacrament as a testimony to the unity of faith and confession in the light of Paul’s words about the sacrament being a proclamation and a remembrance.

THE CORINTHIAN SITUATION

The congregation at Corinth was deeply troubled. A careful reading of 1 and 2 Corinthians reveals a congregation riddled with problems that needed correcting. There were divisions and arguments; carnal strife and a party spirit. Many members were overly impressed with the human wisdom of the philosophers. There was a sizable group who held an arrogant attitude toward Paul and his apostleship. Gross sexual immorality was tolerated , and there w as confusion about marriage and divorce. Christians were dragging Christians into court before the unbelieving world and bringing disrepute upon the church. The worship of the congregation had given way to charismatic excesses, and there were people claiming that there is no resurrection from the dead. While the Corinthian congregation was still a Christian congregation, it was a sick congregation in need of healing. Through Paul, the Lord applied His Word to the various situations in the congregation in order to bring about repentance and faith, and to restore the congregation to spiritual and doctrinal health.

In the 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul addresses a most serious situation: many in the congregation had begun to view the Lord’s Supper as a common meal or feast. Not discerning the Lord’s body in the sacrament, they were eating and drinking serious judgment upon themselves. This misuse of the sacrament produced the further result of increasing the schisms and heresies already present.

1 Corinthians 11:17-22

Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you

come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first

of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are

divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must

also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be

recognized among you. 20 Therefore when you come together in one

place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. 21 For in eating,

each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry

and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat

and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame

those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise

you in this? I do not praise you.

In introducing the subject matter of proper us e of the Lord’s Supper, Paul makes the statement that the Corinthians “come together not for the better but for the worse”. Their abuse of the sacrament was serious and had dire negative consequences.

1 Corinthians 11:30

For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.

1 Corinthians 11:34

But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, LEST YOU COME

TOGETHER FOR JUDGMENT. And the rest I will set in order when I

come.

Great harm was being wrought by their coming together at the Lord’s table; the abuses of the sacrament were temporally and spiritually detrimental to the Corinthians.

Paul goes on to mention divisions and factions, the former referring to cliques or splits among the members, and the latter, being more grave, are divisions which tear a congregation asunder. The cliques or splits in the congregation threaten to develop into divisions or heresies if certain evil beginnings run their course without being eradicated.5 The idea of coming together as a church is antithetical to splits and divisions. These splits and heresies are repugnant to Paul. Fellowship at the altar presupposes doctrinal unity. Altar fellowship is church fellowship. Schisms and heresies are a scandal to that unity. As we survey 1 Corinthians, we get a feeling for just what these divisions were, and they included questions of doctrine, morality, worship, etc.

The Corinthians had made it impossible to eat the Lord’s Supper when they came together. Lenski points out that ouketi with the infinitive means ‘it is impossible’. The schisms and heresies (divisions and factions) are given further expression in the actual conduct of those gathered. The Lord’s Supper was originally celebrated within the context of a meal called the ‘Agape’. The various members brought food as they were able, and the congregation ate this solemn meal together, at the conclusion of which, the sacrament was celebrated with bread and wine reserved for that purpose. The Corinthian Agape had degenerated to a mere common meal during which the schisms and factions present in the church found expression. Some went ahead and ate before others leaving none for the poor, others became drunk on the wine served.6 What an awful situation! How could this happen? How could Christians allow the celebration of the sacrament to degenerate to such a point?

The answer to this question is not to be found simply in the presence of divisions and cliques in the congregation. It goes deeper. The Agape, or, Love Feast degenerated when the Corinthians failed to discern t he body of the Lord in the sacrament and began to look upon the sacrament as ordinary food, or a common meal. The central purpose of the sacramental meal, forgiveness, life and salvation, proclaimed, offered and given in the Supper; and the subordinate purpose of the Eucharist as a bond and testimony to the unity of faith and doctrine of those gathered at the Lord’s table, were lost when the Real Presence was lost.7

LUTHER: “St Paul reproves the Corinthians not for their unworthy remembrance of the suffering of Christ, as a child can easily read and prove. He describes in express words what the sin of the Corinthians was [1 Cor. 11:20ff.]: they did not wait for one another, but whoever came early ate early, so that those who came later found nothing and were humiliated, and thus THEY MADE A MERE FEAST OUT OF THE SUPPER AS IF IT WERE NOTHING BUT AN ORDINARY MEAL. This is what he says: ‘when you meet together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat. For each one goes ahead with his own meal.’ Do you hear this? They did not celebrate the Supper of the Lord but AN INDULGENCE OF THEIR BELLY. While others were late in coming, they went ahead, allowed the Lord’s Supper t o be neglected, and ate their meal, just as Paul says afterward, ‘When you come together to eat, wait for one another, lest you come together to be condemned’ [11:33]. YOU SEE THEN THAT THE SIN CONSISTED IN THE EATING.”8

LENSKI: “In other words, the Agape ceased to be an Agape and degenerated into just ordinary eating, each clique eating by itself. This virtual abolition of the Agape made the celebration of the Holy Supper itself an impossibility. For at this time the two were still one celebration, the Agape leading up to the sacrament.”9

Yes, the Corinthians were divided by cliques and splits, and yes, these divisions found unfortunate expression in their conduct towards one another at the Lord’s Table. But the root problem is that they did not believe, or had forgotten, that the true body and blood of Christ are in the sacrament, and, not discerning the Lord’s body, they were eating and drinking judgment upon themselves. This is a faith problem and Paul addresses it as such. Notice, as we move on to our next section, that Paul does not address the Corinthian problem by exhorting them to unity or brotherliness. He does not issue a call to greater sanctification.10 He seeks to rectify what is lacking in their faith by teaching the Real Presence and its implications for worthy and unworthy reception of the sacrament. The Supper is a means of grace to be received by penitent faith in what is there offered and given. Subordinately, it is a remembrance, a proclamation of the death of Christ, a bond and testimony of the unity of faith and doctrine shared by those gathered at the altar.

PAUL ADDRESSES THE CORINTHIAN SITUATION

Agreeing with Luther that “the sin consisted in the eating”, I now hope to demonstrate how St. Paul dealt with the problem. Addressing the Corinthian situation as a faith problem, he teaches them again what they should have known and believed: The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament.

1 Corinthians 11:23-25

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you:

that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed

took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and

said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do

this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took

the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new testament in

My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of

Me.”

The phrase, “I received...that which I also delivered to you” is strikingly similar to 15:3, “I delivered to you first of all that which I also received”. In both passages Paul is transmitting doctrinal content of the highest import; and in both contexts is correcting error that has serious negative consequences. What Jesus had given Paul, he had already delivered to the Corinthians. They had already been taught proper doctrine concerning Holy Communion and it’s proper administration. It seems, however, that they were in need of a refresher course, to say the least. We might be amazed that the Corinthians had fallen into error regarding the real presence and the purpose of the sacrament, except that we’ve seen it again and again in the history of the Lutheran Church, whether in the form of the Melancthonian Variata, Pietism, Rationalism, the Union Churches, or even modern ecumenism. So Paul reminds them, with nothing less than the words of our Lord, that the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are the true body and blood of Christ. These words of the Lord also remind us that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a remembrance of Him. And this remembrance, this celebration of the saving death of Christ, is done precisely in the oral reception of the body and blood given and shed for us. “Let them keep the sacrament according to these words, and all will be well” (Lenski p. 463).

It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into detail regarding what the verba teach regarding the Real Presence. For our purposes I wish merely to state what is necessary in order to follow St. Paul’s argument. In the sacrament Christ gives us His own true body and blood for the forgiveness of sins and all other blessings, victory over sin and hell and strength for new life in Him. “As Christians partake of this sacrament together, they make a solemn public confession of Christ and of unity in the truth of His gospel.”11 Having presented the Dominical words, St. Paul now goes on to bring out their implications for worthy and unworthy reception.

1 Corinthians 11:26-32

For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you

proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. 27 Therefore whoever

eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy

manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But

let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and

drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy

manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the

Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among

you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we

would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened

by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

In V. 26 Paul brings out what Jesus said about the Supper being a remembrance. When we commune, we proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. The Lord’s Supper is pure Gospel, based entirely on Christ’s sacrificial death and divine institution. Note how often Paul focuses us on ‘eating this bread’ and ‘drinking t his cup’, connecting what he says about worthy and unworthy reception to the words of institution and the bread which is the body of Christ, and the wine which is the blood of Christ.

Paul now goes on to say whoever communes unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord (v. 27). Note, we sin, not against our brethren, not against symbols of Christ’s body and blood, but against the very body and blood of the Lord received orally in the sacrament. Worthiness or unworthiness is a matter of faith, not of works. Therefore our Catechism teaches, “Fasting and bodily preparations are certainly fine outward training. But that person is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: ‘given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins’. But anyone who does not believe these words or doubts them is unworthy and unprepared, for the words ‘for you’ require all hearts to believe.” The Corinthians failure was a failure of faith. They did not believe the words of our Lord, and therefore they sinned in that they communed without “discerning the Lord’s body”, that is, without believing in the real presence.

LUTHER: “Now the nature and manner of the words compel the conclusion that he who eats unworthily is guilty in regard to what he eats... For the text mightily compels that the sin occurs in the eating and the drinking...and yet it says that the sin is committed against the body and blood of the Lord.”12

Note, in vss. 23-25 Paul lays out the verba which make plain the doctrine of the Real Presence. Then He says that unworthy communicants sin in the eating and drinking, against the body and blood of Christ. This passage teaches clearly that the unworthy and the wicked do receive the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, and that in receiving it unworthily, they sin against that body and blood.

Because of the very real danger of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord it is necessary for a would-be communicant to examine, or test, himself as to his fitness for the sacrament. This involves contrition and faith, i.e., repentance. By faith here, I mean faith in Christ and in His words in the Sacrament. Those who are unable to examine themselves, are not to be given the Lord’s Supper. Who are they? Infants, those who are unconscious, and those who have not been properly instructed in the faith and in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Such persons are denied the sacrament (until they are properly able to receive it) out of Christian love and concern for their spiritual welfare.

Now we come to V. 29, where Paul amplifies what he said in V. 27 so as to drive home his point about the nee d to examine one’s s elf and commune worthily.

1 Corinthians 11:29

For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks

judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s b ody.

Notice that Paul says that the unworthy communicant “eats and drinks judgment to himself”. He does this because he eats and drinks “not discerning the Lord’s body”.13 There has been much discussion in our circles lately about the meaning of this phrase. It has been posited that “discerning the Lord’s body” refers not the body of Christ in the sacrament, but to the mystical body of Christ, i.e., the church. This interpretation, however, violates the context of our pericope in several ways.

V. 27 speaks of the unworthy eater sinning against the body and blood of the Lord, the same body and blood that are referred t o in the verba, and not the mystical body. Further, all of the ‘body’ language in our context (11:17-34) refers to the body of Christ in the sacrament. While in another context, Paul uses ‘body’ language to describe the church (12:12ff.), he does not do so in our text. Rather, in our context he uses ‘ecclesia’ and related “called, gathered assembly language” to talk about the church. It would be jarring indeed, if Paul, in a context so grammatically unified as this passage is, were to suddenly use the word ‘body’ in a way entirely different than he’s used it several times in the five preceding verses when he is trying to make the same point.

No, the context will really only allow “discerning the Lord’s body” to mean the body of Christ in the sacrament. Hence, to discern the Lord’s body here, means to believe in the Real Presence, and to fail to discern the Lord’s body means to not believe in the Real Presence.

LUTHER: “The text proves irrefutably that ‘eating unworthily’ and ‘not discerning the body of Christ’ are the same thing, as we understand from the word just as it reads literal ly, that the Corinthians ate the bread with the misconception and misunderstanding that it was ordinary bread, and discerned no difference between this bread and other bread. This is certainly what is meant by ‘unworthily eating the body of Christ’. This is why Paul admonishes them to examine themselves and perceive who they are and how they regard this bread. If they do not regard it as the body of Christ, or treat it as if it were not the body of Christ, then they do not discern the body of Christ; and this offense will not go unpunished.”14

So Luther, and so the united voice of orthodox Lutheranism across the centuries. It is rather interesting to note that in addition to Lutheran dogmaticians and commentators, I consulted three commentaries by “Reformed” scholars to see how non-Lutherans would approach our passage. F.W. Grosheide, Leon Morris, and Matthew Henry were all in agreement that ‘discerning the Lord’s body’ refers to the sacramental body and not the mystical body. What makes this especially interesting is that none of these commentators teaches the Real Presence, and yet they realize that this passage is referring to how we view the sacrament. Only Morris, in passing, mentions the mystical body interpretation, which he dismisses as violating the context of the passage.15 So we cannot sidestep the biblical fact that knowingly allowing someone who does not believe in the Real Presence to commune at our altars is to facilitate them in eating and drinking judgment upon themselves.

What shape does this judgment take? In the Corinthian congregation the Lord imposed such temporal punishments upon unworthy communicants as physical illness, weakness, and death. I say temporal punishments because Paul uses the word “sleep” for death in V. 30, which is his usual way of referring to the death of a believer, and because he refers to these judgments as the chastening of the Lord in contrast to “condemnation with the world “.

Before we move on to the second part of this paper, let me summarize what I have tried to demonstrate thus far. The sacrament of the altar has two purposes: it is a mean s of grace through which we receive forgiveness, life, and salvation, and it is a testimony to the unity of faith of those gathered together at the altar. Faith in Christ and His words in the sacrament are what constitutes worthy reception. Unworthy recipients receive judgment, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Communion fellowship presupposes unity of faith and doctrine. Therefore, proper stewardship of the mysteries of God requires that in our churches the sacrament be given only to those who have received proper instruction and have given an account of their faith. In the second part of this paper I would like to discuss some of the current issues related to proper sacramental stewardship.

PART 2: OBSERVATIONS AND COMMENTS REGARDING OUR CURRENT SITUATION

Is it true? Is it Biblical? Is it Lutheran?

There are many questions and attitudes about closed communion being voiced today. Some say it turns people off; it is a hindrance to growth. Some say that it is a relic from the past that is out of step in a church environment steeped in ‘ambiguous denominationalism’. Some say it creates strife in the church. Others say that it is difficult to do in practice. Before we consider these questions, there is another question that must be considered first, apart from these other concerns, and that is, is closed communion biblical, is it true, is it Lutheran? Is it true that unworthy communicants receive the body and blood of Christ to their judgment? Is it true that communion fellowship is church fellowship, and that to admit one to the altar who is of a different faith than those gathered at the altar is a violation of the purpose of the sacrament as a bond and testimony to the unity of faith? If the practice of closed communion is biblical, and I believe that it is, then whatever difficulties it presents to us as we carry out the mission of the church are difficulties that the Lord wants us to deal with. And whatever offense is given by a faithful and loving application of this practice is unavoidable and is ultimately God’s concern, in much the same way as the preaching of the cross is “an offense to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks” (1 Cor. 1:23). We must decide on the basis of Scripture, with the help of our Lutheran Confessions and the writings of our Orthodox fathers, and not on the basis of ‘Theology by Anecdote’, or ‘Theology by Horror Story’ so popular these days.

LOVE AND CLOSED COMMUNION.

It is sometimes assumed that the real motivation behind the practice of closed communion is a desire to exclude people; an expression of religious arrogance. Of all the Pastors I know who implement this practice in the congregations they serve, not one of them is motivated by any such attitude of unchristian pride. In fact, the opposite is true; it is a singularly humbling experience. As stewards of the mysteries (1 Cor. 4:1), love of God and His Word, and love of neighbor, is the proper motivation for closed communion. Loving our neighbor, we seek to keep him or her from incurring God’s judgment by unworthy reception of the sacrament. Loving God and His Word we ask that our neighbor receive proper instruction and give account of their faith so that we may kneel in unity of faith and confession at the Lord’s altar, and not seek to express a unity that is not really there. There are some who cannot see closed communion as a loving practice, to whom the question must be asked whether we are operating with a definition and conception of love that flows from God’s Word or one that flows from popular culture. Luther: “Faith must be the master of love... Love ceases when it spoils the Word of God.”16

ORTHODOXY, HETERODOXY AND AMBIGUOUS DENOMINATIONALISM.

Missouri Synod Lutherans believe that there is a true visible church of Christ on earth, and that the Evangelical Lutheran Church, where the gospel is purely preached and the sacraments are rightly administered, is that true visible church.17 Churches which depart from the pure teaching of the Word of God in word or in practice, are heterodox and not orthodox. All Christians have a responsibility to avoid heterodox churches and unite with orthodox churches. Church fellowship and hence, communion fellowship, is impossible between orthodox and heterodox churches.18 In our stewardship of the mysteries, this must be taken into account.

However, we live at a time when many church people have no particular loyalty to the doctrinal positions of the denominations to which their congregations belong. In fact many have no particular loyalty to a denomination. We live at a time when many choose their church on purely private, individualistic grounds. Often we Missouri Synod people are told that this situation is inevitable, and that we had better adjust our practices to face denominational ambiguity as a reality.

It would be folly to think that the reasons for this declining denominational loyalty could be summed up in a sentence or two. Certainly there are numerous reasons for this situation. But whatever the many reasons may be, they are only symptoms of the real disease.

“The real disease is declining loyalty to a God greater than ourselves. Put differently, the majority of Americans are not out to find a “user friendly” church; rather, if they are “church-shopping” at all, they go in search of a church which proclaims a God who will not demand too much of them. They certainly want a God who will keep his hands off at least a few of the patches which make up the quilts of their lives. They desire churches which might boast spotless nurseries and a myriad of “need-meeting” programs, but in the long run the thing that will most likely keep them coming back is the potential of these churches to serve as havens for selective unbelief.”19

To such an attitude we ought not accommodate ourselves. Rather we should continue to stand forth as a beacon against such ‘individualism’, and hold people responsible, as God does, for the public profession of faith that they made when they became a member of a particular church body. Whatever a persons personal opinions may be, when they, publicly professing their faith, became members of a particular church, they declared themselves to be in unity with that church’s confession, as a solemn public act which God and the congregation are called upon to witness.

Therefore we ought to make our decisions regarding who may commune, based not on the personal opinions of a visitor who claims to believe what we believe, but on the basis of the public confession that that person made before God and men when they joined the congregation to which they belong. If they wish to be Lutheran they may do so by making a profession of faith and becoming a member of our congregation, and then they will be able rightly to commune with us. In this way we safeguard prospective members and our own people against the continual slide into unbelief that is evident in these last days, and we encourage responsible, conscientious adherence to the truth which God takes so seriously.

OUR PARTICULAR LUTHERAN SORROW.

It is sad enough that there are sharp divisions between Christians due to doctrinal error. We Lutherans live in a double sorrow, because being a doctrinal, confessional church, we are particularly pained by the serious divisions among Lutherans. This is a tragedy, but it is a reality. There are, at last official count, 18 separate Lutheran denominations in this country. Three of these bodies are ethnic in makeup, four are Pietist, one large body is liberal, six are confessional, and three are anybody’s guess. While most of these bodies are very tiny, when considered as a whole, three distinct groups emerge: Confessional Lutherans, Liberal Lutherans, and Pietistical Lutherans.

Confessional Lutherans, as typified by the LCMS, confess an infallible, inerrant Bible, and adopt a “quia” subscription to the Lutheran Confessions. The pietists, as typified by the Lutheran Brethren, would be very reserved about confessional subscription beyond the Augustana and the Catechism. Liberal Lutherans, as typified by the ELCA, have a ‘low’ view of Scripture, and a tentative subscription to the Lutheran Confessions.

As the recent release of the ELCA Sexuality Study, and plans for full communion with the Episcopalians and other “Reformed” bodies by the end of this decade, indicate, The ELCA and its predecessor bodies have been increasingly moving away from historic Lutheranism and embracing generic liberal Protestantism to such an extent that even LCMS members who were formerly naive about the doctrinal situation in ELCA are now realizing that there is little hope for fellowship in that direction. It is becoming more and more difficult to avoid the conclusion that ELCA is a heterodox body and that we are fully justified in declining to have altar and pulpit fellowship with them. Our communion practices should reflect this realization. We do no one any good by camouflaging the errors of their church with a show of fellowship that doesn’t in truth exist.

MAXIMUM SACRAMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND MINIMUM OFFENSE.

Closed communion is always going to offend some people no matter how lovingly it is applied or how carefully it is explained. There is little we can do about that. However, we may want to begin to rethink our communion practices in order to be faithful stewards and at the same time minimizing possible offense. It is instructive here to look to the church’s past and see how things were handled by our predecessors. In the early church, all catechumens and all visitors were escorted out after the sermon and before the communion began, so that only members were even present at the communion service. In addition, letters of commendation were given to traveling Christians by their Pastors or Bishops so that they would be accepted in congregations along their journey. There is some indication also that in the early church some congregations met for worship early in the morning, then went about their daily tasks, gathering again in the evening for the Agape and Holy Communion. In the Lutheran Church from the times of the Reformation until around the second world war the common practice was some form of “pre-registration” which gave the Pastor an opportunity to speak with people in the interest of their spiritual welfare, and avoided the unfortunate situation of trying to practice faithful communion stewardship in the five minutes before a service begins. In the congregation where the writer grew up, a hymn was sung after the General Prayer, and those not communing were given an opportunity to leave before the Communion began. It is increasingly common for congregations to put a ‘communion statement’ in the bulletin to help visitors understand our practice. If this is enacted an effort should be made to avoid the Scylla of a hard nosed, arrogant statement, and the Charybdis of an obtuse statement that leaves the visitor wondering. As we hammer out this practice of closed communion together, and begin to come to agreement under the Word, we will also have t o talk about the bes t ways to clearly, yet winsomely communicate our position, and also how to adopt universal practices from congregation to congregation so that our churches do not step on one anothers’ toes regarding communion practices.

THE LAW, THE GOSPEL, AND CLOSED COMMUNION.

It has been said by some, that closed communion is a violation of the proper distinction between law and gospel in that it makes a law out of the gospel, i.e., the administration of the Lord’s Supper. I disagree. The Gospel and Baptism were given to create faith (and also to strengthen already present faith). Holy Communion, however, was given to strengthen a faith that is already there. Proper preaching of the Gospel does not presuppose faith, but proper administration of Holy Communion, and proper reception of Holy Communion, do presuppose faith. The Eucharist is not used to create faith, or to create unity; it strengthens an already present faith, and expresses an already present unity among those communing together. Furthermore, unworthy use of the sacrament is warned against in rather strong language (1 Cor. 11:27-30). Therefore when we decline to commune one who does not believe the real presence, we properly apply the law to that person, who comes without proper faith, and for reasons other than those for which the sacrament is given. Secondly, when we decline to commune one who is not united with us in faith and doctrine, we are recognizing what Scripture is very clear about: doctrinal error is a sin, and like all sin, is to be repented of and forsaken by the grace of God. Until that happens, there can be no expression of a unity that really doesn’t exist.

In each of these cases, every effort is made to clearly articulate the Scriptural teaching regarding the purpose of the Sacrament and why we do what we do. Many times this results in fruitful discussion that leads to good things for all concerned. Sometimes not. However, even in witnessing, preaching, and counseling, the proper application of Law and Gospel doesn’t always meet with happy reactions. And that brings me to my final comment:

CLOSED COMMUNION AND CROSS BEARING.

If closed communion is the true and biblical way to practice stewardship of the mysteries (and again, I believe that it is), the n we must practice it lovingly and conscientiously. If in properly administering the means of grace, offense is given or taken, we must be willing to take our lumps. Such is part of the ‘scandal’ of the cross. We live in an age of theological relativism and social egalitarianism. Most of the churches in our land that go under the heading of ‘mainline’, have capitulated, to one degree or another, to this spirit. Nothing annoys and angers the spirit of this age more than when persons or churches represent themselves as being ‘right’ or ‘orthodox’, unless they do it unnoticeably, off in a corner somewhere. The minute our claim to orthodoxy becomes noticeable, the world heaps scorn upon us. The practice of closed communion is one of those places where orthodox Lutheranism flies in the face of theological relativism and social egalitarianism. We should not be surprised, nor should we flinch, when we are reviled and even persecuted. Rather, rejoicing that “great is your reward in heaven”, we happily take up our crosses and follow Christ, who for our sakes took up His cross.

================

Endnotes

1. Although the term ‘close communion’ has been used for a good many years in Missouri Synod circles, Dr. Norman Nagel has demonstrated rather conclusively that ‘closed communion’ is the proper term. See: Concordia Journal, Jan. 1991, p. 27.

2. i.e., those who are members of, and/or regular communicants at, churches whose confession of faith is different from ours.

3. ...with a few modifications. For example, the Eastern Orthodox churches commune infants.

4. See, Elert, Werner, EUCHARIST AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP IN THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966.

5. Lenski, R.C.H., INTERPRETATION OF 1 AND 2 CORINTHIANS. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1937, pp. 456-457.

6. As a side note, this reference to drunkenness points out just what is meant by the fruit of the vine, or wine, in the light of fundamentalist and pietistical protestations to the contrary. To use any substitute for the biblical elements raises, or can raise, doubts in the recipient as to whether what is offered is what Christ instituted. Such doubt makes faithful reception impossible.

7. It’s only a short step from ‘commemorative meal’ to ‘pot-luck supper’ and beyond!?

8. Luther, Martin, CONFESSION CONCERNING CHRIST’S SUPPER, LW, vol. 37, pp. 342-343.

9. Lenski, R.C.H., INTERPRETATION OF 1 AND 2 CORINTHIANS, p. 459.

10. I do not mean to imply that the Corinthians’ sanctification did not need addressing, or that it is improper to preach sanctification. It is through the Gospel, however, that the Spirit creates faith, and such faith bears fruit in good works. Real sanctification is Gospel motivated and Spirit empowered.

11. LUTHER’S SMALL CATECHISM WITH EXPLANATION. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1991, pp. 234-235.

12. Quoted in Lenski, p. 479.

13. I have followed the Byzantine text here because I believe it to be the superior reading. Although the Nestle/UBS text follows the Alexandrian texts, the level o f certainty noted in the apparatus of UB S 3, {C}, strengthens the case for the Majority Text reading. However the context shows clearly how “body” is to be interpreted even if one chooses the reading followed by the critical texts.

14. LW, vol. 37, p. 347.

15. Grosheide, F.W., COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. Grand Rapids: W. M. B. Eerdmans, 1953. Henry, Matthew, COMMENTARY ON THE WHOLE BIBLE. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991. Morris, Leon, THE FIRST E PISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975.

16. Luther, Martin, Erlangen edition, vol. 39, pp. 121-122, quoted from an unpublished translation by Pr. Joel Baseley.

17. Walther, C.F.W. THE TRUE VISIBLE CHURCH AND THE FORM OF A CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961.

18. Walther, “Communion Fellowship,” Essays for the Church, Vol. 1. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1992.

19. Shurb, Ken, “Declining Denominational Loyalty,” Logia, vol. 2, No. 4, p. 46.

*

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

from Internet · Rev. William P. Terjesen, Pastor Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer, Peekskill, Ny Lent, 1994 via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database lord s supper

Evangelicalism's Terminal Generation?

John 14:6

Is this evangelicalism’s terminal generation? Without doubt, we are facing an unprecedented set of challenges to evangelical identity. The rise of a postmodern culture has produced an intellectual context in which the very concept of truth is held under suspicion, and claims to revealed truth are simply ruled out of order.

Benjamin Franklin, caught on the street during a break in the Constitutional Convention, is said to have been asked by a passerby to describe the new order to be proposed. “A republic,” he answered, “if you can keep it.” By definition, evangelicals are to be a Gospel people, cherishing, teaching, and sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We will remain evangelical only insofar as we maintain the integrity of our Gospel witness -- if we can keep it. We are truly evangelical only if we keep our testimony to the Gospel without confusion or compromise.

We should be very concerned about certain trends in contemporary evangelicalism that threaten this integrity. The first is an ominous confusion about the Gospel itself. The heart of the Gospel is the objective truth that Christ died for sinners, and that salvation is by grace alone through faith in Christ -- alone. The cardinal doctrine of justification by faith is, as Martin Luther warned, “the article by which the church stands or falls.”

If so, the church is falling in many quarters. Much of what is presented in many pulpits -- and marketed by flashy television preachers -- bears little resemblance to this simple message. Instead, sinners are told to seek after riches, material blessings, vibrant health, and earthly rewards. Salvation is packaged as a product to be hawked on the airwaves and sold at a discount. The notion of salvation from sin and judgment is entirely missing from this scenario. Instead, salvation is presented as a gift of self-enhancement.

On the theological left, the Gospel had long ago been transformed into a social and political message of liberation from oppression. Now, among some who consider themselves evangelicals, the Gospel of Christ has been reduced to a form of self-expression or therapy. Salvation is promised as the answer to low self-esteem and emptiness. Gone is any notion of a holy God who offers salvation from sin and its eternal penalty.

The other pressing front in the current battle for the Gospel concerns the exclusivity of the work of Christ. The testimony of the Bible could not be more clear. Salvation comes to all who call upon the name of the Lord. Salvation comes through Jesus Christ -- and through Jesus Christ alone.

In our culture of political correctness and intolerant tolerance, we are told that such a claim is simply unacceptable. There cannot be only one way of salvation. Who is to say that the religions of the world are wrong, and that Christianity alone is true?

Well, that is the non-negotiable criterion of evangelical faithfulness. Jesus identified Himself as the Way, the Truth, and the Life -- and “no one comes to the Father, but through Me” [John 14:6]. Without this clear testimony, the Gospel is emptied of its integrity. The Bible allows no misunderstanding. Without conscious faith in Jesus Christ, there is no salvation.

Dean Kelley, a liberal Protestant, once noted that, “Even the most gentle, humble, and loving Christians must divide the world into those who confess Jesus as Lord and those who don’t.” Given the clarity of the Gospel, we have no other choice.

Even so, various forms of compromise erupt on this crucial front in the battle for the Gospel. Some advocate an open universalism, in which all persons are eventually saved. Others promote pluralism, promising that all roads will eventually lead to God, and that no faith has a privileged claim to truth. Closer to home, some have advocated a form of inclusivism in which other religions and faiths are seen to be included in the work of Christ. Still others advocate a form of “anonymous Christianity” or a post-mortem opportunity to confess Christ.

Against these various attempts to evade the simple clarity of the Gospel stands the Word of God. Our evangelical integrity stands or falls on this truth -- salvation is found through faith in Christ alone. This is the logic of the missionary mandate and the sustaining conviction for all evangelism. Nevertheless, the worldview held by many individuals today -- especially those among the educated classes -- flatly rejects such claims as imperialistic and arrogant.

Sociologist James Davison Hunter has long warned that younger evangelicals tend to go soft on this doctrine. Educated in a culture of postmodern relativism and ideological pluralism, this generation has been taught to avoid making any exclusive claim to truth. Speak of your truth, if you must -- but never claim to know the Truth. Unless this course is reversed, there will be no evangelicals in the next generation.

Charles Spurgeon stated it plainly: “We have come to a turning-point in the road. If we turn to the right, mayhap our children and our children’s children will go that way; but if we turn to the left, generations yet unborn will curse our names for having been unfaithful to God and to His Word.” Those words ring with prophetic urgency more than a century after they were written. Evangelicals must regain theological courage and conviction, or we must face the tragic reality that this may be evangelicalism’s terminal generation.

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #1132]

Are You Tolerant? (should You Be?)

Joel 2:13

Are you tolerant? (Should you be?)

Deconstructing the gospel of tolerance.

_______________________________________

It is the only serious sin left. Even murder has its mitigating factors, but not this one. It is the pariah sin, the charge that makes you untouchable without need for further explanation. The sin is intolerance, and the greatest sinners in late twentieth-century America are evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. America is sick of intolerant people, and it's not going to tolerate them anymore.

How did orthodox Christianity, whose spread throughout the world was predicated in great part on its inclusiveness ("Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden"), come to be a symbol of exclusivity and intolerance? One possible answer echoes the sentiment seen on the church signboard: "If you feel distant from God, guess who moved?" It seems so simple. Christians have stayed true to a 4,000-year-old revelation of moral truth, ultimately rooted in God's eternal nature. Naturally this offends the "do your own thing" sensibilities of talk-show hosts, Hollywood filmmakers, White House spin doctors, and those who follow after.

A less sanguine explanation is that tolerance was invented in response to the spectacle of Christians slaughtering each other in the name of Christ. The religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe led to the increasingly widespread conviction that there had to be a better way to decide these things than with the sword. The answer was tolerance, essentially a decision not to decide -- that is, to decide on the private level but not on the public.

Historically, then, tolerance was the liberal, secular answer to the inability of conservative religionists to compromise with those who differed from them. Tolerance, in this sense, is relatively new, not something even thought desirable through most of human history.

After all, why tolerate error? This is precisely what tolerance requires of us. Genuine tolerance, as opposed to its pale counterfeits, requires us to allow those who espouse or live out ideas we think wrong, perhaps even harmful, not only to do so but also to try to persuade others to do the same. A number of important notions imbedded in this concept are often ignored when charges of intolerance are thrown around.

First, one is not tolerant of something unless one objects to it. I do not tolerate something I either accept or am indifferent to, because it requires nothing of me. Most social liberals, for instance, cannot rightfully be said to be tolerant regarding homosexual behavior since they have no objection to it. You do not have to tolerate that which you accept or affirm. If you want to know whether a liberal is tolerant, ask what he or she thinks of Jesse Helms or Pat Robertson or Kenneth Starr.

If tolerance requires an initial objection, then conservatives, ironically, may be much more tolerant than liberals, because there are so many more things to which they object. The least tolerant person is the person who accepts everything, because such a person is not required to overcome any internal objections. To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton, turnips are singularly tolerant.

A challenge for those who prize tolerance as one of the highest public goods is to distinguish between healthy tolerance and a diseased moral passivity or indifference. What is the difference between a genuinely tolerant society and a morally bankrupt one, incapable of calling evil for what it is? Is Chesterton on to something when he says tolerance is the virtue of those who don't believe in anything? Too much of what passes as tolerance in America is not the result of principled judgment but is simple moral indifference. Invoking "it's not my business" may keep us from becoming a nation of prudish snoops, but historically, it also has led nations into collaboration with great evil.

If tolerance requires an initial objection, it also implies withheld power. If I would stop something if I could, but am powerless to do so, I am not tolerant, merely impotent. True tolerance means I voluntarily withhold what power I have to coerce someone else's behavior.

In an open society such as ours, where a wide range of divergent thinking and behavior is protected by law and custom, one must show varying degrees of tolerance even to that to which one objects. In opposing abortion, for instance, some seek legal sanctions, others rely on moral suasion or civil disobedience, and still others seek pragmatic compromise. A radical few murder abortion doctors. All but the last actually demonstrate tolerance, to differing degrees, in that they seek to persuade more than to coerce.

This suggests an interesting paradox within the notion of tolerance. At the core of tolerance is a kind of intolerance. If you can only tolerate that to which you object, then you have already shown yourself somewhat intolerant in making that initial objection.

This hidden aspect of tolerance doesn't bother those who think there's plenty in the world to object to, but it is unsettling to the interminably open-minded. Their raison d'être is captured succinctly in a dictum offered approvingly in my son's high-school sociology text as it discusses homosexual practice: "everything is right somewhere and nothing is right everywhere."

Thus relativism absolutizes pluralism. That is, it takes the clearly observable fact that we have a multitude of views and values and practices in the world -- pluralism -- and draws the illegitimate conclusion that there is no justifiable way of choosing among them. Truth is merely opinion, goodness only what the majority says it is.

Such relativism is not the province only of academic texts, it is the spirit of our age and therefore deep in our own bones. It is no surprise, then, that intolerance is our society's greatest sin. The intolerant person is the one thing that cannot be tolerated, the one person who must be shamed or silenced. A guest commentator on National Public Radio shocked even his progressive hosts, but spoke for many, when he objected to the Southern Baptist belief that a lot of people are going to hell: "The evaporation of 4 million [people] who believe in this crap would leave the world a better place." (It's comforting to see that the dreaded Religious Right is not the only source of intolerance in our society.)

Nevertheless -- and here's the rub -- it is widely acknowledged that no moral person tolerates everything. For some, the intolerable grows largely from issues of justice and fairness -- racism, sexism, homophobia, economic inequity. Such people are divided on an issue like pornography, where values that they hold with equal passion -- freedom of expression versus ending the exploitation of women -- collide. Given that everyone agrees that some things should not be tolerated, the real issue should not be whether one is tolerant or intolerant, but what's included on one's list.

The charge of intolerance has become a potent weapon in the culture wars, all the more useful because it carries a lot of emotional firepower without requiring a great deal of evidence or logical consistency. People complain about others "forcing their values" on them, when they are perfectly willing to do the same on many issues. Or they claim "you can't legislate morality" when, in fact, the overwhelming majority of laws of all kinds are rooted in a moral assertion about how things ought to be. Doctor Laura, the popular yet controversial radio host, has remarked on the hate mail she receives for being so intolerant as to believe there is something like moral absolutes in the world: "The irony is that those people are mad because I made a judgment about somebody's behavior, and, while they may admit that there is more than one possible opinion about the morality of any particular action in life, mine is obviously not one of them."

Those accused of intolerance are usually thought to be guilty of one of two supporting sins -- ignorance or callousness. A newspaper article praising a documentary on gay activism on college campuses notes that some might fault the film for not interviewing anyone who sees the homosexual lifestyle as "sinful," but then concludes, "Anyone who tried to make that argument after the poignant stories of Gary and others would look stupid or heartless or both." Stupid or heartless -- not much of a choice, but the only one afforded those out of step with the moral climate of our times.

It is no surprise that religion is often seen as the greatest source of intolerance -- as when, for example, not only gay activists but also many editorialists blamed conservative Christians for the brutal beating and death of Matthew Shepard. For the last 250 years or so, secularists have waited patiently for the fulfillment of their prediction that religion would die out in the next generation or two. But religious people have been singularly uncooperative, and new strategies have developed for controlling this blight on human progress. If religion won't "wither away" as philosopher Richard Rorty has wished, then perhaps it can be privatized and thereby removed from influence on public life -- sort of like localizing an outbreak of the plague.

Such a view is expressed by another academic: "Hope [for tolerance] may lie ... in modernity itself and in its principal creation, international commercial society. It is still possible that the structures of this international order will encourage skepticism about religious and other claims to exclusivity and about the motives of those who impose such claims." That's an intriguing idea -- if people cannot be argued out of their superstitions (rationalism), or coerced (totalitarianism), then perhaps they can be advertised into submission (materialism). If Darwin and Stalin didn't get you, MasterCard will.

It is actually much easier to be considered intolerant today than in the past. You used to have to breathe a little smoke and fire, maybe vote to keep someone out of your country club, or at least tell inappropriate jokes. The bar has been lowered. Now all you have to do is disagree with someone, especially on certain hot-button issues.

Consider the following story. A priest, a rabbi, and an evangelical English teacher (myself) are on a plane heading to Washington, D.C. The priest and the rabbi together organize an annual trip to the Holocaust Museum in order to promote understanding, reconciliation, and, yes, tolerance. They invite people who they believe are in a position to influence others -- one year pastors and religious leaders, another year teachers. The group is given material in advance, including, from the priest, a piece attacking the pope for not being progressive enough.

I have been to the Holocaust Museum before, but I still find it overwhelmingly powerful. There is little I wouldn't do to stand against anything like the attitudes that made it possible, as I hope is clear in my teaching of literature and in my life. But there is one thing I won't do, and that apparently is enough to make me intolerant, though nobody uses the word.

I won't become a relativist, or even a universalist. I will not agree, as we were encouraged to agree at the post-trip debriefing, that all major religions are equally valid approaches to God, equally approved by God, and that to think otherwise is to be on the side at least of intolerance, if not of the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Now, that's not really a fair assessment of what was said in the meeting. It was much more cordial, much more affirming, much more good-spirited than that. But it was in the air. It didn't have to be said explicitly, because it was assumed, the common wisdom.

I was asked, spontaneously, to give my response to the trip at that debriefing. I tried to be cooperative, in keeping with the spirit of the two men who were expending a great amount of time and energy and resources to do a genuinely good and helpful thing. But I also said that I hoped my unwillingness to be a universalist did not disqualify me from being part of the dialogue. I was willing to respect most anyone seeking truth in life, but I wasn't willing to agree that every search was equally successful, or that sincerity and being a "good person" were the defining marks of a successful quest.

The priest got up and said, of course no one was advocating relativism. The rabbi spoke to me afterward and said that he, for one, wanted me to be a part of any continuing dialogue. We have since exchanged letters. He still doesn't see why if he can affirm my being a Christian who has a right relationship with God through Christ, I can't affirm his having a right relationship with God without Christ. Or, though he doesn't say it, affirm the Buddhists for having their own adequate truth without either God or Christ.

I try to say to him that he is not really being as flexible as he claims, because he is insisting that only his view on this is correct. I must give up my "triumphalism" (another version of the intolerance charge) and Christian exclusivity, but he apparently has to give up nothing. I become tolerant only by adopting his and the priest's position. He responds that he really is not interested in tolerance; he expects affirmation. Why should his religion, older than mine, be merely tolerated? How condescending of me to offer tolerance, as though he and his religion were something to be put up with.

I reply that I wasn't the one to bring up tolerance in the first place. I agree that tolerance is a fairly weak concept and not an adequate goal for how people should relate to one another. I want to say that he and the priest are really coreligionists. Their religion is ethical humanism -- the human quest for being good through human efforts -- with a side dish of theism. Their liberal Catholicism and liberal Judaism are not really two different religions getting along with each other, but only different flavors of the same religion. They are much closer to each other in core beliefs than they are to more conservative believers within the religion each espouses. They, in fact, do not really respect other religions so much as they try to shame members of other religions to give up their "absolutism" to join them in the progressive club of the open-minded. And they are as absolute in this requirement as any absolutist fundamentalist of any religion.

I don't say this to the rabbi, however. It is undoubtedly a caricature of his position, it would be hurtful to him, and no one would be the better for me having sounded off. And I have no confidence he would understand, much less be persuaded, even if I were a model of discretion, sensitivity, and logical clarity. Some views of the world operate like parallel universes, neither capable of interacting with the other, and nary a wormhole in sight. Perhaps the progressive will always see the traditionalist as fearfully clinging to past, constricted, and culturally bound notions of morality. And traditionalists will always see progressives as trendy, naive, and confused.

Our debriefing of the trip to the Holocaust Museum ends with the priest issuing a dark warning that a Jews for Jesus gathering is coming to town the next week, suggesting that they represent the kind of threat we are all fighting against. I decide not to mention that I have given money to Jews for Jesus for years.

I began giving in the mid-1970s after I met Rivkah, a converted Jew I taught with for a year at a fundamentalist college. She was quitting teaching to join Jews for Jesus and trying to raise support. I liked Rivkah, and I wanted to help her out.

I didn't realize how controversial the organization was until many years later when I was talking to the woman who speaks to my classes when I teach the Holocaust. She is a survivor of five concentration camps, and I respect her enormously for her efforts to let young people see and hear from her what they may pass over or not believe in books. Mrs. W. once mentioned to me that one of her friend's children had joined Jews for Jesus, "a terrible organization." It startled me. It occurred to me that Jews for Jesus was to a Jewish parent what the Moonies would be to an evangelical Christian parent -- only worse, because Christians, for all their sense of being under attack, are still far too numerous to be in any danger of disappearing, a situation not felt by many Jews.

So what am I to think of Jews for Jesus? Do I think of Rivkah or Mrs. W.? Do I listen to the priest or to the Great Commission? Is that commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel and make disciples misunderstood, as some argue, or simply baldly imperialistic and triumphalist as others claim? Is it intolerant even to offer the gospel, without bribe or coercion? Can this story only be told to those who already embrace it? Should no one try to convince anyone to be and believe anything but what he or she was born into? Are feminists and environmentalists equally wrong to evangelize? Is not spreading to others the truth as one sees it a sign of respect and sensitivity, or is it a sign of indifference and confusion? If I have a life-saving medicine and don't share it, I am selfish and properly condemned. What am I to do if I believe I have a life-saving message?

What, in short, are theologically conservative Christians to make of all this? Should it bother us to be called intolerant? How far do we go in resisting what we believe to be wrong? (Do we, for instance, call for sodomy laws and the jailing of practicing gays? Or do we support fairness in housing and employment rights for gays but not the legalization of homosexual marriage? Or something else?)

I would like to think that the charge of intolerance is entirely wrongheaded, a badge to be worn proudly by a people committed to goodness and truth no matter what the cost. The problem is, I hang around Christians too much. I hear too many sermons, too many Christian gurus on the radio and television; I get too much Christian junk mail from too many Christian organizations. It is difficult to argue with a straight face that Christians are unfairly accused of intolerance when one is surrounded by name calling, finger pointing, back stabbing, bomb throwing, and plain, old-fashioned gossip. And that's just the stuff Christians do to each other.

It is an admirable thing when one is willing to die for the truth. It is more problematic when one is willing to kill for it. Throughout this century, the church has shown itself more willing to do the latter than the former. A long documentation of fundamentalist and evangelical warring against those within the ranks is both depressing and unnecessary. Anyone raised in this subculture knows the stories, and many bear the wounds.

Another problem with easily shrugging off the charge of intolerance is the selective nature of our moral outrage. We appear to be in a continual lather over things sexual -- pornography, homosexuality, abortion, prostitution, adultery, sex education, promiscuity, and fornication -- yet we have been amazingly patient, even lethargic, about the evils of racism, and positively resistant to righting the wrongs of sexism. The recent counterattack in the "values" sector of the culture wars, in fact, has the liberals shouting that they are really the moral ones because they are fighting hunger, injustice, and the like, while conservatives are just interested in getting their long, blue noses into people's bedrooms.

It's no wonder, then, that our reputation in dealing with those with whom we disagree is somewhere to the right of Rasputin. We are seen as the pit bulls of the culture wars -- small brains, big teeth, strong jaws, and no interest in compromise. Is this indictment fair? Often not. Understandable? Absolutely.

What is a Christian to do? Well, traditionally we have tried, when confronted with a problem, to figure out what the Bible says. It's too much to consider here what the Bible has to say about the individual issues of the culture wars; many voices are being heard on those issues. But what, if anything, does the Bible have to say about tolerance in general? Is God tolerant? Does the Bible say we should be?

My answer is tentative and anecdotal -- and maybe a bit wishy-washy for some. Is God tolerant? Yes and no. The Bible certainly teaches us that God hates sin. That much, I think, is clear. He is depicted as morally uncompromising, righteously angry, holy, and sure to punish evil. Yet he is also depicted as patient, long-suffering, forgiving, and slow to anger -- qualities closely related to tolerance. It seems he does, in a sense, tolerate sin -- at least for a season. If tolerance is withholding the power to coerce conformity with one's own views, then it seems God is exceptionally tolerant. After all, we do much that displeases him, that violates who he is and what he made creation to be, and yet he does not immediately destroy us or even force us into obedience.

A number of stories from the Bible touch on the issue of tolerance. When David flees Jerusalem under threat from Absalom, Shimei comes out to curse and stone him as he passes by. David restrains those who want to kill Shimei, saying Shimei is perhaps speaking for the Lord. That is an interesting example of tolerance (though undercut by David's deathbed petition to Solomon to take revenge on Shimei). Is it remotely possible that some of the stones that get tossed at Christians for their attitudes and behavior are deserved -- even from God? It would not be the first time God used strange messengers.

Surely there are also lessons about tolerance and intolerance in the parable of the Good Samaritan. It may not be precisely intolerance that keeps the priest and Levite from helping the wounded man, but it is close enough to be instructive. Clearly they feel sufficiently removed from him to feel no responsibility to help. Their religiosity does not translate into neighborliness, into godly behavior.

Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan in order to explain the meaning of the command to "Love your neighbor as yourself." Since Christians in our society are essentially accused of being bad neighbors, we should ask ourselves what it means to be a good neighbor today. It is more than Mister Rogers niceness, certainly, but also more than pointing out our neighbor's mistakes.

Perhaps the single most enlightening story for thinking about God's attitude toward tolerance is the gospel story of the woman caught in adultery. We have in this ancient text all the elements of a contemporary "values clarification" exercise on tolerance: a woman accused of a sexual sin (her co-sinner nowhere to be seen), religious leaders insisting on strict application of the traditional moral law, and a crowd representing society as a whole. But instead of all this being mediated by Jenny or Jerry, we have Jesus.

The religious leaders care less about the moral law, of course, than they do about defeating an enemy. (Sound familiar?) They have brought this woman to Jesus to trap him. Either he will deny the law of Moses and thereby lose his authority as a moral teacher, or he will agree to the condemnation of the woman and thereby lose the sympathy of the common people who chafe under the arrogant legalism of the religious leaders (and also perhaps get himself in trouble with the Roman authorities who alone can approve the death penalty).

What would today's apostles of tolerance do? They would point out, to begin with, that the woman and presumably her sexual partner are consenting adults. Who is to say that adultery is a sin? Whose business is it anyway? Perhaps it's of interest to offended spouses, but certainly not anyone else. The woman should be freed without blame, perhaps even commended for her bold defiance of archaic and sexist sexual norms, and directed to the nearest lawyer to discuss the merits of a lawsuit against her accusers.

What might today's public defenders of morality do? About what the religious authorities of her day did. They would use her as a public example of sin, show little or no regard for her as a person, call for her public shaming, and exploit the whole situation to advance their call for a return to traditional morality. She would be the poster girl for their next fundraising letter decrying the decline of religious values and calling for sacrificial financial support in order to carry on God's fight against evil.

What does Jesus do? He does the seemingly impossible, affirming the moral law and at the same time refusing to humiliate the sinner. He tells the religious leaders that the one of them who is without sin should cast the first stone. (In the background, a cheer from the lovers of tolerance.) He tells the woman that he does not condemn her. (Two cheers.) But then, crucially, he says what no modern champion of tolerance is likely to say: "Go and sin no more." (A disappointed groan.)

Is God tolerant? Yes, more so than we are. But also less so. God's forbearance never compromises his holiness or justice. He forgives and waits where we attack and destroy. He grieves and judges where we are lax or indifferent. Our goal is to be as tolerant as God but not more so, praying earnestly for the wisdom to know the difference.

Ultimately, tolerance is too weak a concept to be attributed to God. God is so much more than tolerant that Christians can rightfully ignore tolerance as a fundamental goal for their own lives -- but only if they are willing to live by a much higher standard. God does not call us to be tolerant of our neighbors. God calls us to love them -- at least as much as we love ourselves. Before we all nod our approval, we should take a sober look at what that might entail.

Biblical love is always sacrificial love. Don't say you love someone unless you are willing to suffer for that person. Sacrificial love does not say, "Do as I do or you are going to hell." It says, "I would rather be crucified than have you be harmed."

This is the point at which the "hate the sin, love the sinner" maxim is most relevant, but also most questionable. We say this as glibly as the tolerance people mouth their slogans. It is perfectly correct, and also perfectly unconvincing.

If you are loved, you generally know it. And you know it in great part by how someone acts toward you. The simple fact is that the people whose behavior we believe is sinful do not report that they feel loved -- or anything close to it. They do not feel as the woman caught in adultery or the Samaritan woman most likely felt when confronted with their sin by Jesus.

"Who cares how they feel?" some will say. "The replacement of objective moral law by subjective feelings is how we got into this mess in the first place." But the assertion of the objective moral law without concern for how it is experienced is legalism, and legalism is the counterfeit of love-based Christian morality.

Evidence for the lack of love in Christian rhetoric is not hard to find and is not limited to the extremes. All I have to do to find it is open my mail. The sad truth is that, in our battle with a hostile culture, we have adopted the culture's tactics. We fight ugliness with ugliness, distortion with distortion, sarcasm with sarcasm.

Consider the ACLU, an organization as self-declaredly opposed to the social agenda of conservative Christianity as any. The tone of their fundraising letters, like most, is consistently alarmist, simplistic, and sarcastic: "Freedom vs. authoritarianism. That's what the struggle over competing visions of morality is all about." "Increasingly we are being assaulted with the belief that somehow we are a nation in steep moral decline." "We are being told by the Merchants of Virtue ... that we should return to those good old days." "Right now those who would impose their pious standards of morality on private, personal behavior are dangerously close to winning the debate." It's not exactly an appeal to sweet reason.

Surely Christians are different. Surely Christians speak to the sinner with a broken heart. Surely they try to model the spirit of Christ: "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more." In many places, perhaps, but not in my mailbox, not on my radio. Consider the following excerpts from a fundraising letter, typical of those from many highly successful Christian organizations: "These shameful 'high priests' of the anti-virtue movement." "As God's people for this historic hour, we rise to the challenge and give whatever it takes to turn back the anti-Christian juggernaut which threatens our way of life." "Do not doubt that prayer will become a crime, the Bible off-limits, and sharing our faith in public forbidden." Who can resist reaching for the checkbook when the whole cosmos is at stake?

But such tactics undermine the Christian witness that the senders seek to proclaim. The letter from which I've quoted displays all the familiar manipulative strategies of modern advertising and political propaganda. The envelope even gives the false impression that it is a registered letter, a touch worthy of magazine subscription marketers and vacation scams. Winning is losing if this is how we are to win the culture wars.

I believe we do this because we do not really trust the gospel. Turn the other cheek, the first shall be last, lose our life to gain it, love our enemies. Those bold principles of Jesus make for great sermons, but in our bones we appear not to believe they are practical for everyday living in a hostile society. We seem to believe that if we are not as aggressive and hard-nosed as our supposed enemies, that God (and our organization) will somehow be defeated and goodness will disappear from the earth. The result is that we are perceived, often not unfairly, as simply mean-spirited -- as, well, intolerant.

How should it be? How can we affirm Christian morality, unapologetically rooted in the Bible, without becoming rhetorical bomb throwers?

First, we should resist any appeal whose primary aim or result is to make us either angry or afraid. Anger and fear are our most primitive and instinctive emotions, and they are the surest route (along with sentimentality) to our checkbooks. Neither leads us to love our neighbor, or God either, for that matter. We are eager to cite Jesus' righteous anger in cleansing the temple, but the combination of righteousness and anger is much more problematic in us than it is in him. We would do well to tape a verse from James on our foreheads: "Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to get angry. For human anger does not result in God's righteousness" (1:19-20).

Second, we should listen to the stories of those who oppose us. Everyone has a story to tell, and the surest route to conflict is to supress the stories of others. A source of frustration for conservative Christians is the feeling that their story is being silenced in the public square. If we want the right to tell our story, however, we must be willing, even eager, to hear the stories of others. And we should listen compassionately, with a bias toward finding common ground rather than listening for an opportunity to attack. This common ground is not the flaccid "everybody is right" of flabby relativism. The goal is not niceness, or pseudounanimity, but a core package of values and rights we can affirm together while we continue to disagree on some fundamental understandings of the ultimate nature of things.

Must Christians be tolerant? Not really -- certainly not as our society defines the term. But we must be loving, and that is a far greater challenge, with far greater dangers and rewards. We must find better ways to demonstrate that we do, in fact, love the sinner while we hate the sin.

Our response to abortion is instructive. In the years immediately after its legalization, Christian opponents of abortion were widely accused of caring about the fetus but not about the woman or even the child if it was born. It was easier to say abortion is a sin than to provide practical help to sinners. Since that time, countless programs, many of them volunteer, have arisen that minister to every need, physical and spiritual, of pregnant women in difficult circumstances. Tangible love has replaced empty denunciation.

We have failed so far to respond as well to homosexuals. We have not been in the frontlines in the fight against AIDS, just as we were not in the struggle against racism. How differently would conservative Christianity be perceived today if we had been the first and most passionate of those offering practical help to AIDS sufferers? The bulk of our response -- verbal and nonverbal, literal and symbolic -- suggests that we hate the sinner every bit as much as the sin. This is the story we hear from gays in our pews as much as from those in the parades. We can say it isn't so; but talk is cheap. We do not have to affirm homosexuals in their homosexuality, as our culture insists, but we do have to love them, and we haven't yet figured out how to do that.

We have always struggled as human beings to understand and live out the implications of the "thou shalt nots" and the "blessed ares" of the Bible. It is clear that there are things we ought and ought not to do. And there is no reason to apologize for asserting that to a tone-deaf world. But it is also clear that the bedrock of all biblical morality is God's love. That love is not incompatible with judgment ("go and sin no more") but it is incompatible with our not properly valuing all that God has created, including those who offend us.

______________________________

Daniel Taylor is a professor of literature at Bethel College in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Copyright(c) 1999 by the author or Christianity Today, Inc./Christianity Today magazine. January 11, 1999 Vol. 43, No. 1, Page 42

Letters to the Editor in subsequent issue:

==========================================

THOSE MESSY GRAY AREAS

* Daniel Taylor's article on tolerance ["Are You Tolerant? (Should You Be?)," Jan. 11] recalled a line from Oswald Chambers: "There never was a more inconsistent Being on this earth than Our Lord, but He was never inconsistent to His Father. The one consistency of the saint is not to a principle, but to the Divine life." The easy answer to tolerance is to see issues in black and white. Taylor's admonition to practice unconditional love often leads us into the messy gray areas where it turns out we find the face of Christ as we serve our brothers and sisters. And that love is never understood by either side as the Cross demonstrates; but take heart, the One who died on the cross understands and empowers.

Bob Martin

Walnut Creek, Calif.

* This issue is not as easy to sort out as those on the extremes seem to find it to be. Taylor's pointing us in the direction of Jesus' example is wholly appropriate and proper.

Those who were the target of Jesus' most virulent condemnation were not the most obvious and notorious sinners. They were the biblicists who rightly knew and taught reverence and obedience to Scripture, but whose self-righteous judgment had no mercy. As Eugene Peterson interprets Matthew 7:4-5, "Do you have the nerve to say, 'Let me wash your face for you,' when your own face is distorted by contempt? It's this whole traveling road-show mentality all over again, playing a holier-than-thou part instead of just living your part. Wipe that sneer off your own face, and you might be fit to offer a washcloth to your neighbor."

Ron Schooler

Los Angeles, Calif.

* The answer to the question depends upon how one defines tolerant. In some of the categories that appear on your cover, the proponents of those items claim to be seeking "tolerance," but what they are really looking for is affirmation. Anything less, they call "intolerance." For them to consider one "tolerant," an endorsement is usually required.

Christians are seen as "intolerant" unless they agree with homosexuality, abortion, divorce, and so on. Such is cultural surrender, not "tolerance." The meaning of tolerant has been changed right under our noses.

David Block

Carrollton, Tex.

* I agree wholeheartedly that Christians in our culture (myself included) too often lack a real love for those with whom we disagree, and that lovelessness sabotages an otherwise effective witness of God's people to effect change.

Having said that, I was bothered by the tone of the article in one respect. Taylor argues that "the single most enlightening story for thinking about God's attitude toward tolerance is the gospel story of the woman caught in adultery." The problem is that this woman was truly broken and repentant. In many, many other situations where our Lord confronted sin and evil (exhibiting his lack of tolerance), He used words like "you hypocrites"; "you blind guides (and fools)"; "you snakes ... you brood of vipers." The point is: While loving the sinner, God's law is inviolable, and his truth never changes. It's not us judging sin; God has already judged it.

David P. Clarke

Norfolk, Va.

* Taylor asks, "How differently would conservative Christianity be perceived today if we had been the first and most passionate of those offering practical help to aids sufferers?" Well, look no further than New York City, where the Catholic church is the number one organization caring for AIDS victims; the annual "Gay Pride" parade marches past Saint Patrick's Cathedral so that the marchers can demonstrate their hatred of the church -- and they do so in ways that would have outraged the news media if they were a Christian group marching past an abortion clinic.

Don Schenk

Allentown, Pa.

* Bravo on shifting the debate from tolerance/intolerance to the balance of sin and love. A couple of comments:

(1) Why is it that Christians seem to be the least "tolerant" of people who sin in areas where they are the least tempted to sin themselves (homosexuality, abortion) but are more tolerant of people who sin in areas where they are more likely to be tempted themselves (gossip, pride, etc.)?

(2) In order to appear less intolerant, some Christians have resorted to evangelizing with the appeal that you should become a Christian because "Christianity is good for you" rather than because "it is the truth." Since Christianity can lead to suffering and persecution, we are giving people an excuse to reject the truth as a "lie" because it was not "good" as promised.

Gerald Nanninga

New Hope, Minn.

*

Only One Way?

John 14:6

Sermon on Jesus as only way of salvation. Acts 4:12

=============

ONLY ONE WAY?

=============

I. The global village.

II. An emotional misconception.

A. We do not believe Christians are better than everyone else.

B. But we do believe that absolute truth matters.

III. Some things are not up to a vote.

A. It is a problem of truth and logic.

B. An illustration from concept of law.

IV. A question of sincerity, or truth?

A. Sincere belief does not make something true.

B. Faith is only as valid as the object you place faith in.

V. We claim the uniqueness of Jesus because the Bible does.

A. The Old Testament claims the uniqueness of Jehovah God. Isa 43:10f

B. Jesus claimed uniqueness for himself. Matt 11:27; John 14:6

C. The apostles made the same claim for Jesus. Acts 4:12

VI. Jesus does not seek to exclude, but include.

A. Out of all religious leaders, only Jesus claims to be God.

B. Jesus came in order that we might have life. John 3:16-17

C. We have an obligation.

Questions Skeptics Pose

Luke 20:26

Here are the questions I have been asked most often. By developing a clear

response to each, we can increase our ability to talk with those who are not

Christians.

It is important to note that while these are the attacking questions, as the

conversation goes on, the questions become kinder and more personal, till one

can focus on the Cross and present the Gospel in its simplicity and beauty.

This has happened in every venue in which I have spoken.

1. Is it really possible to defend the supernatural when every scientific

theory argues for a naturalistic explanation of this universe? (The

question pertains to evolutionary theory and modern cosmology).

2. What convincing arguments can you give us for the existence of God?

3. How can Christians possibly argue for an exclusive claim to truth in Christ

when there are so many other religions in this world? There have been

and are so many good people in this world who were not and are not

Christian. If the Gospel is true, then they are destined for hell. Is

that right? [12/31/95]

4. The God of the Bible is portrayed as all-loving and all-powerful. The evil

must be of his doing. This is a contraction with his character. There

is not only moral evil but gratuitous evil. How do you justify it? What

sort of God is this, anyway?

5. We do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible. How can one possibly

argue for their authority and accuracy? (This comes quite often from

Muslims or those sympathetic with the findings of the Jesus Seminar.)

6. If the law of non-contradiction does apply as a test for falsehood, what

about the concept of the Trinity or the sovereignty of God as it relates

to the responsibility of man? Are these not contradictory concepts?

7. There is no discipline that subscribes to truth as absolute, particularly

in matters of morality. How can Christians still hold to it? (Here some

of the major moral issues of our day emerge.)

8. Religion has caused so much suffering and violence in this world. How do

you explain that?

9. Isn't religion only a political theory espoused by one who wants to impose

his or her views upon others?

#3275

*

Reaching the Happy Thinking Pagan

John 5:23

At the universities I visit, the exclusivity of Christ is raised in every open forum - “How can you possibly talk about one God or one way when there are so many good options?”

Today, sensitivities are at an all-time high - and rightfully so. Tolerance of different races and religions has been lacking over the years. But pluralism has given way to relativism. Most of the intellectual elite of this country completely disavow the idea of absolute truth.

At the Harvard forum, I established that the law of non-contradiction (that no statement can be true and false at the same time and in the same relationship) must apply to reality. As in virtually every other setting, it stirs up quite a debate, but you would assume it fundamental to rational discourse. When I did, the audience went silent for several minutes. That the laws of logic apply to reality floors people, even though they use logic to attack Christian truths.

Here’s the rub: While the average secular person will believe something WITHOUT subjecting it to rational critique, he disbelieves things on the basis that, he or she says, they are rationally inadmissible. So he critically attacks Christian assumptions using principles of logic that he doesn’t even hold to.

Version used on 12/31/95:

At a forum in Harvard, Ravi Zacharias responded to some critics by using the law of non-contradiction. This law of logic simply states that no statement can be true and false at the same time and in the same relationship.

Zacharias said this law must apply to religion and reality. If Jesus said he was God, he either is or he isn’t. You cannot have it both ways. The same law applies to every other religion. They are ultimately true, or they are not.

When he made this argument, the audience went silent for several minutes. That the laws of logic apply to reality floors people, even though they use logic to attack Christian truths.

Here’s the rub: the average non-religious person will believe something WITHOUT thinking it through. They will believe many things and never investigate if they are rational. But this same non-religious person will disbelieves things on the basis that they are not logical. So they will attack Christian assumptions using principles of logic that they don’t even apply to themselves.

Generic Spirituality: Why Christianity Is Unique

John 10:34

It's becoming "the mantra of the new millennium," says American Demographics magazine: the phrase "I'm into spirituality, not religion." The slogan means people are searching for spiritual experience, but they don't want dogma or doctrine.

Today's common view was expressed by a Washington, D.C., psychic, who said: "All religions will take people to the same place, if they practice spirituality within themselves."

I can't tell you how many times I've heard even Christians say the same thing. How do some believers get sucked into cultural trends that are so contrary to their faith?

The answer is that we have not fully understood that Christianity is not just another route to spiritual experience; it is a claim to truth. Christianity is a worldview, and it can be tested by seeing how well it answers the fundamental questions every worldview must address.

Those questions can be broken down into the traditional biblical categories of Creation, Fall, and Redemption. Creation refers to ultimate origins: Where did we come from? The Fall asks what's wrong with the world: Where do evil and suffering come from? And Redemption asks how the problem can be fixed -- how we can create a better world. By using these three categories, we can show that, among all the religions of the world, Christianity gives the best answers.

For example, compare the New Age movement with its repackaged Eastern religion. On the question of ultimate origins, New Age thought does not hold to a personal God who created us and loves us, but merely a Universal Spirit, a substratum of energy underlying all things. How well does this answer the question of origins?

It fails miserably. A basic principle of logic is that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. Yet New Age thought implies that personal beings -- you and I -- were created by an IMpersonal energy substratum.

Moving to the Fall, New Age thought teaches that suffering and evil result not from human sin, but merely from an illusion: from our failure to recognize that we are all part of God. We think we are separate individuals, and from that arises all forms of selfishness, greed, anger, and resentment.

But does anyone really believe that suffering and evil are at root massive illusions? Tell that to someone who's just been mugged.

Finally, the New Age offers no real redemption, only enlightenment: Using meditative techniques, we are urged to recover a mystical knowledge of the divine within. But can anyone insist, with a straight face, that we are divine, that we are God? In a scene in Shirley MacLaine's television miniseries "Out on a Limb," she is coached by her New Age counselor to shout over and over, "I am God," until she can say it with confidence. It's not easy to convince ourselves, against all the evidence of our sin and failures, that we are actually divine.

No, the answers offered by New Age thought simply do not stack up against reality. Christianity alone offers an account of our origin and our destiny that is rational and realistic.

For Christians, THAT should be "the mantra of the new millennium," the message we bring to the spiritual seekers of our world.

___________________________

Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

Preaching Hell In A Tolerant Age: Brimstone For the Broad-minded

Mark 9

The young man in my office was impeccably dressed and articulate. He was an Ivy League MBA, successful in the financial world, and had lived in three countries before age 30. Raised in a family with only the loosest connections to a mainline church, he had little understanding of Christianity.

I was therefore gratified to learn of his intense spiritual interest, recently piqued as he attended our church. He said he was ready to embrace the gospel. But there was a final obstacle.

"You've said that if we do not believe in Christ," he said, "we are lost and condemned. I'm sorry, I just cannot buy that. I work with some fine people who are Muslim, Jewish, or agnostic. I cannot believe they are going to hell just because they don't believe in Jesus. In fact, I cannot reconcile the very idea of hell with a loving God -- even if he is holy too."

This young man expressed what may be the main objection contemporary secular people make to the Christian message. (A close second, in my experience, is the problem of suffering and evil.) Moderns reject the idea of final judgment and hell.

Thus, it's tempting to avoid such topics in our preaching. But neglecting the unpleasant doctrines of the historic faith will bring about counter-intuitive consequences. There is an ecological balance to scriptural truth that must not be disturbed.

If an area is rid of its predatory or undesirable animals, the balance of that environment may be so upset that the desirable plants and animals are lost -- through overbreeding with a limited food supply. The nasty predator that was eliminated actually kept in balance the number of other animals and plants necessary to that particular ecosystem. In the same way, if we play down "bad" or harsh doctrines within the historic Christian faith, we will find, to our shock, that we have gutted all our pleasant and comfortable beliefs, too.

The loss of the doctrine of hell and judgment and the holiness of God does irreparable damage to our deepest comforts -- our understanding of God's grace and love and of our human dignity and value to him. To preach the good news, we must preach the bad.

But in this age of tolerance, how?

How To Preach Hell To Traditionalists

Before preaching on the subject of hell, I must recognize that today, a congregation is made up of two groups: traditionalists and postmoderns. The two hear the message of hell completely differently.

People from traditional cultures and mindsets tend to have (a) a belief in God, and (b) a strong sense of moral absolutes and the obligation to be good. These people tend to be older, from strong Catholic or religious Jewish backgrounds, from conservative evangelical/Pentecostal Protestant backgrounds, from the southern U.S., and first-generation immigrants from non-European countries.

The way to show traditional persons their need for the gospel is by saying, "Your sin separates you from God! You can't be righteous enough for him." Imperfection is the duty-worshiper's horror. Traditionalists are motivated toward God by the idea of punishment in hell. They sense the seriousness of sin.

But traditionalists may respond to the gospel only out of fear of hell, unless I show them Jesus experienced not only pain in general on the cross but hell in particular. This must be held up until they are attracted to Christ for the beauty of the costly love of what he did. To the traditional person, hell must be preached as the only way to know how much Christ loved you. Here is one way I have preached this:

"Unless we come to grips with this terrible doctrine, we will never even begin to understand the depths of what Jesus did for us on the cross. His body was being destroyed in the worst possible way, but that was a flea bite compared to what was happening to his soul. When he cried out that his God had forsaken him, he was experiencing hell itself.

"If a mild acquaintance denounces you and rejects you -- that hurts. If a good friend does the same -- the hurt's far worse. However, if your spouse walks out on you, saying, 'I never want to see you again,' that is far more devastating still. The longer, deeper, and more intimate the relationship, the more torturous is any separation.

"But the Son's relationship with the Father was beginning-less and infinitely greater than the most intimate and passionate human relationship. When Jesus was cut off from God, he went into the deepest pit and most powerful furnace, beyond all imagining. And he did it voluntarily, for us."

How To Preach Hell To Postmoderns

In contrast to the traditionalist, the postmodern person is hostile to the very idea of hell. People with more secular and postmodern mindsets tend to have (a) only a vague belief in the divine, if at all, and (b) little sense of moral absolutes, but rather a sense they need to be true to their dreams. They tend to be younger, from nominal Catholic or non-religious Jewish backgrounds, from liberal mainline Protestant backgrounds, from the western and northeastern U.S., and Europeans.

When preaching hell to people of this mindset, I've found I must make four arguments.

1. Sin Is Slavery.

I do not define sin as just breaking the rules, but also as "making something besides God our ultimate value and worth." These good things, which become gods, will drive us relentlessly, enslaving us mentally and spiritually, even to hell forever if we let them.

I say, "You are actually being religious, though you don't know it -- you are trying to find salvation through worshiping things that end up controlling you in a destructive way." Slavery is the choice-worshiper's horror.

C. S. Lewis's depictions of hell are important for postmodern people. In THE GREAT DIVORCE, Lewis describes a busload of people from hell who come to the outskirts of heaven. There they are urged to leave behind the sins that have trapped them in hell. The descriptions Lewis makes of people in hell are so striking because we recognize the denial and self-delusion of substance addictions. When addicted to alcohol, we are miserable, but we blame others and pity ourselves; we do not take responsibility for our behavior nor see the roots of our problem.

Lewis writes, "Hell ... begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps even criticizing it.... You can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine."

Modern people struggle with the idea of God thinking up punishments to inflict on disobedient people. When sin is seen as slavery, and hell as the freely chosen, eternal skid row of the universe, hell becomes much more comprehensible.

Here is an example from a recent sermon of how I try to explain this:

"First, sin separates us from the presence of God (Isa. 59:2), which is the source of all joy (Ps. 16:11), love, wisdom, or good thing of any sort (James 1:17)....

"Second, to understand hell we must understand sin as slavery. Romans 1:21-25 tells us that we were built to live for God supremely, but instead we live for love, work, achievement, or morality to give us meaning and worth. Thus every person, religious or not, is worshiping something -- idols, pseudo-saviors -- to get their worth. But these things enslave us with guilt (if we fail to attain them) or anger (if someone blocks them from us) or fear (if they are threatened) or drivenness (since we must have them). Guilt, anger, and fear are like fire that destroys us. Sin is worshiping anything but Jesus -- and the wages of sin is slavery."

Perhaps the greatest paradox of all is that the people on Lewis's bus from hell are enslaved because they freely choose to be. They would rather have their freedom (as they define it) than salvation. Their relentless delusion is that if they glorified God, they would lose their human greatness (Gen. 3:4-5), but their choice has really ruined their human greatness. Hell is, as Lewis says, "the greatest monument to human freedom."

2. Hell is less exclusive than so-called tolerance.

Nothing is more characteristic of the modern mindset than the statement: "I think Christ is fine, but I believe a devout Muslim or Buddhist or even a good atheist will certainly find God." A slightly different version is: "I don't think God would send a person who lives a good life to hell just for holding the wrong belief." This approach is seen as more inclusive.

In preaching about hell, then, I need to counter this argument:

"The universal religion of humankind is: We develop a good record and give it to God, and then he owes us. The gospel is: God develops a good record and gives it to us, then we owe him (Rom. 1:17). In short, to say a good person, not just Christians, can find God is to say good works are enough to find God.

"You can believe that faith in Christ is not necessary or you can believe that we are saved by grace, but you cannot believe in both at once.

"So the apparently inclusive approach is really quite exclusive. It says, 'The good people can find God, and the bad people do not.'

"But what about us moral failures? We are excluded.

"The gospel says, 'The people who know they aren't good can find God, and the people who think they are good do not.'

"Then what about non-Christians, all of whom must, by definition, believe their moral efforts help them reach God? They are excluded.

"So both approaches are exclusive, but the gospel's is the more inclusive exclusivity. It says joyfully, 'It doesn't matter who you are or what you've done. It doesn't matter if you've been at the gates of hell. You can be welcomed and embraced fully and instantly through Christ.' "

3. Christianity's view of hell is more personal than the alternative view.

Fairly often, I meet people who say, "I have a personal relationship with a loving God, and yet I don't believe in Jesus Christ at all."

"Why?" I ask.

They reply, "My God is too loving to pour out infinite suffering on anyone for sin."

But then a question remains: "What did it cost this kind of God to love us and embrace us? What did he endure in order to receive us? Where did this God agonize, cry out? Where were his nails and thorns?"

The only answer is: "I don't think that was necessary."

How ironic. In our effort to make God more loving, we have made God less loving. His love, in the end, needed to take no action. It was sentimentality, not love at all. The worship of a God like this will be impersonal, cognitive, ethical. There will be no joyful self-abandonment, no humble boldness, no constant sense of wonder. We would not sing to such a being, "Love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all."

The postmodern "sensitive" approach to the subject of hell is actually quite impersonal. It says, "It doesn't matter if you believe in the person of Christ, as long as you follow his example."

But to say that is to say the essence of religion is intellectual and ethical, not personal. If any good person can find God, then the essential core of religion is understanding and following the rules.

When preaching about hell, I try to show how impersonal this view is:

"To say that any good person can find God is to create a religion without tears, without experience, without contact.

"The gospel certainly is not less than the understanding of truths and principles, but it is infinitely more. The essence of salvation is knowing a Person (John 17:3). As with knowing any person, there is repenting and weeping and rejoicing and encountering. The gospel calls us to a wildly passionate, intimate love relationship with Jesus Christ, and calls that 'the core of true salvation.'"

4. There is no love without wrath.

What rankles people is the idea of judgment and the wrath of God: "I can't believe in a God who sends people to suffer eternally. What kind of loving God is filled with wrath?"

So in preaching about hell, we must explain that a wrathless God cannot be a loving God. Here's how I tried to do that in one sermon:

"People ask, 'What kind of loving God is filled with wrath?' But any loving person is often filled with wrath. In HOPE HAS ITS REASONS, Becky Pippert writes, 'Think how we feel when we see someone we love ravaged by unwise actions or relationships. Do we respond with benign tolerance as we might toward strangers? Far from it.... Anger isn't the opposite of love. Hate is, and the final form of hate is indifference.'

"Pippert then quotes E. H. Gifford, 'Human love here offers a true analogy: the more a father loves his son, the more he hates in him the drunkard, the liar, the traitor.'

"She concludes: 'If I, a flawed narcissistic sinful woman, can feel this much pain and anger over someone's condition, how much more a morally perfect God who made them? God's wrath is not a cranky explosion, but his settled opposition to the cancer of sin which is eating out the insides of the human race he loves with his whole being.' "

A God Like This

Following a recent sermon on the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the post-service question-and-answer session was packed with more than the usual number of attenders. The questions and comments focused on the subject of eternal judgment.

My heart sank when a young college student said, "I've gone to church all my life, but I don't think I can believe in a God like this." Her tone was more sad than defiant, but her willingness to stay and talk showed that her mind was open.

Usually all the questions are pitched to me, and I respond as best I can. But on this occasion people began answering one another.

An older businesswoman said, "Well, I'm not much of a churchgoer, and I'm in some shock now. I always disliked the very idea of hell, but I never thought about it as a measure of what God was willing to endure in order to love me."

Then a mature Christian made a connection with a sermon a month ago on Jesus at Lazarus' tomb in John 11. "The text tells us that Jesus wept," he said, "yet he was also extremely angry at evil. That's helped me. He is not just an angry God OR a weeping, loving God -- he's both. He doesn't only judge evil, but he also takes the hell and judgment himself for us on the cross."

The second woman nodded, "Yes. I always thought hell told me about how angry God was with us, but I didn't know it also told me about how much he was willing to suffer and weep for us. I never knew how much hell told me about Jesus' love. It's very moving."

It is only because of the doctrine of judgment and hell that Jesus' proclamation of grace and love are so brilliant and astounding.

________

Tim Keller is pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City.

Copyright(c) 1997 by the author or Christianity Today, Inc./Leadership Journal. Winter 1997, Vol. XVIII, No. 4, Page 42

Hindu Beliefs Include A God Who Is Ultimate But Unknowable

Acts 14:11

Hinduism is the world's oldest active organized religion. It is a complex family of sects whose copious scriptures, written over a period of almost 2,000 years (1500 B.C. - A.D. 250), allow a diverse belief system. Hinduism has no single creed and recognizes no final truth.

At its core, Hinduism has a pagan background in which the forces of nature and human heroes are personified as gods and goddesses. They are worshiped with prayers and offerings. Hindus can be divided into Popular Hinduism, characterized by the worship of gods through offerings, rituals and prayers, and Philosophical Hinduism, the complex belief system understood by those who can study ancient texts, meditate and practice yoga.

Other key areas of beliefs include:

• God: God (Brahman) is the one impersonal, ultimate, but unknowable,

spiritual reality. Sectarian Hinduism personalizes Brahman as Brahma

(creator), Vishnu (preserver), and Shiva (destroyer). Most Hindus

worship two of Vishnu's 10 mythical incarnations: Krishna and Rama. On

special occasions, Hindus may worship other gods, as well as family and

individual deities. Hindus claim there are 330 million gods. In

Hinduism, belief in astrology, evil spirits and curses also prevails.

• Creation: Hindus accept various forms of pantheism and reject the

Christian doctrine of creation. According to Hinduism, Brahman alone

exists; everything is ultimately an illusion. God emanated itself to

cause the illusion of creation. There is no beginning or conclusion to

creation, only endless repetitions or cycles of creation and

destruction. History has little value since it is based on an

illusion.

• Man: The eternal soul of man is a manifestation or "spark" of Brahman

mysteriously trapped in the physical body. Repeated lives, or

reincarnations, are required before the soul can be liberated from the

body. An individual's present life is determined by the law of karma

(actions, words and thoughts in previous lifetimes). The physical body

is ultimately an illusion with little inherent or permanent worth.

Bodies generally are cremated, and the eternal soul goes to an

intermediate state of punishment or reward before rebirth in another

body. Rebirths are experienced until karma has been removed to allow

the soul's reabsorption into Brahman.

• Sin: Hindus have no concept of rebellion against a holy God. Ignorance

of unity with Brahman, desire, and violation of one's social duty are

humanity's problems.

• Salvation: There is no clear concept of salvation in Hinduism. Moksha

(freedom from infinite being and selfhood and final self-realization of

the truth) is the goal of existence. Yoga and meditation taught by a

guru is one way to attain moksha. The other valid paths for moksha are

the way of works, the way of knowledge or the way of love and devotion.

Hindus hope to eventually get off the cycle of reincarnation. They

believe the illusions of personal existence will end and they will

become one with the impersonal God.

Witnessing to Hindus:

• Pray and trust the Holy Spirit to use the gospel message to reach the

hearts and minds of your Hindu friend.

• Share your personal faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Keep

your testimony short.

• Stress the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as God's revelation of himself.

• Stress the necessity of following Jesus to the exclusion of all other

deities. Keep the gospel presentation Christ-centered.

• Share the assurance of salvation that God's grace gives you and about

your hope in the resurrection. Make sure you communicate that your

assurance is derived from God's grace and not from your good works or

your ability to be spiritual (1 John 5:13).

• Give a copy of the New Testament. If a Hindu desires to study the Bible,

begin with the Gospel of John. Point out passages that explain

salvation.

Condensed from the North American Mission Board's Interfaith Evangelism Belief Bulletin on Hinduism by N.S.R.K. Ravi.

Unveiling Islam

John 5:23

Two Southern Baptist scholars have teamed up to offer a comprehensive analysis of the world's second-largest religion. Their presentation of the practices, ethics and beliefs of Islam is more than an academic recitation of the differences between Christianity and Islam. It's the story of two brothers' conversion from the religion of their childhood to a living relationship with Jesus Christ.

"Unveiling Islam" is a new release from Kregel Publications intended to educate readers about Islam and provide a practical strategy Christians can use to open a productive dialogue with Muslims. Ergun M. Caner, assistant professor of theology and church history at Criswell College in Dallas, and Emir F. Caner, assistant professor of church history and Anabaptist studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., admit that the work was far from "a labor of love."

Raised in a strict Muslim home, the Caner boys admired their Turkish father even after his parents divorced after moving to Ohio. They participated in daily prayers, celebrated Ramadan and read from the Koran regularly. Hoping their good deeds would outweigh any bad deeds, the Caners' devotion was not an act of love, but rather fear, they write in Unveiling Islam.

Thus, the writing of the book was "an arduous and sometimes painful exercise of remembering unspoken mental pictures that are never far from view," the Caners note in their book. "We were taught that Christianity and Islam were antithetical, stemming from a centuries-old conflict dating back to the Crusades, when Muslims were slaughtered by the thousands."

Ultimately, it was a friend's invitation to attend a revival service at a Baptist church that provided Ergun Caner an opportunity to hear the gospel and accept God's gift of salvation in Jesus. His other brother, Erdem, received Christ soon after, and Emir was saved a year later. Those decisions prompted their father to disown his sons.

Since 1982, Emir and Ergun Caner have preached and taught about Islam, sharing a desire for salvation among the 1.2 billion Muslim people who need Jesus. "Usually, churches and pastors would allow us to preach, graciously pat us on our heads, and tell us how fascinating this world religion seems," the Caners stated in their book.

That reaction changed Sept. 11. "After thousands of people were incinerated in the World Trade Center bombing, people began to listen."

The heightened interest in Islam has drawn each of the Caner brothers into additional debate settings at mosques and universities, speaking in English, French and Arabic with Muslim scholars. And they have been interviewed by the BBC, CNN, Moody Broadcasting Network, Salem Radio Network and USA Radio.

Nearly every interviewer asks one of the Caners to comment on the proposition that Islam, like Christianity, is just another path to God. "The media question belies a mistaken assumption that all religions are the same," the Caners write. They respond to the notion that "getting to whatever God there may be is like getting to Chicago. You can get there by plane, train or automobile. It doesn't matter what path you take or religion you follow, as long as you get there."

They further write, "It must be understood that orthodox, biblical Christianity assumes the existence of truth. Truth implies the existence of error, and mutually exclusive claims of truth cannot both be correct. Such is the case of Islam. Either Islam is correct in the assumption that 'there is only One God, Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet,' or Christianity is correct when Jesus says, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except by me' (John 14:6). They cannot both be correct."

The Caners provide a history of Islam and assessment of Muhammad as a militant messenger, explain the "five pillars" of Islamic belief and examine the holy days observed by Muslims, with citations from the Koran as well as other key writings in Islam, the Sunnah and Hadith. They offer details of inherent inferiority of women in Islamic teaching and the inevitable clash of cultures between Christians and Muslims. Salvation for the Muslim is described by the Caners as a mathematical formula.

"Each person is literally accountable for each act performed. Consequently, the scales become more important as one approaches the end of life, especially for those who are on the edge. They have to work harder, live better, and give more. Then, they can hope, the scales will tip in their favor.

By moving through the elements of Islamic teaching, the Caners critique its claims and respond with the testimony of the Bible regarding the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

When Islam is described as a peaceful religion misrepresented by the zealots of the Taliban, Ergun Caner is quick to respond. "Islam at its core is a religion of warfare. Muhammad was a warrior. [Muslims] are taught to conquer ... to fight. If anyone says in the media that Islam is a religion of peace, they either don't know their faith, don't know the Koran, or they are lying."

Richard Land, president of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, described Unveiling Islam as "exactly what its subtitle purports it to be - 'An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Belief.'" In recommending the book, he noted, "The reader gets the added bonus of having this vivid analysis of Islam done by former insiders who are now Christians. It is a unique and invaluable perspective which will do much to inform, challenge and inspire Christians everywhere."

"Perhaps Unveiling Islam's most compelling aspect is the 'human face' it puts on the conflict between the religion of Islam and the personal relationship with Jesus Christ that is the foundation and essence of Christianity," Land added. "The Caners' compelling story also reminds us of the severe, often bloody, persecution faced by fellow Christians around the world because they have come to understand in their innermost soul that all faiths are not the same, but that Jesus is 'the way, the truth, and the life' (John 14:6)."

Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Philip Roberts noted, "Don't expect to curl up with this book and have a cozy read. Instead, once you've been exposed to the challenges of Muslim teachings and their desperate spiritual needs, it will drive you to your knees in prayer. As well, you'll eventually be upon your feet going to share the gospel with a Muslim friend!"

Historian Austin Miles described the Caners' book as "a valuable tool and reference for equipping Christians" in the task of offering love, understanding and truth to Muslims "who obviously have deep spiritual longings which compel them to fully dedicate themselves to what they think is a higher power."

When their father died from cancer in 1999, the Caners realized, "The stark reality of religious systems and our relationship with Jesus Christ as our Savior came into sharp focus." Through the investigation into Islam, its teachings and its adherents, the Caners want readers to see "the human side of religion -- where faith often means the total rejection of culture, ethnicity, family and friends."

To find "heaven's glory in Jesus Christ," they lost their father, their earthly hero, just as have millions of others worldwide, they acknowledge.

Muslims will not gain a better perception of Christianity through Muslim-Christian dialogues seeking to find commonalities between the two faiths, the Caners argue. "Ecumenism has offered little solace; it has ignored substantive disagreements and refused honest engagement. This approach might bring a stagnant calm, but never healing of the bitterness. True understanding can come only as honest perceptions are confronted truthfully and answered frankly."

On Political Correctness

John 14:6

Today's society places a premium on being politically correct. Proper terminology must be used so as not to be offensive to anyone.

For example, obese people are now referred to as the gravitationally challenged. An old person is gerontologically advanced. A meter maid is a parking enforcement adjudicator.

Someone who is blind is photonically non-receptive. Political correctness first defined the deaf person as hearing impaired, but more recently has suggested that such an individual is visually oriented. The man with a receding hairline is not balding, but in follicle regression.

Political correctness refuses to call anyone who tarries long at the wine a drunk, but simply suggests that such a person may be intemperate. The embezzler has only misappropriated funds, and the sexually promiscuous person is only guilty of an indiscretion. Consequently, those who call for PC refuse to call anyone a sinner, but at best regard him or her as spiritually challenged.

We now have politically correct Bibles that are gender-neutral and hymnals that have translated what is referred to as offensive language into something more palatable to our modern society.

To me, all of this sugar-sweet, easy-to-digest, don't-upset-anyone kind of gospel is a long way from repentance. It is almost certain that this kind of “Christianity” does not result in the kind of life change needed to impact the world for God and for good.

Actually, those who insist on political correctness are interested in far more than terminology. They are proponents of a philosophy that embraces a way of life that is foreign to the biblical principles we hold dear. Their buzzwords are toleration and inclusivism. They want to reduce our beliefs and convictions to the lowest common denominator so that no one is offended by anything that is said or done.

As a result of a humanistic, secular world's vigilance and the church's indifference, we are becoming an antinomian society -- a society without regard for the law of God.

Scripture verses have been removed from national parks; the Ten Commandments have been taken down from courthouse walls; and nativity scenes have been removed from town squares because they are supposedly a violation of First Amendment rights. In other words, they are not politically correct.

Therefore, for a preacher to be politically correct he must no longer ring the bell on sin, and he must suppress any thought that might prompt him to mention the “h” word. He must avoid all biblical references to theological definiteness and exclusivity lest he be regarded as narrow-minded or bigoted.

However, Jesus never seemed to be interested in political correctness. He dared to drive the moneychangers out of the temple, challenged the dead religion of his day and called the religious leaders “hypocrites,” “blind guides” and “fools” (Matthew 23:13-17). On one occasion he even called them a “brood of vipers” (Matthew 3:7).

Furthermore, Jesus made exclusive claims. He said, “I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). In fact, the Word of God unflinchingly and unapologetically and without any pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo attests to the uniqueness of Jesus as the only way to be saved and avows that Christianity cannot accord moral equivalence to any other religion.

This unyielding exclusivism incites hostility from the politically correct crowd because it contradicts the “enlightened” tenets of secular humanism, which are incompatible with the absolute truth found in Holy Scripture.

In a society where everything seems to be tolerated but the pure, uncompromising preaching of the Word of God, we must remember that Jesus said, “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?” (Matthew 10:24-25).

Dare to have an unswerving allegiance to the truth. It may get you in trouble on earth, but it will win you the favor of heaven.

_____________

Gerald Harris is editor of The Christian Index, newsjournal of the Georgia Baptist Convention.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #1734]

Spiritual Racism?: Christ's Offensive Truth Claims

John 5:23

"You Christians are so arrogant," the young man told me. "You think Jesus is the only route to God. It's an insult to anyone who follows another faith." His parting shot was: "It's intolerant religious views like yours that lead to hatred and violence."

Well, this young man is not alone in his views. In an age that celebrates "tolerance" and "pluralism," the claim that Christ is the only way to God is considered grossly offensive. Rabbi Schmuley Boteach speaks for many when he calls Christian truth claims "spiritual racism."

But is Christianity really the only religion that makes exclusive truth claims -- and do those claims lead to violence?

In his book, The Case for Faith, former journalist Lee Strobel says the exclusive truth claim of Jesus "is among the biggest obstacles to spiritual seekers today." To get to the heart of the truth claims issue, Strobel interviewed theologian Ravi Zacharias, who grew up in India among Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs.

First, Zacharias told Strobel, we have to understand that all truth claims are, by definition, exclusive. Any time you make a truth claim, you're saying that anything that contradicts it is false. What many Christians don't realize is that every major religion makes truth claims -- just as Christianity does.

For instance, Muslims "radically claim exclusivity," Zacharias noted, "... not just theologically, but also linguistically." And Buddhism was born when Buddha rejected fundamental assertions of Hinduism. As for Hindus -- they're "absolutely uncompromising" on several fundamental issues, including doctrines involving karma and reincarnation.

Atheists make their own truth claim: There is no God. By definition, they're intolerant of the viewpoint of anyone who does believe in God. In other words, people who accuse Christians of arrogance because they make exclusive truth claims are ignoring the fact that every major religion does the same thing.

The trick for Christians is to witness to the claims of Christ in a loving, inoffensive manner, so that we won't turn people off. We need to be tactful of cultural sensibilities. And we also need to witness to the truth on a related matter: the accusation that Christianity's truth claims lead to violence and hatred.

When they do, the violence largely comes, not from Christians, but from those who resist the message of Christ and hate the messenger.

As Ravi Zacharias put it: "I know of no Christianized country where your life is in danger because you are from another faith. But today there are many countries ... such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran -- where to become a follower of Christ is to put your life ... at risk." Resistance to the truth, he added, "can be so strong that it can engender violence and hate even when the person has done absolutely nothing wrong."

Nothing, that is, except to believe what Jesus claimed: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" [John 14:6].

You'll learn how to answer accusations like these by reading Lee Strobel's excellent new book, The Case for Faith. But you should also know that, in one way, the non-Christians are right: The claims of Christ are outrageous. But they happen to be what G. K. Chesterton called "the wild truth."

______________________

For further reference:

Strobel, Lee. The Case for Faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000.

______________________

Copyright (c) 1999 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database one way

Only the Born Again Go To Heaven

John 3:3

When asked if she thought she would go to heaven, Barbara Walters — host of ABC’s December 20 special on heaven — responded, “I have no idea.”

I. What is Heaven? Answers given to Barbara Walters by religious leaders —

A. Cardinal Theodore McCerrick (Roman Catholic) — “...is to come to the end of your life at peace with the Lord so that you may find eternal happiness in heaven.” (He did not explain how this is accomplished.)

B. Rabbi Neil Gilman (Jewish) — “The purpose of life is to live a decent life...and that you do it for its own sake, not for getting a reward.”

C. Rev. Calvin Butts (liberal Baptist) — “...eternal joy and happiness because you are at one with God.”

D. Dalai Lama (Buddhist) — “...is the best place to further develop the spiritual practice...for Buddhist the final goal is not just to reach there, but to become Buddha....If someone do very bad, badly...kill or steal...could be born in an animal body.”

E. Ted Haggard (Evangelical) — “Jesus Christ guarantees eternal life to anybody that’ll follow him....The purpose of life is to glorify God and go to heaven...’cause heaven is our home.”

F. Ellen Johnson (President of American Atheists Society) — “No, heaven doesn’t exist, hell doesn’t exist. We weren’t alive before we were born and we’re not going to exist after we die. I’m not happy about the fact that that’s the end of life, but I can accept that and make my life more fulfilling now, because this is the only chance I have.”

G. Feisal Abdul Rauf (Islam) — “The real life is the next life...and...how we live this life, it determines where we shall be in the next. We are told we will be in comfortable homes, reclining on silk couches...so we’re given the delights of sex, the delights of wine, the delights of food with all of their positive things without their negative aspects.”

H. Jihad Jarrar (sincere Muslim, failed suicide bomber) — “...the Lord promised the martyr who lost his life and lost the world on earth, that he promised him these 72 women in paradise as honor, as respect for him.”

II. What is Heaven? Answers given by the Bible —

A. The Bible mentions three heavens: atmospheric heaven, where birds fly; terrestrial heaven, location of the stars and planets; and Celestial heaven, the location of God’s throne (Ps. 80:14; Isa. 66:1; Mt. 5:16, 45, 48)

B. Biblical Names for Celestial Heaven

1. Third heaven (II Cor. 12:2)

2. Paradise (II Cor. 12:4, Lk. 23:43; Rev. 2:7)

3. Glory (Col. 3:4)

4. The highest (Lk. 2:14)

5. The Father’s house (Jn. 14:2)

6. City of the Living God (Heb. 12:22)

7. Heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22)

C. Residents of the Celestial Heaven

1. The living God (Heb. 12:22)

2. Innumerable angels (Heb. 12:22)

3. Redeemed men and women (Heb. 12:23)

4. Jesus Christ (Heb. 12:24)

D. Characteristics of Heaven

1. Heaven is a holy place. There will be no evil or sin in heaven (Ps. 20:6; Rev. 21:8)

2. Heaven is a place of worship (Rev. 4:8-11).

3. Heaven is a place of paradise (Lk. 23:43; Rev. 2:7).

4. Heaven is a place without any unpleasant thing (Rev. 21:4).

5. Heaven is a place of active service (Rev. 22:3).

6. Heaven is a place where everyone is like Jesus (Heb. 2:10-11; Rom. 8:29; I Jn. 3:1,2)

III. Who is going to heaven? — Answer given by Jesus and the Bible

A. Only those who have been “born again” John 3:1-16.

1. Jesus said, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Being “born again,” then, is absolutely essential if one would see God’s kingdom, heaven.

2. When Nicodemus questioned Jesus as to the matter of being born again, Jesus explained that belief is the prerequisite to being born again (John 3:14-16).

B. Only those who have believed in Christ for salvation (John 14:1-6).

1. Belief in God is not enough to get one to heaven. Even demons believe in God (James 2:19). One must personally trust Christ (John 14:1).

2. Jesus Himself claimed to be the exclusive way to heaven (John 14:6). No more intolerant, exclusive, narrow, non-politically correct statement has ever been made by any religious leader.

C. Only those who have been saved by faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 4:12).

1. Only Jesus can save. All other religions lead to hell.

2. Jesus is the only way of salvation; there are no alternate routes.

IV. Who is going to hell? — Answer given by the Bible

A. All those who have not believed on Christ (John 3:18).

B. All whose names are not recorded in the Book of Life (Rev. 20:11-15).

C. All those who fit the description of Revelation 21:8.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #1896]

Who Are the Other Sheep?

John 5:23

In April 2008, controversial black pastor Jeremiah Wright had the following exchange with the moderator at the National Press Club:

MODERATOR: “Jesus said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man

cometh unto the father but through me.’ Do you believe this? And do

you think Islam is a way to salvation?”

WRIGHT: “Jesus also said, ‘Other sheep have I who are not of this

fold.’”

Wright’s response clearly implies that Muslims are among the “other sheep” to which Jesus refers in John 10:16. Thus Wright affirms that people who do not have conscious faith in Christ can nevertheless have the hope of salvation -- an inclusivist position that argues there are many paths to God.

There are two questions that need be addressed: (1) Did Jesus intend to include non-believers in the group called “other sheep”? (2) What difference does it make? Let’s take a look.

In context, “other sheep” cannot be credibly understood as including anyone but genuine believers in Jesus Christ. The first half of John 10 is dominated by a metaphor that Jesus uses to describe His relationship to his people. Jesus is the “shepherd,” and His people are called “sheep.” Jesus describes His sheep as having a number of characteristics. Sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd, and they follow Him (10:3-4). Sheep do not listen to “strangers,” but only to the voice of their own shepherd (10:5,8). Sheep find salvation only by coming to their shepherd (10:9).

The metaphor cashes out as follows. Jesus is the shepherd, and His people are the sheep. Jesus lays down His life for his people, and the only way that they can be saved is through Jesus. The people whom Jesus saves listen only to Jesus. They do not listen to the “thieves and robbers” who have come to destroy them (10:10). Thus only people who come to Jesus by faith are able to be saved.

When Jesus says that he has “other sheep who are not of this fold,” it’s likely that he is referring to Gentiles who would later come to faith in Christ. The sheep that are following Him at that point in the narrative are Jews, but Jesus aims to have followers from among the Gentiles as well. Whoever the “other sheep” are understood to be, they nevertheless have the characteristics of “sheep.” They listen to and follow Christ, and they are saved only by Him.

To say that “other sheep” refers to unbelievers (or followers of Islam in Reverend Wright’s case) simply runs roughshod over the plain meaning of the passage.

Here’s the real import of what Wright said. Many people who hear Jeremiah Wright are likely to get the impression that Jesus is one of many paths that people might take to get to God. Jesus never taught any such thing. In fact, he always challenged His hearers with a stark choice. “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24). Jesus would brook no rivals, and He only made salvation available to those who would “honor the son” (John 5:23).

The Jeremiah Wrights of the world mislead people into thinking that Jesus Christ is one path among many that people might take to get to God. Jesus taught just the opposite. There is only one path that leads people to salvation, and it’s Jesus. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me” (John 14:6). To miss that path means forfeiting eternal life. The stakes couldn’t get any higher than that.

________

Denny Burk serves as associate professor of New Testament at Criswell College in Dallas, Texas.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #5738]

Man On Island Needs A Missionary

John 5:23

If a man spends his entire life alone on a desert island and is saved because he never heard the gospel, then Christians should stop missions and evangelism so the whole world will eventually be saved, according to Russell D. Moore, assistant professor of Christian theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Scripture teaches the only way persons are saved is through the proclamation of the gospel. Contrary to much popular teaching, if “the man on the island” failed to hear the gospel, he would go to hell for his sins upon death, Moore said.

“If the apostles had believed pop evangelicalism's version of what happens to the man on the island, you and I would be in hell right now,” Moore said. “They understood something from the resurrected Jesus Christ that there is more at stake here than we think. The only hope for the man on the island is preaching.”

Many within Christendom teach that the “man on the island” will go to heaven when he dies because he never heard of Jesus and did not have an opportunity to believe, Moore said.

This teaching falls within two theological designations: inclusivism and pluralism. Both views hold that all or most expressions of religion lead to God and, ultimately, eternal life.

If those views are correct, Moore said, then Christians should cease missions and evangelism so that, eventually, nobody will know about Christ. This will ultimately result in the salvation of all because they will be redeemed by the excuse of never having heard the name of Christ.

“If pop evangelicalism is right -- that the man on the island is going to be okay because he has never had an opportunity to believe -- and God is going to say, 'I'll give you a pass because you never rejected Christ and you never really had an opportunity anyway,' then let me suggest to you what you should do as the next generation of evangelical Christians: shut up.

“Stop witnessing, evangelizing and putting out tracts. And plan right now that when you have children you will never sing 'Jesus Loves Me.’ And let's band together as a church with the idea that what we need to do is cancel [the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions.] Bring all that money back here.

“[We should] gather together and never speak the name of Jesus again, with the hope that in several generations his name will be forgotten from the face of the earth, and then the entire world will be a bunch of men and women on the island who are innocent before God. And the entire world will be saved.”

Moore pointed to numerous passages in Romans, however, that depict Christ and the preaching of his gospel as man's only hope. The gentiles faced a similar plight to that of the “man on the island,” Moore said, which the apostle Paul addresses in Romans 15:8-12. Paul was urging the church at Rome to send missionaries to the gentiles who had not yet heard of Christ.

Moore said Christians will see the Bible gives a clear answer to the “problem” of those who have never heard the gospel when they consider three questions: Is the man on the island ignorant of God's existence? Is he innocent? Is he important?

The first three chapters of Romans answer the first question and show that man knows about God through the existence of the created order. Romans 2 shows that all men know about God by their conscience through “the law written upon their hearts.”

Those same passages in Romans also show that the man on the island -- like every person who stands outside the grace of Christ even if they have not heard the gospel -- is not innocent. Paul's writing shows that all persons will be held accountable for breaking the law written upon their hearts, he said.

“You may say, 'How is it fair if the man on the island wakes up in hell tomorrow?'“ Moore said. “If you are asking that question, that tells you something about what you believe about yourself and what you believe about God.

“Basically, what you believe is we're more or less okay and God really owes us every opportunity we can have to make the best of it. That's not what Paul says in Romans 1. Paul says [we] make an idol out of anything.

“We don't want [the true] God, we want something else. We want an idol. Scripture says because of that the man is going to be held accountable before God.”

Further, Moore said mankind continually sins. He paused for five seconds during his presentation and said afterward, “In that five second period you and I sinned enough to send us to hell for an eternity. You say, 'Well, maybe you did, but I'm sitting here and I'm not thinking any impure thoughts or coveting anything.'

“But during that pause did you or I love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves? No, you didn't and neither did I. God says that is what is expected of you as someone who is created in the image of God.”

Moore said Scripture also gives a resounding answer to his third question regarding whether the man on the island matters. The man on the island matters immensely because that man represents all Christians before they trusted Christ as Lord and Savior.

There are millions of “men on the island” in the form of unreached people groups, Moore said. This reality coupled with Scripture's mandate that sinners are saved solely through the proclamation of the gospel should provide believers with an impetus to surrender some of the comforts of middle-class American life to reach the lost, he said.

“If it is true that the man on the island is going to hell, then you and I need to give up our idolatrous fascination with SUVs and DVDs and the comforts of middle-class American life and say that there is something more pivotal than that, and that is the gospel,” Moore said.

“That means that some of you need to be preparing to be that person on the boat taking the gospel to the man on the island. That means the rest of you need to be preparing to get that person on the boat because [the man on the island] is going to hell. What is the hope for the man on the island? It is you.”

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #9356]

Lost Letters

A small Christian sect of an exclusive temperament was holding a

convention. Outside the auditorium there was displayed the motto:

"Jesus Only." A strong wind blew the first three letters away, leaving

the following message on the sign: "Us Only". Too often this is the

spirit shown by Christians of narrow vision. --Sunday School Times

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Ironic Surprise

Luke 22:31

One of the recurring elements in the Bible, especially in encounters involving Jesus, is the element of surprise. That surprise is not only contained in what Jesus said, but more often it is to whom He said the words that brings the surprise.

Consider Jesus' claim in John 14:6, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." These words of Jesus certainly establish what we would call exclusivity. Jesus is saying here, "I am the only way to God. There is no other religious practice or guru or prophet that can lead you to God." Now no doubt, such a claim provokes a strong response and perhaps you yourself find it difficult to believe. But friend, let us be honest here: Every major religion in the world claims exclusivity and has a point of exclusion. And truth by definition is exclusive. Everything cannot be true. If everything is true, then nothing is false.

But back to this element of surprise. Yes, Jesus did say that no one could come to God except through him alone. But have you ever noticed to whom Jesus said these words? He said them to Thomas, the apostle whose name, even after two millennia, is synonymous with doubt. Thomas was the last to believe in the resurrection of Jesus because he did not want to trust such a magnificent claim secondhand. He needed to see and feel before he would bend his knee to the Christ he knew had been crucified. Ironically, Thomas went on to preach the gospel in India, my homeland, a land of over 330 million deities and innumerable "ways to God." Ultimately he gave his life for the exclusive claims of Christ.

Another example of the Gospel's apparent irony is found in Jesus' question to his disciple Peter, "Who do you say that I am?" Jesus patiently waited for Peter's response - "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" - knowing later that three times Peter would eventually deny knowing Jesus. Yet, Peter recovered from that painful moment and spent the rest of his life striving for the gospel and in the end, he himself was crucified upside down.

What surprises us in these instances is Jesus' ability to understand our weaknesses and to touch our hearts and minds where each of us needs it most. You see, He knew of Thomas' doubt before it was spoken. He knew of Peter's denial before the act. And He knows you and me and can still surprise us today wherever we are and meet us in our weakness.

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

The End of the Maze

John 14:6

During a break last summer for our hard working Native American team, we took them to an action park. Many of them were attracted to the maze at the park. Now, we love to capture team memories on video, so one of our guys managed to find a spot looking down on the maze to shoot some video. And, it's really pretty funny because everyone is running down these twisting passageways, hoping to be the first person to find the exit. Unfortunately, most of those passageways led to dead ends. So people are going full tilt, right into a dead end - hoping, even expecting, that this is the path that will get them where they want to go.

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about "The End of the Maze."

Now, there's a much bigger, much more important maze out there these days - the one that offers all kinds of paths to get to God. If you're an honest seeker, sincerely wanting to experience God for yourself, to know Him here and to be with Him when this life is over, frankly, there's a confusing assortment of roads out there. But the Bible's warning is this: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end, it leads to death." (Proverbs 14:12) In other words, a lot of seemingly promising paths in the spiritual maze end at an awful dead end.

But maybe you've already experienced the disappointment of some spiritual roads you've traveled. They've left you still without peace and fulfillment. So you've gone on searching. The trendy thing to do today is to go to the "buffet" route spiritually - don't fully commit yourself to any one way, just try a little of each. Then there's the "any god is fine" approach that seems so open-minded, desirable. But we don't believe that about treating disease - any surgery, any medication is fine. We don't believe it about mathematics - either your sum or mine is fine, even though they contradict one another.

If you want to come to a location where I'm waiting for you, you can't come any way you choose to any location you choose. Only I can tell you how to get where I am. Only God can tell us how to get where He is. And He has. The God of the Bible is unlike any other god in the world. Every other god, every other religion gives us a way to go looking for him. Only the God of the Bible comes looking for us, and dies for the sins that we deserve to pay for, and comes back from the dead, and lives inside those who belong to Him, and makes it possible for us to know right here and now that we're going to heaven when we die.

The God of the Bible is Jesus Christ who says in John 14:6, our word for today from the Word of God, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." He didn't say Christianity is the way - no religion is. The way that leads out of the maze ... the way that leads to God's forgiveness, to personal peace, to heaven is the Man who died for every sin you've ever done and walked out of His grave to prove that He alone can give eternal life.

If you're tired of searching ... if you're ready to find - Jesus is one step of faith away. Picture yourself at the foot of the cross where He loved you enough to die for you - and tell Him you want to be His from this day on. If you want a religion, go somewhere else. But if you want the relationship you were made for, I'd love to send you the booklet "Yours For Life" that I wrote about this relationship. Just let me know you want it.

You don't have to keep looking for God anymore. He's come looking for you - His name is Jesus. And He is everything your heart has been restless for.

________________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. 'Practical Answers to Real Life Issues'

*

from A Word With You by Ron Hutchcraft #3984 · Ron Hutchcraft via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database exclusivismpluralism

Why Tolerance Turns To Intolerance: Christians Living A Biblical Worldview

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas recently was exposed to the duplicitous nature of political correctness. Speaking before a large audience, DeLay remarked, "Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of 'Where did I come from?' 'Why am I here?' 'Where am I going?' 'Does life have any meaningful purpose?' Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive worldview that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation." These are themes directly from my book HOW NOW SHALL WE LIVE?, which DeLay has studied and teaches from in his own church, among other places.

Where did Tom DeLay speak these words? In Congress? At a public school? No, he spoke them to three hundred evangelical Christians at the First Baptist Church of Pearland, Texas.

Nevertheless, Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, assailed Congressman DeLay for daring to proclaim his personal beliefs, in a church setting no less. Quoted in the WASHINGTON POST, Lynn claimed that DeLay's remarks show that the congressman "lacks appreciation for the religious pluralism" of the United States, and that "this is particularly disturbing because he, as a top-ranking member of Congress, represents people from the whole spectrum of religious faiths and nonbelievers, not just Christianity."

No, it's Barry Lynn's position that is "disturbing" -- outrageous, in fact. If tolerance of all religions is the standard, where is Barry Lynn's tolerance for Tom DeLay's beliefs? Evidently, not all religions are entitled to the same tolerance.

Why was Tom DeLay's speech a problem for Lynn and others? In his just released book, EARTH RESTORED: CALLING THE CHURCH TO A NEW CHRISTIAN ACTIVISM, author and evangelist John Barber addresses the need for living a biblical worldview at a time when people are promoting the privatization of religion. Barber writes, "A biblical worldview is seeing the world as God sees it. It is thinking God's thoughts after Him in all areas of life. While many people think that God's Word applies only to areas like prayer, personal evangelism, and inward holiness, a biblical worldview assumes that the Bible also speaks to education, art, business, politics, technology, and more."

Tom DeLay's speech may have been a problem for some because he not only speaks about the benefits of a biblical worldview, he lives it. Here is a man who refuses to separate his Christian faith from his role as a congressman. He speaks his mind and his honest convictions, and he also lives his faith. He and his wife Christine take foster kids into their own home.

If the debate over DeLay's speech tells us anything, it's that private religion isn't what frightens some people. It's the public face of Christianity that scares them. The message is: "Stay in your churches, fast and pray, and you'll be tolerated. But dare to express your faith in the public square, and you will pay."

In an age in which private life is increasingly separated from public life, Christians all the more need to model a biblical worldview -- as Barber says in EARTH RESTORED, "think[ing] God's thoughts after Him in all areas of life." Tom DeLay serves as an excellent example.

For further reading:

John Barber, EARTH RESTORED: CALLING THE CHURCH TO A NEW CHRISTIAN ACTIVISM (Christian Focus Publications, 2002).

Alan Cooperman, "DeLay Criticized for 'Only Christianity' Remarks," WASHINGTON POST, 20 April 2002.

Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, HOW NOW SHALL WE LIVE? (Tyndale, 1999).

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database exclusivism

You Are Your Own Way To God?

Luke 17:21

Liberal views on exclusivity of Christianity made by Rev. Rodney Romney, former pastor of Seattle First Baptist Church:

"...The popular image of Jesus was that he was the Holy Son of God (identity) who came to die for the sins of the world (purpose) and to proclaim himself as the Messiah or Savior (mission). But if you take a more historical approach to his life, as have numerous writers today, that image disappears. The new image that emerges is that Jesus' message was not about himself; he did not come to die for our sins, nor did he try to get people to believe in him.

"...I want to call your attention to this statement from Jesus, "I am the Way (Road), the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by me." ... The common assumption by most Christians is that Jesus was here making a defense of his own unique position in the scheme of salvation, and was saying that literally no one can come to God except through him. This may be good news to the Christian, but it is scant comfort for the Jew, the Moslem, the Hindu, or anyone else who does not accept the unique position of Jesus Christ in relation to God. ... Perhaps what Jesus meant was that no one can come to this concept of God within you as your heavenly parent except through the way of consciousness that he had shown. Perhaps what he was really saying was this: 'You are your own way to God.' Only you can open your heart to God. The road to God is found by carefully attending to the way within, by attending to those moments when a new feeling breaks through or a new idea emerges. Each of us is our own way. The Buddhists say to trust the wisdom that rises up within you. It is another way of saying, you are your way. I believe God wants to say to us today, 'Bill, Mary, Jim, Helen, I want you to trust your deepest intuitions. You are not alone and you never will be. You have not lost your way. You are your way.'"

______________________

Rev. Rodney Romney, retired Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church, Seattle, at 1998 National Forum of the Center for Progressive Christianity

from American Baptist Evangelicals Connections · Danny & Ray Kolke via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database heresyexclusivismone way

Comments About Muhammad Originate In Key Islamic Source

John 5:23

Two former Muslims responded June 12 to complaints from Islamic groups that a speaker's comments at the Southern Baptist Pastors' Conference in St. Louis were "bigoted" and "hateful."

National media have widely reported that Jerry Vines, pastor of First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Florida, described Muhammad as a "demon-possessed pedophile" during a June 10 sermon and that Vines inferred that Islam teaches the destruction of non-Muslims.

Clarifying that Vines not only quoted from their recent book, "Unveiling Islam," Emir and Ergun Caner said Vines also quoted from the Hadith, a highly respected source for Islamic teaching among Muslim clerics and followers worldwide. The Hadith itself verifies that Muhammad married a 6-year-old girl and consummated the marriage when she was 9, the professor-brothers said.

"It's simply a matter of quoting [Islamic] sources," said Emir Caner, an assistant professor of church history and Anabaptist studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C. "If we are wrong in our understanding of the Islamic scriptures, we would be happy to be corrected."

The specific Hadith citation concerning Muhammad's pedophilia is in volume 7, book 6, number 64 and 65, said Ergun Caner, an assistant professor of theology and church history at Criswell College in Dallas.

Both Emir and Ergun Caner were Sunni Muslims who became Christians in 1982.

"The comments in question cannot be considered bigotry when they come from Islamic writings," Ergun Caner said.

A lengthy passage from the Hadith, volume 1, book 1, chapter 1, shows that Muhammad himself believed he was under demonic influence, but it notes that Muhammad's wife is the one who deemed his experience as "divine," Ergun Caner said.

Concerning terrorism and Islamic jihad, Emir Caner noted variant interpretations by Muslims themselves. Some see jihad as a "spiritual war," and others, "physical," he said.

"Some Muslims want to allegorize their own scriptures because they don't want to defend jihad," Emir Caner said. "But if you take the Koran at its word, or Muhammad at his word, then you'll find physical jihad."

The highest level of Muslim heaven -- which has 70 perpetual virgins on couches -- is reserved for Muslims who "shed their blood," said Ergun Caner said, referencing Hadith 135.

Islam's tilt toward violence, Emir Caner said, also is reflected in the Koran: "Slay the enemy where you find him, Surah 9.92," whereas Christians are commanded to love their enemies.

"A so-called Christian who bombs an abortion clinic or shoots an abortionist and says God told him to do it does that act against the Bible," Ergun Caner said. "But the Muslim who commits acts of violence in jihad does so with the approval of Muhammad.

"When 9/11 happened, we were all shocked. But where was the international outrage when jihad killed 3 million people in Sudan?" Ergun Caner asked.

As former Sunni Muslims, the Caners cite the major differences between Islam and Christianity as the "personalness" of God, and "grace as opposed to works."

"Jesus Christ ... is ultimately personal and wants to have a relationship with me," Ergun Caner said.

The Koran says Allah "is as close as your jugular vein, which is a place of fear, not of faith," Emir Caner said. "As Muslims, grace was a foreign word to us," he said, having noted in an earlier interview that the only way a Muslim can be assured of heaven outside of dying in jihad is whether his good works outweigh his bad ones.

"So do my beliefs dictate that good Muslims will go to hell?" Ergun Caner asked. "The answer to that is: Good Southern Baptists will go to hell. The issue at hand is not one of religious practice, it is one of personal relationship."

Christianity is "exclusivistic" in its claims, but universal in its appeal to others, Ergun Caner said. Christianity versus Islam is not a "we win, you lose" outcome, he said. "We want to tell all Muslims everywhere that they can be freed from 'scales of Islam.'"

He noted, "Our culture is suffering the Oprah-ization of America, or the idea that we all just need one big Oprah group hug and there will be peace.

"But I say there will never be peace, not in Jerusalem, not in the Holy Land, not until the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, comes back."

*

I Want Someone Else To Save Me

John 5:23

In January, 1998, a man was hiking up Wildcat Mountain, New Hampshire, from the northeast side. While crossing a slide, he had a crampon break. He took one more step and fell. He slid about 100 feet, dropped off a 20-foot cliff, and then slid another 100-200 feet.

Two Appalachian Mountain Club employees, Chris and Hawk, took a sled-stretcher and went to rescue him. His response was not what they expected. He was combative and argued with them, saying, "Are there any other options besides having you guys carry me out? I’ll get out myself. I don’t like your attitude, you seem pretty arrogant, like you’re the only way. You’re not the only way. Somebody else will come, or I will get out myself."

This is like people who believe there must be other ways to God, other ways to be saved. [The man died.]

________________

[A note at the bottom of the illustration seems to indicate the incident happened around August 1983, not January 1998.]

*

from Illustration Collection Of Rev. Matt Smith · Rev. Matt Smith, Christian Missionary Alliance, Connecticut via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database exclusivismrescue

Who Can Pray?

Luke 18:13

Sermon in series "Questions People Ask" Acts 10:3-4

WHO CAN PRAY?

=============

I. Prayer can get you in trouble.

II. There are prayers God will not hear.

A. Self-centered prayer to get attention. Matthew 6:5

B. Mechanical prayers. Matthew 6:6

C. Wavering and faith-less prayer. James 1:6-7

D. Prayer not according to God's will. 1 John 5:14-15

III. There are people God won't hear.

A. Believers who are far from God:

1) Disobedient and violent. Isaiah 59:2-3

2) Self-centered and self-righteous. Luke 18:9-14

3) Hard-hearted. 1 Peter 3:7

B. Non-believers who don't know God. 1 Kings 18:26

IV. Whose prayers get heard?

A. God hears prayers of devoted believers. John 15:7-8

B. He hears prayers of sinners who seek God. Acts 22:16

C. The interesting case of Cornelius. Acts 10:3-4

V. Check your own prayers.

VI. Prayer that is always heard. "Sinner's Prayer" Luke 18:13

from Condensed sermon outline (handout) by Rev. David Holwick · Rev. David Holwick, Serm02zc.pco via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database exclusivism

Do All Religions Lead To God?

John 14:7

During the days following the catastrophic terrorist events of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush called for a national day of prayer. He urged people of all faiths to pray for America. Interfaith religious services were televised from the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. and from Yankee Stadium in New York. These services included clerics from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. They offered prayers to the God collectively addressed as “the God of Abraham, the God of Muhammad, and the Father of Jesus Christ.” Popular television personality Oprah Winfrey led the service held in New York City and boldly declared that all people pray to the same God.

Is Oprah right? Do Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Hindus worship the same God? If so, people of all faiths can live peaceably in this world, can’t they?

Religious pluralism is the view that all religions, certainly all major or ethical religions, are equally valid paths to God or to ultimate reality. For the pluralist, MANY religious roads lead to God and salvation. And yet, given the present cultural milieu of globalism, multiculturalism, relativism (in both truth and morality), and especially the postmodern spirit, the growing climate of religious pluralism poses a serious challenge to the integrity of the Christian faith.

POPULAR RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Entering the twenty-first century, America embodies significant ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious diversity. Urban and suburban dwellers come from all parts of the globe. One’s next-door neighbor to the right might come from Southeast Asia or Australia. The one to the left might originate from India, Africa, Europe, or the Middle East. America, as a democratic nation, places great value on the principle of tolerance, especially the tolerance of religious expression. The Bill of Rights guarantees American citizens the right to free exercise of religion.

Unfortunately, some people take the notion of equal toleration of religious expression to mean that all religions are equally true, thus equally valid paths to God. In effect, democracy has been applied to ultimate truth.1 This seemingly “politically correct” approach to religion, though popular in this culture, represents deeply convoluted thinking. The acceptance of social pluralism (tolerance of diverse religious expression) does not logically imply the truth of metaphysical pluralism (that all religious truth claims are equally valid and simultaneously true).

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

The popular notion that all religions are true ignores three imperative considerations. In order to think through and respond to the issue of religious pluralism, one must recognize and understand each of these points.

1. While the religions of the world do share some common beliefs and especially moral values, fundamental and irreconcilable differences clearly divide them on many crucially important issues, including the nature of God, the source and focus of revelation, the human predicament, the nature of salvation, and the destiny of mankind.2 A plethora of views exists just concerning the nature of God (or ultimate reality). Some religions affirm monotheism (one God); others, polytheism (many gods); still others affirm pantheism (all is God); and some even affirm atheism (no God).3 In Judaism4 and Islam, God is personal (and singular); in Christianity God is clearly more than personal and singular (superpersonal and triune5); while in strands of Hinduism and Buddhism God is less than personal and singular (apersonal and diffuse).6

Some of the world’s religious traditions view God as wholly transcendent (beyond the world), others as wholly immanent (within the world), and still others as both transcendent and immanent. Some religions view God as infinite in nature and nonidentifiable with the world, whereas in other religions God is finite and identified with the world. Clearly no universal agreement exists among the world’s religions as to who or what God really is. As scholar Harold A. Netland states, “Careful examination of the basic tenets of the various religious traditions demonstrates that, far from teaching the same thing, the major religions have radically different perspectives on the religious ultimate.”7

Identifying mankind’s ultimate problem (sin, ignorance, unenlightenment), the necessary human response (faith, obedience, meditation), and how that dilemma must be resolved in terms of encountering the divine (salvation, liberation, enlightenment) creates other stark contrasts between religions. Fundamental differences exist between the dominant religion of the West, Christianity, and the dominant religion of the East, Hinduism. Christianity affirms that redemption in Christ for the believer involves an eternal personal relationship with God in the afterlife. Hinduism, on the other hand, affirms a cycle of rebirths leading ultimately to the absorption of one's individual consciousness into God or ultimate reality. Those two visions of future reality are simply irreconcilable.8

2. The religions of the world are so diverse in belief and in worldview orientation that they defy attempts to reduce them to a single common theme or essence. Indeed, this vast and complex array of religious perspectives makes religious reductionism a dubious venture altogether. Oxford theologian Alister E. McGrath notes, “There is a growing consensus that it is seriously misleading to regard the various religious traditions of the world as variations on a single theme.”9

Netland draws a similar conclusion about attempts to consolidate the religions according to a single salvific (relating to salvation) objective: “It is highly misleading to speak as if all religions share a common soteriological goal and simply differ on the means to reach it.”10

Attempts to reduce a variety of religions to their lowest common denominator usually succeed only in distorting the religions. Homogenizing the religions is a costly price to pay to solve the problems of religious diversity, for in the end the religions must sacrifice the very features that make them unique and appealing in the first place. Moreover, the various religions do not easily conform to any particular reductionistic category.

While some rightly identify similar ethical values as a common motif, upon closer inspection it becomes evident that even the similar moral principles are motivated by, and grounded in, fundamentally different views of the nature of reality. Religion cannot be reduced simply to ethics, for religion makes claims about the ultimate nature of reality (metaphysics), to which ethics appeal for justification. The renowned authority on world religions, Cal Berkeley professor Huston Smith, clearly rejects the notion all religions are basically the same:

For as soon as [the notion of sameness] moves beyond vague generalities –– ‘every religion has some version of the Golden Rule’ –– it founders on the fact that the religions differ in what they consider essential and nonnegotiable.11

The similar ethical values shared by religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism cannot be separated from the distinctive doctrines promoted by those particular religions. This distinctiveness is especially true in terms of historic Christianity; for Christianity is not primarily a system of ethics. Instead, Christian ethics flow from a redemptive relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore the ethical teachings of Jesus in the New Testament cannot be separated from the unique Christian doctrines that emerge directly from the great redemptive events of Jesus’ life (such as the incarnation, atonement, and resurrection). In other words, the truth of Christian ethics is tied to the truth of Christian theology.

3. Formal laws of logic demonstrate the impossibility that all religious truth claims can be true at the same time and in the same way (the law of noncontradiction: A cannot equal A and non-A). For example, Jesus Christ cannot both BE God incarnate (Christianity) and NOT BE God incarnate (Judaism, Islam). Contradictory religious claims have opposite truth value, meaning that they negate or deny each other. Therefore exactly one is true and the other false. And, accordingly, Jesus Christ must either be God incarnate or not be God incarnate; no middle position is possible (the law of excluded middle: either A or non-A).

Since Jews, Christians, and Muslims all conceive the identity of Jesus of Nazareth differently, logically speaking, their conceptions simply can’t all be true. While it is logically possible that all three positions are false, they definitely cannot all be true. Thus, the claims of popular religious pluralism fail to comport with the self-evident laws of thought. This fact led Christian philosopher Ronald H. Nash to conclude that “any one who would become a pluralist must first abandon the very principles of logic that make all significant thought, action, and communication possible.”12

Some people argue that applying logic to religion is false or misleading. They insist that ultimate truth comes only through some type of nonrational intuition. Their argument betrays them, however, because in arguing against logic they must first presuppose the laws of logic to attempt a refutation. To do so is, of course, self-contradictory. As Christian apologists Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks point out, “Even those who claim, ‘Logic does not apply to God,’ use logic in that very statement.”13

To divorce oneself from the self-evident laws of thought when it comes to ultimate reality is to resign oneself to irrationality. Netland explains a price too great for most people to pay because it requires the “forfeiture of the possibility of meaningful affirmation or statement about anything at all –– including statements about the religious ultimate. One who rejects the principle of noncontradiction is reduced to utter silence, for he or she has abandoned a necessary condition for any coherent or meaningful position whatsoever.”14

A PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH TO PLURALISM

Some philosophers and religious scholars believe there is a way of making religious pluralism intellectually tenable. Could it be, perhaps, that the contradictions among the world’s religions are only apparent rather than real? That is, maybe all the religions are experiencing the same divine reality but in different ways? After all, isn’t an encounter with a mysterious and unfathomable God at the core of most religions? Surely God transcends the finite human mind.

The prominent pluralist thinker, John Hick,15 employs a common Eastern way of illustrating this point, called the elephant analogy. In this analogy, several blind men encounter an elephant for the first time. Each feels a different part of the animal, then attempts to determine truth about the essence of its being. One man pats a leg and SEES the elephant as a “living pillar.” Another man grasps the trunk and BEHOLDS a snake. The man who rubs the tusk believes the elephant to be a “sharp plough-share.” Though each individual expresses one important aspect of the whole reality, none comprehends the complete entity.16

According to this analogy, one may attribute the differences among the world’s religions to mankind’s inability to grasp the infinite reality of God. Hick applies the famous Kantian objective/subjective distinction of THE WORLD AS IT IS (the objective noumenal world), from THE WORLD AS IT APPEARS to human consciousness (the subjective phenomenal world) to the problem of religious diversity. He argues that one must distinguish between ultimate reality as it is (the divine “noumena”), from ultimate reality as experienced by finite human beings (the divine phenomena).

Hick’s pluralistic theory places the ultimate divine reality beyond the particular deities of the various religions. This divine ultimate is not experienced directly, but instead is filtered through the different historical and cultural lenses of mankind. Thus people encounter the same divine reality (Mohammed, Krishna, Jesus) differently because of their differing historical, cultural, or philosophical perceptions and biases. He further explains:

These different PERSONAE are thus partly projections of the divine Reality into human consciousness, and partly projections of the human consciousness itself as it has been formed by particular historical cultures.17

For Hick, each religion is valid because each faith provides a genuine (though obviously limited) encounter with ultimate reality. The world’s religions represent “different ‘faces’ or ‘masks’ or PERSONAE of God, the Ultimate Reality.”18 And, since Hick thinks that religion is ultimately about existential transformation (ethics) and not about specific doctrinal beliefs, then all religious paths are acceptable because all the major religions are capable of transforming a person from being “self-centered” to being “divine-centered.” Hick views religious pluralism as a much more attractive hypothesis than either total “skepticism” of religion on one hand or traditional religious “dogmatism” on the other.

In response to Hick’s philosophical pluralism, while his pluralistic vision appeals to many for both its apparent tolerance and its attempted unification of religion, it is nevertheless fraught with serious problems. An examination of Hick’s views should begin with careful scrutiny of the elephant analogy.

In thinking about the elephant analogy, no one questions the reality of biases and limited knowledge on the part of mankind when encountering God, but these concessions do nothing to shore up this analogy’s central weaknesses as it relates to pluralism. The elephant analogy seems to imply a radical skepticism concerning one’s knowledge of God; namely, that no one, or in this case no religion, can really know God satisfactorily.19 But if God is by-and-large unknowable, then how is one able to know that God is unknowable?20 In fact, for that matter, would one even know that God exists? How does Hick know so much about the inner workings of the incomprehensible ultimate reality? Especially since this ultimate reality — in Hick’s view — does not reveal itself in nature nor in propositions.

Ironically, while the elephant analogy attempts to validate the truth of all religions, it really succeeds in showing that all religions fail to adequately reveal God. So rather than affirming religious truth, the analogy demonstrates that all religions, at least in large measure, are false or misleading.21 The religions may indeed provide some core ethical values, but as was noted previously, these similar moral values are motivated by, and grounded in, essentially different views of the nature of reality. In religion, ethics cannot be divorced from metaphysical truth claims. What is GOOD must be understood in light of what is REAL and TRUE. Actions do not exist in a vacuum apart from truth.

The analogy is especially flawed, however, when viewed from the standpoint of historic orthodox Christianity. According to Christianity, God has personally entered the world of time and space in the historical person of Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14, 18). This same Jesus makes exclusive claims to divine authority and possesses the prerogatives of deity which are incompatible with the homogenizing and accommodating views of religious pluralists (e.g., John 8:58, 10:30).22

To accommodate pluralism’s unknowable God, Christianity would be forced to give up all of its distinctive doctrines, including the Incarnation, the Trinity, and the Atonement. As Oxford theologian Alister E. McGrath noted, “The identity of Christianity is inextricably linked with the uniqueness of Christ, which is in turn grounded in the Resurrection and Incarnation.”23 If the analogy were to reflect historic Christianity, one would find the elephant healing the men’s blindness and personally introducing himself. For the Christian claim is that God is personally, intimately, uniquely, and decisively disclosed in the Jesus Christ.

For the elephant analogy to work and for religious pluralism to be true, the claims of historic Christianity must be false. For according to Jesus’ words in the New Testament, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). “If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well” (John 14:7). Again, central to the message of historic Christianity is the astounding claim that God came to Earth in the flesh and has been personally known among men.

The Apostle Paul’s words directly summarize this central Christian truth: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Col. 2:9). Moreover, a fair reading of the New Testament reveals that faith in Jesus Christ is considered the unique and only way of encountering God. “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’” (John 14:6). The apostle Peter declared concerning Jesus, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Hick’s reasons for embracing religious pluralism over historic, orthodox Christianity (the faith of his youth) is found in his rejection of the Bible as a propositional revelation from God and in his conviction that the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation is both unhistorical and logically incoherent.24 He argues vociferously that the Incarnation is a myth.25 Hick also views historic Christianity’s position of religious exclusivism as intellectually narrow and morally unacceptable. But Hick’s bold rejection of the truth-claims of historic Christianity creates a logical problem for his broad pluralistic claim.

Christian philosopher C. Stephen Evans points out that “it is an essential part of Christian faith that Jesus is God in a unique and exclusive way. It follows from this that all religions cannot be equally true. If all religions are equally true, then Christianity is false, and therefore not all religions are true.”26 In the end, the correct position must be one of these two: (1) Christianity and all other exclusive religions are wrong, and the rest of the religions, which are inclusive, are right; or (2) all religions are metaphysically wrong. In other words, what pluralism succeeds in doing is redefining religion along the line of ethical transformation and simply dismissing any concrete truth claims that might end up creating contradictions among the religions. In a very real sense a pluralist cannot take the truth claims of any religion seriously.

While some individuals believe that the exclusive claims of Christianity are provincial and arrogant, in reality their own pluralistic claims are dismissive of virtually all of a religions’ distinctive features. Further, their view provides something other than a neutral or objective analysis of religion. For the idea of an unknowable ultimate reality is closely connected to an Eastern monistic understanding of the divine. Such proponents appear to be taking the greatly presumptuous position that they, unlike the religions of the world, REALLY know the elephant.

MYTHICAL TRUTH OR HISTORICAL TRUTH

Pluralist thinkers such as Joseph Campbell have argued that all religions can be simultaneously true because all religions merely make mythical and/or poetical claims, not historical, factual truth-claims. This assertion of course means that the religions of the world are metaphorically true but literally false.27

However, again, this view flies in the face of historic orthodox Christianity. Whether one is inclined to accept them or not, the truth-claims of Christianity are historical and factual in nature. Jesus of Nazareth was born under the reign of Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus, and He suffered and died at the hands of an equally real Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. The historic Christian faith consistently resists and defies all attempts to homogenize and mythologize its central truth-claims. The apostles saw Jesus’ resurrection from the dead and reported it as an historical-factual event.

The apostle Peter proclaimed: “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16).28 According to the laws of logic and the historical veracity of Scripture, pluralism, no matter how popular, cannot be true.

REFERENCES:

1. Peter Kreeft, FUNDAMENTALS OF THE FAITH (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), 74-75; R.C. Sproul, REASON TO BELIEVE (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 35.

2. William L. Rowe, PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, 2d ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993), 174-75.

3. The most primitive form of Buddhism, “Theravada,” is godless in belief.

4. Reference here is to the traditional adherents of Judaism. Some Jewish groups (Messianic Jews) retain their Jewish heritage and tradition but embrace Jesus Christ (YESHUA) as their Messiah and Savior.

5. This is reflected in the unique Christian doctrine of the Trinity according to which, the one true God exists eternally and simultaneously as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. With regard to the Trinity, see Kenneth Richard Samples, “Thinking About The Trinity: ‘One What and Three Whos,’” FACTS FOR FAITH 3 (Q3 2000), 8-13.

6. Richard L. Purtill, THINKING ABOUT RELIGION (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), 105-6.

7. Harold A. Netland, DISSONANT VOICES (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 37.

8. Rowe, 175.

9. Alister E. McGrath, AN INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIANITY (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1997), 155.

10. Netland, 160.

11. Huston Smith, THE WORLD’S RELIGIONS (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 245.

12. Ronald H. Nash, IS JESUS THE ONLY SAVIOR? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 55. For a clear and insightful discussion of the formal laws of logic, see Ronald H. Nash, THE WORD OF GOD AND THE MIND OF MAN (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 103-12.

13. Norman L. Geisler, and Ronald M. Brooks. COME LET US REASON: AN INTRODUCTION TO LOGICAL THINKING (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 15.

14. Nash, IS JESUS THE ONLY SAVIOR?, 55.

15. Hick’s works on pluralism include GOD AND THE UNIVERSE OF FAITHS (London: Macmillan, 1977) and PROBLEMS OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM, ed. (New York: St. Martin’s, 1985).

16. Cited in Michael Peterson, et al., REASON & RELIGIOUS BELIEF (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 224.

17. John Hick, PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990), 119.

18. John Hick. In MORE THAN ONE WAY?: FOUR VIEWS ON SALVATION IN A PLURALISTIC WORLD, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 39.

19. See C. Stephen Evans, PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: THINKING ABOUT FAITH (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985).

20. Nash, IS JESUS THE ONLY SAVIOR?, 36.

21. Michael Peterson, et al., REASON & RELIGIOUS BELIEF, 226.

22. For an introduction and defense of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, see Kenneth Richard Samples, “Thinking About The Incarnation: The Divine Word Become Flesh,” FACTS FOR FAITH 4 (Q4 2000): 34-41.

23. Alister E. McGrath, INTELLECTUALS DON’T NEED GOD & OTHER MODERN MYTHS (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 119.

24. Hick, MORE THAN ONE WAY?, 29-59.

25. John Hick, ed., THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE (London: SCM, 1977). For a philosophical defense of the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, see Thomas V. Morris, THE LOGIC OF GOD INCARNATE (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986).

26. C. Stephen Evans, WHY BELIEVE?: REASON AND MYSTERY AS POINTERS TO GOD (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 141.

27. See Douglas Groothuis’s critique of Joseph Campbell’s book THE POWER OF MYTH in the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, Fall 1989, 28.

28. This article is an expansion of two other articles; see Kenneth R. Samples, “Responding To Religious Pluralism,” FACTS AND FAITH 12, no. 1, (1998), 12-14; and Kenneth R. Samples, “The Challenge of Religious Pluralism,” CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL (Summer 1990), 39.

POINTS TO REMEMBER

1. World religions defy attempts to reduce them to a single common theme for example: — The nature of God––one God, many Gods, no God; singular, triune; personal, superpersonal, apersonal; immanent, transcendent, or both; finite or infinite. — Mankind’s ultimate problem (sin, ignorance, unenlightenment), the necessary human response (faith, obedience, meditation), and how that dilemma is resolved in terms of encountering the divine (salvation, liberation, enlightenment).

2. Formal laws of logic make it impossible that all religious truth claims can be true at the same time and in the same way.

3. Whenever the claims of one religion directly contradict (negate or deny) the claims of another religion, then both of these claims cannot be true. Jesus Christ cannot both be God incarnate (Christianity) and not be God incarnate (Judaism, Islam).

4. A person arguing against logic must first presuppose the laws of logic to attempt a refutation. This is self-contradictory.

5. Unique and central to the message of historic Christianity is the astounding claim that God came to Earth in the flesh and can be personally known among men.

Andy Kaufman and the Southern Baptists

John 3:16

Andy Kaufman's gotten a lot of attention recently -- a movie (MAN ON THE MOON), a book (LOST IN THE FUNHOUSE), and a feature article in ROLLING STONE. Dead at 35 in 1984, Kaufman was a meteor of strangeness in his short time with us. As Latka Gravas (or Foreign Man) in TAXI, lounge entertainer Tony Clifton, Elvis, and a crazed conga drum player, Kaufman bedeviled and amused us, sort of.

At the same time, the ministerial alliance of Chicago has asked Southern Baptists not to flood their city with the gospel. Associated Press reported strong opposition from the Council of Religious Leaders, one of whom charged Southern Baptists with “non-Christlike-arrogance,” since they say “non-Christians ... are outside God’s plan of salvation.”

These two phenomena seem unrelated, but there are striking parallels. Sure, there is any number of differences. Kaufman was arguably godless and insane, for two.

But consider these similarities:

1. BOTH SEEM LIKE MARTIANS TO THEIR HECKLERS. Performer Kaufmann actually sang “99 Bottles of Beer” all the way through. Nobody goes below the 80’s. Southern Baptists have evangelistic tracts with talk of hell. They even sketch in flames. Nobody would be that stupid in these days of appreciating the divine in everyone. It’s just not done.

2. BOTH ARE UNBELIEVABLY INSULTING. Kaufman would declare that women were not his match, and he would invite them to test his claim. Some would storm out of the audience and take him on, only to fail amid his insults. Southern Baptists say that gays are wrong, Hindus are wrong, Muslims are wrong. In fact, they say all but Christians are wrong. None of this “Worship at the church of your choice,” for your choice could be damnably confused. The Council says the SBC could encourage hate crimes. A bishop charges them with “non-Jesus-like arrogance." (Note: Kaufman meant to be insulting; Southern Baptists just are by virtue of their message.)

3. BOTH ARE GOOD AT PLAYING UNNATURAL ROLES. Andy wasn’t Latka Gravas; he wasn’t Tony Clifton. But he did Latka and Tony because he thought he was supposed to. With Southern roots, Southern Baptists are naturally polite and deferential folks. They love their Bible studies and potluck suppers in Dixie. There’s nothing quite like watching the Alabama-Auburn game on tv, with the sliding door open to the smell of pine needles. It’s a bit unnatural for them to confront urban strangers with the gospel, to help a transvestite find a dress in a clothes closet, and to stifle the gag reflex in a homeless shelter. Yet here they come because they think they’re supposed to.

4. BOTH HAVE A CHILDLIKE WONDER. Kaufman delighted in lip-synching to old recordings of the Mighty Mouse theme (“Here he comes to save the day!") and “Old McDonald” (“ee eye ee eye oh”). Southern Baptists love Sunday School and “Jesus Loves Me." They have little patience for Moltmann, Bultmann, and other such Manns. It’s mainly John 3:16 and a cup of cold water in Jesus’ name for them. Some of them read the heavies, but they don’t get too heavy.

5. BOTH ARE HAVING WAY TOO MUCH FUN. Kaufman thrived on the criticism. So too do Southern Baptists. Both knew they must be doing something right if there were groans and howls of protest. How could anyone be cheerful in the midst of such dismay? To paraphrase Kierkegaard, neither Chicago nor the world is really their audience.

So they’re coming to the Windy City. And whatever the response, you can expect to hear back, “Tenk you veddy much.”

A Darkening Culture Prefers Drug Runners To Missionaries

Acts 14:19

A thuggish band of pushers stalks the children of the world. They peddle a deadly poison that results in hopeless addiction, psychological devastation and societal upheaval. Despite first-rate public relations campaigns and even government-declared "wars" on them, these crafty schemers smuggle their wares across national borders at ever-escalating rates. The only solution appears to be a tough "zero tolerance" policy. This scourge will not stand.

If you think these characters are drug dealers or their multinational crime bosses, you would be wrong. They're missionaries.

The aftermath of the recent tragedy in the skies over the Amazon River has revealed a jarring new element to the culture wars in the rhetoric of some secularist commentators, namely an almost violent contempt for, of all things, missionaries.

Independent Baptist missionary Roni Bowers and her newly adopted baby, Charity, were killed when their plane was gunned down by a Peruvian fighter jet, which mistakenly believed the missionaries' plane to belong to the Columbian drug cartel.

Missionary Jim Bowers had barely buried his wife and daughter when Bill Maher, the smirking host of ABC television's "Politically Incorrect" program, used the death of the missionaries as an opportunity for a sarcastic jab. To the laughter of a studio audience, Maher callously mocked the plane crash situation, wondering if the missionaries were morally superior to the drug runners for whom they were mistaken.

After all, Maher reasoned, the exclusivist evangelical claim to truth carried by these martyred missionaries has done far more damage than the recreational use of drugs. The only real attempt at a rebuttal to Maher was from a panelist who suggested that not all missionaries preach a gospel of Christ as the only way of salvation. Some simply engage in social and medical assistance.

Now social commentator Lionel Tiger has joined the fray. "In the fuss over the human loss and its political implications, what was largely overlooked is the extraordinary vanity and presumption that underlie the zeal of the missionaries," Tiger writes in the New York Press. "What on earth gives some people the right to decide that their view of God or nature or destiny is the right one?"

Calling missionaries such as the Bowers "frank imperialists," Tiger ridicules the cramped living spaces, years of language training and threats of violence endured by missionaries "in return for rewards that are mainly in the realm of spirit." Pouring out one's life for those in a faraway land is, Tiger writes, "objectionable and kind of cheap."

But Tiger doesn't stop there. Even after praising the separation of church and state, Tiger calls on the government to revoke visas for global missionaries since the spread of the gospel is "almost a toxicity case for the World Health Organization."

"The missionaries on the Amazon who suffered that awful death continue to play gospel music on loudspeakers as they cruise the river," Tiger concludes. "They should shut them off and come home."

If the Bowerses and their compatriots in the global missions endeavor are so patently ridiculous, then why are they so offensive to Maher and Tiger? For profoundly theological reasons, evangelical missionaries do not use the thread of the sword to gain "converts." They simply proclaim Christ and offer salvation in him. Do Maher and Tiger really believe those coming to faith in Latin America and around the world are too unsophisticated to turn down this "insult" to their native cultures? Perhaps these poor, uneducated Third World Christians should instead listen to the cynical and sophisticated pundits and late-night comedians who know what's best for them.

On second glance, however, the growing derision in the culture for global missions should come as little surprise to evangelicals. Even the biblically anemic "Fatherhood of God, Brotherhood of man" social gospel of the early 20th century's liberal Protestant missionaries would rile today's culture, if only for the non-inclusive gender language employed. The message of the biblical gospel that the only hope for a condemned world is faith in a crucified and resurrected Messiah named Jesus is, as always, scandalous.

The first Christian missionaries faced more than the smirks of the commentators when they took this message to first-century Ephesus. Faced with a loss in figurine profits if the populace turned from goddess worship to Christ, the silver industry of Ephesus sparked a riot against the "frank imperialism" of the apostle Paul.

Southern Baptists and other evangelicals should take note of these comments of hostility against missionaries. It is one thing for mainline Protestant councils to denounce urban evangelism as a "hate crime" or for secular commentators to deride once-venerated missionaries as the moral inferior to drug cartels. It is quite another for the quiet suggestion of legal penalties against such evangelism to be offered, to no great uproar, in the public square. As our Baptist forefathers once knew, the murderous thoughts of the culture mavens can often quite rapidly take us to the whipping post and beyond. It could well be that the Lottie Moon Christmas Offerings of a coming generation of Southern Baptists might need to be smuggled overseas, under penalty of death.

Such should remind us of the revolutionary truth of the gospel we publish before the nations. It should propel us to prayer for the lives of the lost around the world and, yes, for the salvation of skeptics such as Bill Maher and Lionel Tiger. Roni and Charity Bowers did not waste their lives for "wholly conjectural" spiritual rewards. They will one day be called from their silent graves by the voice of the conquering carpenter of Galilee who will then rule the cosmos to the glory of his Father. There will be no late night televised sarcasm then.

And that, come to think of it, is indeed more dangerous than a drug war.

*

Denominations In Heaven

A pious person who was perplexed by denominational differences had a dream. He thought that he had died and arrived at the gates of heaven.

When he applied to the watchmen to admit him within the sacred walls, they inquired, "Whom do you want?" He replied that he belonged to the Independents and wished to join them in that place. "There are no such people here!" was the answer he received. "Well," said he, "I have had some connection with the Baptists; may I join them?" "We don't know any by that name," replied the heavenly watchmen. It was in vain that he asked for Episcopalians; they had never heard of them. There were not even any Wesleyans, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, or Presbyterians there. He was just going away in despair when, as a last resort, he said, "But I am a Christian." At this term the gates of bliss flew open, and he was received as a welcome guest. Being a Christian is the only thing that really matters in the sight of God. We may call ourselves by any other name, but, when we come to God, what counts is whether or not we are truly born-again Christians.

from Fredericksburg Bible Illustrator Supplements via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database christian

Christian Exclusivism In Light of September 11 Attack

John 5:23

A Lutheran minister and national radio host has commended Southern Baptists for their stance on biblical truth and their belief that Christ is the only way to salvation. Todd Wilken, host of the nationally syndicated radio program “Issues, Etc.,” made his comments in December while interviewing Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. on the subject of “religious pluralism.”

Wilken, who served as a parish pastor in The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod denomination for nine years, praised Southern Baptists for not joining those saying that all religions are equal. That belief -- also known as religious pluralism -- has become more widespread following the events of Sept. 11, Wilken said.

“As a Lutheran pastor, I thank God for Southern Baptists like Dr. Albert Mohler, who appear to me to be standing alone since Sept. 11,” he said. “[They’re] simply not accepting the invitation to the big party of religious pluralism. ... This willingness to stand upon the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ -- to be the only way of salvation for all sinful mankind -- is real courage. This is real leadership.”

Wilken and Mohler discussed a wide range of topics during the program, including:

• A column by The New York Times’ Thomas Friedman, in which he argued that Christianity and other faiths should succumb to a pluralist worldview. The real war, Friedman asserted, is between pluralism and religious totalitarianism, which he described as “a view of the world that my faith must reign supreme and can be affirmed and held passionately only if all others are negated. That’s bin Ladenism.”

Friedman said that some Jews and Christians “have gone back to their sacred texts to reinterpret their traditions to embrace modernity and pluralism, and to create space for secularism and alternative faiths. Others -- Christian and Jewish fundamentalists -- have rejected this notion, and that is what the battle is about within their faiths.”

Mohler said Christians must stand first on the truth of the gospel. “Tom Friedman is at the intersection of that modern and postmodern mind. He sees anyone with sincere faith -- and anyone who claims that there is only one God and one way to know him -- not only as odd but dangerous. That’s just the way we look to the modern, secular world. We look dangerous because we believe some things are absolutely non-negotiable.”

As an example of where pluralism can lead, Mohler pointed to the book, “That’s Funny, You Don’t Look Buddhist: On Being a Faithful Jew and a Passionate Buddhist.” The author, Sylvia Boorstein, claims that she has successfully blended the two religions. “That’s the way people want to think of morality, truth and faith,” Mohler said. “They want a smorgasbord from which they can take a little bit of this and a little of that. Everything is equally right, everything’s true. [But] it’s interesting to note what they leave out. They leave out all the hard demands of discipleship. They leave out all the propositional truth claims -- what Paul says is the offensiveness or the scandal of the gospel. What you’re left with is a Christianity ... that basically tells people they are not sinners and therefore not in need of a Savior.”

• The comments by evangelist Franklin Graham. Late last fall, Graham became the focus of a media storm for comments he made about Islam and the exclusivity of Christianity. In October Graham said, “We’re not attacking Islam, but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He’s not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It’s a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion.”

A media storm ensued, and Graham eventually wrote an editorial in The Wall Street Journal clarifying his comments. He wrote that he does not believe that Muslims “are evil people because of their faith. But I decry the evil that has been done in the name of Islam, or any other faith -- including Christianity.”

Muslims criticized Graham, but Mohler said that Graham was simply proclaiming the truth of the gospel. “He was not only right, [but] he was courageous in those statements. In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 events, I have been very careful in my public comments to say that I am not a specialist in Muslim theology. I’m quite knowledgeable about it, but I’m not a specialist. I will leave it to others to debate about the inherent violence in Islam. I believe it is there, but that is up for Muslims and specialists to debate. My concern is that Islamic theology kills the soul. It is a false gospel. Allah is not the God of the Bible. Franklin Graham was absolutely right. He spoke as an authentic evangelist. His task is to bear witness to the gospel. We must be clear that Allah is not Jehovah, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

• The differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. One caller to the show argued that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God because they both worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

But Mohler said that those who reject Jesus Christ as Lord also reject the Father.

“We have to come back to the fact that Jesus said that the only way to genuinely know the Father is through him,” he said. “We didn’t come up with that. That is what Jesus himself said. Now, this is really politically incorrect.

“Jesus had the boldness to say to the Jews of his day who rejected him that they did not know the Father. And I as a Christian preacher can’t preach anything other than what Christ himself said, and that means insofar as the Jews reject Christ, they do not know the Father. The same thing is true of Allah. The Muslims reject Christ as the Savior, as the Messiah.”

• The need for more Christian ministers to speak the truth about the gospel.

“The fact is that in America today there are just too many Christian leaders who are afraid to be rejected,” Mohler said. “They’re afraid to be disliked.”

Mohler said ministers must keep in mind the words of Christ.

“[In Luke 10] He said, ‘If they reject you, they’re rejecting me. If they’re rejecting me, they’re rejecting the Father.’ That’s what we have to have in mind. It’s not about us. It’s about Christ.

• The participation in interfaith services following Sept. 11.

Saying he would not participate in them, Mohler compared such services to offering “different flavors of ice cream -- just giving options. I can’t dignify a Hindu priest or a Muslim imam by suggesting that we really are mutual religious professionals. I’m not a religious professional; I’m a minister of the Word. I really cannot share that platform with anyone who does not also stand on the Word of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Wilken then asked Mohler what he would do if he unknowingly found himself in such a setting.

“What would we say?” Mohler asked. “I think the only thing we can say is modeled by the apostle Peter in the Book of Acts. We have to stand up, face the crowd and say, ‘I want to tell you about the one name under heaven and earth whereby men must be saved, and that is Jesus Christ.’

“If we do not declare the exclusive truth of the Christian gospel and call all persons to repentance and faith, then we’re not preaching the gospel. We would be in good company. The apostle Paul got beaten and kicked out of more towns than most of us would ever visit. He shook the dust off his feet and just carried those scars as badges of honor for the preaching of the gospel.”

Is Jesus the Only Way? (part 3)

John 5:23

In the first column in this series I said that we can come to terms with Jesus’ claims to being the only way by answering three rudimentary questions. In yesterday’s column we looked at the first question, “what is truth?” Today we will take a look at the second question: What is ethical?

Any Western Christian who has shared his/her faith with others understands that claiming Jesus is the only way can be perceived as being intolerant of and offensive to others. A few years ago I had a public discussion with a Muslim professor on a university campus. The morning of the event, the moderator informed me that the Muslim professor had just called and said he would not participate unless I agreed not to offer any criticism of Islam. I was shocked but agreed.

During my speech that evening I shared that I was a Christian today because I had investigated Christianity historically and discovered that Jesus’ claims to deity, His death by crucifixion and His resurrection could all be confirmed by historical research. During the Q&A period one of the audience members asked me why the Muslim professor and I hated one another. Now, we had been very collegial to each other during the evening’s event. So, I responded that I did not hate him and did not sense that he hated me. I added that if I were to claim that his views were equally valid or true as my own, he would not respect me and I would not respect him if he were to say the same to me. I added that such a comment would be rather insulting, since both of us are strongly persuaded that our own religious tradition is true to the exclusion of the other. Accordingly, if I were to assert that the Muslim view is as valid as the Christian view, he would understand my comment as a demotion of Islam. I ended by stating that it is certainly possible for us to disagree in the strongest sense with the other’s cherished views while acknowledging and even defending the other’s right to have them.

The point I want to make is this: When someone claims that my belief that Jesus is the only way is intolerant and offensive, they ignore the fact that their pluralist approach is likewise intolerant and offensive. They are being intolerant of exclusivist views and offensive to those who hold them.

Amy-Jill Levine is a professor of New Testament studies at Vanderbilt University and is Jewish. Professor Levine opines that the Christian claim that Jesus is the only way is not morally dubious. She writes, “What I would find more ‘morally dubious’ is my insisting to another that his or her reading or presuppositions, because they are not pluralistic, are somehow wrong.... The evangelical Christian should be free to try to seek to convert me to Christianity: such an attempt is biblically warranted and consistent with evangelical (exclusivist) theology. I remain free to say ‘thank you, but no thanks.’ I would not want someone telling me that my ‘cherished confessional traditions’ have only limited value. I would not presume to do the same to another.”

Moreover, there are times when truth should not be sacrificed for the sake of avoiding offense. While the Titanic was sinking, since lifeboats were available, it would have been unethical for the crew of the Titanic, in the interest of reducing panic for the moment, to have told all of the passengers to go back to their cabins and sleep through the night because everything would be fine in the morning. Truth is important. Decisions of greater importance should drive us to discover the truth, rather than dilute or deny it in our efforts not to offend, which as we have seen is a no-win situation.

However, when sharing our faith with others, Christians should remember to do it “with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). We should love others and be graceful in our efforts to share the greatest news ever told.

________

Mike Licona is coordinator of interfaith and apologetics at the North American Mission Board.

*

[Original illustration at this number was deleted for being obsolete]

Just One Password

Acts 4:12

My friend Stan was having some new computer systems installed in his office. In the course of their work, the installers asked him what his password was. Well, in order to understand his answer, you need to know that Stan has experienced a dramatic life change because of something that happened to him spiritually a few years ago. He told the computer guys, "My password is 'Jesus.'" Needless to say, they weren't ready for that one. One of them said, "So you can't get in without Jesus?" My friend smiled and replied, "Exactly."

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A WORD WITH YOU today about "Just One Password."

"You can't get in without Jesus." That's not just my friend's computer systems. That's you and me going to heaven.

The ultimate object of every religion is that we might end up with eternal life. The ultimate hope of every religious person is that they will make it to heaven when they die. But heaven is God's place. And we can only get there God's way.

In Acts 4:12, our word for today from the Word of God, He makes that way very clear. Speaking of Jesus, He says, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Notice the "life-or-deathness" of the words God chooses - "salvation" and "saved." Well, those are words about a rescuer - getting us out of a deadly situation. He says that's Jesus. Our eternal problem is that there is a spiritual death penalty for us running our own lives, for all the things we've done our way instead of God's way. And just as if we were trapped in the rubble of a collapsed building or drowning, our only hope is a Rescuer. And thank God, He sent one. But only one.

This isn't about the superiority of one religion over another - it's about the availability of only one Savior from the penalty of our sin. No one else even claimed to pay that death penalty for us. And that's our only hope of heaven, because we can't get into heaven with our sin - and only the One who paid for our sin can remove it. If a religion could get us to God, take your pick. But it's a Savior we need - and only Jesus paid the price to be that.

So the sobering reality is this: if you're depending on anything or anyone other than Jesus to get you to heaven, you're not going to make it. Even if your religion is all about Jesus, that's not enough. It's about you totally depending on Jesus to forgive your sin and get you to heaven. The question is: has there ever been a time in your life when you have explicitly told Jesus that you're putting your total trust in Him and what He did on the cross for you? If not, this could be that time.

Please - don't risk another day without knowing you belong to Jesus Christ. If you want to begin your personal relationship with Him, why don't you tell Him that right where you are - and I hope you'll let me send the booklet to you that I wrote about this relationship. It's called "Yours For Life." Just let me know you want it.

There is no greater sense of peace. There's no greater sense of security than to know that you are going to heaven when you die. You can know that today - because you've trusted Jesus to take you there.

________________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. 'Practical Answers to Real Life Issues'

*

from A Word With You by Ron Hutchcraft #3879 · Ron Hutchcraft via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database exclusivism

Hazardous Nonsense: the Bishop Who Disparages Christianity

In our current cultural and political climates, speaking candidly about the challenge posed by Islam can be hazardous. We're not supposed to suggest that the attacks were the logical consequence of Islam's teachings and a continuation of its 1,400-year-long troubled relationship with the Christian West.

As one prominent preacher found out, if you deviate from the party line, you can find yourself labeled a "bigot" and your words "hate speech." In fact, it sometimes seems that the only time you can compare Islam to Christianity is if your goal is to disparage Christianity.

A case in point: the Right Reverend William Swing, Episcopal Bishop of San Francisco. Swing is the driving force behind something called the "United Religion Initiative," which he fancies as a sort of United Nations for religions.

Of course, few people take Swing and his Initiative very seriously -- few people except the media, that is, which seem to love Episcopal bishops who say outrageous things. Swing embodies the kind of the nonsense we're hearing a lot about in the relationship between Islam and Christianity in two important ways.

First, he is quick to criticize Christianity -- not only actions, but Christian beliefs themselves. He insists on calling evangelism "proselytizing" and compares it to the murder and domination of other groups.

In the wake of the attacks, he said that "we have to object when a religious group announces its spiritual superiority over another religious group." The implication is clear: Christian insistence on the uniqueness of Christ is the equivalent of the Islamic extremism that brought down the World Trade Center -- reasoning we've seen in, among other places, the pages of the New York Times.

Even more troubling than his equating Christianity with radical Islam is his willingness to give the latter a pass. In his statements about religious persecution, he consistently neglects to mention the persecution of Christians even in the egregious cases of the Sudan and Indonesia. And when asked about the Taliban's destruction of the giant Buddhas in Bamiyan, he says, "There are a lot of things that have the potential to be idols ... and some of them need to be blown up."

When he was asked about the hijackers relationship to Islam, he maintained that they "did not hold a corrupted version of Islam, because all religions are guilty of fostering terrorism." Really?

What's more, several of his partners in the Initiative have ties to Islamic terror groups, including the Taliban and Egypt's leading Islamist group.

While Swing is admittedly an extreme case, there's nothing extreme about his unwillingness to consider the truth about Islam and the Christianity he claims to profess. And just as some of his associates in turn associate with extremists, many of the Islamic leaders trotted out at official functions have similar associations.

Our struggle against terrorism, recent successes notwithstanding, will be long and hard, even without the kind of self-deception we're seeing on public display. And that's why Christians have to be prepared to set the record straight about what Christianity and Islam teach. Not out of defensiveness, but out of love for our neighbors.

Because in this case, the distortion of truth and love will ultimately prove very hazardous indeed.

_________________________

Copyright © 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database exclusivismone way

United Nations Chief - Belief In One Truth Is Harmful

John 5:23

"The idea that there is one people in possession of the truth, one answer to the world's ills or one solution to humanity's needs has done untold harm throughout history."

-- United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan

(in his speech on receiving the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize)

from Newsweek Magazine · Kofi Annan via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database one waytruth

Proclaiming Truth of Gospel Not Intolerant Or Arrogant

John 5:23

Criticism will surely come, but Christians must continue proclaiming Jesus Christ as the sole means of salvation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said.

Preaching on "The Glory of Christ Our Mediator," Mohler said that the Bible clearly states that Christ is the sole mediator between God and man [1 Timothy 2:5-6].

The divide in today's world, Mohler said, lies between two camps: those who say that there are many ways to heaven and those who say that Christ is the only way.

"No one is threatened these days about Christians speaking of Jesus Christ as a mediator or a Savior," he said. "But that is not the Gospel. ... The Gospel we have received declares that Jesus Christ is the solitary mediator.

"There are those who say that this is arrogant. Well, it would certainly be arrogant if we made this claim for ourselves. There are those who say that this is intolerant, but their understanding of toleration means that no one's right and no one's wrong -- and eventually, of course, no one's saved."

Ministers who claim that there are many ways to salvation are not preaching the true Gospel, Mohler argued.

"There are not many mediators," he said. "There is not a divine committee of mediators. ... There is one mediator between God and man -- the man Christ Jesus.

"Any other declaration is not merely a compromise of the Gospel; it is an un-Gospel. It is an anti-Gospel."

Preaching from Hebrews 9:1-10:18, Mohler noted that the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message includes an addition to describe Christ's role as mediator.

The new BF&M adds the word "substitutionary" to the section on "God the Son" to read: "He honored the divine law by His personal obedience, and in His substitutionary death on the cross He made provision for the redemption of men from sin." With the exception of "substitutionary," this section of the 2000 BF&M reads exactly like the 1963 version.

Explaining the addition, Mohler said that Christ's death served as the substitute for the punishment man deserved.

"There was some controversy about this," Mohler said of the BF&M addition. "There is still some controversy about this. There are some who hate the very idea that Christ was our substitute. There are those who say it is simply an archaic way of looking at it, (that) it presents a grotesquely distorted understanding of God."

But Mohler pointed to several verses that describe Christ as the mediator. Hebrews 9:15 says that Christ is the "mediator of a new covenant" (NASB), while 1 Timothy 2:5-6 says that there is "one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

The importance of the addition cannot be overstated, Mohler said.

"The substitutionary reality of the atonement of Jesus Christ reminds us again and again that it is not we who have a problem with God; it is God who has a problem with us," Mohler said. "It is not God who declared Himself our enemy; it is we who in our sinfulness declared ourselves His enemies. We rebelled against our Creator."

It is important, Mohler said, to distinguish between the biblical meaning of "mediator" and the modern definition of the word. While the modern use of "mediator" often refers to a third party helping negotiate among two conflicting parties, the biblical definition is much different.

"Christ is not a disinterested third party," Mohler said. "Christ is not a neutral observer. In fact, His role as mediator is established in the fact that He is not a disinterested third party. But [he is] the Lamb of God, slain before the foundation of the world. He is the Lamb who came to die. He came at the initiative of the Father. He came with His mediatoral work representing the supreme act of obedience to the Father's will."

Mohler pointed to another key doctrine that must be defended: the blood atonement of Christ. Mohler quoted liberal theologians who argue for the removal of blood references in the Bible.

"There are those who want no more bloody cross religion," he said. "Feminist theologians have accused the church of holding to a substitutionary theory of atonement which amounts to nothing more than divine child abuse."

Pointing to Hebrews 9:12, Mohler said that the sacrificial blood of Christ is central to the Christian faith.

"Again and again, the text speaks of blood," he said. "There will be those who say (that) they want nothing of a bloody-cross religion. If you say that, you want nothing of Christianity, because the blood of Christ is central to the Gospel itself."

*

Pagans and Pluralism

John 5:23

David Wells, in NO PLACE FOR TRUTH, had this to say: “While religious pluralism may be a novel experience for us, it is putting us in touch with the world that surrounded the biblical authors. The pluralism and the paganism of Our Time were the common experience of the prophets and apostles. In Mesopotamia, there were thousands of gods and goddesses, many of which were known to the Israelites — indeed, sometimes known too well...

“Nothing, therefore, could be more remarkable than to hear the contention, even from those within the Church, that the existence of religious pluralism today makes belief in the uniqueness of Christianity quite impossible. Had this been the necessary consequence of encountering a multitude of other religions, Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul would have given up biblical faith long before it became fashionable ... to do so.”

________

Christianity Today, Vol. 38, no. 8.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #3668]

from Rev. Mark Beaird, Kerux Sermon #25986: Confronting The Spirit Of The Age · David Wells via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database one wayexclusivism

Just Pipe Down: Are Christians Intolerant?

John 14:6

It wasn’t easy, but we managed to do it: In the space of a few weeks last fall, Christians set off raging controversies with almost every major religious group.

We Southern Baptists were first off the mark, publishing prayer guides for the conversion of Hindus and Muslims. Outraged Hindus warned of a “holy war.”

We then published a booklet asking Baptists to pray for the conversion of Jews. And Jewish leaders were incensed, accusing us, as one rabbi put it, of “spiritual racism.”

In the midst of the ruckus, the Vatican announced a papal visit to India, causing Hindu leaders to demand that the Pope publicly disavow that Jesus is the only means of salvation.

Most reporters were sympathetic to the offended parties, often attaching the word “bigot” as a prefix to the word “Christian.”

Now mind you, we’re not talking about Christians carrying signs or saying things offensive to homosexuals. We’re talking about Christians urging other Christians to pray for non-believers — or, in the case of the Pope, upholding essential Christian beliefs.

So why have religious leaders and the press gone ballistic? The answer has to do with a shift in how we understand pluralism.

America’s founders were seized by a great liberal vision — a country in which people would freely exchange ideas arising from a plurality of interests. From this dialogue, truth could be rationally discovered.

But in today’s relativistic environment, pluralism no longer means tolerating competing ideas. It means forced neutrality. According to this view, no one should express any idea that could offend someone else.

But this redefinition of tolerance could ultimately have a serious effect on the Christian faith, by attempting to stifle the practice of religious beliefs. Evangelism is, after all, the very heart of “evangelical” commitment.

Well, what should we do?

First, never compromise our convictions. Many evangelicals want so badly to be acceptable to the culture that they avoid saying or doing anything that might put-off their unsaved neighbors. In one case I know of, a pastor asked worshipers not to bring Bibles to church lest they offend seekers.

Second, we must craft an apologetic for why truth claims are good for society. I saw this work in a press conference in India some years back. While acknowledging that Prison Fellowship does good work, one reporter challenged my “exclusivist” message. “All roads lead to heaven,” he insisted.

I asked him, “Do you know why Mother Teresa helps the dying?”

“She’s a great humanitarian,” he shrugged.

“No,” I answered. “She does it because she loves Jesus — the One who says He is the only road to heaven. And that’s why I work in the prisons. I wouldn’t do it for a moral teacher.”

He had no more questions.

Society — like that reporter — wants to have it both ways: They want the benefits of Christian service without the convictions that motivate us. But it doesn’t work.

The greatest danger to a free society is suppression of the free expression of ideas, which is why the Founders held freedom of conscience to be the first right.

When Christians speak out on behalf of religious freedom, we’re not trying to silence anyone – we’re trying to preserve the best of our great democratic traditions.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database tolerance

Narrow-minded? All Believers Are

John 5:23

A lady wrote to the editor of our local paper the other day, upset that someone suggested homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible. “My God,” she wrote, “is a God of love and not a God of judgment.”

Now, the lady is free to worship whomever she pleases, and if she wants to make up her own god who will let her do as she will, well, it's been done for thousands of years. My only question to her is “Where did you find this God without standards?” Certainly not in the Bible. Open it at any page and you will see this God makes demands on His people. He sets limits on their behavior and holds them responsible.

I suspect the writer created her god from her own imagination. This puts her lord in the same class as a rag on a stick in Botswana, a volcano in the South Pacific, or a statuette in a Singapore flat. God-making has a certain appeal -- your creation can look like anything you choose and it approves whatever you want to do.

Not long ago, local citizen Ray Whiting wrote to our editor taking issue with a letter from Gary Hanberry who had claimed, “The Jesus of the Bible is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and is compatible with no other religion.” Mr. Whiting responded, “It is my belief that the Jesus of the Bible is merely the retelling of the ancient sacred myths of divinity, told and retold through the ages in every language and every culture. The Jesus depicted in the Gospels is an image compiled from the earlier myths, not a real person who walked the earth 2,000 years ago.” He concluded, “I would suggest to Mr. Hanberry that ... his version of Christ is both shallow and impotent. If his Christ cannot embrace us all ... his Christ is insufficient for the need. On behalf of all Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Wiccans, (and) pagans ... I beg him to find a bigger Christ.”

I'd like to ask Mr. Whiting where exactly he located this Christ who embraces all religions without expecting anything from any of them. Certainly not in the Bible. And, since the Bible is the only book on earth giving information about Christ, how did he manage to find a Christ different from the one presented there?

Anyone doing even a cursory reading of the Gospels sees that the story of Jesus is presented as historical fact. He lived in this place, at this time, with these people. The men and women who knew Jesus and followed Him told others who passed the word on to others who told their friends. The process has continued right down to the present day. With the ancient myths and fables, a story was repeated around campfires and dinner tables for a few generations, and then died out because it was only a tale. It had no basis in fact and the people found no reason to prolong its existence.

Mr. Whiting insists Truth must accommodate all the religions of the world, otherwise it is not Truth. What fascinating reasoning. Only in religion -- and in no other field of inquiry known to man -- would we claim that all beliefs are equally valid and demand that they be given a place at the table, so to speak.

Try that on medical science. All schools of medicine must teach voodoo, quackery, superstition, and opinions as well as the proven principles of sound medical practice. The primitive who rubs dung on an open sore and drills holes in skulls to cure headaches is given the same hearing as the head of Johns Hopkins or Sloane-Kettering. Value judgments are out; everyone qualifies as an authority.

Try it on the physical sciences. Every opinion carries equal weight. There are no right answers and no definitive way to determine the orbit of a planet, the makeup of a chemical compound, or the formula for unraveling a math problem. Pity the astronaut who climbs into a rocket- ship and stakes his life on the collected ignorance of every person in the world with an opinion on physics.

Only in matters of faith do we insist there can be no Absolute Truth, that those who claim to possess Truth are narrow and selfish and bigoted, and that whatever “works” for a person is by definition “true.” In no other area of life would we fall for such foolishness. Not in the kitchen where we insist on standards of cleanliness and tastefulness, not in construction where workers must follow regulations to make buildings safe and dependable, nor in matters of health or safety or a thousand other fields. Yet, claim you have found Absolute Truth about God and you are automatically branded as shallow and narrow.

Narrow is actually the right word. Scientists have observed that all truth is narrow. Two plus two always equals four. The space shuttle's descent from orbit must coincide with an incredibly narrow slit in time and space; otherwise the mission fails spectacularly. The nuclear power plant a few miles up the river follows complex and strict guidelines. The manufacture of medicine is a precise business. An organ transplant follows exacting procedures. Truth is always narrow.

The Lord Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” What could be narrower? In so few words, He has presented Himself as the only Savior and ruled out every other religious alternative in the world. He said, “No one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom I reveal Him.” Either Jesus is the only way to God or He is the world's greatest egomaniac and not to be believed on anything. (John 14:6; Matthew 11:27)

Make no mistake -- the issue is Jesus. Whether He is Who He claimed to be or just another religious charlatan is a question every person must answer. But, please note, the Scriptures are not neutral or ambiguous on this subject.

“In the past, God spoke to us in various times and ways through the prophets. But lately, He has spoken to us through His Son, Whom He has appointed heir of all things, through Whom He made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word.” (Hebrews 1:1-3)

We conclude with a word from the inimitable C.S. Lewis. In a letter to a friend who had questioned the deity of Jesus, Lewis wrote: “... what about Mark 2:18-19. (Jesus had said, 'No one need fast while I am here.') What man can announce that simply because he is present, acts of penitence, such as fasting, are 'off.’ Who can give the school a half-holiday except the Headmaster? The doctrine of Christ's divinity seems to me not something stuck on which you can unstick but something that peeps out at every point so that you'd have to unravel the whole web to get rid of it.” (“C.S. Lewis's Case for the Christian Faith,” by Richard L. Purtill, p. 48)

The early Christians put it succinctly: “Jesus is Lord.” He is indeed.

*

The Pressing Question and How To Deal With It

John 5:23

What is the pressing theological question for this generation? And how are preachers supposed to deal with it?

Such questions were at the forefront of the 2004 Pastor's Conference hosted by the First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida. O.S. Hawkins, president of the Annuity Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, was among the speakers who focused on the first question, while Jerry Vines, pastor of the Jacksonville church, examined the second.

Jesus posed many questions during His earthly ministry -- questions designed to reveal something about the person being asked, Hawkins said. Jesus' questions have continued to convict hearts and minds of His followers over the centuries, Hawkins said. “Each generation throughout church history,” he said, “had a question of their time.”

The great question for Christians in the early 21st century, Hawkins said, is found in Matthew 16:15, “Who do you say that I am?”

“The exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the issue of our time in a culture of inclusivism and pluralism,” with Christians today in no less a struggle to answer that question than previous generations struggled to answer questions about the divine nature of Jesus or salvation by grace through faith alone, Hawkins said.

Pastors must take the lead in answering the question of the exclusivity of Jesus as the only way for salvation, Hawkins said, pointing out that there are two kinds of leaders: those who lead by public consensus and those who lead by personal conviction.

Those who lead by public consensus consult polls before they take a stand, Hawkins said; they pander to people and avoid confronting culture or challenging public opinion. Their leadership fosters pluralistic compromise, the attitude that Jesus is just one of many paths to salvation.

Leadership by public consensus, Hawkins said, also leads to politically correct inclusivism -- the idea that although Christ died for our sins, He automatically saved every human being so there is no need for a conversion experience.

“Pluralism affects our doctrine and message,” Hawkins said. “Inclusivism affects our duty, mission and methods. Have you ever noticed that churches that become liberal stop sending out missionaries?”

Vines, addressing the question of how pastors are to respond to the pressing issues of our generation, turned to the Apostle Paul's second letter to Timothy, particularly in 2 Timothy 4:1-8. Interspersing his sermon with video clips of the late R.G. Lee, Homer Lindsay Jr. and W.A. Criswell, Vines encouraged conference attendees with the message that “old preachers never die, they just preach away.”

Paul warned Timothy about apostasy, people falling away from the faith, which Vines said is the same problem pastors face today. “People have no stomach for the sound doctrine which is supposed to promote spiritual health,” he said. “They have an appetite instead for their own lusts, pleasantries and entertainment. We are living in a day of itching ears.”

Vines warned against falling into the trap of catering to people's shallowness. “The practical result is the same for the liberal preacher who does not believe in the inerrant Bible as it is for the conservative preacher who does not preach the inerrant Word,” he said.

“Here was Paul, close to death, in prison, beaten and old,” Vines said. “These are his farewell words as he passed the torch of ministry to Timothy.” Yet Paul did not complain but instead told Timothy that the preaching ministry is like being both a shepherd and a soldier, Vines recounted.

“As shepherds, we must preach the Gospel to our flock regardless of size,” Vines said. “We must feed and guard the sheep.”

As soldiers, pastors are called to endure hardship; they live in difficult quarters, get shot at and encounter affliction, Vines said. “I know about those poison letters preachers get, I know about being stabbed in the back by the ones you think you can trust,” he said. Paul had experienced all that and worse as he sat writing this letter in a stinking, dark, infested prison cell, Vines said. Yet Paul instructed Timothy to “endure hardness like a good soldier.”

The apostle also told Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist,” Vines said, “to bring people to Christ and get the church red-hot to also do so. The most important thing is to get people out of hell and into heaven.”

To the wives of preachers, Vines directed special encouragement. After acknowledging the ministry of his own wife, Vines asked all wives of preachers to stand. He led in a round of applause of appreciation which quickly turned into a sustained standing ovation.

After the ovation, Vines read Matthew 10:41, “Whoever receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.” To the preacher's wives, he then said, “For all those white shirts you ironed, for all those lonely nights while he was out ministering somewhere, Jesus promised you will be rewarded.”

*

Exquisite Counterfeit

John 5:23

Something that is counterfeit is, by definition, intended to closely resemble what is genuine. Counterfeits are made of things that are valuable: jewels, works of art, currency. The more closely they resemble the genuine article, the bigger the threat they pose. The Department of Treasury does not concern itself with studying Monopoly money, and curators do not waste time examining poor copies of masterpieces. Those charged with protecting something precious realize that imitation is the most dangerous form of thievery.

Living as we do in a culture that has adopted pluralism as a supreme value, we would do well to take some time to think about the nature of counterfeit. Time and again I have had the same conversation in which people who reject the exclusivity of the Christian faith will say something to the effect of, “But surely you recognize that figures such as Mahatma Gandhi or the Dalai Lama are far more spiritual than most Christians. Look at their compassion! Look at their enlightenment! Do you mean to suggest that they are not truly spiritual?”

A simple “yes” is likely to shut down this conversation. But if we examine the nature of counterfeit, we may go a bit deeper. Consider that “spiritual” figures who do not bow to the lordship of Christ are practicing a kind of counterfeit spirituality. This takes into account that they may show genuine compassion. It acknowledges that they may have sacrificed their lives for others. They may be more disciplined or learned than we will ever be. But if they are not a genuine way to the Father, these virtues become even more dangerous. The beauty and mystery of false religion are the pied piper's tune leading souls to destruction.

Imagine that you go to your bank to withdraw some money. The teller gives you a stack of bills, which you discover are not genuine currency. When you protest, he or she points out the intricate beauty of the design on the bills, claiming that they must be the work of a master counterfeiter. Recognition that you are in possession of high quality counterfeit would probably not make you more inclined to accept it.

Some people use the word counterfeit interchangeably with the word hypocritical. If they say, “All religions are counterfeit” they really mean, “No religion is genuine.” Yet counterfeit currency would not exist if there were not such a thing as genuine currency. Likewise, the existence of counterfeit spirituality actually testifies to the reality of a true spirituality. False messiahs exist because they are imitations of the true Messiah; they cannot gain us access to the God of the universe. Make no mistake, we are all spiritual beings. But the spirituality that God accepts is based on a relationship with Christ, and the indwelling of his Spirit.

Jesus Christ made the bold and polarizing claim that no one could come to the Father except through him. In other words, no other currency could satisfy our debt but the blood of the Lamb who was slain. He freely offers to pay our debt. There is plenty of exquisite counterfeit available, but only the genuine article can purchase eternal life.

________

Copyright © 2004 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

Point of Exclusion

John 5:23

With the numerous religions in the world, how can Christians claim exclusivity? I am often asked this question in different settings. But I’ve always been fascinated by the fact that the Christian faith is the only one that seems to have this question posed. The truth is that every major religion in the world claims exclusivity, and every major religion in the world has a point of exclusion.

Hinduism, for example, is often represented as being the most tolerant and accepting of other faiths. That is just not true. All Hindus believe in two fundamental, uncompromising doctrines -- the Law of Karma, and the belief in reincarnation. These will not be surrendered. In fact, Buddhism was born out of the rejection of two other very dogmatic claims of Hinduism. Buddha rejected the authority of the vedas and the caste system of Hinduism. The issue here is not who was right or wrong. The truth is that they were systemically different -- both claiming RIGHTNESS.

Islam, as you know, is very clearly an exclusive claim to God. A Muslim will never tell you that it doesn’t matter what you believe or that all religions are true.

But before we get upset with such claims, let us remember that it is the very nature of truth that presents us with this reality. TRUTH BY DEFINITION IS EXCLUSIVE. Everything cannot be true. If everything is true, then nothing is false. And if nothing is false then it would also be true to say everything is false. We cannot have it both ways. One should not be surprised at the claims of exclusivity. The reality is that even those who deny truth’s exclusivity, in effect, exclude those who do not deny it. The truth quickly emerges. The law of non-contradiction does apply to reality: Two contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense.

Thus, to deny the law of non-contradiction is to affirm it at the same time. You may as well talk about a one-ended stick as talk about truth being all-inclusive.

So where does that leave us? We must not be surprised at truth claims but we must test them before we believe them. If the test demonstrates truth then we are morally compelled to believe it. And this is precisely the point from which many are trying to run. As G.K. Chesterton said, the problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it has been found difficult and left untried.

Christ is either the immeasurable God or one dreadfully lost. Apply the tests of truth to the person and the message of Jesus Christ. You see not only his exclusivity, but also his uniqueness.

________

Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #18577]

Only Catholics Make It In

John 14:6

Mel Gibson in The New Yorker (September 15, 2003), discussing his then-upcoming film, “The Passion of the Christ”:

“There is no salvation for those outside the Church. Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. [But] she's Episcopalian. [S]he believes in God, she knows Jesus. [A]nd it's just not fair if she doesn't make it [to heaven]; she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair [that she will not be saved]. I go with it.”

The Password For Heaven

Acts 4:12

I couldn't just sit down and start using your personal computer. Of course, you couldn't just sit down and start using mine either. If you work in an office, chances are they make sure they can have access to the company computer that you use. Your computer, my computer, and your company's computer are all protected from any funny business by something called a password. I can't into my computer without typing in my password. Would you like to know what it is? It's ... a secret.

Well, I'm Ron Hutchcraft and I want to have A Word With You today about “The Password For Heaven.”

Our word for today from the Word of God is important mostly for one group of people - people who want to go to heaven when they die. Which is just about all of us. This statement by the God whose heaven it is reveals the only password that will get you in. And the last thing God wants is for it to be is a secret. He really wants you to be there with Him forever, but there's only one way possible.

Acts 4:12. The disciples have just healed a lame man in the name of Jesus. Then, through them, God says, “Salvation is found in no one else” (When you hear that word salvation, think rescue - like first responders going in to save the lives of people trapped in a collapsed building.) “Salvation is found in no one else for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” No one else but Jesus. No other name but Jesus. The only way to be saved, to be rescued.

From what? From the eternal death penalty the Bible says we all have facing us because we've taken the life God gave us and, in essence, made ourselves “God” in our life. My Creator was supposed to run my life and I ran it myself. The Bible says every one of us has done that. And there's no religion that can possibly pay or remove that death penalty, including the Christian religion. What we need to be saved from is hell itself. Without that, any hope you or I have for heaven is false hope.

But why is there “no one else,” “no other name,” other than Jesus? Why is He God's password to His heaven? In a world that so values tolerance and open-mindedness, isn't it colossal arrogance to say He's the only way to heaven? Well, I didn't say it. The Bible did. Jesus did - when He said, “I am the way ... no man comes to the Father except through Me.” It isn't so much about one religion being right and others wrong. In fact, it's not about religion at all. It's about a spiritual death penalty that can only be paid one way- by someone dying. And that's why Jesus came. In His words, He “came to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). In other words, when Jesus died on the cross, He was dying so you don't have to. And the day He walked out of His grave, He proved He's got the power to turn your death sentence into eternal life.

Only someone with no sin of their own could take your place, and that would have to be the Son of God. No one else could have died for you. No one else even claimed to. Which leaves us with the question on which everything rests, “On what are you basing your hope for heaven?” If your password is the good things you've done or your spiritual background or your religion - no chance. Your only hope is pinning all your hopes on Jesus Christ.

Has there ever been a time when you clearly, consciously, personally told Jesus that you were placing all your trust in Him? The day you do is the day you trade forever the hell you deserve for the heaven you could never deserve. And this could be that day. With your forever at stake and with life so unpredictable, waiting another day just doesn't make sense.

Your hell cancelled, your heaven guaranteed - today. If you'll enter in through the only name God will accept. His Son - Jesus.

__________

Copyright © Ron Hutchcraft Ministries, Inc., PO Box 400, Harrison, AR 72602. Used by permission. Written by Ron Hutchcraft. "Practical Answers to Real Life Issues"

*

from A Word With You by Ron Hutchcraft #4506 · Ron Hutchcraft via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database exclusivism

Do All Roads Really Lead To Heaven?

John 5:23

A documentary from ABC News correspondent Barbara Walters, titled “Heaven: where is it? And how do we get there?” which aired Dec. 20, 2005, purported to bring viewers closer to the celestial abode than they may have ever been.

The report comes just in time to reaffirm secular America's gripe that we all should just pipe down about this whole “baby Jesus” thing on Dec. 25. Celebrating the birth of Christ, you'll remember, is but one option this “holiday” season.

The title of the documentary is a misnomer. Barbara wasn't going to actually tell you how to get to heaven. She presented all of the options, the long cafeteria line of religious opinions that characterize American pluralism. She wouldn't be a good journalist if she advocated one viewpoint over another -- right?

So, from the outset of the program, the goal was clear: present what you can in two hours about humanity's millennia of struggle in every corner of the globe to find peace with God and enter into His presence. In the process, all things are to be presented equally ... supposedly. It's a little hard to mask a lack of journalistic objectivity when the host fawns over the Dalai Lama in a remote mountain village in India, even going so far as to offer him a kiss on the cheek, which the “reincarnated Buddha” accepts with gratitude.

Rob Wallace, the program's producer, told me that Walters was “feeling much more compassionate” after her brief meeting with “his holiness” in the Himalayas. I wonder how she felt after meeting with Ted Haggard, pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Haggard walked into the interview with a mammoth bulls-eye tattooed on his forehead, figuratively speaking. He was, after all, the only person in the program, save a member of Islamic Jihad, who preached an exclusive message of salvation through his God.

Haggard is one leader of the modern evangelical movement, one in which Walters said the people “see themselves as the purest version of the faith, with a God-given mission to save the world.” She also pointed to evangelicalism's political support of George W. Bush and that fact that so many red-state churchgoers voted for “’43” in the November 2004 election. Added to that are the social emphases of conservatives.

“Critics say the evangelicals and other conservative groups inappropriately apply the Bible's lessons to fit their agendas on social issues like abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia and same-sex marriage,” Walters reported. And that was in a documentary about heaven, mind you. They just can't leave it alone.

Yes, this is the agenda of those nasty evangelicals, those “born again.” Haggard described evangelicals as, well, people who believe you must be born again, who believe Jesus is the Son of God and that the Bible is God's Word.

“There is only one guaranteed way to go to heaven according to the Scriptures, and that is through Jesus Christ,” Haggard said in the interview. When asked by Walters if a homosexual could go to heaven, he replied, “Homosexuals, lesbians, Republicans, Democrats ... everybody must choose to respond to the love of God in Jesus Christ on the cross and have a guarantee of eternal life.”

So the viewer was left to draw a possible parallel: a conservative evangelical who is “judgmental” and exclusive of all other paths to heaven outside of Christ might be the same as an Islamic militant who wants to kill Jews.

Of course, no one in the program, including Walters, said as much, but the parallel seemed apparent to me. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive to such issues.

Jihad Jarra, a failed suicide bomber serving a 24-year sentence in an Israeli prison, said in the program that all non-Muslims will go to hell. When asked by Walters if Jews will enter heaven, Jarra smiled and barely contained his laughter. “They go to hell, of course,” Jarra says. And he would like to have sent them there, if only that explosives guy would have paid more attention in Islamic Jihad bomb-making class.

If for a moment any viewer thinks Christianity and Islam are the same, note the expression of sadness on Haggard's face when he answered questions about those outside of Christ going to hell. Will you find such compassion for the lost in the heart of an Islamic militant? Hardly.

There are thousands of religions worldwide, each with their errant, though sometimes subtly errant, perceptions of heaven. From the Jewish rabbis who stress goodness in this life as a means of salvation, to the Sufi Muslim scholar who says that all people who seek God and do good will achieve eternal life, to actor Richard Gere and his Buddha fetish -- all offer false hope in the afterlife or the promise of a heavenly life on earth.

Perhaps the most astute observation of the entire documentary is that Hollywood is a major player in the theology of the afterlife, and that may be one reason why there are so many views on heaven in America. “Many of us draw our most vivid impressions not by sitting in front of the pulpit, but by sitting in front of television and movie screens,” Walters reported.

How true it is. And I have no doubt that this news program will equally affect many people teetering on the edge of religious apathy about the need for salvation. In fact, the program may do more to complicate our job of sharing a very simple Gospel message.

Sharing that Gospel certainly isn't a job for secular journalists. It is a job for the followers of Jesus Christ, those who have experienced God's marvelous grace and live to tell about it. It is, as Haggard said, God's graciousness in Jesus Christ that makes those who believe citizens of heaven. It is grace that plucks us from the masses of humanity “who have no hope.”

________

Gregory Tomlin is a media professional in Fort Worth, Texas, who also holds a Ph.D. in church history. Article was put in the past tense by David Holwick.

*

Church Bouncers?

John 8:11

A TV advertisement promoting the United Church of Christ says that God is now affirming homosexuality, but R. Albert Mohler Jr., appearing on ABC's “Good Morning America,” said the commercial misrepresents biblical Christianity. “It is a piece of masterful propaganda but it is a diabolical misrepresentation of Christianity,” said Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on the national telecast Dec. 2, 2004.

“...Jesus Christ did indeed come to seek and to save the lost but as He said to the woman caught in adultery, 'Go and sin no more,'“ Mohler said. Jesus “did not invite persons to stay in sinful lifestyles. Rather, He came to save us from our sins and to make us what we otherwise could not be -- and that is victorious over all the sins that entrap us. Homosexuality is one of those.”

The 30-second spot began running on several cable channels and is part of the United Church of Christ's two-year campaign toward an inclusion that affirms “all persons who feel rejected” by the church, said Robert Chase, UCC director of communications, who appeared with Mohler on Good Morning America.

The ad depicts a pair of bouncers, clad in black and wearing dark sunglasses, standing behind a set of velvet ropes as a long line of people attempt to file past them into a church that looms in the background.

The bouncers stop a same-sex couple, saying, “No, step aside please.” One guard halts two black children with a hand and a terse statement, “No way, not you.” He turns away a Hispanic girl, dismissing her with two words: “No way.” The brawny gatekeepers remove the ropes only to allow a well-dressed white family to pass.

The written content reads, “Jesus didn't turn people away ... Neither do we” and the soothing voiceover reassures potential parishioners that, “No matter who you are or where you are on life's journey, you are welcome here.”

“This ad is clearly allegorical,” Chase said on the ABC program. “There are no churches that have real bouncers out in front of their structures with velvet ropes. But the point is not from those of us who are inside the church but those people who feel alienated and rejected. For those people, those barriers are very real and we're simply trying to say, 'You're welcome here.'“

Host Diane Sawyer asked Mohler if his criticism of the commercial meant that he does not want gays to attend his church. Mohler pointed out that every true church is composed of sinners who have, by God's grace, repented of and turned from their sins. Biblical churches would by no means turn aside homosexuals but would proclaim to them, as to all sinners, the Good News of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he said.

“Our church is made up, like every true church, of sinners saved by grace,” Mohler said. “But we are not to be left in our sin but are to come out of what the Scripture clearly identifies as sin. The Apostle Paul spoke [to] the church at Corinth, listing things, including homosexuality, and said, 'and such were some of you.’ We are all sinners but we cannot remain in our sin and we can't just bless a lifestyle by saying we accept it when the Scripture clearly condemns it as sin.”

The ad is a major component of the UCC's “Stillspeaking” campaign that seeks to cast the denomination as a broad and ultra-inclusive body. The Stillspeaking website asserts that “like Jesus –- the United Church of Christ seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation.”

Central to the campaign is the theme “God is still speaking” followed by a comma. The punctuation mark is pivotal to the slogan, showing that God has not definitively spoken. The website includes a quote from the late comedienne Gracie Allen that serves to explain the campaign slogan: “Never place a period where God has placed a comma.” The UCC includes some 1.3 million members and more than 6,000 churches nationwide.

In concluding the brief interview, Sawyer asked Mohler if he would allow in his church the moneychangers for whom she said, “Jesus reserved His worst anger.” Mohler said the moneychangers would be urged through proclamation of the Gospel not to remain in their sin.

“They would not be welcome to remain as moneychangers any more than Jesus would just bless any kind of sin,” Mohler said.

“Remember, Jesus required the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give to the poor and he didn't and he went away. Jesus doesn't leave us as we are. He offers us His grace -- salvation -- but that's a transforming grace to call us out of sin. Homosexuals would be welcomed. There would be no bouncers at the door at our church to keep them out but they would hear the authentic Gospel when they came inside.”

*

Jesus, Yes - Church, No

1 Peter 3:15

Now that we have looked at the aspects of our faith which make it unique among all world religions, we must face some other important issues before finally drawing to a close. Being Christians does not mean we therefore have to believe that all other religions are completely wrong.

As C. S. Lewis pointed out: “If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all religions is simply one huge mistake. But if you are a Christian you are free to think that all religions, even the queerest of them, contain at least some hint of truth. Being a Christian, however, does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic there is only one right answer to a sum and all other answers are wrong. But some wrong answers are much nearer to being right than others.”

While never budging from what we believe, we must show a loving disposition toward those of other faiths. A group of adherents to the Muslim faith gathered outside a church in one of Britain’s northern cities shouting: “Jesus, Yes; the Church, No.” Their complaint was based on the fact that the minister and people of that particular church had pushed thousands of leaflets through local mailboxes stating: “Islam is a devilish religion; only the Christian religion is of God.” We can be passionate in our faith without being discourteous to people. [See key words in 1 Peter 3:15: ready, reason, hope, gentleness, fear] We may disagree with what someone believes, but we must disagree agreeably. As one old preacher quaintly put it: “To win some we must be winsome.”

PRAYER: Father, I see from the text before me today that You want me to implore people to come to You, not intimidate them. Make me a firm but loving witness – one who can disagree without being disagreeable. In Christ’s Name I ask it. Amen.

FURTHER STUDY:

1 Cor. 9:19-27; Rom. 10:1; Matt. 10:16

1. What was Paul’s approach to people?

2. What approach were the disciples to take?

from Source not recorded · Selwyn Hughes via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Three Important Facts

Acts 10:23

If, as the Scripture declares, Jesus is the only way, what about people in other faiths? First, we must be clear that there is no such thing as self-salvation. Nobody can achieve salvation by his or her religion, sincerity, or good works. Second, Jesus Christ is the only way to God and the only Savior. Our Lord Himself said: “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). This effectively ends all argument. Third, we do not know how much knowledge and understanding of the gospel a person needs to have in order to call upon God for mercy and be saved.

In the Old Testament, people were justified by faith even though they had little knowledge or expectation of Christ. I believe that when people become aware that they cannot save themselves and need to throw themselves upon God’s mercy, in some way God reveals Himself to them and brings them through His Son to a saving knowledge of Himself. I have met many people from other faiths who, realizing that they could not save themselves and yearning to find salvation, were amazingly led by God to a book, a leaflet, or an audiotape, that helped them understand how to come to God through Jesus.

Does this mean we don’t need to be concerned about presenting the gospel to people? No, it is much easier for people to believe if they have heard. God worked miraculously to bring the gospel to Cornelius. So too He will work for those who are willing to give up all ideas of saving themselves and look to Him alone for salvation.

PRAYER: O Father, what a glimpse this gives me of Your eagerness to save all that will come to You through Your Son. May this inspire me more than ever to do my part in making Your gospel known. In Christ’s Name I pray. Amen.

FURTHER STUDY:

John 6:47-69; Eph. 2:19-21; 1 Pet. 2:6

1. What was Peter’s conclusion?

2. How did Paul describe Christ?

from Source not recorded · Selwyn Hughes via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Washington Post Story Highlights Southern Baptist Student's Devotion To Gospel

John 5:23

Peter Perl’s apprehension grew the minute he saw the roommate list for his trip to the Middle East.

For three weeks, the long-time newspaper journalist would be rooming with a Southern Baptist seminary student -– and he was uneasy.

“What will it be like to live for three weeks with someone who might try to save my soul?” Perl, who works at The Washington Post, mused silently.

“Will the student believe that people like me who do not trust in Christ alone for salvation will spend the afterlife in the flames of hell? Will he believe that the Bible is literally the Word of God?”

Perl had numerous questions and concerns about his new temporary roommate. For 23 nights he bunked with Matthew Cates, a master of divinity student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and later admitted he had learned -- through the uncompromising but gracious witness of Cates -- one thing about Southern Baptists he had least suspected: Their desire to spread the grace of God in Christ is born out of a genuine love for people.

Perl and Cates were fellow travelers on an annual summer trip called the Middle East Travel Seminar (METS), a pilgrimage to notable Middle Eastern sites. The group was an eclectic blend of 20 spiritual sojourners including conservative and liberal Protestant seminary students and practitioners of the Jewish faith.

Perl wrote of his experience and detailed a budding relationship with Cates that flowered during the trip in a lengthy first-person article that ran in the Aug. 21 edition of the Washington Post under the headline “With God as their Witness.”

Cates, a Burlington, N.C., native, said he was pleased with the way Perl represented him in the article. Though Perl, a self-professed pluralist, considers the truth claims of Christianity to be too narrow and restrictive, he respected Cates’ unyielding, yet gracious, view that Scripture is the Christian’s infallible, sole fountain of knowledge and that faith in Jesus Christ is the only path to heaven.

“Peter was very gracious to me in the article,” said Cates.

Throughout the article, Perl describes his various discussions with Cates regarding the faith. He also shows Cates interacting as a Christian with other METS members. Overall, Perl depicts Cates as unwilling to bend on the truth claims of Christ, but gracious in his conversations with his fellow travelers.

Individual group members volunteered to lead a devotional in the evening. Cates read passages from Romans 3 and 5. Perl describes how the devotional upset several members of the group, including a seminary student who told Cates that the exclusivity of Paul’s message, “did not give everyone a place to stand.”

Cates said his aim was to prayerfully and humbly present the Gospel -- and all of its claims to exclusivity -- without compromise. The aversion some group members displayed toward Paul’s message led Cates to write in his METS reflection paper, a requirement for each participant, “I hope that they are wrestling with you, God, and not just me.”

Members of the group, Cates said, mirrored the postmodern culture in that they found the exclusive claims of the Gospel to be the most scandalous aspect of Christianity. Paul’s assertion of human depravity did not exactly resonate with the group either, he said.

“People have such negative thoughts about any kind of system that is not defined by their own wills,” Cates said. “They see anything not defined by themselves as restrictive. But I tried to get the point across that God is who we are accountable to and not just some earth-bound authority.

One lesson Cates said both he and Perl seemed to learn during their time together was the reality of stereotype. Religions are often stereotyped in the mainstream media, and their most radical elements often gain the most attention, Cates said.

Cates said Perl exhibited a desire to represent evangelical Christianity accurately, an approach Cates said he wants to take in interacting with and articulating the grace of God with those of other faiths.

“My delight in the trip was being able to interact with people who hold positions that I don’t hear on a regular basis,” he said.

“It is deceiving to think that [evangelical Christianity] is a popular view.... It is very strange to some people and there are stereotypes that go with it. Sometimes the stereotypes override what you really want to emphasize and we have to move beyond the stereotypes and talk honestly with each other.

“I think Peter realized that religion is often stereotyped and I think that is why he wanted to write the story. He did want to wrestle honestly with some of the issues having to do with evangelicalism.”

The trip, Cates said, reminded him that Christians must be honest about the centrality of Christ and the authority of Scripture.

“A lot of what I saw on the trip was just terminology and the casings of Christianity without Christ Himself,” he said. “But if I am going to be a Christian, He must be the very center of my conversation, of my worship, of my prayers. To take that out, you are left with something that is not Christian.

“The importance of wrestling with Scripture itself was also brought home to me. With many people on the trip there was some talk about Scripture but it quickly came down to their own ideas and opinions about how God is and must be.... Ultimately, their own source of authority is themselves.”

Perl and others asked Cates some difficult questions regarding Christianity, and Cates said believers must welcome such questions because a truly biblical faith can withstand the closest scrutiny. His advice for interacting with a pluralistic postmodern culture that denies the existence of absolute truth? Show them you are a Christian by your love.

“Let them see that your heart really is to love each other,” he said. “I asked myself that question a lot, ‘Do I genuinely love the people on this trip and am I expressing that to them? Is it true that they will know I’m a Christian by my love?’ They must see that we love them.”

________

Perl’s article may be viewed in its entirety at #30037.

*

With God As Their Witness

John 5:23

From Armageddon to Mount Sinai, Western travelers confront the spiritual beliefs that divide them from the Muslim world, and one another.

_________________________

In the cold 2 a.m. darkness of the Egyptian desert, heading up the craggy face of Mount Sinai, my large gray camel edged perilously close to a cliff, and I could see that it was a long drop to the rocks below. I was disoriented and a bit frightened by the jarring strides of this strange beast, which seemed jumpy and skittish because he was being occasionally whipped and yelled at by a Bedouin handler trailing our group. I really wanted off, but there was no turning back. Climbing higher for more than an hour, which seemed to take forever, we finally stopped and dismounted.

We then had to continue on foot on an even steeper, rockier climb that would take two more hours. It was exhausting, and surprisingly chilly for the desert. We were ascending to nearly 7,500 feet, and the air was thin. The winding path was packed with thousands of smoothed stones that had been laid down over the centuries by hermitic desert monks. The path seemed endless, particularly in the hazy moonlight, as we strived to reach the summit by sunrise. As I climbed, my legs were intermittently cramping, my breathing became labored, and my chest at times was pounding beyond my level of comfort. I had to stop, catch my breath, drink some water and rest a few minutes, maybe eight or 10 times. I am 55 years old, and, while I am in reasonable shape, it occurred to me that I could easily have a heart attack.

Perhaps it was because our group had already traveled to many holy sites in the Middle East, but I found myself uncharacteristically saying a prayer. Not a conventional prayer asking God to deliver me safely to the mountaintop; rather, it was a prayer acknowledging how small and humbled I felt -- how very easy it would be for me to make a single misstep and hurt myself horribly, or worse, simply die, just like that. There was something strangely liberating in admitting this, and so I rested and climbed, and rested and climbed. On this fabled mountain, as in life, one small step at a time. By 5 a.m., we were nearing the peak of Sinai or Jebel Musa, Arabic for “Mountain of Moses,” believed to be the site where God, in a fiery appearance, delivered the Ten Commandments to the Jewish liberator.

At last, we were at the summit, along with hundreds of pilgrims from around the world who covered much of the mountaintop. Many were wrapped in blankets because they'd spent the night on Sinai, and they were speaking in many languages as we all awaited sunrise. Our group of 22 men and women gathered close together against the chill. We were an unusual collection: There were 14 Protestant seminarians whose upbringing and training encompassed much of Christianity -- Baptist, Southern Baptist, United Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Presbyterian, Christian Church, Church of Christ, United Church of Christ, Nazarene, Wesleyan, Quaker and nondenominational. Accompanying them were six older lay people, including me. Then there was our tribal elder and leader, Max Miller, a 68-year-old biblical historian from Mississippi, who identifies himself as a “theist, with a vague sense of the divine.” And there was our graceful, mountain-climbing Egyptian guide, a 28-year-old Muslim named Mohammed Shami.

We were exhausted but exhilarated as we huddled close. We were here thanks largely to the generosity of three Atlanta-based foundations that over 25 years have sent more than 600 future Protestant ministers and religious leaders on an intensive three-week study tour of the Holy Land called the Middle East Travel Seminar. METS is designed to give participants a deeper understanding of the Bible, but mostly to broaden their perspective of the peoples and beliefs outside of their own faiths. By now, after two weeks of traveling together, we made the pleasant small talk of people who become fast friends by living out of suitcases, sharing every meal, trading life stories and having spirited religious and political discussions. Our journey would span 24 days, about 15,000 miles, six countries and dozens of sites that are holy to the three major monotheistic religions -- Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

By 5:30 a.m., the very first hint of pinkish light was beginning to suggest itself over the jagged peaks of the Sinai wilderness. We were eager for the majesty of sunrise on Sinai. But we were also freezing. “Where's the burning bush when you really need it?” said Manikka Bowman, a 26-year-old Georgian who is a pastor-in-training of the African Methodist Episcopal church. We snapped photo after photo after photo of the blossoming sky, and then the group fell quiet, until Sharletta Green, a 30-year-old former science teacher from West Virginia who is studying to become a Methodist minister, began to lead a hymn in the towering voice that we had all appreciated during our travels.

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God almighty!

Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee.

Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty,

God in three persons, blessed Trinity ....

All Thy works shall praise Thy name

In earth and sky and sea . . .

Their voices echoed powerfully, and a few seminarians had tears in their eyes. I was stirred by the spirit of their song, yet I couldn't help but feel an outsider because I was a Jew who did not know the words, nor did I share the belief in the Holy Trinity. I was also deeply moved by some inchoate sense of the miraculous in this sunrise. So I turned to the other Jew on the trip, Audrey Galex, a mother of three and a professional storyteller from Atlanta, and proposed that we offer a prayer of our own. We joined hands and quickly decided it was a moment for a Sheheheyanu, a celebratory Hebrew blessing for special occasions. So we chanted: Baruch atah Adonai, elohaynu melech haolam, sheheheyanu, v'kiy'manu, v'higianau, lazman hazeh. It translates as: Blessed are you, our God, spirit of the universe, for granting us life, for sustaining us and for helping us to reach this blessed day.

Audrey and I hugged. Then, despite our separate experiences on the mountain, we embraced many of our fellow travelers. We were all feeling high; collectively, in our two weeks of intense traveling together, we had formed a community of spirit. Our forms of worship differed, but we were united at this moment. Then we headed down the great mountain in the warming sunlight, each of us alone in thought.

I have never been particularly religious. My family emigrated from Hungary to New York City in the early 1900s, and I was raised by parents who spoke Hungarian and identified themselves more by nationality than religion. We didn't observe Jewish holidays at home, and only after my parents joined the suburban migration of the 1950s did they send me and my brother to Hebrew school, the first generation in memory to be bar mitz-vahed. Growing up, I was strongly influenced by the 1960s civil rights and antiwar movements, but religion played no major role. As an adult, though, my connection to the Jewish faith became stronger after I married a Jewish woman, raised two sons and joined a Reform temple whose worship and commitment to social justice made me feel at home. I attend services and observe major holidays, but I'm only sporadically observant otherwise.

I ended up on this Middle East journey quite by chance, thanks to a friend who began her adult life as a Catholic nun.

Hallie Lovett fell in love with a priest, married him and eventually became a psychotherapist practicing in the Washington area. She had gone on the METS trip in 2001 -- lay people of various faiths are included to broaden the ecumenical perspective of the seminarians -- and afterward she described it as a transformative experience. She said it had been a rare opportunity for people to try to get outside their own culture and begin to understand “the other” -- the people of the world who are not like you. Hallie called me in January and said that METS organizers wanted gender balance and religious diversity, so they were looking for a Jewish guy. Could she recommend me? I had never been to the Middle East, and I leapt at the chance, joking that for such an adventure I would be delighted to be a token Jew.

As the departure date approached, however, I was feeling nervous. Not about terrorism or radical Islam or the dangers of traveling in a strife-torn region; instead, I realized I was apprehensive about actually having to confront my belief in God. Yes, I believe in the concept of God, but how deeply? Religion and God are things that I only rarely think about -- and even more rarely talk about. But soon, I would be traveling with seminarians entering their final year, men and women who have made this their life's work. And what of me? What was at the core of my faith? Was there a core at all? Would I come back from the trip feeling empty?

With four months' preparation, I amassed an impressive library of books on religion, Middle East history, the Crusades and more. I learned just enough to realize how stunningly ignorant I was, across a wide range of topics. I knew the readings would not resolve questions about God, but they did solidify for me the sense that I am a religious pluralist. I believe that the mainstreams of all the world's great religions ultimately have more commonalities than differences. Particularly since September 11, 2001, religious extremists of virtually all denominations have poisoned the political climate around the world -- and within the United States. Yet all the religions, despite their variations, are united in their belief in a spirit that is unseen, and in a deep yearning for holiness and unity.

My pluralist outlook was tested, though, when I got the METS roommate list and learned that I would be rooming for 23 nights with a Southern Baptist. Southern Baptist? My vague knowledge was enough to make me quite apprehensive: Members of the largest Protestant denomination, they are very conservative evangelicals who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, that The End is Near, and that those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior will ascend to Heaven in the final apocalypse, while those who don't -- like me -- will go to Hell. I wondered what it would be like to live for three weeks with someone who might try to save my soul.

Six Protestant seminaries -- including those at Duke, Emory and several smaller schools -- select students for the program, based on leadership potential. The result was an eclectic mix of METS travelers: young and older, single and married, liberal and conservative, straight and gay, and black, white and Asian. Some were children of ministers; some were “called” to ministry or to teaching religion by a love of God established early; while others didn't hear the call until they reached their forties or fifties. Mostly, they were united by low income; so the foundations require them to pay only $900 each for what many regard as the trip of a lifetime.

So as I prepared to go, I wondered, how much would I have in common with Protestant seminarians? Would I find them stuck in narrow tunnels of religious vision, or would this trip broaden their views? After years of religious education, how open would they be, not only to a Jew but to the other Christians and to the Muslims we would encounter? Interfaith harmony is a wonderful concept, but what would it look like for Americans in the Middle East in 2005?

The four belly dancers, all bright-colored silk and flesh, were swaying back and forth, weaving their way among the crowded tables of a restaurant in Atlanta, where we had gathered for orientation. The pulsating music was getting louder and wilder. Our host, a cheerful, rotund man named Nicola, was doing his own hilarious belly dance with a glass of water balanced on his head. Fueled by wine, women and music, Nicola incited everyone in his Middle Eastern restaurant to get up and join the undulating dancers. Many of our seminarians, ages 23 to 56, ended up smiling, laughing and clapping along to the pounding music. When I looked over at my roommate, Matthew Cates, he was sitting motionless, hands in his lap, not very happy.

That first night, back in our hotel room, I asked Matthew about his reaction. He said that he was not opposed to dancing but that he was troubled by the public nature of the show, which he considered sexually suggestive and degrading to the women. I said I understood his view but countered that belly dancing could also be seen as harmless entertainment, and that the beauty and talent of the dancers could be appreciated without necessarily being sexual.

He held entertainment to a higher standard, he said. Does it benefit and help people and spread a positive message? People should treat each other with love, regardless of appearance or any other factor, because we are all created by God, he said. Of the belly dancers, he said: “I want to see them express love for themselves, and be loved by others rightly. And that those viewing them would love them purely, and with respect.” He quoted Scripture, as he would in most subsequent conversations, citing the warning in the Song of Songs about how dangerous it is to arouse romantic love, because it is like playing with fire.

We lay in our beds talking that night, Matthew with his dog-eared leather Bible and me with my reporter's notebook and pen. Matthew said he grew up in North Carolina, where his grandfather was a Southern Baptist minister and his parents raised their three children with family prayer time as part of the nightly routine. After seeing his older brother baptized, Matthew, at age 11, began to think seriously about his own personal relationship with God and whether he lived up to His standards. By the time he was baptized by his grandfather, Matthew, then 13, remembers the realization that when the choir sang that day, “they were singing about my God, and not just some God.”

After that, he said, he became an insatiable reader of the Bible. He would read and then pray to God to be able to understand it better. He would study two or three chapters every night, “and then I prayed, and prayed for everyone. I felt I had to pray for every person I knew before I could sleep, and I would fall asleep and wake up with my face in the Bible.”

He began to question his commitment to God, though, because, like other teenagers, Matthew found himself experimenting with lying, cursing and other misbehavior. “I felt like I was a prisoner to my own unholy tendencies,” he said. He was a good student, ran cross-country and track, played tennis and had a nice circle of friends at his church, he said, but he became withdrawn. “I was struggling with a sense that I was doing wrong, like I was at the bottom of a hole.” In college, he majored in religion and sociology and wrestled with the direction of his life. After much reflection, he said, he realized what was most important to him was not his future vocation, but his relationship to God: “I wanted to achieve holiness, a desire to be holy and genuine.”

After graduating, Matthew followed various paths: church mission work in Hong Kong as a youth minister, studying at a seminary in Illinois, working in a juvenile detention center, teaching English as a second language, teaching adult computer and literacy classes, and enrolling in a second divinity school, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, from which he will graduate next year with a master's in divinity.

He is 30 years old and has chosen to remain a virgin, he said. He hopes some day to find “intimacy and oneness” with a woman who is a “sister in Christ,” he said, but he wants to make sure he does not pursue a wife out of some sense of dissatisfaction with God. So he is concentrating first on his relationship with God and on learning to appreciate what he calls the gift of being single.

Matthew believes that the Messiah is coming soon and that the world as we know it is in its final days. He solemnly told me: “The reality that you and I could be dead tomorrow leads me to think of this very moment, this conversation. Is this how I want to spend this moment?”

I did my share of talking as well -- about my family, my marriage of 33 years, my work, my thoughts about Judaism. Beyond that, I told him that his vision of God -- that the only path to true salvation was through Jesus Christ -- was much too rigid for me, and his religion too exclusive. This trip would be a challenge. We were an unlikely pair, in an uncharted relationship, on our way to the Promised Land.

At the spectacular Umayyad Mosque, the grand mosque of Damascus, we all took off our shoes, and the women were required to put on gray robes covering their hair and bodies, so that we could visit a holy site for our first close encounter with Islam. With beautiful mosaics, multicolored marble and three soaring minaret spires, the Syrian mosque dates to the 8th century, but the site has been a holy place for some 3,000 years, dedicated to the worship of deities and prophets of the Aramaic, Roman, Christian and now Sunni and Shiite Muslim faiths.

We entered the finely tiled shrine of Hussein, who, according to Shiite tradition, should be regarded as a rightful successor to the prophet Muhammed. In the 7th century, Hussein was killed and beheaded in Karbala in what is now Iraq, but his head was said to have been brought to Damascus. Shiites from all over the Muslim world, many Iranians, make a pilgrimage here.

Inside: an intense, chaotic jam of worshipers and tourists; black-shrouded women; men wearing robes, Arab kaffiyeh headdresses or black skull caps; other men wearing Western-style clothes, some with video cameras. Most people were pushing forward, but in their midst, robed women and men stopped to kneel on worn Persian prayer rugs; some praying loudly, chanting and weeping. People relentlessly pressed ahead, jostling each other. The din of wailing and loud praying in Arabic and in Farsi was disorienting. It was stifling hot and stuffy, and I wanted to leave. I felt like an intruder in a strange world. What was moving these worshipers so ecstatically? A spirit was swirling around me, yet I had no clue what was driving it.

I was tempted to retreat, as some of my METS colleagues did, but I kept pushing forward, several times nearly falling over people who had kneeled to pray. Everyone was trying to reach an ornate silver grid enclosure at the end of the handsomely decorated hall. When I finally got close enough, I could see through the filigree-and-silver mesh a green shroud that was tied around what looked like a human head. Men and women, praying and sobbing, pressed close enough to touch the grid. Some slipped small papers inside, and a few tied little pieces of string to the silver, as personal tokens of prayer.

Afterward, some seminarians said they felt as alienated as I had. Matthew said he felt sympathy for the fervent worshipers, who he believed were misguided. Sharletta Green, from Emory University's seminary, said: “I appreciate their passion, but I felt a disconnect as a Westerner, and as a Christian. I think I felt a sadness in the fight of people to move forward; I felt people were stuck in the worship of a slain leader” instead of God. But Sharletta said she struggled to try to appreciate, rather than judge, the faith of others. “What can I learn from you that will honor the divine in both of us?” she said. “It is about leaving your bags at the door.”

But this would not be easy. We did not understand Islam, and the Muslims we encountered would be both welcoming and challenging to Americans of other faiths. Many received us as children of God, reminding us that Islam shared our reverence for the same prophets -- Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Others showed warmth toward us as Americans but open hostility to our government and our leaders. One seminarian was told by a Sunni woman that she believed the U.S. military had conducted the September 11 terrorist attacks as an excuse to retaliate against Islam. A Sunni merchant told one of us that if she liked President Bush, she must hate Arabs, and another declared, “Your president is a murderer.” It would sometimes be a challenge to honor the divine in the others we would meet.

Throughout the Middle East, we climbed hills and crossed dusty plains under the scorching sun to see the massive ancient ruins of the places of everyday life and worship. We saw remnants of innumerable warring civilizations: the Egyptians, Hittites, Amorites, Aramaeans, Canaanites, Israelites, Ammonites, Moabites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Nabateans, Romans, Parthians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Crusaders and more.

As our bus traveled south near the Jordan River, Max Miller took the microphone and quoted bloody passages from the Book of Joshua about the burning, smiting and slaying of entire peoples. All this, the Bible says, was commanded by God because these people worshiped other gods. It struck me that Joshua and the ancient Israelites did their share of killing, a thought I'd never before entertained. In his Mississippi drawl, Max said much of the Hebrew scripture can be summed up as one big battle: “It's God and 'us' versus 'them.'” Indeed, virtually every one of these ancient peoples had claimed in the name of their God -- whether it be Baal, or Ra, or Zeus, or Jupiter, or Jehovah, or Adonai, or Allah, or Jesus -- the right to subjugate, enslave and kill the nonbelievers.

Violence in the name of God. I was disheartened to see and hear so much of it, and I couldn't help but lament that nothing had changed much in the current Middle East. So I was particularly in the mood for interfaith peacemaking when I overheard a group of seminarians making plans for an “evening devotional” at our Syrian hotel one night after dinner. I knew it was some form of religious service but wasn't sure just what. I also wasn't sure how welcome I would be.

“Are Jews invited?” I cheerfully asked, and was warmly received.

That evening, eight of us crowded onto the small, open patio of Matthew's and my room. We were in a Syrian town called Meshtayeh, in a region that Max had called “the bloody plain” because of the magnitude of warfare it saw up through the Crusades. We started by reading and briefly discussing a New Testament passage from Luke that had a military theme, in keeping with what we had seen that day. Then we were each given a chance to offer a prayer. One person prayed for peace in the Middle East. Another prayed for the health of his wife at home, and the desire that she not worry too much about his safety. One prayed to be able to see the face of God in everyone we met, regardless of their faith. Another prayed for all of us on the trip to keep in touch more closely and share the experiences.

These weren't Baptist prayers or Presbyterian prayers. They were simply words from the heart, desires that are not always easily expressed. So when it came to me, I felt open to prayer, something I don't normally practice. I offered a prayer for my brother Steve, who, at age 59, had been hospitalized that month with pneumonia and other problems relating to kidney disease and bipolar disorder. Earlier in the week, I had talked with Matthew about how stressful and difficult it had been to try to help my brother back to health.

Then, when it was Matthew's turn, I was surprised to hear him also pray for my brother's health; he asked God to give my brother strength to hold up under a prolonged struggle and also to “give Peter the strength to help his brother -- if he can.” I was moved by Matthew's words because they reflected how closely he had listened, and because they conveyed how much he cared about people, about me.

At the end, we all said a prayer of thanks for this moment, and for the new friends we had made, and someone asked God to keep us “open and gentle and loving” toward one another. And then everyone just sat in silence for what seemed like a long while. Nobody wanted to leave. The air was very still and cool and quiet. The stars were twinkling brightly in a sky unpolluted by urban lights. I felt like I belonged here; I was part of a small, instant family and also part of a communal longing for something larger than ourselves.

Walking down the hillside from the spectacular ancient city of Petra in Jordan, Matthew was burning with a question for our Jordanian guide and interpreter, Sofian Nawash. Matthew was particularly disturbed by a story he'd heard from an American friend living in Amman: a Jordanian man had recently been convicted by an Islamic court of the crime of apostasy because he had converted to Christianity, and refused to convert back. The man had lost custody of his child, and, under Jordan's interpretation of sharia, the Islamic-inspired code of law, he could even be put to death.

The three of us kept walking as Matthew avidly explained details of the case. Sofian, sporting designer sunglasses and a thick mustache, is a thoroughly modern, charming, university-educated man in his thirties, with two children and a third on the way. A Sunni Muslim, Sofian has been guiding METS trips for 11 years and enjoys joking, bantering and answering the inevitable flurry of questions that arise from perplexed Christians visiting a country that is 95 percent Muslim.

Sofian told Matthew that he had not heard of this particular case, but that the verdict did not surprise him. He said he doubted the man would actually be executed. But his act of conversion was considered a most serious sin against God, Sofian said, and his understanding of the Koran was that it calls for the ultimate punishment.

Matthew was incredulous. What if someone was born to a Muslim family but never practiced Islam and just decided to become a Christian? he asked. No matter, said Sofian, same crime, same penalty. Matthew turned the question personal: What if Matthew had been born to Muslims but tried to spread Christianity? Sofian's answer was matter-of-fact: If Matthew chose to proselytize for Christ among the Muslims, he would likely die.

Both Matthew and I asked Sofian whether that was perhaps a bit harsh, but he would not judge it. Rather, he said, it simply was what it was: the will of God.

As we walked silently back toward our bus, I could sense there was no point in arguing with Sofian about the extremes of his faith. And it also occurred to me that, in some way, there was very little difference between Sofian's faith and Matthew's. Matthew's was not so draconian, but his belief in the true word of God as expressed in the Bible was just as absolute as Sofian's in the Koran. Matthew's only doubt was whether he was interpreting God's word correctly.

This emerged vividly several nights later in Israel when it was Matthew's turn to lead the devotional. Ten of us gathered in a hotel conference room, where Matthew sang an opening hymn, “Hallelujah, What a Savior!” He has a strong, sweet voice, and his face lights up when he sings or reads Scripture. He then chose for discussion Chapter 3 of the apostle Paul's letter to the Romans that begins: “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?”

I winced when Matthew started reading the passage. In Romans, Paul, himself a Jew converted to Christianity, goes on to say that while Jewish practices are part of God's law, the only true path to salvation is through Jesus Christ. I disagreed with the message, but I had accepted that it is the central belief in Matthew's life.

Others were not as forgiving. Audrey, my fellow Jewish traveler, told Matthew later that his reading choice was hurtful. Her roommate, Manikka, told him: “You didn't give everyone a place to stand.” Matthew said he knew the passage might be offensive, but nonetheless thought the message was important to hear. Four seminarians apologized to me that night and the next day on Matthew's behalf, saying they did not share that interpretation of Romans 3. “None of us can know who is saved,” said Richard Hayes, a 30-year-old Duke seminarian. “We can apprehend God, but we cannot comprehend God.”

I asked Matthew later why he'd chosen that particular passage, instead of something more inclusive. He said he had prayed about what passage to choose, and God had led him to this choice for spreading the Gospel. “Scripture does not allow you to be inclusive,” he said. “It is exclusive.”

Later, Matthew shared with me the passage he had written in his personal journal about that night. It was addressed to God: “I believe that I spoke the message I should have, but I'm not sure if I spoke truth in love, and how people received it. Several seemed to be troubled and maybe even angered by it. I hope that they are wrestling with you, God, and not just me.”

We were standing at Armageddon. I never knew it was an actual place, called Megiddo, about 50 miles north of Jerusalem, on a hill overlooking a broad, fertile plain at a strategic crossroads on the main route between ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. (Armageddon is a Greek word adapted from the Hebrew Har Megiddo or Hill of Megiddo.) Under blazing sun, Max explained that here, over a period of more than 4,000 years, countless armies had met and destroyed each other -- Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian, Canaanite, Israelite, Persian, Roman and more. Archaeologists have found layers of ruins from more than 25 cities that were annihilated by warfare or earthquake, and were rebuilt atop one another with each successive conquest. Some historians believe that more military battles have been fought on the plain of Megiddo than anywhere else on Earth.

“This is where the Bible says the final battle will occur in the last days,” Max said, gesturing over the plain, “the final battle to end all destruction and persecution.” He was referring to the New Testament's Book of Revelation, which says that when Christ returns, the armies of good will gather at Armageddon for the apocalypse.

As if on cue, while we were touring Megiddo's elaborate ruins, several supersonic Israeli jets flew overhead, the sound of humankind anticipating the next battle. I looked out at the horizon, which, like much of the biblical landscape, presents a harsh grandeur. We had traversed scorching desert and forbidding mountains. In this austere and unforgiving environment, I could imagine how wandering desert tribes would have worshiped the sun that was both life-giving yet so punishing; I could picture how miraculous it must have been for the thirsting shepherds to find an oasis; I could feel what an act of faith it must have been to trudge over sand and rocky peaks, in the hope that fertile valleys lay beyond. It made sense to me that these great religions grew out of this arid place. In our travels, I found myself appreciating a drink of water more than I ever had in my life and marveling at how wonderful the shade and the breeze can feel to a hot and tired body. Over time, somehow, I had been absorbing, through nature, a sense of the presence of God.

Yet I had also absorbed a strong sense of the pitiful state of humankind and warring religions. And my sadness at the stupidity of killing in the name of God peaked at Armageddon. In talking to the seminarians, I realized I wasn't alone.

“I see these places of the Bible, and I just see violence, violence, violence, violence, violence. I don't see God in it, and I pray to Him to show me,” said Manikka. “I've been struggling with God on this trip.” Richard said he found in the cycles of conquest a sobering message for America about “global imperialism.” Like the Romans, he said, “it seems we are imposing our power over half the globe, and now we look at the Roman ruins.”

As our bus rolled to a stop at a West Bank military checkpoint, the controversial Israeli “security fence” loomed above us. We were headed into territory of the Palestinian Authority, to Bethlehem, a small town about five miles south of Jerusalem. It is a place that is sacred to Christians as the birthplace of Jesus, and also significant to Jews, as the burial spot of the matriarch Rachel and birthplace of King David.

But whatever sense of reverence we had anticipated was immediately blotted out by the bold, block-printed graffiti that Palestinians had painted on the hulking gray wall: “WELCOME TO THE GHETTO,” declared one sign. “AMERICAN MONEY, ISRAELI APARTHEID” said another, with a hand-painted Star of David and a scrawled “NO ISRAEEL.” The Israeli-Palestinian conflict shadowed our travels in much of Israel. The security wall cast a pall over the sprawling West Bank, as did the frequent sight of machine guns wielded by police and soldiers in public squares. Historic places such as Jericho and Bethlehem were marked by barbed-wired military checkpoints and the aura of war. We had been eager to visit the 4,000-year-old site of Jericho, one of the oldest inhabited cities in the world, but it was devastating to first see all the modern remnants of the intifada, the burned-out buildings, grim cinder block refugee camps and bullet-riddled walls. And our destination in Bethlehem, the Church of the Nativity, had been the site in 2002 of a bloody, tense five-week hostage siege by Palestinian gunmen who held more than 100 churchgoers.

Visiting Jesus's traditional birthplace was a letdown for many of us. This followed a pattern throughout the trip -- it seemed that the man-made sites, churches, temples and shrines, were mundane and underwhelming compared with the sights of nature. Matthew and several other seminarians said a high point for them was the visit to the beautiful Sea of Galilee in northern Israel, where they felt they were walking where Jesus had walked. By contrast, few among us were as moved by Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, believed to be the site of Jesus's crucifixion. In both churches, tourists overwhelm the holy places in a relentless search for a photo op. At the Holy Sepulchre, some seminarians said the site lacked a sense of spiritual unity because the Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Armenian, Syrian, Coptic and Ethiopian churches all have their separate spaces, customs and times of worship. Several seminarians said it felt like a theme park, like “Jesusland.”

“It's become such a tourist attraction, all the gold and silver, and so gaudy,” said Sharletta. “It seems awful.”

In Bethlehem, a town of less than 50,000, the view outside the church was disheartening. There were a few thriving businesses that depend on the tourist trade, but we saw many shuttered shops, largely vacant streets and groups of ragged and listless young people with seemingly nothing to do. I couldn't help but sense a resentment and hopelessness in the eyes of some. As our bus rolled back toward the security wall, Richard told me he found the sights to be depressingly reminiscent of America's urban ghettos.

“Bethlehem,” he said wearily, “is Compton, California, for all intents and purposes.”

Interfaith harmony between Jews and Palestinians seems a distant dream in Israel, but one night in Jerusalem we had at least a small vision of it. I had talked to Max before the trip about the potential value for the seminarians to hear about Jews who were working with Muslims and Christians to try to bring peace. Too often, I told him, Jews are portrayed as narrow-minded Zionists. He was happy to add that to our itinerary. So, through my rabbi in Silver Spring, I had made contact with the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel, one of many small but devoted peace groups that believe that honest dialogue among people of different faiths is the key to coexistence.

We gathered at 8 p.m. in a hotel conference room -- tired from another long day of trekking but eager to hear something hopeful from Issa Jaber, a Muslim school superintendent, and Ron Kronish, a Reform Jewish rabbi, who have been working together for more than a decade. They sat side by side, Kronish, with a fringe of white hair and matching mustache, and Jaber, olive-skinned with darker hair and mustache.

Many attempts at interreligious dialogue have been “too nice,” the men said. Muslims, Christians and Jews should not just try to “neuter” their religions by saying that we are “all children of Abraham.” Rather, they said, we all must engage in the harder work of really listening to one another and understanding the other side's history in a deep enough way to be willing to compromise.

“It's going slowly and painfully, with too many people dying along the way,” said Kronish. “We have to help change the hearts and minds of people, to learn to live together, but it's going to take a generation or two or three.”

The majority of Jews and Palestinians have finally accepted that they must all make some sacrifices to achieve peace, they said, but extremist leaders on both sides fan the flames by reminding each group that they are a persecuted minority.

“Each side seeks to show they are the bigger victims, that we have suffered more than you,” said Jaber, who runs the schools in the predominantly Muslim town of Abu Ghosh.

This can end only when each side begins to listen to and understand the other side's narrative, said Kronish. “It is all about de-demonizing 'the other.'“

Jaber's presentation particularly resonated among the black METS travelers. He spoke of the “double-identity” of Arabs who live as minorities in Israel and must cope with lower educational and economic status. “Amen,” murmured several of the black seminarians. “Amen . . .”

I had been especially looking forward to visiting the Western Wall in the Old City in Jerusalem, which is among the most sacred sites in all of Judaism. It is a massive stone remnant from the destruction of the city's main temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., and it is the place where Jews across the world come to pray. On the day before I left on the trip, I'd awakened with a start and had the sudden inspiration to pack in my bag the tallit and yarmulke, the prayer shawl and skull cap, that I had worn more than 40 years ago when I was bar mitzvahed. I would put them on and pray at this holiest spot.

At the wall, there was a substantial midday crowd, and I felt a bit awkward about praying in public, particularly because I stood out as being different. Orthodox Jews were packed in tightly, with chairs, tables, desks and lecterns they set up outdoors to spend hours there in prayer. Some were Hasidic, with their distinctive long beards, black suits and black hats. Other Orthodox, many with thick beards, had their heads and arms wrapped in tefillin, the black leather case containing passages of Scripture that is attached to the body by straps. Others stood and davened, rhythmically rocking back and forth as they rapidly chanted prayers, their heads touching the wall.

I didn't look like any of them; I was clearly a Western tourist with only the surface trappings of Judaism. I put on the shawl and skull cap, and bid my Protestant colleagues farewell to approach the wall. I was alone because Audrey, unhappily, was not allowed at the main section. The Orthodox Jews, who control religious affairs in Israel, have segregated the wall by sex, with a small section set apart by a fence for women.

As I tried to work my way to the wall, a Hasid approached me with a quizzical expression. “Are you a Jew?” he asked. I was stunned, and then angry. I didn't answer him. Of course I am a Jew. I just don't look like you. How dare you question my faith?

“Would you like me to pray for you?” asked another man. The implication was that I was not capable of saying a proper prayer, and that he would pray -- for a fee. I was getting angrier. Then another man stopped me to ask for money for his charity. Now I felt like I was not seen as a fellow Jew, but just an outsider to be hustled.

I reached the wall and pushed myself into a small opening. I touched and kissed the stone, but I was rattled. I struggled to clear my head of anger and get in a prayerful mood. The men around me were babbling prayers, incomprehensibly fast. I closed my eyes and tried to achieve a meditative state, but I could not. The activity around me was too disorienting. It did not feel like a holy place. I stood in silence for a time, and then I quietly recited the Sheheheyanu. Then I sang the Shema, the most fundamental of Jewish prayers from the Torah, “Shema Yisroel, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad!” Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one! I wanted to feel uplifted. Instead, I couldn't get away from the wall fast enough.

I should have known beforehand what to expect, but I had not done enough homework. The ancient wall in recent years has essentially been taken over by the Orthodox Jews of Israel, so that Reform and Conservative people are considered outsiders. The non-Orthodox often choose to pray at another, lesser-known site called the Southern Wall. Afterward, I reflected on the fact that I had felt more at home singing the Shema with Christians than I had with the Jews at the wall. That happened a week earlier, on the Friday night before we were to climb Mount Sinai, when Max had asked Audrey and me if we would like to conduct a Jewish Sabbath service. So, as the sun was setting, the whole group gathered on the ancient rocks outside St. Catherine's Monastery, built around 300 A.D. by monks at the foot of Sinai. With the sun streaming down on us and a congregation of Protestants spread out before us, Audrey and I recited and sang the first of several traditional Sabbath blessings. Then we sang the Shema. It may have been the cooling mountain air, but it gave me chills to sing it. And afterward, every single one of our fellow travelers stood up from the rocks and clambered over to embrace us and thank us for a moving service.

In the end, on Day 24, after we had cleared customs at the Atlanta airport, we hugged and said our farewells, although we knew we'd be seeing one another soon because we are all required to write papers and attend a reunion back in Atlanta in September to talk about our experience. A few of us were waiting for connecting flights home, when Matthew pulled me aside. He took out his notebook and started to ask me questions.

He wanted to know what I had gotten out of the trip, but he also wanted me to give him an honest critique of what I had observed of him. Mostly, he said, he wanted to know, “Do you think that my actions match my words?”

I was caught off guard, but I understood that he wanted an honest response.

I greatly admire your honesty, Matthew, I said, your devotion to God and your desire to love people. But the most disturbing thing about you is that your religion seems so exclusionary, with no room for anyone else. (More than once, he had told me that many of the other seminarians did not hold proper beliefs about salvation, and therefore were not “true Christians.” They were too “universalist” in believing that there are many paths to finding God.) I find that position quite sad, I told him.

Matthew nodded his head, listening carefully and taking a few notes. He smiled. He reminded me that Christian scripture is by its very nature exclusive because it holds only one path to God. I said that you seem to use that view of Scripture as a crutch, so that you don't need to really examine your own beliefs.

He smiled, as he often did, and listened in good spirit. And at the end, he thanked me. We embraced and went off to board our flights.

Throughout the trip, Max Miller, who grew up Methodist in a very religious, Bible-reading family, had scrupulously avoided being drawn into theological arguments. He told me that he found debates about the correct path to God to be painful and ultimately pointless. Instead, his advice to the seminarians was that they clarify their own beliefs. “You are grown folks, getting ready to lead churches, so you need to deal with it and struggle with it,” he said.

Earlier, one night at sunset near the Sea of Galilee, Max invited me up to talk on the verandah outside his room. He said that at age 68, after leading the METS trip for 25 years, he wondered how much longer he could do it, and he feared that if he stopped, the program would die. I asked him what effect he thought the trip had had on the hundreds who'd taken it.

Among the seminarians, reactions cut both ways, he said, “Some of the rigid people -- liberal and conservative -- dig in their heels and get more rigid. And others open their eyes and ask: 'How can I learn more about this? What can I study?'” But then he surprised me by saying that over the years he thought the lay people had undergone more significant changes than the seminarians, who tend to be more established in their faith. Among the lay travelers, he said, he has heard of the trip precipitating divorces, career changes and other key decisions about directions in life.

Later, as I reflected on Max's observation, it became less surprising. I had felt the stirrings of a divine presence in the Holy Land and its people, but how would that figure into what lay ahead, now that I was returning to my secular life and my old routines?

By contrast, that uncertainty does not exist for True Believers. For them, the path is clear: for Christians like Matthew, convinced that the way to God is through Jesus; for Muslims like Sofian, fervently believing that God has spoken the rules for living through the Koran; for Orthodox Jews, who are assured that theirs is the only Jewish way to worship the only God. But for the rest of us, probably the majority, the path is less clear, and the place of God in our lives is still to be learned. The one thing we know with certainty, however, is that familiar inner yearning for something to lift us above whatever it is that traps us in ourselves and keeps us separate and alone.

[see #30036 for background on this article]

________

Peter Perl, a former Magazine staff writer, is director of newsroom training and professional development at The Post. © 2005 The Washington Post Company

*

Why Isn't “Spirituality” Enough?

Hypermodern America has become a collectivity of “spiritualities” even as the contours of American culture become increasingly secularized. How is this possible? The emergence of spirituality as an alternative to historic Christianity is itself a product of secularism -- offering universal “meaning” without doctrine, truth, or specific content.

For the last twenty years or more, observers of American religion have noted the proliferation of diverse models of spirituality, ranging from New Age innovations to the re-emergence of ancient paganisms. The mainstream sociological explanation for this phenomenon is rooted in the assumption that the modern age marginalizes the exclusivistic and truth-oriented doctrines of Christianity and leaves the public square open for the emergence of less demanding belief systems and worldviews.

Of course, most of these are tailor-made for the American mindset. The idea of individualism is as old as America itself, and the dominance of autonomous individualism in modern American culture is, at least in part, the inevitable outgrowth of at least one dimension of America's founding experience.

The sociologists are concerned about the rise of spirituality precisely because more communitarian thinkers doubt that these modern forms of individualist religion can sustain social cohesiveness and the American project. Not so fast, argues Leigh E. Schmidt. In “Spirit Wars,” Schmidt's article in the latest issue of The Wilson Quarterly, he argues that American social critics have prematurely dismissed spirituality as a cultural force.

Schmidt, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, acknowledges that “social critics have achieved a rare unanimity: lambasting American 'spirituality' in all its new age quirkiness and anarchic individualism.”

Indeed, a considerable body of literature now exists in order to document the emergence of spirituality and to consider the danger it poses to the republic. An alarm was first sounded by sociologist Robert Bellah and his team of writers in Habits of the Heart, published in 1985. Bellah and his team argued that the breakdown of traditional religion was leading to a deterioration in the American social fabric and its essential institutions. They lamented the emergence of “liberalized versions” of morality that were and are almost exclusively individualistic in focus. As Schmidt summarizes, “The social costs of such disjointed spiritual quests were evident not only in the fraying of church life but in eroding commitments to public citizenship, marriage, and family.”

But if Bellah and company -- joined by observers such as David Brooks and Martin E. Marty -- think that the rise of spirituality at the expense of traditional faiths is problematic, Schmidt argues that American liberals should embrace spirituality as a means of gaining political momentum and rebuilding social capital.

Schmidt argues for a longer historical vision. Modern versions of American individualism, he argues, are simply the expansion and continuation of a line of individualistic thinking that runs back to Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, and a host of others. Martin E. Marty may argue that the conflict between “spirituality” and “religion” is “a defining conflict of our time,” but Schmidt suggests a cease-fire.

As Schmidt reviews the history of American spirituality, he sees in Emerson, Whitman, and Henry David Thoreau a combination of “spiritual journeying” and “political progressivism.” As he explains, “Emerson's 'endless seeker' was, as often as not, an abolitionist; Whitman's 'traveling soul,' a champion of women's rights; Henry David Thoreau's 'hermit,' a challenger of unjust war.”

Beyond this, Schmidt is convinced that correctives to excessive individualism were already present in nineteenth century America. He points to William R. Alger, a transcendentalist of the second generation and a Unitarian minister. Alger championed Thoreau's concern for the spiritual while rejecting his solitude. Indeed, Alger criticized Thoreau as “constantly feeling himself, reflecting himself, fondling himself, reverberating himself, exalting himself, incapable of escaping or forgetting himself.”

Alger apparently recognized that Thoreau's extreme form of individualism led to a “self-nauseated weariness” rather than to social progress.

Schmidt also points to Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a radical abolitionist who later served as a colonel in an African-American regiment in the Civil War. Higginson took Thoreau and Algier one step further, arguing that Americans should simply embrace spirituality as a diverse testimony to one fundamental reality. In Higginson's words: “I have worshiped in an Evangelical church when thousands rose to their feet at the motion of one hand. I have worshiped in a Roman Catholic church when the lifting of one finger broke the motionless multitude into twinkling motion, till the magic sign was made, and all was still once more. But I never for an instant have supposed that this concentrated moment of devotion was more holy or more beautiful than when one cry from a minaret hushes a Mohammedan city to prayer, or when, at sunset, the low invocation, 'Oh! The gem in the lotus -- oh! The gem in the lotus,' goes murmuring, like the cooing of many doves, across the vast surface of Tibet.”

As Schmidt explains, Higginson's vision called for “a cosmopolitan piety in which religious identities were open, fluxional, and sympathetic rather than closed, fixed, and proselytizing.”

Thomas Wentworth Higginson wrote his essay, “The Sympathy of Religions,” in 1871. Clearly, he was ahead of his time. Higginson's poetic description of his universalistic and relativistic spirituality has been realized in the development of American cafeteria-style pseudo-religion.

Schmidt sees a political possibility behind his analysis of America's religious landscape. A proponent of “progressive” causes, Schmidt believes that American political liberals should embrace spirituality as a means of countering the influence of conservatives and traditional Christians.

“The roots of today's seeker spirituality are tangled, but they go deep in American culture and often prove, on closer inspection, to be surprisingly robust,” Schmidt argues. “It is hard, once one has traveled any length on the roads forward from Emerson and Whitman, not to be impressed by the tenacity of this joined tradition of spiritual seeking and political progressivism in American religious life.”

Interestingly, Schmidt points to Sen. Barack Obama, the recently elected senator from Illinois who has emerged as one of the leading lights in the Democratic Party. Obama, Schmidt advises, wants to “reconnect progressive politics with religious vision.”

Senator Obama's statement on this point deserves careful analysis: “My mother saw religion as an impediment to broader values, like tolerance and racial inclusivity. She remembered church-going folks who also called people nigger. But she was a deeply spiritual person, and when I moved to Chicago and worked with church-based community organizations, I kept hearing her values expressed.”

We should note that Obama made no reference to where his mother discovered those “broader values” nor did he identify any specific content concerning these values or the spiritual vision that was claimed to undergird them. Nevertheless, Obama's statement serves to indicate how the concept of spirituality functions as a substitute for any specific truth claim or religious identification.

More surprisingly, Schmidt appears to be impressed with Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine, and his ideal of an “Emancipatory Spirituality.” In Lerner's analysis, “The liberal world has developed such a knee-jerk hostility to religion” that those “who actually do have spiritual yearnings” have been marginalized.

In truth, the vagueness of these statements undermines any claim to make a serious intellectual argument. Lerner's idea of “spiritual yearnings” gets him nowhere -- what exactly is spiritual about these yearnings? Without reference to some specific truth claim or structured thought, this becomes little more than nonsensical wordplay.

This, too, is nothing new. When pressed to define spirituality, pragmatist William James replied: “Susceptibility to ideals, but with a certain freedom to indulge in imagination about them. A certain amount of 'otherworldly' fancy.”

Call me hardheaded, but I just don't see reaching out to Americans who identify themselves as being “susceptible to ideals” and interested in “otherworldly fancy” to be a winning political strategy in today's America.

Liberals will have to make their own decisions, and they are certainly not going to look to me for political advice. Nevertheless, I have more respect for a clear-headed secularist than for someone who espouses this kind of mind-numbing relativism. If spirituality simply means a “susceptibility to ideals,” does it even matter what those ideals are?

Responding to a similar call for an embrace of spirituality, Paul Powers of Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon argued: “Softheaded spiritualism is its own form of fundamentalism. The suggestion that the 'true essence' of all religions is spirituality implies that if only people were not so stupid as to believe what their tradition teaches them, they would see that behind all this mere cultural baggage is the supreme 'spiritual' truth. Religions and religious people are mind-bogglingly different. Why American liberals who seem so happy to embrace difference in various contexts want, when it comes to religion, to sweep [different truth claims] under the rug of some invented, undefined, supposedly universal 'spirituality' remains one of the true religious mysteries of our times.”

In reality, it isn't really such a mystery after all. Spirituality is all that is left when truth claims are removed. Spirituality represents little more than an effort to claim higher “values” without the demands of truth, revelation, and obedience.

Of all people, Christians should be the first to see this for what it is -- an effort to replace the Christian faith with an empty “spiritual” shell. Biblical Christianity is profoundly spiritual -- but Christian spirituality is an expression of Christian truth, not its substitute.

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate